Elements of a Successful Professional Learning Community for Music Teachers Using Comprehensive Musicianship Through Performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which a professional learning community (PLC) of music teachers sustained growth as they sought to incorporate Comprehensive Musicianship Through Performance (CMP) in their teaching practices. Seven music teachers from a suburban school district in the upper Midwest participated in a PLC as they incorporated CMP into their bands, choirs, and orchestras over a 2-year period of data collection. Findings of this collective case study describe the process of implementing CMP, reinforce the importance of a collaborative culture, and consider the impact of emotional aspects related to teacher change and shifts in teacher knowledge as a result of participating in this learning community. Particular challenges included implementing CMP amid performance expectations of technical proficiency and shifting emphasis from solely performance to performance and understanding. While findings suggest that incorporating CMP can have a positive impact in school ensembles, moving away from established performance routines and expectations can be daunting for veteran as well as novice teachers.

Keywords

professional learning community music teacher development comprehensive musicianship PLC CMP

Background

The ultimate goal of professional development is to improve student learning; however, the roads to that destination are diverse. Professional development for educators has taken multiple forms, resulting in a complex array from which to learn and improve practice. Reform initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, Common Core State Standards, and changing teacher evaluation systems further amplify challenges of effective professional development.

Long accepted as an essential component of effective teaching, components of meaningful professional development include that which is long term, ongoing, and delivered in the context of subject matter (Conway, Hibbard, Albert, & Hourigan, 2005; Darling-Hammond, Chung Wei, Andree, & Richardson, 2009; Schmidt & Robbins, 2011). Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Kwang (2001) conducted a national survey of over 1,000 math and science teachers and identified key components of effective professional development: focus on content knowledge, opportunities for active learning, and part of a coherent program of learning, findings corroborated by Van Driel and Berry (2012). Wilson and Berne (1999) and Lieberman and Miller (2008) describe features of effective professional development: teachers working together, taking responsibility for their learning as well as that of their peers. Increasing evidence supports the importance of professional development that addresses the expressed needs of teachers and evolves from the issues they face in their daily practice (Conway, 2008; Lieberman & Mace, 2010; Richardson, 2003). Recent work in music and arts education echoes the need to consider possibilities for teacher-directed professional development (Bush, 2007; Conway, 2003; Hammel, 2007; Stanley, 2011). The notion of teachers as agents of change in directing their learning is further supported by Barrett (2006), who stated that “meaningful change is initiated from the ground up just as it is often mandated from the top down” (p. 19)

Learning in communities is an increasingly popular model of professional development, particularly in relation to teacher effectiveness and student learning (Crockett, 2002; Stanley, 2011). Since their introduction in the 1990s, professional learning communities (PLCs) were envisioned as a “place where teachers inquire together” as a means for improving practice (Hord, as cited in Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 127). Essential characteristics include: shared values, interdependence, and space to be vulnerable and to struggle without denying their individuality (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; DuFour, 2004). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) described benefits of shared learning: “Working together in communities, both new and more experienced teachers pose problems . . . and attempt to make visible much of that which is taken for granted about teaching and learning” (p. 293).

Examples of collaborative models in music education include Internet-based, curricular-based, and performance-based forms of professional development communities (Junda, 1994; Bell-Robertson, 2014). As PLC-like groups multiply, there is a need to explore ways in which their effectiveness can be enhanced, particularly with regards to the conveyance of subject matter—a key component of teacher knowledge. Stanley (2011) shared six features that may influence success or failure of professional development within music teacher learning groups: commitment to the group over time, tension between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge and which is more important, differences in teacher goals and roles, establishment of group norms, teaching assignments of group members, and support for implementation.

Emotional factors are an additional consideration in relation to teacher development. If one agrees with Hargreaves’s claim (1998) that emotions and relationships with colleagues and students are vital to the work that teachers do, it stands to reason that emotional aspects may impact professional development. Mawhinney (2008) examined the interactions and relationships of teachers in shared spaces and the ways in which these interactions provided support and reduced professional isolation; Sindberg (2011) extended this work to music education. Little is known to date about the ways music teachers face emotional issues of teaching and the impact these issues have on teacher growth.

