Preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns before and during student teaching

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences and contextual factors that influenced preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns from pre-student teaching to student teaching. Data were collected for this case study through an open-response questionnaire about participants’ (N = 4) efficacious teaching experiences, 10 weekly e-journal reflections written during pre-student teaching (n = 5 weeks) and student teaching placements (n = 5 weeks at 1 placement), interviews (n = 4), and my own researcher journal (n = 31 entries). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns were most impacted by teaching experiences in familiar settings. Results indicated that participants made more comments about student-impact and self-survival concerns during student teaching than pre-student teaching. Further investigation revealed that participants consistently expressed concerns for classroom management during pre-student teaching and student teaching placements. Finding ways to expedite the developmental process could reduce the amount of time that preservice teachers focus on early contextual factors and instead identify ways to improve students’ music and academic performance.

Keywords

Preservice teaching self-efficacy student teaching teacher concerns teacher education

The experiences that preservice teachers have during their undergraduate coursework instill confidence in their teaching behaviors and abilities. Beliefs in one’s ability to perform a given task (i.e., self-efficacy) are informed by the relative success of previous attempts, observing others with similar abilities, receiving feedback from individuals, and recognizing the physiological state associated with the task (Bandura, 1997). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy develops early during undergraduate study when efficacy beliefs are most impressionable and likely increases over time (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Woolfolk Hoy, & Burke-Spero, 2005). Because they often have had fewer successful teaching experiences, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy may be influenced differently than veteran teachers’ (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). High levels of teacher self-efficacy have the potential to influence the use of teaching strategies such as cooperative learning techniques, activity-based instruction, and new teaching methods to meet students’ needs (Chacon, 2005), and professional dispositions such as commitment and job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Teachers’ self-efficacy has been found to relate with their students’ academic achievement and motivation (Ashton & Webb, 1986), self-efficacy (Ross et al., 2001), and self-regulation (Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006). In sum, the development of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy may impact their eventual teaching strategies, professional outlook, and their students’ behavior and academics.

Preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy can be formed by curricular experiences. Prichard (2017) examined the self-efficacy of preservice music teachers enrolled in an introductory music education course. Experiences that positively influenced participants’ efficacious beliefs for teaching included individualized mentoring, peer teaching, and structured field observations. Bergee (2002) found that preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom management improved after viewing videotapes or applying learned classroom management strategies in the field. Results further indicated that gains of the field application group lasted longer than those of the video-only group—a result that supports Bandura’s (1997) assertion that mastery experiences are often most impactful on efficacious beliefs.

Field teaching experiences can also develop undergraduate students’ efficacious beliefs. Austin and Miksza (2012) explored classroom management efficacy and teacher strategy efficacy, among students in a pre-collegiate music recruitment program. At the end of a 12-week teaching experience, the high school student participants had higher social motivation, teacher identity, and classroom management efficacy scores than at the beginning of the experience. Furthermore, teaching strategy efficacy was significantly linked to participants’ teacher identity, suggesting

Teacher identity growth may be attributed to the practical teaching experience with which high school participants were provided, as well as the extensive reinforcement of teacher roles and responsibilities that occurred as they interacted both formally and informally with collegiate mentors. (Austin and Miksza, 2012, p. 22)

Similarly, Barnes (1998) studied preservice teachers during a student teaching experience but found participants’ efficacious beliefs to decline over the span of 8 weeks. Participants’ initial belief in their ability to control student learning and behavior may have been too high, resulting in a decrease over time (Woolfolk Hoy, & Burke-Spero, 2005). Because there seems to be some disparity about how best to improve efficacious beliefs, qualitative investigations may provide important context about the development of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. However, few qualitative investigations in music pedagogy self-efficacy currently exist.

The efficacious beliefs of preservice music teachers might be better understood by examining the causes of their worries and anxiety. Teachers’ perceived problems or worries have been defined as teacher concerns (Fuller, 1969). Fuller and Bown (1975) developed a teacher concerns model as a tool for helping preservice and in-service teachers identify and accomplish their professional goals. Teachers’ concerns were considered indicators of their developmental needs. The researchers suggested that teachers identified three stages of concerns across their development: self-survival (self) to teaching situation (task) to pupil (student-impact). Self-survival is the concern for one’s adequacy as a teacher, personality, and the opinions of others. Teaching situation involves concerns for time management, teaching methods, and available resources. Student-impact concerns include an awareness of student outcomes and learning needs. Fuller and Bown proposed that with pedagogical improvement, teachers would identify new concerns in addition to those already identified in other stages. Teachers with less experience would have more self-survival concerns than veteran teachers, whereas veteran teachers would identify more task and student-impact concerns than less experienced teachers.

