1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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…

4. 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).

5. 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).

6. Related literature Fourteen 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).

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. Secondary teaching assessment (sample) ProficiencyVerbal Instruction ModelsVerbal Feedback #1 CCK #2 ICK #3 WCK #4 DND Feedback on Teaching Fundamentals #1-4 3=Excellent 2=Satisfactory 1=Unsatisfactory Instrument Assembly 222x Posture111xNever mentioned Instrument Carriage 332x Hand Position332x Fundamentals #5-8 Breath Support11 1XNever mentioned Embouchure33 2x Mouthpiece to Mouth 332x Articulation - Tonguing 312x“huffed”, no tongue

19. Inter-rater reliability: N = 45 casesVI 14VI 58M 14M 58VF 14VF 58K 14K58 N = cases with 100% interrater agreement among raters 20100051 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.

20. Inter-rater reliability: 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 interrater reliability measures. The data show that there was low interrater reliability on the measures. None of the values above, however, differ significantly from alpha = 0 vi58rater1vi58rater2vi58rater3vi58rater4 2.002.25 2.75 3.002.002.253.00 1.50 2.253.00 2.001.752.333.00 2.001.75 3.00 2.001.502.252.75 1.502.002.50 2.752.003.002.00 2.752.252.503.00 2.002.752.503.00 2.752.002.333.00 2.501.502.672.75 2.001.502.252.75 2.501.752.002.75

21. 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).

22. 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 “non- specialists” and “experienced” and “inexperienced” subjects using t-tests and multivariate measures.

23. 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”.

24. Results: Specialist vs non-specialist means Group Statistics spnsp2NMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean vi14meanspecialist112.5470.22126.06671 non specialist342.4084.24495.04201 vi58meanspecialist112.4975.18992.05726 non specialist342.4099.18211.03123 m14meanspecialist112.6037.27800.08382 non specialist342.5257.23720.04068 m58meanspecialist112.5016.19245.05803 non specialist342.4260.19642.03369 vf14meanspecialist112.2009.24970.07529 non specialist342.2171.34395.05899 vf58meanspecialist112.2664.23775.07168 non specialist342.2197.24480.04198 k14meanspecialist111.2299.21288.06419 non specialist341.2593.20750.03559 k58meanspecialist111.3453.18635.05619 non specialist341.4788.21218.03639 profic14specialist112.4505.21419.06458 non specialist342.3837.24469.04196 profic58specialist112.4218.17307.05218 non specialist342.3519.19114.03278

25. Results: t-test comparing specialists vs non-specialists t-test for Equality of Means tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference vi14mean Equal variances assumed 1.66843.103.13863 Equal variances not assumed 1.75818.616.095.13863 vi58meanEqual variances1.37243.177.08757 Equal variances not1.34316.395.198.08757 m14meanEqual variances.90943.368.07800 Equal variances not.83715.013.416.07800 m58meanEqual variances1.11543.271.07562 Equal variances not1.12717.281.275.07562 vf14meanEqual variances-.14443.886-.01624 Equal variances not-.17023.377.867-.01624 vf58meanEqual variances.55443.582.04673 Equal variances not.56317.416.581.04673 k14meanEqual variances-.40543.688-.02933 Equal variances not-.40016.617.695-.02933 k58meanEqual variances-1.86443.069-.13348 Equal variances not-1.99419.128.061-.13348 profic14Equal variances.80943.423.06680 Equal variances not.86719.191.396.06680 profic58Equal variances1.07843.287.06997 Equal variances not1.13518.573.271.06997

26. Results: Oneway ANOVA specialists vs specialists ANOVA Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig. vi14meanBetween Groups.2342.1172.056.141 Within Groups2.39542.057 Total2.62944 vii58meanBetween Groups.1082.0541.613.211 Within Groups1.41142.034 Total1.51944 m14meanBetween Groups.0512.025.404.670 Within Groups2.63042.063 Total2.68044 m58meanBetween Groups.0792.0401.033.365 Within Groups1.61242.038 Total1.69144 vif14meanBetween Groups.0492.024.229.796 Within Groups4.48142.107 Total4.53044 vf58meanBetween Groups.0352.018.294.747 Within Groups2.52642.060 Total2.56144 k14meanBetween Groups.0162.008.175.840 Within Groups1.86642.044 Total1.88144 k58meanBetween Groups.1982.0992.337.109 Within Groups1.78342.042 Total1.98144 profic14Between Groups.0372.019.323.726 Within Groups2.43442.058 profic58Between Groups.0422.021.583.563 Within Groups1.50442.036