Comprehensive Musicianship Through Performance (CMP) (Sindberg, 2012; Wisconsin Music Educators Association [WMEA], 1977) is a planning model in which music teachers select repertoire, plan outcomes, and create strategies that invite students to understand the music they are rehearsing and performing. Five components compose the framework: analysis, assessment, music selection, outcomes, and strategies (see Appendix A, available online at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). While these components are readily recognizable to those familiar with music education processes, the CMP framework is distinctive in its particular application to ensemble settings and its emphasis on nurturing “understanding performers” (Reimer, 2000). CMP forwards music teaching and learning practices that broaden the musical experience beyond technical proficiency in band, choir, and orchestra through engaging students in work that musicians do such as performing, listening, analyzing, and creating (Austin, 1998; Sindberg, 2012). Where ensemble performance expectations practices have often emphasized technical proficiency and focus on concert preparation, the CMP model provides a more comprehensive understanding of the music students perform. With its origins in best practices for teachers and its inherent flexibility, CMP invites teachers to use their particular knowledge and experience to design instruction in the ensemble setting. Despite its existence since 1977 (Sindberg, 2012), the degree to which it is incorporated in secondary ensemble settings is not fully understood (Berg & Sindberg, 2014; Sindberg, 2006).

There is a limited understanding of the importance and impact of music-centric professional learning communities within school professional development practices. The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which a PLC of music teachers sustained growth as they sought to incorporate CMP in their teaching practices. The study was guided by this central question: How does a professional learning community of music educators challenge, sustain, and ultimately improve practice? Three subquestions served to narrow the focus of the central question, specifically (1) What is the process of relationship building that unfolds as music teachers learn together? (2) In what ways does working together mitigate emotional aspects of learning to implement CMP? and (3) How does CMP as a curricular framework inform music teacher development?

Method

This was a collective instrumental case study of a group of seven music teachers from a single school district who participated in a PLC focused on CMP. Ethnographic methods, including prolonged engagement in the field and use of varied data sets (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013), also were employed as a means to understand this learning community “on its own terms” (Bresler, 1995, p. 15) and to better answer the research questions. Purposeful sampling was used to select participants on the basis of their membership on the music staff in the Lake Dylan¹ school district and interest in working together to incorporate CMP into their classrooms. Table 1 includes a description of participants, the level at which they teach, and the number of years teaching experience at the beginning of data collection.

Table 1.

Description of Participants.

Teacher	Area of specialty	Years teaching experience
Rosella	Junior high choir	3
Bridget	Junior high choir	3
Catherine	High school choir	5
Zoe	Elementary and junior high band	26
Maria	Junior high band	16
Robert	High school orchestra	14
Carl	High school band	15

Participants

Lake Dylan is a suburban community of approximately 19,000 located north of a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. Its website boasts a small-town feel, surrounded by agriculture and possessing a strong affinity for hockey. There is one public high school, two junior high schools, and eight elementary schools in the Lake Dylan School District. This particular learning community grew from a district wide initiative in which teachers participated in site-specific PLCs. It evolved from a series of band clinics I provided to some of the teachers and their positive response to those clinics. I mentioned the possibility of expanding the work we did in the clinics to include other teachers, and they proposed the idea of using CMP as the focus of their department-wide professional learning group to district administration. The teachers gained permission to form this group from a district official responsible for overseeing professional development in Lake Dylan and confirmed my participation as facilitator/researcher. They were released from teaching duties during group meeting times.

Individual group members varied in teaching experience, from 3 to 26 years. Some spent their entire teaching career in Lake Dylan; some taught in other districts before coming to Lake Dylan. Participants also taught a variety of music courses and ensembles. Each member of the learning community was familiar with CMP to differing degrees. Most were exposed to it as undergraduate music education students; Zoe attended a summer intensive workshop, and Carl became familiar with CMP during student teaching.

Situatedness of the Researcher

My role in this study was twofold: I served as primary investigator as well as the facilitator of the group. I entered the research process with a deep interest in both CMP and the working lives of teachers as well as assumptions about the value of CMP for these teachers and their students. As a teacher, I’ve worked with many teachers in professional settings such as workshops and professional presentations related to the topic of CMP; at the university level, I include a study of CMP in my methods courses. My approach to facilitating was dialogic, inviting group members to share their questions, ideas, needs, and experiences. At the same time, many of the teachers were eager to learn from my knowledge and experience related to CMP. Participants set goals at the beginning of each year, and meeting time would be dedicated to addressing those goals, but there was flexibility to address issues that emerged. Perhaps most important, I was responsive to the needs of the participants and empathetic to the struggles they faced, affirming and challenging them. Memo writing throughout data collection and analysis helped provide full disclosure of the research process, particularly in view of my experience with CMP (Glesne, 2011).

Design

I collected field notes, audio recordings of group meetings and semistructured interviews, video excerpts of classes, observations, survey, and artifacts over a two-year period. I employed multiple data sources to provide triangulation (Glesne, 2011). All recordings subsequently were transcribed for data analysis. Examples of artifacts included reflections, e-mail correspondence, and teacher-designed materials. Reflections typically were collected at the end of each meeting; occasionally, teachers would send these later if they left a meeting early. At the conclusion of the first year, I administered a survey in which participants responded to several questions related to the CMP-infused community of practice work (see Appendix B, available online at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). Responses were framed in a Likert-type scale and included in data analysis. Survey responses informed the analysis of data.