The Fuller and Bown model has been used to evaluate the development of preservice music teachers. A linear change was found in the teaching concerns of student teachers (Yourn, 2000), pre-collegiate music teacher program participants (Miksza & Austin, 2010), and preservice teachers before and after their student teaching experience (Killian et al., 2013). Other researchers found no shift in preservice teacher concerns, however. Despite interventions to change three music student teachers’ foci during guided reflections, Coleman (1999) found no change from self-survival to task or student-impact concerns over a 12-week period. Campbell and Thompson (2007) investigated the concerns of 1,121 preservice music teachers from 16 US colleges and reported that participants’ concerns were not associated linearly with experience. Participants at all levels of professional development identified high levels of student impact concerns, followed by self and task concerns, respectively. The authors suggested that the cross-sectional and self-report nature of the survey, general rather than domain-specific concerns represented in the items, and participants’ tendency to report “idealized” concerns may have led to contradictions with the concerns model.

Preservice music teachers’ concerns may not develop linearly in stages due to contextual and multidimensional factors. Miksza and Berg (2013) studied instrumental preservice teachers’ concerns for 1.5 years, finding that participants’ concerns changed from basic teaching abilities and professionalism to context-specific issues of teaching strategy and student learning. However, participants’ student and task concerns increased after a field-placement change during their student teaching (e.g., secondary to elementary setting). Preservice teacher concerns may be linked to the level of familiarity an individual has with the setting. Berg and Miksza (2010) reported that contextual factors such as prior teaching experience, grade level, and ensemble setting may also influence preservice teachers’ concerns. Results of their research indicated that participants’ concerns did not necessarily change linearly, but rather consistently formed clusters in categories. Similarly, Powell (2014, 2016) found that preservice teachers had clusters of concerns during peer- and field-teaching experiences. Further investigation into the contextual factors influencing preservice teachers’ concerns may provide clarification about their development.

The concerns of preservice music teachers may impact their self-efficacy for teaching. Individuals with lower self-efficacy for teaching have reported more self-survival concerns (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999; Pyper, 2014) and total number of concerns (Boz & Boz, 2010) than did those with higher teaching efficacy. Ghaith and Shaaban (1999) suggested high efficacy teachers may feel less concerned about their teaching as a result of their personal efforts and ability to solve problems with experience. Although relationships seem to exist between teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns (Boz & Boz, 2010; Evans & Tribble, 1986), few researchers have examined these attributes with preservice music teachers. Given the contextual nature of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and teacher concerns (Miksza & Berg, 2013), a qualitative investigation may enhance our understanding of preservice teachers’ development and the experiences that improve their confidence for teaching. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences and contextual factors that influence preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns. Research questions included (1) What variables influence participants’ self-efficacy and concerns? (2) Do preservice teachers’ concerns change during the course of pre-student teaching and student teaching? and (3) What pre-student teaching experiences do participants most commonly believe inform their self-efficacy for teaching?

Method

A case study design was used for this qualitative inquiry. Case study methodology is used to “investigate a contemporary phenomenon in-depth and within its real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). Such investigations provide a rich understanding of the case by collecting many forms of data to build patterns and explanations (Yin, 2009). I examined preservice music teachers’ concerns and efficacious experiences during their pre-student teaching and student teaching experiences. Data for the study included a questionnaire, electronic journal (i.e., e-journal) entries, interviews, and my own researcher journal.

Participants

A convenience sample of undergraduate music education students was solicited to participate in the study during a regularly scheduled music teaching methods course at a large Midwestern university in the United States. Four students agreed to participate and were provided a description of the study with an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved consent form. Participants were three males and one female whose areas of focus were band (n = 3) and orchestra (n = 1), and were enrolled in their last semester of music education coursework before student teaching. Prior to this semester, participants had completed one semester each of elementary general music field experience and another of instrumental middle school field experience. Participants are referenced by pseudonyms to protect their identity.

