Transcript Preservice Teacher Pedagogy of Secondary Instruments

Preservice Teacher Pedagogy of
Secondary Instruments: Influence of
Instrumental Background
Molly Weaver-West Virginia University, Sean Powell-Columbus State University, David
Snyder and Joe Manfredo- Illinois State University
Presented at the 2012 Biennial Music Educators National
Conference, St. Louis, Missouri
March 28-31, 2012
Introduction:

Most agree that secondary instrument
technique courses play a significant role in
teacher preparation. There are, however,
many issues regarding the structure and
delivery, the qualifications of the
instructor, instrument groupings and
course content that influence the overall
effectiveness of these courses.
Related literature

The National Association of Schools of
Music (NASM) has identified “knowledge
of and performance ability on wind, string,
and percussion instruments sufficient to
teach beginning students effectively in
groups” as “an essential competency” for
music education majors (NASM, 2006).

However…
Related literature

When 125 preservice and 105 experienced
teachers were asked, “What skills and
behaviors are important to successful music
teaching in the first three years of
experience?” preservice teachers rated the
statement “Be knowledgeable and proficient
with secondary instruments” as 32nd in
importance from a list of 40 teacher skills
and behaviors. Experienced teachers rated
this skill/behavior as 37th in importance
from the same list (Teachout, 1997).
Related literature

A survey of 25 music education faculty
across the country in regard to secondary
instrument classes revealed that
instrument groupings, schedules, credit
allocations, instructor backgrounds, class
content, and instructional priorities vary
widely from school to school and even
class to class within schools (Austin,
2006).
Related literature

Fourteen first-year teachers (seven each
from two consecutive graduating classes
at the university) identified “some
instrument methods courses” as leastvaluable preservice experiences, citing a
lack of consistency in these courses and
inadequate content regarding pedagogy
and repair (Conway, 2002).
Related literature
Conway, Eros, Stanley, and Hourigan
(2007) examined perceptions of beginning
teachers regarding their brass and
woodwind instrument class experiences.
 Emergent themes from the study
included: the amount of content covered
in woodwind and brass instrument classes
is simply too much to remember, and
these classes should give pedagogy
precedence over performance.

Related literature

Teachers of college instrumental methods
courses, directors of “model” high school
band programs, and directors of randomly
selected high school band programs
(N=142) were surveyed and indicated
that they believe the primary focus of the
instrument methods courses (woodwind,
brass, percussion, and string) should be a
combination of performance and teaching
skills (Cooper, 1994)
Related literature

A survey of 25 music education faculty
across the United States regarding
structure of and instructional delivery in
secondary instrument classes found that
only 50% of responding institutions
encouraged or required students to
demonstrate secondary instrument
playing proficiency, and that fewer than
10% required students to demonstrate
secondary instrument teaching
proficiency (Austin, 2006).
Need for study:

Previous research efforts in secondary
instrument classes have focused on
describing the structure and delivery of
the classes, perception of the value and
relevance of these courses by
experienced teachers and preservice
teachers (PSTs), and the role of these
classes in the music education degree
program.
Need for study:

Previous research efforts have also
suggested pedagogy and teaching skills, as
opposed to performance skills, should be
the main area of focus for these courses.
Need for study:

There have not been any attempts to
investigate the influence of PST’s
instrumental background and previous
teaching experience upon teaching skills
and pedagogy. It would be useful to
determine the extent to which PST’s
teaching and playing experience has an
impact upon teaching skills and
pedagogical content knowledge.
Purpose of study:


The fundamental purpose of this study was
to examine the influence of instrumental
background (specialist versus non-specialist)
upon the instructional effectiveness and
pedagogical content knowledge of teaching
episodes in a secondary instrument
techniques class.
A specialist was defined as an individual who’s
primary applied instrument was being taught
in the secondary instrument techniques class
in which they were currently enrolled .
Purpose of study:

In addition, this study investigated the
impact of private lesson and sectional
teaching experience upon teaching
effectiveness in these secondary
instrument technique classes.
Method:
•
•
•
•
Four music education faculty from three
different universities participated in the
study.
Two brass and two woodwind techniques
classes were included.
A total of 45 music education majors
(11 specialists and 34 non-specialists)
participated.
PST’s were asked to teach a ten-minute
lesson to a beginning level student at the
conclusion of the course.
Method:
•
•
•
PST’s were assessed on their effective use of verbal
instruction (vi), modeling (m), and verbal feedback (vf).
PST’s use of correct content knowledge(k) was also rated.
The eight proficiencies below were rated
1 “unsatisfactory,” 2 “satisfactory,” and 3 “excellent” for each
of the above categories.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Instrument Assembly
Posture
Instrument Carriage
Hand Position
Breathing
Embouchure Formation
Mouthpiece to Mouth Relationship
Tonguing
Method:
Each 10 minute lesson was video recorded
and evaluated by all four faculty members.
• Teaching effectiveness in vi, m and vf was
rated (3, 2, or 1).
• Pedagogical content knowledge was rated
“correct”, “incomplete”, “wrong” or “did
not do”.
• Background information on specialty
instrument, experience with secondary
instruments and teaching experience was
also gathered.
•
Secondary teaching assessment (sample)
Proficiency
Verbal
Instruction
Fundamentals 3=Excellent
#1-4
2=Satisfactory
1=Unsatisfactory
Instrument
2
Assembly
Posture
1
Models
Verbal
Feedback
#1
CCK
2
2
x
1
1
3
3
2
x
3
3
2
x
Fundamentals
#5-8
Breath Support
1
1
1
Embouchure
3
3
2
Mouthpiece to
Mouth
Articulation Tonguing
3
3
2
3
1
2
Instrument
Carriage
Hand Position
#2
ICK
#3
WCK
#4 Feedback
DND Teaching
x
Never mentioned
X
Never mentioned
x
x
x
“huffed”, no tongue
on
Inter-rater reliability:
N = 45 cases
VI 14
VI 58
M 14
M 58
VF 14
VF 58
K 14
K58
N = cases with
100% interrater
agreement
among raters
2
0
1
0
0
0
5
1
Krippendorff’s
alpha ordinal
data
.1575
-.0352
.1378
-.1139
.1456
.0175
.1162
.2280
Krippendorff’s
alpha interval
data
.1241
-.0250
.1180
-.1042
.1622
.0159
.1754
.2312
The mean for the 4 items for each scale was computed for each of the 4
raters (with individual item scores ranging from 1 to 3). The mean scores
were used to compute the inter-rater reliability measures. The data show
that there was low inter-rater reliability on the measures.
Though steps were taken in a pilot study to reach agreement on a definition
and criteria for “excellent”, “satisfactory” and “unsatisfactory”, its obvious
from these results, that more training for the raters was necessary.
Analysis:
Mean scores on vi, m and vf within the
eight proficiencies were then compared
between “specialist” and “non-specialist”
and “experienced” and “inexperienced”
subjects.
 “Experienced” was defined as at least one
semester of either private lesson or
sectional teaching in this study.
 This same procedure was also done for
content knowledge (k).

Analysis:


The first four proficiencies (instrument
assembly, posture, instrument carriage and
hand position) were group together under
1-4 as were the last four proficiencies
(breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece
to mouth and articulation)under 5-8.
These grouped proficiency means were also
compared between “specialists” and “nonspecialists” and “experienced” and
“inexperienced” subjects using t-tests and
multivariate measures.
Subject characteristics:
N=45 : 3 freshmen, 26 sophomores, 13
juniors, 2 seniors, and 1 graduate student
 Institution A- 21 students (14 ww and 7
brass)
 Institution B -7 students (ww class)
 Institution C-17 students (brass)
 Eleven out of the 45 total subjects were
classified at “specialists”.
 Twenty five out of the 45 total subjects
were classified as “experienced”.

