Transition from Student to Teacher: Frameworks for Understanding Preservice Music Teacher Development

Abstract

Research on preservice music teacher development has the potential to inform music teacher preparation curricula in several significant ways and ultimately serve to enhance the profession at large. Investigations drawing from robust frameworks that theorize how preservice music teachers develop can help researchers clarify epistemological assumptions and terms, delimit research problems in a meaningful way, inform approaches for dealing with data, and aid in developing lines of research that are addressing problems in the field in a complementary manner. The goals of this article are to (a) discuss the value of a research framework and the several ways one can conceptualize a framework, (b) briefly present several frameworks for studying teacher development that have been generated in the context of general education, and (c) describe some unique aspects of music teaching and music teaching contexts that could inform theoretical frameworks of preservice music teacher development.

Keywords

curriculum development music teacher preparation preservice teachers

Understanding the ways in which preservice music teachers can develop into competent, knowledgeable, and committed professionals is important for those who work within music teacher preparation programs. Research on music teacher development can inform the design of goals and sequencing in teacher preparation curricula and, in doing so, help teacher educators establish reasonable expectations for preservice teachers of various experience and ability levels. Knowledge of how music teachers develop over time can also reveal critical types of experiences such as classroom activities and field placement components that are most appropriate for preservice teachers at various stages. Identifying stages or trajectories that developing music teachers go through could also inform methods for helping preservice teachers overcome learning obstacles and suggest steps for helping some remediate deficiencies. In addition, determining developmental trends among music teachers can provide insight into how to approach preservice music teacher assessment and evaluation by suggesting benchmarks that teachers of different levels could be expected to achieve.

Although research on preservice music teacher development is becoming more prominent, generalizations of research findings have not yet been established. The purpose of this article is to (a) discuss the value of a research framework and several ways one can conceptualize a framework, (b) briefly present several prominent frameworks for studying teacher development that have been generated in the context of general education, and (c) describe some unique aspects of music teaching and music teaching contexts that could inform theoretical frameworks of preservice music teacher development.

The Value of Frameworks

According to Eisenhart (1991), a research framework is something that can be used as a metaphorical skeletal structure to support or enclose an investigation. Working from the perspective of mathematics education, she describes how a framework can affect the research process by providing a perspective to view a phenomenon being studied. For example, a framework can help researchers work from clear epistemological assumptions and delimit a research problem to something that can be studied in a meaningful, yet feasible way. Along similar lines, a framework that highlights the central concepts, ideas, and/or abstractions of a research problem as well as relationships among such constructs could help identify what relevant information needs to be collected in addition to possible data collection procedures.

A framework can also help a researcher organize and interpret data. However, Eisenhart (1991) is clear in stating that a researcher cannot simply describe data in terms of a framework and that doing so would increase the chances of engaging in confirmation bias and leaving out important disconfirming information. Writers in music education have posed similar assertions about the benefits of theoretical frameworks to the quality of music education research (e.g., Cady, 1992; Heller & O’Connor, 2002; Jorgensen, 2009; Rainbow & Froehlich, 1987; Reimer, 2008). Among other benefits, frameworks applied to research on music teaching can also help connect research efforts to practical matters by highlighting underlying processes of effective teaching and accounting for the complex individual and contextual matters related to music teacher development that might otherwise be left unexamined.

Miksza and Johnson (2012) investigated the prevalence of frameworks in music education research by analyzing all articles (N = 726) published in the Journal of Research in Music Education from 1979 to 2009. The findings of their study indicated that 33% of the articles examined incorporated a framework. The most common frameworks pertaining to music teacher education included a model of direct instruction (Yarbrough & Price, 1989) and a model of competency-based teacher education (Hall & Jones, 1976). These models appeared in seven and three articles, respectively. Other frameworks that have been used to examine preservice music teacher development are Fuller and Bown’s (1975) three-stage model of teacher development, Berliner’s (1986) theory of expertise in teaching, Schon’s (1987) notion of the reflective practitioner, and Blumer’s (1969) idea of symbolic interactionism as related to music teacher identity development. However, these frameworks appeared in only one article each.

Eisenhart’s Types of Frameworks

The terms theory, model, framework, and theoretical framework (among other similar terms) are used often in research. However, definitions of such terms are rarely discussed. We have drawn from Eisenhart’s (1991) descriptions of three relatively distinct types of frameworks in the development of this article: theoretical, practical, and conceptual frameworks. Although she developed these definitions in the context of mathematics education, their general meaning can be easily applied to research in preservice music teacher development.

Eisenhart (1991) specifies that a “theoretical framework is a structure that guides research by relying on a formal theory; that is, the framework is constructed by using an established, coherent explanation of a certain phenomenon and relationships” (p. 205). Working from this type of framework, researchers would typically develop research questions framed from the theory, pose hypotheses for collecting data, and analyze the results of the hypothesis testing for the purpose of revising, extending, or supporting the theory.

In contrast, Eisenhart (1991) identifies “practical frameworks” as built on

what works in the experience or exercise of doing something by those directly involved in it . . . by using “what works” in teaching, administering, trying to change schools, being the helpful parents of a school-aged child, as a “kernel” idea or action. (p. 207)

Research working from a practical framework might typically begin by identifying outstanding practitioners and then investigating key distinctions between them and less successful practitioners. In this manner, the research is not informed by a formal theory per se, but instead, it is grounded in practical knowledge, the findings of research, and expert opinion.

Last, Eisenhart (1991) describes a “conceptual framework” as one based predominantly on a structure of justification rather than a formal theory or practitioners’ knowledge. From her view, a conceptual framework is “an argument including different points of view and culminating in a series of reasons for adopting some points—i.e., some ideas or concepts—and not others” (p. 209). Conceptual frameworks can provide a justification for research by offering a compelling argument that the concepts being examined are appropriate and useful to a given field. This justification can include relevant knowledge derived from a number of theoretical or practical means. This is the most eclectic type of framework proposed by Eisenhart.

Frameworks for Studying Teacher Development

In this section of the article, we provide an overview of some relatively prominent frameworks for examining teacher development. We have selected frameworks based on their appearance in music education research and/or their prominence in the general education literature. Collectively, the frameworks represent both individually oriented and contextually oriented perspectives on the nature of teacher development. We consider the frameworks discussed from Berliner (1986) and Fuller and Bown (1975) to be individually oriented in that the primary focus is on internal, cognitive changes experienced by developing teachers. In contrast, we consider the frameworks related to situated learning and teacher socialization to be relatively contextually oriented in that the primary focus is on the embeddedness of teacher development within a social milieu. As such, we hope to provide a wide range of perspectives that could capture many facets of music teacher development.

Fuller and Bown’s Teacher Concerns Framework

Fuller and Bown (1975) proposed a three-stage teacher concerns framework as a way of theorizing teacher development. Their framework was generated from a critique of teacher preparation programs that highlighted a lack of understanding as to what qualities and dispositions might lead someone who chooses teaching as a career path to be successful and a lack of research dealing with the effectiveness of teacher education programs to prepare preservice teachers. Fuller and Bown sought to address some of these specific issues as well as the theoretical void in teacher preparation in general by proposing a framework for describing how teachers’ thinking may change over time. The immediate goal of their work was to inform the design of interventions that could be implemented in teacher preparation programs. However, their ultimate goal was to pursue research that could help developing teachers feel “autonomous, fulfilled, effective, or even pleased with their teaching generally” (Fuller & Bown, 1975, p. 47).

Fuller and Bown (1975) built on earlier work by Fuller (1969) and proposed that teachers move through three stages when learning to teach. At first, teachers are thought to be mainly concerned with survival and establishing a sense of self as a teacher rather than a student. The second stage involves a focus on mastery, in which developing teachers are most concerned with trying to do the work of teaching well. The third stage is described as a period of time when teachers can either become fixed and rigid in their work or become outcome oriented towards their impact on pupils. Although Fuller and Bown (1975) used the term stage, they were clear in pointing out that they could not determine whether the stages were distinct or overlapping and whether teaching effectiveness was related to one stage in particular given the body of existing research.

This three-stage developmental framework is centered on the changes in a teacher’s dominant concerns over time. The stages represent the types of concerns that are thought to be the primary focus of attention during the process of becoming a teacher and, although related to foci of action, are not necessarily indicative of sets of behaviors that a teacher would actually demonstrate on a consistent basis. Fuller and Bown (1975) suggest that the types of concerns a teacher evinces reflect his or her most pressing psychological needs at any given point in time. As such, those working with developing teachers could use information about their concerns to address needs at particular points in time by designing developmentally appropriate interventions.

Concerns most dominant during the survival stage deal primarily with a teacher’s sense of personal adequacy. Preservice teachers in this stage are highly cognizant of their own transition from a student to a teacher. This stage is characterized by concerns about being liked by students, receiving good evaluations from others, and whether one is cut out for teaching at all. The mastery stage is characterized by concerns about the teaching situation and day-to-day tasks a teacher encounters. For example, planning lessons, mastering instructional materials, and applying effective teaching methods are at the forefront of attention in this stage. The final stage described by Fuller and Bown (1975) highlights a shift of concerns toward students and the impact that a teacher can have on them. This stage involves concern for students’ academic achievement as well as for students’ personal well being. In this stage, teachers become focused foremost on their students’ needs.

Research incorporating Fuller and Bown’s (1975) framework has been relatively common in general education (e.g., Burn, Hagger, Mutton, & Everton, 2003; Pigge & Marso, 1989) and, although to a lesser extent, in music education as well (Broyles, 1997; Yourn, 2000). Although some studies of preservice music teachers have yielded results that generally corroborate Fuller and Bown’s three-stage model (e.g., Berg & Miksza, 2010), overall, the findings of the existing research are mixed with respect to whether preservice music teachers exhibit the hypothesized categories of concerns and whether they move through concerns stages in a linear manner. For example, Campbell and Thompson’s (2007) large-scale study of preservice music teachers found that all groups of participants tended to rate student impact concerns higher than survival/self-related or task-related concerns regardless of their degree status. Similarly, Teachout and McCoy (2010) found that undergraduate music education majors participating in an elementary music field experience rated student impact concerns significantly higher than survival/self-related concerns. Miksza and Berg (2011) have investigated the concerns of preservice instrumental music teachers across 1½ years. In contrast to the studies described above, the researchers found that the participants’ concerns shifted toward emphases away from survival/self-related issues and toward student impact issues across time. Based on their findings, Miksza and Berg (2011) also presented possible extensions of the Fuller and Bown (1975) model that revolve primarily around the importance of context and how a change in context that a preservice teacher experiences can cause shifts in concerns.

Berliner’s Theory of Teacher Expertise

One way to investigate the nature of teacher development is to consider the differences between novice and expert teachers. From this perspective, learning to teach can be conceptualized as the acquisition of expertise in teaching. Berliner (1986) has proposed a framework for examining teaching that is rooted in research on general notions of expertise developed in cognitive psychology (e.g., Bloom, 1986; Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) and the nature of teaching knowledge (e.g., Shulman, 1986). Berliner (2001) has also incorporated more recent work from the cognitive sciences dealing with generalized notions of expertise (Glaser, 1996; Sternberg & Horvath, 1995) and deliberate practice (Ericsson, 1996).

According to Berliner (1992), expert teachers develop qualitatively different mental representations of teaching than novices. Experts are capable of processing and integrating multiple types of knowledge systems (e.g., subject matter knowledge, knowledge of organization of classrooms) in highly sophisticated ways. The advanced cognitive processing abilities that expert teachers are thought to possess allow them to deal efficiently and effectively with the great deal of complexity present in a teaching environment (Berliner, 1986, 1992). Expert teaching is also hypothesized to be bound to culture, such that expert teaching in one cultural setting may not necessarily reflect expert teaching in another (Berliner, 2001). Berliner and colleagues have most commonly sought evidence for their theoretical assertions by engaging expert, novice, and postulant teachers (i.e., professionals from industry with an interest in teaching but no experience) in various types of projection and simulation tasks designed to uncover the nature of their thought processes (e.g., Berliner, 1988; Carter, Sabers, Cushing, Pinnegar, & Berliner, 1987; Carter, Cushing, Sabers, Stein, & Berliner, 1988).

More specific abilities and characteristics of an expert teacher include (Berliner, 1986, 1988):

An ability to quickly recognize patterns within teaching scenarios and focus attention on the most salient cues in a classroom setting

An ability to accurately predict the ways groups of students will most likely behave

An ability to draw inferences from educational situations—as opposed to novices, who interpret situational elements more literally

A likelihood of exhibiting contingency planning and anticipating potential classroom pitfalls

A mastery of routines, scripts, and schemas that result in the automation of effort to aid efficiency

A goal-oriented sense of action

A mastery of the idiosyncrasies of their own teaching context and culture

Berliner (1988) borrows Dreyfus and Dreyfus’s (1986) five-stage model of skill acquisition when describing the various levels between novice and expert teaching. The five stages include novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. Although the amount of time it might typically take to advance from stage to stage is not specified, it is generally thought that a minimum of 5 years teaching is necessary to achieve a semblance of expertise. Even though teacher expertise is thought to develop over long periods of time, Berliner (1986) is careful to clarify that acquiring experience does not guarantee an acquisition of expertise. A novice teacher is one who teaches from a context-free set of rule-based procedures. An advanced beginner is able to identify situational aspects of the teaching environment but has a limited ability to identify most salient elements. A teacher in the competent stage can better identify salient elements of a teaching situation and set priorities or goals, although his or her teaching is not necessarily fluid and highly responsive. A proficient teacher works from a sense of know-how that is built from experience and has developed a more personal perception of the classroom situation. Last, an expert teacher can process information with such efficiency that teaching appears intuitive and rules, maxims, and judgments that nonexperts use in a more conscious manner are instead intuitively applied.

There is a growing body of research in music education that seems to corroborate the findings of Berliner and colleagues (e.g., Bergee, 2005; Doerksen, 1999; Sogin & Wang, 2002). Standley and Madsen (1991) investigated the types of inferences drawn by 150 music teachers after watching 20 one-minute video clips of music teaching. Significant differences were found among (a) freshman and junior undergraduates, (b) undergraduates about to student teach, (c) experienced music teachers (1-10 years experience), and (d) experts (more than 10 years experience and recognized by colleagues) indicating that each successive level of teacher had higher inferential abilities. A series of studies by Goolsby (1996, 1997, 1999) comparing the rehearsal behaviors of expert and novice instrumental music teachers revealed that experts spent more time in performance than talking, were more likely to demonstrate complete teaching sequences, and typically addressed a wider variety of rehearsal objectives. A similar line of work by Worthy (2003, 2006) suggests that expert instrumental music teachers set very clear expectations of student behavior, prioritized rehearsal needs according to musical score analyses, and demonstrated an intuition for understanding students’ needs. Duke and Simmons’s (2006) study of three expert artist teachers found similar results. The teachers in their study were goal oriented, had clear mental representations of the musical material they used, and demonstrated an intuitive ability to present tasks to students in a way that would increase the probability of positive results. The findings of these studies are congruent with Berliner’s (1988) theory in that expert music teachers tend to demonstrate more sophisticated cognitive abilities (e.g., subject matter mastery, situational awareness, inferences/predictions) than novices, are excellent at organizing classroom behavior and enacting routines, and work with great efficiency.

Frameworks Related to Teacher Socialization

Much of the research on music teacher socialization is based on the sociological theory of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) and often involves examinations of the development of occupational role identity (Becker & Carper, 1970). In this theoretical context, meaning is communicated between people through gestures that are common to a reference group. These gestures take the form of specialized content knowledge, skills, behaviors, and physical accoutrements (conducting batons, professional dress, etc.; Teachout, 2009). Those seeking to become a member of a group adopt the gestures of the group. Some members of the reference group exemplify gestures, thus serving as a professional significant other (PSO) to the group members (Teachout, 2009). The PSO is often a former teacher who was influential during primary or secondary socialization. The occupational role identity preservice teachers develop (teacher, band director, performer, etc.) is influenced by their chosen reference group and PSO. Music teacher educators can help preservice teachers develop teaching-related role identities by encouraging them to try out gestures of various reference groups associated with music education and to consider the influence of several potential PSOs.

