Attitudes of String Teachers and Performers Toward Preparation for and Teaching of Private Lessons

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine attitudes toward private lesson teaching of a cross-section of string instrument instructors (N = 1,617). The participant pool was drawn from the membership of the American String Teachers Association (ASTA). Results were similar in many ways to responses in previous studies also involving music faculty and music students. These groups indicated that they liked teaching, liked the challenges of teaching musicians, and believed preparation for teaching is important. Depending on the age of their students, they also enjoyed talking about pedagogical issues with students. Engaging the membership of organizations such as ASTA will be necessary if the profession is to find additional ways to provide educational opportunities for musicians interested in teaching.

Keywords

private lessons applied music pedagogy string education music performance

A string music program could be considered one of the signs of a healthy and comprehensive public school music program. Some of the children who participate in these programs, just like their band/choir counterparts, will continue to study music in college. As adults, many are living and working in communities all over the United States and teaching one-on-one music lessons in private homes, churches, community centers, music stores, and public schools (after the regular school day has finished for children) as a way of maintaining their connection with their art. They often do this having experienced many hours studying music one-on-one with teachers in a private lesson setting, but with very little formal preparation to teach. This often is true whether they are making part of their living as a working musician, as a public school music teacher, or in any number of other ways. But while much research in music and music education is focused on students’ music learning in school settings, a much smaller percentage has been focused on the private lesson studio. Upon accepting the first “Senior Researcher” award given by the Music Educators National Conference, Clifford Madsen (1988) identified in his acceptance speech the need to investigate “attitudes toward all issues relating to applied music study” (p. 134).

Precollegiate musicians planning to major in music often have direct connections to private lesson teaching both as students and as teachers. High school students attending auditions for music education programs at one of four college/university music schools completed a survey that included questions about people and experiences that influenced their decision to audition (Rickels et al., 2010). Sixty-six percent of the 228 respondents identified a private lesson teacher as one of the people who influenced their decision to go to college to major in music education. In addition, 43% reported that one of the related experiences in which they already had participated prior to applying for college was teaching private music lessons to other students. When asked, “What do you anticipate that you will teach after graduation?” 54% listed “private lesson teacher” as one of the possibilities (Rickels et al., 2010, p. 302). Rickels et al. (2010) wrote, “It may be that it is time to broaden the concept of music teacher education to include aspects of private lesson teaching” (p. 303). Robinson (2010) reported that public school general music teachers who came from an instrumental music background often teach private lessons on their primary instrument not only as a way to make money but also as a way of maintaining some kind of connection to that aspect of their musical past. This is likely to be the case for many who declare music as their major in college, across majors and degree programs within music, not just those who study to become certified public school music teachers (Fredrickson, 2007a).

College music performance degrees are traditionally focused on individual music lessons on the primary instrument, performance ensemble participation (large and small), and academic music (theory/history) content coursework. According to curricular recommendations from the National Association of Schools of Music (2012), students in bachelor of music performance programs should, among other things, also “develop teaching skills, particularly as related to their major area of study” (p. 102). Mills (2004) developed and refined a questionnaire she used to survey university music performance students about their intentions to teach as part of their career goals. Most indicated that they would teach, but motivation and enthusiasm for the task varied. In a study using student reflections of teaching experiences, Fredrickson (2007b) required music performance majors to keep weekly journals outlining their experiences teaching private lessons to public school students as an assignment for a pedagogy class. Journals were read and comments categorized by experienced university applied music faculty who noted frequent “teacher concerns about student motivation and practice, and a relatively low connection between teacher perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their teaching with the best and worst aspects of student learning” (Fredrickson, 2007b, p. 72). For most of these students, it was the first time they had systematically reflected on and talked with others about their teaching. Half of the students in the study were working on doctoral degrees in music performance. It is likely that all the students in the study already had spent countless hours “taking” private lessons, but the personal frustrations they reported seemed to be directly related to not understanding rudimentary cause-and-effect relationships between a teacher’s actions and what students learn.

It seems worthwhile to ask whether continuing to depend on vicarious learning, as exemplified in the common assumption that experiencing something as a student leads one to the knowledge and skill necessary to teach it to others, is the best way to develop effective teachers for the individual applied music lesson setting. Systematic observation of outstanding private lesson teachers, for the purpose of identifying commonalities in successful pedagogical approaches, has provided insights that might be incorporated into teaching. Duke and Simmons (2006) watched more than 25 hours of videotaped lessons given by three master teachers in private lesson settings. The researchers identified 19 common practices used by these teachers while working with students as “teaching-learning principles that are generally accepted by the discipline” (Duke & Simmons, 2006, p. 16). Even so, Duke and Simmons expressed doubts about the current applications of these or other principles derived from systematic inquiry in the preparation of musicians to teach. They stated that the “goals of teacher preparation must be defined by a clear picture of the very best of instructional practice. Whether our discipline has yet defined such a picture is arguable” (Duke & Simmons, 2006, p. 16). Making teachers aware of best practices and research that provide important information on topics that are critical to their pedagogical decisions should be part of the ongoing education of teachers.

Another important aspect in need of clarification relates to how experienced musicians who regularly teach private applied music lessons as a part of their livelihood feel about issues surrounding the education of those preparing to enter the profession. Villarreal (2010) surveyed private instrumental lesson instructors in a large metropolitan area (N = 101). These teachers, more than half of whom indicated that private lesson teaching was their primary source of employment, responded to questions about their beliefs related to teaching and preparation to teach. More than 65% felt that they would have benefited from more direction on private lesson teaching in their undergraduate or graduate program. A sample of applied music faculty in two higher education institutions (N = 32) responded to questions about their attitudes toward their own teaching and the possibility of the students in their studios teaching private lessons. Many indicated that students in their studios would do some teaching while in college, and almost all agreed that their students would likely do some teaching after graduation. They also indicated that they themselves did not necessarily teach as their best teacher taught them, agreed that good teaching technique was not obvious and needs to be taught, and stated that good performers were not necessarily always good teachers. They also reported that they enjoy talking about teaching with their students (Fredrickson, Gavin, & Moore, in press).

The purpose of this study was to further ongoing investigations into musicians’ attitudes toward private lesson teaching by focusing on a cross-section of string instrument instructors. This population would represent teachers with the potential to influence present and future string musicians across a wide variety of student age groups. The participant pool was drawn from the membership of the American String Teachers Association (ASTA). ASTA’s mission statement specifically references “enhancing the image and visibility of string teaching and study” as well as “advocacy for string education” (ASTA, n.d.).

Method

The questionnaire for this study was based on the instrument administered by Fredrickson et al., (in press) and originally derived from Mills (2004). Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements, using a 7-point Likert scale, by indicating their level of agreement or disagreement. Response choices ranged from 1 (agree strongly) through 4 (no opinion) to 7 (disagree strongly) to not applicable. The 28 statements used for this study (Fredrickson et al., in press) were grouped into six subgroups, categorized as follows:

Students’ roles as teachers

Teaching roles of the “best” students

Personal teaching views

Relationships between teaching and performing

Role of motivation in applied teaching

Curricular and pedagogical issues

Category 3 originally had been “the enjoyment of applied teaching” (Fredrickson et al., in press) but was changed to “personal teaching views” to avoid bias.

Following the initial 28 statements, demographic data were collected. Data collected included number of years teaching applied lessons (including the current year), instruments taught privately, current employment position, current teaching load (list of all courses taught by participants), current applied lesson teaching load (number of students), primary instrument, current degree program (for college student participants only), and degrees held by the participant (including undergraduate and graduate degrees).

The initial draft of the survey instrument was given to several experienced research and applied collegiate faculty members, high school teachers, middle school/elementary teachers, and college student members of ASTA to determine if the questionnaire directions, statements, and demographic questions could be clearly understood. They also evaluated any possible issues regarding the completion of the entire document. As a result, minor wording changes in the demographic questions were made to better fit the ASTA population before final release. When musicians join ASTA, they must self-select one membership category that best describes them (even if they spend time doing activities associated with other categories). We decided that for this study, participants would be drawn from the following membership categories: higher education faculty members (HE), high school teachers (HS), elementary/middle school teachers (EM), professional performers (PP), K–12 private studio teachers (PS), and college students (CS). The final survey instrument for the current study (available online at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental) was distributed to all participants electronically using an e-mail containing the link to the appropriate web page where the survey was hosted. Eight of the questions dealt with the potential for a teacher’s own students to be involved in teaching others, and these were administered only to participants who self-identified as higher education or high school faculty.

Results

Participants in this study (N = 1,617) were all registered members of the ASTA. At the time of this study, the total ASTA membership was 9,065. Members of ASTA who chose one of the following categories when registering were eligible to participate in the study: HE (n = 212), HS (n = 277), EM (n = 358), PP (n = 154), PS (n = 530), and CS (n = 86). Other ASTA membership subgroups included multilevel teacher, conductor, music administrator, string enthusiast, and retired member. ASTA members in those categories also were allowed to participate in the current study if they felt that one of the subgroups examined during this study constituted a majority of their income. At the time of this study, the self-selected membership for each of the subgroups was as follows: HE (n = 904), HS (n = 633), EM (n = 991), PP (n = 1,451), PS (n = 1,460), and CS (n = 1,134). This group of 6,573 members formed the total potential participant pool, so the final return rate for the survey was considered to be 25%. Individual subgroup return rates were as follows: HE (23%), HS (44%), EM (36%), PP (11%), PS (36%), and CS (8%). (Select demographic data describing respondents in detail are outlined in Table A1 in the online supplemental material, available at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental.)

Caution in the interpretation of data from all groups, and in particular PP and CS, is recommended. It should be noted that the rates reported are in reference to the total number of members of ASTA who have identified themselves as being part of the various subgroups. Thus, the rate calculated in this study is relative to the entire population under study, not a sample of the population, which of course is how most response rates are based. The important issue is whether nonrespondents differed from respondents in a way relevant to the questions being asked. Demographic information available from participant responses was compared to that available from the ASTA organization as a whole. There were no differences noted in percentages associated with either sex or primary instrument of respondents. Among the self-selected categories, response rates for HE, HS, EM, and PS groups exceed their relative percentage of membership in ASTA, while rates for CS (8% vs. 17%) and PP (11% vs. 22%) are lower than the organization percentages.

The groups within the present study with the longest teaching experience were the PP (M = 25.37) and the PS teachers (M = 24.57). The group with the least experience was the CS group (M = 5.07). Violin was the most prevalent primary instrument, with double bass the least, and all groups had members whose primary instrument was not violin, viola, cello, or double bass. All groups had members who taught instruments in the orchestral string section, and all groups had members who taught other instruments. Studio size varied, with smaller studios for those teaching primarily in public school settings and the largest maintained by those whose primary focus was private studio teaching. Forty-five percent of private studio teachers in this study maintained studios with more than 20 students. Teachers in higher education and public schools reported having a variety of teaching assignments outside the private studio in many cases, with large ensemble conducting and small ensemble coaching being prevalent.

We organized questionnaire results by the six statement subgroups outlined previously. The statements from the first two subgroup categories, “students’ roles as teachers” and “teaching roles of the best students,” were given only to HE faculty members and HS teachers. The assumption was that these teachers’ students would be the most likely to contemplate teaching as a potential career choice for their own students. Even so, we felt that there would be enough variation within each of the six membership groups that it was important to include the not applicable (n/a) option for all statements given to each group (see Table 1). This does have an impact on response rate in that each time respondents chose to mark n/a, they voluntarily were removing themselves from the pool of possible respondents for that question. As a result, the number of responses per item varied, so this should be kept in mind when weighing the results.

Table 1.

Means of Survey Statements.

Statement	HE (n = 212)	HS (n = 277)	EM (n = 358)	PP (n = 154)	PS (n = 530)	CS (n = 86)
1. Most of my students will do some private lesson teaching while in school.	2.12	5.22
2. I expect my students will teach some private lessons after they graduate.	1.54	4.26
3. If my students teach private lessons, it will be primarily for the income.	3.21	3.92
4. My students often ask questions of me about their own teaching.	2.54	4.75
5. I think that most of my students enjoy teaching beginners.	3.07	3.57
6. I think that my best students want to teach for a few years, and then perform full-time.	5.04	5.02
7. I think that my best students want to perform, but realize that they will need to teach to supplement their income.	2.93	3.37
8. I think that my best students would like to teach at a college/university.	2.99	4.28
9. I particularly like to teach students focused on a performance career.	3.68	4.15	4.28	3.29	3.82	3.56
10. I particularly enjoy talking about pedagogy with my own students.	1.59	2.74	3.11	2.79	2.80	2.50
11. I particularly enjoy teaching students who find music easy.	3.51	3.50	3.29	3.23	3.43	3.30
12. I particularly enjoy teaching beginners.	3.72	3.18	2.24	3.47	2.84	2.76
13. I enjoy seeing my students develop into better musicians.	1.06	1.09	1.09	1.10	1.07	1.05
14. I enjoy working to improve my students’ teaching.	1.41	2.32	2.33	2.39	2.20	2.38
15. I enjoy working out ways to help students understand a particular point.	1.18	1.30	1.38	1.41	1.21	1.40
16. A good performer will always be a good teacher.	6.11	6.27	6.15	6.22	6.13	6.16
17. Teaching private lessons helps me improve my own performing.	1.68	2.07	2.13	2.05	1.83	1.93
18. I often talk to my students about how teaching helps me to improve my own playing.	2.31	3.03	3.48	3.17	3.31	3.57
19. I teach my students in exactly the same way my best teacher taught me.	4.50	4.36	4.24	4.51	4.45	3.83
20. When a student gives up, I worry that my teaching was not good enough.	3.30	3.25	3.11	3.64	3.49	2.91
21. Good teaching technique is obvious; it does not require training.	6.41	6.29	6.38	6.08	6.30	5.92
22. If my students do not practice enough, I see it as my job to motivate them.	2.58	2.52	2.46	2.76	2.46	2.48
23. Private music teaching is a career that is valued by society.	4.18	4.31	4.19	4.41	3.99	4.13
24. I have a specific pedagogical framework that guides my teaching with every student.	2.80	3.35	3.06	3.75	3.00	3.38
25. My studio curriculum is completely individualized.	2.33	2.56	2.60	2.49	2.60	2.54
26. My studio curriculum is differentiated by major (performers, educators, etc.).	3.82	4.28	4.14	3.95	4.10	4.09
27. If my students want to know about teaching, I encourage them to take a pedagogy class.	2.38	3.52	3.79	3.16	2.98	2.89
28. I often use portions of my students’ lesson time to teach them pedagogical information.	2.48	3.83	3.86	3.83	3.83	3.76

Note: 1 = agree strongly, 4 = no opinion, 7 = disagree strongly or not applicable. HE = higher education faculty members; HS = high school teachers; ES = elementary/middle school teachers; PP = professional performers; PS = K–12 private studio teachers; CS = college students.

To generalize responses, we considered the ratings of 1, 2, and 3 on the Likert-type scales to represent agreement and considered the ratings of 5, 6, and 7 to represent disagreement. A rating of 4 (defined as group means of 3.01–4.99) represented no opinion. Following inspection of means and standard deviations (see Table 1 for means and Table A2 for standard deviations in the online supplemental material at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental), we analyzed the questions within each subgroup collectively using multivariate analyses of variance tests. We found significant (p < .001) multivariate effects for all six statement subgroups. Alpha levels for subsequent univariate analyses on the individual questions were adjusted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons to provide conservative tests of significance.

Students’ Roles as Teachers

There were significant differences between responses of HE faculty members and HS teachers on their opinions of the motivation of their students to teach being related to income, F(1, 425) = 17.85, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, and potential enjoyment of teaching beginners, F(1, 425) = 11.10, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. Values of mean responses (income: HE, M = 3.21, SD = 1.65; HS, M = 3.92, SD = 1.68; and beginners: HE, M = 3.07, SD = 1.45; HS, M = 3.57, SD = 1.64) indicated that there was no consistent agreement or disagreement. HE respondents agreed that their students would teach while in school (M = 2.12, SD = 1.33), while HS teachers disagreed (M = 5.22, SD = 1.78) that this would be the case, F(1, 425) = 383.60, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .47. HE respondents agreed strongly that their students would teach after graduation (M = 1.54, SD = 0.81), while HS teachers showed no consensus of opinion (M = 4.26, SD = 1.66) that this would be the case, F(1, 425) = 459.90, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .52. Respondents also differed, F(1, 425) = 162.36, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .28, regarding the idea that their students ask them questions about teaching (HE, M = 2.54, SD = 1.56; HS, M = 4.75, SD = 1.92).

Teaching Roles of the “Best” Students

HE (M = 5.04, SD = 1.62) and HS respondents (M = 5.02, SD = 1.54) both disagreed that their best students would want to teach for only a short time and then perform exclusively, F(1, 469) < 1, p > .50. They did differ (HE, M = 2.93, SD = 1.72; HS, M = 3.37, SD = 1.86) on whether they agreed slightly or had no clear opinion that students who wanted to perform would have a financial need to teach, F(1, 469) = 6.51, p = .011, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Although there were significant differences regarding whether their students would want to someday teach in higher education, F(1, 469) = 66.87, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .13, HE faculty members’ response was in agreement but very close to our designated no opinion category (M = 2.99, SD = 1.51), while the HS teachers’ responses fell into that category (M = 4.28, SD = 1.84).

Personal Teaching Views

In one of the most definitive statements in the current study, all groups agreed with the greatest certainty and showed the least group variation (HE, M = 1.06, SD = 0.24; HS, M = 1.09, SD = 0.33; EM, M = 1.09, SD = 0.34; PP, M = 1.10, SD = 0.31; PS, M = 1.07, SD = 0.30; CS, M = 1.05, SD = 0.21) that they personally enjoyed seeing their students “develop into better musicians,” F(5, 1356) = 1.22, p > .25. Responses to the idea that they “particularly enjoy teaching students who find music easy” also were highly consistent, F(5, 1356) = 1.30, p > .25, but means indicated no opinion about the statement (HE, M = 3.51, SD = 1.65; HS, M = 3.50, SD = 1.66; EM, M = 3.29, SD = 1.53; PP, M = 3.23, SD = 1.56; PS, M = 3.43, SD = 1.67; CS, M = 3.30, SD = 1.37). There were relatively small, but still statistically significant, differences in mean responses (HE, M = 1.18, SD = 0.47; HS, M = 1.30, SD = 0.59; EM, M = 1.38, SD = 0.64; PP, M = 1.41, SD = 0.74; PS, M = 1.21, SD = 0.51; CS, M = 1.40, SD = 0.64) concerning enjoyment of “working out ways to help students understand a particular point,” F(5, 1356) = 6.91, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03. Other questions in this category elicited a range of responses. For “liking to teach students focused on a performance career,” F(5, 1356) = 10.48, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, groups tended to have no strong preference of opinion (HE, M = 3.68, SD = 1.90; HS, M = 4.15, SD = 1.79; EM, M = 4.28, SD = 1.60; PP, M = 3.29, SD = 1.58; PS, M = 3.82, SD = 1.62; CS, M = 3.56, SD = 1.60). There was a good deal of variability in choosing to talk about pedagogy with their own students, F(5, 1356) = 29.73, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .10, with HE teachers being in agreement (M = 1.59, SD = 0.81) and EM having no opinion (M = 3.11, SD = 1.45), as well as enjoying instruction for beginners, F(5, 1356) = 22.54, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08, with the positions of the groups reversed (EM, M = 2.24, SD = 1.38; HS, M = 3.72, SD = 2.05. Although there was variability in the level of responses, F(5, 1356) = 16.88, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06, all groups agreed that they would enjoy helping to improve their students’ teaching (HE, M = 1.41, SD = 0.78; HS, M = 2.32, SD = 1.31; EM, M = 2.33, SD = 1.39; PP, M = 2.39, SD = 1.40; PS, M = 2.20, SD = 1.40; CS, M = 2.38, SD = 1.31).

Relationships Between Teaching and Performing

There was no significant difference between groups in their strong disagreement with the statement that “a good performer will always be a good teacher,” F(5, 1538) < 1, p > .50. While there were some minor differences between groups, F(5, 1538) = 4.96, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, all felt that “teaching private lessons helps improve my own performing.” There was a larger magnitude of difference related to talking to their own students about this, F(5, 1538) = 15.77, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05. HE faculty members agreed they did this often (M = 2.31, SD = 1.39) compared to the other groups (HS, M = 3.03, SD = 1.67; EM, M = 3.48, SD = 1.67; PP, M = 3.17, SD = 1.64; PS, M = 3.31, SD = 1.70; CS, M = 3.57, SD = 1.46).

Role of Motivation in Applied Teaching

The groups’ responses fell into the no opinion category (HE, M = 3.30, SD = 1.70; HS, M = 3.25, SD = 1.72; EM, M = 3.11, SD = 1.58; PP, M = 3.64, SD = 1.71; PS, M = 3.49, SD = 1.67) with the idea that they would be worried about the quality of their own teaching if “a student gives up,” F(5, 1553) = 4.45, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, with the CS group appearing somewhat more likely to feel this way (M = 2.91, SD = 1.39). All groups did agree (HE, M = 2.58, SD = 1.38; HS, M = 2.52, SD = 1.16; EM, M = 2.46, SD = 1.05; PP, M = 2.76, SD = 1.13; PS, M = 2.46, SD = 1.12; CS, M = 2.48, SD = 1.07) that motivating students to practice was part of the job of teaching, F(5, 1553) = 1.87, p > .09. There were minor but still significant differences, F(5, 1553) = 3.56, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, in disagreement (HE, M = 6.41, SD = 1.07; HS, M = 6.29, SD = 1.10; EM, M = 6.38, SD = 1.03; PP, M = 6.08, SD = 1.26; PS, M = 6.30, SD = 1.19; CS, M = 5.92, SD = 1.29) with the idea that “good teaching technique is obvious; it does not require training.” Differences in magnitude for “teachers teaching students as they had been taught,” F(5, 1553) = 2.59, p > .01, and for “feeling private lesson teaching is not valued by society,” F(5, 1553) = 2.38, p > .03, were small and not significant, with groups indicating no definitive opinion.

Curricular and Pedagogical Issues

There was significant variation among groups, F(5, 1009) = 4.49, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, in their level of agreement with the statement “I have a specific pedagogical framework that guides my teaching with every student” (HE, M = 2.80, SD = 1.57; HS, M = 3.35, SD = 1.67; EM, M = 3.06, SD = 1.47; PP, M = 3.75, SD = 1.69; PS, M = 3.00, SD = 1.62; CS, M = 3.38, SD = 1.38). All teachers, F(5, 1009) = 1.16, p > .30, thought of their studio curriculum as completely individualized (HE, M = 2.33, SD = 1.27; HS, M = 2.56, SD = 1.41; EM, M = 2.60, SD = 1.39; PP, M = 2.49, SD = 1.25; PS, M = 2.60, SD = 1.47; CS, M = 2.54, SD = 1.13). There also were no significant differences for teachers differentiating their studio curriculum according to major, F(5, 1009) = 0.94, p > .45, and means for all groups seem to indicate no consensus for either agreement or disagreement with this idea (HE, M = 3.82, SD = 1.97; HS, M = 4.28, SD = 1.84; EM, M = 4.14, SD = 1.81; PP, M = 3.95, SD = 1.84; PS, M = 4.10, SD = 1.73; CS, M = 4.09, SD = 1.86). The primary differences for both encouraging the study of pedagogy, F(5, 1009) =12.27, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06, and teaching students pedagogical information, F(5, 1009) =16.00, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07, resulted from the tendency of teachers in higher education settings to agree with these statements.

Discussion

The study’s participants were registered members of the ASTA, including those identifying themselves as higher education faculty members, high school teachers, elementary/middle school teachers, professional performers, K–12 private studio teachers, and college students. We assumed that all participants had taken private music lessons extensively because all respondents had, or were working on, at least a bachelor’s degree in music. Only 2% of participants (n = 40) reported that they had not taught private lessons for at least a year at some point in their career. The smallest average number of years teaching for any category of participants except CS was 17 years. It is important to note that it is likely that the CS category included both graduate and undergraduate students, although there is no way to tell from these data what the percentages of each might be. It also is important to note that members selecting the HE category could include teachers whose primary work focus was either music education methods class instruction (string music education faculty) or applied studio instruction (music performance faculty). This analysis could not take that dichotomy into account, but a more carefully differentiated snapshot of members of this subgroup might make an interesting topic for further research. We also would urge caution regarding the response rate, particularly for the PP and the CS groups. Unlike most surveys, however, response rates in the present study are based on the entire population under study (ASTA membership) and are not relative to the usual sampling of the population. We did verify that the respondents did not differ from nonrespondents in ways possibly relevant to the survey (sex, primary instrument, and most membership categories). The overall large number of participants and the fact that present results replicate earlier surveys (see discussion to follow) also serve to give credence to the reported data.

On questions related to the teaching attitudes and practices of their own students, asked only of HE and HS respondents, there was a tendency for HE faculty members to be more focused on their students’ potential to participate in teaching, which seems reasonable because their students were older and likely have a better defined career focus. HE faculty members agreed strongly that their own students would do some private lesson teaching while still in school, as well as after they graduate, while HS teachers agreed strongly that their students did not and would not for the most part. Data from high school students auditioning for music education programs (Rickels et al., 2010) indicate that many of those students already were teaching private lessons. Rickels et al.’s (2010) data did not indicate anything about the circumstances under which the high school students were teaching, but it is possible that some were doing so without the benefit of direct mentoring by either a private lesson teacher or a school music teacher. If that is the case, it may be worth working to raise awareness among teachers of high school students who actively are focused on becoming college music majors to promote active mentoring of those students’ teaching roles.

In the questions related to “personal teaching views,” two things stand out. Across groups, there is a very high level of agreement that the respondents enjoy (a) watching their students develop as musicians and (b) working out ways to help their students understand music. As in previous studies, this points to the commitment of musicians to the education of future generations of musicians. However, in spite of that commitment, the lack of agreement for most groups with the idea of enjoying the process of teaching beginners is noticeably lower. This trend is evident in other studies of this type as well (Fredrickson, 2007a; Fredrickson et al., in press; Fredrickson & Brittin, 2009; Fredrickson, Gavin, & Moore, 2012; Mills, 2004; Villarreal, 2010). Perhaps the music profession in general could more actively engage potential teachers in conversations about the very beginning of the music education process. Experiences that help future teachers understand the temperament and techniques necessary for work with younger students could help inform career choices.

It also is evident in these data that teachers in higher education were more focused on talking about teaching with their students than other groups of teachers. Because string players prior to college may be experimenting with teaching (Rickels et al., 2010), enlisting more teachers outside higher education in preparing future teachers, as well as training future musicians, may be worth further discussion within the profession. Research in teacher mentoring that uses a much broader definition of when preparation for teaching begins might include peer teaching at a variety of age/experience levels. Notable in the statements about the “relationships between teaching and performing” is the disagreement across all groups with the notion that “a good performer will always be a good teacher” and the agreement across all groups that “teaching private lessons helps me improve my own performing.” The current population may be predisposed to identifying themselves as teachers, given that they all joined an organization obviously focused on string teachers. However, there is weak to moderate agreement that these teachers often talk to their own students about how the act of teaching helps them as musicians. This raises the potential for research that examines how teachers might engage their own students as potential future teachers and how those who primarily perform (but also occasionally teach) think about these issues.

When discussing the “role of motivation in applied teaching,” these various respondent groups dismissed the idea that “good teaching technique is obvious” and seemed to agree strongly that education to teach is required. They agreed more strongly than most groups in previous studies of this type (Fredrickson, 2007a; Fredrickson et al., in press; Villareal, 2010) that it was their job to motivate students who did not practice and that they would be concerned about their own teaching not being good enough if their students were to “give up.” They disagreed that they would teach exactly as their “best teacher” had taught them; however, they also disagreed with the idea that being a private music lesson teacher was something that was valued in society. Further research into why musicians respond this way could be enlightening. It may be that the education and certification of private lesson teachers would be worth discussion in more detail by professional organizations, especially if these could raise both the quality and reputation of the profession in the eyes of the general public. Some professional music organizations, such as the Music Teachers National Association (n.d.), have begun to engage actively in these discussions, while we have observed more informal conversations pertaining to these ideas in meetings of groups as diverse as ASTA and the National Association of Schools of Music.

At this point in the discussion, it is appropriate to note the possibility that there are many interpretations of the word best when connected to thoughts about “best teacher” or “best student” by respondents. The word best is a term that appeared in the original questionnaire by Mills (2004). In previous studies that have used versions of the instrument, the use of “best students” and “best teacher” has been consistent. This term was not defined specifically within this questionnaire (or earlier versions), so we assumed it to be likely that each respondent applied his or her own definition of the students or teachers they considered to be their best as they responded to these statements.

All of the subgroups agreed to some extent with statements about having pedagogical frameworks for teaching and individualizing curriculum for students. Responses were ambivalent toward the idea of differentiating curriculum according to students’ long-term goals (performer versus educator), which may indicate that these teachers were willing to think of any student as a possible future musician and any musician as a potential future teacher. All groups did indicate at least a low level of agreement with the notion of recommending the study of pedagogy and the likelihood that they might spend time in lessons sharing pedagogical information.

When comparing the responses in the current sample to populations in other studies that utilized the same methodology, there are many more similarities than differences. Fredrickson et al. (2012) surveyed a population of higher education teachers that were members of the National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors (N = 72), and responses compare favorably to the present population of higher education string teachers. Trends, either toward agreement or disagreement with statements, were all in the same direction. The primary comparison is with strength of mean agreement or disagreement; no differences were larger than 1.3 points on the 7-point scale, with the majority being less than one third of a point different.

Fredrickson (2007a) surveyed college music majors (N = 486) across degree programs (performance, education, etc.), instrument/voice groupings (winds, strings, percussion, keyboard, voice), and degree levels (bachelors, masters, doctoral). Responses by college students, in both Fredrickson’s (2007a) research and the current study, were similar to responses by higher education teaching groups in the present study and in the Fredrickson et al. (2012) study, particularly on statements such as “A good performer will always be a good teacher” and “Good teaching technique is obvious; it does not require training.” In the current study, all groups disagreed strongly with both of these statements, making it clear that there was awareness of the complexity of becoming good at teaching.

Fredrickson’s (2007a) results indicated that college students did not agree that if their students did not practice, it meant that they, the teachers, were responsible (M = 5.03). In the present study, however, college students agreed (M = 2.48) that if their students did “not practice enough,” it was their job to motivate the student. In response to the statement “When a student gives up I worry that my teaching is not good enough,” college students in the previous study (Fredrickson, 2007a) neither agreed nor disagreed (M = 3.77), while those in the present study agreed to some extent (M = 2.91). However, these differences could well be related to sampling. For example, the college students in the present study could be considered more focused on their profession as evidenced by membership in a national professional organization and voluntary participation in the study, or there could have been different proportions of undergraduate and graduate students participating.

As Schmidt (2010) suggested recently, learning by doing is an important component of music teacher education, especially when done in conjunction with observation, reflection, and feedback. Spending time teaching students in a controlled environment, being observed, and then being given feedback by an expert is common practice for students in teacher education programs. While music education spreads these activities over a series of courses and experiences in the degree program, it could be a logistical challenge to condense similar experiences into the single pedagogy course typical of performance degree plans. Researchers who systematically examine syllabi from pedagogy classes found in bachelor of music performance degrees might provide insight into various solutions to these challenges and begin to build a body of best practices. Duke and Simmons’s (2006) examples of elements common to lessons of some “great” teachers created a model for observing good teaching in the private studio. Case studies of successful private studios, documenting good teaching with students of various ability levels, could add more important examples to the literature.

The data from the present study, considered together with the previous studies in this area, indicate that musicians who teach private lessons agree that learning to teach should be part of the musicians’ educational process. The ASTA is only one example of professional groups that have an interest in music teachers and their education. The College Music Society, the Music Teachers National Association, the National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors, the National Association of Teachers of Singing, and a variety of other organizations focused on specific instruments have begun to engage with organizations focused on music teacher education (National Association for Music Education) and college music program accreditation (National Association of Schools of Music). This will be necessary if the profession is to determine how to find ways to provide more educational opportunities for musicians interested in teaching. Curricula for music majors in higher education are already highly structured and regulated by various agencies and also are subject to a variety of local limitations. Finding local music school or department solutions to musicians’ desire to know more about good teaching will require creativity, flexibility, and a willingness to explore a variety of options that will not strain the limited economic and human resources of these institutions.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This project is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague Dr. Michael Allen.

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

William E. Fredrickson is Professor of Music at the Florida State University College of Music. His research interests include music teacher preparation, music perception, and affective response to music.

John M. Geringer is Lewis V. Pankaskie Professor of Music and director of the Center for Music Research at the Florida State University College of Music. His research interests are in music perception and cognition, particularly in relation to acoustical changes within musical contexts.

David A. Pope is Director of Orchestras at Manatee High School in Bradenton, Florida. His research interests include the evaluation of orchestral ensembles and string pedagogy.

References

American String Teachers Association. (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved from http://www.astaweb.com/Public/About/Our_Mission/Public/About_ASTA/Our_Mission.aspx?hkey=af1d1724-d08e-452d-ad47-62b86f68f652

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

(2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 7–19. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319345

Fredrickson

W. E.

(2007a). Music majors’ attitudes toward private lesson teaching after graduation: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 326–343. doi:10.1177/0022429408317514

Fredrickson

W. E.

(2007b). Perceptions of college-level music performance majors teaching applied music lessons to young students. International Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 72–81. doi:10.1177/0255761407074893

Fredrickson

W. E.

Brittin

R. V.

(2009). Undergraduate music performance majors’ attitudes toward private lesson teaching after graduation: A replication. Southern Music Education Journal, 4(1), 14–29.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Gavin

Moore

(2012). Attitudes of members of the National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors toward their own and their students’ teaching of applied music lessons. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21(2), 41–53. doi:10.1177/1057083711411715

Fredrickson

W. E.

Gavin

Moore

(in press). Attitudes of select music performance faculty toward students teaching private lessons after graduation: A pilot study. International Journal of Music Education.

Madsen

C. K.

(1988). Senior Researcher Award acceptance address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 133–139. doi:10.2307/3344635

Mills

(2004). Conservatoire students as instrumental teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 145–153. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319248

10.

Music Teachers National Association. (n.d.). MTNA certification. Retrieved from http://www.mtnacertification.org/

11.

National Association of Schools of Music. (2012). Handbook 2011–2012. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved at http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/NASM_HANDBOOK_2011-12.pdf

12.

Rickels

D. A.

Councill

K. H.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Hairston

Porter

A. M.

Schmidt

(2010). Influences on career choice among music education audition candidates: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 292–307. doi:10.1177/0022429409350779

13.

Robinson

(2010). From the band room to the general music classroom: Why instrumentalists choose to teach general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 33–48. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41110364

14.

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

15.

Villarreal

E. K.

(2010). Private lesson teachers’ attitudes towards private teaching and pre-service education: a replication and extension (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

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

0.11 MB