An Examination of Music Student Teaching Seminars at Midwestern Universities

Abstract

This study was designed to (a) provide teacher educators and researchers with information about the structure and content of music student teaching seminars by gathering data on current practices and (b) examine whether the perceived needs of music student teachers were being met through the content and structure of the student teaching seminars. Music education professors (N = 45) participated in a researcher-designed survey that included questions pertaining to the student teaching internship and accompanying seminar course. Results indicated that seminar instructors addressed student teacher responsibilities and preparation, classroom management, and employment more extensively than any other areas. Professional portfolios, résumé writing, and mock interviews represented the most common seminar activities. Findings suggest that with the exception of classroom management, the topics that instructors addressed most extensively in the music student teaching seminar did not align with the perceived needs of music student teachers, as reported in extant research.

Keywords

student teaching student teaching seminar preservice teachers music teacher preparation

Those involved in music teacher education “place great confidence on the impact of [the] student teaching experience in the training of music teachers” (Brand, 1982, p. 262). Working closely with an experienced educator can help novice teachers in making the transition from student to instructor (Conkling & Henry, 1999). This significant phase of professional socialization “begins when students enter the actual world of teaching as practice teachers” (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990, p. 284). Not surprisingly, students themselves feel that student teaching is one of the most valuable experiences of undergraduate teacher preparation programs (Conway, 2002).

Many university music methods courses use peer teaching as a means to develop effective classroom skills in beginning teachers. Because peers are often more sympathetic and tolerant of unclear instructions than actual students might be (Kerchner, 1998), peers’ reactions to their colleagues’ teaching may not provide novice teachers with realistic feedback—particularly in areas such as behavior management and instruction (Schmidt, 2010). Working with children in an authentic setting is more representative of what beginning teachers will encounter during their first year in the profession. The student teaching experience allows students to apply learned skills and techniques to actual classroom teaching in an environment that supports trial and error (Morin, 2000).

Concerns about entering the teaching profession seem to grow as young teachers approach student teaching (Campbell & Thompson, 2007). Providing effective instruction and feedback prove difficult for some music student teachers (Baumgartner, 2011; Conway, 2002). An evaluation of interns’ teaching experiences revealed that more than one-third of teaching segments did not contain instruction or feedback (Goolsby, 1997). Novices also have voiced a lack of confidence when teaching students with special needs (McDowell, 2007; Stegman, 2007)—a skill that appears to improve with experience in the field (Hourigan, 2009). Student teachers cited difficulties with multiple administrative tasks, including supervision duties, extra responsibilities, paperwork, travel, and work with administrators (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Conkling & Henry, 1999; Hourigan & Scheib, 2009). Although most teachers agree that many of these skills and tasks are best learned on the job (Baumgartner, 2011; Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008), there is a lack of evidence supporting how teacher preparation programs address these concerns throughout the internship.

Given the difficulties students face during the student teaching internship, many colleges and universities offer a seminar course that provides student teachers with opportunities to share their experiences with other interns. Zeichner and Liston (1987) wrote that the purpose of the seminar is “to help students broaden their perspectives on teaching, consider the rationales underlying alternative possibilities for classrooms and pedagogy, and assess their own developing perspectives toward teaching” (p. 32). Although the structures of these seminars vary among institutions, some are designed as a forum in which peers are encouraged to collaborate in creative problem-solving activities concerning their teaching practices (Weiss & Weiss, 2001). Guided discussions can stimulate “deeper levels of consideration and more thoughtful reflection on practice” (Stegman, 2007, p. 77), skills that researchers have reported as valuable in promoting growth and development for young educators (Chaffin & Manfredo, 2010; Husu, Toom, & Patrikainen, 2008). Seminars that meet regularly for the purposes of learning, problem solving, and peer sharing often represent what the education profession has come to recognize as a professional learning community—a system that has “been touted as an effective way to build upon the knowledge and skills of experienced teachers” (Bausmith & Barry, 2011, p. 175). A seminar course structured in such a way can provide student teachers with professional development opportunities, activities for engaging in thoughtful reflection, and a peer support system throughout the internship.