Colton (age 23) was a fifth-year music education student that played trumpet in multiple university concert bands and the orchestra. In addition to directing bands, Colton furthered his conducting study with the orchestra director including opportunities to lead that ensemble. His student teaching was in elementary school general music during this study.

Mary (age 22) was a fourth-year cello player in the orchestra. She taught elementary and middle school students in a community youth string program, and maintained a small private studio. Her student teaching placement was with a secondary string program where she taught grades 6–12.

Austin (age 22), a fourth-year saxophonist, had experience playing in the wind ensemble and saxophone studio quartets at the university. In addition to his instructor-assigned field experiences, Austin assisted with the instruction of a marching band during the summers. Austin student taught in an elementary school general music program during this study.

Steve (age 23) was a fifth-year trumpet player in the music education program. Previous teaching experiences outside of required university coursework included summer marching band instruction and private trumpet lessons. His student teaching placement was with an elementary general music instructor. He also assisted with some of the after-school elementary band lessons.

Field experience and student teaching placements

During the initial phase of data collection (n = 5 weeks), the participants were in their final field experience before starting their student teaching internship. For the purposes of this study, field experiences are defined as teaching episodes that took place in public-school settings. The preservice teachers taught in the same classroom twice weekly during a typical week. Field experiences were in economically and/or racially diverse middle school or high school instrumental classrooms. Each field experience during this semester took place at a school for approximately 2 weeks and then changed to a new location. When not teaching, preservice teachers observed their peers’ teaching but did not offer feedback to one another. However, feedback was received from the course instructor after each field teaching experience. Preservice teachers would then turn in a written reflection about their teaching episode.

Throughout the second phase of data collection (n = 5 weeks), participants completed their student teaching at separate schools with cooperating teachers who had taught at their schools between 7 and 15 years. In addition to receiving pedagogical feedback and mentorship from their cooperating teachers, participants were assessed by a university supervisor approximately every 3 weeks. All schools were in large suburban public-school districts in the Midwest serving between 14,277 and 18,073 students. Each district had an approximately 25% minority student population. Participants’ student teaching placements did not change during the course of data collection, but participants did move to another student teaching placement after data collection ended. After successfully completing their student teaching internship, participants applied for a professional teaching license and sought employment.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection took place over 10 academic weeks (5 weeks pre-student teaching and 5 weeks during student teaching). Data sources included a preservice teacher self-efficacy questionnaire, 10 e-journal entries, interviews after the student teaching experience, and my own researcher journal. Self-efficacy questionnaire items used to identify the sources of students’ confidence to teach in a music setting were modified from those used by Milner and Woolfolk Hoy (2003), and Zeldin and Pajares (2000) to reflect a music teaching setting. (The modified open-response questions can be found in the Online Supplemental Material.) Participants provided responses to questionnaire items once at the beginning of the study, before the e-journal data collection. Responses were coded by hand and analyzed using categorical aggregation based on pre-determined sources of self-efficacy (enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, and physiological state), as theorized by Bandura (1997).

Participants responded to e-journal prompts designed to collect information about their concerns and efficacious experiences. Prompts were modified from previous teaching concerns investigations (Fuller & Bown, 1975; Palmer, 2006). E-journal prompts can be found in the Online Supplemental Material. Participants provided written answers to questions for five academic weeks during the pre-student teaching experience and 5 weeks during the student teaching experience. A codebook developed by Berg and Miksza (2010) was used to analyze preservice teachers’ concerns. A self-survival concern category was used to identify personal characteristics involving teaching, including relationships with others, and relationships that related to the teaching environment. I assigned a task code to identify concerns for teaching strategy and content knowledge. Student-impact codes were used for concerns with student ability, knowledge, and affect. Similar to the self-efficacy questionnaire, I used the pre-determined sources of self-efficacy (enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, and physiological state) (Bandura, 1997) to categorize participants’ reported in-class and field efficacious experiences. Deductive logic (Creswell, 2013) was used to create subcategories of experiences (e.g., field teaching, professional teaching). A professional experience code was used to identify any teaching experiences that happened outside of a field or peer teaching experience.

