A Grounded Theory of Preservice Music Educators’ Lesson Planning Processes Within Field Experience Methods Courses

Abstract

The purpose of this grounded theory study was to understand the process of field experience lesson planning for preservice music educators enrolled in choral, general, and instrumental music education courses within three university contexts. Data sources included multiple interviews, written responses, and field texts from 42 participants. Four waves of data collection and analysis revealed a five-step process beginning with “learning the tasks of teaching” and “experiencing an authentic teaching context.” Participants articulated the central phenomenon as “embracing teaching as an interaction,” which led to “teaching more effectively” and “learning about teaching with my style.” The findings reflect that participants developed a situated understanding of how thoughtful preparation is connected to effective teaching. An implication for this study is that preservice teachers should be consistently immersed in authentic context learning environments during undergraduate education.

Keywords

lesson planning grounded theory teacher education

Lesson planning is a complex and expected task of teaching (Mutton, Hagger, & Burn, 2011; Strangis, Pringle, & Knopf, 2006). As evidenced by its presence in teacher evaluation frameworks (e.g., Danielson, 2013) and teaching standards (e.g., Interstate Teacher and Assessment Support Consortium, 2011), stakeholders within the teaching profession value the ability to plan for instruction. Teacher educators, therefore, strive to cultivate preservice teachers’ lesson planning skills in their programs. In music education contexts specifically, lesson planning often is associated with effective teaching (Lane & Talbert, 2015; Madsen, Standley, & Cassidy, 1989) and may develop appropriate rehearsal pacing and the refinement of an appropriate teacher talk–to–student performance ratio (Lane, 2010). Despite these positive outcomes, preservice teachers hold mixed views on the importance of planning (Schmidt, 2005).

Initially, preservice teachers may view lesson planning as unimportant (Butler, 2001; Chaffin, 2009), confusing (Yourn, 2000), and unnecessary (Schmidt, 2005). Schmidt (2005) noted that opportunities to see models of planning in action are relatively rare and may lead to beliefs of planning as busywork, “as a chore, necessary for class and maybe for student teachers, but not part of the practice of teachers in the real world” (Harwood & Wiggins, 2001, as cited in Schmidt, 2005, p. 8). If opportunities arose for students to see planning in action, then differences between experienced teachers and inexperienced teachers (e.g., such as amount of detail, formal versus informal, and short term versus long term; John, 2006; Mutton et al., 2011; Strangis et al., 2006) may add to the disconnect between what preservice teachers are asked to do in course work and what they observe in the work of mentor teachers. As Mutton et al. (2011) noted, the brief notes or outlines used in the documents of experienced teachers “belie the amount of accumulated professional knowledge and understanding that has gone into preparation of that lesson” (p. 412), leading to confusion for novice teachers.

Preservice teacher conceptions of what it is to be a teacher also may influence their beliefs of lesson planning. Preconceived notions about teaching often are constructed during students’ “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975); these impressions may enhance or hinder students’ perceptions about the value of teachers’ planning processes. The participants in Harwood and Wiggins’s (2001) work shared visual images of teachers as performers with children as their audience; the lack of interaction or responsiveness implied in this metaphor might be connected to impressions of planning as unrelated to the interactive process of teaching. Creating lesson plans as assignments in course work without the intention of actually teaching the plan also may heighten the perception of planning as unrelated to genuine teaching interaction. However, when given opportunities to implement a planned sequence, such as in an authentic context learning experience, preservice teachers may come to view lesson planning as a worthwhile professional endeavor because they see their plans come to life (Haston & Russell, 2012; Jones & Vesiland, 1996).

In addition to examining the views preservice teachers have of lesson planning, music education researchers identified trends in the initial lesson plans of novice teachers. Novice teachers used vague language (Lane, 2006; Lane & Talbert, 2015; Schmidt, 2005), text that lacked efficiency (Lane & Talbert, 2015), and randomness in selected strategies and sequence (Lane, 2006). Students seemed more concerned with creating “correct” plans than the learning outcomes that result from executing the plan (Yourn, 2000). Preservice teachers also connected success with adhering to their detailed plan and failure with disruptions to their planned sequence (Robbins, 1999). Lane and Talbert (2015) investigated lesson plan intent and execution in preservice teacher practice as it related to pacing in peer-teaching episodes and found that preservice teachers reduced teacher talk significantly. The researchers also stated that lesson plan skills developed through the opportunity to teach multiple times. However, Lane and Talbert’s results were confined to the peer-teaching context of the study; they recommended that researchers should investigate “the nature of transfer of lesson planning skills from controlled environments to authentic environments of music instruction” and identify ways teacher educators can come to understand better how preservice teachers’ lesson planning processes “can be informed, developed, and transformed across experiences during teacher preparation” (Lane & Talbert, 2015, p. 94). An investigation of holistic lesson planning processes (i.e., preconceptions of planning, declaration of intent in written plans, execution of the plan in context, reflection, and so forth) in connection with authentic context learning experiences has yet to take place in music education research.