The student teaching seminar may provide the best setting for instructors, mentors, and peers to share ideas and collaborate in an attempt to diminish the anxiety often found in beginning teachers. Although recent studies have reported concerns of student teachers (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Campbell & Thompson, 2007), there is little research examining how these concerns are addressed throughout the student teaching experience, specifically through the instruction of a student teaching seminar. This study was designed to investigate the structure and content of these seminars. Although it may generally be assumed that most music teacher preparation programs offer a course that coincides with the student teaching internship, there do not seem to be data to support this assumption. Because the major curriculum-making body governing music education degrees—the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM)—recommends competencies but not specific courses or course content there is little information to guide institutions on a student teaching seminar. Thus, a baseline investigation of the seminar’s prevalence and current practices seemed warranted. A secondary purpose was to determine how music student teaching seminars addressed the perceived needs of student teachers, as identified in the research literature. Furthermore, I intended to determine if those needs were being met through the contents and structure of the student teaching seminars. In this article, I use the terms student teacher/teaching, intern/internship, and student teacher intern/internship interchangeably.

Method

I sought seminar data from colleges and universities that (a) were accredited by the NASM, (b) were 4-year degree–granting institutions, (c) offered a bachelor’s degree in music education, and (d) were located in Missouri or one of its eight contiguous states (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee). Colleges and universities were selected based on accreditation in an attempt to compare schools with similar teaching standards, learning goals, and curricula. Similarly, I chose institutions from the same geographic location that would have comparable cultures. Using the NASM (2011) online database, I searched for accredited institutions that met the selection criteria described previously. Using the web address listed in the database, I searched each institution’s website to determine the faculty member responsible for music student teacher internships. When no specific information was available, I contacted a faculty member listed in the music education area of the school website, or the department chair designated by the NASM database. I recorded the faculty member’s name, institution, teaching position, and e-mail address in an electronic database for ease of sending electronic mail invitations and reminder notices to those who did not initially respond. From the total number of music education professors initially identified and contacted (N = 122), 47 participants responded to the online survey. Two respondents did not complete the survey, resulting in 45 usable responses and a response rate of 36.9%—a rate similar to those reported in recent music education research (Hartley & Porter, 2009; Kuehne, 2007). In addition, response distribution among the nine states was relatively even, and thus the within-state response rate was representative of the total usable sample.

Survey Instrument

Because this study examined the current practices in music student teaching seminars across a large number of institutions, a cross-sectional survey design was used to gather data (Fink, 2009). I developed the survey based on (a) student teacher and cooperating teacher concerns found in the professional literature, (b) suggestions from professionals in the field of music teacher education who served as pilot survey participants (N = 5), (c) a similar study by Hewitt and Koner (2011) that investigated the content of instrumental music methods courses, and (d) my own experiences leading a music student teaching seminar. Data were collected using an electronic web-based survey instrument accessible through the university where the investigation took place (Qualtrics Lab: http://www.qualtrics.com).

The survey was organized in four sections that consisted of both quantitative (e.g., closed/guided response) and qualitative (e.g., open-ended response) questions (see the online supplemental material for the complete survey at http://jmt.sagepub.com/supplemental-data). In the first section, I sought to gather data pertaining to the respondent’s institution and the student teaching internship. Topics included institution location, enrollment in and length of the internship, distance limit of intern placements, and faculty observation responsibilities.

Section 2 of the survey focused on the structure of the music student teaching seminar. Researchers have suggested that student teachers benefit from joint problem-solving activities (Zeichner & Liston, 1987) and guided reflective practice throughout the internship (Stegman, 2007). Therefore, it seemed important to determine the existence, frequency, length, and location of seminar meetings. Because researchers have cited concerns specific to student teachers in music (Baumgartner, 2011; Berg & Miksza, 2010; Campbell & Thompson, 2007; McDowell, 2007), I sought to determine the percentage of seminars designed solely for music education majors versus those designed for students with various specializations.

The third section of the survey focused on data pertaining to the seminar instructor. Music education researchers have reported that rank, years of experience, and level of education varied among university personnel involved in student teaching supervision (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996; Slick, 1998). In addition to these criteria, I asked participants to provide information on their primary area of instruction (e.g., music education, performance, ensembles/conducting). To conclude the sections pertaining to internship and seminar structure, participants were given the option to freely respond with other information they felt was important in understanding the student teaching seminar or internship at their institution.

