Presentation on theme: "Linda Neelly, Mary E. Yakimowski, and Sarah D. Newton Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association Rocky Hill,"— Presentation transcript:
Linda Neelly, Mary E. Yakimowski, and Sarah D. Newton Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association Rocky Hill, Connecticut October 2011
Overview Purpose Review of Literature Methodology Results Implications of Results Future Avenues
Purpose of this Study Gain perspectives on music teacher pre- service education for 21 st century music learning and teaching.
Research Questions What are the perspectives of music teachers about pre-service ed for the next 10 years? Follow-up Questions: Are there differences in the perspectives of primarily-vocal versus primarily-instrumental teachers on selected areas to focus? What are the most significant opportunities for the professional development of music educators for the next 10 years? What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years?
Literature Review Jones (2010): Teacher Education needs to consider that the musical skills and talents of future students may not be evident in the same frameworks of 21st Century thinking Mantie (2008): Possibilities exist to interact technologically with inner city students in order to facilitate their constructions as enhancements of their musical identities Ahlestedt’s (2002): Surveyed 237 elementary school music teachers: 85% suggested more field experiences 86% recommended increased pedagogical studies 27% urged more music-specific coursework 16% advocated for learning with a practicing teacher
Methodology - Sampling 102 respondents CT, RI, MA, NY, VT, and NH National Association of Music Merchants, National Association for Music Education graduate students University #1 graduates of the University #2
Instrumentation ‣ Background Information ‣ Professional Characteristics ‣ Professional Experience ‣ Educational Viewpoints Analyses o Descriptive Statistics o Analysis of Variance o Post-hoc Testing (as necessary)
Participant Characteristics 56.44% female 89.22% White 55% teach in elementary, 48% in middle, 42% in high schools 69.69% work in suburban, 29.29% in rural, 23.23% in urban communities Primary Teaching Area
Descriptive Results Important Components of Music Teacher Preparation For the Next 10 Years (Highest) ComponentMean w. Creating meaningful music learning experiences for students4.86 d. Implementing classroom management skills4.77 a. Mastering content in your specialty area4.76 y. Encouraging life-long learning4.72 am. Challenging students to meet their fullest potential4.67 al. Degree of preparation for working in the teaching profession4.61 v. Challenging all students to meet their fullest music potential4.60 x. Self-reflecting on practice4.58 c. Implementing classroom lesson plans4.53 s. Advocating for program4.51
Important Components of Music Teacher Preparation For the Next 10 Years (Lowest) ComponentMean u. Preparing students for working in the music profession 3.49 q. Participating in formal school partnerships3.44 p. Supervising teachers3.33 z. Standardized assessment skills (e.g., norm- referenced tests) 3.16
ANOVA Results Did the importance of teacher preparation components vary as a function of respondents’ primary musical teaching areas (vocal, instrumental, or both)? Standardized assessment skills [F (2, 75) = 3.32, p < 0.05]. Post-hoc analysis: Vocal (M = 3.54) > Instrumental (M = 2.76)
Music educator standards statements (Highest): a. Ability to teach music at various levels to different age groups and in a variety of classroom and ensemble settings (M = 4.64) f. Ability to accept, amend, or reject methods and materials based on personal assessment of specific teaching situations (M = 4.58)
Descriptive Results Music educator standards statements (Lowest): c. Ability to assess aptitudes, experiential backgrounds, orientations of individuals and groups of students, and the nature of subject matter, and to plan educational programs to meet assessed needs (M = 4.26)
Future Music Teacher Preparation Program Admissions Requirements (Highest) CharacteristicNPercentage Drive and determination to become a teacher 5795% Excellent music skills (tonal, rhythmic, expressive elements) % Personable, collaborative, and enthusiastic characteristics % GPA for academic courses (general education) %
Future Music Teacher Preparation Program Admissions Requirements (Lowest) CharacteristicN Percentage g. Prior experiences in music only collaborations (section leader, private teacher, music counselor) % h. Prior experiences working with special populations % i. Prior experiences working with "at risk" youth 813.3% j. Prior experiences working in urban settings 813.3%
What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years? Field experiences Research Diversity Faculty experience “The best experiences were those that involved going into schools and working with actual students…Music education majors need to be in the classroom early and often.” Qualitative Results
What are the most significant opportunities for the professional development of music educators for the next 10 years? Incorporation of technology Additional learning opportunities Modernization of programs Assessment “Nobody knows more about teaching music than current music teachers.”
Despite general satisfaction with their respective music teacher education programs, those surveyed in this study indicate that present preparation of future music educators may not be adequate, in light of the changing needs of students and evolution of the field of music education. Respondents’ ratings of their teacher preparation programs Perceptions of this field’s ability to train future educators
Implications of Results What does all of this mean for music education?
Future Avenues Where do we go from here? Areas for future research
Summary Purpose Review of Literature Methodology Results Implications of Results Future Avenues