Genuine teaching experience is rated consistently as the most important component of music teacher education programs (Bauer & Berg, 2001; Schmidt, 2013; Teachout, 1997). Researchers, therefore, have explored the effects of teaching experience (e.g., peer teaching, field experiences) connected to methods courses within a music education program. Although preservice teachers have found peer teaching to be beneficial to their development (Butler, 2001; Paul, 1998; Powell, 2011), teaching experience in schools within field placements appears to hold greater weight as undergraduates are able to learn about the capabilities of children and their reactions to planned teaching strategies (Schmidt, 2013). Teaching in actual school contexts, known in the literature as authentic context learning (see Haston & Russell, 2012; Paul et al., 2001), also may encourage “thoughtful connections among their own prior experiences as students and their experiences as both students and teachers in their university methods courses and field experience” (Schmidt, 2005, p. 24).

Authentic context learning provides opportunities for construction of general pedagogical knowledge and occupational identity development as they relate to the development of lesson planning skills. Writing and preparing plans in a PreK–12 school setting may help preservice teachers develop a greater facility at preparing lesson plans (Haston & Russell, 2012), may contribute to preservice teachers’ self-report of “feeling like a teacher” (Abrahams, 2009), and may influence teacher identity development (Haston & Russell, 2012). In addition, authentic context learning experiences could provide the “hands-on experience” that early-career teachers desired in preparation programs (Legette, 2013). Developing expertise in any skill necessitates repetitive, deliberate practice (Levitin, 2006; Macnamara, Hambrick, & Oswald, 2014), and lesson planning in an authentic context learning experience could provide requisite practice needed to develop comfort and fluency in planning and teaching lessons.

In contrast to the benefits of authentic context learning, Schön (1987) argued, “A practicum may fail because its striving for realism overloads students with practical constraints or because . . . it leaves out too many important features of real-world practice” (p. 170). Moreover, authentic context learning through field experiences may not automatically lead to enhanced outcomes in teacher preparation. Wolfgang (1990) echoed Dewey (1904), who cautioned that early authentic teaching experiences without careful structure and reflection may lead to simple imitation and preservice teachers who “seem to know how to teach, but they are not students of teaching” (p. 15). Given these possible downsides of authentic teaching experiences within the teacher education, it is important to examine carefully the experiences and thoughts of preservice teachers engaged in these teaching interactions, including the processes of lesson planning.

The purpose of this grounded theory study was to understand the processes of field experience lesson planning for preservice music educators enrolled in choral, general, and instrumental music education courses within three university contexts. We explored the following areas to develop our grounded theory: (a) how participants described the process of lesson planning for field experience placements within choral, general, and instrumental music education courses; (b) what actions/interactions participants articulated as they planned for their field experience placements; (c) what intervening conditions participants described throughout the study; and (d) what consequences resulted from participants’ lesson planning processes within a field experience placement. Using grounded theory methodology, our goal was to develop a theoretical model to assist educators and researchers in understanding students’ perceptions of engaging with specific tasks of teaching.

Method

Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed grounded theory as a systematic method of discovering theory from data. Grounded theorists focus on explaining processes by moving from descriptive to conceptual understandings. Description is woven throughout the grounded theory process; in the initial stages, it helps to establish conceptual understandings (categories), and later it fills in detail of the theoretical structure, providing connections between categories and the central phenomenon. Grounded theory procedures are designed to “provide the grounding, build the density, and develop the sensitivity and integration needed to generate a rich, tightly woven, explanatory theory that closely approximates the reality it represents” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 57).

In this study, we used the early explanation of grounded theory by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and the later refinement of the grounded theory method by Corbin and Strauss (2008, 2015) to collect, analyze, and generate theory systematically regarding preservice teachers’ lesson planning development. In grounded theory, researchers use the constant comparison technique by analyzing data as they are gathered and then base their subsequent data collection on evolving analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Researchers begin by using open coding to break down the data and analyze similarities and differences, after which they develop categories. Categories include several properties, or characteristics of each category, that are dimensionalized on a continuum (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Properties and dimensions not only assist theory generation; they also explain the variation of participant experience.

Researchers use axial coding to relate the categories to one another (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). They identify actions/interactions that contribute to the central phenomenon or main theme of the study, intervening conditions that challenge individuals’ progress, a central phenomenon or main theme of the study, and consequences that result from the process. Contextual conditions surround the process. Researchers then develop propositional statements proposing relationships among categories and a visual depiction of the process or temporal matrix (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The resultant theoretical model includes a visual depiction of a process and propositional statements (Creswell, 2014).

Participants and Context

As an approach focused on discovering a process, researchers may use a variety of participant sampling methods to generate theory (Creswell, 2014). We used purposive maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2015) to investigate the process of lesson planning for preservice music teachers across several contexts and theoretical sampling to “follow up on analytic leads derived from the analysis” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 139). We solicited participant perspectives that aided substantively with theoretical development (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

We sought a purposive maximum variation sample of participants who (a) were engaged in field experiences within different methods contexts at different universities and (b) represented a variety of stages within the degree programs (e.g., for some, this was their last course prior to student teaching and, for others, their first upper-level methods course; for participant data, see Appendix A in the online version of the article). To achieve constant comparisons, we located participants enrolling in methods courses in the same semester. Our sample was also opportunistic as we, the researchers, were the participants’ instructors (Patton, 2015).