In the fourth section, I asked respondents to provide information on the content of their institution’s music student teaching seminar. Seeking to determine how specified concerns were addressed in the accompanying seminar course, I organized the concerns that had been identified in the literature and through my experience into eight topic areas: (a) internship-specific topics, (b) classroom management topics, (c) curriculum topics, (d) instructional strategies, (e) topics from university coursework, (f) student needs, (g) administrative topics, and (h) employment topics. Each of the eight topic areas included three to nine individual survey items. I asked seminar instructors to indicate to what extent they addressed each topic area item by responding to a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 4 (a lot), 3 (somewhat), 2 (very little), and 1 (not at all). I chose a 4-point scale to obviate a neutral response and create a forced choice between extensively addressed and not at all. Based on extant research concerning student teacher assessment (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Tillema, 2009) and, specifically, the use of professional portfolios (Berg, 1997; Draves, 2009), I asked respondents to indicate which types of assignments and culminating projects were used in the seminar course in an attempt to determine how these activities addressed the concerns of student teachers and cooperating teachers.

In the final survey item, respondents were encouraged to upload any supporting documents (e.g., syllabi, assignments, classroom activities) that they felt comfortable sharing. Only five instructors uploaded materials using the survey system’s “File Upload” tool. All five documents were course syllabi that included a calendar of events, project descriptions, and important internship information. Due to the small response rate of supporting documents (11.1%), no generalizations concerning seminar structure or content could be made from examining these materials.

Survey Distribution

The survey instrument was pilot tested by five music education professors, each with experience observing student teachers and/or instructing the student teaching seminar. Survey questions were added, clarified, and reorganized based on their responses. The university’s institutional review board approved the survey. An e-mail was then sent to each potential participant inviting him or her to participate in the study. The message explained the purpose of the research, the minimal risks involved, the protection of their personal and institutional information, and included a link to the online survey. To maximize response rate, e-mail invitations were sent individually through the use of the mail merge function in the online survey system. This process minimized the chance that invitations would be routed to participants’ junk mail as a mass message list. The online survey remained available to participants for 4 weeks. Reminder messages were sent to all potential participants 2 and 3 weeks after the initial invitation.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) were used to summarize the collected data of closed-response questions. In addition, percentages were calculated for responses to each Likert-type scale item. Because respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional information when selecting “other” in many of the closed-response items, text responses were categorized for data presentation. For example, if a respondent checked “other” and typed “cooperating teacher” in the text box, a new category was created and the frequency of that response was calculated.

Open-ended responses were analyzed using a three-part procedure for qualitative analysis—assigning codes, combining codes into themes, and displaying the data (Creswell, 2007). Emergent themes were categorized based on the research questions. To establish reliability, a doctoral student in music education—who had experience analyzing qualitative research data—reviewed responses to the three open-ended survey items. I provided this person with all participant responses, including a list of codes that had emerged from my analysis; the doctoral student then assigned codes to the data using the provided list. Comparing our assigned codes, the percentage of agreement was 79.5% (determined by dividing the number of agreements by agreements plus disagreements). We then discussed coded differences until 100% agreement was achieved.

Results

Internship and Seminar Demographics

Length of the student teaching internship varied from 10 to 18 weeks among the 45 institutions, with 16 weeks being the most common response (42.2%). The most common distance limitation for student teacher placement was 60 miles or less (n = 13, 68.4%); distance limitations were reported by 19 of 43 instructors (44.2%). Five of the 45 total respondents (11.1%) indicated that their institution did not offer an accompanying seminar course to the internship; these instructors were subsequently directed to the final open-response survey item. The remainder of the reported survey data is based on the 40 respondents (88.9%) who indicated that there was a student teaching seminar at their institution (unless otherwise noted).

Thirty-three respondents (82.5%) confirmed that an orientation meeting was held prior to the internship. Although student teachers were required to attend in each case, cooperating teachers (n = 7, 21.2%) and university supervisors (n = 13, 39.4%) attended the orientation less frequently. Thirty-nine instructors reported mandatory seminar meetings, most of which occurred weekly (n = 12, 30.8%), biweekly (n = 9, 23.1%), or monthly (n = 11, 28.2%).

