Monday, March 16, 2009
Research Article Summary: Propst 2003
In Tonya Gray Propst’s doctoral dissertation, “The Relationship between the Undergraduate Music Methods Class Curriculum and the Use of Music in the Classrooms of In-Service Elementary Teachers,” the author set out to determine which undergraduate elementary music methods experiences were most likely to affect the amount of time elementary classroom teachers used music with their students on a weekly basis. A summary of her dissertation appears in the Journal of Research in Music Education in the winter 2003 issue.
Propst’s article begins with a literature review of different research related to music methods courses offered to elementary education majors. Some researchers found that the “techniques, methods, and approaches” in these methods courses varied drastically from institution to institution (p. 317). Other researchers noted a “mismatch” between what undergraduate students learn in these methods classes and what classroom teachers find useful for their classrooms (p. 317). Propst suggests that teachers’ perceived usefulness of activities learned in music methods courses could have a direct impact on the activities they actually use in the classroom and the amount of time they spend on these activities. Additionally, many studies focusing on music methods courses for non-music elementary teachers “have produced inconclusive results and therefore a weak foundation for articulating the objectives and content of courses most beneficial for the classroom teacher” (p. 317). Propst’s research, then, focused on determining which music experiences in the undergraduate elementary music methods curriculum, out of a list of 17, would be the strongest predictors of the length of time elementary classroom teachers would use these same music concepts and activities in their classrooms. She also focused her study in a geographical region that had not yet been investigated, the southern mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
In the method section, Propst describes how she surveyed 416 elementary classroom teachers from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia with at least 100 subjects from each state. The measurement instrument for Propst’s study was a closed-ended questionnaire listing the 17 music activities/concepts. Subjects were first asked to evaluate the amount of time they spent in undergraduate music methods courses on these activities (never, rarely, sometimes, regularly) and then were asked to do the same for how often they use the same activities in their classrooms. Selected subjects took the survey again two weeks later to determine reliability, and Propst noted, “The validity of this study assumes good memory of subjects for college methods class activities, as well as accuracy of self-reported time estimates for teaching concepts and activities” (p. 318). The procedure for distributing the survey was to: 1) obtain addresses of public elementary schools from the U.S. Department of Education website, 2) number the schools in consecutive order and randomly select twelve, and 3) mail the principal of each school a packet with questionnaires, instructions, and a prepaid return envelope.
In the results section, Propst explains how the 17 activities were reduced to three categories roughly related to creating, performing and responding. A discriminant analysis was conducted for the study but only included those subjects who took an undergraduate music methods course. The independent variables were the three activity categories, and the dependent variables were the minutes per week teachers spent on the activities. Propst states that the purpose of the discriminant analysis was “to weigh the three cluster variable groupings to maximally predict group membership on the criterion, minutes per week the classroom teacher used music in the classroom activities” (p. 321). Her calculations showed that “the more subjects were exposed to the music activities…, the more time they reported using music weekly in their classroom,” and “Having information about how much students were exposed to music activities as undergraduates doubles the ability to predict how much they reported using music on a weekly basis in their classrooms. The exposure to activities emphasizing creating and responding to music contributed most uniquely to this increase on predictor accuracy” (p. 323). However, there was not a strong relationship between the specific activities in the undergraduate methods course and the amount of time teachers used music in the classroom.
In the discussion, Propst recognizes that most elementary classroom teachers in the study used activities from the creating and responding cluster variable and not the performing category, possibly due to teacher feelings of inadequacy. This result brings up the question of whether elementary methods classes should include more creating and responding activities, since teachers seem to find these useful in the general classroom, or more performing activities, since teachers tend to implement these activities the least. The majority of teachers in the sample incorporated musical activities for 15-30 minutes per week, but Propst emphasizes the necessity for observational research to confirm teachers’ self-reported times. Propst also recommends further research in comparing elementary teachers who did and did not have an undergraduate music methods course in what kind of music activities and how often these activities are used in the classroom. She also recommends additional research in determining what factors other than undergraduate music methods course influence elementary teachers’ use of music activities in the classroom, since it seems that subjects in the study were not implementing music activities with great frequency. Propst concludes that since classroom teachers have an influence on a child’s musical development, and since the undergraduate music methods course has an impact on teacher use of musical activities in the classroom, this course is “an integral part of music education in the United States” and is “vital to the continued existence of music education in the schools, and its importance must not diminished” (p. 327).
