Abstract
We analyzed each article published in 20 years (1991–2011) of the Journal of Music Teacher Education (N = 282 articles) for possible changes across 5-year increments. All articles were examined by type of article, research methodologies used, and topics discussed. Nonrefereed articles included Society for Music Teacher Education chair and Journal of Music Teacher Education editor commentaries (n = 77), and occasional statements by Music Educators National Conference (MENC)/National Association for Music Education (NAfME) officers (n = 3). Peer-reviewed articles were classified as research articles (n = 85), interest articles (n = 99), and book reviews (n = 18). Results showed a distinct increase in numbers of both quantitative (n = 51) and qualitative (n = 34 including historical) research articles over time with most appearing in the fourth quarter. Overall, more interest articles appeared (n = 99), but the number decreased across each 5-year increment. Numbers of book reviews declined steadily. Analysis of specific topics revealed that curriculum, teaching techniques, and professional development were most frequently discussed but varied by type of article and methodology.
Examinations of music education journals with analyses of articles and authors across time have been of continuing research interest. Past analyses have included consideration of author productivity (Price & Orman, 1996; Standley, 1984), size of journal (McCarthy, 1999), specific research methodologies (Lane, 2011; Sample, 1992; Schmidt & Zdzinski, 1993), retrievability of publications (Brittin & Standley, 1997), journal eminence based on citations (Hamann & Lucas, 1998; Randles, Hagen, Gottlieb, & Salvador, 2010), participant characteristics (Ebie, 2002), author characteristics (Grashel, 1998; Grashel & Lowe, 1995), review board members (Humphreys, 1999; Humphreys & Stauffer, 2000), and the actual subject matter of published studies (McCarthy, 1999; Rutkowski, Thompson, & Huang, 2011; Schmidt & Zdzinski, 1993; Yarbrough, 2002). The overall purpose of each study appeared to be analysis of change in the specified journal across time. Thus these studies were simultaneously historical and analytical in nature and served as models for the questions asked in this study.
The Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE) has now been in existence long enough (20 years) to allow a retrospective analysis of the published articles and of the authors who wrote them. The journal began in 1991 as a publication of the Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE). SMTE was formed nearly a decade earlier (1982) at an initial meeting at the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) national convention in San Antonio (Fredrickson, 2010; Leonard, 1991; Watkins, 1995), but JMTE did not come into existence until 1991 after MENC agreed to sponsor a journal as a communication arm of SMTE (Fredrickson, 2010; Watkins, 1995).
The purpose of this study is to analyze each article published in JMTE between 1991 (Vol. 1, Issue 1) and 2011 (Vol. 20, Issue 2) to examine possible changes in the journal and the topics of interest across time.
Procedures
JMTE has the stated purpose of strengthening music teacher education under the auspices of the SMTE. Each semiannual issue contains an editorial, a message from the chair of SMTE, and several peer-reviewed articles. The “JMTE Guidelines for Contributors” (n.d.) allows examination of the specific types of articles and the possible subject matters they may contain. The guidelines state that articles may be “philosophical, historical, descriptive, experimental or methodological in nature.” Submissions may be either research articles (“projects producing new data”) or interest articles (“papers having underpinnings in research, but not resulting in new data, that expand the knowledge base of the profession”). Furthermore, “all articles should include discussion of implications for teacher educators.” Thus the content of JMTE is firmly grounded in music teacher preparation, and one would expect every article to reference some aspect of teacher preparation.
We examined 40 issues (N = 282 articles) from Volume 1, Issue 1 (1991) to Volume 20, Issue 2 (2011). To allow consideration of 5-year equally divided increments, we did not include any articles in Volume 21, Issue 1 or any accepted articles appearing in Sage Publication’s OnlineFirst prepublication venue. As a means of reliability, the three authors independently evaluated each article. We then discussed our conclusions until a consensus was reached (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). We first classified each article as peer reviewed or nonrefereed. Nonrefereed articles included editorials, commentaries by the current SMTE chair, and an occasional statement by the MENC (now National Association for Music Education [NAfME]) officers. General announcements, for example, calls for review board members or notices of upcoming conferences, were omitted from examination. Using the JMTE Guidelines to Contributors, we classified peer-reviewed articles as research articles (n = 85), interest articles (n = 99), or book reviews (n = 18).