A majority of respondents (n = 25, 62.5%) indicated that their student teaching seminar meetings ranged from 1 to 2 hours in duration, most of them meeting weekly (n = 11) or biweekly (n = 8). Ninety-percent (n = 36) of instructors held face-to-face seminar meetings. The remaining two instructors used a mixture of in-person and virtual methods of attendance (i.e., Internet video conferencing). A majority of respondents (n = 23, 57.5%) reported that the seminars comprised students seeking education degrees of various specializations—four of which included separate, additional meetings for music education majors—whereas 17 institutions (42.5%) offered a seminar specifically for music education majors.

Most seminar instructors (n = 32, 82.1%) held a rank of full, associate, or assistant professor; other instructors and graduate teaching assistants accounted for the remaining 17.9% (n = 7). Although music education was reported as the area in which most seminar instructors earned their highest degree (n = 25, 62.5%), only 53.6% (n = 21) taught primarily in that area. Seminar instructors’ public school teaching experience ranged from 2 to 40 years (M = 13.11, SD = 9.41)—the most frequent response was 20 years (n = 5).

Music Student Teaching Seminar Content

Student teacher responsibilities (M = 3.90), professionalism (M = 3.79), and student teacher–cooperating teacher relationships (M = 3.74) were the most frequently addressed topics in music student teaching seminars. Instructors also focused their content heavily on behavior management issues (M = 3.66). The least frequently addressed topics by seminar instructors were undergraduate coursework and administrative topics. See Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive statistics of all professional and curricular topics addressed in the music student teaching seminar.

Table 1.

Numbers of Responses, Means, and Standard Deviations for Professional Topics Addressed in Music Student Teaching Seminars.

Topic area/individual topics	N	M	SD
Administrative topics
Working with school administration	38	3.34	0.67
Parent–teacher relationships	38	3.13	0.74
Educational policy	37	2.97	0.73
Advocacy	37	2.92	0.83
Program handbooks	37	2.59	0.96
Parent/booster programs	37	2.49	0.80
Classroom management topics
Behavior management	38	3.66	0.58
Organization	39	3.59	0.59
Teacher confidence/apprehension	38	3.47	0.56
Gaining student respect	38	3.42	0.68
Motivating students	38	3.42	0.68
Pacing	38	3.39	0.68
Employment topics
Professionalism	38	3.79	0.41
Interviewing for teaching positions	37	3.57	0.69
Applying for teaching positions	37	3.51	0.56
Licensure	38	3.34	0.67
Professional development	37	3.30	0.66
Mentoring in the first year	37	2.97	0.73
Teacher burnout	37	2.46	0.80
Internship-specific topics
Student teacher responsibilities	39	3.90	0.31
Cooperating teacher relationships	39	3.74	0.44
Student teacher preparedness	38	3.71	0.57
Assessment of the student teacher	39	3.69	0.47
Transition to student teaching	39	3.41	0.68
Student teacher motivation	39	3.31	0.73

Note. Means are based on a 4-point Likert-type scale.

Table 2.

Numbers of Responses, Means, and Standard Deviations for Pedagogical Topics Addressed in Music Student Teaching Seminars.

Topic area/individual topics	N	M	SD
Coursework topics
Music education methods	38	2.89	1.09
Instrumental techniques	37	2.59	1.07
Vocal techniques	37	2.49	1.07
Conducting techniques	38	2.32	1.04
Music theory/history concepts	38	2.05	0.93
Curriculum topics
Assessment and evaluation of student learning	38	3.39	0.75
Lesson/rehearsal planning	39	3.23	0.93
Standards-based education	39	3.18	0.91
Curriculum development	37	3.00	0.85
Designing classroom activities	39	3.00	0.95
Teaching philosophies	38	2.87	0.96
Cross-discipline integration	37	2.59	0.86
Music learning theories	39	2.56	1.05
Choosing performance literature	39	2.21	1.06
Instructional strategies
Effective feedback	38	3.26	0.83
Adjusting instructional techniques	37	3.24	0.86
Sequencing instruction	38	3.21	0.87
Differentiated instruction	38	3.13	0.84
Experimenting with instructional strategies	37	2.97	0.93
Developing transfer	36	2.78	0.99
Student need topics
Student well-being	38	3.21	0.70
Students with special needs in music	38	3.18	0.73
Students’ personal issues	38	3.03	0.88

Note. Means are based on a 4-point Likert-type scale.