To build theoretical density and broad explanation of a process, Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) specified engaging more than 20 participants. Forty-two music education majors consented to participate in this study based on their enrollment in general (14), choral (6), or instrumental (22) music methods courses at three universities in the United States. The general music methods course was situated within a large (37,000 students) public university in the Northeast; the choral music methods course was situated within a conservatory environment as part of a private, midsize university (7,000 students) also in the Northeast; and the instrumental music methods course was situated within a large (36,000 students), public university in the Southwest. All students were presented the choice to participate during the first week of the semester and were given consent forms. Participants returned consent forms in sealed envelopes to teaching assistants, who held them until the end of the semester. After grades were entered, teaching assistants handed the envelopes to us, and we opened them. It is important to note that although participants knew we were not informed of their participation until the end of the semester, their knowledge of participating in the study may have influenced the data collection. Additionally, we strove to remain sensitive to our dual role as researchers and instructors—meeting weekly on synchronous Internet conferences helped us unpack our subjectivity (Hatch, 2002), including our context-specific experiences, and look across one another’s contexts. Within our contexts, we felt our dual role as researchers and instructors was an advantage as it kept us close to the data, allowing us to capture class discussions through field notes and memos as participants made progress.

Each participant engaged in similar experiences within the method courses, including field experiences that were held in the same setting throughout the semester. For example, the choral and instrumental methods classes taught within their same respective high school classroom, and the general music classes taught in PreK–5 general music settings (see Appendix A in the online version of the article for field experience details). Field experiences included observation of peers and the instructor of the PreK–12 class, multiple teaching opportunities with the full class (at least four lesson plans and teaching episodes), and peer planning in groups in both choral and general music classes.

Data Collection

Grounded theorists rely on constant comparisons to refine and build theory (Creswell, 2014). As such, we conducted four waves of data collection and analysis from January to December 2015. All data were collected as part of participants’ course requirements. During the first wave, we collected and analyzed initial individual interviews to gather participant experiences and thoughts about lesson planning. The first data analysis framed the second wave of collection, in which we gathered and analyzed several sets of observation reports, preplanning prompts, and post-teaching reflections. As data were analyzed, we altered future question prompts, focusing on participants’ evolving lesson planning processes. At the end of the spring semester, during the third wave of data collection, we conducted and analyzed individual interviews with each participant. After grades were entered and participants consent forms were opened, data were discarded from two students who chose not to participate.

The fourth wave of data included a thorough review process and verification of the theoretical model, including temporal matrix and propositional statements, with theoretically sampled participants in the initial data collection. We invited nine participants to an additional interview whose initial data set was significant to theory generation. We asked participants to review the model and to provide feedback on findings. Additionally, to aid verification, we used the theoretical model as class discussion prompts for 30 students enrolled in the following semester’s instrumental, choral, and general music courses in the same universities. The goal of providing the model to additional students was to seek feedback on the findings. Students completed one in-class assignment, including a small-group discussion and one individual writing exercise analyzing the temporal matrix and propositional statements.

Data Analysis

In the first two waves of data, we coded line by line while also analyzing chunks of data, asking, “What is the main idea of this section, or these sections?” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To come to agreement in our analysis, we began by coding data from other sites (e.g., Elizabeth coded initial interviews from the methods course within Vanessa’s institution). We uploaded individual code lists and coded documents and discussed them via weekly meetings on Internet conferences. We repeated this process during the second wave of data collection as new data sources and findings emerged. Employing constant comparisons, we compared codes with codes and data from one set of participants to another, which allowed us to think abstractly and analytically and helped to move from description to abstraction (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

As the second data wave was completed, we came to greater agreement and began to group and label concepts, called categorizing (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 65). We moved the data into a collaborative, cloud-based data storage and analysis space. There, we developed emergent categories and at times continued with them; at other times we went back to open coding to more accurately ground the data. In the third wave, we were able to solidify the categories, identify dimensionalized examples of participants’ experiences on a continuum (see Table 1 for categories with dimensionalized properties), and begin axial coding to assist in relating the categories to one another (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Working toward density in the properties of each category and variation in dimensions and category specificity, we identified (a) actions/interactions that lead to the central phenomenon, (b) intervening conditions or challenges that act as barriers to reaching the central phenomenon, (c) the central phenomenon, (d) consequences that represent outcomes or anticipated outcomes, and (e) contextual conditions that surround and influence participant experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Table 1.

Lesson Planning Emergent Categories, Properties, and Dimensionalized Examples.

Phenomena	Category	Properties	Dimensionalized Examples
Actions-interactions	Learning the tasks of teaching	Acting like a teacher	Seeing myself in the cooperating teacher	Using my own self-experience
		Planning based on observations	Planning strategies to musical problems	Planning based on student engagement
		Using musical strategies	Overwhelming to tackle multiple technical issues	Addressing multiple meanings within the song text
		Writing in detail	Jotting an activity list	Scripting every word
		Crafting elements of the plan	Formulating objectives	Creating assessments
		Using standards	Glancing for confirmation	Studying for precise fit
		Focusing on lesson plans	Required for administrators	Important to teaching effectively
		Preparing to teach	Knowing what I am going to do	Considering how students benefit from my preparedness
	Experiencing an authentic teaching context	Identifying what is age appropriate	Lacking confidence with younger or older students	Understanding this age well
		Working with students with special needs	Working in inclusion setting without assistance	Adjusting my teaching with understanding of specific students
		Responding and connecting with students	Maintaining consistent eye contact	Gaining trust through relationship-building
		Focusing on communication and clarity	Discouraging when I can’t find the words to express myself	Planning has helped me communicate better
		Tackling classroom management	Getting students to work together is a challenge	Putting classroom management into my plan helps
Intervening conditions	Limitations of planning	Lacking flexibility	Planning too far ahead	Boxing myself into a set sequence and scope
		Writing challenges	Time-consuming	Group versus solo plan writing
		Acting as barriers between teachers and students	Falling into a traditional didactic relationship between teacher and student	Feeling unprepared to change in the moment
		Differing approaches highlight incongruency in teacher education	Never completed this type of lesson planning before	Confused by multiple ways that I have been taught to plan
	Challenging logistics	Planning and teaching in a group	Collaborative work is supportive	Group members not showing up
		Lacking knowledge about students	Struggling to determine objectives	Looking forward to being with same group for several weeks
		Planning versus reality	Students were testing and their behavior showed it	Students were on a field trip and I couldn’t teach
		Disrupting schedules	Teaching and planning consistently	Changing at a moment’s notice
		Connecting lessons to one another	Seeing value in transferring concepts from one lesson to another	Narrowing concepts helps focus student understanding
	Getting in my own way	Stress and overwhelm	Excitement	Immobility
		Experiencing unsuccessful planning	Rewriting, rethinking, and redoing	Taking time to practice and refine
		Expressing what’s in my head	Fighting to put my ideas into words	Mapping out my goal was more difficult than anticipated
		Generating ideas	Coming up with ideas	Containing my ideas
		Feeling fearful and intimidated	Fearing the process-lesson planning is new	Creating airtight plans that do not allow for student input
Central phenomenon	Embracing teaching as an interaction	Making in-flight decisions	In flow	Feeling stuck
		Being responsive	Having and being ready to use Plans B, C, D, E, F, and G	Muscling through the plan as written
		Focusing on student progress	Student enjoyment	Student ownership
		Building on concepts	Breaking concept into components	Putting parts back into the whole
		Thinking like a _____ grader	Thinking about how students might react	Putting myself in my students’ shoes
		Planning as metaphor	“A backbone”	“A juggling act”
		Planning as metaphor	“An anchor”	“Improvisation”
Consequences	Teaching more effectively	Tightening pacing and timing	Estimating and reducing my talking time	Keeping lessons moving quickly and engaging
		Engaging in reflection	Reviewing my teaching	Reflecting on the purpose of smaller and larger interactions
		Processing short- and long-term goals	Wanting to teaching more effectively	Desiring automaticity
		Better sequencing and greater organization	Knowing precisely where I’m going	Being satisfied with a general idea
	Learning about teaching with my style	Clarifying my purpose	Liking teaching	Elucidating career path
		Experiencing confidence	Feeling unsure of my abilities in front of a class	Finding joy and experiencing less anxiety
		More tools and techniques	Needing less detail	Writing as a follow up to teaching
Contextual conditions	Teaching context in methods course	General music	Encompassing larger musical concepts with all students	Teaching with stepwise sequences and exacting procedures
		Choral music	Planning as a guide with fewer procedures	Connecting warm ups and technical work with repertoire
		Instrumental music	Lack of lesson planning models because the plan is “in their head”	Diagnosing problems and fixing trouble spots
	Past teaching experiences	Community/school employment	Observing teachers write activity lists on the board	Intensive one-on-one internship with mentor
		Course work completed	Engaging in first field experience and planning	Experiencing multiple field experiences and teachers with diverse planning methods

In the fourth data wave, we utilized theoretical sampling to affirm that categories reached “saturation” with select participants from the study. Although saturation often is described as the process of redundancy, or when no new categories are emerging, it also is explained as theoretical and conceptual density and development (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). As further verification, we engaged in discussion with new students enrolled in methods courses to check the model. We sought feedback on the findings of the study, which further clarified participants’ processes of lesson planning development.

We used the following grounded theory tools throughout the data waves and analysis. First, we composed and revised memos and diagrams to help conceptual development of the data. Second, as categories emerged, we recoded the data using the emerging categories, termed theoretical coding, which helped verify and build theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Third, during the second semester of the research study, we used theoretical sampling, following up on leads based on participants’ experiences. Fourth, we strove to heighten our own theoretical sensitivity and came to agreement with our data analysis by working as a team for 10 months, meeting weekly, asking questions, probing further into data analysis procedures and findings, and exploring literature and methodological choices.

Findings

Our grounded theory analysis of preservice music educators’ lesson planning processes revealed a five-step process (see Figure 1 for a temporal matrix). Participants’ lesson planning processes began by learning the tasks of teaching within and outside of methods courses and by experiencing an authentic teaching context through their field experience placements. As participants negotiated actions and interactions, intervening conditions—including planning limitations, challenging logistics, and “getting in my own way”—emerged as barriers toward progress (see Table 1 for categories with dimensionalized properties). The central phenomenon was identified as “embracing teaching as an interaction” and led to consequences including “teaching more effectively” and “learning about teaching with my style.”

Figure 1.

Temporal matrix of preservice music educators’ lesson planning processes.

Contextual conditions influenced participants’ lesson planning processes substantively.¹ These conditions were participants’ perceptions of methods course teaching contexts (i.e., general, choral, and instrumental music) and their past teaching experiences (e.g., minimal field experience, intensive internships in music education settings). Differences in experience connected to student status in the undergraduate program. For some participants, the semester of data collection was their first course with an integrated field experience; for others, it was their final course before student teaching, and they had engaged previously in courses with field experiences. Advanced status in the preservice program did not equate to advanced understanding of lesson planning, however. Participants perceived lesson planning modeling, strategies, and templates provided by professors in previous courses in positive and negative ways. For example, using a prescribed activity or sequence was a confining strategy.

Participant notions about different music teaching contexts also seemed to influence their approach to planning. In general music settings, participants described the need to plan in great detail in order to effectively sequence instruction employing a variety of relevant and engaging activities. In instrumental music settings, participants articulated a lack of lesson plan models and discussed common approaches in the field, such as identifying and planning potential solutions for anticipated problems in the repertoire and ensemble. For choral music participants, they saw their goal as addressing skills needed in the repertoire through their warm-up sequence. Regardless of methods course, participants criticized decontextualized lesson plan writing. Thomas indicated that lesson planning alone was like “writing a movie review without seeing the movie.”²

Actions/interactions included the initial processes that participants articulated coming into their methods courses and field experiences and their experiences teaching in authentic context settings (see Table 1 for categories, properties, and dimensionalized examples). Participants’ initial views of lesson planning were built from past models of their cooperating teachers and professors, previous standardized categories of what to include in a plan (e.g., objectives, standards), and observations of plans in action at their field placement. Their perceptions of lesson planning were wide ranging, from a plan as required by an administrator to a task necessary to teach effectively. As participants entered and reentered their field experience placement, the process of lesson planning began to take on more definite purpose and shape. Their focus became learning about the students, what materials they should use, and expectations for the age of students. Participants also focused on how they might communicate effectively and manage the class efficiently. Rachel, in her final interview, said,

The lesson on the piece of paper is one thing but the lesson plan being used in the classroom is something else. It is how we take the lesson plan and bring it to life and how the students respond to it. It could be different, if they are responding well, if they are responding not so well, to change what they are doing.

Intervening conditions interrupted participants’ lesson planning development. They articulated the limitations of lesson planning, such as how following a lesson plan too closely (i.e., focusing on delivering content) resulted in a lack of connection with student needs. Other teacher and music education instructors expected different methods and approaches of lesson planning, which participants found difficult to reconcile. Selected participants experienced several site disruptions based on weather and school schedules, which impeded participants’ perceptions of familiarizing and connecting with the students. Finally, participants articulated personal challenges, such as feeling stressed and nervous about both lesson planning and teaching students. Ryan stated,

Barriers to my progress come from my lack of confidence with myself and the tension that I carry within my body. This tension comes from a combination of nerves, energy, and a desire to want to absolutely do my absolute best. These are things that have affected EVERY single aspect of my education, my life as a student, my ability as a teacher.

They communicated fearing failure and had difficulty expressing their thoughts both in front of students and on the lesson planning documents themselves. Participants used a variety of strategies to work through intervening conditions, including leaning on peers and teaching assistants for support. Many acknowledged they employed persistence to push through difficult moments with their own feelings and persevered through what they articulated as an unsuccessful lesson plan. Alex said,

I think maybe the moment for me was when your lesson plan doesn’t go the way you wanted it to that it is going to be okay to stay the course, not panic, remember that you are there for a reason, you are there to teach, you can’t lose sight of that.

The central phenomenon, embracing teaching as an interaction, reflected participants’ realization that lesson planning was connected substantively to their constant interactions with students. Participants struggled with how to describe the relationship of planning and instruction, many using metaphors to make sense of their experiences. One participant, Keith, said,

I kept seeing this image of Google Maps: Put in this as your destination and this is your goal, and you get all these different routes to get there. I think the lesson plan is those routes, and you’ve just got to pick one. If it doesn’t work out, if there’s traffic, you can switch over to another one.

Another participant, Peter, within another university, said that an effective lesson plan “appears improvised, but it is like reading a lead sheet as opposed to a score. A lead sheet you are always changing in the moment, the score you have to follow exactly.”

Teacher mentors inside and outside of field experiences also impacted these beliefs, as participants articulated that over time, they would need less and less planning to reach similar goals. Adam said,

The more comfortable I get with the student, the students, or the group that I’m working with, the lesson plans will start to not appear on paper. I’ll just know exactly what we would need to work on just based on that previous rehearsal or based off of the time between the rehearsals.

Participants also had a variety of names for the term lesson plan (see Figure 2), which exemplified the range of experiences and their self-discovery process of what a lesson plan is for them. We placed these terms on a continuum moving from the most structured description (i.e., script) to the least structured description (i.e., guide). One also might view the order of the continuum as progressing from a more teacher-focused perspective to a student-focused perspective. Indeed, one participant, Adam, indicated in a preplanning response that a script was teacher or self-driven, the lesson plan was student influenced, and the teaching was student driven.

Figure 2.

Lesson plan continuum.

Lesson planning style also varied among participants. For some undergraduates, they needed to write in greater detail so they could integrate their ideas, “express what is in their head,” and be “off book” with the students. For others, they preferred a general outline and rehearsed potential strategies mentally. With all of these approaches, it was the participants’ decisions that being with the students, demonstrating flexibility, and the ability to change plans (to Plan B, C, D, and so forth) in the moment were essential to effective teaching interactions.

At the end of the lesson planning process, participants voiced a more dimensionalized perspective of effective teaching. Whereas earlier in their experiences they may have described models and potential strategies, as a consequence of their planning processes, participants described a more integrated, personal understanding of timing, reflection, goal setting, and sequencing. They also began to piece together how their unique ways of working, communicating with students, and personalities might fit into their teaching, conveying that there was no “one way” to be an effective educator; it was through this process that they stated they had greater confidence with what they had done. For some, they anticipated what their futures would look like in specific teaching contexts. For others, they realized they enjoyed the age group they were working with and felt validated that the music education major was a good fit for their degree program. In his final interview, Andrew said, “Being able to reflect what you have done, how you have done it, and how you have changed over the years, you are recording your own history. . . . It is beneficial to your growth as a teacher.”

Propositional Statements

As a final step within the grounded theory approach, researchers compose propositional statements that theoretically explain the data and propose relationships from the data analysis for their field of study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Based on our grounded theory of preservice music education majors’ lesson planning processes, we offer the following propositions. First, in this study, preservice teachers began to understand the logistical and personal challenges that in-service teachers experience and implemented strategies that may serve their continuing teacher and occupational identity development. Second, repeated cycles of planning and teaching within authentic school contexts encouraged preservice teachers to expand their pedagogical content knowledge and to increase confidence in their own teaching, giving them a view, even if limited, of what it is like to be a teacher. Third, preservice teachers developed a situated understanding of how detailed preparation is connected to effective teaching, thereby potentially encouraging student progress, ownership, and agency. Fourth, preservice teachers advanced insights into the importance of developing their personal teaching voice and style in order to build relationships based on interactive music-making with their students. Finally, preservice teachers expressed the belief that their lesson planning processes would be less difficult and more intuitive in the future as they developed meaningful, long-term relationships with their own students, rather than attempting to plan for temporary field experience placements.

Discussion

Our purpose in undertaking this research was to understand the process of field experience lesson planning development for preservice teachers. For these preservice teachers, lesson planning—and teaching itself—was a process of interaction. In the participants’ view, although teachers needed to be proactive, to be prepared, and to have a “game plan,” they should not follow a written plan strictly as if it were a script or a set of instructions. Our finding differed from Robbins’s (1999) work, perhaps due to influence of the authentic learning context present in our study, but mimicked the trajectory of the preservice teacher lesson planning development within the general education literature (see John, 2006; Jones & Vesiland, 1996; Mutton et al., 2011; Wilson & Cameron, 1996). Participants initially expressed doubt that the process of lesson planning would enhance their teaching experiences while allowing them to be natural, flexible, and responsive to students in the moment. Their beliefs that experienced teachers improvised their daily lessons within a larger structure may have impacted a notion that planning does not advance a teacher’s preparation but rather exists on a larger checklist of teacher requirements. In the third data wave, participants communicated surprise that planning prepared them for teaching in many ways, no longer viewing lesson planning as a chore (Harwood & Wiggins, 2001). They began by acting as teachers in their new environment, realizing they needed to gather more information about the students and context. They worked on both knowledge of students and their own processes of what they wanted to accomplish and, although not always consistently, felt they were able to consummate specific goals within their teaching interactions with students. In the end, participants realized their teaching gave rise to new insights dependent upon social interactions (Mead, 1959).

John (2006) argued against rationalistic, technical lesson planning in favor of a dialogical, context-dependent concept of planning as a practice. As he stated, “for some, the encounter [learning to lesson plan] holds creative possibilities; for others, it is a brick wall of bewilderment and anxiety” (John, 2006, p. 483). This description holds true for our participants. The more concerned preservice teachers were with writing and delivering “perfect” plans, the more anxious about teaching they became. As John expressed, this type of neat, linear thinking “does not necessarily exist” (John, 2006, p. 483), and students may be comforted through explicit discussion of lesson planning as a fluid and context-dependent practice. Schmidt (2005) suggested that we might “expand the definition of ‘lesson planning’ to include decisions made on the fly, mental advance plans, and reflection” and that in doing so, preservice teachers might “attribute greater value to planning processes” (p. 21). Rather than presenting planning as a scripted, highly detailed sequence of known events, music teacher educators might share a view of planning as a “design that gets set in motion when teachers and students interact” (Robbins, 1999, p. 31). To facilitate this type of thinking, teacher educators may talk through their own lesson planning processes and give examples of fluid, in-the-moment interactions from their teaching.

Similar to findings in other studies of preservice teachers (e.g., Haston & Russell, 2012; Lane & Talbert, 2015), participants relied on their lesson plans during teaching episodes in terms of general content but were able to remain “free within a box,” in order to deviate from the plan to capitalize on teachable moments. They used the lesson plan as a general guide while maintaining responsiveness and flexibility, traits of perceived importance for successful music teaching (Teachout, 1997). As Schmidt (2005) noted, preservice music teachers emphasize the importance of decisions made “on the fly,” often described by our participants as “in-flight decisions,” maintaining “flexibility,” or, if anticipated ahead of time, as “having a Plan B.” However, context mattered. Participants perceived planning for general music teaching as more concrete and specific (occasionally as “scripted”) but perceived planning for ensemble teaching as more open and reflexive, relying on error detection, diagnosing, and “fixing” problems.

Different instructors and university settings also influenced the context where participants developed their responsiveness and flexibility. In order to help preservice music teachers understand the role of lesson planning within their global teaching practice, it is essential that music teacher educators explain, discuss, and model effective lesson planning as a process. Lesson planning should be understood as a framework upon which the interactive, responsive act of teaching is built. Cvetek (2008) argued that preservice teachers should embrace the complexity and unpredictability of their teaching environments. Rather than conceiving of a lesson plan as a neat, orderly, sequential checklist of activities and objectives, preservice teachers should begin to see themselves as “agents of chaos” (Cvetek, 2008, p. 253) in their classrooms, using lesson plans to guide instruction and shape long-term goals rather than dictating every teaching act. In this way, preservice teachers’ anxieties about delivering a “perfect” lesson, staying on script, or “sticking to the plan” can be alleviated as they adopt a stance of flexibility and reflexivity.

The consequences of the central phenomenon, engaging with lesson planning as an interaction with PreK–12 students, allowed preservice teachers not only to experience the importance of teaching effectively but also to discover and affirm that the process of lesson planning and teaching included developing their own style. Participants then were able to effectively learn who they were as teachers. Both Cvetek’s (2008) and John’s (2006) writings may bring us to similar places: Effective teaching occurs as authentic, contextual interactions between individuals. Participants viewed their past and future within the present frame, thereby casting an image of themselves beyond their immediate course work. To build potential futures in music education and to become effective teachers, preservice teachers must learn to integrate themselves into the process, face their anxieties and fears, and dive deeper into a solid situational/contextual knowledge of their students. An implication for this study is that preservice teachers should be immersed in authentic context learning environments as much as possible during undergraduate education (Schmidt, 2005), for this is the main arena in which these pivotal interactions can take place (Haston & Russell, 2012). In order to create more opportunities for authentic context learning, teacher educators may look outside the traditional methods course/field experience model to community music organizations, after-school programs (such as string projects), and service-learning partnerships (see Reynolds & Conway, 2003; Reynolds, Jerome, Preston, & Haynes, 2005) as means of facilitating more interactions among preservice teachers and precollegiate music students.

Future Steps and Significance

Although using grounded theory methodology supported the development of a theoretical model of preservice music education teachers’ lesson planning processes within a variety of contexts, the diversity of settings, course content, and varied instructors might have represented limitations in this study. Furthermore, our situated dual role as researchers and instructors within the context-specific aspects of the courses also may have been limitations. We propose, however, that generating a broad theoretical explanation for participants’ process is helpful toward informing multiple contexts in the future (Creswell, 2014). In this inquiry, we sought to examine the processes of preservice music teachers as they planned for instruction within a practicum (field experience) environment. It is important for all stakeholders in music teacher education (music teacher educators, cooperating teachers working with practicum students and student teachers, university field supervisors, and novice teachers themselves) to understand the processes that take place within preservice education, as these experiences form a bridge between the classroom and the “real world” of teaching practice. As Schön (1987) stated,

A practicum is, as I have noted, a virtual world. It seeks to represent essential features of a practice to be learned while enabling students to experiment at low risk, vary the pace and focus of work, and go back to do things over when it seems useful to do so. (p. 170)

We understand that these participants’ field experiences were limited in their capacity to represent a full reality of what it means to be a teacher, and yet, our findings reflect the import of participants’ contextual understandings that occurred because of the view of reality they were able to experience. Authentic context learning experiences may provide an intermediary step needed in bringing preservice teacher expectations of teaching, including lesson planning, closer to the realities of the classroom prior to entering the field.

The future of this research is focused on developing formal grounded theory. Glaser (2007) articulated the differences between what he terms substantive grounded theory, grounded theory as we utilized it in this first collection and analysis, and formal grounded theory by stating, “Generalizations from formal grounded theory go beyond the data used, whether within or without the substantive area, by application, conceptualization and modification” (p. 43). Future steps that we will take toward developing a formal theory involve theoretical sampling with a larger population of preservice teachers. We believe developing formal theory can help us to refine our understanding of the processes by which preservice music teachers plan for teaching; this refined understanding will aid teacher educators in shaping curricula.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Supplemental Material

Appendix A is available in the online version of the article at

Notes

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Cassidy Parker is an associate professor of music education at the Boyer College of Music and Dance of Temple University. Her research interests include the development of adolescent choral singers and preservice and in-service identity.

Vanessa L. Bond is an assistant professor of music education at University of Hartford’s the Hartt School. Her research interests include the musical lives of young children, with special focus on the use of music in the Reggio Emilia approach, culturally responsive education, and the choral experiences of underrepresented populations.

Sean R. Powell is an assistant professor of music education at the University of North Texas. His research interests include music teacher identity and music teacher education.

References

Abrahams

(2009). Examining the preservice practicum experience of undergraduate music education majors: Exploring connections and dispositions through multiple perspectives: A critical grounded theory. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(1), 80–92. doi:10.1177/1057083709344044

Bauer

W. I.

Berg

M. H.

(2001). Influences on instrumental music teaching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150, 53–66.

Butler

(2001). Preservice music teachers’ conceptions of teaching effectiveness, microteaching experiences, and teaching performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 258–272. doi:10.2307/3345711

Chaffin

C. R.

(2009). Perceptions of instrumental music teachers regarding the development of effective rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 181, 21–36.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corbin

Strauss

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

(2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cvetek

(2008). Applying chaos theory to lesson planning and delivery. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 247–256. doi:10.1080/02619760802208320

10.

Danielson

(2013). Framework for teaching. Retrieved from http://danielsongroup.org/framework/

11.

Dewey

(1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In McMurray

C. A.

(Ed.), The third NSSE yearbook (Part 1, pp. 9–30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Glaser

B. G.

(2007). Doing formal grounded theory: A proposal. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

13.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

14.

Harwood

Wiggins

(2001). Composing a lesson: Examining our metaphors. Mountain Lake Reader, 2, 32-41.

15.

Haston

Russell

J. A.

(2012). Turning into teachers: Influences of authentic context learning experiences on occupational identity development of preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 369–392. doi:10.1177/0022429411414716

16.

Hatch

J. A.

(2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

17.

Interstate Teacher and Assessment Support Consortium. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_2011.pdf

18.

John

P. D.

(2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 483–498. doi:10.1080/00220270500363620

19.

Jones

M. G.

Vesiland

E. M.

(1996). Putting practice into theory: Changes in the organization of preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 91–117.

20.

Lane

J. S.

(2006). An analysis of undergraduate instrumental music education majors’ approaches to score study in varying musical contexts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 215–230. doi:10.1177/002242940605400305

21.

Lane

J. S.

(2010). An analysis of relationships between lesson planning training and rehearsal pacing of undergraduate instrumental music education majors in practice teaching settings. Journal of Band Research, 46, 52–63.

22.

Lane

J. S.

Talbert

M. D.

(2015). Examining lesson plan use among instrumental music education majors during practice teaching. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(3), 83–96. doi:10.1177/1057083713514979

23.

Legette

R. M.

(2013). Perceptions of early-career school music teachers regarding their preservice preparation. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 32, 12–17. doi:10.1177/8755123313502342

24.

Levitin

D. J.

(2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. New York, NY: Plume.

25.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26.

Macnamara

B. N.

Hambrick

D. Z.

Oswald

F. L.

(2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618. doi:10.1177/0956797614535810

27.

Madsen

C. K.

Standley

J. M.

Cassidy

J. W.

(1989). Demonstration and recognition of high and low contrasts in teacher intensity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 85–92. doi:10.2307/3344700

28.

Mead

G. H.

(1959). The philosophy of the present ( Murphy

A. E.

, Ed.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

29.

Mutton

Hagger

Burn

(2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17, 399–416. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.580516

30.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Paul

S. J.

(1998). The effects of peer teaching experiences on the professional role development of undergraduate instrumental music education majors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 137, 73–92.

32.

Paul

S. J.

Teachout

D. J.

Sullivan

J. M.

Kelly

S. N.

Bauer

W. I.

Raiber

M. A.

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

33.

Powell

S. R.

(2011). Examining preservice music teachers’ perceptions of initial peer- and field-teaching experiences. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21(1), 11–26. doi:10.1177/1057083710386751

34.

Reynolds

A. M.

Conway

C. M.

(2003). Service-learning in music education methods: Perceptions of participants. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 155, 1–10.

35.

Reynolds

A. M.

Jerome

Preston

A. L.

Haynes

(2005). Service-learning in music education: Participants’ reflections. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 165, 79–91.

36.

Robbins

(1999). Getting set and letting go: Practicum teachers’ in-flight decision-making. Mountain Lake Reader, 1, 26–32.

37.

Schmidt

(2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson planning processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 6–25.

38.

Schmidt

(2013). Transition from student to teacher: Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23(1), 27–49. doi:10.1177/1057083712469111

39.

Schön

D. A.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40.

Strangis

D. E.

Pringle

R. M.

Knopf

H. T.

(2006). Road map or roadblock? Science lesson planning and preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 28(1), 73–84. doi:10.1080/01626620.2006.10463568

41.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Teachout

(1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 41–50. doi:10.2307/3345464

43.

Wilson

Cameron

(1996). Student teacher perceptions of effective teaching: A developmental perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22, 181–195. doi:10.1080/02607479620340

44.

Wolfgang

R. E.

(1990). Early field experience in music education: A study of teacher role socialization. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(1), 137.

45.

Yourn

B. R.

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