Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to acquire a better understanding of the decision-making process of Thai pre-service music education students and their expectations of their post-graduation professional activities. Demographic data was gathered as well as self-reported participant influences regarding choosing to major in music education. A free response question sought participants’ perception of their role as a music educator in their community. Results tended to mirror those of previous research. Emergent themes from the free response question included teacher behaviors, teacher traits, and student outcomes. These data may help to provide a better understanding of the pre-service music educators’ influences to become music educators, and their post-graduation expectations, as well as providing important information that may lead to possible revisions in current music education curricula in Thailand. Immediate and future relevance of the data and areas for further research were discussed.
In music teacher education, part of the “pedagogical puzzle” is to prepare our students for what will likely be a highly varied population of music students they will encounter once they enter the field. This includes such items as the courses offered and experiences provided as part of their degree program. Further, one might argue that the student experiences prior to entering into a teacher training program may provide important data for addressing student needs and interests as they prepare themselves for entering the profession. For instance, what types of music education experiences may have influenced their decision to become a music educator? Are they seeking to become part of the “status quo” or be more innovative in their approach? What sort of hierarchical schema is in place for genre and style selections for pedagogical use? When addressing what music to use for teaching purposes, one must be aware of her students and their cultural background as well as the cultures of the school, region, or nation (Campbell, 2003). In Thailand, there is a clear separation among several, culturally-specific music genres.
Music for consumption, as an academic endeavor, is generally divided into two broad categories: “popular music” and “classical music.” “Popular music” usually refers to the current music trends that are being consumed on a large scale and are widely available via numerous media. This collection of music styles (i.e., Pop, Rock, etc.), while diverse, generally includes lyrics that refer to current cultural or societal topics and tend to be geographically specific. In other words, with the exception of American popular music, which tends to cross geographic and geopolitical boundaries, popular music in Thailand, for instance, is somewhat regionally confined. The music itself strongly resembles the instrumentation and style one might hear on a “pop” radio station in the United States, however, the use of Thai language lends cultural and geographic specificity. “Classical music,” on the other hand, generally refers to Western [European] Art Music forms (i.e., symphony, concerto, opera, sonata, etc.) and performance practices (i.e., orchestras, piano solos, choral ensembles, string quartets, etc.), regardless of geographic location. “Classical music” composers, such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, are considered standard bearers for the genre worldwide. Additionally, education in, or exposure, to classical music is often viewed as an indication of culture and sophistication. In Thailand, however, one must add an additional category; that of “Thai Classical music.” Thai classical music is an ancient tradition that has been passed down orally for centuries and continues to be performed and taught as a part of Thai culture. Further, education in Thai classical music is stressed and considered a way of showing one’s “Thai-ness” within the Thai culture. Additionally, the rote nature of this tradition poses many pedagogical issues for both teaching and teacher training. The presence of these three seemingly different styles and the oral aspect of Thai classical music imply the need for a multicultural approach to music education in Thailand.
There is very little extant literature on the educational structure or pedagogy of Thai schools and even less on music education. Perhaps one of the largest differences is that in Thailand, they are able to focus on one traditional music style in conjunction with the generally accepted, and ubiquitous, style of music in the Western Art music paradigm. Volk (2006) focused on Thai culture and its musics specifically investigating the rich instrumental music tradition of Thailand. Her investigation also briefly discussed the role of the teacher indicating that music instruction in Thailand tends to keep with the Thai teaching methodology of oral tradition through rote teaching/learning. This observation leads to the question of whether Thai music educators utilize the same, traditional methodology when teaching students to perform Western Art music form and practices. Perhaps more importantly, it allows the question of how Thai music education curricula are organized, taught, and evaluated and the similarities and differences it holds with those practices in the United States.
In Thai public schools, music was not considered a “required” subject until the Basic Core Curriculum (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2008) was enacted, but it would be inappropriate to assume that music is not present, in some form, in the school setting. Teachers sometimes incorporate indigenous traditional songs and instruments for ceremonial purposes, and they might also use popular songs with students as learning devices, or supportive measures for learning a specific set of facts or concepts. Campbell (1994) suggested that this may be a result of the indication that music is more central to the Thai culture and family system, and therefore music education occurs in the home. There is some indication that music teaching happens, in a broad sense, in both settings.
In 2001, the Thailand Ministry of Education implemented the Basic Education Curriculum with the aim to the “full development of Thai people in all aspects: morality, intellect, happiness, Thai-ness, potential in furthering education and securing careers” (p. 5). The basic goals include developing self-esteem, self-discipline, strict observance of religious teaching and practice, morality, creative thinking, writing, reading, and research habits. There is an apparent emphasis on skills and learning that will help the whole person and ultimately allow students to think and act for transfer beyond the boundaries of any one area of thought or vocation. The delineated “5 Principles of the National Education Curriculum” (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2001, p. 5) address this concept fairly clearly:
It is the education for national integrity emphasizing on Thainess and at the same time not ignoring internationalism.
The education for the citizens in which people from all walks of life have equal access and opportunity as well as the participation of the community must be taking into accounts.
Promote and enhance self-learning continuously and endlessly adhering to the philosophy that learning is the most important and has the ability to develop naturally and optimally.
Must have flexible structure covering contents, time and management of learning.
Must be applicable formally, informally, as well as cover all targets and the credit points can be transferable to experience and vice versa.
In 2008, the Thailand Ministry of Education produced the “Basic Core Curriculum” (2008) in response to the need for more specificity in outcomes from the Basic Education Curriculum (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2001), and this provided specific competencies, standards and outcomes for each curricular area. Specific to the Arts (Visual, Music, Dramatic), the document states that learning in the area of the arts “helps to develop creativity in learners, who will have artistic imagination, appreciate beauty, have aesthetics and worthiness, which affect the quality of human lives” (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 212). Each Arts area (Visual, Music, Dramatic) is subdivided into two basic goal areas. For Music, the first focuses on creative self-expression, analysis, and conveyance of thoughts and beliefs about music. The second pertains to relationships between and among music, history and culture as well as “appreciation of musical works that represent cultural heritage, local wisdom, and Thai and universal wisdom” 1 (p. 230). There appears to be a focus on Thai Classical music throughout this document although culturally, the Western “Pop” music style and format is ubiquitous in nearly all areas of Thai life. According to Warrawech (2001), elective courses offered are generally Thai music (basic music, Thai singing, Thai performance, etc.).
It is interesting to note that Thai secondary schools for the arts and post-secondary music degree programs offer traditional Thai classical, Western classical, commercial music (i.e., pop styles, jazz, etc.), musicology, ethnomusicology, music composition, and music theory as available areas of study with a multitude of performance opportunities in each area. Music participation opportunities are varied and available within the school setting as either curricular or extracurricular activities (e.g. school marching band, school Thai classical ensemble, school popular music ensemble) or within the community (e.g. private music schools, community ensembles, private lessons). Further, there are numerous activities sponsored by institutes of higher education, local temples, government sponsored performance opportunities, and competitions as well as media-driven television programs/films about music or music education.
In a fairly comprehensive investigation into Thai music education philosophies and practices, Ngamsuti (1980) surveyed current music educators on their perspectives on the Thai music education paradigm in Thai public (e.g., government) schools. He stated: [The] lack of historical and contemporary information regarding educational music efforts in Thailand, it is imperative to gain a broad perspective of various components, philosophies, and learning theories dealing with western music education. This is not to deny the virtues of Thai music and the need to cultivate its use in schools. However, Thai music education has a growing linkage to the world’s music, and music of Western civilization commands a dominant place. Insights into the values ascribed to music education from the western viewpoint may ultimately have a marked impact on the eventual definitions of curricula in Thailand. (p. 42)
Historically, it appears that current professors of music teacher education are primarily trained in Western Art music (Khongkhakul, 1976). The researcher reported “All administrators agreed that it would be very beneficial for their institutions if a program (of music education) could be established in order to assist their students in developing musical and teaching skills” (p. 73). If they are then making value judgments on how and what to teach, one could surmise that Western art music will be a logical medium for training music teachers.
It is important to understand the paradigm of higher education music training in Thailand to provide some semblance of perspective. Charoensook (1985) provided a detailed account of music programs in higher education. At the time, one could major in Music Education (Western Art Music), Music Education (Thai Classical), or Music Performance (Western Art Music). The five institutions that were investigated had widely varied purposes. The first institution of high education to offer a music degree in Thailand, Satabanbunditpatanasirp University College of Fine Arts (Bangkok) was intended to train and produce musicians for the National Orchestra while others offered 4-year degrees in music education or performance.
In this era of global communication and cross-cultural interactions, there is an increasing need to broaden the knowledge base of music education by illuminating similarities and differences in music education approaches from seemingly different and distant cultures such as Thailand and the US. The purpose of this investigation was to acquire a better understanding of the expectations of Thai pre-service music education students for their future in the profession. Demographic data were gathered pertaining to influences regarding majoring in music education, regional upbringing, and previous music experiences. Additionally, information was gathered as to pre-service music educator’s perception of the role of music education in Thai society.
Methodology
Participants (N = 69) were undergraduate music education majors attending one of three large universities in Thailand. The universities were selected because they are the most prominent 4-year institutions in Thailand that offer a Masters in Music Education. The instrument used, Music Education Career Choice Survey (see the Appendix), was based on a survey tool developed by Bergee, Coffman, Demorest, Humphreys, and Thornton (2001). The tool was revised to suit the degree programs utilized in Thai institutions of higher education as well as appropriate nomenclature for schooling and geographic data. This tool was then translated into Thai. The surveys were distributed by music education faculty at each institution and then returned to the investigators.
The first portion of the survey was to collect demographic data such as gender, year in school, major(s), and the geographic region where they grew up. All participants were asked to respond to the following survey questions:
Why did you decide to major in music education?
Who most influenced the decision to be a music educator?
What experiences/events influenced the decision to major in music education?
When did the decision to major in music education occur?
What are the expectations for employment activities after degree completion?
How do you perceive the role of music educator in Thai society?
The responses were independently translated to English by three Thai doctoral students and then analysed for emergent themes.
Results
The purpose of this investigation was to identify perceptions and expectations of pre-service music educators in Thai institutions of higher education. The surveys were distributed by music education faculty at each institution and then returned to the investigators. In all, 109 questionnaires were returned, of which 69 were complete and therefore deemed usable for analysis. The survey tool sought to identify some basic demographic information including gender, where each participant was from geographically speaking, and their major(s). Respondents included a fairly even distribution of gender (33 female, 32 male, 4 not specified). The vast majority of respondents (n = 43; 62.8%) indicated they were from the Bangkok area followed by Central Thailand (n = 9; 12.8%), Northeast (n = 6; 9.0%), Northern (n = 5; 6.4%), Eastern (n = 3; 3.8%), Southern (n = 3; 3.8%), and Western (n = 1; 1.2%). Further, the majority of participants indicated they were music education majors (n = 43; 52.4%) while a fair number of students were also majoring (e.g., double-major) in Performance (Western Art) (n = 21; 25.6%). The academic level of the participants leaned toward beginning portions of the degree programs (see Table 1).
Participant year in degree program (N = 69).
Percentages are slightly below 100% due to rounding procedures.
Results to the query investigating when a participant decided to become a music teacher fell into an inverted U paradigm with the majority of participants making this consequential decision during their pre-college years, followed closely by those who chose this profession during their first year of their undergraduate degree program (see Table 2).
Responses to the survey question: When did you decide to be a music teacher? (N = 69).
The next set of questions sought to find why participants decided to major in music education, who may have influenced their decision and what events and/or experiences may have influenced that decision. These questions were formatted such that respondents were required to indicate rank order of their “top 3” choices. In order to compare, scores were adjusted to provide some differentiation between those ranked first versus second or third. Therefore, an adjusted score system was used (Rank 1 = 3 points; Rank 2 = 2 points; Rank 3 = 1 point), which provided an Adjusted Total score for comparative purposes.
The first question asked participants to indicate why they chose to major in music education. As indicated in Table 3, the two most highly ranked responses were “Love of Music” and “I felt called to teach”, which represented 57.8% (29.5% and 28.3%, respectively) of the adjusted total scores for why they chose music education as their future profession.
Responses to the survey question: Why did you decide to be a music teacher? (N = 69).
Note: Adjusted scoring procedure (Rank 1 = 3 points; Rank 2 = 2 points; Rank 3 = 1 point).
Percentages are slightly below 100% due to rounding procedures.
The second of these questions, a follow-up to the previous question (why,) inquired who might have influenced that decision. Once again, participants were asked to indicate, in rank order, their three most influential people in the decision-making process. As displayed in Table 4, the person(s) indicated most often as a first choice were Parent(s)/Guardian(s) followed by Community Musicians. Results suggest that family (e.g. Parent[s]/Guardian[s], siblings) and peers/friends account for 38% of the indicated influence, only slightly more than did music teachers throughout their academic life (34%). It was interesting to note that Community musicians appeared to have a fairly evenly distribution of influence through all three possible ranks.
Responses to the survey question: Who influenced that decision? (N = 69).
Note: Adjusted scoring procedure (Rank 1 = 3 points; Rank 2 = 2 points; Rank 3 = 1 point)
Percentages are slightly above 100% due to rounding procedures.
The next survey question sought to determine what events and/or experiences may have been the most influential in participants choosing to major in music education. Essentially, the “Experiences” functioned as ongoing, repetitive activities such as rehearsal-based ensembles while “Events” were one time or infrequent activities such as an annual competition or an event hosted by an institution of high education. Results indicated that active participation in music (“Experiences”) accounted for a majority of the influence (64.5%) and specifically, “School marching band” accounted for one third of those ranked first. “School marching band” and “School popular music ensemble” accounted for nearly half (44.5%) of the Experiences and Events indicated as influential to the process of deciding to major in music education (see Table 5).
Responses to the survey question: What experiences/events most influenced your decision to major in music education? (N = 69).
Adjusted scoring procedure (Rank 1 = 3 points; Rank 2 = 2 points; Rank 3 = 1 point)
Percentages are slightly above 100% due to rounding procedures.
The final rank order question of the survey investigated the participants’ expected professional activities after graduating with an undergraduate music education degree. These results fall somewhat logically into three tiers (see Table 6). The first tier of responses included enrolling in graduate school or teaching in either a Thai public school, an international school, or in higher education represents nearly half (49%) post-degree expectations. The second tier, representing 37.5% of the possible responses, indicated that many intend to either perform professionally and/or operate a private studio as part of a music school. 2 The third tier includes teaching in a Thai private school, working in the music industry in a non-performing capacity, or pursuing a profession other than music.
Responses to the survey question: What will you do after you graduate? (N = 69).
Note: Adjusted scoring procedure (Rank 1 = 3 points; Rank 2 = 2 points; Rank 3 = 1 point).
Percentages are slightly below 100% due to rounding procedures.
Free response
The final question of the survey (What is your role as a music teacher in your community?) was in a free response format to allow respondents the flexibility to respond as they wished to this fairly broad question. A majority of respondents (N = 47) provided responses to this question for a total of 101 comments, roughly two comments per respondent. As all free responses were hand-written in Thai, the investigators had three music education doctoral students independently translate each of the responses for coding and analysis. A representative sample of 30% (n = 15) was checked for coding agreement with an acceptable level of agreement (.87).
The methodology utilized for analysis of the free response data was a search for emergent themes. The responses fell rather cleanly into one of three common themes: 1. Teacher behaviors (what a teacher does); 2. Teacher traits (what a teacher is); and 3. Outcomes of teaching (student behaviors/results) (see Table 7). Teacher behaviors (what a teacher does) represent just over half of the total comments (n = 51). Common statements included “A teacher should provide music knowledge to students.” The trait most often indicated was “modeling” suggesting that a teacher should provide a quality model for her/his students (e.g. “Teacher must be a good musician”, “Teacher must show compassion and patience”).
Emergent themes from “What is your role as a music teacher in your community?” (free response) (N = 101).
Several comments indicated that teachers should provide accurate and appropriate music knowledge and to “inspire students.” The second theme, Teacher behaviors, represents fewer overall comments than Theme 1, but includes the most common comment referencing pedagogical knowledge. Nearly a quarter (n = 23) of the comments indicated that a teacher must possess appropriate teaching knowledge. These ranged from “have sufficient knowledge to teach students effectively” to child development (“[T]eacher must understand student capabilities”). The third theme tends to focus on the outcomes of their role as music educator in the community. The responses all tended to relate to student quality of life and several respondents stated that music should be used to “reduce social problems.”
Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to gain some initial insight into the demographics, perceptions, and expectations of Thai pre-service music educators. The survey tool provided a fairly clear picture of these students. It should be noted that the sample is far too small to make any assumptions as to the expectations or experiences of the larger population. However, these data are a valuable initial step in gaining a more complete understanding of Thai pre-service music educators and, on a larger scale, the perception of their role as a music educator in Thai society.
Demographically, there was an even distribution of female/male respondents although the haphazard nature of the sampling does not allow for any meaningful conclusions. Anecdotally, there appears to be an increase in the number of female music education majors although no hard data was readily available to the researchers to determine any trends, but may be a fruitful area for further investigation. As one might expect, a majority of respondents (62.8%) indicated they were from the Bangkok area, which is not terribly surprising as the three participating institutions are located within the metropolitan area. One somewhat puzzling response was the indication that roughly half of the respondents were music education majors with the remaining as performance majors. This could be linked to the status, or lack thereof, of the music education degrees at the participating institutions.
The academic level of the participants leaned noticeably toward beginning portions of the degree programs displaying a “decrescendo” model of sorts. One cannot know why this occurred based on the data set available. Perhaps additional investigations into program retention/attrition to acquire a more meaningful understanding of these students and their respective degree programs.
Results to the question “When did you decide to be a music teacher?” are strikingly similar to previous investigations such as Bergee et al. (2001) and Madsen and Kelly (2002) who found 53.2% and 58% of respondents, respectively, made the decision to major in music education during their final 3 years of high school – comparable to M4–6 in the Thai school system.
The survey item seeking who may have been most influential in the participant’s decision to major in music education was actually higher (38%) than the findings of Bergee et al. (2001) for the same groups (24%). Data for Bergee et al. had a stronger response for high school band director and private music instructor than for parent(s)/guardian(s). The sample-size for this study precludes any reliable assumptions beyond speculation, but perhaps it is a cultural phenomenon. The concept of Family is a strong force within Thai culture, which manifests itself as a sense of duty to the family. This is particularly interesting considering the results for the question pertaining to influential experiences or events had school-affiliated ensembles (school marching band, school popular music ensemble) accounting for a strong majority (64.5%) of the possible answers, however, unlike Bergee et al. who found that respondents indicated high school-level music educators provided as much or more influence than parent(s)/guardian(s) on their decision to major in music education, these data indicated that Parents(s)/Guardians(s) had a higher influence than high school music educators, but that the experiences acquired in the high school setting appeared to be more influential than any other events or experiences. This interesting finding certainly warrants a more thorough investigation of Thai pre-service music education students and possible correlations among various influences.
The question of what respondents expected to be doing after graduation was of particular interest to the authors. What students expect to do with their degree can provide some insight into their expectations as well as a possible lens to view the curriculum to see if there is a relationship between the experiences and activities provided to students during their undergraduate degree and what they intend to do for a living once they graduate. We are not suggesting that the curriculum cater to student post-graduation expectations, however, it is interesting to identify said expectations and either teach toward them, work to shape those expectations, or a combination of the two. The first tier of responses, representing nearly half of the total responses, indicated that these respondents intended to teach in a school setting (e.g., Thai public school, international school, Thai private school, etc.), while the single highest response was the expectation of teaching in a private studio setting, which supports previous findings (Fredrickson, 2007). It appears for this relatively small sample that students intend to teach. In fact, the next most influential grouping of professional expectations was to operate a private studio. In other words, teach students music in one-on-one setting.
Free response (Role of music educator in community)
It appears that the pre-service music education participants are expecting to utilize their music education degree to teach music to students. Further, the free response portion of this survey illuminated an interesting look into what they feel a music teacher should be and do. The seemingly strong notion that a teacher must be a quality model and possess appropriate pedagogical knowledge is, quite frankly, refreshing and exciting. This open-ended question led this particular group of pre-service music educators to identify appropriate teacher behaviors and traits. Perhaps this is suggesting that they believe their role is to be a “good teacher.”
Anecdotally, there appears to be a belief among some higher education colleagues in Thailand that pre-service music educators would be better served to acquire a undergraduate degree in performance and then focus on music education instruction for a graduate-level degree, however, there has been some recent movement toward creating a new and/or consequentially revised Bachelor’s of Music Education degree program in two of the participating institutions.
It is unclear of the possible effects of the Basic Education Curriculum (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2001) and the subsequent Basic Education Core Curriculum (Thailand Ministry of Education, 2008) may have had on the participants in this investigation. It is likely that the formative changes were occurring within their school experiences and perhaps there were even instances that allowed them to reflect on changes that they were able to identify either overly or otherwise. Much like the education reform movement that culminated in the No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001 in the US, results of these curricular changes, especially consequential shifts in both content and outcomes, may not be known conclusively for some time and, if further reforms are implemented in the near future, the ability to link specific results to specific curricular changes will be difficult if not impossible.
It could be beneficial to investigate student attitudes toward their school experiences throughout this reformation of the Thai education system. Perhaps both current and former students can provide some input into the possible academic and cultural impact, intended and otherwise, these changes may have our students and educators. However, far more in depth information would be needed to ascertain the extent, if any, of these curricular revisions.
Footnotes
Appendix
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.