Integrating popular music and informal music learning practices: A multiple case study of secondary school music teachers enacting change in music education

Abstract

The purpose of this multiple case study was to examine the practices and perspectives of four music teachers who integrated popular music and informal music learning practices into their secondary school music programs in the United States. A primary goal was to understand music teachers’ process of enacting change. Data included 16 semi-structured interviews, eight school site visits and observations, documents, and a researcher journal. Findings revealed that teachers enacted change within micro-contexts—their classrooms. Teachers had an internal locus for change; they developed rationales for change and initiated curricular changes in response to a lack of student engagement, which seemed to stem from students feeling insecure in their musical abilities and disconnected from the content and pedagogy used in music classes. For the teachers in this study, the solution was integrating popular music and informal music learning practices. Thematic analysis revealed eight characteristics of effective teacher-initiated change in secondary music education: (1) holistic and gradual change processes, (2) teacher reflection and inquiry, (3) teacher autonomy, (4) enabling institutional factors, (5) use of a variety of supportive networks, (6) student-centered pedagogy, (7) teacher-selected professional development, and (8) a balance of structure and chaos and formal and informal learning.

Keywords

enacting change informal learning popular music secondary music education student centered

Adolescents¹ engage with many different types of music, but most prefer, listen to, and create popular music (Hargreaves & Marshall, 2003; Hargreaves & North, 1997; North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000; Rentz, 1994; Roe, 1985). When adolescents engage in creating and performing popular music, they primarily use informal learning practices: music making is a social event, aural musicianship and collaborative composing are central to learning and creating music, and the learning process is holistic and self-directed (Abramo, 2011; Boespflug, 1999; Davis, 2005; Green, 2008; Jaffurs, 2004). Adolescents’ musical preferences and informal music learning practices (IMLP) are often not included in secondary school music programs in the United States, and therefore the interests and learning needs of the majority of young people are not met (Regelski, 2014; Reimer, 2012; Williams, 2007). Scholars have called for music educators to change their practices to engage more students in secondary school music education—to broaden what and how they teach to create more authentic music-learning environments, such as new alternative music classes and existing classes infused with popular music and IMLP (Green, 2008; Reimer, 2012). However, change is difficult for music teachers who may be hesitant to include popular music and create opportunities for IMLP; reasons include music teachers’ views of popular music, their uncertainty about how to integrate popular music and facilitate IMLP, limited resources and professional development opportunities, and institutional constraints (Abramo & Austin, 2014; Abril, 2009; Green, 2008; Hess, 2013; Kastner, 2012).

Researchers have found that some music teachers do integrate popular music and facilitate IMLP in their classes successfully; however, these studies focused on what music teachers are doing in their classrooms and not how or why teachers enacted change (Abramo, 2011; Butler, 2009; Buzza, 2009; Gardner, 2008). Further research is needed on the context and substance of educational change (Hargreaves, 1994, 2005), particularly from teachers’ perspectives, because “teachers’ voices have been curiously absent, or been used as mere echoes for preferred and presumed theories of educational researchers” (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 4). Teachers who have been able to implement new ideas and enact change may provide strategies for overcoming the challenges to bringing popular music and IMLP into secondary music education in the United States.

Theoretical framework

Teachers’ change process can be understood in three parts: the scope, locus, and content of change (Campbell, Thompson, & Barrett, 2010; Randles, 2013) (see Figure 1).

Scope: The range of settings where change occurs

Locus: Whether the impetus for change is internal or external

Content: The specific area of teaching/learning to be addressed

Figure 1.

The change process: The scope, locus, and content of change.

The scope of change for this study included the settings, or contexts, within which change in four teachers’ practice occurred. According to Bresler (1998), there are three kinds of settings: (1) a micro context focused on the perspectives of teachers’ beliefs and practices in the classroom; (2) a meso context centered on the structures and goals of the school; and (3) a macro context concentrated on the more generalized policies, systems, and cultural views that influence the curriculum. For this study, only the micro context was examined because it “may be the most productive place to begin in thinking about what teachers can imagine, develop, and implement in the music classroom” (Campbell et al., 2010, p. 109).