During the 2 years of data collection, the group met a total of 10 times, with each meeting lasting three hours. At the teachers’ own suggestion, I also visited each teacher’s classroom to observe a rehearsal. I interviewed each teacher once during the second year of data collection. These various and sustained interactions enabled me to establish rapport with the participants.

Data were coded using multiple methods and cycles, informed by Saldaña (2013). The cyclical collection, coding, and analytic memo writing are not intended to be linear processes; rather, they “should blur and intertwine continually from the beginning of an investigation until its end” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 51). I utilized in vivo, descriptive, and affective coding methods in analyzing data. Affective coding marks emotions experienced by participants and calls for empathy on the part of the researcher; since part of this inquiry was to examine the ways participants learn together and their frequently expressed feelings of struggle and guilt, this code was particularly significant.

Regular memo writing over the course of multiple data coding cycles assisted the process through which patterns and themes were identified. The use of multiple data sources and ongoing comparison served to triangulate the data and provide credibility. I shared transcriptions of meetings and interviews with participants, inviting them to make any revisions or clarifications in order to allow for member checking and facilitate trustworthiness. Documents were shared in a password-protected Google Drive folder, which provided transparency among participants and researcher. An external auditor reviewed excerpts of raw and coded data to confirm the emerging themes and serve as an additional verification strategy.

Findings

From the data, I identified four main themes: process of implementing CMP, a collaborative culture, emotional aspects of the work, and teacher knowledge/teacher change. I constructed a visual display of these themes as a strategy to portray their interrelatedness (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Display of themes and their interrelatedness.

Process of Learning to Incorporate CMP

The process of learning to incorporate CMP was an individual as well as a group enterprise. Maria’s description of her experience during the first year chronicles a shift in her thinking about CMP in her practice as well as the value of this music-specific professional development work:

When we first met, CMP was in theory the way a music classroom should run, but not a realistic way for a music classroom to operate. I thought it was very teacher-centered and focused a lot on my behind the scenes preparation and instructional planning. It reminded me of being a student in college. After one year, I know . . . CMP is an attainable way of instruction. I am becoming more and more comfortable with its integration into my teaching style. (Reflection, January 21, 2014)

This learning process included reviewing the CMP model and its discrete components, discussing ideas for implementation, sharing of dilemmas, and asking questions. Over time, the teachers made connections between the CMP model and their particular ensembles. As part of their work, they created teaching plans and agreed to implement one teaching plan per concert cycle. A discussion about musical analysis led Rosella to talk about her junior high classroom:

I never really thought about form before, even though I taught like that before . . . then after that, I was like, oh, this piece will be so much easier now, like to teach and for them to learn . . . I know I have 10–15 minutes to spend on this piece . . . so I have to cram as much into it as I can and you have to focus on 1–2 things . . . and breaking it down really helped me and I started looking at other pieces, and, oh my gosh, this is all of a sudden becoming much easier . . . so I’m glad that we did that. (PLC meeting, January 21, 2013)

During three of our meetings in the first year, I shared video examples of teachers implementing CMP. These video examples were helpful in illustrating the ideas we were discussing but were also somewhat confounding to participants. Carl expressed his take on those video examples and compared them with his students and their response during an activity:

Watching the models you had and how engaged they [the students in the video examples] were, I was intimidated by that because I thought there’s absolutely no chance that would happen. They [Carl’s students] were very engaged in that conversation, and that was the first one we had, so I was really pleasantly surprised by that. (PLC meeting, June 3, 2013)

Toward the end of our first year, the teachers shared brief video examples of their own CMP implementation. Their initial hesitation yielded to acceptance, and their videos served as useful examples of CMP implementation. The excerpts illustrated each teacher’s distinct process as they experimented with this approach. They also provided a level of accountability to the group.

Another example of their learning process in incorporating CMP emerged as the group discussed addressing ensemble balance (one of Carl’s outcomes) during the January 2013 meeting. I asked the teachers to think of ideas to help students achieve good ensemble balance, and everyone contributed, listing ideas such as playing a recording and “cranking up the bass” (using imbalance to illustrate balance), or metaphors such as having a balance of friends and family, flower arranging, and interior design. All of these examples would not only help Carl but could be employed by any member of the group.

Performance expectations played a role in the teachers’ ability to implement their CMP teaching plans and sometimes limited their ability to enact their teaching plans. Earlier, Catherine described feelings of frustration related to time limitations; Bridget also struggled with implementing CMP as a concert loomed near:

As I’m getting ready for our spring concert . . . pounding out notes, I found it really hard to try to pull CMP in . . . I wanted them to sing correctly at the concert. CMP just kind of fell by the wayside. (Reflection, June 3, 2013)

Bridget’s concerns echo a familiar fear that implementing CMP will compromise the performance level of her students and slowed this process. The process of incorporating CMP was slow and arduous; they became more confident in their efforts over the 2-year period.

A Collaborative Culture

It was clear from the very beginning that this was a collegial group: They had an easy manner of interacting, and humor was often present. Sharing homemade cookies and store-bought sweets deinstitutionalized the band room in which we met. Informal conversation took place intermittently, and it was evident that the teachers enjoyed their time together. Many teachers regularly expressed their appreciation of the opportunity to meet and talk about music, teaching, and students. Maria captured the intangible yet essential nature of their collegiality, saying, “I don’t know if I can really put my finger on it, they’re just nice, kind, cheerleading kinds of people who have good hearts for kids and want to encourage each other to be better” (Interview, March 5, 2014). Camaraderie, empathy, and encouragement were among the features they described in interviews, reflections, and survey responses.

It is supportive, it’s positive . . . I have always felt like everybody knows they are going through it, and they understand that this is something that everybody is going through, so they get what that feels like and in that regard, they are very supportive about what you are doing and constructive about it. (Carl, Interview, January 14, 2014)

This sentiment was echoed in a postmeeting reflection in which Carl talked about how working with his colleagues helps him achieve what he knows is “valuable and good practice but is often the first thing to get set aside when push comes to shove” (Reflection, August 20, 2014). For Carl, facing these challenges with his colleagues provided the kind of support that personifies collegiality.

During one meeting in our first year, Zoe struggled with creating an outcome to help her students form a connection to her selected piece, Down a Country Lane, by Aaron Copland (1963). As her colleagues listened to her description of the work (“peaceful,” “meditative,” “nostalgic”), they helped Zoe shape her ideas. In a post-meeting reflection, Zoe expressed positive feelings about this process while struggling with “stepping outside the box and still accomplish what I want to accomplish” (Reflection, December 14, 2012).

Having space to wrestle with new ideas and how to bring those ideas to life amid the busy walls of the classroom was invaluable for Robert:

There’s someone, when you get stuck, that can help push you out; or likewise, when they get stuck I can help push them out, or we can brainstorm ideas across the curriculum, across band, choir, orchestra. “Well, I can’t.” We have to because we’re a team and we’re supporting each other and pushing each other along. (Interview, January 14, 2014)

Reflections consistently included comments related to sharing with colleagues as a highlight of PLC meeting time. Being together, with time to talk about music, teaching, and CMP was the most important part of this work, according to group members. The opportunity to work as a music-specific PLC was monumental for Maria, who viewed this learning community as the most significant professional development of her teaching career. She commented following the group’s viewing of a video excerpt shared by Robert:

It’s the first time in 15 years of teaching that I feel like I’m actually getting some professional development that is useful for me personally. It’s the first time in 15 years that I’ve gone to see any of my colleagues do any teaching. It’s given me other opportunities to see what others do. (Interview, March 5, 2013)

Emotional Aspects of the Work

Guilt, frustration, fear, and excitement were among the emotional aspects of the work as described by teachers. They struggled with changing their practice, and this created tension with the knowledge and expertise they already possessed about teaching. They formed high expectations for how they envisioned CMP in their ensembles and expressed guilt about not “doing enough” in relation to CMP planning and implementation. Positive emotions were also present in the data; these included feelings of joy, excitement, and having fun learning and working together.

Returning to the role of learner was a source of discomfort for some of the teachers but was viewed positively by Rosella:

I think it’s good for us because it puts us back into their position as a student . . . to throw us back into something we’re not good at reminds us what it feels like to be on their side of the podium. (PLC meeting, June 3, 2013)

Rosella’s comment characterized the role reversal of teachers as students; Maria echoed this in an interview as well as a group meeting:

I remember that I confessed that I was having feelings of anxiety over just sitting down and seriously analyzing and getting deep into a piece. Feeling like I was back in college, trying to figure out all the stuff that I feel that I should know, but you have to work really hard at or think back to, or dig deep for, that I don’t have any everyday use for. (PLC meeting, November 22, 2013)

Some participants regularly shared feeling guilty that they did not do enough in relation to preparing and implementing CMP lessons or teaching plans. They also expressed feeling overwhelmed with the amount of material and flow of ideas. Data suggest that limitations of time—both in relation to planning and to incorporating new ideas in class—contributed to negative feelings such as frustration. Catherine talked about this in an interview, and it was reinforced in survey responses:

It seems the biggest thing is the time crunch. “How much time do we have between now and the next concert? Do we have enough time outside the classroom to really expand on the music and find those little nuggets to share with them and cultivate them into something useful?” (Interview, January 14, 2014)

Despite pressure to prepare for concert performances and the accompanying time constraints, survey responses indicated that some of the teachers felt they had sufficient time to plan CMP-infused rehearsals. Deviating from their training and preparation and moving to an unfamiliar approach, not knowing the outcome, created emotional challenges. Robert’s account of his emotional struggles with the work were candid and thoughtful:

I think we’ve touched on it every time we’ve met, but that’s the hardest part for me. Change is bad. New things are hard. I don’t want to do this. The reality is, if you do something and then the next time you can do something and then something else, then the next time you try it, now you’ve got three pieces you can do. Right now it seems so daunting. (Reflection, June 3, 2013)

His use of daunting to describe the work captures the overwhelmingness of weaving CMP into his orchestra rehearsals while uncertain as to the outcomes.

Occasionally, emotions were comingled—many teachers expressed mixed feelings such as being worried yet positive—worried about the enormity of the task yet hopeful about new possibilities for their students. Carl described how fear gave way to excitement as he gained experience and worked with colleagues:

I never had the courage to try to implement it in rehearsal setting as a regular thing, because I couldn’t wrap my brain around that. When this opportunity came up I got really excited because that was the thing that I had been wanting to do, but could never figure out how to do it. (Interview, January 14, 2014)

Maria described a level of resolve despite her often expressed feelings of guilt. When asked why she chose to continue after the first year, Maria admitted that struggling with the work was important to her continued learning:

Even as difficult as it is, sometimes, for me to get things done and be a good student, I think part of keeping my teaching fresh and inspiring myself is being a student. It’s hard to balance it and I fail a lot of times at it, I feel. At the same time, it still gives me reason to take risks and try new things. (Interview, March 5, 2014)

Gradually, Maria’s first impression shifted from uncertainty to confidence. In summary, myriad emotions were present in group meetings, interviews, and reflections; often emotions were comingled. While positive and negative emotions related to their learning to incorporate CMP were evident, the majority of emotions described by teachers in this learning community reflected their struggles associated with the work.

Teacher Knowledge, Teacher Change

The two-part theme of teacher knowledge and teacher change describes the duality of what the teachers know and the ways in which their experience in their learning community caused change in their work. They have their discrete personal practical knowledge; as a group, this is then stretched as they share their teaching plans, ideas, and video clips from their rehearsals.

Their distinct individual knowledge and experience formed a foundation from which they were able to expand and change their own practice. For example, each teacher was charged with selecting repertoire, a decision that relies on knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy. Carl described constructing plans with the knowledge of students and their capabilities, selecting repertoire that is technically appropriate. Rosella reported that her choral students tended to be more willing to work on vowels when singing in non-English languages; as a result, she selected Hotaru Koi (Ogura, 1987) for her women’s choir and used this as her CMP target piece in a unit of study she called “Hotaru Koi: Beyond the Notes.”

Zoe’s knowledge of repertoire and expanding understanding of CMP renewed her interest in Down a Country Lane (Copland, 1963), mentioned previously. As she recounted her process of music selection and choosing from among two pieces, she said, “I looked at it. Wow. . . . It has key changes, shifting tonal centers. I almost started to weep, it’s so Copland. You can hear the Copland” (PLC meeting, December 14, 2014). Looking at the piece anew caused a shift in her thinking. For Maria, the learning community formed a bridge between knowledge and change:

[It is] exhilarating to be in year 15 of teaching and feeling like I’m finally [laughs] figuring things out. To just be like, “Oh my gosh, it’s taken me 15 years to think of this,” or to try this, or do this. It just makes you feel like a great teacher. Sometimes it’s not always easy to feel like a great teacher. (Interview, March 5, 2014)

Catherine referred specifically to a component of the CMP model to illustrate her professional growth and change: “I really believe that identifying the three levels of outcomes now and the strategies to meet those outcomes will benefit my teaching as a whole, not just on the piece I selected.” She made a connection between the discrete points of the CMP model and how that knowledge is connected to her teaching practice in general (Catherine, Reflection, n.d.).

As our second year of meeting concluded, Bridget expressed concern as her teaching position changed, adding K−5 general music to her junior high choir assignment in the coming year. I asked her why, in spite of the increase in her workload, she continued her commitment to the CMP-infused learning community, and her response indicated a value of continued learning (particularly with her peers) and dedication to her students:

It’s really pretty simple for me. I want my students to see the music I teach them the way I see it. I want them to get excited about it instead of me putting on a cheerleading costume and making them excited about it. I also love how easy it has become to plug things into the CMP teaching plan. I find myself more engaged as well. Now that I have my K−6 teaching load I find myself taking so much time to plan for them and I lose track with my junior high students. CMP helps me to jump ahead to the next concert and start planning so my junior high students are still engaged. Lastly, I like being able to share with my colleagues and getting feedback from them. Most of them have been teaching for a lot longer and have experience with classroom management and things like that. It’s important for me to gather what information I can and take it back to my classroom. I strive to be a better teacher every day. I think if I didn’t I would have to start searching for a new job because it would get quite boring. (Reflection, November 4, 2014)

Their time together during the 2 years of data collection allowed these teachers to expand their knowledge and explore new ideas for their students. At the end of the second year, the teachers agreed to continue their PLC work. Not only was this supported by district administration; three more instrumental music teachers also joined the group. Soon they will begin their fourth year together. My role as facilitator has continued at their request.

Discussion

This study sought to examine the ways in which a PLC sustains teacher development as they employ CMP. Analysis of data provides evidence of some of the complexities of the process of implementing CMP—a process that takes time. Data further suggest that working together made a difference in sustaining their efforts while navigating emotional aspects of this work. Like students in their ensembles, the teachers’ learning was individually constructed; working as a group, however, provided support throughout the process (Berg, 2012; Stanley, 2011).

Individual reflections and comments made within the group consistently resound with a cognitive dissonance. Their acceptance of CMP as an approach for improving and bringing meaning to their practice was voiced regularly; at the same time, the teachers struggled with issues of balancing CMP and meeting performance expectations, having adequate preparation time to analyze their music and construct quality teaching plans, and having psychic energy to bring their new vision to life in their respective classrooms. Shifting from a “performance only” model in the ensemble setting raised concerns related to performance expectations and time constraints. Of the six factors of successful learning communities described by Stanley (2011), four were evident in this study: knowledge-specific (situated here in pedagogical content and personal practical knowledge), institutional support, view into the classrooms, and long-term commitment to the work. Analysis of data revealed challenges in relation to emotional aspects of the work and balancing performance expectations with CMP implementation. The evidence further points to the ways in which this kind of group helps to mitigate those challenges and sustain a shift in teacher development.

Teachers’ interactions, formal and informal, on and off topic, were important in establishing collegiality and facilitating transformation in the teachers’ practice as they infused CMP into their rehearsals (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Junda, 1994; Richardson, 2003). There was a process of relationship building that unfolded as music teachers learned together; there was space for ideas to develop and incubate, building trust that allowed for risk taking and being vulnerable (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). As the second year began, the teachers became more comfortable seeking and providing feedback from each other rather than me. They invested in helping each other reach their goals in relation to incorporating CMP in their practice, a transformation also described by Lieberman and Mace (2010). While initially hesitant to share video excerpts from their classroom, the videos became a highlight of group meetings, providing a view into each other’s classrooms that might not otherwise be possible (Junda, 1994; Sherin & Han, 2004).

Clement and Vandenberghe (2000) call for professional development that includes a balance of autonomy and collegiality. Lake Dylan participants indicated repeatedly that working together was among the most helpful activities in sustaining their efforts to include CMP into their ensembles. They selected their own repertoire but shared their study of the CMP model and ideas for implementation. Consistent with Stanley (2011), release time provided by administration supported a long-term commitment to the teachers’ professional growth. During their first two years, the teachers evolved from a group of teachers into a community like that described by Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001), in which “ideas are public property” (p. 57), expanding ideas with shared responsibility and accountability.

Sharing experiences and exploring problems during group meetings provided these teachers with space (Mawhinney, 2008) in which they could share emotions of frustration, guilt, uncertainty, and triumph as well as release tension (Sindberg, 2011). Together, they disclosed and confronted the ways emotions were woven through their work of incorporating CMP, echoing the importance of collaboration described by Lieberman and Miller (2008). Integrating new ideas challenged the members of the group emotionally—they wanted to do a good job, and they wanted their students to respond positively to these changes. The pride they took in wanting to excel as CMP teachers specifically, combined with their commitment to the work, demonstrated the emotional work of teaching described by Hargreaves (1998). He argued that effective teaching is composed of more than a series of steps or checklist, that emotions and relationships with colleagues and students are vital to the work that teachers do. The feelings of guilt expressed by Maria, for example, echo Hargreaves’s (1994) claim that “guilt is a key feature” of the emotional lives of teachers (p. 155). While not all emotional aspects were negative, those that were interrupted the teachers’ implementation of CMP.

While the Lake Dylan music teacher group was required to participate in some school-based professional development, data suggest their CMP-infused learning group was more meaningful, reinforcing the importance of subject-specific teacher development (Bush, 2007; Conway, 2003; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), including CMP (Bowles, 2003). Collaborating in a subject-specific learning community can also serve as an antidote for the unique isolation music teachers may experience (Schmidt & Robbins, 2011; Sindberg, 2014a; Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005; Stanley, 2011). While Stanley (2011) speculated that music-specific professional development might create conflicts regarding pedagogical and philosophical differences, this was not apparent among the Lake Dylan teachers. Furthermore, the extent to which differences in years of teaching experience allowed or constrained their inclusion of CMP is not reflected in the data.