Pellegrino (2010) provides an excellent synthesis of research on preservice music teacher identity in which she equates occupational role and identity. Preservice teachers are typically characterized as either privileging one particular identity, performer, or teacher (Froehlich & L’Roy, 1985; Roberts, 1991) or negotiating performer and teacher identities. Both Dolloff (2007) and Pellegrino (2010) suggest that it is not necessary to conceptualize identity as conflicting dyads. Instead, it could be more fruitful to view identity from the perspective of a “complex duality” (Wenger, 1999) or as layered identities. Although conceptual clarity has not yet been established on the goals and mechanisms for the development of preservice music teacher role identity, music teacher educators might encourage development to occur if, as Roberts (1991) suggests, students are made aware of the significance of their selected identity. On the other hand, music teacher educators might encourage development by asking students to track shifts in their own sense of identity in order to begin to integrate multiple role identities. The reader is directed to Isbell’s article in this issue for a more thorough review of music teacher socialization concepts and a review of research on music teacher socialization.

Situated Learning Frameworks

The term situated learning refers to theories and related concepts that focus on the ways learners use the resources in their environment or situation to solve meaningful problems (Engstrom & Cole, 1997). Effective learning is thought to occur in situations in which the student is located and engaged (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). From this perspective, knowledge development is embedded within a social context rather than only consisting of changes in internal cognitive processes.

Vygotsky’s Theory of Development

Vygotsky (1962, 1978) believed that mental processes originate during social interactions and are gradually internalized for the child to use the processes independently. With the assistance of an adult or more capable peer, a student can solve a more challenging problem than one they would have been able to solve alone. Maximum cognitive growth occurs when students are presented with tasks within their zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is a range of problems the student can solve with assistance but cannot yet solve independently. Learning can also occur between students who have similar skill sets as they work on ill-defined problems. In this case, development is conceived of as the creation of intersubjectivity or shared understanding between group members as they argue for various solutions and then make a determination about which solution to select. Learning in the ZPD can be fostered during class discussions, course assignments, and field teaching assignments.

Vygotsky and others recognized the impact of the environment on learning through the availability of tools that mediate action. Preservice music teacher development may involve the gradual acquisition of others’ (e.g., professors, former music teachers, current field-based teachers) ways of talking and more and more varied instructional strategies as they progress through their program until internally coherent ways of doing and thinking emerge.

Apprenticeship Learning and Communities of Practice

One way to examine preservice teachers’ development is to compare it to apprenticeship learning (Lave, 1991; Rogoff, 1990, 1991). Apprentices enter a community as peripheral members who primarily observe more skilled masters and assist with related tasks. As they become more proficient, they move toward becoming full participants and assume more significant roles. Educational researchers have applied this model to study how a teacher can lead his or her students to think in new and different ways (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). In this type of cognitive apprenticeship, a teacher uses strategies that involve progressively less and less teacher support and that ultimately foster independent student thinking.

The concept of community of practice (CoP) emerged first in Lave’s (1991) and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) studies of apprentice learning. Wenger’s (2006) expanded definition includes “a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” Over time and with sustained interaction, the individuals within a CoP develop a shared repertoire of resources/practices in the form of experiences, stories, tools, and ways of addressing recurring problems. Wenger introduced the concept of trajectories, or the various ways a person may move into, out of, and/or between communities of practice, as a means for describing one’s developing role and identity within a CoP. The CoP framework, concept of trajectories, and apprenticeship learning on which CoPs is based can help us better understand how preservice teachers learn to teach, who might serve as a teacher educator beyond a course instructor, and why some might develop competence and professional commitment more quickly than others.

Several music education researchers have studied music teaching from within situated learning frameworks. Gholson (1993) investigated the teaching strategies of an expert violin pedagogue. A theory of proximal positioning, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD, was posited. Preparatory and facilitative strategies were used to assist students through ZPDs.

Berg (2010) described the mentoring activities of high school, undergraduate, and graduate students who served as mentees, teachers, and/or mentors in a middle school wind ensemble (MSWE) outreach program. Data analyses suggested that the MSWE program functioned as a CoP (Wenger, 1999). The challenges experienced by MSWE participants exemplified the dilemma-driven nature of learning when situated in practice. Overall, participants assumed varied roles within the CoP and distinct differences emerged in graduate students’ approaches to mentoring undergraduates.

Stanley (2009) examined the experiences of elementary music teachers who participated in a collaborative teacher study group (CTSG). The CTSG met seven times to discuss elementary music student collaboration by analyzing videos from each participant’s classroom. Using interview and meeting transcripts, the researcher investigated how the CTSG members’ perceptions and teaching were affected by group interactions. A classroom analysis protocol indicated that the groups generated knowledge collectively during the CTSG experience. The participants indicated they developed (a) an increased confidence in professional knowledge through the opportunity to share teaching expertise, (b) an expanded vocabulary to analyze and describe student behavior, (c) better habits in reflection on teaching, (d) an expanded understanding of student collaboration, and (e) a knowledge of the teacher’s role in facilitating student collaboration. This study has implications for how music teacher educators might provide similar CTSG experiences through coursework, in hopes that students will continue to engage in such professional development experiences when teaching.

Unique Aspects of Music Teaching and Music Teaching and Learning Contexts

There are unique aspects of music teaching and music teaching contexts that could inform the theoretical frameworks used to examine preservice music teacher development. For instance, it is possible to conceptualize music as a unique form of knowledge, given that it is primarily a sound-based rather than discourse-based medium that holds denotative and connotative meanings with the potential to elicit affective experiences (Reimer, 1988). Although language, as well as other symbol systems, may have shared features with music (e.g., poetry), most would agree that music and language are not equivalent in their communicative function (see Jackendoff, 2009 for a compelling discussion about the differences between language and music). Consequently, identifying the unique aspects of music teaching and learning is important when devising frameworks for studying preservice teacher development. For example, since situated learning frameworks that are developed outside of music education tend to emphasize the communicative function of language, it is important to consider how such frameworks might need to be altered or adapted in order to fit the communicative nature of sounds.

From a sociological perspective, it is important to recognize that music can serve many functions beyond emotional expression and aesthetic enjoyment, including entertainment, enforcement of conformity to social norms, validation of social institutions, contribution to the continuity and stability of culture, and contribution to the integration of society (Merriam, 1964). The breadth of functions that music can serve implies that a wide variety of skills, knowledge, and dispositions may be necessary for music teachers to develop and sustain school programs in varied settings. As a result, the expectations of preservice music teachers enrolled in music teacher preparation programs are perhaps greater or more complex when compared with the typical expectations of teachers specializing in some nonmusic content areas.

The variability in the nature and functions of music implies a need to consider potential differences in preservice music teacher development as compared with teacher development in the context of general education. These differences also suggest a need for varied approaches to preservice music teacher preparation. We provide a figure that lists relatively unique elements of music teaching and music teaching contexts that could inform research frameworks for investigating preservice teacher development (see Figure 1). Our goal is to not only encourage continued study of preservice music teacher development that uses the frameworks we presented but also to challenge music teacher educators to consider ways these frameworks need to be modified in order to take into account the unique aspects of the music medium, the functions of music in society, and the resultant differences in the teaching and learning environment listed above.

Figure 1.

Unique elements of music teaching and music teaching contexts.

Conclusion

The goals of this article were to consider the value that frameworks hold for research on preservice music teacher development, to highlight selected teacher development frameworks that could inform investigations of preservice music teachers, and to present a brief discussion of unique aspects of music teaching and music teaching contexts that could inform the adaptation of existing frameworks or development of new frameworks. Opportunities for research in this area are abundant. It would be particularly valuable if there were more research that addressed (a) longitudinal changes in preservice teachers over significant periods of time, (b) differences among preservice teachers working in multiple contexts and from multiple cultural backgrounds, (c) current changes in the professional climate of the schools (e.g., technological advances, charter and private school settings, alternative approaches to licensure), and (d) the impact of current policy trends such as teacher accountability and Race to the Top legislation. The implications of this article for music teacher education curricula are also potentially numerous. For example, theoretical, practical, and/or conceptual frameworks could be applied as devices to guide class discussions of students’ dispositions toward music teaching as a career. Alternatively, frameworks for music teacher development could serve as starting points for designing field experience programs and considering the most suitable forms of scaffolding that preservice teachers need at critical junctures of development. In addition, research on preservice music teacher development could aid music teacher educators in the design of effective, comprehensive, and sequential teacher preparation curricula. It is important to recognize that the development of frameworks for preservice music teacher development can serve to strengthen our general understanding of how individuals find their professional paths, to suggest methods for refining approaches to music teacher preparation, and ultimately, to enhance the quality of music education in the schools.

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

Bauer

W. I.

Berg

M. H.

(2001). Influences on instrumental music teaching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150, 53–66. doi:10.1177/10570837070170010105

Becker

H. S.

Carper

(1970). The elements of identification with an occupation. In Becker

H. S.

(Ed.), Sociological work: Method and substance (pp. 177–188). Chicago, IL: Aldine. doi:10.2307/2089290

Berg

M. H.

(2010, May). Sampling from the mentoring buffet: A case study of mentoring in a middle school wind ensemble outreach program. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Music Education SIG, Denver, CO. doi:10.1177/0022429411414716

Berg

Miksza

(2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(1), 39–55. doi:10.1177/1057083710363237

Bergee

(2005). An exploratory comparison of novice, intermediate, and expert orchestral conductors. International Journal of Music Education, 23, 23–36. doi:10.1177/0255761405050928

Berliner

D. C.

(1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13. doi:10.2307/1175505

Berliner

D. C.

(1988). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment: Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 39–68). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Berliner

D. C.

(1992). The nature of expertise in teaching. In Oser

F. K.

Dick

Patry

J.-L.

(Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 227–248). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berliner

D. C.

(2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 463–482. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6

10.

Bloom

(1986). Automaticity. Educational Leadership, 43(5), 70–77. doi:10.1109/WDM.2001.990173

11.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

12.

Brown

J. S.

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032

13.

Broyles

J. W.

(1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role development of student teachers in music (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma). Dissertations Abstracts International, 58(03A), 0823.

14.

Burn

Hagger

Mutton

Everton

(2003). The complex development of student-teachers’ thinking. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9, 309–331. doi:10.1080/1354060032000097235

15.

Cady

H. L.

(1992). Sources of theory for research in school music. In Colwell

(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 60–72). New York, NY: SchirmerBooks.

16.

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. doi:10.1177/002242940705500206

17.

Carter

Cushing

Sabers

Stein

Berliner

(1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 25–31. doi:10.1177/002248718803900306

18.

Carter

Sabers

Cushing

Pinnegar

Berliner

D. C.

(1987). Processing and using information about students: A study of expert, novice, and postulant teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 147–157. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(87)90015-1

19.

Chi

M. T. H.

Glaser

Farr

(1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

20.

Collins

Brown

J. S.

Newman

S. E.

(1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick

L. B.

(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–491). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Doerksen

P. F.

(1999). Aural-diagnostic and prescriptive skills of preservice and expert instrumental music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 78–88. doi:10.2307/3345830

22.

Dolloff

(2007). “All the things we are”: Balancing our multiple identities in music teaching. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 6(2). Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Dolloff6_2.pdf

23.

Dreyfus

H. L.

Dreyfus

S. E.

(1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Free Press.

24.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

(2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 7–19.

25.

Eisenhart

M. A.

(1991). Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: Ideas from a cultural anthropologist; implications for mathematics education researchers. In Underhill

R. G.

(Ed.), 13th Annual Psychology of Mathematics Education–North America meeting (pp. 202–220). Christiansburg, VA: Christiansburg Printing.

26.

Engstrom

Cole

(1997). Situated cognition in search of an agenda. In Kirshner

Whitson

J. A.

(Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 301–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Ericsson

K. A.

(1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericsson

K. A.

(Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Froehlich

L’Roy

(1985). An investigation of occupational identity in undergraduate music education majors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 65–75.

29.

Fuller

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

30.

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). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9365-z

31.

Gholson

S. A.

(1993). Proximal positioning: A strategy of practice in expert violin pedagogy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

32.

Glaser

(1996). Changing the agency for learning: Acquiring expert performance. In Ericsson

K. A.

(Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 303–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 286–303. doi:10.2307/3345442

34.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 21–40. doi:10.2307/3345463

35.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing identical band compositions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 174–187. doi:10.2307/3345722

36.

Hall

Jones

(1976). Competency-based education: A process for the improvement of education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

37.

Heller

O’Connor

(2002). Maintaining quality in research and reporting. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 1089–1107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

38.

Jackendoff

(2009). Parallels and nonparallels between language and music. Music Perception, 26, 195–204. doi:10.1525/mp.2009.26.3.195

39.

Jorgensen

E. R.

(2009). A philosophical view of research in music education. Music Education Research, 11, 405–424. doi:10.1080/14613800903391772

40.

Lave

(1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In Resnick

L. B.

Levine

J. M.

Teasley

S. D.

(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10096-000

41.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Merriam

(1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

43.

Miksza

Berg

M. H.

(2011, September). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller & Bown teacher concerns model. Paper presented at the Society for Music Teacher Education Conference, University of North Carolina–Greensboro.

44.

Miksza

Johnson

(2012). Theoretical frameworks applied in music education research: A content analysis of the Journal of Research in Music Education, 1979 to 2009. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 193, 7–30.

45.

Pellegrino

(2010). The meaning and values of music-making in the lives of string teachers: Exploring the intersections of music-making and teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

46.

Phillips

D. C.

Soltis

J. F.

(2004). Perspectives on learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

47.

Pigge

F. L.

Marso

R. N.

(1989, March). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

48.

Rainbow

E. L.

Froehlich

H. C.

(1987). Research in music education: An introduction to systematic inquiry. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.

49.

Reimer

(1988). A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall. doi:10.2307/431496

50.

Reimer

(2008). Research in music education: Personal and professional reflections in a time of perplexity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 190–203. doi:10.1177/0022429408322709

51.

Roberts

B. A.

(1991). Music teacher education as identity construction. International Journal of Music Education, 18, 30–39. doi:10.1177/025576149101800104

52.

Rogoff

(1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53.

Rogoff

(1991). Social interaction as apprenticeship in thinking: Guidance and participation in spatial planning. In Resnick

L. B.

Levine

J. M.

Teasley

S. D.

(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 349–364). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

54.

Schon

D. A.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

55.

Shulman

L. S.

(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.2307/1175860

56.

Shulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

57.

Sogin

D. W.

Wang

(2002). Music and non-music teachers? Perceived factors related to novice and expert teaching as represented by different models. Contributions to Music Education, 29, 71–83.

58.

Standley

J. M.

Madsen

C. K.

(1991). An observation procedure to differentiate teaching expertise and expertise in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 5–11. doi:10.2307/3344604

59.

Stanley

A. M.

(2009). The experiences of elementary music teachers in a collaborative teacher study group (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

60.

Sternberg

R. J.

Horvath

J. A.

(1995). A prototype of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 9–17. doi:10.2307/1176079

61.

Teachout

(2009). Collaborative research in music teacher education: Taking a cue from research approaches outside music education. In Holgersen

S. E.

Nielsen

F. V.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth International Research Alliance in Music Education symposium (pp. 247–260). Copenhagen, Denmark: Aarhus University.

62.

Teachout

D. J.

McCoy

C. L.

(2010). The effect of teacher role development training on undergraduate music education majors: A preliminary study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20, 88–104. doi:10.1177/1057083710365052

63.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1962). Thought and language ( Haufman

Vakar

, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. doi:10.1037/11193-000

64.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

65.

Wenger

(1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

66.

Wenger

(2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

67.

Worthy

M. D.

(2003). Rehearsal frame analysis of an expert wind conductor in high school vs. college band rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 11–19.

68.

Worthy

M. D.

(2006). Observations of three expert wind conductors in college rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168, 51–61.

69.

Yarbrough

Price

H. E.

(1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 179–187. doi:10.2307/3344668

70.

Yourn

B. R.

(2000). Learning to teach: Perspectives from beginning music teachers. Music Education Research, 2(1), 181–192. doi:10.1080/14613800050165631