Monday, April 20, 2009
Early Childhood Music Education
As early childhood education plays an increasingly prominent role in American school systems, music educators need to ensure preschool children are getting sufficient exposure to musical experiences. Researchers and professional music organizations have articulated this necessity.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) state, “Young children [ages two to five] respond to music in a natural, uninhibited manner, which makes musical activities extremely important to a child’s development during these years” (p. 293). Supporting this claim is Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. According to Gordon (1987), musical aptitude stabilizes around age nine but is developmental before that age and is especially influenced during the most early, formative years. Gordon claims children “must have favorable early informal and formal experiences in music in order to maintain that level of potential” they are born with, and if they don’t have these experiences, “that level of music aptitude will never be realized in achievement” (p. 8). So, in order for children to achieve in music at a later age, even in elementary school primary grades, they must have musical exposure in early childhood.
The National Association of Music Education (MENC) has four recommendations regarding early childhood music education. First, all early childhood music programs should include music as an integral part of the curriculum. Second, at least 12 percent of an early childhood students’ “school day” should be devoted to music. Third, a music specialist should be present in every early childhood center. Finally, early childhood classrooms should have a music center or “corner” for students to play with music materials (Abeles et al., 1995).
Music educators in Illinois currently receive certification for grades K-12. As more and more early childhood centers open, it will be interesting to see if music specialists will be hired for these schools, and if so, if these teachers will be required to also have an early childhood degree or certification. In the meantime, music educators should be able to adapt existing music curricula to be developmentally appropriate for early childhood students.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Gordon, E. E. (1987). The nature, description, measurement, and evaluation of music aptitudes. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) state, “Young children [ages two to five] respond to music in a natural, uninhibited manner, which makes musical activities extremely important to a child’s development during these years” (p. 293). Supporting this claim is Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. According to Gordon (1987), musical aptitude stabilizes around age nine but is developmental before that age and is especially influenced during the most early, formative years. Gordon claims children “must have favorable early informal and formal experiences in music in order to maintain that level of potential” they are born with, and if they don’t have these experiences, “that level of music aptitude will never be realized in achievement” (p. 8). So, in order for children to achieve in music at a later age, even in elementary school primary grades, they must have musical exposure in early childhood.
The National Association of Music Education (MENC) has four recommendations regarding early childhood music education. First, all early childhood music programs should include music as an integral part of the curriculum. Second, at least 12 percent of an early childhood students’ “school day” should be devoted to music. Third, a music specialist should be present in every early childhood center. Finally, early childhood classrooms should have a music center or “corner” for students to play with music materials (Abeles et al., 1995).
Music educators in Illinois currently receive certification for grades K-12. As more and more early childhood centers open, it will be interesting to see if music specialists will be hired for these schools, and if so, if these teachers will be required to also have an early childhood degree or certification. In the meantime, music educators should be able to adapt existing music curricula to be developmentally appropriate for early childhood students.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Gordon, E. E. (1987). The nature, description, measurement, and evaluation of music aptitudes. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications, Inc.
Comprehensive Musicianship
Comprehensive Musicianship is a curricular philosophy that emphasizes an integrated approach to music education in which students in all musical settings learn to perform, analyze, and organize sounds. Sometimes referred to Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance (CMP), it has its roots in the 1959 “Contemporary Music Project” and can be utilized in both performing and non-performing groups.
The aforementioned 1959 project is sometimes called “The Young Composers Project” because it involved assigning young composers to universities or schools to write music for their performing groups, increasing community awareness of contemporary music. However, after the project was piloted, it became clear that music courses were “taught in isolation and fragmented fashion” and too often focused only on performance (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 290). Students needed to learn how to identify relationships among all areas of musical study to develop competency in analyzing, organizing, and performing music, therefore preparing them for all forms of music, including contemporary.
Although CMP was originally focused on upper-level education, the National Association of Music Education (MENC) has developed national standards based on the CMP philosophy for all ages of students in all music courses. For example, in a performance class centered on the CMP curricular philosophy, students would not just learn to read printed music for the sake of a performance product. They would learn the historical background of a composition they were performing, performance practices of the time, and something about the composer and why the he wrote it. There would be time to analyze the theoretical aspects of the composition or compare works from the same time period or by the same composer as well as to evaluate recorded performances and the ensemble’s own efforts. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a music theory class would not focus strictly on analyzing the form and structure of music. Students would use their understanding of music theory to write their own compositions or arrangements and to improvise within a given idiom. Aural discrimination skills could be honed through sight-singing or sight-reading performance. The CMP philosophy seems easiest to integrate into a general music curriculum, especially at the elementary level. The whole purpose of a general music class is to give students a broad range of experiences in singing, playing instruments, reading and notating music, arranging, improvising, analyzing and describing, evaluating, relating music to other art forms, and learning the historical and cultural implications of music.