Unlike most studies on educational reform that position teachers as a part of “more general reform efforts” (Campbell et al., 2010, p. 110)—originating from an external locus of change (i.e., a school-wide policy change or state-mandated curriculum) (Davis, 2003; Feldman, 2000)—the four teacher participants in this study enacted change from their own internal drive to change their secondary music programs. Teachers’ internal impetuses (locus) for change were explored, which included their rationales for change.

According to Hargreaves (1994), the substance, or content, of change includes “the actual changes which teachers must address” (p. 6). As with a majority of studies of educational change, Hargreaves is referring to the changes that are externally imposed upon teachers and schools. This study addresses a gap in the literature on teacher-initiated change in music education. Thus, the content of change in this study was the changes music teachers chose to make themselves—integrating popular music and IMLP into their secondary music programs.

Purpose statement and research questions

There is evidence that secondary music teachers in the United States are using popular music and informal music learning practices (IMLP) in their classrooms, but what lacks is an in-depth study into why and how they enacted change. Studies on educational change have largely focused on external forces imposed on teachers to enact change; not the process of teacher-initiated change. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the practices and perspectives of four music teachers who integrated popular music and IMLP into their secondary school music programs. A primary goal was to understand music teachers’ processes of enacting change. The research questions were: (1) Why did music teachers enact change in their secondary school music classes? (2) How did music teachers enact change in their secondary school music classes? (3) What conditions enabled secondary school music teachers to enact change? and (4) What challenges slowed the process of secondary school music teachers’ enactments of change?

Methodology

The research design for this study was multiple case study, where a phenomenon is examined within several bounded systems, or “cases” (Creswell, 2013). The case study design helps researchers understand how a case functions within a real-life context (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2009), making it a good choice for studies of music teaching and learning where phenomena and context are intertwined (Barrett, 2014; Yin, 2009). Case study methods reveal the complexity and particularity of a phenomenon and offer accounts of concrete, context-based knowledge that is needed to further collective expertise and professional knowledge, particularly in areas of inquiry that are underdeveloped or unexamined (Barrett, 2014), such as the context and substance of teachers’ change processes. A multiple case study design can offer even richer data, as it enables researchers to examine and compare different perspectives on a phenomenon (Phillips, 2008; Stake, 2000). The multiple case study design strengthens data analysis, as conclusions drawn from more than one case are likely to be more valid than those drawn from a single case (Yin, 2009). For this study, the phenomenon was enacting change in secondary school music programs through the implementation of popular music and IMLP. The cases were four secondary school music teachers; each participant constituted a separate case. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board affiliated with West Virginia University.

Participants

Participants were unknown to the researcher prior to the study. An initial list of 53 potential participants were identified through consulting music teacher educators, K–12 music teachers, and state music conference programs. Participants were selected using the purposeful sampling strategy of criterion sampling (Creswell, 2013). They: (a) taught in the United States, (b) taught a secondary music class integral to the school day (e.g., not an after-school program), (c) taught a secondary music class that is open to all students in the school (e.g., no audition requirements), (d) self-identified as teachers integrating popular music and informal music learning practices, and (e) were willing to participate fully in this study.

As shown in Table 1, heterogeneity was achieved among participants in terms of gender, location of school, teaching level, and type of school. The participants were given pseudonyms: Kaitlyn, Alivia, Dylan, and Max.

Table 1.

Description of participants.

Pseudonym	Kaitlyn	Alivia	Dylan	Max
Age	25	26	29	32
Gender	F	F	M	M
Years teaching	3	4	7	9
Education	BM, Music Ed.	BM, Music Ed.	BM, Music Ed. MM, Music Ed.	BM, Music Ed. MM, Music Ed.
State	Ohio	Pennsylvania	New York	New York
School location	Suburban	Urban	Suburban	Rural
School type	Private, all-girls	Public charter	Public	Public
Teaching level	Elementary/ Middle	Elementary/ Middle	Middle/High	Middle/High

Types of data

Data for this multiple-case study were 16 semi-structured interviews, eight school site visits and observations, documents (e.g., lesson plans, school websites, emails), and a researcher journal. Data were collected over a period of four months (January–April 2015). Interviews were video and audio recorded and transcribed in their entirety with QSR NVivo (2014), a qualitative research computer software program that enables researchers to code and organize themes for qualitative research.

Analysis

In this multiple case study, the units of analysis were four cases (a multisite study) (Creswell, 2013; Phillips, 2008; Stake, 2000). Each case was analyzed separately (within-case analysis) and then all four were analyzed collectively (cross-case analysis) (Stake, 2000). Thematic analysis was completed using Creswell’s (2013) data analysis spiral: (1) create and organize data files, (2) read through the text, make margin notes, and form initial codes, (3) describe the cases and the contexts, and (4) use categorical aggregation to establish themes and patterns. Categorical aggregation involves searching for codes emerging from the data that are relevant to the study and the research questions (Creswell, 2013). To aid in this process, QSR NVivo (2014) was used. Codes that emerged were words or phrases related to each research question; these were listed in a Word document for each participant. For example, Alivia had discussed factors that enabled her to enact change. The code was “enable” and beneath that were key phrases: flexible schedule, supportive administration, and good spaces in the school. Next, codes from each case were organized into a table and color-coded in order to facilitate cross-case analysis (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2009). Finally, conclusions were drawn about the overall meanings derived from the four cases. Trustworthiness was achieved through triangulation of data, member checking, and researcher reflexivity prompted by critical analysis (Barrett, 2014; Creswell, 2013).

Findings and discussion

Findings about how secondary music teachers enacted change through integrating popular music and informal music learning practices (IMLP) are presented below according to the theoretical framework of the process of change: the scope, locus, and content of change.

The scope of change

Teachers in this study enacted change within micro contexts—their classrooms (Bresler, 1998). They began by changing the curricula of classes they inherited when they started teaching at a new school. Kaitlyn inherited general music classes (Grades K–2 and 7–8) and integrated popular music and IMLP into her seventh- and eighth-grade general music classes. Alivia was hired to teach K–4 general music and was told to do anything she liked with students in Grades 5–8; she created four classes that integrated popular music and IMLP: Rock Band, Guitar Class, Percussion Class, and Piano Class. Dylan inherited a high school music appreciation class, General Music 8, General Music 6, sixth-grade choir, and small-group instrumental lessons. He integrated popular music and IMLP in his middle school general music classes and transformed the music appreciation class into a music industry course. Last, Max inherited 6–8 general music and integrated popular music and IMLP into the eighth-grade general music class.

After working within existing contexts, teachers found time in their school schedules to create new classes where they integrated popular music and IMLP. Kaitlyn used one of her planning periods to create an elective for middle school students where they covered popular songs using classroom instruments—“Pop Rocks”. Alivia used 30-minute periods at the start and end of the school day for the following courses for Grades 5–8: Rock Band, Guitar Class, Percussion Class, and Piano Class. Dylan consolidated small-group band lessons to free up time for a multitude of music industry courses: Songwriting and Recording, Electronic Music, Music Improvisation/Composition, and Independent Study. Max was re-instating a high school music technology class that already had a dedicated time in the school schedule; he planned to integrate popular music and IMLP into this class.

Teachers enacted change when they started new jobs that included courses they had never taught or had experience with before. Kaitlyn had experience with elementary general music and choir classes, but middle school general music was a new space for her. Alivia had never taught rock band, percussion, guitar, or piano classes before. Dylan was comfortable with band programs but had never taught high school music appreciation or middle school general music before. Max had an interest in general music prior to starting his new job, but his past experiences were largely in choral programs; the general music classroom was a new space for him. The fact that most participants first enacted change largely within the context of secondary general music classes corroborates Thibeault’s (2013) idea that secondary general music classes can be a space for teachers to innovate.

The lack of compelling traditions allows us to move quickly in new directions. The very openness that surrounds secondary general music affords the possibility to quickly adjust offerings and take advantage of interesting cultural opportunities. (Thibeault, 2013, p. 36)

The locus of change

Participants had an internal locus for change because their reasons for changing curricula came from their own desires and vision for their programs—no one came in to tell them how and why to revise their curricula. They developed rationales for change in response to a lack of student engagement, which seemed to stem from students feeling insecure in their musical abilities and disconnected from the content and pedagogy used in music classes. For all teachers in this study, the pathway to better student engagement and increasing student confidence was the integration of popular music and IMLP. When Kaitlyn learned that most of her students in her general music classes identified as non-musicians, she began to think about creating educational experiences that would build her students’ musical confidence.

I thought for these particular girls who maybe feel like they’ve already made the choice that they’re not musicians, I needed something accessible for them. That’s kind of what got me thinking along the line of pop music. (Interview 1, February 2, 2015)

Dylan re-evaluated the curriculum of the high school music appreciation class he taught because he saw how disengaged his students were.

We all didn’t like the class, and after a while I was just kind of open about it and [asked] “What do we do about this? I know you don’t like it. I’d rather teach something more interesting. How do we get there?” (Interview 1, January 29, 2015)

Teachers’ rationales for change were similar to those found in the music education literature in that they all centered on students’ needs and interests (Abramo & Austin, 2014; Hess, 2013; McPhail, 2013). These findings provide further insight into Randles’ (2013) Conceptual Model of Change in Music Education in which he suggests that teachers form a rationale for change when they are faced with problems in new and unfamiliar contexts.

The content of change

Participants were selected for this study based on the content of the change they enacted—they were teachers who integrated popular music and IMLP into their secondary school music programs. Teachers integrated popular music in varied ways, but some commonalities arose. Popular music was used as repertoire to be performed, such as Orff arrangements, karaoke, cover songs, mash-ups, or solo and group performances of songs accompanied by drum set, keyboard, or guitar. Students analyzed the musical elements of popular music, and popular songs served as models for students in creating choruses, melodies, accompaniments, and lyrics as they engaged in songwriting.

IMLP were similarly implemented across all four cases. Students performed covers of songs or teacher-prepared arrangements of popular tunes aurally. Collaborative composing occurred between teacher and students or between students. Learning was self-directed in that most students chose the music they performed, the instruments they played, and the people with whom they worked. All students had time to work independently on projects, and most students could structure their own time as they worked. Almost all students had time to socialize in small groups or as a whole.

The content of change includes how change is enacted. In this study, teachers were the initiators of change. Thematic analysis revealed eight characteristics of effective teacher-initiated change: (1) holistic and gradual change processes, (2) teacher reflection and inquiry, (3) teacher autonomy, (4) enabling institutional factors, (5) use of a variety of supportive networks, (6) student-centered pedagogy, (7) teacher-selected professional development, and (8) a balance of structure and chaos and formal and informal music learning practices.

Holistic and gradual change processes

Change was a holistic process that occurred within the teachers themselves. Teachers reflected upon their beliefs about music teaching and learning, pushed themselves to find and create new content and to try new ways of teaching, and drew from their own strengths. Kaitlyn used her education in the Orff-Schulwerk approach, where the teacher layers short, repetitive patterns that invite improvisation and composition.

When I listen to pop music, it’s kind of like, “Well this [has] tons of layered ostinati and tons of music that I could easily just teach through imitation. We could create and improvise over it.” I really think that’s the biggest inspiration for using pop music. (Kaitlyn, Interview 2, February 20, 2015)

The change process was gradual for teachers. At times teachers were able to make immediate changes in their content and pedagogy, such as when Kaitlyn included a unit on popular music for her seventh-grade general music class and when Alivia taught popular songs by ear. More extensive changes, such as adding new courses, required longer time frames, ranging from 3–10 years.

Teacher reflection and inquiry

Similar to teachers in Miller’s (2005) study, participants in this study focused on reflection and inquiry in relation to their teaching. Their rationales for change developed because they reflected on their teaching practices and student engagement. Teachers thought deeply about students’ abilities, needs, and interests when designing pedagogy. Max shared, “I spend a lot of time thinking about what I want to do, whether it’s philosophically or practically, and writing about it or doing lesson plans around it” (Interview 2, February 20, 2015). Dylan spent much time designing new classes, particularly his first music industry course. “I spent so much time working and reading and researching that it really ended up being a decent curriculum” (Interview 1, January 29, 2015).

Teacher autonomy

Administrators (principals and music supervisors) gave teachers the autonomy to redesign and implement new curricula. Teachers were able to make changes within existing classes without prior approval. Larger changes such as curricular revisions and proposals for new classes were approved easily. This freedom facilitated teacher leadership. At Kaitlyn’s school, the administration reached out to the teachers for new courses, and Kaitlyn’s proposal for Pop Rocks had been quickly accepted. “I didn’t have to prove that it was going to be good. They just kind of [said], ‘Okay. If it’s not good then the students will tell us and then it won’t happen again’” (Interview 3, March 17, 2015). Alivia had free rein to shape the 5–8 music program at her school as long as she fulfilled her teaching responsibilities of K–4 general music, band, and choir. Her principal approved all of her new course proposals. Dylan gained approval for new courses from the school board and was able to adjust curricula in Music Industry I and General Music 6 and 8 without administrative approval. Max was also able to develop and change the curricula for General Music 8 over time without oversight. “Having the freedom to write my own curriculum and take those chances … it’s just been very, very helpful” (Interview 3, March 22, 2015).

Enabling institutional factors

Ample time and space, small class sizes, and funding were institutional factors that enabled teachers to make curricular changes. School structures of time and space were flexible enough for teachers to bring their ideas for change to fruition. Teachers used the beginnings and ends of the school day, extra planning periods, or consolidated existing classes to create room in their schedules for new classes. Small class sizes of 12–20 students seemed to facilitate the integration of popular music and IMLP for all teachers, as it allowed for more individualized student learning.

I think that starting in a place where I have 20 kids or less per class, I have that ability to really gauge and reach each student with what they need, where they are musically, and what their level of musicianship [is]. (Kaitlyn, Interview 4, March 20, 2015)

Additional learning spaces such as practice rooms and hallways also enabled IMLP to take place, because students could work alone, in pairs, or in small groups to complete projects. School funding provided some resources and materials that enhanced students’ performances of popular music, such as iPads, keyboard, ukuleles, guitars, sound systems, and access to professional recording studios.

Use of a variety of supportive networks

Support for teachers’ change efforts came from a variety of networks: administrators, colleagues, parents, and students. Some administrators were pleased that teachers were making efforts to include more students in music education. Others simply enjoyed or performed popular music. Colleagues supported participants’ efforts through engaging in conversations on music teaching and learning, participating in lessons, and offering expertise in electronic instruments and sound systems. Parents enjoyed listening to popular music and saw the positive impact the changes had on their children; therefore, they were supportive of teachers’ change efforts. Students’ responses bolstered teachers’ efforts to continue to integrate popular music and IMLP. There was a reduction in behavioral problems and an increase in positive verbal and written feedback to the music teachers. As one student wrote in a letter to Dylan,

The music you gave to me has impacted my life in more ways than I can explain. I’ll be forever grateful for whatever you’ve done to me. I’ll miss you and this music program immensely. Music is the best gift I have ever received. (Interview 3, March 22, 2015)

Student-centered pedagogy

Teachers in this study integrated IMLP, which are inherently student-centered and align with the democratic practices espoused by Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (2005) as a way to guide change in education. As students performed, discussed, and collaborated, learning was active and experiential. Curricula emphasized higher-order thinking as students were asked to explain, respond, discuss, and compose (Zemelman et al., 2005). Students engaged deeply in a few student-directed projects or one project over time. Teachers used primary sources in their lessons, including interviews with popular musicians and original recordings of popular music. Teachers listened intently to their students and were open to ideas. “Listen to what they want and then make a musical experience around it” (Dylan, Interview 4, April 29, 2015). Teachers paid attention to the needs and varying cognitive levels of students. Learning was cooperative and collaborative. Teachers coached students, served as musical models, and demonstrated concepts. They were ready to trust their students’ musical decisions and preferences and learn alongside them. “Be secure enough in yourself to say, ‘I’m gonna let go of the reins a little bit. I’m gonna trust that, even though I let go of the reins, this is not going to fall into chaos’” (Kaitlyn, Interview 3, March 17, 2015).

Teacher-selected professional development

Rather than principal- and teacher-led professional development opportunities within schools (Miller, 2005), teachers in this study self-selected the professional development (PD) opportunities they participated in outside of school, such as workshops, teacher education courses, and graduate work. These PD choices helped teachers strengthen their skills in popular music performance and facilitating IMLP. Kaitlyn continued to develop her own ability to learn informally from attending Orff workshops. Alivia learned to play the guitar and drum set and how to design lessons for a rock band through a workshop run by the non-profit organization, Little Kids Rock.

They made us get in groups and write a song using the techniques that we learned to teach kids to compose and to play these instruments. Everybody performed for each other and it was just brilliant, because then we practiced teaching. (Interview 4, April 8, 2015)

A balance of structure and chaos and formal and informal music learning practices

Teachers in this study were able to successfully integrate popular music and IMLP because they were careful to structure their classes in ways that would allow informal music learning to flourish without dissolving into chaos and disorder.

I think that the surprising thing is, if you set it up right—you have the right expectations, the students know what your expectations are and what the expectations of themselves are, and classroom rules and management is [sic] all in place and really secure—then you can let go of those reins and involve the students more and get more of their opinions and their ideas. It is a way more successful experience then just having one person dictating the entire curriculum. (Kaitlyn, Interview 3, March 17, 2015)

Balancing chaos and structure and informal and formal learning helped teachers in this study succeed in bringing popular music and IMLP into formal school settings. This is an important idea that echoes the work of Allsup, Westerlund, and Sheih (2012)—music education reform is about finding balance in music education and moving the scale between formal and informal music learning, teachers and students, in-school and out-of-school music making, adults and youths, democracy and autocracy, and teacher-centered versus student-centered pedagogy.

Implications/future research

Participants’ change processes involved open dialogue about bringing popular music and IMLP into secondary music education. By focusing on students’ interests and needs, teachers can integrate curricular units or create courses that are relevant and engaging for adolescent learners, all while learning alongside their students. Students in secondary music education are more engaged in learning when they have autonomy. Classroom learning can be individualized through student-directed projects. If students can choose the instruments they play, create their own music, and choose with whom they will collaborate, learning can be more engaging and relevant for them.

Teacher-initiated change in this study was rooted in teachers’ personal beliefs and strengths. Participants engaged in deep self-reflection and had the autonomy to select PD opportunities according to their needs and interests. This supports the need to provide in-service music teachers with the autonomy to design and implement curricula as well as the freedom to select PD opportunities.

Preservice music teachers need to be prepared to teach music in democratic, student-centered ways if they want to make secondary music education more engaging, relevant, and attractive to students. Student-centered pedagogy, authenticity, and creativity are concepts that need to be integrated into the undergraduate curriculum. If opportunities to engage with popular music informally become an integral component of the curriculum, music teacher education has the potential to influence change in secondary music education across the United States. Further, engaging pre-service music teachers in reflective tasks may allow them to better understand themselves as teachers—their beliefs, strengths, and interests. Exposing pre-service music teachers to a variety of PD opportunities may help broaden their views on music education and further reflect on what experiences resonate with them as teachers.

This study raises questions that merit further study. The first involves the potential of music teacher education in shaping music teachers’ abilities to enact change. There is a scarcity of research on music teacher education programs and the integration of popular music and IMLP at that level. To what extent do music teacher educators connect to preservice music teachers’ musical interests and needs? How are music teacher educators enacting change in music teacher education to include popular music and IMLP? Answers to these questions will be important to better understand how preservice music teachers are being prepared to create responsive and relevant instruction for their future students.

Second, questions about K–12 students’ experiences with music and their views on secondary music programs surfaced. Students’ voices have been absent from research on change in secondary music education, with a few exceptions (Ruthmann, 2006; Tobias, 2010). What are students’ views on integrating popular music and IMLP in secondary music education? Understanding students’ perspectives of change may provide insight into how they learn, what they value about education, and how music in school may intersect with music out of school and influence their engagement with music in the future. This could help teachers move toward more democratic classrooms and curricula.

Last, teachers in this study faced few of the challenges that typically arise when bringing popular music and IMLP into secondary music education. It was clear that teachers’ schools were autonomous and supportive environments for them to make the changes they envisioned. What policies are needed to create work environments that support innovation and change driven by teacher autonomy and leadership? What would it take for teacher-initiated change to lead educational reform efforts in the United States?

Conclusion

The tensions that typically surround popular music, informal music learning practices (IMLP), and secondary music education (i.e., institutional constraints, music teachers’ uncertainty, music teachers’ views of popular music, and limited resources and professional development opportunities) were minimal for teachers in this study. Teachers in this study found ways to close the gap between school music and youth music through integrating popular music and IMLP into their secondary school music programs. Teachers demonstrated the power of local change based on democratic, student-centered practices and serve as exemplars for other K–12 teachers as they step into schools that are traditionally structured and create more relevant and engaging educational experiences for their adolescent students. Perhaps if more teachers share their stories of change through discussion, presentations, or publications, other music teachers may be emboldened to take steps to create secondary music programs that are more inclusive, relevant, and engaging for adolescents.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

Notes

ORCID iD

Martina Vasil

References

Abramo

J. M.

(2011). Gender differences of popular music production in secondary schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 21–43. doi:10.1177/0022429410396095

Abramo

J. M.

Austin

S. C.

(2014). The trumpet metaphor: A narrative of a teacher’s mid-career pedagogical change from formal to informal learning practices. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(1), 57–73. doi:10.1177/1321103X14528454

Abril

C. R.

(2009). Responding to culture in the instrumental music programme: A teacher’s journey. Music Education Research, 11(1), 77–91. doi:10.1080/14613800802699176

Allsup

R. E.

Westerlund

Shieh

(2012). Youth culture and secondary education. In McPherson

Welch

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 460–475). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.013.0028

Barrett

J. R.

(2014). Case study design in music education. In Conway

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 113–132). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199844272.001.0001

Boespflug

(1999). Popular music and the instrumental ensemble: Music educators can make use of student-composed music in popular styles to teach musicianship and skill in the use of recording technology. Music Educators Journal, 85(6), 33–37. doi:10.2307/3399519

Bresler

(1998). The genre of school music and its shaping by meso, micro, and macro contexts. Research Studies in Music Education, 11(1), 2–18. doi:10.1177/1321103X9801100102

Butler

(2009). Do we teach about or how-to? Another approach to teaching popular music at high school level. The Mountain Lake Reader, 5, 112–113.

Buzza

(2009). The Junkyard Symphony and popular music song writing. The Mountain Lake Reader, 5, 114–115.

10.

Campbell

Thompson

Barrett

(2010). Constructing a personal orientation to music teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Davis

K. S.

(2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30. doi:10.1002/sce.10037

13.

Davis

S. G.

(2005). “That thing you do!”: Compositional processes of a rock band. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 6(16), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.ijea.org/v6n16/

14.

Feldman

(2000). Decision making in the practical domain: A model of practical conceptual change. Science Education, 84, 606–623. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<606:: AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-R

15.

Gardner

(2008). Rock ‘n’ roll high school: A genre comes of age in the curriculum. In Clements

(Ed.), Alternative approaches in music education: Case studies (pp. 83–94). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

16.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Group.

17.

Hargreaves

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

18.

Hargreaves

(Ed.). (2005). Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change. Boston, MA: Springer.

19.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Marshall

N. A.

(2003). Developing identities in music education. Music Education Research, 5(3), 263–273. doi:10.1080/1461380032000126355

20.

Hargreaves

D. J.

North

A. C.

(Eds.). (1997). The social psychology of music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

21.

Hess

(2013). Radical musicking: Challenging dominant paradigms in elementary music education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3665994).

22.

Jaffurs

S. E.

(2004). The impact of informal learning practices in the classroom, or how I learned how to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 189–200. doi:10.1177/0255761404047401

23.

Kastner

(2012). Exploring informal music pedagogy in a professional development community of elementary music teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3548741).

24.

McPhail

(2013). The canon or the kids: Teachers and the recontextualisation of classical and popular music in the secondary school curriculum. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(1), 7–20. doi:10.1177/1321103X13483083

25.

Miller

(2005). Redefining teachers, reculturing schools: Connections, commitments and challenges. In Hargreaves

(Ed.), Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 249–263). Boston, MA: Springer.

26.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

O’Neill

S. A.

(2000). The importance of music to adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 255–272. doi:10.1348/000709900158083

27.

Phillips

K. H.

(2008). Exploring research in music education and music therapy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

QSR NVivo (Version 10.1.2) [Software]. (2014). QSR International Pty Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx

29.

Randles

(2013). A theory of change in music education. Music Education Research, 15(4), 471–485. doi:10.1080/14613808.2013.813926

30.

Regelski

T. A.

(2014). Resisting elephants lurking in the music education classroom. Music Educators Journal, 100(4), 77–86. doi:10.1177/0027432114531798

31.

Reimer

(2012). Another perspective: Struggling toward wholeness in music education. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 25–29. doi:10.1177/0027432112463856

32.

Rentz

(1994). Music opinions and preferences of high school students in select and nonselect choruses. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 121, 16–28.

33.

Roe

(1985). Swedish youth and music: Listening patterns and motivations. Communication Research, 12(3), 353–362. doi:10.1177/009365085012003007

34.

Ruthmann

S. A.

(2006). Negotiating learning and teaching in a music technology lab: Curricular, pedagogical, and ecological issues (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3401372).

35.

Spruce

Odena

(2012). Commentary: Music learning and teaching during adolescence: Ages 12–18. In McPherson

Welch

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 437–440). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Stake

R. E.

(2000). Case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Thibeault

M. D.

(2013). Quite a lot on some problems with—and just a little on the hopes for—secondary general music with regards to culturally responsive and respectful music education. General Music Today, 26(3), 35–38. doi:10.1177/1048371313476296

38.

Tobias

(2010). Crossfading and plugging in: Secondary students’ engagement and learning in a songwriting and technology class (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3402496).

39.

Williams

D. A.

(2007). What are music educators doing and how well are we doing it? Music Educators Journal, 94(1), 18–23. doi:10.1177/002743210709400105

40.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Zemelman

Daniels

Hyde

(2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.