A Longitudinal Study of Preservice Music Teacher Development

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of preservice music teachers’ concerns using Fuller and Bown’s model. Participants were 8 instrumental teachers who participated in the previous Berg and Miksza (2010) study. Data sources included goals essays, journals, a midterm growth plan, and teaching observation reports with accompanying lesson plans that were collected over a 1.5-year period. The participants expressed less concern for self-survival and more concern for making an impact on students as time progressed from their junior-level practicum experience to the end of student teaching. Concerns regarding basic competencies and professionalism ultimately gave way to specific contextual aspects of the participants’ teaching placements and more nuanced instructional issues. Results indicated that the focus of the participants’ concerns also was greatly affected by their teaching context. Implications for music teacher preparation as well as extensions of Fuller and Bown’s model are discussed.

Keywords

teacher education teacher concerns teacher development

Music teacher educators can consider preservice teachers’ expressed concerns to be indicators of some of the issues that occupy the thoughts and attention of developing teachers as they move through teacher education curricula. A preservice teacher’s concerns may signify obstacles to be overcome or needs to be met for growth in teaching effectiveness to occur. Identifying changes in preservice teachers’ expressed concerns may reveal how their thinking about teaching changes over time. Consequently, investigations of music teachers’ concerns can provide insights into the complex challenges that preservice teachers navigate as they prepare to enter the field. Furthermore, a clearer understanding of how a music teacher’s thinking develops over time ultimately can inform approaches to teacher preparation and professional development.

Fuller and Bown’s (1975) teacher-concerns model has been employed in general education (Burn, Hagger, Mutton, & Everton, 2003; Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Pigge & Marso, 1989) and music education (Bennett, 1982; Berg & Miksza, 2010; Broyles, 1997; Coleman, 1999; Drafall, 1991) research to conceptualize teacher development. This model rests on an assumption that teacher education programs could be improved if they were designed to meet preservice teachers’ needs according to a trajectory of professional development. Fuller and Bown hypothesized that doing so would increase the likelihood that preservice teachers will meet their respective goals at critical phases in their careers and, as a result, will lead to a sense of satisfaction in regard to professional development. The researchers suggested that helping preservice teachers identify, become aware of, and confront their problems and needs, as well as providing resources to help them remedy their problems accordingly, could help reduce a discrepancy between desired goals and actual experiences. The researchers focused specifically on teachers’ concerns as indicators for their developmental needs. Fuller and Bown considered teacher concerns to be the perceived problems or issues that are often the focus of thought and action (Fuller, 1969).

Fuller and Bown (1975) identified three primary stages of teacher development according to teachers’ most common concerns. The stages include (a) self-survival: sense of self as a teacher, personal adequacy; (b) task: the action(s) of teaching, organizational issues; and (c) student impact: effects of actions on student learning, motivation. Fuller and Bown hypothesized that preservice teachers were likely to express more self-survival concerns, whereas in-service teachers were more likely to express task and student-impact concerns. The most effective teachers likely would display concerns that are predominantly student focused. While this model suggests a linear trajectory, research findings are mixed with respect to whether preservice music teachers demonstrated shifts from self to task to student-impact concerns as a result of accumulated teaching experience (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Campbell & Thompson, 2007; Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Yourn, 2000).

Research using (or based on) Fuller and Bown’s (1975) concerns model among preservice teachers has resulted in conflicting results. Several studies in general education have identified shifts in preservice teachers’ concerns that suggested a relatively linear change from self-survival to task to student-impact stages (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Pigge & Marso, 1989; Ralph, 1993). In addition, Kagan’s (1992) review of 40 “learning-to-teach” studies in general education suggested that overall trends consistent with Fuller and Bown’s model were prevalent in general education research. Broyles (1997) found similar results for music student teachers, who were more concerned with student impact than self-survival or task issues at the end of their placement. However, several researchers also have reported findings that were incongruent with Fuller and Bown’s proposed model. Weinstein (1990) found an emphasis on self-survival concerns among preservice elementary teachers across a 7-week practicum with no evidence of a shift. Similarly, the preservice music teachers in Yourn’s (2000) study placed an emphasis on task concerns with no evidence of increased student concerns. In contrast, Burn, Hagger, Mutton, and Everton (2000) found a prevalence of student-impact concerns at the start of student teaching among British student teachers. Campbell and Thompson’s (2007) study of 1,121 preservice music teachers yielded similar findings, as the participants all ranked student-impact concerns higher than self-survival or task concerns regardless of their relative degree progress. Teachout and McCoy (2010) also found that participants rated student-impact concerns higher than self-survival or task concerns in a study of undergraduate music education majors’ role development.

The inconsistent results of studies that utilized Fuller and Bown’s (1975) concerns model may be due to (a) the length of time used for data collection (e.g., too short to examine potentially longitudinal shifts in thinking), (b) the absence of other mediating variables (e.g., teacher’s personality, teacher’s motivation), or (c) the presence or lack of changes in context across studies (e.g., changes in the teaching environment or placement site). Most studies have been conducted on the basis of a single practicum experience or a semester-long student teaching experience (e.g., Berg & Miksza, 2010; Burn et al., 2000; Weinstein, 1990). Given that the concerns of preservice teachers may shift in subtle ways (Ralph, 1993), it is important that data are collected over a long enough period of time in order to examine what could be longitudinal changes in mindset. Researchers also have detected relationships between preservice teachers’ concerns and individual differences, such as self-efficacy (Ghaith & Shabaan, 1999) and personality (Valli, 1993). It is important to consider what additional factors may interact with changes in thinking as teachers develop. In addition, Burn et al. (2000) found that student teachers were more likely to reference contextual issues when reporting their concerns after switching to a new student teaching placement. Valli (1993) also suggested that a preservice teacher’s immediate context could influence a teacher’s concerns and development. Moreover, music education researchers have identified the importance of authentic-context learning (e.g., educational experiences that have characteristics that are similar to the environment found in professional practices) when preparing effective and committed music teachers (e.g., Austin & Miksza, 2011; Miksza & Austin, 2010; Paul et al., 2001).

The mixed findings regarding Fuller and Bown’s (1975) teacher-concerns model of development suggest a need for theoretical clarification and extension. Issues such as whether teacher-concern stages are distinct or overlapping need to be examined. For example, Ralph (1993) found that concerns can “linger” even though shifts in category emphasis may occur over time. In addition, almost all studies reported the presence of concerns from all three categories at all points in time (e.g., Berg & Miksza, 2010; Hall & Hord, 1987; Smith & Sanche, 1992, 1993). Fuller and Bown’s hypothesized linear trajectory of shifts in concerns also must be re-examined. Longitudinal studies that track preservice teachers across multiple contexts for extended periods of time would provide greater clarity on the development of preservice teacher concerns.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status and development of preservice music teachers’ concerns using Fuller and Bown’s (1975) model. Research questions included the following: (1) What concerns are most common among the participants during the course of two field-based teaching experiences? (2) Do these concerns change during the course of two field-based teaching experiences? and (3) Are the shifts in concerns congruent with Fuller and Bown’s three-stage, linear model of teacher development?

Method

Participants in this study were 8 instrumental student teachers who participated in the previous Berg and Miksza (2010) study. Two participants were students on an instrumental-general degree track, and the others were instrumental track (3 orchestra, 3 band). Data were collected during fall 2010 and functioned as both student-teaching seminar course assignments and data for this study. Student teaching was completed over 16 weeks at two levels (elementary and secondary) in different school districts or, in the case of 1 participant, in the same district but in economically diverse schools. In order to satisfy the state requirement for elementary and secondary experience, all participants switched placement sites to another school at the 8-week mark of student teaching. As preliminary preparation, students were required to complete a 50-hr practicum at their student teaching placement sites prior to their student teaching semester. In total, the students taught in five different school districts with the two placements providing them an opportunity to teach students from varied economic and/or racial backgrounds. All of the student teaching sites had established music programs with cooperating teachers who had taught at their respective schools between 8 and 22 years. The quality of the programs with respect to student skill level varied, often on the basis of the number of students enrolled in private instrument study.

Primary data sources included three goals essays and four electronic journal assignments. Goals essays were submitted at the start of the semester (Essay 1), during the 1st week of the second placement (Essay 2), and during the final week of student teaching (Essay 3). Participants identified self, task, and student-impact concerns for a given setting (first placement, second placement, future part-time or full-time teaching position) and completed weekly e-mail (e-)journals, four of which utilized an instructor-provided prompt designed to foster discussion of a significant event and its impact on the student teacher. Secondary data sources used for triangulation (Stake, 1995) included a midterm growth plan completed by the student teacher, teaching observation reports completed by a university supervisor, and accompanying lesson plans. Participants’ concerns expressed through goals essays from a previous study (Berg & Miksza, 2010) also were used for individual case study analyses.

An a priori (Miles & Huberman, 1994), deductive (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) coding approach based on Fuller and Bown’s (1975) three categories and codes developed previously (Berg & Miksza, 2010) was used to code all documents. Self concern category codes were focused on participants’ personal characteristics and relationships with colleagues and significant others related to teaching responsibilities. Codes in the task category reflected concerns about knowledge, strategy implementation, and contextual classroom issues. Student impact codes revealed a concern for the development of students’ knowledge, skill, or affect.

After completion of the analysis of all documents, an individual summary form was completed for each participant. This one-page form included a Fuller and Bown category and code frequency summary for written documents, a trend (positive, neutral, negative) analysis for concern category emphases present in the goals essays across time, a distribution analysis noting specific codes that were similar and different across time, a synopsis of e-journal content, and a summary of researcher memos created during coding.

Strategies used to increase the validity of the findings included a predetermined intercoder agreement process (Creswell, 2007), peer debriefing, source triangulation (Stake, 1995), checking for researcher effects (Miles & Huberman, 1994), and checking the meaning of outliers (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Researchers engaged in source triangulation by comparing the category frequencies and code distributions present in the goals essays to the most pressing concerns identified in the e-journals as well as the other secondary data sources. Possible researcher effects on the data were mitigated by introducing students to the research project at the end of the student teaching semester and having an instructor who was not one of the researchers serve as the student teaching seminar teacher. The researchers engaged in checking the meaning of outliers by noting unique codes or essay contents for particular students.

Results

Aggregate analyses of the goals essays suggest that self and task concerns generally decreased in frequency as well as in regard to proportion of overall responses from the participants’ practicum experience to the end of their student teaching, whereas student concerns generally increased over time (Table 1). Although these trends appear somewhat subtle across adjacent time points, they are particularly apparent when contrasting the sum, mean, and proportion of prepracticum concerns with the respective data for the end-of-student-teaching concerns. The only inconsistency in these trends was found at mid–student teaching. At this time, the participants had shifted placement sites to another location, and an increase in task concerns coupled with a decrease in student concerns was evident (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Sums, Means, and Ratios (in percentages) of Concern Categories Across Participants and Each Point in Time.

	Prepracticum			Postpracticum			Start Student Teaching			Mid–Student Teaching			End Student Teaching
Concern	Sum	M	Ratio (%)	Sum	M	Ratio (%)	Sum	M	Ratio (%)	Sum	M	Ratio (%)	Sum	M	Ratio (%)
Self	43	5.37	22.87	39	4.87	25.49	32	4.00	22.56	30	3.75	21.27	31	3.87	22.02
Task	101	12.75	54.25	69	8.62	45.00	63	7.87	43.47	74	9.25	53.41	60	7.50	40.02
Student	43	5.37	22.87	45	5.62	29.41	63	7.75	33.98	47	5.87	25.32	63	7.87	37.96

Figure 1.

Trend lines depicting mean self, task, and student-impact concerns over time.

Fifteen discrete self-concern codes emerged from the data (Table 2). Only four self concern codes remained throughout the entire data collection period: rapport, personality, identity (e.g., sense of self as teaching professional), and adapting. These concerns also appear to have been the overall most pressing self concerns for the participants, given their relative quantity at each time point. A concern for self-organization was not mentioned after the initial practicum experience, whereas concerns for communication, evaluation from others, peer and colleague interactions, and maintaining work–home balance were no longer apparent after the start of student teaching. In contrast, concerns for memory ability (largely of student names), personal musicianship, and being an authority figure were not apparent until the student teaching experience but then remained throughout (Figure 2).

Table 2.

Frequency and Sum of Each Self Concern Across Time.

Code	Definition	Prepracticum		Postpracticum		Start Student Teaching		Mid–Student Teaching		End Student Teaching
Code	Definition	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#
Te	General concern	2	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
TeO	Organization	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
TeH	Humor	1	2	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0
TeC	Communication	1	1	0	0	3	4	0	0	0	0
TeR	Rapport	8	22	8	24	2	5	7	11	1	1
TeID	Identity	3	4	1	1	1	1	1	7	1	2
TeINDEC	Indecision	1	2	0	0	2	3	0	0	1	1
TePERS	Personality	3	3	5	9	3	6	5	6	3	7
TeEV	Evaluation	2	3	2	3	2	2	0	0	0	0
TeA	Adapting	5	5	1	1	1	2	2	2	1	2
TeM	Memory	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	1	2	2	1	2
TeMU	Musicianship	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	1	2	2	3	3
TeAU	Authority	NA	NA	NA	NA	4	6	1	2	1	3
TePR	Peer/colleague interaction	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	1	0	0	0	0
TeBL	Work/home balance	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	2	0	0	0	0

Note: Frequency (n) is related to the number of individuals who exhibited a concern. Sum (#) is the number of concern codes tabulated overall and does not differentiate as to whether a large number of concerns were expressed by one person or by many. Te = self; NA = not applicable.

Figure 2.

Example self, task, and student-impact concerns that emerged during student teaching.

The greatest number of discrete codes was detected among the task concerns category (20 codes; see Table 3). Many task concerns remained throughout all data collection points, including concerns for teaching knowledge, instrument-specific techniques, rehearsal-teaching strategies, classroom management strategies, pacing, planning, age- and ability-appropriate strategies, and repertoire selection. Concerns for time usage and questioning were no longer apparent after the initial practicum experience, whereas concerns for clarity and intensity of instruction emerged during student teaching (Figure 2). Task concerns emphasized most included teaching knowledge, instrument-specific techniques, rehearsal-teaching strategies, classroom management strategies, and pacing.

Table 3.

Frequency and Sum of Each Task Concern Across Time.

Code	Definition	Prepracticum		Postpracticum		Start Student Teaching		Mid–Student Teaching		End Student Teaching
Code	Definition	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#
Ta	General task concern	3	4	2	3	0	0	0	0	0	0
TaK	Knowledge	5	8	4	4	3	10	5	6	1	1
TaIS	Instrument-specific pedagogy	3	8	1	1	5	12	4	8	5	8
TaREP	Repertoire	5	12	3	6	1	4	2	2	4	6
TaGR	Group size/configuration	3	3	0	0	2	4	2	2	0	0
TaT	Time	2	4	3	9	0	0	0	0	0	0
TaF	Feedback	1	1	2	2	0	0	1	1	1	1
TaREH	Rehearsing	5	11	1	1	3	10	3	7	4	6
TaCOND	Conducting	4	6	3	8	1	1	1	1	1	2
TaCM	Classroom management	3	10	3	5	2	5	4	11	3	8
TaPC	Pacing	3	9	3	3	2	4	3	5	3	6
TaE	Error detection	3	7	2	2	0	0	1	1	0	0
TaG	Goals	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0
TaPL	Planning	3	6	3	4	1	1	3	7	3	3
TaLRP	Long-range planning	1	4	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0
TaLEV	Student age/grade	2	3	1	1	1	2	3	5	0	0
TaAB	Student ability level	1	1	1	1	0	0	4	10	1	1
TaQ	Questioning	1	7	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
TaCL	Clarity of instruction	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	2	2	3	2	3
TaI	Intensity of instruction	NA	NA	NA	NA	1	2	0	0	0	0

The smallest number of discrete codes (8) was detected within the student-impact concern category (Table 4). Concern for student motivation and differentiation of instruction for individuals and groups was expressed consistently throughout all data collection points. Along with concern for student rapport, these were also the concerns that received the most emphasis. No student-impact concerns ceased to be expressed after the initial practicum experience. However, a concern for building student rapport became apparent during student teaching (Figure 2). The concerns related to rapport that were coded in the self category were substantially different from the concerns related to rapport that were coded in the student-impact category. The rapport issues as a self concern were related to worries that the participants had about their own abilities to develop rapport (“I would like to be remembered by the students as their favorite student teacher”), and these statements were devoid of reference to particular classes or individual students. In contrast, the rapport issues as a student-impact concern refer specifically to the needs of the students the participants were interacting with and the steps the participants were taking to meet these needs (“Small group activities require a great deal of cooperation from the students, but I feel I will be able to gain their trust and respect”).

Table 4.

Frequency and Sum of Each Student Concern Across Time.

Code	Definition	Prepracticum		Postpracticum		Start Student Teaching		Mid–Student Teaching		End Student Teaching
Code	Definition	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#	n	#
S	General concern	3	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SM	Motivation	7	21	8	18	6	16	7	19	4	9
SDi	Differentiate individuals	3	4	5	10	5	12	2	3	5	11
SDg	Differentiate group	2	3	1	2	3	3	1	1	3	7
SL	Learning concern	2	2	2	9	2	2	4	5	6	9
SLIK	Liking the teacher	1	1	1	3	1	1	2	2	0	0
SENJ	Enjoying music	3	4	0	0	2	2	1	3	2	4
SR	Rapport	NA	NA	NA	NA	5	24	4	16	5	15

Data regarding all participants’ distinct teacher, task, and student codes at five points in time (prepracticum, postpracticum, beginning of student teaching, mid–student teaching, end of student teaching) may be found in Tables 5 through 8 in the online appendix, available at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental.

Selected Case: Nanette

Utilizing a maximum variation sampling strategy (Patton, 2001), two students were selected for in-depth analysis on the basis of unique aspects of their composite concerns profiles. Although the participants as a group demonstrated a decrease in self and task concerns coupled with an increase in student-impact concerns over the course of two field-based teaching experiences, some participants initially revealed a lack of overall progress toward more student concerns. For instance, in comparison to practicum, instrumental-general-track student Nanette’s total number of student concern comments decreased over the course of student teaching, while self- and task-focused comments increased. This was evident in the total number of comments for each category as well as the distribution of codes for each category (see Tables 5 and 6 at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).

As might be expected, Nanette’s distribution of concerns during student teaching also did not indicate a positive developmental trajectory (Table 7). The number of student comments in Nanette’s student-teaching goals essays decreased over the course of the semester and was less than half of the total number of either self or task comments. Also, as indicated in the number of self comments in student-teaching goals Essays 2 and 3, Nanette’s self concerns increased over the course of the second placement. In fact, Nanette’s third goals essay from student teaching seemed to focus on personal characteristics (“I would love to work more on my patience with any grade level”) as a result of classroom management challenges she experienced (“I get ‘stuck’ in a power struggle with particularly difficult students”) during her second (elementary general) placement. This focus on the self may have been a result of the unique challenges Nanette experienced with special-needs students, as illustrated in Nanette’s second journal:

One of the boys, Matt was refusing to participate with a group. Earlier, he had said to Mrs. [teacher’s name], “I don’t have to listen to you. You’re not my boss—my mom is.” The defiance and unwillingness to participate was unexplainable at the time; we let Max sit out to avoid further disruptions or outbursts. (Matt is in the school’s SI Program . . . anger and defiance are always close to the surface.) I was concerned about Matt but not sure what to do; he sat sullenly for most of the class period. After class, he tried to leave school. In the process of leaving, one of the SI teachers tried to physically stop him . . . he got scratched and Matt got out the front door. The police were then called and they found Matt not too far from the school. This whole experience made me aware of just how subtle emotional disorders can be. I learned that I have to be ready to respond to situations that are out of my control. It is my hope that I can be aware of potential issues and be prepared to respond appropriately without fear and with a sense of what I can do.

In comparison, during the first practicum experience, Nanette demonstrated age-related self concerns (“I do not feel as comfortable teaching older students”) since “I think of myself as a general music teacher first and orchestra teacher second.” These concerns seemed mitigated by positive interactions with students as “[my] negative perception of high school students being annoyed and bored with my teaching changed when I saw a high level of respect.” Nanette’s confidence in her general music teaching abilities seemed to falter toward the end of student teaching on the basis of challenging experiences like those presented above.

While Nanette’s growth might be characterized as stagnant or even negative on the basis of increased self concerns over the course of student teaching, Nanette’s growth across both field experiences was evident in the addition of new student concerns. During practicum, Nanette focused on “how to help students feel personally involved in bettering the ensemble” while she commented on how she might help students “enjoy the music” during student teaching. In addition, concerns related to differentiating instruction at the individual and group levels as well as students liking the teacher emerged during student teaching. New self (indecision, evaluation) and task (planning, giving feedback) concerns also surfaced during student teaching. Concerns related to Nanette’s personality were evident during the course of both field experiences.

Overall, Nanette might be characterized as task oriented, with a comparable amount of focus on both self and student concerns (Table 5). While Nanette did not display an overall shift toward more student concerns over the course of both field experiences, the addition of new concerns during student teaching in all categories indicated growth in her thinking.

Selected Case: Simon

Simon demonstrated a positive developmental trajectory across the practicum and student teaching experiences as indicated in an increase in quantity of student-impact concerns (Table 5) and increased variety of behavior codes within the student-impact category (Table 6). While particular self (personality, indecision), task (knowledge, group size, repertoire, rehearsing), and student (motivation, enjoyment) concerns were consistent across both field experiences, new concerns emerged during student teaching including four self (communication, evaluation, memory of student names, musicianship), two task (classroom management, ability level), and four student (rapport, differentiation–individual level, differentiation–group level, liking the teacher) concerns.

At the same time, Simon displayed more sophisticated thinking about his concerns, which sometimes included an overlap between concern categories. This overlap originated during practicum experience (“Sometimes I wonder if I am not in my own world and not truly observing what my students are doing”) and continued during student teaching when Simon would describe his comfort in a particular category, followed by remaining challenges in the next sentence:

It is easy at [school name] Elementary to keep my students on task with the occasional single student breakdown. However if I were to teach at a different school, I am not sure I would be able to handle a large group of students breaking down. (Goals Essay 1)

As the semester progressed, even though task concerns were still prominent, these were colored by student concerns as he discussed classroom management with respect to balancing student and teacher power in his second journal:

Teaching first grade for the last four weeks has been quite a challenge.

I spent a lot of time working on classroom management and a lot of time being frustrated because of it. But as I taught more and more I began to see that the best moments were those where I was teaching fast paced, simple, repetitive games or songs in which the kids were constantly engaged. What I’ve taken away from this experience simply proves my theory of classroom management: never control your class, simply lead them to discovering the best parts of life on their own and they will never need to be managed. (Journal 2)

Simon’s third journal contained comments on all categories: teacher (personal tendencies and personality), task (classroom management skill), and student concerns (motivation, learning). This journal seemed to demonstrate an emerging understanding of teaching as a confluence of forces. However, this entry also signals a shift, given that student learning is the focus:

I am one of those people who hates to be the bad guy. Instead of punishing students because of bad behavior I will often make a joke about it, like “if you don’t put your mallets down when I ask you to I’ll insert them in your nostrils!” What I came to realize was that my first graders were picking up on the fact that if they acted out, then I would do something funny. It hit me one day, and I became very silent and still. “Are we ready?,” I asked with as little emotion as possible. The kids simply nodded their heads. I asked a question about rhythm to one of my students. “YES!!” I shouted with as much enthusiasm as possible in my Jim Carey “Grinch” voice when he got it right. “Now let’s see who else can get one right!,” I asked. Immediately hands from almost every student flew up in the air. They were hooked, and I had won the game of “Who wants to learn.”

Overall, Simon’s trajectory from fewer self concerns and more student concerns was positive. However, it should be noted that there was an increase in self concerns as Simon contemplated moving toward accepting a full-time teaching position. Similar to Nanette, Simon can be characterized as a task-oriented teacher, with a comparable amount of focus on both self and student concerns.

Discussion

The trends found among the participants’ common concerns represent perennial issues for teachers as they reflect on their personal development. Self concerns about ability to establish rapport, demonstrate teacher personality characteristics, forming a teacher identity, and being flexible and adaptable in teaching remained constant throughout the 1.5-year data collection period. The task concerns that were evident throughout data collection were representative of the basic knowledge (i.e., instrument-specific technique, repertoire) and “know-how” (i.e., pacing, planning, rehearsal strategies, classroom management strategies, age- and ability-appropriate strategies) that are commonly considered essential to good instrumental music teaching. Student-impact concerns related to motivation and differentiation of instruction also were consistently expressed by the participants. Similar self, task, and student concerns were emphasized by the participants in Campbell and Thompson’s (2007) study.

Several compelling shifts in the participants’ thinking can be inferred from the changes among their expressed concerns. Basic self and task concerns, such as being an organized professional and being able to ask questions, respectively, were no longer evident after the initial practicum. Other basic self concerns, such as communication, interacting with peers and colleagues, balancing work–home issues, and concern for personal evaluations, were no longer apparent by the midpoint of student teaching. In contrast, self concerns for being able to remember students’ names, being able to demonstrate musical proficiency, and being a good disciplinarian emerged only during student teaching. Task concerns, such as clarity and intensity of instruction, also emerged only during student teaching. Last, student-impact concerns that emerged during the initial practicum and start of student teaching remained, with additional emphasis expressed for issues of student rapport after the start of student teaching. These findings suggest that issues that could be considered basic teaching competencies (e.g., communication, questioning) and aspects of professional maturity (e.g., organization), although prominent at first, ultimately gave way to issues more closely related to specific contextual aspects of the participants’ teaching placements (e.g., students’ names, classroom management), more nuanced instructional issues (e.g., musicianship, clarity and intensity of instruction), and more personal approaches to teaching (e.g., student rapport).

The two cases that were examined in depth demonstrated commonalities as well as unique features with respect to concern profiles. Both students were primarily focused on task concerns, with a comparable amount of self and student concerns. However, Nanette’s and Simon’s profiles varied during student teaching according to contextual differences. Simon progressed toward more complex thinking about the connection between concern categories. This perhaps was fostered by his cooperating teachers. Conversely, Nanette’s journals and second goals essay from her second student teaching placement revealed more self concerns. These concerns likely were precipitated by challenges experienced with particular students. Previous researchers also have documented preservice teachers’ maintenance of concerns from multiple stages at the same time over the course of a field-based experience as well as movement between stages as a result of the teaching context (Borich, 2000; Ralph, 2004; Rogan, Borich, & Taylor, 1992; Rutherford & Hall, 1990).

The results of this study are somewhat congruent with the developmental teacher-concerns trajectory proposed by Fuller and Bown (1975). Overall, the participants expressed less concern for self-survival and more concern for making an impact on students as time progressed from their junior-level practicum experience to the end of their student teaching. Several researchers examining student teachers’ concerns in music education (Broyles, 1997) and general education (Hall & Hord, 1987; McLaughlin, 1991) have reported similar trends of shifts toward student-impact concerns. However, a discrepancy in this general trend emerged at the midpoint of the participants’ student teaching given that student-impact concerns decreased while task concerns increased. It is important to note that the midpoint of student teaching represents a complete change in context and setting for these particular participants because they were assigned to two separate 8-week placements across their student teaching semester. This finding reflected those of many researchers in general education who also have reported changes in teachers’ concerns that move “back and forth” across the Fuller and Bown stages as a result of shifts in teaching context (e.g., Rogan et al., 1992; Rutherford & Hall, 1990; Valli, 1993). For example, Burn, Hagger, Mutton, and Everton (2003) found that student teachers were more likely to reference context-specific factors as salient to their teaching concerns when they entered a new student teaching placement site. In addition, Smith and Sanche (1992, 1993) have found that experienced teachers may develop specific concern profiles that reflect certain unique attributes of their personal teaching contexts. In cases like Nanette’s, direct experience with certain challenges may partially explain a “regression” back to self concerns, resulting in a temporary, but necessary, return to a focus on the teacher’s lived experience (Good & Brophy, 2000) prior to integrating this experience with a student impact–focused perspective.

The findings of this study have several important implications for extensions of the Fuller and Bown (1975) teacher-concerns model. In Fuller and Bown’s framework, teacher concerns are considered perceived problems or topics that are frequently the focus of thought and action. It is likely that an individual’s focus of thought will change subtly in sophistication over an extended period rather than simply leap from one topic to another. The longitudinal findings herein support this claim since the participants appeared to develop by accumulating concerns that to some degree became increasingly sophisticated over time and even may have overlapped across more than one concern category. While shifts in the concerns that preservice teachers emphasize as they accrue experience may be typical, it is important to note that no category of concern ever will be likely to disappear altogether (e.g., Hall & Hord, 1987; Smith & Sanche, 1992, 1993) and that individuals will develop concerns at different rates (Ralph, 2004).

It also is likely that the focus of a developing music teacher’s thoughts and actions can be greatly impacted, if not defined, by the teaching context. The discrepancy in the general shift from self to task to student-impact concerns identified at the mid–student teaching point in the current study as well as findings regarding authentic-context learning in music teacher education more generally (e.g., Miksza & Austin, 2010; Paul et al., 2001) suggests that music teacher development may interact significantly with contextual change. It is likely that developing teachers have a limited amount of attentional resources that can be distributed among concern categories at any given point in time and that shifts in context interact with how these resources are distributed. For example, it may be possible for a preservice teacher to overcome issues of self-survival and to internalize or automate tasks when familiar with a particular teaching setting. This potentially could “free up” energy that then could be devoted to focusing on student-impact concerns. However, should a change in setting or context occur, a preservice teacher once again may be confronted with issues of personal adequacy and teaching techniques that demand the attention and energy they otherwise may have been able to devote to student-impact issues. As a result, the model may be conceptualized as having both progressive and recursive elements, as is the case in other developmental models (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991).

The impact of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor warrants further study, given their potential influence not only on the student teacher’s specific types of concerns but also on the student teacher’s development toward an increased focus on student impact. Furthermore, research is needed on the impact of quality and frequency of feedback from mentors on the student teacher’s focus of attention during reflections on his or her teaching. It is possible that targeted questions from either the cooperating teacher or the university supervisor could move the student teacher more quickly toward increased student-impact concerns.

In summary, the authors propose the following clarification and extensions of the Fuller and Bown (1975) developmental teacher-concerns model:

Although a shift in emphasis seems to occur generally from self to task to student-impact concerns, no concerns categories “disappear” over time.

Concerns categories seem to be overlapping.

The extent to which concerns categories overlap may shift over time.

Context, and whether a context is new or familiar, will interact with any shift in concerns due to attentional resources being devoted to one dimension or another.

The developmental trajectory is likely multidimensional:

Self concerns generally diminish with experience, although they may resurface in minor ways as comfort in a context is disturbed (i.e., change in setting).

Task concerns (a) grow initially as teachers begin to analyze what is necessary to work in the setting they are in, (b) diminish as teachers are able to automatize task-related issues that seem to them to be productive, and (c) will reappear as a primary emphasis of concern if or when a teacher has to adapt to a new context (i.e., attentional resources need to be brought to teaching tasks once again).

Student concerns (a) become the primary emphasis when enough experience is accrued to settle teacher concerns and when the tasks necessary to operate in a particular context are somewhat automated due to familiarity and mastery (or at least perceived familiarity or mastery) but (b) may diminish when attentional resources are shifted back to self or task concerns due to changes in context.

While it would be beneficial for teacher educators to be aware of and reactive to prototypical types of needs that preservice music teachers may evince at various stages of their professional development and how teaching context interacts with those needs, it is important to recognize that the sum total of music teacher development cannot be explained by perceived concerns alone. Music teacher development consists of more than shifting foci of attention and perceived concerns. For example, other models of teacher development highlight the social nature of teacher development by emphasizing the influence of multiple role identities (e.g., Pellegrino, 2010) and communities (Berg, 2010; Stanley, 2009) on an individual’s professional development. In addition, professional satisfaction can ebb and flow throughout a teacher’s career span. Although resolving particular categories of concerns may be representative of changes that take place among many teachers’ foci of thought and action, becoming an expert teacher can entail much more (Anderson-Nickel, 1997; Berliner, 1986).

The findings from this study suggest that music teacher educators could benefit from being aware of the variety of developmental profiles. While some preservice teachers may exhibit a noticeable shift during various field teaching experiences from fewer self concerns toward more student concerns, for other students, development might be indicated through an increase in the variety of concerns within a specific category. As a result, music teacher educators need to be sensitive to more subtle manifestations of student concerns. For example, Nanette’s comments about student involvement in the ensemble and music enjoyment indicated some focus on student learning, even if the quantity of comments did not suggest a clear trajectory toward more student concerns overall. Music teacher educators also could track development vis-à-vis “if” and “how” students begin to notice the mutual influence of concerns, as did Schmidt (2010) in her study of preservice teachers’ tendencies to forge continuity between field-based experiences. Finally, individual growth that reflects an expression of both strengths and areas for growth may appear simultaneously (Ralph, 2004).

Music teacher educators can use findings from this research to guide communication with field-based teachers who work directly with preservice teachers. Rather than approach developing teachers through a deficit lens (e.g., the preservice teacher is self rather than student focused), the field-based teacher might be encouraged through individualized communication or more formalized training with university faculty to accept the preservice teacher’s current focus of concerns as a starting point along a developmental trajectory (Ralph, 1993). In addition, music teacher educators can incorporate data on frequency of concerns into course content by giving additional assignments and/or readings that deal with these concerns directly. Also, assignments that contribute to the development of more sophisticated thinking (e.g., overlapping concern categories) might be included in undergraduate methods courses.

Finally, if a goal of preservice music teacher course work is to increase the quantity of student-impact concerns, field-based experiences may need to be in the same or similar placements for longer than a semester to mitigate students’ tendencies to focus on self concerns as they adjust to a new setting or context. Longer internship experiences in the same setting may allow for greater depth of exploration of complex teaching issues. Of course, the teacher educator would need to balance diversity and breadth of placement experiences with depth.

Future research on preservice music teacher concerns might be expanded to track the development of concerns through the first few years of teaching. Also, additional data gathered through survey and interviews at the beginning and end of each placement would enable researchers to determine when and how specific concerns emerge. Moreover, additional research will add to a growing body of knowledge that establishes patterns and at the same time reveals unique individual and context-dependent aspects of preservice music teacher development.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Peter Miksza is associate professor of music education at the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. His research interests include music practicing, music teacher education, and analyses of large-scale data sets.

Margaret H. Berg is associate professor of music education at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Her research interests include preservice and in-service teacher identity construction, string and orchestra pedagogy and curriculum development, and music teacher education.

References

Anderson-Nickel

J. D.

(1997). Teacher expertise among elementary music teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Phoenix.

Austin

J. R.

Miksza

(2011). Trying on teaching: Effects of a pre-collegiate music teacher recruitment program. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21, 1–14. doi:10.1177/ 1057083711401712

Bennett

B. L.

(1982). Differential effects of initial early field experience on the concerns of preservice music teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(12A), 3878.

Berg

M. H.

(2010, April). Sampling from the mentoring buffet: A case study of mentoring in a middle school wind ensemble outreach program. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Berg

M. H.

Miksza

(2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20, 39–55. doi:10.1177/1057083710363237

Berliner

D. C.

(1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13.

Borich

(2000). Effective teaching methods (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Broyles

J. W.

(1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role development of student teachers in music. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(03A), 0823.

Burn

Hagger

Mutton

Everton

(2000). Beyond concerns with self: The sophisticated thinking of beginning teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 259–278. doi:10.1080/713676889

10.

Burn

Hagger

Mutton

Everton

(2003). The complex development of student-teachers’ thinking. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 309–331. doi:10.1080/ 1354060032000097235

11.

Calderhead

Robson

(1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90053-R

12.

Campbell

M. R.

Thompson

L. K.

(2007). Perceived concerns of preservice music education teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 162–176. doi:10.1177/002242940705500206

13.

Coleman

T. R.

(1999). The music student teaching experience: Making connections. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02A), 540.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Drafall

L. E.

(1991). The use of developmental clinical supervision with student teachers in secondary choral music: Two case studies. Dissertations Abstracts International, 52(UA), 3852.

16.

Fuller

(1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. doi:10.2307/1161894

17.

Fuller

Bown

(1975). Becoming a teacher. In Ryan

(Ed.), Teacher education, Part II: The 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Ghaith

Shaaban

(1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487–496. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00009-8

19.

Good

Brophy

(2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

20.

Gore

J. M.

Zeichner

K. M.

(1991). Action research and reflective teaching in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 119–136.

21.

Hall

Hord

(1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York Press.

22.

Kagan

D. M.

(1992). Growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169. doi:10.2307/1170578

23.

LeCompte

M. D.

Schensul

J. J.

(1999). Ethnographer’s toolkit: Vol. 5. Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Lanham, MD: Altamira.

24.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1991). The reflection on the blackboard: Student teacher self-evaluation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37, 141–159.

25.

Miksza

Austin

J. R.

(2010). Eyes wide open: High school student reflections on music teaching experiences within a pre-collegiate recruitment program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 7–20.

26.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Patton

M. Q.

(2001). Qualitative research and evaluation strategies (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Paul

Teachout

Sullivan

Kelly

Bauer

Raiber

(2001). Authentic-context learning activities in instrumental music teacher education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 136–145. doi:10.2307/3345865

29.

Pellegrino

(2010). The meaning and values of music-making in the lives of string teachers: Exploring the intersections of music-making and teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

30.

Pigge

F. L.

Marso

R. N.

(1989, March). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

31.

Ralph

(1993). Sensitive, sensible practicum supervisor: A contextual application in Saskatchewan. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39, 283–296.

32.

Ralph

(2004). Interns’ and cooperating teachers’ concerns during the extended practicum. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50, 411–429.

33.

Rogan

Borich

Taylor

(1992). Validation of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Action in Teacher Education, 14(2), 43–49.

34.

Rutherford

W. L.

Hall

(1990). Concerns of teachers: Revisiting the original theory after twenty years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

35.

Schmidt

(2010). Learning from teaching experience: Dewey’s theory and preservice teachers’ learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 131–146. doi:10.1177/0022429410368723

36.

Smith

Sanche

(1992). Saskatchewan interns’ concerns at three stages of a four-month practicum. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38, 121–132.

37.

Smith

Sanche

(1993). Interns’ personally expressed concerns: A need to extend the Fuller model? Action in Teacher Education, 15, 36–41. doi:10.1080/01626620.1993.10463151

38.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Stanley

A. M.

(2009). The experiences of elementary music teachers in a collaborative teacher study group (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

40.

Teachout

D. J.

McCoy

C. L.

(2010). The effect of teacher role development training on undergraduate music education majors: A preliminary study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20, 88–104. doi:10.1177/1057083710365052

41.

Tharp

R. G.

Gallimore

(1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Valli

(1993). Reconsidering technical and reflective concepts in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 15, 35–44.

43.

Weinstein

C. S.

(1990). Prospective elementary teachers’ beliefs about teaching: Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 279–290. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(90)90019-2

44.

Yourn

B. R.

(2000). Learning to teach: Perspectives from beginning music teachers. Music Education Research, 2, 181–192. doi:10.1080/14613800050165631

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB