An Examination of Social Intelligence Development in Preservice Music Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if preservice music educators specifically develop social intelligence during their student teaching. Sixty-six undergraduate senior music education students were administered the Interpersonal Perception Task–15 immediately prior to and directly after the completion of their 15-week student teaching placements. Additionally, participants were asked to list the top three skills they felt they had developed and/or improved on the most during their student teaching. Results of a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test indicated no significant differences between the pre– and post–student teaching Interpersonal Perception Task–15 scores. From a total of 198 comments, 53% of skills developed and/or improved on the most during the student teaching were nonsocial skills and 47% were social skills. Additionally, 48.5% of the responses included Teaching Skills, 33.3% involved Personal Skills, and 18.2% were Musical Skills. Further breakdown of comments revealed the most frequently listed skills were “Classroom management/Discipline,” “Lesson planning/Preparation,” “Pacing,” “Communication,” and “Ear training/Listening skills,” in that order.

Keywords

student teaching social intelligence teacher characteristics

A considerable amount of attention has been placed on the development of prospective, or preservice, teachers. However, determining an established path or sequence that allows all preservice music teachers to succeed has proved to be elusive. Madsen and Duke (1993) postulate that this difficulty arises from the notion that music education students bring many behaviors and habits, both good and bad, when they enter music education programs. Furthermore, the uniqueness of each individual may account for why preservice teachers do not always experience similar situations, including the student teaching experience, in the same manner (Schmidt, 1998). As Fuller (1974) suggested,

both student [teacher] and [supervising] teacher are engaged in a process of gathering information which the student [teacher] wants and needs, of becoming aware of the import of that information, of forming a fruitful relationship, or making choices, and of implementing these choices. (p. 112)

Thus, although preservice teachers follow a similar sequence during their training to become a teacher, the idiosyncratic skills and abilities of each individual student teacher can greatly influence his or her own developmental process as an educator.

Although achieving a consensus on what constitutes a successful student teaching experience is difficult, student teachers have revealed similar perceptions about their student teaching placements. Researchers have found that preservice teachers view the student teaching experience as the most valuable part of the teacher-training process (Conway, 2002; Schmidt, 1998), in which they are able to develop a positive self-concept of teaching (Wink, 1970). More specifically, these experiences allow student teachers to develop confidence within the classroom and to develop a stronger philosophy of music education (Schmidt, 1998). However, it appears that prior to starting their student teaching, preservice music teachers express similar fears about their student teaching. In similar investigations, Madsen and Kaiser (1999) and Kelly (2000) found that classroom discipline was the primary area of concern for all preservice teachers. Additionally, student teachers were apprehensive about interacting with their supervisor teaching and/or principal, not being able to apply knowledge, and dealing with nonteaching duties and responsibilities. Interestingly, concern for student learning was the least frequently mentioned fear (Madsen & Kaiser, 1999). These results are not unexpected as preservice teachers have been found to be initially concerned with themselves and their own success in the classroom rather than with students and their development (Fuller 1969, 1974; Fuller & Bown, 1975). However, it appears that as student teachers gain confidence with their teaching and classroom discipline, their focus shifts to student learning and more effective teaching techniques, including adapting subject matter to individual pupils.

Although research on effective music teaching has typically focused on the pairing of social skills with nonsocial techniques, such as the use of sequential patterns (Napoles & Bowers, 2010; Yarbrough & Price, 1989), teacher feedback (Duke, 1999/2000), time (Goolsby, 1996), pacing (Brand, 1985), magnitude (Yarbrough, 1975), intensity (Madsen, 1990; Madsen, Standley, & Cassidy, 1989), and delivery of instruction (Hamann, Baker, McAllister, & Bauer, 2000), a number of researchers have specifically examined teachers’ social skills in relation to their effectiveness in the music classroom. Through an examination of characteristics of successful music teachers, Teachout (1997) and Davis (2006) found that personal and teaching skills were rated significantly higher than musical skills. More specifically, social skills that involve engaging or interacting with students were perceived as more important to initial music teaching success than nonsocial skills, including musical knowledge and ability. Likewise, Steele (2010) determined that the development of nonverbal communication skills, especially the adeptness of the teacher to read the nonverbal communication being received from the students, is often associated with successful music instruction. Brand (1985) emphasized this need for the development of social skills in music educators as “music teaching is a highly complex process characterized by hundreds of personal interactions between student and teacher” (p. 13). Defined as “social intelligence” (Goleman, 2006), expert music teachers have been found to possess this social awareness within their classroom and to use this information to adapt instruction and relate materials in order to fit each individual student’s needs (Grant & Drafall, 1991; Taebel & Coker, 1980; Taylor, 1980). Therefore, social intelligence, also referred to as “interpersonal intelligence” (Gardner 1983, 1993) and “practical intelligence” (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986), involves the ability to receive and decode signals from others and to use this information to interact in an effective manner (Goleman, 2006).

Researchers have demonstrated that a direct correlation exists between the social intelligence of music educators and their overall instructional effectiveness. Specifically, Hamann (1995) and Hamann, Lineburgh, and Paul (1998) examined the verbal and nonverbal skills of undergraduate preservice music teachers using the Social Skills Inventory, a self-reported assessment of social intelligence. Scores on the Social Skills Inventory were compared with the ratings of teaching episodes by the preservice music teachers to determine any relationship between effective teaching and social skills. Results indicated that students who demonstrated superior teaching skills performed better on several emotional and social skill subscales. Similarly, Kurkul (2007) evaluated the social skills of applied music teachers using the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS), a performance-based instrument that evaluates social intelligence by assessing the nonverbal sensitivity abilities of an individual. Strong correlations were found for the applied teachers’ scores on the PONS when compared with both students’ and external judges’ ratings of lesson effectiveness. More specifically, applied teachers who scored higher on the PONS also received higher ratings of rapport, communication, pedagogical skill, and overall effectiveness of their instruction.

Recently, Juchniewicz (2010) investigated the influence of social intelligence on effective music teaching via the Interpersonal Perception Task–15 (IPT-15), a performance-based measure that more accurately simulates human behavior and interaction found within educational settings. Teachers rated by a panel of experts as “exemplary” and “challenged” were administered the IPT-15 and video-recorded teaching excerpts that were subsequently viewed by external evaluators. Although no significant differences were found between the IPT-15 scores of “exemplary” and “challenged” teachers, ratings of the teaching excerpts revealed the majority of attributes that accounted for the overall effectiveness of each teacher were social. These social skills were listed twice as frequently as nonsocial skills, constituting more than 85% of all responses. Further analysis also indicated that all music teachers who demonstrated effective social skills were perceived as effective teachers.

Although the results of these research studies indicate that social intelligence, as demonstrated through social skills, affects the overall effectiveness of the teacher, it has yet to be ascertained exactly when or how music teachers develop these skills. Because the student teaching experience involves interacting with students on a daily basis for an extended period of time, these experiences may represent a preservice music teacher’s initial opportunity to cultivate and develop social intelligence in an educational setting. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if music educators specifically develop social intelligence during their student teaching. The following questions were addressed: To what extent is social intelligence developed during the student teaching experience? What percentage of social versus nonsocial skills are developed during the student teaching experience? Which specific personal, teaching, and musical skills are developed and/or improved on during the student teaching experience?

Method

Participants

Undergraduate senior music education students (N = 66) who had completed all music education coursework and were starting their 15-week student teaching placements served as participants. Although each participant had completed a variety of courses designed to improve their musical and pedagogical knowledge and techniques in their respective musical area, no single course in the music education curriculum focused on the development of social intelligence or any specific social skills. Data from the participants were collected over a 4-year period at a midsize southeastern public university, with approximately 16 participants per year. The participants included 23 females and 43 males and ranged in age from 21 to 27 years (M = 22.1, SD = 1.27).

Procedures

To assess any possible development of social intelligence during the student teaching experience, a twofold approach was adopted. Given that previous researchers have demonstrated the validity and reliability of the IPT-15 (Costanzo & Archer, 1993, 1994) as a performance-based measure of social intelligence (Archer & Costanzo, 1987; Archer, Costanzo, & Akert, 2001; Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980; Costanzo & Archer, 1989, 1993, 1994), the IPT-15 was selected as the independent measure for the initial phase of this study. The IPT-15 consists of 15 one-minute videotaped scenes that include a variety of unscripted, everyday interactions between individuals that assess a participant’s ability to “decode” information perceived in human interaction. Consisting of social interaction, kinship, lies, competition, status, and intimacy, each scene includes a combination of verbal and nonverbal cues that allow each participant to accurately interpret what is occurring within each scene. Responses from each participant are recorded on a multiple-choice answer sheet, which is scored based on the provided answer key. The total administration time of the DVD, which includes instructional narration and the recorded scenes, is approximately 20 minutes.

The principal investigator administered the IPT-15 to the participants immediately prior to and directly after the completion of the 15-week student teaching placements. The administration occurred during the student teacher orientation meetings held the day before the participants started their student teaching and the day after the participants completed their student teaching placements. Because the IPT-15 was administered twice during the investigation, the participants were instructed to create a four-digit code that was known only to them. In this manner, the pre– and post–student teaching IPT-15 scores for each participant could be accurately compared while maintaining the anonymity of each participant. Additionally, during the post–student teaching administration of the IPT-15, participants were asked to complete a second task. Given the following directions, participants were instructed, “Please list the top three skills you feel you have developed and/or improved on the most during your student teaching.” Participants were given 5 minutes to write their answers. On completion, responses were immediately collected and combined with pre– and post–student teaching IPT-15 scores for data analysis.

Results

To examine the possible development of social intelligence during the student teaching experience, data were collected in two phases. The initial phase used a performance-based measure of social intelligence by comparing IPT-15 scores obtained immediately prior to and directly after the completion of each participants’ student teaching experiences. Because the IPT-15 contains only one correct answer for each of the 15 interpretative questions, scores occur within the range of 0 to 15. Results of a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test indicated no significant differences were found between the pre–student teaching (M = 10.36, SD = 1.67) and post–student teaching IPT-15 scores (M = 10.22, SD = 2.01), z = −.55, p > .58.

The second phase of the study asked participants to list the top three skills they felt they had developed and/or improved on the most during their student teaching. In this manner, the development of social intelligence, demonstrated through the potential improvement of social skills, was investigated from a mixed-methods approach. Using a previously established qualitative method that allows the participant to respond without the bias of predetermined answer categories, participants’ responses were tabulated and categorized into a taxonomic structure (Juchniewicz, 2010; Kelly, 2000; Madsen & Kelly, 2002). Initially, participants’ responses were categorized according to social or nonsocial skills. Based on previous research, social skills were defined as comments on any teacher–student interaction, both verbal and nonverbal, whereas nonsocial skills were defined as other responses not affected by teacher–student interactions (Juchniewicz, 2010). Next, responses were coded to provide a further breakdown of responses relating to personal, teaching, and musical skills for comparisons with previous data that investigated skills important to successful music teaching (Davis, 2006; Teachout, 1997).

To establish reliability, an outside observer viewed a random selection of 20% of all responses and placed each response into the established taxonomic structure. Using the formula agreements divided by the sum of agreements plus disagreements (Madsen & Madsen, 1998), reliability was found to be .98 for the initial categorization and .99 for the secondary classification.

From a total of 198 comments, 53% of skills developed and/or improved on the most during the student teaching were nonsocial skills and 47% were social skills. Additionally, 48.5% of the responses included Teaching Skills, 33.3% involved Personal Skills, and 18.2% were Musical Skills. Further breakdown of comments revealed the most frequently listed skills were “Classroom management/Discipline,” “Lesson planning/Preparation,” “Pacing,” “Communication,” and “Ear training/Listening skills,” in that order (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Top Skills Developed and/or Improved on the Most During Student Teaching.

Comments	Responses	Skill	Category
Classroom management/Discipline	36	Social	Teaching
Lesson planning/Preparation	18	Nonsocial	Teaching
Pacing	17	Nonsocial	Teaching
Communication	13	Social	Personal
Ear training/Listening skills	13	Nonsocial	Musical
Organization	8	Nonsocial	Personal
Time management	8	Nonsocial	Teaching
Relating to students	7	Social	Personal
Authority/Decisiveness	6	Nonsocial	Personal
Variety of teaching strategies/Individualized instruction	6	Social	Teaching
Controlling emotions/More patient	5	Nonsocial	Personal
Score reading/Score study	5	Nonsocial	Musical
Social skills	4	Social	Personal
Acting professional around administration/colleagues	3	Social	Personal
Conducting	3	Nonsocial	Musical
Confidence	3	Nonsocial	Personal
Interpersonal skills	3	Social	Personal
Sense of humor	3	Social	Personal
Better on secondary instruments	2	Nonsocial	Musical
Empathy	2	Social	Personal
Endurance/Energy	2	Social	Personal
Instrumental pedagogy	2	Nonsocial	Musical
Multitasking	2	Nonsocial	Personal
Talking to parents	2	Social	Personal
Technology skills	2	Nonsocial	Musical
Woodwind pedagogy	2	Nonsocial	Musical
Administrative skills	1	Nonsocial	Teaching
An honest view of reality	1	Social	Personal
Awareness of self-presence in the classroom	1	Nonsocial	Personal
Basics of music (teaching)	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Brass pedagogy	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Composition/Arranging	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Improvising lessons	1	Nonsocial	Teaching
Improving style/articulation	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Instrument repair	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Know more about what I personally want in my program	1	Nonsocial	Personal
Less talk—More teach/play	1	Nonsocial	Teaching
Macro-level comments	1	Social	Teaching
Piano skills	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Problem solving	1	Nonsocial	Personal
Rehearsing an ensemble	1	Social	Musical
Relevance of materials for students	1	Social	Teaching
Small achievable goals to lead to improved performance	1	Nonsocial	Teaching
Solfège	1	Nonsocial	Musical
Stress management	1	Nonsocial	Personal
Student ownership	1	Social	Teaching
Time on-task	1	Nonsocial	Teaching

Discussion

The results of the present study show that student teachers did not significantly increase their social intelligence as a result of the student teaching experience when measured by the IPT-15. Although this difference was not significant, student teachers scored slightly lower on the second administration of the IPT-15, which was administered directly after the completion of each participant’s student teaching experience. Further analysis of the data indicate that more than half of the skills developed and/or improved on the most during the student teaching were nonsocial, involving skills not directly related to teacher–student interactions. Although social skills accounted for 47% of the skills participants felt they had developed and/or improved on the most during their student teaching, the majority of these skills centered on specific pedagogical or personal factors that students were trying to develop internally, with fewer skills focused on developing social interactions within the classroom. Therefore, the results from both phases of the present study are consistent with previous findings that indicate preservice teachers spend their initial teaching experiences focused more on the development of their own teaching and personal skills and less on what is occurring with the students around them (Fuller, 1969, 1974; Fuller & Bown, 1975).

Although the present investigation attempted to specifically examine if social intelligence, and consequently social skills, were developed during the student teaching placement, this study also sought to further identify the personal, teaching, and musical skills that were developed as well. When compared with the skills and behaviors identified by Teachout (1997), and subsequently replicated by Davis (2006), the findings of the current investigation similarly found that teaching and personal skills were listed far more frequently than musical skills. More specifically, almost half of the participants’ responses included teaching skills, with the top three skills listed, “Classroom management/Discipline,” “Lesson planning/Preparation,” and “Pacing,” accounting for 35% of all responses. Additionally, personal skills received more than one third of the responses, with “Communication” as the most frequently cited personal skill. Finally, musical skills were listed as only 18% of all responses, as “Ear training/Listening skills” were cited as the musical skill developed and/or improved on the most. Thus, these results are consistent with the findings of Teachout (1997) and Davis (2006), who determined that personal and teaching skills are more important to initial teaching success than musical skills.

Further examination of these skills revealed that “Classroom management/Discipline” was the most frequently listed response of the participants. Because previous researchers have determined that classroom discipline is the primary area of concern for all preservice music teachers entering into their student teaching placements (Kelly, 2000; Madsen & Kaiser, 1999), student teachers may have focused specifically on improving this aspect of their classroom instruction and, therefore, placed a great deal of importance on refining this skill. Conversely, although the aforementioned investigations demonstrated that student teachers were apprehensive about interacting with their supervisor teaching and/or principal, not being able to apply knowledge, and dealing with nonteaching duties and responsibilities, results of the present study found that student teachers did not frequently list these as the top skills that were developed and/or improved on during their student teaching placements. Because the current investigation did not ascertain fears or concerns from the student teacher participants before starting their student teaching, it is difficult to determine if the current participants harbored the same concerns about their student teaching. However, the low number of responses for these categories indicates the student teachers placed more focus on the development of their own personal and teaching skills as opposed to additional factors outside their instruction or classroom.

Additionally, because the student teacher participants listed a variety of skills that were developed or improved on, it appears these results mirror previous findings suggesting that the student teaching experience is different for each student (Schmidt, 1998). It is also encouraging to note that when asked to list the top three skills they felt they had developed and/or improved on the most during their student teaching, all participants were able to identify and clearly describe specific skills. These findings are also in agreement with previous researchers who found that students are able to isolate certain aspects of their student teaching, which they defined in positive terms of development (Conway, 2002; Schmidt, 1998).

Because the data from previous investigations and the present study indicate that preservice student teachers are initially concerned with their own success in the classroom rather than with the learning and development of their students (Fuller 1969, 1974; Fuller & Bown, 1975), the question arises of when exactly do novice teachers begin to develop the ability to shift their focus from internal concerns to the external concerns of their students. According to Fuller (1969, 1974) and Fuller and Bown (1975), this shift of focus occurs later in the stage of becoming a teacher, once the teacher begins to develop more confidence in his or her own personal and teaching skills in the classroom. However, it has yet to be determined exactly at what point in a teacher’s development this change occurs. Juchniewicz (2010) found that 85% of attributes that accounted for overall teaching effectiveness were social, as all music teachers who demonstrated effective social skills were perceived as effective teachers. However, results of the present study found that less than half of the skills developed and/or improved on the most during the student teaching experience were social skills. Therefore, the question arises—if effective social skills, and thereby a level of social intelligence, are not developed during the student teaching experience, when precisely are these skills learned?

A number of researchers have concluded that effective teacher behaviors, techniques, and skills can be isolated and increased (Duke 1999/2000; Madsen, 1990; Madsen et al., 1989; Napoles & Bowers, 2010; Steele, 2010). More specifically, researchers have found that individuals can improve and strengthen their ability to perceive interpersonal cues and decode social behavior, thereby increasing social intelligence (Archer et al., 2001; Costanzo & Archer, 1993). Thus, because it appears these skills can be learned, it seemed prudent to examine the influence of the student teaching experience on the development of social intelligence. However, the data obtained from this investigation raise many questions. Madsen and Duke (1993) found that not only do students enter the music education degree programs with good and bad teaching behaviors, including the social skills that foster successful student–teacher interactions, but students also appear to graduate from music education programs with varying degrees of social skill development and other effective teacher behaviors. Therefore, if social intelligence is not specifically learned or developed during the student teaching process, when exactly is it cultivated? Perhaps it takes several years for novice teachers to refine their own personal and teaching skills in order to develop the social skills needed to interact effectively with their students. Subsequent investigations may wish to examine teachers after a few years of experience in the classroom to determine if these social skills and social intelligence are present and can be empirically observed. Regardless, continued examination is needed to further examine the development of social intelligence and to ascertain when these important skills are acquired.

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

Archer

Costanzo

(1987). The Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT) [Video]. (Available from University of California Extension Center for Media and Independent Learning, 2000 Center Street, 4th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704).

Archer

Costanzo

Akert

(2001). The Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT): Alternative approaches to problems of theory and design. In Hall

J. H.

Bernieri

F. J.

(Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 163-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brand

(1985). Research in music teacher effectiveness. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 3(2), 13-16.

Briggs

S. R.

Cheek

J. M.

Buss

A. H.

(1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.

Conway

(2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 20-36.

Costanzo

Archer

(1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of others: The Interpersonal Perception Task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 225-245.

Costanzo

Archer

(1993). The Interpersonal Perception Task-15 (IPT-15). Berkeley: University of California Center for Media and Independent Learning.

Costanzo

Archer

(1994). The Interpersonal Perception Task-15 (IPT-15): A guide for researchers and teachers. Berkeley: University of California Center for Media and Independent Learning.

Davis

V. W.

(2006). Beginning music education students’ and student teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Contributions to Music Education, 33, 27-40.

10.

Duke

R. A.

(1999/2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1-49.

11.

Fuller

F. F.

(1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

12.

Fuller

F. F.

(1974). A conceptual framework for a personalized teacher education program. Theory Into Practice, 13, 112-122.

13.

Fuller

F. F.

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). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Gardner

(1983). Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

15.

Gardner

(1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

16.

Goleman

(2006). Social intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.

17.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286-304.

18.

Grant

J. W.

Drafall

L. E.

(1991). Teacher effectiveness research: A review and comparison. Council for Research in Music Education Bulletin, 108, 31-48.

19.

Hamann

D. L.

(1995). Preservice teachers’ teaching effectiveness and social skill development. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 7, 1-12.

20.

Hamann

D. L.

Baker

D. S.

McAllister

P. A.

Bauer

W. I.

(2000). Factors affecting university music students’ perceptions of lesson quality and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 102-113.

21.

Hamann

D. L.

Lineburgh

Paul

(1998). Teaching effectiveness and social skill development. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 87-101.

22.

Juchniewicz

(2010). The influence of social intelligence on effective music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 276-293.

23.

Kelly

S. N.

(2000). Preservice music education student fears of the internship and initial inservice teaching experience. Contributions to Music Education, 27, 41-50.

24.

Kurkel

W. W.

(2007). Nonverbal communication in one-to-one music performance instruction. Psychology of Music, 35, 327-362.

25.

Madsen

C. H.

Jr. Madsen

C. K.

(1998). Teaching discipline: A positive approach for educational development (4th ed.). Raleigh, NC: Contemporary.

26.

Madsen

C. K.

(1990). Teacher intensity in relationship to music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 104, 38-46.

27.

Madsen

C. K.

Duke

R. A.

(1993). Selection and development of prospective music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 3(1), 5-11.

28.

Madsen

C. K.

Kaiser

(1999). Pre-internship fears of student teaching. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 17, 27-32.

29.

Madsen

C. K.

Kelly

S. K.

(2002). First remembrances of wanting to become a music teacher. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 323-332.

30.

Madsen

C. K.

Standley

J. M

Cassidy

J. W.

(1989). Demonstration and recognition of high and low contrasts in teacher intensity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 85-92.

31.

Napoles

Bowers

(2010). Differential effects of instructor feedback versus self-observation analysis on music education majors’ increase of specific reinforcement in choral rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 183, 39-47.

32.

Schmidt

(1998). Defining “good” music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19-46.

33.

Steele

N. A.

(2010). Three characteristics of effective teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 71-78.

34.

Sternberg

R. J.

Wagner

R. K.

(Eds.). (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Taebel

D. K.

Coker

J. G.

(1980). Teaching effectiveness in elementary classroom music: Relationships among competency measures, pupil product measures, and certain attribute variables. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 250-264.

36.

Taylor

B. P.

(1980). The relative importance of various competencies needed by choral-general music teachers in elementary and secondary schools as rated by college supervisors, music supervisors, and choral-general music teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 41(07), 2990.

37.

Teachout

D. J.

(1997). Preservice and experiences teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 41-50.

38.

Wink

R. L.

(1970). The relationship of self-concept and selected personality variables to achievement in music student teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28, 234-241.

39.

Yarbrough

(1975). The effect of magnitude of conductor behavior on performance, attentiveness, and attitude of students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, 134-146.

40.

Yarbrough

Price

H. E.

(1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 179-187.