The CMP curricular philosophy was designed to expose collegiate music students to necessary performance, analysis, and organizational tools so that as teachers they would be “sufficiently equipping to teach contemporary idioms” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 297). However, educators in all age settings can follow the philosophy to create well-rounded musicians at even the youngest grade levels.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
The aforementioned 1959 project is sometimes called “The Young Composers Project” because it involved assigning young composers to universities or schools to write music for their performing groups, increasing community awareness of contemporary music. However, after the project was piloted, it became clear that music courses were “taught in isolation and fragmented fashion” and too often focused only on performance (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 290). Students needed to learn how to identify relationships among all areas of musical study to develop competency in analyzing, organizing, and performing music, therefore preparing them for all forms of music, including contemporary.
Although CMP was originally focused on upper-level education, the National Association of Music Education (MENC) has developed national standards based on the CMP philosophy for all ages of students in all music courses. For example, in a performance class centered on the CMP curricular philosophy, students would not just learn to read printed music for the sake of a performance product. They would learn the historical background of a composition they were performing, performance practices of the time, and something about the composer and why the he wrote it. There would be time to analyze the theoretical aspects of the composition or compare works from the same time period or by the same composer as well as to evaluate recorded performances and the ensemble’s own efforts. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a music theory class would not focus strictly on analyzing the form and structure of music. Students would use their understanding of music theory to write their own compositions or arrangements and to improvise within a given idiom. Aural discrimination skills could be honed through sight-singing or sight-reading performance. The CMP philosophy seems easiest to integrate into a general music curriculum, especially at the elementary level. The whole purpose of a general music class is to give students a broad range of experiences in singing, playing instruments, reading and notating music, arranging, improvising, analyzing and describing, evaluating, relating music to other art forms, and learning the historical and cultural implications of music.
The CMP curricular philosophy was designed to expose collegiate music students to necessary performance, analysis, and organizational tools so that as teachers they would be “sufficiently equipping to teach contemporary idioms” (Abeles et al., 1995, p. 297). However, educators in all age settings can follow the philosophy to create well-rounded musicians at even the youngest grade levels.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Multicultural Music Education
Multicultural music education is becoming increasingly necessary in American school systems. As the United States becomes more and more culturally diverse, or pluralistic, it is essential for students to recognize music from other countries and ethnic groups as valid and valuable forms of expression.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) emphasize the necessity for students to “develop respect for the achievements of cultures other than their own” through musical means (p. 285). The authors warn against two common misconceptions: one, that music is a universal language, and two, that the United States is a melting pot. Both views are ethnocentric in that they suggest all music can be understood through a Western filter and that all immigrants assimilate to U.S. culture. Although music is a universal form of human expression, there are drastic differences between musics of different cultures, and immigrants to the United States bring this rich heritage with them. It is the role of music educators to help students better understand and appreciate these differences.
When implementing a multicultural curriculum, educators must be aware of practical problems and considerations. First, music educators are often not trained in multicultural music. Second, music educators must be careful to not automatically compare all works of other cultures to their own culture. Third, it is difficult to choose which multicultural music to include in a curriculum when there are such a vast number of choices. And finally, educators and their students must not assume music of their own culture is superior to that of other cultures, curbing cultural biases and attitudes (Abeles et al., 1995).
The authors cite Joyce Jordan’s 1992 writing on “Curricular Development” in addressing the concerns of multicultural music education. She offers three solutions: first, educators need access to an electronic instrument capable of producing scales and pitches that aren’t available through a conventional keyboard or classroom instrument. Although it doesn’t seem that music educators have readily available access to such a device even in 2009, modern media has at least enabled music teachers to have easy access to recorded performances in authentic settings through such Internet sites as YouTube. Second, Jordan recommends multicultural music sourcebooks designed for elementary teachers, since student bias is minimal at a young age. A quick perusal of a music catalog such as West Music will reveal an abundance of such materials. Finally, Jordan suggests the need for a database of all multicultural music materials for the sake of cross-referencing. Although one all-encompassing database might not exist, the Internet has once again proven an invaluable resource in connecting students and teachers to other parts of the world.