27. Results: Experienced vs inexperienced means Group Statistics ExpNoExpNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean vi14meanprior experience252.4536.24770.04954 no prior experience202.4281.24597.05500 vi58meanprior experience252.4335.19357.03871 no prior experience202.4285.18055.04037 m14meanprior experience252.5945.23692.04738 no prior experience202.4826.25067.05605 m58meanprior experience252.4869.18448.03690 no prior experience202.3915.20171.04510 vf14meanprior experience252.2987.31254.06251 no prior experience202.1062.30552.06832 vf58meanprior experience252.2947.24071.04814 no prior experience202.1517.22281.04982 k14meanprior experience251.2550.18973.03795 no prior experience201.2484.23133.05173 k58meanprior experience251.4838.20416.04083 no prior experience201.3990.21774.04869 profic14prior experience252.4490.23415.04683 no prior experience202.3390.23186.05185 profic58prior experience252.4050.18479.03696 no prior experience202.3239.18541.04146

28. t-test results comparing experienced vs inexperienced t-test for Equality of Means tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference vi14mean Equal variances assumed.34543.732.02553 Equal variances not assumed.34540.981.732.02553 vii58meanEqual variances.09043.929.00508 Equal variances not.09141.936.928.00508 m14meanEqual variances1.53543.132.11192 Equal variances not1.52539.778.135.11192 m58meanEqual variances1.65443.105.09540 Equal variances not1.63739.083.110.09540 vf14meanEqual variances2.07443.044.19256 Equal variances not2.08041.245.044.19256 vf58meanEqual variances2.04643.047.14298 Equal variances not2.06442.034.045.14298 k14meanEqual variances.10543.917.00660 Equal variances not.10336.568.919.00660 k58meanEqual variances1.34443.186.08480 Equal variances not1.33439.613.190.08480 profic14Equal variances1.57343.123.11000 Equal variances not1.57541.029.123.11000 profic58Equal variances1.46243.151.08115 Equal variances not1.46140.799.152.08115

29. Means compared between (1) vi, (2) m and (3) vf in 1-4 Estimates Measure:MEASURE_1 Prof 14prof14MeanStd. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower BoundUpper Bound 12.454.0492.3542.553 22.595.0492.4962.693 32.299.0622.1742.424 12.428.0552.3172.539 22.483.0542.3732.592 32.106.0691.9672.246

30. Results comparing means on (1) vi, (2) m, and (3) vf in 1-4 Pair wise Comparisons LSD post hoc test (I) prof14(J) prof14Mean Diff. (I-J)Std. ErrorSig. a 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Lower BoundUpper Bound 12-.098 *.023.000-.145-.051 3.238 *.041.000.155.321 21.098 *.023.000.051.145 3.336 *.036.000.263.409 31-.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).

31. Means compared between (1) vi, (2) m and (3) vf in 5-8 Estimates Measure:MEASURE_1 prof58MeanStd. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower BoundUpper Bound 12.454.0322.3892.518 22.464.0342.3952.532 32.243.0422.1582.328

32. 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. ErrorSig. a 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Lower BoundUpper Bound 12-.010.023.664-.057.037 3.211 *.032.000.146.275 21.010.023.664-.037.057 3.221 *.029.000.163.278 31-.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.

33. Results: Verbal Instruction means Brass vs WW Descriptive Statistics spnsp2MeanStd. DeviationN wwvi14specialist2.7673.2536411 non specialist2.5667.2858034 Total2.6157.2889345 brvi14specialist2.3880.2690611 non specialist2.2710.2691934 Total2.2996.2708945

34. Results: Modeling means Brass vs WW Descriptive Statistics spnsp2MeanStd. DeviationN wwm14specialist2.7944.2496111 non specialist2.7068.2425834 Total2.7282.2444345 brm14specialist2.4594.3753511 non specialist2.3587.2997934 Total2.3833.3183445

35. Results: Verbal Feedback means Brass vs WW Descriptive Statistics spnsp2MeanStd. DeviationN wwvf14specialist2.3149.3220311 non specialist2.3440.4565134 Total2.3369.4243045 brvf14specialist2.1250.3400411 non specialist2.1103.3470334 Total2.1139.3415345

36. Results: Comparison of Brass vs WW means Pairwise Comparisons Measure:MEASURE_1 (I) vf14(J) vf14 Mean Difference (I- J)Std. ErrorSig. a 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Lower BoundUpper Bound 1 WW2 Brass.212 *.074.007.062.362 2 Brass1 WW-.212 *.074.007-.362-.062 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).

37. 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.

38. Discussion: Findings also imply that non-specialists should be held to the same standard as specialists in regard to teaching effectiveness and content knowledge.

39. 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.

40. Discussion: Scores for verbal feedback were significantly lower (p <.05) than scores for verbal instruction and modeling for all groups.

41. Discussion: This suggests that instructors of instrumental techniques courses might consider providing more opportunities for the development of verbal feedback skills within the course.

42. Discussion: Scores in all categories for students enrolled in woodwind courses were significantly higher (p <.05) than those for students enrolled in brass courses in every category.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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 non- specialists in secondary string and percussion settings as well.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. Questions: Do you have any questions? This PowerPoint is available at www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news by going under “research presentations” www.cfa.ilstu.edu/dsnyder/news