Results: Specialist vs non-specialist means
Group Statistics
spnsp2
vi14mean
vi58mean
m14mean
m58mean
vf14mean
vf58mean
k14mean
k58mean
profic14
profic58
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
specialist
11
2.5470
.22126
.06671
non specialist
34
2.4084
.24495
.04201
specialist
11
2.4975
.18992
.05726
non specialist
34
2.4099
.18211
.03123
specialist
11
2.6037
.27800
.08382
non specialist
34
2.5257
.23720
.04068
specialist
11
2.5016
.19245
.05803
non specialist
34
2.4260
.19642
.03369
specialist
11
2.2009
.24970
.07529
non specialist
34
2.2171
.34395
.05899
specialist
11
2.2664
.23775
.07168
non specialist
34
2.2197
.24480
.04198
specialist
11
1.2299
.21288
.06419
non specialist
34
1.2593
.20750
.03559
specialist
11
1.3453
.18635
.05619
non specialist
34
1.4788
.21218
.03639
specialist
11
2.4505
.21419
.06458
non specialist
34
2.3837
.24469
.04196
specialist
11
2.4218
.17307
.05218
non specialist
34
2.3519
.19114
.03278
Results: t-test comparing specialists vs non-specialists
t-test for Equality of Means
t
vi14mean
Equal variances
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
1.668
43
.103
.13863
1.758
18.616
.095
.13863
Equal variances
1.372
43
.177
.08757
Equal variances not
1.343
16.395
.198
.08757
Equal variances
.909
43
.368
.07800
Equal variances not
.837
15.013
.416
.07800
Equal variances
1.115
43
.271
.07562
Equal variances not
1.127
17.281
.275
.07562
Equal variances
-.144
43
.886
-.01624
Equal variances not
-.170
23.377
.867
-.01624
Equal variances
.554
43
.582
.04673
Equal variances not
.563
17.416
.581
.04673
Equal variances
-.405
43
.688
-.02933
Equal variances not
-.400
16.617
.695
-.02933
Equal variances
-1.864
43
.069
-.13348
Equal variances not
-1.994
19.128
.061
-.13348
Equal variances
.809
43
.423
.06680
Equal variances not
.867
19.191
.396
.06680
Equal variances
1.078
43
.287
.06997
Equal variances not
1.135
18.573
.271
.06997
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
vi58mean
m14mean
m58mean
vf14mean
vf58mean
k14mean
k58mean
profic14
profic58
Results: Oneway ANOVA specialists vs specialists
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
vi14mean
vii58mean
m14mean
m58mean
vif14mean
vf58mean
k14mean
k58mean
profic14
Between Groups
Mean Square
.234
2
.117
Within Groups
2.395
42
.057
Total
2.629
44
.108
2
.054
Within Groups
1.411
42
.034
Total
1.519
44
.051
2
.025
Within Groups
2.630
42
.063
Total
2.680
44
.079
2
.040
Within Groups
1.612
42
.038
Total
1.691
44
.049
2
.024
Within Groups
4.481
42
.107
Total
4.530
44
.035
2
.018
Within Groups
2.526
42
.060
Total
2.561
44
.016
2
.008
Within Groups
1.866
42
.044
Total
1.881
44
.198
2
.099
Within Groups
1.783
42
.042
Total
1.981
44
.037
2
.019
2.434
42
.058
.042
2
.021
1.504
42
.036
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
profic58
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
F
Sig.
2.056
.141
1.613
.211
.404
.670
1.033
.365
.229
.796
.294
.747
.175
.840
2.337
.109
.323
.726
.583
.563
Results: Experienced vs inexperienced means
Group Statistics
ExpNoExp
vi14mean
vi58mean
m14mean
m58mean
vf14mean
vf58mean
k14mean
k58mean
profic14
profic58
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
prior experience
25
2.4536
.24770
.04954
no prior experience
20
2.4281
.24597
.05500
prior experience
25
2.4335
.19357
.03871
no prior experience
20
2.4285
.18055
.04037
prior experience
25
2.5945
.23692
.04738
no prior experience
20
2.4826
.25067
.05605
prior experience
25
2.4869
.18448
.03690
no prior experience
20
2.3915
.20171
.04510
prior experience
25
2.2987
.31254
.06251
no prior experience
20
2.1062
.30552
.06832
prior experience
25
2.2947
.24071
.04814
no prior experience
20
2.1517
.22281
.04982
prior experience
25
1.2550
.18973
.03795
no prior experience
20
1.2484
.23133
.05173
prior experience
25
1.4838
.20416
.04083
no prior experience
20
1.3990
.21774
.04869
prior experience
25
2.4490
.23415
.04683
no prior experience
20
2.3390
.23186
.05185
prior experience
25
2.4050
.18479
.03696
no prior experience
20
2.3239
.18541
.04146
t-test results comparing experienced vs inexperienced
t-test for Equality of Means
t
vi14mean
Equal variances
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
.345
43
.732
.02553
.345
40.981
.732
.02553
Equal variances
.090
43
.929
.00508
Equal variances not
.091
41.936
.928
.00508
Equal variances
1.535
43
.132
.11192
Equal variances not
1.525
39.778
.135
.11192
Equal variances
1.654
43
.105
.09540
Equal variances not
1.637
39.083
.110
.09540
Equal variances
2.074
43
.044
.19256
Equal variances not
2.080
41.245
.044
.19256
Equal variances
2.046
43
.047
.14298
Equal variances not
2.064
42.034
.045
.14298
Equal variances
.105
43
.917
.00660
Equal variances not
.103
36.568
.919
.00660
Equal variances
1.344
43
.186
.08480
Equal variances not
1.334
39.613
.190
.08480
Equal variances
1.573
43
.123
.11000
Equal variances not
1.575
41.029
.123
.11000
Equal variances
1.462
43
.151
.08115
Equal variances not
1.461
40.799
.152
.08115
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
vii58mean
m14mean
m58mean
vf14mean
vf58mean
k14mean
k58mean
profic14
profic58
Means compared between (1) vi, (2) m and (3) vf in 1-4
Estimates
Measure:MEASURE_1
95% Confidence Interval
Prof 14
prof14
Mean
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
1
2.454
.049
2.354
2.553
2
2.595
.049
2.496
2.693
3
2.299
.062
2.174
2.424
1
2.428
.055
2.317
2.539
2
2.483
.054
2.373
2.592
3
2.106
.069
1.967
2.246
Results comparing means on (1) vi, (2) m, and (3) vf in 1-4
Pair wise Comparisons
LSD post hoc test
95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
(I) prof14
1
2
3
(J) prof14
Mean Diff. (I-J)
Sig.a
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
2
-.098*
.023
.000
-.145
-.051
3
.238*
.041
.000
.155
.321
1
.098*
.023
.000
.051
.145
3
.336*
.036
.000
.263
.409
1
-.238*
.041
.000
-.321
-.155
2
-.336*
.036
.000
-.409
-.263
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Means compared between (1) vi, (2) m and (3) vf in 5-8
Estimates
Measure:MEASURE_1
95% Confidence Interval
prof58
Mean
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
1
2.454
.032
2.389
2.518
2
2.464
.034
2.395
2.532
3
2.243
.042
2.158
2.328
Results comparing means on (1) vi, (2) m, and (3) vf in 5-8
Pairwise Comparisons
LSD Post hoc test
95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
Mean Difference (IJ)
Sig.a
(I) prof58
(J) prof58
1
2
-.010
.023
.664
-.057
.037
3
.211*
.032
.000
.146
.275
1
.010
.023
.664
-.037
.057
3
.221*
.029
.000
.163
.278
1
-.211*
.032
.000
-.275
-.146
2
-.221*
.029
.000
-.278
-.163
2
3
Std. Error
Based on estimated marginal means
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Discussion:

No significant difference was found
between specialists and non-specialists in
teaching effectiveness or content
knowledge. This finding suggests that
students who have no previous
background as a performer on a
woodwind or brass instrument can be as
effective as specialists.
Discussion:

Findings also imply that non-specialists
should be held to the same standard as
specialists in regard to teaching
effectiveness and content knowledge.
Discussion:

The results show that PST’s with prior
teaching experience scored significantly
higher on the verbal feedback
parameter only. Perhaps private lesson or
sectional teaching experience provides
PST’s with more opportunity to give
verbal feedback, making them more
effective in this area.
Discussion:

Scores for verbal feedback were
significantly lower (p < .05) than scores
for verbal instruction and modeling
for all groups.
Discussion:

This suggests that instructors of
instrumental techniques courses might
consider providing more opportunities
for the development of verbal feedback
skills within the course.
Suggestions for Future Research:
Future research should continue to refine
the definition and standardize the criteria
for “excellent” and “satisfactory” in the
areas of verbal instruction, modeling and
verbal feedback when teaching secondary
instruments.

Suggestions for Future Research:
Since verbal feedback scores were the
lowest for all groups participating in this
study, future studies may want explore the
use of verbal feedback by preservice
teacher’s in other early clinical experiences.

Suggestions for Future Research:
Teaching experience correlated with
improved verbal feedback scores in this
study of brass and woodwind technique
classes. Future research should look at the
effects of teaching experience on nonspecialists in secondary string and
percussion settings as well.

Suggestions for Future Research:
There was no significant difference found
in pedagogical content knowledge between
specialist and non-specialist preservice
teachers. Common sense would tell us
there should be, so future studies that
allowed subjects to teach longer lessons or
lessons focused on content other than that
of a beginner lesson may prove informative.

References:











Austin, J. R. (2006). The teaching of secondary instruments: A survey of instrumental music teacher
educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(1), 55-64.
Conway, C. (2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding
preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 20-36.
Conway, C., Eros, J., Hourigan, R., & Stanley, A. M. (2007). Perceptions of beginning teachers regarding
brass and woodwind instrument techniques classes in preservice education. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 173, 39-54.
Cooper, L. G. (1994). A study of the core curriculum for the preparation of instrumental music
educators. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(1),
37.
Jennings, D. L. (1988). The effectiveness of instrumental music teacher preservice training experiences as
perceived by college and high school band directors. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1988).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(4), 825.
National Association of Schools of Music. (2006). Handbook 2007-2008. Reston, VA: Author.
Reimer, B. (1956). College course in supplementary instruments. Music Educators Journal, 42(6), 42, 44.
Russell, J. A. (2007). I know what I need to know: The impact of cognitive and psycho-social development
on undergraduate music education major’s investment in instrumental techniques courses. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 171, 51-66.
Stegall, J. R., Blackburn, J. E., & Coop, R. H. (1978). Administrators’ ratings of competencies for an
undergraduate music education curriculum. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 3-15.
Teachout, D. J. (1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important
to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 41-50.
Weaver, M.A. (2010). Orchestrating secondary instrument playing and teaching proficiencies for
future music educators: Effective curriculum configuration, delivery, and administration. In M. Schmidt
(ed.), Collaborative Action for Change: Selected Proceedings from the 2007 Symposium on Music Teacher
Education (pp. 183-197). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Questions:
Do you have any questions?
 This PowerPoint is available at
www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news by going
under “research presentations”