To establish reliability of the self-efficacy questionnaire and e-journal data coding, an external evaluator and I independently coded all of the comments. The external evaluator was a PhD student with prior coding experience, who attended the same university as the participants. This individual had 3 years of grades 6–12 music teaching experience and 4 years of graduate teaching experience. Prior to this project, the external evaluator was a graduate teaching assistant for a course that the participants completed. I provided the external evaluator with a predetermined codebook to analyze the data sources. Reliability of codes were calculated by dividing the number of agreements by agreements plus disagreements (multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage), resulting in an inter-coder reliability of 96.36% for the questionnaire codes and 90.80% for the e-journal codes.

Focused interviews (Merton et al., 1990) with the participants were conducted after the 5-week student teaching period. This type of interview protocol was used so that I could ask specific questions to corroborate certain facts based on participant responses to the self-efficacy questionnaire and e-journal items. I interviewed each participant once and interviews lasted for approximately 12 min. Both the external evaluator and I listened to the interviews independently. Analysis of participants’ interview responses was done using the codes and subcategories from the e-journal analysis. We then met and discussed our coding and categorization and resolved any discrepancies until we reached consensus.

I kept a journal of all interactions and discussions with the participants during the course of data collection. The journal included email correspondence, conversations from before-or-after student-teacher seminar meetings, field notes from student teaching observations, and conversations at rehearsals. A total of 31 journal notes were taken during the course of data collection. I provided the set of e-journal self-efficacy and teacher concern codes and subcategories to the external evaluator to support or refine my journal note analysis. We then met to re-examine the codes and resolved any disagreements until there was agreement.

Trustworthiness

Validity was achieved through triangulation and using member checks (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Source triangulation included using multiple sources of data (questionnaire, e-journals, interviews, and researcher journal) to develop an in-depth understanding of the cases being studied (Yin, 2009). An individual other than myself lead the pre-student teaching experiences, including course instruction, assigning field placements, and giving field-teaching feedback. Although the participants knew of the project during data collection, their candor about teaching experiences and placements led me to believe they were open and honest with their answers. Participants could also clarify misinterpretations of information during their focused interview that happened after all other data were collected. Member checks (Yin, 2009) at the end of data collection allowed participants the opportunity to review my coding and interpretations for accuracy and credibility. The participants did not offer any alterations.

Findings

Three themes emerged as a result of participants’ responses from the questionnaire, e-journal, and interviews. Contextual familiarity impacted self-efficacy and concerns emerged as participants identified variables that changed their beliefs across time. Changing and clustered concerns illustrated that, although participants’ concerns changed over time, many of them were consistent among a limited number of pedagogical topics. Finally, value of professional teaching experiences prior to student teaching reflected participants discussion of experiences outside of the undergraduate curriculum that impacted their efficacy for teaching.

Theme one: contextual familiarity impacted self-efficacy and concerns

The preservice teachers’ contextual familiarity in a teaching setting influenced their self-efficacy and concerns. The theme contextual familiarity impacted self-efficacy and concerns included codes associated with the age group, ability level, or pedagogical setting of the students being taught by the participants (n = 15, 19.23%). Table 2 in the Online Supplemental Material contains the frequency and sum of concerns coding. Another code associated with the contextual familiarity theme included consistency with the field teaching experience. After transitioning from a middle school to a high school band field placement during pre-student teaching, Austin said,

We’re moving up from middle schools, where we have been working all semester to high school, where we will be working with their top concert band and jazz band. I am feeling a new level of depth and difficulty with the work and preparedness I must demonstrate with these higher-level musicians (e-journal).

Teaching more musically advanced students at the high school level also concerned Steve,

Although I can project a certain level of expertise and confidence in environments I am comfortable with, it is not as easy in environments that are new. At some point during this week I will be working with an accomplished high school wind ensemble. I’m hoping to portray the same level of expertise with this group that I can with a middle school band (e-journal).

Participants expressed difficulties teaching ensemble genres in which they had fewer pedagogical experiences. Mary felt unsure about her abilities to teach in a band setting as a preservice strings teacher: “My experiences teaching band groups and ensembles made me feel incompetent . . . like I was not able to help those students” (questionnaire). Austin expressed apprehension for teaching in a high school jazz setting:

This week’s teaching assignment for me . . . was working with their jazz band. Of all areas and grade levels I have worked with so far, jazz is my least confident area. I have not performed in any jazz band in college, so I am the most unsure of what I am doing in this setting (e-journal).

