Music Program Alumni’s Perceptions of Professional Skills,Abilities,and Job Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis of the 2011,2012,and 2013 Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) Survey

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare music studio teachers’ (n = 622) and K–12 music teachers’ (n = 976) perceptions of the extent to which their postsecondary education helped them develop selected professional skills and abilities, perceptions of how important those same selected skills and abilities are for teaching, and job satisfaction. Data are from the 2011, 2012, and 2013 administrations of the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project survey. Respondents indicated the following skills were very important to their work: relationship building (Studio: 81.3%; K–12: 75.7%), leadership skills (Studio: 71.6%; K–12: 89.3%), project management (Studio: 65.1%; K–12: 74.8%), persuasive speaking (Studio: 63.4%; K–12: 74.2%), clear writing (Studio: 51.5%; K–12: 63.4%), creative thinking (Studio: 88.7%; K–12: 91.4%), taking feedback (Studio: 78.8%; K–12: 81.2%), broad knowledge and education (Studio: 80.1%; K–12: 91.0%), and critical thinking (Studio: 64.3%; K–12: 76.4%). Fewer than 50% of respondents felt their institutions had helped them develop project management, persuasive speaking, clear writing, and critical thinking skills. The most substantial differences were financial, business, and entrepreneurial skills, indicating that studio teachers perceive these skills as important to their work. Studio teachers were less satisfied with job security but more satisfied with work-life balance than K–12 teachers.

Keywords

K–12 teachers studio teachers professional preparation job satisfaction SNAAP

Two of the most common career paths for music program graduates are to become private studio teachers or teachers within the public schools. In order to be able to teach successfully in either of these settings, a variety of musical, personal, and teaching skills must be developed. Despite the apparent dissimilarity between typical K–12 and studio teaching contexts, there has been increasing discussion about pedagogical skills and proficiencies relevant to both settings. Researchers have recommended that studio teachers might benefit from educational experiences that are already standard in traditional teacher education programs such as increased pedagogy coursework and internship experiences akin to student teaching (Duke & Simmons, 2006; Fredrickson, 2007b; Fredrickson, Geringer, & Pope, 2013; Rickels et al., 2010; Villarreal, 2010).

Frederickson (2007b) asserted that studio teachers need deliberate and prolonged pedagogical training similar to what K–12 teachers receive, but formalized programs that could prepare one to teach in a studio within a university-level music program are rare. Moreover, there is often very little overlap between music education program course offerings and requirements for performance degrees. Unfortunately, there are no known studies that have compared preservice K–12 and studio teachers to discern whether there are similarities in their professional needs. Although it is likely that some principles of teacher preparation apply to both preservice K–12 and studio teachers, it is also likely that each group has some unique needs.

Although there is literature exploring the preparedness of preservice K–12 music educators (Conway, 2002; DeLorenzo, 1992; Fredrickson & Neill, 2004; Housego, 1990; Krueger, 2001; MacLeod & Walter, 2011; Taylor; 1970; Thompson, 1970), there is no existing research comparing their preparation to that of preservice studio teachers. In addition, very little is known about how prepared students feel they are to teach in the private studio upon graduation. For those who do become studio teachers, we do not know which skills and abilities cultivated—or not—during collegiate education are perceived to be of value for practicing teachers. Fortunately, information pertaining to the teaching activities, job satisfaction, and professional preparation satisfaction of music program alumni in the form of large scale data sets is now available through initiatives such as the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) (see http://snaap.indiana.edu; Miksza & Hime, 2015). While such initiatives are yielding important data on the status of music graduates, a detailed report of music program alumni who pursue music teaching careers specifically is not currently available.

Below I address studies of perceptions of skills necessary to teach in a K–12 context and perceptions of preparedness for teaching in K–12 and studio music settings. Studies that highlight intersections between these contexts, and studies using SNAAP data to investigate music program graduates, are also discussed. Researchers have explored skills perceived as useful in K–12 music teaching (Davis, 2006; Kelly, 2010; Miksza, Roeder, & Biggs, 2010; Saunders & Baker, 1991), while others have explored K–12 music teachers’ perceived preparedness to teach (Conway, 2002; DeLorenzo, 1992; Fredrickson & Neill, 2004; Housego, 1990; Krueger, 2001; MacLeod & Walter, 2011; Taylor; 1970; Thompson, 1970). For studio teachers, there are no known studies that address perceptions of skills useful for studio teaching and few studies on preparedness to teach (Fredrickson et al., 2013).

High school students (Kelly, 2007), public school supervising teachers (Kelly, 2010; MacLeod & Walter, 2011), experienced teachers (Miksza et al., 2010; Teachout, 1997), and university music educators (Rohwer & Henry, 2004) all indicated items related to personal traits and teaching skills were more important than musical skills when it comes to effective K–12 music teaching. As Kelly (2010) notes, “Effective teaching is frequently influenced by skills and behaviors not requiring direct use of music knowledge or skills” (p. 30). The importance of what could be described as personal skills—such as interpersonal communication, personality, and honesty—for teaching effectiveness has been documented in several studies (Davis, 2006; Kelly, 2007; Kelly, 2010).

Ballantyne and Packer (2004) investigated early career music teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their music teacher education programs. Results indicated that the majority of respondents (55%) reported being “somewhat satisfied” with their preservice preparation, while only 16% reported being “very satisfied,” and 29% reported being either “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied.” Similarly, the majority of respondents (52%) reported that their preservice program was “mostly relevant” to their needs as early career music teachers, 12% considered it to be “definitely relevant” and 36% found the program to be “not really relevant.” In particular, the coordination of extracurricular music activities was seen to be very important or extremely important by the majority of respondents, yet most felt that this was not adequately addressed in their training. Moreover, budgeting skills were viewed as the least effectively covered in preservice training. These findings suggest that early career teachers feel their training was lacking in important teaching and administrative skills.