Shared learning and opportunities to practice over time expanded the knowledge base of group members (Van Driel & Berry, 2012) and calls to mind the knowledge landscape described by Clandinin and Connelly (1996). Video excerpts also served as a tool for gaining an understanding of how CMP could be implemented in the ensemble setting, sharing instructional strategies much like Berg and Smith (1996), and widening the teachers’ attention to include the students (Stanley, 2011). Their new knowledge created a conundrum: The Lake Dylan teachers shared an eagerness to infuse their new understanding of CMP into all ensembles while also feeling constrained by performance expectations and a perceived lack of time. Facing tensions and struggle as a group contributed to individual and collective learning (Lieberman & Mace, 2010), echoing the interdependence described by DuFour (2004).

The Lake Dylan teachers were highly motivated to bring CMP into every aspect of their teaching and each ensemble, but this often took the form of intermittent episodes that Catherine called “small victories” (Reflection, June 3, 2013). They embraced the opportunity to learn and improve their practice in order for their students to have a richer musical experience but were impatient for their new learning to take hold. Limited knowledge of and experience with CMP slowed the work (Sindberg, 2014b) and echoed emotions of teaching often expressed by teachers (Hargreaves, 1994). These findings support those of others (e.g., Conway, 2003; Stanley, 2011): Meaningful music teacher development requires teachers to discuss and experiment with changes in practice over an extended time. This 2-year study documents that such change is indeed possible.

Implications

While it is not possible to generalize the findings of this study to all music teachers in schools, the reader is left to apply situational generalizability (Schwartz, 1996) to interpret or transfer those findings as appropriate. These participants represent seven teachers in a single district, and their experience with successful change demonstrates several possible implications. First, there is power in the shared experience. Learning in community, over time, sustained their efforts to develop knowledge and skills particularly in relation to incorporating CMP; it also provided emotional support that is important to the learning process, particularly in the pursuit of unfamiliar approaches. Further research could examine the ways in which professional learning communities of music teachers could engage over time and space. Such work could be significant in better understanding the long-term nature of teacher change.

Second, the work of these teachers in Lake Dylan suggests that incorporating musical understanding and performance is possible, but it is a process that takes time. It also reveals challenges of changing habits that are long embedded, even for veteran teachers. Veering from a traditional approach, in which emphasis is placed on performance achievements, is a slow and formidable process. Change can be inhibited by limited examples illustrating new possibilities in the large ensemble. Sharing video examples of teachers’ classrooms can provide insight into multiple ways to incorporate CMP. Research into the use of video excerpts to support in-service teacher development of music teachers is needed. Such inquiry may also improve our understanding of the role of years of teaching experience in teacher change.

Finally, teaching comprehensively—facilitating musical understanding in the ensemble and helping students connect music to their lived experience—can be impactful for students as well as teachers. The primary focus of this study was to investigate the ways in which teachers in a PLC endeavored to implement CMP into their band, choir, and orchestra. However, students and their responses to CMP-type activities were often the focus of the conversation. In one such example, I observed a rehearsal in which Bridget laid the foundation for introducing a new composition to her seventh-grade choir, as she implemented her CMP teaching plan for “How Can I Keep From Singing” (Littleton, 2000):

We are going to talk about a new piece. . . . I’m not going to tell you what it’s called. But first I would like you to answer the questions on this sheet in complete sentences. What is a complete sentence?

Tell me one activity that you love to do, something that you are passionate about, one thing that would do for a long, long time.

Has there been anything that kept you from doing what you love?

What would you do if someone told you that you couldn’t do your favorite thing?

“The room is quiet as students write their responses. When the teacher asks students to share, many hands are raised, and this is kind of surprising but mostly impressive” (Field notes, February 19, 2014). Bridget’s intention was to introduce a key idea of this particular song before singing it, and the students were fully engaged, composing and sharing their responses. Additional research could examine the students’ musical experience in ensembles where music teachers employ holistic practices such as CMP.

The CMP-Infused PLC of Lake Dylan provides an example of professional development “from the ground up” (Barrett, 2006, p. 19) that weaves content knowledge with opportunities for engaged learning. With its origins in best practices from the ensemble setting (Sindberg, 2012), the CMP model exemplifies Barrett’s (2006) call for participatory teacher development with a focus on band, choir, and orchestra. Substantive change occurs when teachers have time to process ideas and learn in community, sharing and challenging one another in order that students may benefit.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biography

Laura K. Sindberg is assistant professor of music education at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests include comprehensive musicianship, music teacher isolation, and community engagement and collaboration.

References

Austin

J. R.

(1998). Comprehensive musicianship research: Implications for addressing the national standards in music ensemble classes. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 17(1), 25–32.

Barrett

J. R.

(2006). Recasting professional development for music teachers in an era of reform. Arts Education Policy Review, 107, 19–28.

Bell-Robertson

C. G.

(2014). “Staying on our feet”: Novice music teachers’ sharing of emotions and experiences within an online community. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 431–451.

Berg

M. H.

(2012). Creating a music teacher professional learning community. Paper presented at the Colorado Music Educators Conference, Colorado Springs, CO.

Berg

M. H.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2014). Supports for and constraints on CMP-infused student teaching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 201, 61–77.

Berg

M. H.

Smith

(1996). Using videotapes to improve teaching. Music Educators Journal, 82(4), 31–37.

Bowles

(2003). The self-expressed professional development needs of music educators. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21(1), 24–28.

Bresler

(1995). Ethnography, phenomenology and action research in music education. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6, 4–17.

Bush

J. E.

(2007). Importance of various professional development opportunities and workshop topics as determined by in-service music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 83(2), 10–18.

10.

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

F. M.

(1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories; stories of teachers; school stories; stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.

11.

Clement

Vandenberghe

(2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101.

12.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

S. L.

(1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.

13.

Conway

(2003). Ongoing professional development. In Conway

(Ed.), Great beginnings for music teachers: Mentoring and supporting new teachers (pp. 151–165). Reston, VA: MENC.

14.

Conway

C. M.

(2008). Experienced music teacher perceptions of professional development throughout their careers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 178, 7–18.

15.

Conway

C. M.

Hibbard

Albert

Hourigan

(2005). Professional development for arts teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 107, 3–10.

16.

Copland

(1963). Down a country lane, arranged for concert band by Patterson. New York, NY: Boosey & Hawkes.

17.

Crockett

M. D.

(2002). Inquiry as professional development: Creating dilemmas through teachers’ work. Teaching and Teacher Education 18, 609–624.

18.

Darling-Hammond

Chung Wei

Andree

Richardson

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

19.

DuFour

(2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational leadership, 61(8), 6–11.

20.

Garet

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

Desimone

Birman

B. F.

Kwang

S. Y.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38, 915–945.

21.

Glesne

(2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

22.

Grossman

Wineburg

Woolworth

(2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. The Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.

23.

Hammel

A. M.

(2007). Professional development research in general education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17, 22–32.

24.

Hargreaves

(1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

25.

Hargreaves

(1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 835–854.

26.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(2012). Professional capital. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

27.

Junda

M. E.

(1994). A model in-service music teacher education program. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 3(2), 6–20.

28.

LeCompte

M. D.

Schensul

J. J.

(2013). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

29.

Lieberman

Mace

(2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1), 77–88.

30.

Lieberman

Miller

(2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

31.

Littleton

G. B.

(arr.). (2000). How can I keep from singing? BriLee Music (a division of Carl Fischer). New York, NY: Carl Fischer.

32.

Mawhinney

(2008). Laugh so you don’t cry: Teachers combating isolation in schools through humour and social support. Ethnography and Education, 3, 195–209.

33.

Ogura

(1987). Hotaru koi. King of Prussia, PA: Theodore Presser.

34.

Reimer

(2000). What is “performing with understanding”? In Reimer

(Ed.), Performing with understanding: The challenge of the national standards for music education (pp. 11–29). Reston, VA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education.

35.

Richardson

(2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 401–407.

36.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Schmidt

Robbins

(2011). Looking backwards to reach forward: A strategic architecture for professional development in music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112, 95–103.

38.

Schwartz

(1996). The changing nature of teacher education. In Sikula

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Macmillan.

39.

Sherin

M. G.

Han

S. Y.

(2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.

40.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2006). Comprehensive musicianship through performance (CMP) in the lived experience of students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

41.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2011). Alone all together: The conundrum of music teacher isolation and connectedness. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189, 7–23.

42.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2012). Just good teaching: Comprehensive musicianship through performance (CMP) in theory and practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield/NAfME.

43.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2014a). Perceptions and perspectives of music teachers in urban settings: isolation, conversation and collaboration. Music Education Research, 16(4), 387–403.

44.

Sindberg

L. K.

(2014b). Exploring comprehensive musicianship in the context of a professional learning community. Paper presented at the Music Research and Teacher Education National Conference of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), St. Louis, MO.

45.

Sindberg

Lipscomb

S. D.

(2005). Professional isolation and the public school music teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 166, 43–56.

46.

Stanley

A. M.

(2011). Professional development within collaborative teacher study groups: Pitfalls and promises. Arts Education Policy Review, 112, 71–78.

47.

Van Driel

J. H.

Berry

(2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28.

48.

Wilson

S. M.

Berne

(1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.

49.

Wisconsin Music Educators Association. (1977). Comprehensive musicianship through performance. Madison, WI: Author.