Music Education Majors’ Confidence in Teaching Improvisation

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe undergraduate music education majors’ confidence in teaching improvisation, according to the NAfME (National Association for Music Education) K–12 Achievement Standards. Subjects were 196 undergraduate music education majors at a public university school of music. Combined subjects reported “moderate confidence” for teaching Grade K–4 standards of improvisation, “slight” to “moderate confidence” for Grades 5 to 8 standards, and “slight confidence” for teaching improvisation standards at the Grades 9 to 12 levels, and significant differences were found among the means for all three grade levels. Confidence increased by year in school (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) and by primary instrument area (woodwind, brass, voice, piano, string, percussion). Subjects reported “slight” to “moderate confidence” in their own ability to improvise but “moderate” to “great interest” in learning more about how to teach improvisation. Implications for music teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

music teacher preparation preservice teachers curriculum improvisation creativity

Educators and researchers advocate the use of improvisation as an instructional technique in K–12 music classrooms and rehearsals (e.g., Azzara, 2002; Feldman & Contzius, 2011; Hamann & Gillespie, 2004; Higgins & Campbell, 2010). These scholars contend that improvisation activities afford students unique means of representing aural and notational stimuli and thus aid in the comprehension and performance of music. The National Association for Music Education (NAfME) advanced the need for improvisation in school music curricula with their publication of National Standards (MENC, 1994). More recently, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (http://www.p21.org/)—a group formed within the community of general education to promote skills and knowledge for future success—reaffirmed the need for students to develop skills in critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. As Campbell (2009) states, “more than any other experience, improvisation as an instructional technique allows music students to receive a holistic musical training in which music theory, ear training, and performance can be woven together in an information-rich context” (p. 133).

Despite these recommendations, many music teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach improvisation (Bell, 2003; Brophy, 2002; Madura, 2007), and few include it in K–12 classrooms or rehearsals (Byo, 1999; Riveire, 1997; Wilson, 2003). In a study of New York State music educators, Bell (2003) found that teachers perceived improvisation to be too difficult for elementary school students and that they lacked confidence in their own abilities to improvise and introduce the practice to advancing students. Brophy (2002) surveyed elementary general music specialists on preservice teaching instruction. Among other results, only 11% of participants felt prepared to teach improvisation. Similarly, Madura (2007) surveyed participants from six vocal jazz professional conference sessions. Although her survey addressed all forms of improvisation, as outlined in NAfME’s National Standards, participants rated their own ability to improvise quite low and their ability to teach improvisation with confidence decreasing as grade level increased. However, interest in learning more about improvisation was the highest rated survey item, and participants were most interested in doing so through intensive workshops.

Byo (1999) surveyed elementary-level music and nonmusic teachers about perceptions of the National Standards for Music Education. Participants for her study were 177 teachers from Florida, who evaluated their abilities to implement each of the nine standards relative to seven categories (training, interest, ability, sense of responsibility, resources, assistance, and instructional time). Results indicated that music specialists felt more comfortable teaching standards than did generalists but that all teachers stated a need for more time and resources. Music teachers reported improvisation as their least comfortable standard in all seven categories surveyed. Riveire (1997) surveyed 54 California K–12 string teachers on implementation of improvisation. She found that many of her participants associated improvisation exclusively with jazz performance and that, although these teachers demonstrated positive attitudes toward the idea, they needed further training and instructional time to successfully implement related curricula. Wilson (2003) surveyed secondary-level music educators from Missouri and found that close to half of the respondents had made no changes to their teaching based on the 1994 publication of the National Standards. Furthermore, among those respondents who had made changes, composition and improvisation were the least common standards to be implemented.

Although the aforementioned researchers have described attitudes and abilities of in-service music teachers, less is known about preservice educators. The purpose of the current study was to describe undergraduate music education majors’ confidence in teaching improvisation, according to the NAfME K–12 Achievement Standards (MENC, 1994). Specific research questions were the following:

Research Question 1: To what degree are music education majors confident in implementing the 11 improvisation achievement standards for Grades K–12?

Research Question 2: To what degree are they confident in their own improvisation ability?

Research Question 3: To what degree are they interested or motivated in learning more about how to teach improvisation?

Research Question 4: Are there differences in confidence among music education majors by year in school?

Research Question 5: Are there differences in confidence among music education majors by primary instrument?

