Preservice Teacher Pedagogy of Secondary Instruments: Influence of Instrumental Background

Preservice Teacher Pedagogy of Secondary Instruments: Influence of Instrumental

BackgroundMolly 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 literatureThe 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 literatureWhen 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 literatureA 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 literatureFourteen first-year teachers

(seven each from two consecutive graduating classes at the university) identified “some instrument methods courses” as least-valuable preservice experiences, citing a lack of consistency in these courses and inadequate content regarding pedagogy and repair (Conway, 2002).

Related literatureConway, 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 literatureTeachers 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 literatureA 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

InstructionModels Verbal

Feedback#1

CCK#2ICK

#3WCK

#4DND

Feedback on Teaching

Fundamentals #1-4

3=Excellent2=Satisfactory1=Unsatisfactory

Instrument Assembly

2 2 2 x

Posture 1 1 1 x Never mentioned

Instrument Carriage

3 3 2 x

Hand Position 3 3 2 x

Fundamentals #5-8Breath Support 1 1 1 X Never mentioned

Embouchure 3 3 2 x

Mouthpiece to Mouth

3 3 2 x

Articulation - Tonguing

3 1 2 x “huffed”, no tongue

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 under1-4 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 “non-specialists” 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 meansGroup Statistics

spnsp2 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

vi14mean specialist 11 2.5470 .22126 .06671

non specialist 34 2.4084 .24495 .04201

vi58mean specialist 11 2.4975 .18992 .05726

non specialist 34 2.4099 .18211 .03123

m14mean specialist 11 2.6037 .27800 .08382

non specialist 34 2.5257 .23720 .04068

m58mean specialist 11 2.5016 .19245 .05803

non specialist 34 2.4260 .19642 .03369

vf14mean specialist 11 2.2009 .24970 .07529

non specialist 34 2.2171 .34395 .05899

vf58mean specialist 11 2.2664 .23775 .07168

non specialist 34 2.2197 .24480 .04198

k14mean specialist 11 1.2299 .21288 .06419

non specialist 34 1.2593 .20750 .03559

k58mean specialist 11 1.3453 .18635 .05619

non specialist 34 1.4788 .21218 .03639

profic14 specialist 11 2.4505 .21419 .06458

non specialist 34 2.3837 .24469 .04196

profic58 specialist 11 2.4218 .17307 .05218

non specialist 34 2.3519 .19114 .03278

Results: t-test comparing specialists vs non-specialistst-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

vi14mean Equal variances

assumed

1.668 43 .103 .13863

Equal variances not

assumed

1.758 18.616 .095 .13863

vi58mean Equal variances 1.372 43 .177 .08757

Equal variances not 1.343 16.395 .198 .08757

m14mean Equal variances .909 43 .368 .07800

Equal variances not .837 15.013 .416 .07800

m58mean Equal variances 1.115 43 .271 .07562


vf14mean Equal variances -.144 43 .886 -.01624

Equal variances not -.170 23.377 .867 -.01624

vf58mean Equal variances .554 43 .582 .04673


k14mean Equal variances -.405 43 .688 -.02933

Equal variances not -.400 16.617 .695 -.02933

k58mean Equal variances -1.864 43 .069 -.13348

Equal variances not -1.994 19.128 .061 -.13348

profic14 Equal variances .809 43 .423 .06680


profic58 Equal variances 1.078 43 .287 .06997


Results: Oneway ANOVA specialists vs specialistsANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

vi14mean Between Groups .234 2 .117 2.056 .141

Within Groups 2.395 42 .057

Total 2.629 44

vii58mean Between Groups .108 2 .054 1.613 .211


Total 1.519 44

m14mean Between Groups .051 2 .025 .404 .670


Total 2.680 44

m58mean Between Groups .079 2 .040 1.033 .365


Total 1.691 44

vif14mean Between Groups .049 2 .024 .229 .796


Total 4.530 44

vf58mean Between Groups .035 2 .018 .294 .747


Total 2.561 44

k14mean Between Groups .016 2 .008 .175 .840


Total 1.881 44

k58mean Between Groups .198 2 .099 2.337 .109


Total 1.981 44

profic14 Between Groups .037 2 .019 .323 .726


profic58 Between Groups .042 2 .021 .583 .563


Results: Experienced vs inexperienced meansGroup Statistics

ExpNoExp N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

vi14mean prior experience 25 2.4536 .24770 .04954

no prior experience 20 2.4281 .24597 .05500

vi58mean prior experience 25 2.4335 .19357 .03871


m14mean prior experience 25 2.5945 .23692 .04738


m58mean prior experience 25 2.4869 .18448 .03690


vf14mean prior experience 25 2.2987 .31254 .06251


vf58mean prior experience 25 2.2947 .24071 .04814


k14mean prior experience 25 1.2550 .18973 .03795


k58mean prior experience 25 1.4838 .20416 .04083


profic14 prior experience 25 2.4490 .23415 .04683


profic58 prior experience 25 2.4050 .18479 .03696


t-test results comparing experienced vs inexperiencedt-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

vi14mean Equal variances

assumed

.345 43 .732 .02553

Equal variances not

assumed

.345 40.981 .732 .02553

vii58mean Equal variances .090 43 .929 .00508






vf14mean Equal variances 2.074 43 .044 .19256


vf58mean Equal variances 2.046 43 .047 .14298


k14mean Equal variances .105 43 .917 .00660


k58mean Equal variances 1.344 43 .186 .08480






Means compared between (1) vi, (2) m and (3) vf in 1-4

Estimates

Measure:MEASURE_1

Prof 14 prof14 Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

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

(I) prof14 (J) prof14 Mean Diff. (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a

95% Confidence Interval for Differencea


1 2 -.098* .023 .000 -.145 -.051

3 .238* .041 .000 .155 .321

2 1 .098* .023 .000 .051 .145

3 .336* .036 .000 .263 .409

3 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

prof58 Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval


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

(I) prof58 (J) prof58

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.a

95% Confidence Interval for Differencea


1 2 -.010 .023 .664 -.057 .037

3 .211* .032 .000 .146 .275

2 1 .010 .023 .664 -.037 .057

3 .221* .029 .000 .163 .278

3 1 -.211* .032 .000 -.275 -.146

2 -.221* .029 .000 -.278 -.163

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.

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.


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.


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 non-specialists 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”

http://www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news

Documents

Preservice Teacher Pedagogy of Secondary Instruments: Influence of Instrumental Background