The student teaching environment provided a sense of stability and consistency that affected participants’ teaching self-efficacy and concerns positively (journal), likely because they were in the classroom full-time, and had a one-on-one mentor experience with their cooperating teacher. Participants reported initial feelings of nerves and less confidence at the start of student teaching, possibly due to three out of the four participants’ being in elementary general music student teaching placements and not instrumental placements. However, over time, the student teachers gained efficacious mastery experiences and feedback from their cooperating teachers that influenced their self-efficacy and focused their concerns on students’ learning.

Theme two: changing and clustered concerns

Patterns emerged among findings of participants’ teaching concerns. Classroom management, rehearsing, adapting, and student learning were codes that contributed to the changing and clustered concerns theme.

Most of the concerns reported by the participants during the pre-student teaching (71.05%) and student teaching (47.50%) periods were coded in the task category. Fewer concerns were identified as self or student for each collection period. See Table 1 in the Online Supplemental Material for the sums, means, and percentages of concerns coding. The percentage and frequency of self concerns increased from pre-student teaching to student teaching (n = 8, 21.05%; n = 11, 27.50%). Similar results were found among student-impact concerns (n = 3, 7.89%; n = 10, 25.00%), whereas the percentage and frequency of task concerns decreased from pre-student teaching to student teaching (n = 27, 71.05%; n = 19, 47.50%). Additional analyses indicated that a number of student-impact concern categories were found during student teaching but not during pre-student teaching (n = 3) such as differentiated individuals and differentiated groups, and several task concern categories were coded during pre-student teaching but not student teaching (n = 6) including task knowledge, repertoire, and group size. See Table 2 in the Online Supplemental Material for the frequency and sum of concern categories.

Although participants’ concerns seemed to change over time, there were categories of concerns that participants discussed throughout the data collection period (i.e., clustered concerns). Participants’ ability to control classroom behavior was a consistent concern throughout pre-student teaching (n = 3, 3.84%) and student teaching (n = 5, 6.41%), as indicated by their e-journal entrees and private discussions recorded in my journal. During field experiences, Colton and Steve expressed worry about how their ability to control students’ behavior, particularly in an unfamiliar pre-student teaching field placement with a relatively large number of students. As time passed, the participants continued to focus on students’ behaviors during their student teaching placements. Mary’s ability to control students’ behavior was an area of focus immediately during her student teaching experience. She said,

My teacher has given me a lot of advice, because she recognized that problem pretty quick. She’s asked me to . . . catch their attention as soon as class starts and give them a task to work on or else they’ll do their own thing . . . I have to wait for them. I’m used to just starting up as soon as it gets quiet enough for me to kind of talk over them. But she’s telling me to wait until I get everyone’s attention (interview).

Austin acknowledged that taking on more responsibility during student teaching meant becoming more invested by planning more diligently for managing students’ behavior: “As I am continuing to take over more and more from my cooperating teacher this week, I know I will have to work even harder than usual to maintain attention, classroom behavior, participation, and even respect” (e-journal). Participants were able to express the efficacious improvement they felt as they became more successful at controlling student behavior during student teaching.

Theme three: value of professional teaching experiences prior to student teaching

Value of professional teaching experiences prior to student teaching refers to participants’ identification of impactful pedagogical experiences on their confidence to teach before student teaching. The codes that contributed to this theme included teaching private lessons, working with high school marching bands, non-curricular teaching, and teaching in community music programs.

Participants identified opportunities not associated with their undergraduate coursework (i.e., professional teaching experiences) (n = 5, 71.43%, questionnaire) as having an influence on their teaching confidence prior to their student teaching experiences, while undergraduate field teaching experiences were mentioned to a lesser extent (n = 2, 28.57%, questionnaire). Results also indicated that participants received mostly positive verbal feedback about their teaching (n = 10, 71.43%, questionnaire) and less negative verbal feedback (n = 4, 28.57%, questionnaire). Mary believed that helping small groups of students from a community youth string program increased her confidence to teach music “much more than any other teaching experience” (questionnaire). Mary further commented: “I think doing private lessons and String Project, [being] responsible for my own students, that helped me [a] lot as well. I sort of got some skills” (interview). Steve shared similar thoughts regarding teaching experiences outside of the collegiate curriculum: “I worked with a marching band here [i.e., at his student-teaching placement] and I loved it. I really think that was way more real-world experience” (questionnaire). He went on to write, “I think field experience was great because I got immediate feedback on what I was doing, but as far as experience, I think that . . . outside stuff [professional experiences] was a bit more helpful for me in the long run.”

The physiological state that the participants attributed with teaching music prior to student teaching was mostly positive (n = 6, 85.71%, questionnaire), and only one response was coded as negative (n = 1, 14.29%). Participants felt like they were making a difference and having a positive impact on the lives of students. Austin remarked that “teaching . . . music makes me feel like I am doing something worthwhile” (questionnaire), and Mary commented, “Teaching strings makes me feel useful and like I am making a difference in my students’ lives, especially beginning students” (questionnaire). Teaching music was also fun for participants. “I will always feel that . . . music is fun to teach!” Colton wrote in his questionnaire. Austin similarly referenced his enjoyment, writing that “Teaching . . . music makes me feel good knowing that I can have fun when the students are having fun” (questionnaire).

Professional teaching experiences can provide a sense of authenticity to preservice teachers’ pedagogical development. Colton often discussed how teaching trumpet lessons provided a valuable way to learn from mistakes and make pedagogical adjustments for the next lesson (interview, journal). Austin similarly discussed why the time spent working with a marching band during the summer helped his teaching confidence: “Working with [marching band] students more frequently really helped me . . . figure out how I wanted to approach things; how I wanted to work through these kinds of things. Where field, you get one shot and then you’re done” (interview).

Discussion

The first research question was designed to investigate the contextual variables that influenced participants’ self-efficacy and concerns. Similar to results in previous research studies (Boz & Boz, 2010; Evans & Tribble, 1986; Pyper, 2014), participants’ efficacious beliefs and teaching concerns were impacted by their contextual familiarity in field placements. Being more familiar with a pre-student teaching field placement and the consistency of long-term student teaching placements brought about more positive self-efficacy for teaching and the identification of concerns that more directly impacted student learning. Supporting preservice teachers as they refine pedagogical approaches, particularly in unfamiliar settings, can be important to their efficacious and emotional development because they often lack influential teaching experiences that inform their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005).

Although taking some time to familiarize oneself in a new teaching setting is to be expected, cooperating teachers may be able to expedite their mentees’ development by having discussions early in their field placement about students’ demographics, experience level, and prior knowledge. Prior to student teaching, music teacher educators can assign time for preservice to work with their future cooperating teachers to become familiar with the students, routines, and expectations. In unfamiliar music settings, more cooperating teacher support will likely be needed to ensure preservice teachers create lesson plans that account for individual student needs and contextual details unique to the placement. Furthermore, cooperating teachers can have discussions with preservice teachers early in their field placements about prior successful pedagogical strategies that positively impacted students’ performance ability or behavior, which may alleviate feelings of ineffectiveness. Reducing negative feelings for teaching may result in a more positive physiological state, which informs efficacious beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

My second research question was developed to examine whether preservice teachers’ concerns change during the course of pre-student teaching and student teaching. Results indicated that participants shared more student-impact concerns during their student teaching experiences than during pre-student teaching, while also having a few clusters of concerns during both time periods. Participants reported more self-concerns during student teaching than pre-student teaching, which might be the result of changes to the teaching placement (Miksza & Berg, 2013). Overall, the trajectory of participants’ teacher concerns in the current study is similar to those of previous investigations (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Killian et al., 2013; Miksza & Berg, 2013) and underscores Fuller and Bown’s (1975) teachers’ concerns theory. However, the rate at which preservice teachers shift their focus is still unknown and may be influenced by their level of efficacy for teaching. Perhaps preservice teachers accomplish self-survival and teaching tasks that improve self-efficacy, before new concerns arise that more directly impact students’ learning.

Participants’ tendency to identify the same concerns during pre-student teaching and student teaching (i.e., clustered concerns) is similar to results of previous research studies (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Powell, 2014, 2016). Miksza and Berg (2013) reported that preservice music teachers had clustered concerns and suggested teachers may always identify some concerns within each category. Powell (2016) suggested Fuller and Bown’s (1975) concerns model could “serve as a structure for guiding reflective practice and assisting preservice teachers to attend to all aspects of their teaching, including student impact” (p. 501). Early conversations during field placements could also alleviate preservice teachers’ worries with classroom management, and has been cited as an important skill among student teachers and university supervisors (Baumgartner & Councill, 2017). Addressing preservice teachers’ pedagogical approaches, including pacing and accurate feedback, could improve their control of students’ behavior (Madsen & Geringer, 1989), resulting in positive efficacious teaching experiences and strengthening teacher identity (Wagoner, 2011). Even if preservice teachers are not yet leading classes at the beginning of their placement, they can still perform activities that build rapport with students such as greeting students at the door, discussing non-music related topics before and after class time, leading class warm-ups, or working with individuals or small groups.

The third research question was created to explore what pre-student teaching experiences the participants most commonly believed informed their self-efficacy for teaching. Participants identified that their teaching self-efficacy was informed most by professional teaching experiences such as giving private lessons or working with community groups. Curricular field experiences also informed participants’ beliefs, but were mentioned to a lesser degree. Similar to student teaching placements, participants appreciated the authenticity from teaching in these settings. Preservice teachers may value the sense of autonomy when making pedagogical decisions and taking responsibility for student learning (Schmidt, 2010). Similar authentic teaching opportunities have been reported to have impacted preservice teachers’ identity, classroom management efficacy, and teaching skills (Austin & Miksza, 2012) and may have contributed to their overall pedagogical and psychological development (Paul et al., 2001). Interestingly, participants did not identify prior elementary field experiences as being efficacious, although they had pre-student teaching experiences in such placements. Participants may have identified as instrumental teachers, and therefore did not perceive that the experiences improved their instrumental teaching efficacy. Discussions and reflections may help preservice teachers recognize and transfer pedagogical strategies from non-familiar teaching placements to the teaching level or setting of interest (Prichard, 2017).

Because cultivating preservice teachers’ self-efficacy may impact their self-efficacy and identity later in their careers (Prichard, 2017; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005), music teacher educators can guide their students in finding non-curricular authentic teaching experiences that matches students’ interests and needs. Opportunities could include working at summer music camps, giving small group or private lessons, teaching chamber ensembles at local schools, or leading community music programs. Further investigation into the impact that professional teaching experiences have on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and identity is warranted.

The small number of participants, brief data collection time, variety of student teaching placements, and only soliciting instrumental participants are limitations of the current study. Therefore, results cannot be generalized to all preservice teacher experiences. Soliciting non-instrumental preservice teachers for the study and a longer time to examine participants’ concerns and efficacious experiences would provide even more information from which to make recommendations and further our understanding of teacher development. In addition, having participants interpret the same experiences would provide more focused data to explore. However, the results of this study may be used to inform future investigations into the contextual nature of preservice music teachers’ efficacious beliefs.

Researchers might explore relationships between quantitative measures of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and their concerns. To what extent do prior teaching experiences in a music setting impact self-efficacy? Highly efficacious preservice teachers may have more confidence in their ability to meet individual students’ needs than their counterparts, thereby having fewer concerns for their teaching preparation, strategies, and rapport with students (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999). Investigating how music teachers of different genders, races, or musical backgrounds identify shared efficacious experiences might also be of interest (Hendricks, 2014) to improve preservice experiences and professional development opportunities.

Preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and teaching concerns were related to the contextual nature of each pedagogical setting. The themes of, contextual familiarity impacted self-efficacy and concerns, changing and clustered concerns, and value of professional teaching experiences prior to student teaching are consistent with prior research, but this study made a contribution to the literature by examining the influence these factors had on preservice teachers’ efficacious beliefs. Understanding the experiences that most impact preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns can inform music teacher educators’ curricular development and identification of experiences that improve self-efficacy. Music teacher educators may use the results of the current study to consider how transitions between field experiences influence their students’ efficacious beliefs and emotions. I hope that consideration of the issues addressed in this research may help those involved in music teacher preparation to consider ways to provide the most effective support possible for their preservice teachers’ development.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-ijm-10.1177_0255761421990787 – Supplemental material for Preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns before and during student teaching

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ijm-10.1177_0255761421990787 for Preservice music teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns before and during student teaching by Bradley J Regier in International Journal of Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Bradley J Regier

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ashton

Webb

(1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. Longman.

Austin

J. R.

Miksza

P. J.

(2012). Trying on teaching: Effects of a precollegiate music teacher recruitment program. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083711401712

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Barnes

G. L. V.

(1998). A comparison of self-efficacy and teaching effectiveness in preservice string teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(1), Article 3767. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1250267731

Baumgartner

C. M.

Councill

K. H.

(2017). Music student teaching seminars: An examination of current practices across the United States. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123315615183

Berg

M. H.

Miksza

(2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710363237

Bergee

M. J.

(2002). Direct and mediated experiences: Effects on classroom management self-efficacy. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 12, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837020120010301

Boz

(2010). The nature of the relationship between teaching concerns and sense of efficacy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.490910

Campbell

M. R.

Thompson

L. K.

(2007). Perceived concerns of preservice music education teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940705500206

10.

Chacon

C. T.

(2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257–272. https://doi.org/1016/j.tate.2005.01.001

11.

Coleman

T. R.

(1999). The music student teaching experience: Making connections. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02A), Article 540.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

13.

Evans

E. D.

Tribble

(1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1986.10885728

14.

Fuller

(1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161894

15.

Fuller

Bown

(1975). Becoming a teacher. In Ryan

(Ed.), Teacher education, Part II: The 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25–52). University of Chicago Press.

16.

Ghaith

Shaaban

(1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00009-8

17.

Hendricks

K. S.

(2014). Changes in self-efficacy beliefs over time: Contextual influences of gender, rank-based placement, and social support in a competitive orchestra environment. Psychology of Music, 42, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0305735612471238

18.

Hoy

W. K.

Woolfolk

A. E.

(1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027002279

19.

Killian

J. N.

Dye

K. G.

Wayman

J. B.

(2013). Music student teachers: Pre-student teaching concerns and post-student teaching perceptions over a 5-year period. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412474314

20.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

21.

Madsen

C. K.

Geringer

J. M.

(1989). The relationship of teacher “on-task” to intensity and effective music teaching. Canadian Music Educator, 30, 87–94.

22.

Merton

R. K.

Fiske

Kendall

P. L.

(1990). The focused interviews: A manual of problems and procedures (2nd ed.). Free Press.

23.

Miksza

Austin

J. R.

(2010). Eyes wide open: High school student reflections on music teaching experiences within a pre-collegiate recruitment program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 185, 7–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41110362

24.

Miksza

Berg

M. H.

(2013). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller and Bown teacher-concerns model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412473606

25.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE.

26.

Milner

H. R.

Woolfolk Hoy

(2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00099-9

27.

Palmer

D. H.

(2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353. http://doi.org/cc49v6

28.

Paul

S. J.

Teachout

D. J.

Sullivan

J. M.

Kelly

S. N.

Bauer

W. I.

Raiber

M. A.

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

29.

Powell

S. R.

(2014). Examining preservice music teacher concerns in peer- and field-teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413508408

30.

Powell

S. R.

(2016). The influence of video reflection on preservice music teachers’ concerns in peer-and field-teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415620619

31.

Prichard

(2017). A mixed-methods investigation of preservice music teaching efficacy beliefs and commitment to music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417710387

32.

Pyper

J. S.

(2014). Pre-service mathematics teacher efficacy: Its nature and relationship to teacher concerns and orientation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60, 81–97. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55768/42635

33.

Ross

J. A.

Hogaboam-Gray

Hannay

(2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 141–156. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002205

34.

Schmidt

(2010). Learning from teaching experience: Dewey’s theory and preservice teachers’ learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410368723

35.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

Hoy

W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

36.

Wagoner

C. L.

(2011). Defining and measuring music teacher identity: A study of self-efficacy and commitment among music teachers (Publication no. 3457596) [Doctoral dissertation, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global]. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

37.

Woolfolk Hoy

Burke-Spero

. (2005). Changes in teacher-efficacy beliefs during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007

38.

Woolfolk Hoy

Davis

H. A

. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In Pajares

Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–137). Information Age.

39.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

40.

Yourn

B. R.

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

41.

Zeldin

A. L.

Pajares

(2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001215