Abeles et al. (1995) further recommend that music educators: 1) choose a representative sample of different world musics for use in the classroom, 2) present multicultural music authentically through recordings or guest performers, and 3) overcome ethnocentrism by making “every effort to instill in students an attitude of respect and acceptance toward all types of music” (p. 287). However, educators must bear in mind that it is still their job to teach basic music skills and that multicultural music (or music of the dominant culture) should be chosen based upon what concepts and skills students can learn through it. In doing so, students will “develop those analytical skills that will assist them in understanding the development of music as an art form, especially as it is utilized throughout the world” (p. 287).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) emphasize the necessity for students to “develop respect for the achievements of cultures other than their own” through musical means (p. 285). The authors warn against two common misconceptions: one, that music is a universal language, and two, that the United States is a melting pot. Both views are ethnocentric in that they suggest all music can be understood through a Western filter and that all immigrants assimilate to U.S. culture. Although music is a universal form of human expression, there are drastic differences between musics of different cultures, and immigrants to the United States bring this rich heritage with them. It is the role of music educators to help students better understand and appreciate these differences.
When implementing a multicultural curriculum, educators must be aware of practical problems and considerations. First, music educators are often not trained in multicultural music. Second, music educators must be careful to not automatically compare all works of other cultures to their own culture. Third, it is difficult to choose which multicultural music to include in a curriculum when there are such a vast number of choices. And finally, educators and their students must not assume music of their own culture is superior to that of other cultures, curbing cultural biases and attitudes (Abeles et al., 1995).
The authors cite Joyce Jordan’s 1992 writing on “Curricular Development” in addressing the concerns of multicultural music education. She offers three solutions: first, educators need access to an electronic instrument capable of producing scales and pitches that aren’t available through a conventional keyboard or classroom instrument. Although it doesn’t seem that music educators have readily available access to such a device even in 2009, modern media has at least enabled music teachers to have easy access to recorded performances in authentic settings through such Internet sites as YouTube. Second, Jordan recommends multicultural music sourcebooks designed for elementary teachers, since student bias is minimal at a young age. A quick perusal of a music catalog such as West Music will reveal an abundance of such materials. Finally, Jordan suggests the need for a database of all multicultural music materials for the sake of cross-referencing. Although one all-encompassing database might not exist, the Internet has once again proven an invaluable resource in connecting students and teachers to other parts of the world.
Abeles et al. (1995) further recommend that music educators: 1) choose a representative sample of different world musics for use in the classroom, 2) present multicultural music authentically through recordings or guest performers, and 3) overcome ethnocentrism by making “every effort to instill in students an attitude of respect and acceptance toward all types of music” (p. 287). However, educators must bear in mind that it is still their job to teach basic music skills and that multicultural music (or music of the dominant culture) should be chosen based upon what concepts and skills students can learn through it. In doing so, students will “develop those analytical skills that will assist them in understanding the development of music as an art form, especially as it is utilized throughout the world” (p. 287).
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Curricular Models
A curriculum can be planned around one of three models: linear/control, consensus, or dialogue/freedom. Each model is based upon a different philosophical perspective and allows for varying levels of student input.
In the linear/control model, specific learner outcomes are pre-determined by experts, and students are expected to perform specific tasks based on teacher-led instruction. It is the teacher’s role to give students the necessary tools to achieve these learning objectives, and evaluation would occur through pre-testing/post-testing. This model is based upon the realist or empiricist philosophy and allows for the least amount of student control. In an elementary general music classroom following the linear/control curricular model, one would see activities such as rote/echo singing, a sequenced introduction to rhythmic and melodic patterns, folk dances and other organized movement, skill practice such as mallet technique, and teacher-selected listening examples.
The consensus model allows for slightly more student input and is based upon the pragmatic philosophy. It is the teacher’s role to act as a guide after identifying student needs and concerns, leading them to gain “understandings, values, and skills through group planning” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 275). Evaluation is undertaken cooperatively. Student choice would play an important role in an elementary music classroom under this model. While the teacher might choose a particular song or piece to perform, students could work together to determine their preferred form, instrumental arrangement, expressive elements, etc. Singing games with structured vocal improvisation would provide student choice, as would various other compositional, improvisational, or arranging activities. A teacher would choose repertoire based upon student interest.
Leading even further away from teacher control is the dialogue/freedom model in which students decide on their own learning outcomes. Based on the naturalist philosophy, the teacher acts only as a facilitator, also leaving students in charge of their own assessments. The general/vocal elementary music classroom under this model would provide plenty of opportunities for unstructured improvisation, exploration, and play. Composition and notation would find their place when students would want to remember something they created for a later date by writing it down. Movement activities would be less structured, or students would create their own dances.