Researchers have also investigated more concrete skills perceived as important to teaching, such as the use of technology (Bauer, Reese & McAllister, 2003; Dorfman, 2008; Haning, 2016; Mishra, Day, Littles & Vandewalker, 2011). In a survey study investigating technology instruction in music teacher education programs, Haning (2016) found 43% of respondents indicated they did not feel prepared to use technology effectively in their future teaching positions. Analyses of open-ended responses indicated that some respondents would be more willing to use technology in their classrooms if they had received instruction in its use.

Although less common, the pedagogical training of studio teachers is also emerging as a topic of interest among music education researchers. Parkes (2009/2010) asserts that the vast majority of applied music faculty members at the university level are trained as performers with the focus of their own education being on very high-level performance skills, not teaching. Parkes argues that pedagogical training should be included in both performance and education degrees in order to provide guidance on “how to teach in each of the areas (pedagogy), rather than just what to teach (content)” (p.71). This implies that the accepted methodologies of classroom teaching are not necessarily appropriate for the studio lesson environment, and that both degree tracks require some context-specific skills.

Research investigating the attitudes of undergraduate music students toward studio teaching has uncovered a number of important findings (Frederickson, 2007a, 2007b; Mills, 2004). Mills had 61 undergraduates at a London conservatoire complete a questionnaire about attitudes toward studio teaching. Results indicated that these students expected and hoped to include teaching as part of their careers, they looked forward to engaging in teaching, they thought that teacher training is needed for studio teachers, and they believed teaching would improve their playing. As an extension of Mills’s work, Frederickson (2007a) investigated the attitudes of undergraduate and graduate music majors (N = 486; undergraduate n = 347; graduate n = 139) toward studio teaching. Using Mills’s 29-item survey, Frederickson (2007a) found that a large majority of respondents “expect” (88%) or “hope” (82%) to teach after graduation; 56% agreed or agreed strongly that they would teach primarily for the income; 84% agreed or agreed strongly that teaching private lessons would help them improve their own playing; 82% disagreed or disagreed strongly that good teaching technique was obvious and did not need to be taught; and 92% disagreed or disagreed strongly that a good performer was automatically a good teacher. Frederickson suggests that, since teaching studio lessons is so prevalent for music degree graduates, universities might develop curricula for pedagogical preparation. Frederickson’s commentary on studio teaching is particularly insightful:

Many musicians only encounter private lesson teaching as students themselves in their degree program, where the primary focus is the development of their personal skill as a musician rather than as a teacher. The tacit assumption by most involved might be that having spent time in this environment renders one capable of moving from the role of student to the role of teacher. Or it might be, like so many other things, that systematic training would be advantageous for someone preparing to take on this complex educational task. (p. 327)

Thus, there is a disjunction between the training of private studio teachers and the professional reality of their postgraduation careers.

Fredrickson (2007b) also investigated college-level music performance students’ perceptions about teaching studio lessons to young students. College music performance majors enrolled in a pedagogy class (N = 12; upper division undergraduate, n = 1; master’s students, n = 4; and doctoral students, n = 7) were assigned to “Teach at least one student on a regular basis and keep a journal related to your teaching” (p. 75). Using a journal modeled after forms used with preservice public school teachers in another study (Fredrickson & Neill, 2004), the teachers wrote a brief summary of each lesson, commented on the best and worst aspects of their teaching that day, commented on the best and worst aspects of their student’s learning, and gave an evaluation score of the overall lesson on a 10-point Likert type scale. Results suggested that these students might lack confidence in teaching, even when their postlesson evaluations indicate some competence. The results also suggested that these teachers found it challenging to motivate their students to work on their music outside of lesson time. Fredrickson suggested that future researchers examine the effect of supervised practical teaching experiences, similar to student teaching models used for K–12 teacher education and recommended that researchers systematically evaluate different approaches to develop pedagogical knowledge among performance students. Abeles (2011) also suggested supervised internships or field experiences for performance students, similar to the training of K–12 teachers, to train future studio teachers in pedagogical techniques. While Abeles was discussing collegiate-level faculty, such training could be of value to students who will become studio teachers outside of postsecondary institutions.

In summary, research investigating the skills perceived as useful in K–12 music teaching, K–12 teachers’ perceived preparedness to teach, and attitudes of studio teachers toward studio teaching is somewhat common. However, as far as can be determined, there is no research addressing studio teachers’ perceived preparedness to teach. Moreover, there has been no systematic study of the similarities or differences between perceptions of K–12 teachers and their studio-teaching counterparts. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare perceptions of selected professional skills and abilities and job satisfaction of music program alumni working as studio (n = 622) and K–12 (n = 976) music teachers. Specifically, I addressed the following research questions:

Do studio and K–12 music teachers differ regarding:

Perceptions of the extent to which their postsecondary education helped them develop selected professional skills and abilities?

Perceptions of how important these same selected skills and abilities are for teaching in their respective settings?

Job satisfaction?

How do their perceptions compare between:

the extent to which their postsecondary education helped them develop selected professional skills and abilities and

perceptions of how important these skills abilities are for teaching in their respective settings?

Do perceptions of the extent to which their postsecondary education helped them develop selected professional skills and abilities differ among studio teachers according to their collegiate degree program (i.e., music education vs. music performance)?

Method

Data for this study are from the 2011, 2012, and 2013 administrations of the nationwide, multi-institutional online survey conducted by the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). The purpose of SNAAP (http://snaap.indiana.edu) is to collect information from collegiate arts alumni in order to increase knowledge about arts education. Respondents are asked to provide information about their institutional experiences, career paths, financial outcomes, and several other aspects of their education as well as work after graduation. According to their website, SNAAP provides their findings to educators, policymakers, and philanthropic organizations with the aim of improving arts training, informing cultural policies, and supporting artists.