The most recurrent activities incorporated into the music student teaching seminar were professional in nature; instructors reported constructing a résumé/cover letter (n = 32, 80.0%), creating portfolios (n = 32, 80.0%), and conducting mock interviews (n = 28, 70.0%) most frequently. Fewer seminar leaders included lesson plan writing (n = 27, 67.5%), reflective journals (n = 26, 65.0%), peer discussions (n = 26, 65.0%), and written teaching reflections (n = 23, 57.5%) as regular seminar activities. Less than half of the 40 respondents viewed and discussed (n = 17, 42.5%) or analyzed (n = 14, 35.0%) intern teaching videos. Only nine instructors (22.5%) used online discussion boards/web logs.

To conclude the section of the survey designed to collect information about the content of music student teaching seminars, I asked respondents to provide any other information they felt was important in understanding the content of the seminar at their institution. Four respondents indicated that another department (e.g., education, arts and humanities) was responsible for instructing the student teaching seminar, which made it difficult for one of these faculty members to provide information about seminar content: “I, music faculty, attend [the seminar] as a guest only.” Whereas one instructor cited “an excellent working relationship between the School of Education and the Department of Music,” another wrote that music faculty members were only permitted to “speak to the music students . . . during breaks” in seminar meetings.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to provide researchers and educators with information about the structure and content of music student teaching seminars. Colleges and universities were selected based on accreditation in an attempt to compare schools with similar teaching standards, learning goals, and curricula. Similarly, I chose institutions from the same geographic location (i.e., midwestern, contiguous states) that would have comparable cultures. Music education professors were invited to participate in a survey, which was used to collect demographic information pertaining to the music student teaching internship and accompanying seminar course. I also intended to determine how the perceived needs of music student teachers—as reported in extant research—were being met through the content and structure of the student teaching seminars.

Seminar Structure

Frequent meetings throughout the internship may be beneficial for providing student teachers with multiple opportunities to reflect and share ideas on a routine basis (Bausmith & Barry, 2011; Stegman, 2007). It is not surprising that most participants in this study reported some type of university-based student teaching seminar course that accompanied the internship. However, there was a disparity between the frequency and length of these meetings among various institutions. Future researchers might investigate student teacher perceptions of various seminar structures to determine the most effective ways of promoting communication among interns throughout the student teaching experience.

How far student teachers are placed from the college/university campus may affect the level of institutional support they receive during the internship. For those interns placed at greater distances, current technology can be used to facilitate seminar attendance. Considering the lack of distance limitations reported by nearly half of seminar instructors, it is surprising that only two respondents used virtual communication methods for regular seminar meetings. This percentage is low, in light of the current availability of free software programs designed to facilitate distance videoconferencing (Ward et al., 2012)—a viable means of interaction among professional learning community members (Lewis & Allan, 2005). Other forms of virtual communication (e.g., web logs, discussion boards, electronic mailing lists) have been reported as beneficial in promoting interns’ peer interaction and professional development during the internship (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Lewis & Allan, 2005). The effectiveness of seminar experiences in which students and instructors use virtual communication methods for interaction throughout the student teaching experience would be a valuable area of continued investigation.

Seminar Content

Apart from classroom management, student teachers frequently have cited concerns for designing music curriculum, lesson/rehearsal planning, and student assessment (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Campbell & Thompson, 2007; McDowell, 2007). Music education specialists have suggested that these topics are valuable aspects of the seminar course and that novice teachers need pedagogical reinforcement in these content areas (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Conway, 2012; Draves, 2008). In their Handbook for the Beginning Music Teacher, Conway and Hodgman (2006) suggest that “young teachers still need to write specific plans for classes” (p. 145) to reinforce good planning procedures. However, nearly one fourth of survey respondents in this study reported addressing lesson/rehearsal planning “very little” or “not at all.” Future researchers might investigate how curricular activities are structured to determine the most effective methods of reinforcing previously learned teaching theories during the student teaching internship.