Survey Instrument

The Survey of Confidence in Teaching Improvisation (SCTI) was developed by Madura (2007) for a study of in-service music teachers, and the reliability of the measure was reported to be .95. Permission was obtained from Dr. Madura to use the SCTI in the current study (Table 1). The 15-item questionnaire was used to assess participant confidence in teaching NAfME K–12 Achievement Standard 3: Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments. Participants were presented with the following instructions:

Please rate your confidence in teaching each of the following improvisation activities, as specified in the National Standards for Arts Education. Even if you have had no opportunity to teach improvisation at the stated grade levels, reflect on your confidence in your ability to do so.

Table 1.

Survey of Confidence in Teaching Improvisation

1. Improvise answers in the same style to given rhythmic and melodic phrases (Grades K–4).

2. Improvise simple rhythmic and melodic ostinato accompaniments (Grades K–4).

3. Improvise simple rhythmic variations and simple melodic embellishments on familiar melodies (Grades K–4).

4. Improvise short songs and instrumental pieces, using a variety of sound sources, including traditional sounds, nontraditional sounds available in the classroom, body sounds, and sounds produced by electronic means (Grades K–4).

5. Improvise simple harmonic accompaniments (Grades 5–8).

6. Improvise melodic embellishments and simple rhythmic variations on given pentatonic melodies and melodies in major keys (Grades 5–8).

7. Improvise short melodies, unaccompanied and over given rhythmic accompaniments, each in a consistent style, meter, and tonality (Grades 5–8).

8. Improvise stylistically appropriate harmonizing parts (Grades 9–12).

9. Improvise rhythmic and melodic variations on given pentatonic melodies and melodies in major and minor keys (Grades 9–12).

10. Improvise original melodies over given chord progressions, each in a consistent style, meter, and tonality (Grades 9–12).

11. Improvise stylistically appropriate harmonizing parts in a variety of styles (Grades 9–12).

12. Rate your own ability to improvise.

13. Rate your interest in learning more about teaching improvisation.

14. Indicate your current year in school.

15. Indicate your primary instrument area.

Items 1 through 11 used the exact wording of the 12 improvisation achievement standards for Grades K–4, 5 to 8, and 9 to 12. Because of the redundant nature of Grades 9 to 12 achievement standards c and e, the statement “improvise original melodies over given chord progressions, each in a consistent style, meter, and tonality” was listed only once. Five-point rating scales were used to indicate the following: 1 = no confidence at all, 2 = almost no confidence, 3 = slight confidence, 4 = moderate confidence, and 5 = great confidence. The final four questions provided opportunities for participants to rate their own improvisation ability, as well as their interest in learning more about teaching improvisation, and to indicate their current year in school and primary instrument area.

Method

The SCTI was distributed to 335 undergraduate music education majors at a public university school of music via “ANGEL” electronic course management system (using the College of Education’s “Initial Certification Candidate–Music Education” group), during the fall semester of 2011. Of these 335 potential participants, 121 had completed the survey within 1 week. A follow-up e-mail was distributed, and another 55 surveys were completed, for a total of 176 responses (52.54% of 335). Because of the concern that nonrespondents’ answers might differ from those of respondents, 20 nonrespondents were contacted randomly to complete the SCTI. Results of an independent-samples t test revealed that nonrespondents did not differ significantly from respondents in any question category (p > .05), so the nonrespondents’ answers were combined with the respondents’ data (N = 196, 58.51% of 335).

Participants were enrolled in a traditional 4-year Bachelor of Music in Music Education degree program. Course requirements include general education, musicianship, and teacher education studies. All music education majors participate in music theory, aural skills, and piano classes that involve introductory, structured improvisation activities (freshman and sophomore years). Upper-level music education majors experience further required studies in teaching methods and field experiences involving improvisation activities. More specifically, all majors are required to develop lesson plans and teach improvisation in general music settings and, to a lesser extent, in choral and instrumental settings. Some music education majors also elect to take other coursework in free improvisation, Dalcroze Eurhythmics, and jazz improvisation.

Results

Descriptive data were computed for all SCTI responses, including means and standard deviations for combined Grades K–4, 5 to 8, and 9 to 12 standards, by year in school and primary instrument (Tables 2 and 3). According to Madura’s (2007) categorizations, combined participants reported “moderate confidence” for teaching K–4 standards of improvisation (M = 3.94), “slight” to “moderate confidence” for Grades 5 to 8 standards (M = 3.66), and “slight confidence” for teaching improvisation standards at the Grades 9 to 12 levels (M = 3.27). To determine differences among the three grade-level standards, these means were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures. Statistically significant differences were found among the means for all three grade levels (F = 111.91; degrees of freedom [df] = 1.79, 346.70; p < .01, partial η² = .37). Thus, on average, participants’ confidence in teaching improvisation decreased as grade level increased. As regards the second and third research questions, combined participants reported “slight” to “moderate confidence” in their own ability to improvise (M = 3.55) but “moderate” to “great interest” in learning more about how to teach improvisation (M = 4.55).

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Grades K–4 (ES), 5–8 (MS), and 9–12 (HS) Confidence in Teaching Improvisation by Year in School

	N	ES Mean (SD)	MS Mean (SD)	HS Mean (SD)	Total Mean (SD)
Freshman	40	3.70 (0.75)	3.30 (0.93)	3.04 (0.89)	3.35 (0.86)
Sophomore	42	3.73 (0.83)	3.42 (1.12)	2.98 (1.13)	3.38 (1.03)
Junior	44	3.78 (0.49)	3.56 (0.61)	3.09 (0.71)	3.48 (0.60)
Senior	70	4.18 (0.76)	3.94 (0.76)	3.54 (0.95)	3.89 (0.82)
Total	196	3.94 (0.74)	3.66 (0.85)	3.27 (0.94)	3.62 (0.84)

Note: ES = elementary school; MS = middle school; HS = high school.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Grades K–4 (ES), 5–8 (MS), and 9–12 (HS) Confidence in Teaching Improvisation by Primary Instrument Area

	N	ES Mean (SD)	MS Mean (SD)	HS Mean (SD)	Total Mean (SD)
Brass	52	3.89 (0.90)	3.60 (0.84)	3.15 (0.94)	3.55 (0.89)
Percussion	8	4.56 (0.40)	4.16 (0.59)	3.81 (0.44)	4.18 (0.48)
Piano	12	3.96 (0.32)	4.00 (0.70)	3.46 (0.73)	3.81 (0.58)
String	30	4.28 (0.63)	4.22 (0.53)	3.88 (0.75)	4.12 (0.64)
Voice	30	4.05 (0.75)	3.55 (1.05)	3.42 (0.99)	3.67 (0.93)
Woodwind	64	3.70 (0.64)	3.38 (0.78)	2.91 (0.89)	3.33 (0.77)
Total	196	3.94 (0.74)	3.66 (0.85)	3.27 (0.94)	3.62 (0.84)

Note: ES = elementary school; MS = middle school; HS = high school.

To answer the last two research questions, participant responses were compared by year in school and primary instrument. Freshman, sophomore, and junior means tended toward “slight confidence” in teaching improvisation (M = 3.35, 3.38, and 3.48 respectively), whereas senior means tended more toward “moderate confidence” (M = 3.89). Woodwind majors tended toward “slight confidence” (M = 3.33); brass, voice, and piano majors reported “slight” to “moderate confidence” (M = 3.55, 3.67, and 3.81, respectively); and string and percussion majors reported “moderate confidence” (M = 4.12 and 4.18, respectively). Statistical significance was measured using a two-way multivariate analysis of variance, with year in school (four levels) and primary instrument area (six levels) serving as independent variables, and achievement standard means for Grades K–4, 5 to 8, and 9 to 12 serving as dependent variables. Results of the multivariate analysis of variance revealed statistically significant effects for year (F = 2.87; df = 9, 421; p < .01, partial η² = .04), primary instrument (F = 3.20; df = 15, 478; p < .01, partial η² = .09), and interactions (F = 2.99; df = 36, 512; p < .01, partial η² = .17).

Postanalysis univariate ANOVAs revealed significant differences by year in school (F = 2.65; df = 3, 175; p < .05, partial η² = .12). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that seniors reported significantly greater confidence teaching middle school standards than did freshmen, sophomores, or juniors (p < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were found by primary instrument area (elementary school: F = 4.35; df = 5, 175; p < .01, partial η² = .11; middle school: F = 4.98; df = 5, 175; p < .01, partial η² = .12; high school: F = 4.19; df = 5, 175; p < .01, partial η² = .15). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that percussion and string majors reported significantly greater confidence teaching all standards than did woodwind majors (p < .05).

Discussion

According to Madura’s (2007) categorizations, confidence in perceived ability to teach improvisation increased by year in school (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). Furthermore, although comparisons should be made with caution, participants in the current study reported greater confidence teaching improvisation than did Madura’s in-service participants. Although the effect size was relatively small, and results may be in part because of general maturation and development of teacher identity, these findings suggest that current curricular efforts described in the Method section are generally working. With the intent of further increasing confidence in teaching, future plans include integrating improvisation more systematically in freshman and sophomore aural skills classes (Phillips, Murphy, Marvin, & Clendinning, 2011). Music education faculty are also collaborating to better connect improvisation activities among general, choral, and instrumental music methods courses and to provide more opportunities for teaching improvisation during field experiences.

Confidence in teaching improvisation varied by primary instrument area, and combined participants reported only “slight” to “moderate confidence” in their own ability to improvise. Statistically significant interactions were also observed between year in school and primary instrument area. Although details about how often and in what ways participants improvised in elective settings were beyond the scope of this study, these findings suggest that further support may be needed, particularly for those students who play primary instruments that are not typically associated with improvisation. As Riveire (1997) suggested, some music educators may associate improvisation exclusively with jazz instruction and may feel that spending time with improvisation will negatively affect instructional time for more traditional methods of teaching skills and knowledge. Instead of being considered as an addition to the curriculum, improvisation could be used as a more creative technique for teaching and learning music. More specifically, studio teachers and ensemble directors might benefit from professional development that helps them develop and incorporate improvisation activities into traditional lessons and rehearsals. When done successfully, this practice could continue fostering, and perhaps improve, performance technique, while simultaneously providing space for more creative exploration.

As with Madura’s (2007) original survey of in-service teachers, preservice participants in the current study reported greater confidence teaching improvisation standards at the elementary school level (K–4), followed by middle (Grades 5–8) and high school (Grades 9–12). Thus, additional support and curricular content may be needed for activities and experiences related to teaching improvisation in secondary-level music contexts. Student teachers at the surveyed university are currently required to demonstrate one example of teaching improvisation during the capstone semester. Future semesters might include expansion to require and provide support for teaching and assessing improvisation more consistently in both elementary- and secondary-level student teaching placements. Furthermore, early field experiences and methods courses focused on secondary-level music education could be adjusted to allow preservice candidates more opportunities for observing and practicing successful improvisation activities in authentic middle and high school settings. Further research should be conducted to determine how preservice music teachers conceptualize improvisation at different grade levels. Although statements from the NAfME achievement standards are quite specific, it is possible that participant responses in the current study were influenced by perceptions of what improvisation entails as grade levels progress.

Byo (1999), Madura (2007), and Riveire (1997) found that in-service teachers reported interest in learning more about teaching improvisation. Similarly, participants from the current study, on average, desired more instruction and demonstrated interest in learning. As Campbell (2009) suggests, “because most K-12 teachers were not trained as improvising musicians, improvisation is a vague and distant notion, and pedagogical approaches are unclear when they themselves have had no firsthand experience in the process” (p. 137). Collaborations among collegiate faculty, as well as field experience partners, will increase the likelihood that improvisation can be infused throughout the curriculum so that undergraduate music education majors will be more likely to include such activities in their own teaching. Instead of simply teaching as they were taught, preservice candidates will be empowered to collaborate and communicate in an effort to effectively teach creative leaders of the future.

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.

References

Azzara

C. D.

(2002). Improvisation. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 171-187) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bell

C. L.

(2003). Beginning the dialogue: Teachers respond to the National Standards in music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 31-42.

Brophy

T. S.

(2002). Toward improving music teacher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 104(2), 3-8.

Byo

S. J.

(1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 111-123.

Campbell

P. S.

(2009). Learning to improvise music, improvising to learn music. In Solis

Nettl

(Eds.), Musical improvisation: Art, education, and society (119-142). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Feldman

Contzius

(2011). Instrumental music education: Teaching with the musical and practical in harmony. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hamann

D. L.

Gillespie

(2004). Strategies for teaching strings: Building a successful string and orchestra program. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Higgins

Campbell

P. S.

(2010). Free to be musical. Lanham, MD: MENC/Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Madura Ward-Steinman

(2007). Confidence in teaching improvisation according to the K-12 achievement standards. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 172, 25-40.

10.

MENC. (1994). The school music program: A new vision. Reston, VA: Author.

11.

Phillips

Murphy

Marvin

E. W.

Clendinning

J. P.

(2011). The musician’s guide to aural skills (Vols. 1 & 2). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

12.

Riveire

J. H.

(1997). California string teachers’ curricular content and attitudes regarding improvisation and the National Standards (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertations Abstracts International, 59(05), 1504A. (UMI No. 9835075)

13.

Wilson

C. C.

(2003). The National Standards for Music Education: Awareness of, and attitudes toward, by secondary music educators in Missouri. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 16-33.