I was granted access to the SNAAP datasets after completing a data-sharing agreement with the SNAAP administrators and receiving IRB approval to analyze the data. The survey respondents for these administrations included high school, undergraduate, and graduate alumni who received degrees from more than 150 postsecondary institutions across the United States. Because this is a multiyear survey, data are sent to the Indiana University Center for Survey Research to remove duplicates based on a combination of email, first name, and last name. Each person in the database has a survey disposition assigned to them, which allows for tracking of who has completed or refused the survey. The data include primarily quantitative responses in the form of Likert-type scale items and forced-choice formats.

Analytic Sample

To target the desired sample, I requested data from all BA, BM, BMus, BME, MA, MM, MME, DMA, and PhD alumni that indicated they (a) were music performance or music education as a major or concentration and (b) had worked as a private teacher of the arts and/or K–12 arts educator in any context. This resulted in 4,851 cases. Of these, 2,738 indicated that they currently work as a “Private teacher of the arts,” and 1,769 indicated that they currently work as a “K–12 Arts educator.” Because music educators frequently work in more than one setting, and to ensure that cases were analyzed only once, respondents were further filtered through the question “Please select the occupation in which you spend the majority of your work time.” Respondents who selected “K–12 arts educator” (n = 976) or “Private teacher of the arts” (n = 622) for this item were included in the analyses, resulting in a total of 1,598 respondents in the present study. In addition, because “Private teacher of the arts” and “music studio teacher” are not necessarily synonymous, responses to an open response item, “Please provide your job title and a brief description of your work in/as a(n) [OCCUPATION SELECTED]” were coded. Of the 622 “Private teacher of the arts,” 545 (87.6%) respondents provided additional information; of those, 541 (99.2%) provided answers clearly indicating that their primary occupation is teaching studio music lessons, suggesting that these terms can be considered synonymous in the present sample.

It is important to note that of the 4,851 respondents who indicated music degrees in this survey, only 1,598 respondents who chose “K–12 arts educator” (n = 976) or “Private teacher of the arts” (n = 622) were included after being filtered through the question “Please select the occupation in which you spend the majority of your work time.” Thus, the occupations of the majority of the total possible music program graduate sample are unknown. Because respondents were filtered by occupation rather than degree, and the SNAAP data does not clearly indicate degree information for all respondents (this survey is aimed at gathering information about perceptions of the partner institution, not the respondents’ overall education), it is not possible to get a complete educational picture from the present data.

Demographic information for the analytic sample is presented in Table 1. Respondents were predominantly White (91.2%), married (65.6%), and had no children (63.4%), with a mean age of 42.6 years. Interestingly, the gender distribution for studio teachers reveals that more of the sample is female (76.1%) than male (23.9%), whereas K–12 teachers are more evenly distributed between female (55.9%) and male (43.8%) respondents.

Table 1.

Individual Demographics for the Analytic Sample and Subgroups of K–12 Teachers (n = 976) and Studio Teachers (n = 622), N = 1,598.

Age	M	Med	SD	Sk	kur	MIN	MAX
K–12	41.85	42.00	12.68	.20	.16	22	75
Studio	43.78	42.00	14.65	.43	−.74	22	90
TOTAL	42.6	42.00	13.50	.34	−.81	22	90
Gender		Male		Female		Transgender
K–12		43.8		55.9		.3
Studio		23.9		76.1
TOTAL		36.1		63.7		.2
Marital Status		Single		Mar/Part		Div/Sep
K–12		25.5		66.3		7.8
Studio		26.6		64.5		6.9
TOTAL		25.9		65.6		7.5
Children	None	1	2	3	4	5	6
K–12	60.9	15.8	16.2	4.9	1.8	.5
Studio	67.4	15.1	12.4	2.9	1.5	.5	.2
TOTAL	63.4	15.5	14.7	4.1	1.7	.5	.1
Race	White	Black	Hispanic	Native	Hawaiian	Asian	Other
K–12	92.3	2.6	4.7	.8	.1	1.9	.6
Studio	89.5	2.2	1.8	.7	.5	6.5	2.5
TOTAL	91.2	2.5	3.6	.8	.3	3.7	1.4

Note. All values for gender, marital status, children, and race are percentages.

Sk = skew; kur = kurtosis.

In terms of employment status, a much larger percentage of the K–12 teachers work full-time (88.8%) than studio teachers (33.8%), whereas a slightly larger percentage of studio teachers reported working two or more jobs (78.1%) than K–12 teachers (70.5%). More studio teachers reported working four or more jobs (12.7%) than K–12 teachers (3.7%) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Individual Responses for Employment Status and Having More Than One Job for K–12 Teachers (n = 976) and Studio Teachers (n = 622), N = 1,598.

Employment
	Full-time	Part-time	Unemployed	In school	Caring for family	Retired	Other
K–12	88.8	8.0	.1	.3	.1	.8	1.8
Studio	33.8	50.6	.6	3.4	.5	3.4	7.6
TOTAL	67.4	24.6	.3	1.5	.3	1.8	4.1
More Than One Job
	No	Yes, 2	Yes, 3	Yes, 4	Yes, 4+
K–12	29.5	46.8	20.0	2.8	.9
Studio	21.9	40.0	24.9	7.9	4.8
TOTAL	26.6	44.3	21.9	4.8	2.4

Note. All values are percentages.

The respondents were relatively similar in terms of their debt load with 42.9% of the total sample incurring no debt to pursue the degree they indicated in this survey. However, studio teachers earned much less money with 15.2% making $10,000 or less per year and only 13.9% making over $30,000 per year. Only 9.6% of K–12 teachers made less than $30,000 per year, and 22.8% made over $70,000 per year (See Table 3).

Table 3.

Individual Income in 2012 and Educational Debt for K–12 Teachers (n = 976) and Studio Teachers (n = 622), N = 1,598.

Debt
	None	10,000 or less	10,001–20,000	20,001–30,000	30,001–40,000	40,001–50,000	50,001–60,000	60,000+	No answer
K–12	38.9	17.7	14.9	11.0	5.4	2.9	2.2	3.0	3.5
Studio	47.9	15.3	9.6	6.1	6.4	3.1	1.8	2.9	4.0
TOTAL	42.9	16.9	12.9	9.2	5.8	3.0	2.1	3.0	3.7
Income
	10,000 or less	10,001–20,000	20,001–30,000	30,001–40,000	40,001–50,000	50,001–60,000	60.001–70,000	70,000+	No answer
K–12	3.0	3.6	3.0	12.6	17.1	15.9	13.9	22.8	7.3
Studio	15.2	17.4	16.9	15.1	9.2	5.4	3.3	5.1	12.5
TOTAL	7.8	9.0	8.4	13.6	14.0	11.8	9.7	16.3	9.4

Note. All values are percentages.

Variables for Analysis

SNAAP survey items for the following topics were examined for all respondents: (a) perceptions of how much their institution helped them in the development of selected skills and abilities, (b) perceptions of the importance of those skills and abilities in their primary occupation, and (c) satisfaction with their primary occupation. This survey instrument was developed based on two pilot surveys tested during 2005 and field tests from 2008 to 2010; its first national administration was conducted in 2011–2012. Responses to questions 1–4, 6, 7, 14, 17, 23, 26, 39, 42–47, 49, 50, 51, 60, 67–75, and 81 (from the 2013 survey, and their equivalents in 2011 and 2012; http://snaap.indiana.edu/institutions/questionnaire.cfm) were analyzed. These questions were chosen because they most directly addressed professional preparation for music teaching careers (a number of the other questions addressed alumni who presently work in nonmusic professions or addressed other aspects of their professional life not related to teaching). I was also granted access to open-ended response questions to code for teaching activities, but to preserve the anonymity of SNAAP respondents and the institutions they attended, I was not given permission to include the actual text from the written responses in the present study.

Respondents’ perceptions of how much their institution helped them to develop selected professional skills and abilities were assessed using a set of variables categorized by the following prompt: “In your opinion, how much did [INSTITUTION] help you acquire or develop each of the following skills and abilities?” Items listed under this prompt included: “Critical thinking and analysis of arguments and information,” “Broad knowledge and education,” “Improved work based on feedback from others,” “Creative thinking and problem solving,” “Research skills,” “Clear writing,” “Persuasive speaking,” “Project management skills,” “Technological skills,” “Artistic technique,” “Financial and business management skills,” “Entrepreneurial skills,” “Interpersonal skills and work collaboratively,” “Leadership skills,” “Networking and relationship building,” and “Teaching skills.” These items were rated on a 4-point scale from “Not at all” (1) to “Very much” (4).

Perceptions of how important the same skills and abilities described above are for their primary occupations were assessed using a parallel set of variables categorized by the following prompt: “How important are the following to perform effectively in your profession or work life?” These items were rated on a 4-point scale from “Not at all important” (1) to “Very important” (4).

In addition, responses to the open-ended item “Is there anything that [INSTITUTION] could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please describe” were coded and analyzed. Of the 1,598 respondents identified in the analytic sample, 1,193 responded to this prompt. Data for this item were coded using a combination of emerging and predetermined codes (Creswell, 2014). Predetermined codes were related directly to the quantitative items analyzed for this study, including business skills, networking, teaching skills, and training in music technology (it should be noted that all of the categories listed in Table S1 (included with the online version of this article) were also used as predetermined codes, but only those listed above were prevalent in the data). In addition, only data relating directly to teacher preparation were coded; for example, responses indicating a need for improved facilities or issues with specific faculty members were not coded. A doctoral student in music education evaluated the coding for all 1,193 respondents, and any discrepancies were resolved before finalizing the results.

Respondents’ satisfaction with their primary occupation was assessed through a set of variables categorized by the following prompt: “Indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your current work in/as a(n) [OCCUPATION].” Items listed under this prompt included: “Job security,” “Opportunity to be creative,” “Income,” “Balance between work and nonwork life,” “Opportunity to contribute to the greater good,” “Opportunity for career advancement,” “Work that reflects my personality, interests, and values,” and “Overall job satisfaction.” These items were rated on a 4-point scale from “Very dissatisfied” (1) to “Very satisfied” (4).

Results

Given the large sample size, number of statistical tests performed in this study, and the secondary nature of the data analysis, only findings significant at the p < .001 level and with Cramer’s V values above .15 are considered to be statistically and practically significant, respectively.¹ Regarding research question 1a, the results of chi-square analyses comparing K–12 and studio teachers’ perceptions of how much their institution helped them develop professional skills and abilities are presented in Table S1 (included with the online version of this article). With regard to institutional preparation, the only difference between K–12 and studio teachers’ reports was for persuasive speaking (p < .001, Cramer’s V = .16). More K–12 teachers reported that their institutions helped them to develop persuasive speaking skills as compared to studio teachers.

Regarding research question 1b, the results of chi-square analyses comparing K–12 and studio teachers’ perceptions of the importance of selected skills and abilities in their primary occupation are presented in Table S2 (included with the online version of this article). Differences (p < .001) were found on the following items: “Broad knowledge and education,” (Cramer’s V = .16), “Technological skills,” (Cramer’s V = .24), and “Leadership skills” (Cramer’s V = .23), indicating that K–12 teachers felt these skills were more important to their work than studio teachers. A practically significant difference was also found for the items “Artistic technique” (Cramer’s V = .18), “Financial and business management skills” (Cramer’s V = .29), and “Entrepreneurial skills” (Cramer’s V = .42), indicating that more studio teachers perceive these skills as important in their careers than do K–12 teachers. The largest mean differences between the two groups were found on the items “Financial and business management skills” and “Entrepreneurial skills.”

Regarding research question 1c, the results of chi-square analyses comparing K–12 and studio teachers’ satisfaction with their current primary occupations are presented in Table S3 (included with the online version of this article). A difference was found on the item “Job security,” (p < .001, Cramer’s V = .20), indicating that K–12 teachers were more satisfied with their job security than studio teachers. For the item “Balance between work and nonwork life,” (p < .001, Cramer’s V = .18), results indicated that studio teachers were more satisfied with their work-life balance than were K–12 teachers.

Regarding research question 2, descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the differences between the respondent’s perceptions of the skills needed to teach in their respective settings and perceptions of the skills they developed in their university education. Given that the variables of interest were not measured with the same measurement scale, inferential analyses could not be performed. The majority of all respondents indicated that the following skills were very important to their current work: Interpersonal skills (studio: 87.9%, K–12: 90.3%), leadership skills (studio: 71.6%, K–12: 98.3%), project management (studio: 65.1%, K–12: 74.8%), persuasive speaking (studio: 63.4%, K–12: 74.2%), clear writing (studio: 51.5%, K–12: 63.4%), creative thinking and problem solving (studio: 88.7%, K–12: 91.4%), improved work based on feedback from others (studio: 78.8%, K–12: 81.2%), broad knowledge and education (studio: 80.1%, K–12: 91.0%), and critical thinking (studio: 64.3%, K–12: 76.4%). Of those items, fewer than 50% of respondents felt their institutions had helped them very much to develop skills in the following areas: project management (studio: 27.9%, K–12: 38%), persuasive speaking (studio: 17.5%, K–12: 25.8%), clear writing (studio: 32.8%, K–12: 33.9%), and critical thinking (studio: 40.9%, K–12: 49.6%).

Virtually all studio and K–12 teachers said teaching skills were very important to their work (96.6% and 97.7%, respectively); substantially fewer said their institutions helped them very much to develop those skills (46.2% and 65.3%, respectively). A large percentage of both studio and K–12 teachers felt their degrees did not at all prepare them with financial and business management skills (42% and 32%, respectively) or prepared them very little (38% and 39.4% respectively), though the majority of studio teachers (60%) indicated these skills to be very important to their work. A substantial percentage of the teachers (studio: 52.3%; K–12: 42.9%) felt that their institutions prepared them very little or not at all in terms of technological skills, while the majority of K–12 teachers (59.9%) said technological skills were very important to their work. For studio teachers, there was a gap between the importance of entrepreneurial skills for their work (62.2% very important) and the development of those skills in university training (7.1% very much).

For research question 3, chi-square analyses were also conducted to compare the perceptions of studio teachers with performance degrees (n = 527) and education degrees (n = 81; Table S4 included in the online version of this article). The only practically significant difference between their perceptions of how much their institution helped them develop professional skills and abilities was between their ratings of “Teaching skills,” (p < .001, Cramer’s V = .19), indicating that studio teachers with education degrees believed their institutions helped them to develop teaching skills more than studio teachers with performance degrees.

Regarding the open response question, “Is there anything that [INSTITUTION] could have done better to prepare you for further education or for your career? Please describe,” the following categories were identified, in order of frequency: business or administrative skills, pedagogy training, networking, practical training, advising, teaching experiences, technology skills, and additional coursework. Under business or administrative skills, respondents expressed a need for general business, marketing, and finance-related classes, as well as entrepreneurial skills in general. K–12 teachers tended to express a need for training in important administrative skills, while studio teachers expressed a need for skills related to running a small business.

Items in the pedagogy category included statements in which respondents expressed a need for more teaching tools, specific pedagogical strategies, instrument-specific pedagogy, or teaching advice. K–12 teachers expressed the need for more time spent on specific skills (e.g., secondary instruments), teaching methodologies (e.g., Kodály), or working with learners with exceptionalities. Studio teachers tended to express a broader need for pedagogical training, and in particular on their principal instrument. Interestingly, while some studio teachers lamented the complete lack of pedagogy training in their degrees, even those who mentioned having taken a pedagogy class expressed the need for more in-depth training.

Networking was categorized separately from business or administrative skills, despite being a closely related topic, due to the prevalence of comments that addressed networking specifically. Respondents often mentioned networking and business skills in the same comment, suggesting that they are seen as complimentary skills. Respondents requested opportunities to network in structured events, or a need for advice or training on how to network more generally. Still others lumped networking in with what they called “entrepreneurial skills” or “interpersonal skills,” suggesting the need for “soft” skills associated with being able to interact with others.

The category of practical training consisted of statements about training that was not pedagogical in nature, such as conducting skills, classroom management, studying nonclassical music, university lecturing, and others. This code included the largest variety of responses, but all of them revealed a desire for emphasis on practical skills beyond teaching. The advising category included statements asking for more guidance on career choices/options, further education, finding employment after graduation, and access to career-related resources. Respondents generally mentioned the need for more mentoring and advice in how to launch successful careers in music. This code was prevalent for K–12 and studio teachers.

Requests for teaching experience within the degree program were also prevalent among both K–12 and studio teachers’ open-ended comments. K–12 teachers expressed a need for additional prestudent teaching experience or full-year student teaching placements, whereas studio teachers mentioned a need for internships or structured teaching experiences within pedagogy classes. Technology skills were frequently cited as necessary by K–12 educators, including grade management or organizational programs, specific software applications to teach to students such as Finale or Garage Band, recording technology, the use of sound equipment, or broad comments such as “training on technology in the classroom.” Studio teachers made very few comments about technology, with the exception of creating websites for advertising and marketing purposes; no studio teachers mentioned teaching technological skills to their own students.

In addition, some respondents made specific recommendations for additional coursework they felt would have been of benefit to them. A wide variety of classes were suggested by K–12 teachers, including: assessment techniques, communicating with parents or administrators, additional emphases on general music, lesson planning, classes in the humanities and arts, marching band techniques, jazz, educational psychology, pedagogy of nonclassical music, popular music history, music research, and students with exceptionalities. In contrast, the studio teachers suggested training in foreign languages, musician’s health, and students with exceptionalities, in addition to business and networking classes discussed above.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare music studio teachers’ and K–12 music teachers’ perceptions of professional preparation satisfaction, skills needed to teach music, and job satisfaction. As a volunteer survey, however, the data gathered by SNAAP and results of the present study should be viewed with some caution. All data were gathered via volunteer, self-reporting measures without any random sampling, and the average institutional response rate for 2011 and 2012 combined was 18.4%. However, Lambert and Miller (2014) compared the respondent characteristics and institutional satisfaction item responses from the 2010 administration of the SNAAP with several years of the National Survey of Student Engagement, which has been administered using a random sampling method since 2000, including 1 million undergraduates and more than 1,500 U.S. institutions. Because they found no significant differences between the representative characteristics of the SNAAP and the National Survey of Student Engagement respondents according to gender, race, citizenship, parental education levels, or institution satisfaction ratings, the SNAAP data may be more reflective of nationally representative and unbiased findings, despite the limitations of a nonrandom sampling method (Lambert and Miller, 2014).

Despite this limitation, the findings of this study suggest a number of possible directions for practice. Courses in business, finance, networking, administration, and/or entrepreneurship may help to prepare students with some of the skills essential for a music teaching career. In particular, classes that are geared specifically to musician-educators, not just general courses in other departments, may help students make important connections between their coursework and the practical aspects of their future careers. It is important to note, however, that many of these skills could—and perhaps ought to be—incorporated into current coursework. For example, students graduating with bachelors’ degrees in performance might be required to perform their senior recital somewhere in the community, including professional quality advertising, booking a venue, and networking with other musicians under the supervision of their studio teacher. Music education students might be required to participate directly in administrative tasks during their student teaching placements, so they have been exposed to the scope and requirements of such tasks before taking their first teaching position. Music faculty should be encouraged to creatively incorporate entrepreneurial skills into all coursework as much as is practically possible.

Additional teaching experiences could also be incorporated into traditional course work (for example, during pedagogy or methods courses), as more supervised teaching experiences for both K–12 and studio teachers may prove highly valuable by providing practical experiences before teachers are expected to teach on their own. In particular, providing teaching experiences earlier in degree programs may help students develop essential teaching skills over an extended period. As Abeles (2011) notes, implementing internships or student teaching experiences for studio teachers may prove valuable. Fredrickson, Geringer, and Pope (2013) suggest that schools of music may consider moving toward formal education for and certification of studio teachers, especially if such programs could increase the quality of studio teaching overall. Perhaps schools of music could move toward departments of teaching and learning encompassing all music teaching contexts, rather than exclusively or predominantly K–12 teaching so as to better prepare all graduates for the realities and challenges of teaching careers.

Regarding professional preparation satisfaction, the only meaningful difference between K–12 and studio teachers in their opinions was for the skill persuasive speaking; this is likely due to the perceived need for advocacy for music in K–12 education, whereas studio teachers rely on private funds that are not as sensitive to public opinion. It is important to note, however, that this does not indicate that they were in any way satisfied with the other variables in this set. Rather, more than half of both studio and K–12 teachers felt their degrees did not at all prepare them with financial and business management skills or entrepreneurial skills, and a substantial percentage of the teachers felt that their institutions prepared them very little or not at all in terms of technological skills. This is consistent with previous research findings that have highlighted a perceived lack of budgeting skills (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004) and technological competence (Haning, 2016) among K–12 teachers. With 15.2% of studio teachers in this sample earning $10,000 or less per year and only 13.9% earning more than $30,000 per year, it would seem these skills are essential for studio teachers in particular.

Regarding the perceived skills needed to teach in studio and K–12 settings, differences between groups were found for the items: broad knowledge and education, technological skills, financial and business management skills, entrepreneurial skills, and leadership skills. These results indicate that the skills needed to teach in K–12 and studio settings are different, particularly when it comes to the business-related skills needed to run a private studio. Because K–12 teachers do not need to secure their own students, teaching spaces, or payment, it is unsurprising that studio teachers perceive these skills as more of a priority. It is important to note, however, that more studio teachers felt they did not develop those essential skills in their formal education. Moreover, respondent’s open-ended responses point to the need for business-related classes for all music majors. This is consistent with Ballantyne and Packer’s (2004) findings that early career teachers felt that more curricular time should be spent on methods for administering music programs (for example, budgeting or legal issues) in addition to specific pedagogical content knowledge.

It would seem that slow curricular change is at least partially to blame for the lack of entrepreneurial, administrative, and other practical skills in current music programs. For example, many institutions have withdrawn from the accreditation process through the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) due to a lack of flexibility for curricular innovations. As Cutietta (2017) writes,

By design, NASM was structured to reward compliance with the norm. . . . This has not been a problem until recently when many of the very schools that originally founded NASM realized the music profession had changed and wanted to adapt to this change. . . . Today, the very schools that were instrumental in forming NASM for the collective good of the profession (Yale, Juilliard, University of Southern California, New England Conservatory, University of Washington, Oberlin, and others) are abandoning NASM for the same reason. (p. 257)

In response to these challenges, a number of major institutions (such as Indiana University, Peabody, Eastman, and others) have developed centers for music entrepreneurship in an attempt to address the needs of the current job market for musicians, which suggests the profession is adapting to the needs of their students—but perhaps not quickly enough.

The results of the present study indicate significant disparities between the skills these teachers perceive themselves to have developed in their education, and the actual skills they need to teach. For example, while virtually all studio and K–12 teachers said teaching skills were very much important to their work, substantially fewer said their institutions helped them very much to develop those skills. As Davidson and Jordan (2007) noted, the studio environment tends to be more “mysterious” in terms of specific techniques employed for teaching; this may explain some of this disparity for studio teachers. This finding is also consistent with Parkes’s (2009/2010) assertion that pedagogical training should be included in both performance and education degrees in order to provide guidance on “how to teach in each of the areas (pedagogy), rather than just what to teach (content)” (p. 71).

It is particularly surprising that less than two thirds of K–12 teachers felt their institutions helped them very much to develop teaching skills—considering that teaching skills are central to a career in education—though almost all respondents indicated that their training was at least somewhat helpful. It is less surprising that studio teachers feel underprepared, as performance degrees do not place a heavy emphasis on teaching skills. As Frederickson (2007b) noted in his research on teaching studio lessons, 82% of respondents in his study disagreed or disagreed strongly that good teaching technique was obvious and did not need to be taught; considering that both groups see teaching skills as very important to their work, more training in teaching for studio teachers in particular seems necessary. This is also consistent with Ballantyne and Packer’s (2004) findings that K–12 teachers perceive themselves as lacking in some essential skills upon graduation.

In the present study, respondents expressed a general desire for more teaching experiences within their degree programs, which suggests that devoting more curricular time to supervised teaching experiences would be valuable. Brophy (2002) found that experienced K–12 teachers felt field experiences were too few and occurred too late in their undergraduate education to be maximally helpful, suggesting that field experiences might be distributed throughout the degree program. Because curricular field experiences are not typical in performance degrees, perhaps incorporating such experiences into studio teacher training could prove worthwhile. In addition, structured teaching experiences in pedagogy classes—as a part of applied lessons—or in community organizations could be positive additions for studio teacher training.

Regarding job satisfaction, differences were found regarding job security such that more studio teachers are dissatisfied with the stability of their work, and more K–12 teachers feel their work-life balance is not satisfactory. Again, these findings are not surprising considering that studio teachers outside of academia typically work for themselves or small businesses and that their students can quit lessons unexpectedly for a variety of reasons; it seems reasonable that they would feel less secure. Differences were also found between the groups on work-life balance. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that performing musicians are frequently dissatisfied with opportunities for growth as professionals as well as their economic stability (Mogelhof & Roher, 2005; Parasauraman & Purohit, 2000). The low salaries and stressors (e.g., administrators, challenging working conditions, long hours) faced by K–12 teachers have also been documented previously (Hamann, Daugherty, & Mills, 1987; Hancock, 2008; Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012; Miksza & Hime, 2015).

Regarding differences between the respondent’s perceptions of the skills needed to teach in their respective settings and perceptions of the skills they developed in their university education, the majority of all respondents indicated that the following skills were very important to their current work: relationship building, leadership skills, project management, persuasive speaking, clear writing, creative thinking, taking feedback, broad knowledge and education, and critical thinking. Of those items, fewer than 50% of respondents felt their institutions had helped them very much to develop those skills: project management, persuasive speaking, clear writing, and critical thinking. In terms of leadership skills, the majority of K–12 teachers felt they had been very much prepared; approximately one third of studio teachers felt the same. Thus, there are a number of disparities between the practical skills developed in university training and the professional realities of these teachers. This is consistent with Mills’s (2004) finding of a disjunction between the training of studio teachers and the professional reality of their postgraduation careers and Ballantyne and Packer’s (2004) findings depicting the perceived ineffectiveness of preservice music teacher education program.

A significant difference between studio teachers with education and performance degrees was found regarding satisfaction in the teaching skills developed during their education. This finding seems to indicate that a larger percentage of studio teachers with education degrees feel more prepared to teach in a studio setting than those with performance degrees even though their training was very likely geared toward group teaching in a public school setting. This is consistent with multiple authors’ suggestions that studio teachers need deliberate and prolonged pedagogical training in much the same way that K–12 teachers receive programs (Duke & Simmons, 2006; Fredrickson, 2007b; Fredrickson et al., 2013; Rickels et al., 2010; Villarreal, 2010). Moreover, Brophy (2002) and Macleod and Walter (2011) argue that field experience prior to student teaching would be beneficial for preservice K–12 teachers, suggesting that more, and more frequent, teaching experiences may be beneficial for all music teachers, regardless of teaching context.

The present study also suggests a number of possible directions for future research. Recognizing the significant disparities between skills needed and skills acquired during university training for both groups of teachers, researchers might implement and study experimental programs to address these disparities. Case studies of programs implementing extensive music business, entrepreneurship or other essential nonteaching skills may illuminate possibilities more broadly.

Because more studio teachers with education degrees felt more prepared to teach than studio teachers with performance degrees, this subpopulation of education degree wielding studio teachers might be surveyed to investigate what skills they feel should be emphasized in performance degrees in order to prepare graduates to be studio teachers. In addition, if the SNAAP data differentiated between performance students and performance-pedagogy students, interesting differences may have been found; examinations of existent performance-pedagogy degree programs and their alumni might provide valuable insights from a distinct subset of teachers.

The SNAAP survey was designed as a general information gathering tool; surveying K–12 and studio teachers with an instrument geared toward preparation satisfaction, perceived necessary skills for teaching, and job satisfaction more specifically would provide more nuanced data. In addition, targeting these populations more directly, perhaps through teaching organizations and societies, might help to reach a wider subsection of the teaching community.

For those who pursue careers in music after graduation, two of the most common career paths for music program graduates are to become teachers within the public schools and/or to become private studio teachers. The present study suggests that postsecondary education in music could be adjusted to better serve those who intend to become teachers in a variety of important ways, such as through rethinking curricular emphases and approaches for preparing students with teaching skills, business skills, and interpersonal skills. The challenges highlighted here might serve stakeholders within university teacher-training programs as they work to better prepare preservice teachers in both K–12 and studio settings.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material, JRME772534_Supplemental_Material – Music Program Alumni’s Perceptions of Professional Skills, Abilities, and Job Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis of the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) Survey

Supplementary Material, JRME772534_Supplemental_Material for Music Program Alumni’s Perceptions of Professional Skills, Abilities, and Job Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis of the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP) Survey by Jennifer Blackwell in Journal of Research in Music Education

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

Supplemental Material

The online tables and figures are available at .

Author Biography

Jennifer Blackwell is assistant professor of music education at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Her research interests include applied teaching expertise (from behavioral, cognitive, social, cultural, and affective perspectives), performance expertise, and applied teacher training.

References

Abeles

(2011). Designing effective music studio instruction. In Madura Ward-Steinman

(Ed.), Advances in social-psychology and music education research (pp. 19–27). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Ballantyne

Packer

(2004). Effectiveness of preservice music teacher education programs: Perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research, 6(3), 299–312. doi:10.1080/1461380042000281749

Bauer

W. I.

Reese

McAllister

P. A.

(2003). Transforming music teaching via technology: The role of professional development. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 289–301. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3345656

Brophy

T.S.

(2002). Teacher reflections on undergraduate education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 6(3), 299–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837020120010501

Conway

(2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 20–36. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3345690

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cutietta

R. A.

(2017). K–12 music education in a democratic society. In Schmidt

K. P.

Colwell

(Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education: Standpoints for understanding and action (pp. 253–265). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Davidson

W. J.

Jordan

(2007). “Private teaching, private learning”: An exploration of music instrument learning in the private studio, junior and senior conservatories. In Bresler

(Ed.), Springer international handbook of research in arts education (Vol. 16, pp. 729–744). Dordecht, the Netherlands: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-3052-9

Davis

V. W.

(2006). Beginning music education students’ and student teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Contributions to Music Education, 33(1), 27–40. Retrieved from http://openmusiclibrary.org/article/44920/

10.

DeLorenzo

L. C.

(1992). The perceived problems of beginning music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 113, 9–25. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40318508

11.

Dorfman

(2008). Technology in Ohio’s school music programs: An exploratory study of teacher use and integration. Contributions to Music Education, 35, 23–46. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24127161

12.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

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

13.

Fredrickson

W. E.

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

14.

Fredrickson

W. E.

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

15.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Geringer

J. M.

Pope

D. A.

(2013). Attitudes of string teachers and performers toward preparation for and teaching of private lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 217–232. doi: 10.1177/0022429413485245

16.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Neill

(2004). “Is it Friday yet?” (Perceptions of first-year music teachers). Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 91–98. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319242

17.

Hamann

D. L.

Daugherty

Mills

C. R.

(1987). An investigation of burnout assessment and potential job related variables among public school music educators. Psychology of Music, 15, 128–140. doi:10.1177/0305735687152002

18.

Hancock

C. B.

(2008). Music teachers at risk for attrition and migration: An analysis of the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 130–145. doi:10.1177/0022429408321635

19.

Haning

(2016). Are they ready to teach with technology? An investigation of technology instruction in music teacher education programs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 78–90. doi:10.1177/1057083715577696

20.

Housego

B. E. J.

(1990). Teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(1), 37–56. doi:10.2307/1495416

21.

Huck

S. W.

(2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

22.

Johnson

S. M.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effect of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–39. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16685

23.

Kelly

S. N.

(2007). High school band students’ perceptions of effective teaching. Journal of Band Research, 42(2), 52–64.

24.

Kelly

S. N.

(2010). Public school supervising teachers’ perceptions of skills and behaviors necessary in the development of effective music student teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 21–32. doi:10.2307/41110363

25.

Krueger

P. T.

(2001). Reflections of beginning music teachers. Music Educators Journal, 88(3), 51–54.

26.

Lambert

A. D.

Miller

A. L.

(2014). Lower response rates on alumni surveys might not mean lower response representativeness. Educational Research Quarterly, 37(3), 38–51.

27.

MacLeod

R. B.

Walter

J. S.

(2011). A descriptive study of cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding student teacher preparation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190, 21–34. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.190.0021

28.

Miksza

Hime

(2015). Undergraduate music program alumni’s career path, retrospective institutional satisfaction, and financial status. Arts Education Policy Review, 116(4), 1–13. doi:10.1080/10632913.2014.945628

29.

Miksza

Roeder

Biggs

(2010). Surveying Colorado band directors’ opinions of skills and characteristics important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 364–381. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40666502

30.

Mills

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

31.

Mishra

Day

Littles

Vandewalker

(2011). A content analysis of introductory courses in music education at NASM-accredited colleges and universities. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190, 7–19. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.190.0007

32.

Mogelhof

J. P.

Rohrer

L. H.

(2005). Rewards and sacrifices in elite and non-elite organizations: Participation in valued activities and job satisfaction in two symphony orchestras. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 93–109.

33.

Parasauraman

Purohit

Y. S.

(2000). Distress and boredom among orchestra musicians: The two faces of stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 74–83.

34.

Parkes

K. A.

(2009/2010). College applied faculty: the disjunction of performer, teacher, and educator. College Music Symposium, 49/50, 65–76. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/41225232

35.

Rickels

D. A.

Councill

K. H.

Fredrickson

W. E.

Hairston

Porter

A. M.

Schmidt

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

36.

Rohwer

Henry

(2004). University teachers’ perceptions of requisite skills and characteristics of effective music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13, 18–27. doi:10.1177/10570837040130020104

37.

Saunders

T. C.

Baker

D. S.

(1991). In-service classroom teachers’ perceptions of useful music skills and understandings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 248–261. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3344724

38.

Taylor

C. H.

(1970). Opinions of music teachers regarding professional preparation in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18, 330–339. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3344500

39.

Teachout

D. J.

(1997). Pre-service and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 41–50. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3345464

40.

Thompson

L. K.

(2007). Considering beliefs in learning to teach music. Music Educators Journal, 93(3), 30–35. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/4101536

41.

Villarreal

E. K.

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

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.12 MB