Implications for Music Teacher Preparation

The results of this study indicate that professors from areas outside of music taught more than half of all student teaching seminar courses; most often they were faculty members in the college/department of education. Although these instructors may have expertise related to various educational theories and practices, they most likely do not possess pedagogical content knowledge specific to music education. Because music education specialists often have had experience teaching public school music classes, as well as undergraduate music methods courses, these instructors could most accurately address concepts specific to music education and would be the most appropriate choice to lead the music student teaching seminar.

Lesson planning, sequencing instruction, classroom management, and extramusical duties have been cited as topics of concern by beginning music teachers (Campbell & Thompson, 2007; Conway, 2002). Although student teachers in other areas of education may share the same concerns, these topics are often approached in a unique manner in the music classroom. A seminar course designed specifically for music student teachers might reinforce these topics more effectively and promote interaction among members of the same discipline—an important characteristic of curricular area learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999).

Professionalism and internship-specific topics were the most frequently addressed topics by seminar leaders. Although these issues are important to the success of beginning teachers, many of the concerns identified in music education research literature were not addressed as extensively in these student teaching seminar courses. Several respondents indicated that topics listed in the survey were eliminated from seminar content because they were “studied intensely in methods classes.” Since students appear to need reinforcement of these pedagogical concepts once they begin applying them in the classroom (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Conway, 2012; Hourigan, 2009), seminar instructors should consider revisiting these topics throughout the student teaching internship.

Few guidelines exist pertaining to the structure of the music student teaching internship. The Society for Music Teacher Education would appear to be the most fitting forum for continued examination of the internship, specifically the content and structure of the accompanying seminar. Such investigation might lead to a proposal of basic seminar guidelines, providing the greatest impact toward a more uniform definition of best practices for the course. However, considering current practices, changes in seminar structure or content may be dramatic for some institutions—especially those that do not currently offer an accompanying seminar course or those that hold yearlong student teaching internships. Based on the perceived importance of student teaching in the undergraduate curriculum, a set of guidelines for the student teaching seminar may help similar institutions achieve a more unified support structure throughout the student teaching internship.

Limitations and Generalizability

It should be noted that the usable response rate (36.9%) was a limitation of this study. However, each state’s individual response rate was representative of the overall percentage, which I determined was acceptable for generalizing the results across the geographic location of the population for the scope of this study. Geographic location and institution size could affect the structure of the student teaching internship, resulting in restrictions on the distance of teaching placements, the faculty member responsible for making formal observations, the requirement for seminar attendance, and the department responsible for instructing the seminar course. Music education researchers might find differences in the student teaching internship and seminar structure at schools of varying sizes from other regions of the United States.

Undoubtedly, instructing a seminar course and observing student teachers are time-consuming responsibilities. Although the survey was designed to collect information pertaining to the seminar instructor and formal observers of student teachers, I did not inquire how these responsibilities affected the faculty members’ teaching loads. It may be valuable to investigate how institutions consider the student teaching seminar and formal observations in a faculty member’s course load, and how time affects instructors’ abilities to design and teach a seminar course that best meets the needs of music student teachers.

For the purpose of this study, I focused primarily on the perceived needs of music student teachers as determined by other researchers. Future researchers might continue by examining beginning music teachers’ perceptions, focusing on their student teaching experience and the accompanying seminar course. Beginning teachers may be able to provide information to seminar instructors concerning topics and activities that they feel would have been helpful in better preparing them for their first years. Continued research related to the effectiveness of the music student teaching seminar, and its ability to serve as a bridge from the university student to public school music teacher, will help seminar instructors provide novice teachers with skills that allow them to be as successful as possible in their first teaching positions.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

This article is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation, completed at the University of Missouri in 2012.

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

Baumgartner

C. M.

(2011). An examination of a pre-service music teacher’s reflection across consecutive teaching placements. Visions of Research in Music Education, 18. Retrieved from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v18n1/index.html

Bausmith

J. M.

Barry

(2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40, 175–178. doi:10.3102/0013189X11409927

Berg

M. H.

(1997). Student teacher video cooperatives. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 7(1), 16–22. doi:10.1177/105708379700700104

Berg

M. H.

Miksza

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

Borko

Mayfield

(1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501–518.

Brand

(1982). Effects of student teaching on the classroom management beliefs and skills of music student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 255–265. doi:10.2307/3345299

Bullough

R. V. J.

Draper

R. J.

(2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 407–420. doi:10.1177/0022487104269804

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

Chaffin

Manfredo

(2010). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding feedback and guided reflection in an instrumental early field experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(2), 57–72. doi:10.1177/1057083709354161

10.

Conkling

S. W.

Henry

(1999). Professional development partnerships: A new model for music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4), 19–23. doi:10.1080/10632919909599465

11.

Conway

(2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 20–36. doi:10.2307/3345690

12.

Conway

(2012). Ten years later: Teachers reflect on “perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 324–338. doi:10.1177/0022429412453601

13.

Conway

Hodgman

(2006). Handbook for the beginning music teacher. Chicago, IL: GIA.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Draves

T. J.

(2008). “Firecrackers” and “duds”: Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on their relationships with student teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(1), 6–15. doi:10.1177/1057083708323140

16.

Draves

T. J.

(2009). Portfolio assessment in student teaching: A reliability study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(1), 25–38. doi:10.1177/1057083709343906

17.

Fink

(2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Fitzpatrick

(2011, September). Blogging through the music student teaching experience: Developing virtual communities of practice. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Music Teacher Education, Greensboro, NC.

19.

Goolsby

T. W.

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

20.

Hartley

L. A.

Porter

A. M.

(2009). The influence of beginning instructional grade on string student enrollment, retention, and music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 370–384.

21.

Haston

Leon-Guerrero

(2008). Sources of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(2), 48–59. doi:10.1177/1057083708317644

22.

Hewitt

M. P.

Koner

(2011, September). A comparison of instrumental music methods course content at NASM–accredited institutions. Paper presented at the Symposium on Music Teacher Education: Intersections of Practice, Research, and Policy, Greensboro, NC.

23.

Hourigan

R. M.

(2009). Preservice music teachers' perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 125–168. doi:10.1177/0022429409335880

24.

Hourigan

R. M.

Scheib

J. W.

(2009). Inside and outside the undergraduate music curriculum: Student teacher perceptions of the value of skills, abilities, and understandings. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(2), 48–61. doi:10.1177/1057083708327871

25.

Hoy

W. K.

Woolfolk

A. E.

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

26.

Husu

Toom

Patrikainen

(2008). Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate and develop student teachers’ reflective competencies. Reflective Practice, 9, 37–51.

27.

Kerchner

J. L.

(1998). A model for educational partnerships. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 8(1), 7–14. doi:10.1177/105708379800800103

28.

Kuehne

(2007). A survey of sight-singing instructional practices in Florida middle-school choral programs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 115–128. doi:10.1177/002242940705500203

29.

Lenning

O. T.

Ebbers

L. H.

(1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 6). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

30.

Lewis

Allan

(2005). Virtual learning communities: A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Open University Press.

31.

McDowell

(2007). Are they ready to student teach? Reflections from 10 music education majors concerning their three semesters of field experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 45–60.

32.

McIntyre

D. J.

Byrd

D. M.

Foxx

S. M.

(1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In Sikula

Buttery

T. J.

Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171–192). New York, NY: Macmillan.

33.

Morin

(2000). Developing collaborative partnerships for student teaching in music. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(1), 6–15. doi:10.1177/105708370001000103

34.

National Association of Schools of Music. (2011). State accredited institutions. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/index.jsp?page=List_Accredited_Members

35.

Schmidt

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

36.

Slick

S. K.

(1998). The university supervisor: A disenfranchised outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 821–834.

37.

Stegman

S. F.

(2007). An exploration of reflective dialogue between student teachers in music and their cooperating teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 65–82. doi:10.1177/002242940705500106

38.

Tillema

H. H.

(2009). Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 155–167. doi:10.1177/0022487108330551

39.

Ward

Baumgartner

C. M.

Bucura

Draves

Greene

Jeffs

Parkes

(2012, March). Using technology to facilitate music mentoring. Workshop presented at the 2012 Biennial Music Educators National Conference, St. Louis, MO.

40.

Weiss

E. M.

Weiss

(2001). Doing reflective supervision with student teachers in a professional development school culture. Reflective Practice, 2, 125–154. doi:10.1080/14623940120071343

41.

Zeichner

K. M.

Liston

D. P.

(1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23–48.