Propst’s article begins with a literature review of different research related to music methods courses offered to elementary education majors. Some researchers found that the “techniques, methods, and approaches” in these methods courses varied drastically from institution to institution (p. 317). Other researchers noted a “mismatch” between what undergraduate students learn in these methods classes and what classroom teachers find useful for their classrooms (p. 317). Propst suggests that teachers’ perceived usefulness of activities learned in music methods courses could have a direct impact on the activities they actually use in the classroom and the amount of time they spend on these activities. Additionally, many studies focusing on music methods courses for non-music elementary teachers “have produced inconclusive results and therefore a weak foundation for articulating the objectives and content of courses most beneficial for the classroom teacher” (p. 317). Propst’s research, then, focused on determining which music experiences in the undergraduate elementary music methods curriculum, out of a list of 17, would be the strongest predictors of the length of time elementary classroom teachers would use these same music concepts and activities in their classrooms. She also focused her study in a geographical region that had not yet been investigated, the southern mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
In the method section, Propst describes how she surveyed 416 elementary classroom teachers from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia with at least 100 subjects from each state. The measurement instrument for Propst’s study was a closed-ended questionnaire listing the 17 music activities/concepts. Subjects were first asked to evaluate the amount of time they spent in undergraduate music methods courses on these activities (never, rarely, sometimes, regularly) and then were asked to do the same for how often they use the same activities in their classrooms. Selected subjects took the survey again two weeks later to determine reliability, and Propst noted, “The validity of this study assumes good memory of subjects for college methods class activities, as well as accuracy of self-reported time estimates for teaching concepts and activities” (p. 318). The procedure for distributing the survey was to: 1) obtain addresses of public elementary schools from the U.S. Department of Education website, 2) number the schools in consecutive order and randomly select twelve, and 3) mail the principal of each school a packet with questionnaires, instructions, and a prepaid return envelope.
In the results section, Propst explains how the 17 activities were reduced to three categories roughly related to creating, performing and responding. A discriminant analysis was conducted for the study but only included those subjects who took an undergraduate music methods course. The independent variables were the three activity categories, and the dependent variables were the minutes per week teachers spent on the activities. Propst states that the purpose of the discriminant analysis was “to weigh the three cluster variable groupings to maximally predict group membership on the criterion, minutes per week the classroom teacher used music in the classroom activities” (p. 321). Her calculations showed that “the more subjects were exposed to the music activities…, the more time they reported using music weekly in their classroom,” and “Having information about how much students were exposed to music activities as undergraduates doubles the ability to predict how much they reported using music on a weekly basis in their classrooms. The exposure to activities emphasizing creating and responding to music contributed most uniquely to this increase on predictor accuracy” (p. 323). However, there was not a strong relationship between the specific activities in the undergraduate methods course and the amount of time teachers used music in the classroom.
In the discussion, Propst recognizes that most elementary classroom teachers in the study used activities from the creating and responding cluster variable and not the performing category, possibly due to teacher feelings of inadequacy. This result brings up the question of whether elementary methods classes should include more creating and responding activities, since teachers seem to find these useful in the general classroom, or more performing activities, since teachers tend to implement these activities the least. The majority of teachers in the sample incorporated musical activities for 15-30 minutes per week, but Propst emphasizes the necessity for observational research to confirm teachers’ self-reported times. Propst also recommends further research in comparing elementary teachers who did and did not have an undergraduate music methods course in what kind of music activities and how often these activities are used in the classroom. She also recommends additional research in determining what factors other than undergraduate music methods course influence elementary teachers’ use of music activities in the classroom, since it seems that subjects in the study were not implementing music activities with great frequency. Propst concludes that since classroom teachers have an influence on a child’s musical development, and since the undergraduate music methods course has an impact on teacher use of musical activities in the classroom, this course is “an integral part of music education in the United States” and is “vital to the continued existence of music education in the schools, and its importance must not diminished” (p. 327).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment