Teaching general music to young adolescents: Findings from a survey of music teacher perspectives

Abstract

Middle school general music is an often-overlooked aspect of music education in the United States. Yet at some point, many music educators face a teaching assignment including one or more sections of middle school general music. In this study, I investigated whether the principles that guide music educators in teaching middle school general music align with the middle level concept, articulated in This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents. In addition, I sought to examine the impact of a teacher’s lived experience on these principles. This survey of middle school teachers revealed that while less than 10% of respondents were aware of This We Believe, over 60% regularly use principles aligned with the middle level concept to guide their teaching, with the major exception of diverse assessment techniques. Analysis also revealed that over 80% of respondents are greatly influenced by their teaching experience when making teaching decisions compared to less than a third by their preservice preparation. Implications for this study include the inclusion of the middle level concept in preservice education, the diversification of assessment approaches in middle school general music, and the potential influence of the school community on a teacher’s practice.

Keywords

general music lived experience middle level concept middle school

Music teachers faced with teaching the developing young adolescent or middle school student (grades 5–8; ages 10–15) often struggle with how best to serve these students. As a result, music education researchers have examined young adolescents’ motivation to participate in music as one line of middle school-focused inquiry (Bennetts, 2013; Campbell, 2009; Kennedy, 2002; Power, 2008; Saunders, 2010; Warnock, 2009). Other lines of inquiry in middle school music include the use of varied curricular or pedagogical techniques in the ensemble classroom (Koops, 2009; Reynolds & Beitler, 2007; Riley, 2006) and the many ways puberty impacts vocal development and choral ensembles (Freer, 2010; Gackle, 1991, 2006; Kennedy, 2004; Killian, 1999; Lucas, 2011; Sweet, 2010, 2015; Zemek, 2010). Despite these many avenues of investigation around the teaching of young adolescents, the educational principles guiding the everyday choices made by music educators when working with young adolescents, particularly in non-ensemble settings, remain unclear.

Within the broader middle level education community, both practitioners and researchers also discuss the developmental learning needs of young adolescents through the lens of what is known as the middle level (or school) concept. According to Brazee, “when we talk about the middle school concept, we mean to answer the question, ‘What is the best educational plan for every young adolescent, ages 10–15’ not just students in a named ‘middle school’ or a school with some combination of Grades 5–8” (2005, p. 284). Thus, educators who teach young adolescents, whether in middle schools, junior highs, K–8, K–12, or 7–12 schools, ought to consider how the principles of the middle level concept influence their teaching. One of the most prominent expressions of the middle level concept is a guiding document for middle level educators, administrators, and researchers produced by the Association of Middle Level Education (AMLE) (formerly National Middle School Association [NMSA]): This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (This We Believe). This We Believe states that “the curriculum, pedagogy, and programs of middle grades schools must be based on the developmental readiness, needs, and interests of young adolescents” (NMSA, 2010, p. 5) and establishes 16 characteristics of learning environments designed to further an education for young adolescents (NMSA, 2010).

There is a body of literature in middle level education that has documented the progress and implementation of the middle level concept in young adolescent education on a national level within the United States (Alexander, 1968; Alexander & McEwin, 1989; McEwin, Dickinson, & Jenkins, 1996, 2003; McEwin & Greene, 2011). Other studies have sought to understand teachers’ attitudes toward a particular facet of the middle level concept (Dellinger, 1992; Evola, 2004; Fisher, 2012; Korejwa, 2009; Morgan-Conner, 1995; Updegraff, 2011). In the most recent line of inquiry, researchers have documented the impact of teacher knowledge (gained primarily in preservice) of This We Believe on the classroom environments created by these educators upon graduation (Conklin, 2007; Huss 2000, 2004; White, Dever, Ross, Jones, & Miller, 2013). These studies suggest that the success of middle level education is intimately tied to the beliefs of and principles used by practicing middle level teachers when designing and implementing curriculum. However, a major limitation of these studies is the focus on “core” academic (math, science, English language arts, and social studies) teachers rather than arts teachers in subjects such as music. This study seeks to extend this literature by specifically investigating music educators and their alignment to the principles stated in This We Believe.

One way of understanding how the principles that guide a teacher’s work develop and evolve is to examine what Clandinin and Connelly (1995, 1996) call a teacher’s professional knowledge landscape. Music teachers, as both musicians and educators, are often enculturated into two fields and thus their practices as teachers are influenced by ideas, concepts, principles, and writings within the discipline of music as well as educational theory and practice more broadly. Taking Clandinin and Connelly’s (1995) notion that the professional knowledge landscape comprises people, places, and things with whom the teacher interacts, there are a number of influences on a music teacher, including his/her school environment, his/her focus within music, the professional development received through membership in state and national music education organizations, and, perhaps most frequently, preservice preparation.

The purpose of this study was to assess the alignment of the principles used by middle school general music¹ teachers in the United States to those stated in This We Believe and to determine the aspects of music teacher lived experience that most influence this alignment. With this aim, I utilized the five characteristics of curriculum, instruction, and assessment stated in This We Believe to guide the investigation:

1) Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them;

2) Students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learning;

3) Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant;

4) Educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches;

5) Varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as measure it.

(NMSA, 2010, p. 14)

Drawing on the literature and expert review of survey items, I identified six aspects of lived experience specific to music educators that might influence a music teacher’s beliefs. These six aspects, influenced by Clandinin and Connelly’s (1995, 1996) professional knowledge landscape, are: preservice preparation, professional journals, collegial conversations, professional development, teaching experience, and personal musical engagement. While there are likely other aspects of the professional knowledge landscape worthy of consideration, these six were chosen as those most likely to be experienced by all United States music educators regardless of experience level or school context(s). The two research questions investigated were:

RQ1: How and to what extent are middle level music teachers’ beliefs about middle level general music curriculum and pedagogy congruent with This We Believe (specifically the five characteristics above)? and

RQ2: How and to what extent are music teachers’ curricular and pedagogical decisions influenced by the following factors in their lived experience: preservice preparation, professional journals, collegial conversations, professional development, teaching experience, and personal musical engagement? This is the first known data collection of its kind.

Methods

This survey originated as the first phase of a sequential mixed methods study (Greene, 2007), but was designed as a stand-alone study (see also Cronenberg, 2016, 2017). I developed, piloted, and implemented a one-time, national, self-administered survey in order to investigate the two research questions stated above. Construct definition, expert review, cognitive interviews, and a pilot survey were all tools employed to develop the resulting survey measure entitled the Middle Level General Music Measure (MLGMM). The pilot survey distribution to middle school music teachers belonging to the Illinois Music Educators Association and the exploratory factor analysis conducted revealed that those variables (n = 163, KMO [Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin] = 0.85) derived from the five This We Believe characteristics of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (α = 0.90) factored into categories nearly identical to the five characteristics from This We Believe. This exploration in the pilot study led to the decision to further explore the alignment of music educators to the characteristics of This We Believe on a larger scale with music educators from across the United States. The final measure included 68 structured response items, nine demographic questions, and two open-ended questions.²

Population and data collection

The target population for the survey was practicing middle level music educators in the United States. Using a sampling frame of membership in the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), all NAfME members self-identifying as middle school teachers on their membership form received an email invitation to participate in the survey (N = 15,926) through the NAfME email system. The initial survey invitation was distributed on October 17, 2014 with an email reminder two weeks later. The survey closed on November 13, 2014. All responses were collected via SurveyGizmo.com in compliance with approved institutional review board (IRB) procedures.

A total of 1,369 (8.5%) music teachers responded to the survey. Respondents to the survey have an average of 10 years (SD = 9.33) of teaching experience. Just over half of the respondents (n = 706, 51.6%) specified preferring middle school teaching over other grade level areas while only 18.2% (n = 249) self-identified as general music teachers. Sixty-one percent of respondents reported experience teaching middle level general music at some point during their career. Only respondents with specific experience teaching middle level general music (N = 832) (average of 11.37 years [SD = 9.78] of teaching) responded to items utilized in the results section. See Table 1 for details comparing the total response population to those with experience teaching middle school general music.

Table 1.

Survey respondents by five demographic variables.

Demographic variable	All survey respondents N = 1,369		Survey respondents with experience teaching middle school general musicN = 832
	N	Percentage	N	Percentage
Geographic location
MidAtlantic	96	7.0	61	7.3
Midwest	424	31.0	264	31.7
North East	307	22.4	237	28.5
North West	132	9.6	57	6.9
South	254	18.6	144	17.3
South West	117	8.6	53	6.4
Non contiguous	18	1.3	9	1.1
No response	21	1.5	7	0.8
Total	1,369	100.0	832	100.0
Years of teaching experience
0–5	589	43.02	308	37.0
6–10	311	22.72	190	22.8
11–20	255	18.63	172	20.7
21–30	151	11.03	113	13.6
30–50	55	4.02	46	5.5
No response	8	0.58	3	0.4
Total	1,369	100.0	832	100.0
Bachelor’s degree leading to teacher certification
Yes	1,166	85.2	722	86.8
No	192	14.0	103	12.4
No response	11	0.8	7	0.8
Total	1,369	100.0	832	100.0
See-self identity
Band Director	509	37.18	263	31.61
Choir Director	327	23.89	215	25.84
General Music Teacher	249	18.19	214	25.72
Orchestral Director	145	10.59	51	6.13
Other	131	9.57	89	10.70
No response	8	0.58	0	0.00
Total	1,369	100.0	832	100.0
Preferred grade level
PreK	4	0.29	2	0.2
Elementary	201	14.69	153	18.4
Middle School	706	51.57	421	50.6
High School	367	26.81	207	24.9
Other	78	5.70	45	5.4
No response	13	0.95	4	0.5
Total	1,369	100.0	832	100.0

NAfME does not provide researchers with access to mailing lists, thus preventing the researcher from direct follow-up with non-responders or verification that all email addresses are functional. Given the low response rate,³ the findings from this survey cannot be generalized to the entire population of NAfME members who identify as middle school music teachers, nor to the larger population of middle school music educators in the United States. While this study does not intend to draw conclusions that are applicable to the national population of music educators, the respondent population of 1,369 usable responses provides adequate data for conducting the planned analysis and the findings suggest some interesting future work for middle level and music education researchers.

Analysis

Analysis of the survey data was conducted using standard statistical procedures and STATA14 software. Two sets of scales, utilizing composite additive variables,⁴ were created. The first set of scales featured 28 items aligned with the five This We Believe characteristics (see Table 2). Composite variables for the TWB2, TWB3, and TWB4 scales were standardized (M = 0, SD = 1) before the creation of the composite variable in order to accommodate items from multiple scales (all five-point scales). Using STATA, standardized scores were then recoded on a 1 to 5 Likert-style scale for ease of presentation with TWB1 and TWB5, which required no standardization. The internal consistency of each scale was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. In TWB4, the internal consistency was only modest, α = 0.47, removal of an item did not improve the internal consistency and thus this scale was dropped from further analysis.

Table 2.

Five scales derived from This We Believe characteristics.

Scales
Descriptive statistics									Likert scale scores						Individual items
This We Believe characteristic	Number of items	Name	N	M	SD	α	Skewness	Kurtosis	Total Likert score range	1 Low	2	3	4	5 High	Descriptions	N	M	SD
Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to teach them	9	TWB1^a	666	3.67	0.50	0.90	–1.11	3.49	9–36	0.15	0.90	N/A	30.93	68.02	Confidence in YA physical transitions	691	3.38	0.63
															Confidence in YA cognitive transitions	691	3.20	0.69
															Confidence in YA development of abstract thinking	691	3.09	0.73
															Confidence in YA search for competence	688	3.19	0.70
															Confidence in YA development of personal identity	689	3.27	0.70
															Confidence in YA desire for personal autonomy	688	3.32	0.70
															Confidence in YA desire for belonging	688	3.63	0.54
															Confidence in YA need for support/desire for independence	686	3.52	0.59
															Confidence in uneven and unequal development	698	3.42	0.68
Students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful learning	7	TWB2^b	687	3.80	0.75	0.81	–0.26	2.80	7–35	0.00	4.37	27.37	52.26	16.01	Curriculum including using technologies for musical creation	756	2.98	1.32
															Curriculum allowing for student choice	759	3.82	0.97
															Pedagogies involving collaborating with students when developing activities	716	3.11	1.03
															Pedagogies involving individualized learning activities	721	3.15	0.98
															Pedagogies involving student directed music making	722	3.15	1.01
															Pedagogies engaging students personally in musical learning	720	3.73	0.84
															Curriculum empowering students to make decisions about their music education	759	3.56	1.07
Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant	6	TWB3^b	713	3.87	0.70	0.70	–0.29	3.34	6–30	0.28	1.54	25.25	56.52	16.41	Curriculum answering students’ questions about music	759	4.23	0.83
															Curriculum including challenging musical problems	741	2.52	1.19
															Curriculum including musical careers	743	2.54	1.15
															Curriculum responding to the musical interests of students	762	4.21	0.84
															Curriculum involving connections across the school curriculum	759	3.96	0.93
															Curriculum including the exploration of music creation	762	3.42	1.17
Educators use multiple learning and teaching approaches	3	TWB4^b c	706	3.90	0.67	0.47	–0.20	706	3–15	0.00	1.42	22.24	59.21	17.14	Curriculum exploring diverse forms of music and music making	756	3.99	0.97
															Pedagogies involving student choice	719	3.04	0.93
															Pedagogies involving independent and small group work	722	3.74	0.76
Varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as measure it	3	TWB5	712	3.29	0.89	0.70	–0.33	2.69	3–15	1.54	16.01	42.28	32.02	8.15	Pedagogies using diverse assessment tools	715	3.67	0.96
															Pedagogies using individualized assessment	719	2.97	1.20
															Pedagogies involving collaborating with students on assessments	721	2.34	1.06

Assessed on a four-point scale.

Composite variable standardized, M = 0, SD = 1 and recoded as described above.

Scale dropped from further analysis.

The second set of scales was created using the 18 items investigating the extent to which a teacher’s decisions in middle school general music were impacted by aspects of his/her lived experience. On a four-point Likert scale, respondents ranked their personal understanding of the influence of each of the six aspects of lived experience specified in RQ2 on (1) their curricular choices, (2) their pedagogical decisions, and (3) their confidence in their knowledge of young adolescent development. Scores on these three responses were then added to create one composite variable for each of the six aspects of lived experience: preservice preparation, reading professional journals, conversations with colleagues, professional development, teaching experience, and personal musical engagement (Table 3). Possible scores on these six composite variables ranged from 1 to 12 (Table 4) and were recoded in groups of three to present results on the four-point Likert scale (Table 3).⁵

Table 3.

Lived experience composite variables and response percentages.

Composite variable	Descriptive statistics					Likert scale scores^a
Composite variable	N	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Not at all	Small extent	Moderate extent	Great extent
Preservice preparation	683	2.99	0.83	−0.43	2.50	4.39	22.25	43.63	29.72
Professional periodicals	677	3.43	0.78	0.01	2.60	9.01	41.80	40.62	8.57
Conversations with colleagues	677	2.49	0.64	−0.73	2.83	0.30	7.39	41.80	50.52
Professional development	675	3.24	0.74	−0.67	2.92	1.78	13.33	44.44	40.44
Teaching experience	683	3.86	0.36	−2.47	8.56	0.00	0.59	12.59	86.82
Musical engagement	678	3.58	0.60	−1.18	3.77	0.29	4.87	31.71	63.13

Likert scale labels presented here are identical to those on the survey instrument.

Table 4.

Lived experience composite variables and response percentages on a continuous scale.

Composite variable	Descriptive statistics			12-point continuous scale
Composite variable	N	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Preservice preparation	683	8.05	2.44	0.00	0.00	4.39	5.56	6.15	10.54	12.45	15.96	15.23	11.42	9.96	8.35
Professional periodical	677	6.62	2.12	0.00	0.00	9.01	7.24	13.59	20.97	15.21	13.59	11.82	5.02	1.77	1.77
Conversations with colleagues	677	9.42	1.90	0.00	0.00	0.30	0.74	1.03	5.61	9.31	12.11	20.38	19.05	14.03	17.43
Professional development	675	8.87	2.19	0.00	0.00	1.78	2.07	4.15	7.11	9.04	15.70	19.70	14.07	13.48	12.89
Teaching experience	683	11.11	1.27	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.29	0.29	1.17	2.64	8.78	11.86	19.18	55.78
Musical engagement	678	9.96	1.85	0.00	0.00	0.29	0.44	2.21	2.21	4.28	10.47	16.96	17.55	19.47	26.11

Results

RQ1: This We Believe awareness and congruence

Of the 832 respondents, with experience teaching middle school general music, 692 responded to the survey item: “I am aware of This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents, the middle school philosophy document from the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE),” 91% (n = 630) claimed no knowledge of this document.⁶ Respondents were specifically asked this survey question following questions regarding their pedagogical practice in order to avoid influencing responses on the 28 items in the TWB scales. A respondent’s answer to this question does not imply implementation of middle level principles in his or her middle school general music class.

Among respondents unfamiliar with This We Believe, 49.37% reported preferring to teach middle school grades. However, 71% of those familiar with This We Believe reported preferring to teach middle school over other grade levels. The relationship between awareness of This We Believe and preference for teaching middle school is a statistically significant finding X²(1, N = 688) = 11.3, p = .001, Φ_Cramer = .13.

Independent group t-tests were conducted to determine whether a teacher’s score on a particular composite This We Believe variable was related to his/her awareness of the This We Believe document. These t-tests⁷ yielded a statistically significant result for all four scales included in the analysis. These results indicate that those aware of This We Believe are different from those unaware of This We Believe in their confidence in young adolescent development (TWB1) t(74.08) = −2.01, p = 0.0479, d = –0.25⁸ their engagement with students in active, purposeful learning (TWB2) t(650) = −3.17, p = 0.0016, d = –0.44 the use of curriculum that is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant (TWB3) t(62.32) = −2.76, p = 0.0076, d = –0.45⁹ and their use of varied and ongoing assessments (TWB5) t(672) = -4.01, p = 0.0001, d = –0.54.¹⁰ In addition, for three of these tests (TWB2, TWB3, and TWB5), the mean intervals do not overlap at the 95% confidence interval thus indicating a stronger statistical relationship between awareness of This We Believe and (1) a teacher’s engagement in active, purposeful learning; (2) use of curriculum that is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant; and (3) use of varied and ongoing assessments.

The items that comprise the This We Believe scales focusing on curriculum and pedagogy (TWB2, TWB3, and TWB5) were designed such that respondents reporting high scores on the Likert scale of any particular item were those most aligned with the principles set out in This We Believe. Over 60 percent of all respondents (those aware and unaware of This We Believe) selected the top two options on the Likert scale for TWB2 (engagement with students in active, purposeful learning) and TWB3 (curriculum that is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant). However, less than one fifth of the respondents selected the highest level of the Likert scale.

In contrast, the response population is less aligned with TWB5, the characteristic that states: “varied and ongoing assessments advance learning as well as measure it” (NMSA, 2010). Only 40 percent of respondents selected Always or Often (the top two options) for this scale; less than 10% selected the Always option. Over 17% of respondents selected the two lowest options on the Likert scale indicating that they “rarely” or “never” used the diverse forms of assessment specified.

RQ2: Lived experience of middle level music teachers

Over half of all respondents selected the “to a great extent” option for three aspects of lived experience: teaching experience, personal musical engagement, and conversations with colleagues. An overwhelming 87% of respondents selected “to a great extent” for the influence of their teaching experience. These results indicate that music teachers perceive their active engagement in the school and musical setting as having the greatest impact on their middle level general music classroom.

In contrast, less than a third of respondents selected the “to a great extent” option for preservice preparation, and less than 10% selected the same for reading professional periodicals. A larger percentage of respondents selected the “not at all” option for preservice preparation and reading professional journals, as compared with the aspects of lived experience discussed above.¹¹

Crosstabs with Fisher’s Exact Test for statistical significance were conducted on all six aspects of Lived Experience crossed with all four of the This We Believe scales for a total of 24 tests (Table 5).¹² Fisher’s Exact was utilized over the more common Pearson’s chi-squared test due to the low expected counts in some cells of each cross-tabulation. Seventeen of these 24 tests were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval or higher. However, none of the crosstabs for preservice preparation were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. This result indicates that a respondent’s reported influence of preservice preparation has no relationship to his/her scores on the TWB scales.

Table 5.

Significance of crosstabs between TWB composite variables and Lived Experience composite variables using Fisher’s Exact Test.^a

TWBcomposite variable	Preservice preparation				Professional journals				Conversations with colleagues				Professional development				Teaching experience				Musical engagement
TWBcomposite variable	N	df	p	Φ ^b	N	df	p	Φ	N	df	p	Φ	N	df	p	Φ	N	df	p	Φ	N	df	p	Φ
TWB1	659	9	0.346	.07	654	9	0.154	.07	653	9	0.006	.09	650	9	0.021	.10	659	6	0.013	.10	655	9	0.002	.10
TWB2	652	6	0.170	.08	546	6	0.000	.18	646	6	0.000	.14	644	6	0.026	.10	650	4	0.085	.08	647	6	0.000	.16
TWB3	640	6	0.132	.09	635	6	0.000	.16	636	6	0.013	.11	634	6	0.000	.18	639	4	0.003	.11	636	6	0.000	.16
TWB5	671	6	0.321	.07	666	6	0.000	.17	666	6	0.182	.08	664	6	0.029	.10	671	4	0.002	.10	666	6	0.002	.13

Using the Holm-Bonferroni correction to account for familiwise error rates, all tests p < 0.003 remain statistically significant.

Cramer’s V calculated.

Discussion

Research question 1

RQ1 sought to understand how teachers’ beliefs about curriculum and pedagogy were congruent with the principles stated in the This We Believe document. The results of the survey suggest that This We Believe is not well-known within music education; however, despite this, respondents to the survey are aligning with some of the principles found within the document. Principles found in This We Believe, such as integrating technology, connecting music across the curriculum, and student musical creation, are principles prominent in music education through the national arts standards (MENC, 1994; State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE), 2014) while the principles of constructivist teaching, such as student-centered pedagogies, are common in music education through the work of John Dewey and others in democratic education (Woodford, 2004). The This We Believe document serves to reinforce ideals already in practice in music education and specifically contextualize these ideals within developmentally appropriate practices for young adolescents.

The inclusion of the This We Believe document in preservice education might aid music educators in further understanding how to develop curriculum and pedagogy specifically for middle school students. Statistically significant results from the survey suggest that respondents aware of This We Believe are more likely to align their middle school general music practices with the principles stated in the document. Similar findings exist within middle level education (Coward, Matteson, & Hamman, 2012; Howell, Cook, & Faulkner, 2013; Mee, Haverback, & Passe, 2012; Miller, Thompson, & Xu, 2012; Stonner, 1998; Thornton, 2013) suggesting that teacher education focused on this document might serve to strengthen the developmentally appropriate practices utilized by middle school music teachers. Awareness of the document does not equate to implementation of the principles; however, teacher educators who hope to develop future educators equipped to meet the needs of young adolescents might seek to draw connections between preservice lessons and the document. For example, a teacher educator who wants to introduce preservice students to the principles of active, purposeful learning might ask students to work in groups to create a composition in response to a poem without providing any other direct guidance, thus requiring the students to make their own independent musical decisions. After sharing these brief compositions, the teacher educator might break down the connection between the activity and what is explicitly stated in the This We Believe document. One challenge is that This We Believe is not subject specific; teacher educators must interpret the document for musical contexts. Survey items listed in Table 2 provide starting places for connecting This We Believe principles to musical learning. Additional concrete lesson examples that connect directly to the document might enable preservice educators to understand how to implement principles in the document into their future classrooms.

The findings from the survey suggest that the use of “varied and ongoing assessments” (NSMA, 2010) is an area in need of growth among those who teach middle school general music. This finding is consistent with Wright’s (2015) study of middle level language arts teachers who were supportive of differentiated assessments, but did not regularly integrate alternative forms of assessment into their classroom practices. Students enrolled in general music courses often possess wide-ranging musical backgrounds, a potentially fertile ground for implementing assessments in which student choice, student and teacher collaboration, and assessment individualization might lead to learning goals better suited to individualized student needs. For example, a middle school general music teacher might allow students to select from one of several assignment options, all designed to meet the same objective, thus allowing the student to select the means by which he/she will demonstrate achievement of the objective. In this way, a music teacher both uses diverse assessment tools and individualizes the assessment, two of the primary assessment goals stated in This We Believe (see Table 2). A developmental characteristic of young adolescents is their desire for personal autonomy and independence (Mee & Haverback, 2016; Roney, 2005; Scales, 2010), a need music teachers could cultivate through assessments in middle school general music. Further research is needed to investigate whether music teachers are unaware of the possibilities for integrating diverse assessments as it was beyond the scope of this survey to determine whether teachers did not prioritize diverse assessments because of belief or lack of knowledge.

Research question 2

RQ2 investigated the lived experience factors most relevant to respondents’ curricular and pedagogical decisions. Results from RQ2 indicate that active inservice work has a substantial influence on the practice of middle level general music teachers. The active participation of a teacher in a school community (his or her teaching experience, conversations with colleagues, professional development, and personal musical engagement) were all reported as strong influences on middle level general music practice by a majority of respondents. Although beyond the scope of the survey, it is possible that the high levels of reported influence of teaching experience, conversations with colleagues, professional development, and personal musical engagement are somehow related to the overall school community to which a teacher belongs, as suggested by Clandinin & Connelly’s (1995, 1996) professional knowledge landscape. For example, a music teacher belonging to a middle school community that integrates many aspects of the middle level concept would potentially gain an understanding of young adolescent development and the pedagogical recommendations stated in This We Believe through conversations with colleagues, school-based professional development workshops, and/or adherence to school community norms. This acquisition of the principles of the middle level concept would, in turn, impact his/her teaching of middle school general music. Again, this connection to school community is beyond the scope of the survey, but worthy of future investigation.

The absence of statistically significant findings related to the influence of preservice education is worthy of further consideration by the field of music education. Preservice music education in the United States typically focuses on developing music educators prepared to teach K–12 (Henry, 2005) and thus programs must make choices about which grade levels or music content areas are prioritized in the curriculum. Yet, the absence of preservice as an influencer on how music educators teach middle school general music raises several questions for future research. Do preservice programs appropriately and specifically prepare music educators to teach young adolescents (age 10–15)? Are music educators appropriately prepared in preservice to teach general music in middle school? Is what is taught in preservice about middle school students and middle school general music no longer relevant to practicing music educators? Consideration of these questions is not relegated to teacher educators in the United States. Rather, diverse international perspectives are needed regarding the preparation of music educators for the teaching of middle level general music. Potentially, the field might benefit from a special interest group or series of conference sessions specifically devoted to sharing best practices in middle level teacher preparation.

Conclusion

Although existent research in music education addresses specific needs of young adolescents, particularly in ensemble settings, there is a lack of research focused on the curriculum and pedagogy in middle school general music. Investigating the teaching of middle school general music through the lens of the middle level concept is only one of many possibilities for examining this underrepresented curricular area. This study of United States music educators raises numerous new research questions for future lines of inquiry in middle school general music.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

ORCID iD

Stephanie Cronenberg

References

Alexander

W. M.

(1968). A survey of organizational patterns of recognized middle schools. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Alexander

W. M.

McEwin

C. K.

(1989). Schools in the middle: Status and progress. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Bennetts

K. S.

(2013). Boys’ music? School context and middle-school boys’ musical choices. Music Education Research, 15(2), 214–230. doi:10.1080/14613808.2012.759550

Brazee

E. N.

(2005). The middle school concept. In Anfara

V. A.

Andrews

Jr., G.

Mertens

S. B.

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of middle grades education (pp. 283–286). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Campbell

D. L.

(2009). Relationships among middle school students’ music possible self beliefs and their music participation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3380884)

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

F. M.

(1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

F. M.

(1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories—Stories of teachers. School stories—Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30. doi:10.3102/0013189X025003024

Conklin

H. G.

(2007). Methods and the middle: Elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ views on their preparation for teaching middle school social studies. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 31(4). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ801110.pdf

Coward

F. L.

Matteson

S. M.

Hamman

(2012). A case study of teacher identity development in middle level student teachers. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(4), 31–42.

10.

Cronenberg

(2016). Music at the middle: Principles that guide middle level general music teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1857495335)

11.

Cronenberg

(2017). Making and receiving: Possibilities for middle school general music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (210–211), 81–99. doi:10.5406/bulcoursesmusedu.210-211.0081

12.

Dellinger

R. N.

(1992). Middle level school restructuring: A study of teacher attitudes and interdisciplinary team organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9304512)

13.

Evola

M. P.

(2004). An investigation of relationships among teacher attitudes, student behaviors and school connectedness (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3132920)

14.

Fisher

S. B.

(2012). Changing teacher attitudes through data analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3525754)

15.

Freer

P. K.

(2010). Two decades of research on possible selves and the “missing males” problem in choral music. International Journal of Music Education, 28(1), 17–30. doi:10.1177/0255761409351341

16.

Gackle

(1991). The adolescent female voice: Characteristics of change and stages of development. The Choral Journal, 31(8), 17–25.

17.

Gackle

(2006). Finding Ophelia’s voice: The female voice during adolescence. The Choral Journal, 47(5), 28–37.

18.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

19.

Henry

(2005). An analysis of certification practices for music educators in the fifty states. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 14(2), 47–61. doi:10.1177/10570837050140020108

20.

Howell

P. B.

Cook

Faulkner

S. A.

(2013). Effective middle level teaching perceptions on the preparedness of newly hired teachers. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(3), 1–22.

21.

Huss

J. A.

(2000). Middle level teachers and their acceptance of the middle school philosophy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9998531)

22.

Huss

J. A.

(2004). Monitoring the middle school movement: Are teachers in step? Current Issues in Education, 7(2), 1–13. Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume7/number2/

23.

Kennedy

M. A.

(2002). “It’s cool because we like to sing”: Junior high school boys’ experience of choral music as an elective. Research Studies in Music Education, 18(1), 26–36. doi:10.1177/1321103X020180010401

24.

Kennedy

M. C.

(2004). “It’s a metamorphosis”: Guiding the voice change at the American Boychoir School. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(3), 264–280. doi:10.2307/3345859

25.

Killian

(1999). A description of vocal maturation among fifth- and sixth- grade boys. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(4), 357–369. doi:10.2307/3345490

26.

Koops

A P.

(2009). Incorporating music composition in middle school band rehearsals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3389504)

27.

Korejwa

(2009). The relationship between grouping practices, middle school student achievement, and teacher attitudes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3355048)

28.

Lucas

(2011). Adolescent male attitudes about singing in choir. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30(1), 46–53. doi:10.1177/8755123311418623

29.

McEwin

C. K.

Dickinson

T. S.

Jenkins

D. M.

(1996). America’s middle schools: Practices and progress. A 25 year perspective. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

30.

McEwin

C. K.

Dickinson

T. S.

Jenkins

D. M.

(2003). America’s middle schools in the new century: Status and progress. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

31.

McEwin

C. K.

Greene

M. W.

(2011). The status of programs and practices in America’s middle schools: Results from two national studies. Westerville, OH: Association for Middle Level Education.

32.

Mee

Haverback

H. R.

(2016). Young adolescent development. In Mertens

S. B.

Caskey

M. M.

Flowers

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of middle grades education (2nd ed.; pp. 437–440). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

33.

Mee

Haverback

H. R.

Passe

(2012). For the love of the middle: A glimpse into why one group of preservice teachers chose middle grades education. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(4), 1–14.

34.

MENC. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

35.

Miller

N. C.

Thompson

N. L.

(2012). In the middle: Elementary education preservice teachers’ experiences, efficacy, and interest in the education of young adolescents. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(4), 15–30.

36.

Morgan-Conner

(1995). Correlates of middle school teachers’ attitudes toward students and instructional decisions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9601794)

37.

NMSA. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.

38.

Power

(2008). What motivates and engages boys in music education? Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 175, 85–102. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319415

39.

Reynolds

A. M.

Beitler

N. S.

(2007). Reflective practice in a middle-school instrumental setting. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173, 55–69. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319470

40.

Riley

P. E.

(2006). Including composition in middle school band: Effects on achievement, performance, and attitude. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(1), 28–38. doi:10.1177/87551233060250010104

41.

Roney

(2005). Young adolescent development. In Anfara

V. A.

Andrews

Jr., G.

Mertens

S. B.

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of middle grades education (pp. 397–401). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

42.

Saunders

J. A.

(2010). Identity in music: Adolescents in the music classroom. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 9(2), 70–78. doi:10.1177/87551233060250010104

43.

Scales

P. C.

(2010). Characteristics of young adolescents. In AMLE (Ed.), This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents (pp. 63–62). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

44.

SEADAE. (2014). National Core Arts Standards. Dover, DE: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/

45.

Stonner

N. C.

(1998). Middle level teacher preparation and support: First-year teachers’ perceived competence and influencing factors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9924931)

46.

Sweet

(2010). A case study: Middle school boys’ perceptions of singing and participation in choir. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 5–12. doi:10.1177/8755123310361770

47.

Sweet

(2015). The adolescent female changing voice: A phenomenological investigation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 70–88. doi:10.1177/0022429415570755

48.

Thornton

(2013). A case analysis of middle level teacher preparation and long-term teacher dispositions. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(3), 1–19. doi:10.1080/19404476.2013.11462106

49.

Updegraff

S. G.

(2011). Teacher attitudes regarding interactions with 8th grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University Microfilms International. (3504955).

50.

Warnock

E. C.

(2009). Gender and attraction: Predicting middle school performance ensemble participation. Contributions to Music Education, 36(2), 59–78. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24127178

51.

White

P. M.

Dever

Ross

Jones

K. A.

Miller

(2013). Ohio’s middle childhood licensure study. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/19404476.2013.11462104

52.

Woodford

P. G.

(2004). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

53.

Wright

(2015). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of incorporating alternative assessments to accommodate students (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations.

54.

Zemek

M. D.

(2010). Where’s the evidence? Finding support for separating middle and junior high school choirs by gender. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 15–21. doi:10.1177/8755123310378451