Although contributors are asked to specify whether a manuscript is “research” or “interest,” these distinctions are not specified in published articles (personal communication with current editor, January 3, 2012). Therefore, we determined whether an article contained new data (research) or an examination of existing data (interest) based on article content. Furthermore, when a categorization was in doubt, we based our conclusions on the written intent of the author. Therefore, if the author said the article was research, we labeled it as such. Currently, manuscripts are submitted as either research or interest or book review, and thus the editor has that information, even though it is unpublished. As a measure of our accuracy, we compared our independent research/article categorizations within the three JMTE issues that were available to the current editor. We found that our categorizations of research or interest articles within the three available JMTE issues were 100% in agreement with known data.
We then categorized research articles as quantitative, qualitative, or historical, using the same process of independent coding followed by discussion to reach consensus. We debated whether historical provided new data (a requirement to be labeled “research”) and decided that it indeed did (Cox, 2006).
We categorized interest articles as general, philosophical, or reviews of literature. Philosophical categorizations were particularly problematical. To avoid judging whether an article followed established philosophical methodology or only seemed philosophically oriented, we labeled articles as philosophical only if the author stated that the article was philosophical. Thus, we avoided any judgments about methodological quality and instead focused on author-stated intent. That decision and the frequent lack of stated philosophical methodology forced us to place philosophical articles in “interest” rather than “research,” although we are very aware of the value of philosophical inquiry as a research methodology (Jorgensen, 2006).
To analyze information about the authors of each article, we counted authors and noted the number of times they published in JMTE. To investigate the subject matter of each article, we read each article and developed a large working list of 34 topics that appeared most frequently (Patton, 2002). Then we coded each article based on these 34 categories, placing articles into multiple categories if applicable. Again, we categorized independently and discussed disagreements until a consensus was reached. Subsequently, we collapsed the working list to a more manageable number of categories (15) in order to facilitate examination of topics over time. In the development of both original and final topics, we were guided by our own article examinations as well as the published topics of the SMTE Areas of Strategic Planning and Action groups (http://smte.us/aspas/). We then grouped all data into 5-year increments to allow comparison of possible changes in numbers of articles, types of research, and article topics across time.
Results
Data consisted of changes in the size of the journal, numbers of articles, type of research methodology, and topic of each article. All article data were compiled into 5-year increments (10 issues of JMTE) to allow analysis of possible changes across time. We also examined the numbers of authors as a measure of individual productivity.
Changes in Size and Distribution of JMTE
Changes have occurred in JMTE across the past 20 years. For example, the journal changed from print to completely online in Fall 2002 with Volume 12, Issue 1 (Bidner, 2001). Sage Publications began publishing JMTE in 2008 (Volume 17, Issue 2), and that change created, among other things, a searchable database and the presence of an abstract for every peer-reviewed article (Fredrickson, 2007). Manuscript submissions became completely online as of October 1, 2010 (“JMTE Guidelines to Contributors,” n.d.).
For the purposes of this study, the number of pages per issue and the number of articles published across time were of particular interest as a measure of growth. Examination of Table 1 indicates that JMTE had approximately 30 to 32 pages of text during its first 10 years (1991–2001), increased to nearly 50 pages in 2001–2006 and increased again to more than 90 pages per issue in the final 5-year period. Variations in page allocation may be explained by the fact that page limits were set at 80 pages per issue by Sage Publications beginning 2008, but the editor could and did receive additional pages (William Fredrickson, former JMTE editor, personal communication, August 2010). Beginning with the October 2012 issue (Vol. 22, Issue 1), the page number per issue will be set at 105 (Hana Joe, JMTE production editor, personal communication, September 30, 2011).
Journal of Music Teacher Education Mean Number of Pages and Articles per Issue Across 5-Year Increments
Changes in the Types of Articles
We examined the frequency of both peer-reviewed (research articles, interest articles, and book reviews) and nonrefereed articles (editorials, reports from SMTE chairs, and comments by MENC/NAfME officials, which we collectively labeled “commentaries”). Typically the editor and the SMTE chair wrote an article for every issue (editorials = 38, from the chairs = 39). In addition there were three instances in which an MENC (now NAfME) officer wrote an introduction to a topic or an invitation to an event.
Peer-reviewed articles (N = 202; research articles = 85, interest articles = 99, and book reviews = 18) provided the bulk of the data for our analyses. Data displayed in Table 2 indicate a general consistency in the frequency of interest articles across 5-year increments (first quarter = 24, second = 29, third = 28) with a decline in the most recent 5-year time span (fourth quarter = 18). Contrastingly, there was a distinct increase in research articles (first quarter = 8, second = 9, third = 21, and fourth = 47). Book reviews were a common component during the first 10 years and then declined in frequency (first quarter = 8, second = 6, third = 2, and fourth = 2). Figure 1 allows graphic comparison of interest and research and book reviews across 5-year increments.
Types of Articles Across 5-Year Increments of JMTE Publications
Note: JMTE = Journal of Music Teacher Education; SMTE = Society for Music Teacher Education.
Types of published peer-reviewed articles across 5-year increments
Examination of the specific book titles reviewed indicated that two thirds were on nonmusic topics (music = 6, nonmusic = 12). Nonmusic books included topics such as human thinking, artistic intelligence, cooperative learning, effective questioning, and course design. Book reviews were peer reviewed from 2004 to the present time (William Fredrickson, personal communication, August 2010), but we were unable to verify whether earlier book reviews were refereed. We assumed that they were and included book reviews among the peer-reviewed articles.
We compared frequency of quantitative with that of qualitative articles across time as revealed in Table 2 and Figure 2. Table 2 also allowed examination of the types of quantitative research studies (39 out of 51 or 76% of all quantitative studies involved surveys). For qualitative studies, we tracked how often a specific design or technique (e.g., collective case study, grounded theory, constant comparative method) was mentioned. Table 2 indicates that 12 out of 29 studies (41%) included such information, and all but one of these occurred in the most recent 5-year period.
Comparison of frequency of quantitative, qualitative, and historical peer-reviewed research articles across 5-year increments of publication in the Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE)
JMTE Authors
Examination of the published articles of all types (N = 282) revealed that 22% were co-authored (n = 63), while 78% were solo efforts (n = 219). Of the total number of authors (N = 210), the majority (152 or 72%) published only once in JMTE, whereas others published as many as 14 times. Seven authors accounted for 84 (30%) of the 282 total number of published JMTE articles. The names of these 7 authors as well as the frequency of those publishing multiple times appear in Table 3. Table 3 further notes the numbers of peer-reviewed articles (as opposed to commentaries) published by those seven productive scholars.
Frequency of Publication in JMTE by Individual Authors (Solo and Coauthored Publications)
Note: JMTE = Journal of Music Teacher Education. Total: 282 articles, 210 authors.
Topics Addressed in JMTE Articles and Commentaries
Finally, we examined the topic of each article, first identifying 34 categories and then collapsing those into 15 like groupings. The topics of specific Areas of Strategic Planning and Action groups as well as our examination of the JMTE articles and knowledge of teacher preparation research guided our coding process. Using standard qualitative coding techniques (Patton, 2002) we categorized articles as Curriculum (courses, programs, course materials, service learning, partnerships), Teaching Techniques (effective teaching, self-evaluation, socialization, assessment), Professional Development (professional development, professional organizations), Diversity (diversity, international, special education), Recruitment/Retention (recruitment, retention, mentoring), Policy (certification, scheduling, standards, policy), Student Teaching (field experience, student teaching), Teacher Educators, Research Techniques, Technology, Philosophical, Historical, Nonmusic Majors, Learning Theories, and Miscellaneous. Articles were coded into multiple categories when appropriate. Table 4 displays the combined total in frequency order. We were particularly interested to determine whether the topics varied by type of article (research articles, interest articles, and commentaries). Those results are also available in Table 4.
Frequency of Mention of Various Topics × Types of Articles
Graphic comparisons in Figure 3 allowed a more visual way to consider differences in topics addressed via commentaries, research articles, and interest articles. In addition, we considered whether frequency of specific topics might have varied over time (Table 5).
Comparison of topics (Professional Development, Teaching Techniques, Curriculum) addressed in Commentaries (black), Research Articles (dark gray), and Interest Articles (light gray)
Frequency of Topics Across 5-Year Increments
We also evaluated whether quantitative or qualitative methodologies were used to examine same or different topics. A comparison of topics addressed through quantitative and qualitative means appears in Table 6. Closer examination of Table 6 revealed relatively few differences in topic choice between the two methodologies. Since we classified all historical articles as qualitative, that contrast (rank of 15 vs. 5) is an artifact and should not be considered a real difference. The topic of Nonmusic Majors was examined via quantitative techniques more often than with qualitative (rank of 6 vs. 12). There seemed to be more quantitative emphasis on Recruitment/Retention (rank of 5 vs. 8), a bit more emphasis on Professional Development using qualitative methodologies (rank of 6 vs. rank of 8), more quantitative studies about Policy (rank 9 vs. 11), more quantitative studies involving Technology (10 vs. 15), more qualitative exploration of Research Techniques (10 vs. 12), and more qualitative methodology used for Teacher Educators (9 vs. 11). But these differences were quite small. We concluded that in this study, the specific topic studied rarely influenced the methodology selected in any systematic way.
Comparison of Frequency of Quantitative and Qualitative Topics Appearing in the Journal of Music Teacher Education
Discussion
Examination of 20 years of JMTE revealed some notable changes, not the least of which was in the area of journal growth. Increasing from 30 pages per issue to 93 pages per issue indicates an obvious interest in reading and publishing in this journal. The fact that as of February 6, 2012, there were 12 articles appearing on OnlineFirst (forthcoming articles published ahead of print) is an indication of the strength of this journal. According to the current editor, JMTE currently has an acceptance rate of approximately 33%, so it has the luxury of being selective when accepting articles, and one would think this fact might allow a corresponding increase in quality. The growth of this journal may also be a strong indication that the area of teacher preparation, the expressed focus of JMTE, is now viewed as a viable area of academically rigorous research and thoughtful examination. Given the 20-year survival of this young journal and its apparent current stability, it is not surprising that the types of articles published show some changes across time.
The change in the relationship between numbers of interest articles (examination of existing data) and research articles (creation of new data) is a notable development. Although JMTE was not initially envisioned as a research journal but rather “an exploration of the Society’s thoughts and feelings about teacher preparation” (Collins, 1991, p. 1), it appears to have developed a definite research bent. In the first 10 years (1991–2001), research articles comprised only 25% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles (Table 2); but in the past 5 years (2005–2011), research articles have provided 72% of peer-reviewed articles. It is not known whether research submissions increased across time, whether editorial review boards began accepting more research articles and rejecting more interest articles, or if the increase in research articles was because of some yet unidentified factors. Perhaps, as a profession we value and reward research more than we did 20 years ago. Regardless, it would appear that research studies as opposed to speculation or best practices in teacher preparation are becoming an accepted “way of knowing” among members of the profession.
Another interesting development, as illuminated in this study, was the issue of methodology prevalence. In 2001–2006 (Table 2), there were 21 research articles, 29% of which were qualitative and 67% quantitative. In 2006–2011, there were 47 research articles, 36% of which were qualitative and 62% quantitative. We compared those data with the percentage of qualitative studies (16%) published from 2000 to 2008 in Journal of Research in Music Education and Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (Lane, 2011). Despite possible differences in study categorizations between Lane and our current data, it would appear that qualitative as well as quantitative research is well received by JMTE reviewers, and both methodologies are perceived as applicable means of addressing music teacher preparation questions.
The specific topics discussed in JMTE were an area of ongoing interest. The data in Table 4 indicated that three categories (Curriculum, Teaching Techniques, and Professional Development) accounted for 56% of all topics mentioned across 20 years. However, when these data were divided by type of article, some rather dramatic differences occurred. Editors and chairs (commentaries) focused on Professional Development (which included professional organizations) in 49% of their articles. Perhaps that is not surprising since many editorials dealt with issues related to conventions, member recruitment, and so on. Authors of interest articles appeared to have emphasized the area of Curriculum, focusing on curricular issues in 41% of their articles. Contrastingly, researchers (both quantitative and qualitative) elected to study Teaching Techniques in 30% of their studies and Curriculum in 20%. It is interesting to contemplate whether these distinct differences among groups indicate a difference in methodology (perhaps those who conduct research address different topics than those who write interest articles), differences in the individuals who were elected to office (commentaries) or decide to pursue research, or some unknown difference.
Results should be viewed with caution. There may be many other ways to categorize this series of 282 articles across 20 years of time. We are confident of our procedures used to categorize topics, but we recognize that individual studies could be listed in other plausible categories, or these data could be analyzed and interpreted in different ways.
Our data do not indicate this, but a thorough reading of each article allowed us to speculate that in addition to numbers of articles, the quality of articles seemed to increase over time. This was especially noticeable in the research articles. Methodology appeared to become more specified, particularly among more recent qualitative studies stating methodologies and foundations and also among quantitative research studies, which appeared to be more precise in data reporting about participants and research design. We made no attempt to evaluate quality of each study but do have a few thoughts. Table 2 allowed some consideration of changes in research methodology across time. Although quantitative articles increased in number, the numbers of studies employing surveys remained fairly steady at about 76% of all quantitative studies. Perhaps surveys are particularly applicable to answer the types of questions that teacher preparation units want to ask. Note that we made no effort to analyze the sophistication or size and scope of the surveys used; future researchers may wish to do so. Qualitative researchers appeared to mention increasingly sophisticated qualitative techniques with 41% of the qualitative studies specifying design or qualitative techniques. This may represent an increase in quality in the JMTE articles or may indicate that qualitative research techniques in general are becoming more standardized.
We had hoped that by examining the frequency of topics across time (Table 5), we would be able to draw some conclusions about possible changes in the focus of teacher preparation. Generalizations seemed a bit illusive however. The areas of Curriculum and Professional Development remained dominant across each 5-year increment. There was, however, a definite increase in articles focusing on Teaching Techniques across the most recent 10 years. Recruitment/Retention increased significantly during the final period (2006–2011), perhaps reflecting the teacher shortage in the early part of that time period. A rather noticeable increase in Miscellaneous topics appeared in the final period. The types of articles labeled as Miscellaneous included individual topics such as second-career teachers, vocal hygiene, recital attendance, sexual misconduct, and director succession. This perhaps illustrates the tendency to study specific areas rather than large-picture issues.
Is it possible that as a profession as our scholarly procedures become more sophisticated, we also become more focused on smaller and smaller aspects of teacher preparation? In our maturing as researchers and as thinkers on teacher preparation, we do not want to lose the ability to see the big picture and consider the huge variety and variability among our teacher preparation institutions. It would appear that both quantitative and qualitative rigor are required, along with the wisdom to see the directions the profession might be going. Further research is certainly indicated in both directions.
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.