Although the formal curriculum may lean heavily toward one of these models, the instructional curriculum in practice may combine elements of each model, depending on what the teacher feels best meets the needs of the students, the level of interest students express in various activities, and student readiness.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
In the linear/control model, specific learner outcomes are pre-determined by experts, and students are expected to perform specific tasks based on teacher-led instruction. It is the teacher’s role to give students the necessary tools to achieve these learning objectives, and evaluation would occur through pre-testing/post-testing. This model is based upon the realist or empiricist philosophy and allows for the least amount of student control. In an elementary general music classroom following the linear/control curricular model, one would see activities such as rote/echo singing, a sequenced introduction to rhythmic and melodic patterns, folk dances and other organized movement, skill practice such as mallet technique, and teacher-selected listening examples.
The consensus model allows for slightly more student input and is based upon the pragmatic philosophy. It is the teacher’s role to act as a guide after identifying student needs and concerns, leading them to gain “understandings, values, and skills through group planning” (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman, 1995, p. 275). Evaluation is undertaken cooperatively. Student choice would play an important role in an elementary music classroom under this model. While the teacher might choose a particular song or piece to perform, students could work together to determine their preferred form, instrumental arrangement, expressive elements, etc. Singing games with structured vocal improvisation would provide student choice, as would various other compositional, improvisational, or arranging activities. A teacher would choose repertoire based upon student interest.
Leading even further away from teacher control is the dialogue/freedom model in which students decide on their own learning outcomes. Based on the naturalist philosophy, the teacher acts only as a facilitator, also leaving students in charge of their own assessments. The general/vocal elementary music classroom under this model would provide plenty of opportunities for unstructured improvisation, exploration, and play. Composition and notation would find their place when students would want to remember something they created for a later date by writing it down. Movement activities would be less structured, or students would create their own dances.
Although the formal curriculum may lean heavily toward one of these models, the instructional curriculum in practice may combine elements of each model, depending on what the teacher feels best meets the needs of the students, the level of interest students express in various activities, and student readiness.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Curricular Viewpionts
The term “curriculum” can mean any number of things to educators, administrators, parents, students, and community members. Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman (1995) broadly define curriculum as “a set of planned experiences” (p. 272). They further outline four specific curricular viewpoints: operational, ideal, formal, and instructional.
The operational curriculum is based on an administrative perspective. In this viewpoint, administrators or trained evaluators concern themselves with activities that are actually going on in the classroom rather than seeing curriculum as something written in stone. The classroom activities in this model should be based upon specific learning objectives.
The ideal curriculum is self-explanatory in that it represents what should be taught, not necessarily what is really offered. Often conceived under scholarly conditions, the ideal curriculum is theory-based and may or may not exist in practice.
In the formal curriculum viewpoint, the concerns of the state department of education, the local school board, parent groups, business partners, politicians, and others are taken into account. This may take the form of state or district standards that teachers are required to follow.
Finally, the instructional curriculum represents teachers’ perceptions of what is actually being taught. Teachers often must modify the formal curriculum to meet individual student needs but may be wary to do so because of pressure to follow the formal curriculum. Also relevant are parent, student, and societal perceptions, among others.
Regardless of the viewpoint, a curriculum will be influenced by various stakeholders’ attitudes and their relative position in affecting decisions. A curriculum will also, by its very nature, need to be modified according to school conditions and student needs.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
The operational curriculum is based on an administrative perspective. In this viewpoint, administrators or trained evaluators concern themselves with activities that are actually going on in the classroom rather than seeing curriculum as something written in stone. The classroom activities in this model should be based upon specific learning objectives.
The ideal curriculum is self-explanatory in that it represents what should be taught, not necessarily what is really offered. Often conceived under scholarly conditions, the ideal curriculum is theory-based and may or may not exist in practice.
In the formal curriculum viewpoint, the concerns of the state department of education, the local school board, parent groups, business partners, politicians, and others are taken into account. This may take the form of state or district standards that teachers are required to follow.
Finally, the instructional curriculum represents teachers’ perceptions of what is actually being taught. Teachers often must modify the formal curriculum to meet individual student needs but may be wary to do so because of pressure to follow the formal curriculum. Also relevant are parent, student, and societal perceptions, among others.
Regardless of the viewpoint, a curriculum will be influenced by various stakeholders’ attitudes and their relative position in affecting decisions. A curriculum will also, by its very nature, need to be modified according to school conditions and student needs.
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1995). Foundations of music education (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education.
Monday, April 6, 2009
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:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
