Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the participants’ perceptions of the concurrent educational and musical interactions among student teachers, cooperating teachers, and me as a supervising teacher and participant observer. Two cooperating teachers and two student teachers worked together daily for 2 months while teaching elementary and middle school string orchestra students. Concurrently, these four teachers and I participated in chamber music experiences each week. Data included individual interviews, observations of student teachers’ teaching and music-making interactions, and researcher’s reflections and notes. Participants described advantages of working together in an educational setting: student teachers formed a support system, student and cooperating teachers learned from each other, and sectionals benefited the string students and cooperating teachers. Participants found musical interactions were considered positive and valued experiences, helped the student teachers reach a higher level of chamber music performance, helped forge relationships between participants, and had personal and educational implications.
Keywords
Music education researchers have investigated student teacher experiences (Brewer, 2009; Posegate, 2009; Schmidt, 2005), and a few have examined the relationship between student teacher and cooperating teacher (Draves, 2008, 2010; Liebhaber, 2003; Stegman, 2007). Draves (2010) described the educational interactions between student and cooperating teachers while Liebhaber (2003) examined the mentoring triad between student teacher, cooperating teacher, and supervising teacher. However, researchers have yet to investigate the mentoring triad made up of student teacher, cooperating teacher, and supervising teacher in the context of the string classroom or examine a combination of educational and musical interactions.
Music researchers have laid a foundation for studying the integration of music- making and teaching (Brewer, 2009; Isbell, 2008, Pellegrino, 2009, 2010, 2011; Russell, 2009, 2012; Schmidt, 2005). For example, Schmidt’s (2005) case study described a novice string teacher’s struggle at the beginning of his teaching career. At the end of his third year of teaching, the novice teacher and one of his supervising teachers described making music together as a turning point for this string teacher, saying that it was “a good bonding” experience (Schmidt, 2005, p. 11). After these interactions, the supervising teacher made comparisons between their shared music-making experience and teaching which helped the string teacher understand specific teaching goals. In a study about job satisfaction, Russell (2009) concluded that string teachers who continue to make music outside their teaching position are more likely to be satisfied. However, few researchers have examined in-service teachers’ music-making (Bernard, 2004; Dust, 2006; Pellegrino, 2010; Russell, 2012; Wilson, 1998), and researchers have yet to examine student teachers’ music-making.
Smith (1998) wrote that people learn most from those they wish to emulate, specifically peers and mentors, as they work to become “members of the club” (p. 11). This is important in light of research findings that preservice music teachers connected wanting to become music teachers in part with wanting to balance their own teaching and music making (Brewer, 2009; Conway, Eros, Pellegrino, & West, 2010; Gillespie & Hamann, 1999; Isbell, 2006, 2008; Pellegrino, in press-a), and in-service music teachers describe a desire for more time, energy, and opportunity to continue with their own music-making and/or to connect with other music teachers (Bernard, 2004; Conway, 2001, 2003; DeLorenzo, 1992; Dust, 2006; Krueger, 2001; Pellegrino, 2010, in press-b; Robinson, 2003). Also, Russell (2012) found that, “as teachers move from preservice to in-service, their musician identities may transform from being relatively integrated to becoming more differentiated” (p. 145). Therefore, it seemed that student and cooperating teacher interactions could be educational and musical and this might be beneficial to both teachers. Based on my observations, student teachers often stop making music in a systematic way, and rarely do cooperating teachers and student teachers make music together on their primary string instruments outside the classroom.
When I realized I would be supervising two student teachers apprenticing with cooperating co-teachers for half of the school day for a 2-month period, co-apprenticing became an additional element to the study. Researchers suggest that apprentices learn from each other (Bullough, 2008; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Mathers & Hanley, 1999; Nokes, Bullough, Egan, Birrell, & Hansen, 2008): “It seems typical of apprenticeship that apprentices learn mostly in relation with other apprentices. There is anecdotal evidence that where the circulation of knowledge among peers is possible, it spreads exceedingly rapidly and quickly” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 93). Bullough (2008) and Nokes et al. (2008) explored student teaching with a peer, which was regarded as a positive experience by both cooperating and student teachers in general education. However, researchers have yet to investigate student teachers apprenticing together in a music classroom.
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the participants’ perceptions of the concurrent educational and musical interactions between two student teachers, two cooperating teachers, and me as a supervising teacher. Research questions include (a) How do participants describe the interactions between teachers in the educational setting? (b) How do participants describe the interactions between teachers in the musical settings?
Educational Setting
Four string teachers (two cooperating and two student teachers) worked together daily during two months while teaching elementary and middle school string orchestra students. The schools were located in a low-population suburban city (less than 5,000 people). One of the student teachers had two different student teaching placements, each lasting for two months. This determined the duration of the study. Since the cooperating teachers worked together for half of the day and alone for the other half, the educational interactions examined occurred during half a day over this 2-month period. As a supervising teacher, I observed each student teacher once while teaching in the setting under study. The educational interactions among participants took place in the context of this setting and refer to participants’ perceptions about the interactions between the two student teachers, their cooperating teachers, and their supervising teacher.
Musical Setting
The two student teachers, two cooperating teachers, and I played chamber music together during the same two-month teaching experience described in the educational setting. These musical interactions, which were designed to take place as part of this study, occurred outside the school day and included seven chamber music rehearsals (once a week) and a performance in a district-wide faculty concert. The rehearsals lasted between one and two hours and were held at a university, the district’s middle and high schools, or at one of the cooperating teacher’s houses.
When I proposed the study to the participants, the plan was to play music for fun during this two-month period. However, the two cooperating teachers asked if we would perform at the district’s annual faculty talent show/benefit concert and we all agreed to perform in the concert before the musical interactions began. After sight-reading music during the first rehearsal, we decided to perform the Adagio in A Major for bass and string quartet by Sperger and the first movement of Schubert’s Death and the Maiden. Last, we decided that one of the student teachers would play first violin on the Sperger and I would play first violin on the Schubert.
Method
This basic qualitative study (Merriam, 2009) examined the participants’ perceptions of the interactions between cooperating teachers, student teachers, and a supervising teacher in concurrent multiple situations (educational and musical). Merriam (2009) identified six types of qualitative studies, the first being “basic qualitative studies,” which she believed were the most common types of study in applied fields such as education:
[Q]ualitative researchers conducting a basic qualitative study would be interested in (1) how people interpret their experiences, (2) how they construct their worlds, and (3) what meaning they attribute to their experiences . . . Data are collected through interviews, observations, or document analysis. . . . The overall interpretation will be the researcher’s understanding of the participants’ understanding of the phenomenon of interest. (p. 24)
Basic qualitative study was deemed most appropriate for this study because (a) the primary data sets were interviews about the educational and musical interactions among participants and observations of the interactions and (b) this study describes the meanings participants made of their experiences (as opposed to analyzing data of the interactions themselves) and my interpretation of these statements and interactions.
As a supervising teacher, chamber musician, and researcher, I was a “participant observer,” defined as “an observational role adopted by researchers when they take part in activities in a setting they observe” (Creswell, 2008, p. 222). I used a combination of intensity sampling and convenience sampling (Mertens, 2005; Patton, 2002). Mertens (2005) described using intensity sampling to “look for rich cases” (p. 321) and explained that, “convenience sampling means that the persons participating in the study were chosen because they were readily available” (p. 325). Since I wanted to study the musical and educational interactions among student, cooperating, and a supervising teacher, I needed to find willing participants who were able to participate in rehearsals regularly. Although findings are not generalizable, each reader may use “logical situational generalizability” (Schwartz, 1996, p. 7) to transfer some or all of the findings to other populations, when applicable.
Description of Participants
Participants were two cooperating teachers (pseudonyms Jack and Robert), two student teachers (pseudonyms Charles and Marcy), and I, as a supervising teacher. See Table 1 for background information about the participants.
Descriptions of Participants.
In addition to teaching the high school orchestras, Jack was the lead teacher for fifth- and sixth-grade orchestras and assisted Robert with the seventh- and eighth-grade orchestras. Robert assisted Jack with the fifth- and sixth-grade orchestras, was lead teacher for seventh- and eighth-grade orchestras, and taught kindergarten general music. Therefore, when Jack and Robert decided to work with two student teachers, this meant that four string teachers would interact for half of the school day. Charles was working with Jack for the entire winter semester while Marcy was working with Robert during January and February. After graduating with undergraduate degrees in performance from different institutions, Marcy and Charles continued their education by enrolling in a master’s degree program in music education with teacher certification at the same institution. They had three full semesters of coursework together before this experience.
I knew all the participants prior to this study: Robert and I attended university together decades earlier; Charles, Marcy, and I were currently attending the same university; and Jack and I had known each other for four years through participating in string teacher workshops. Also at the time of this study, I was a supervising teacher for both Charles and Marcy while working toward a doctorate in music education.
Types of Data
Data were generated through interviews, observations as a university supervising teacher of educational and music-making experiences, and researcher’s notes and recollections.
Interviews
Although the educational and musical interactions occurred in January and February, the interviews were conducted in April and May to give participants time to make meaning of their experiences. This gave teachers time to finish their entire student/cooperating teaching experience so that they might better understand the educational and musical interactions, in part, by comparing the experience together with the experience apart. There were a total of four interviews, as each participant was interviewed once. These were semistructured interviews (Mertens, 2006), which involve having a guideline of questions and topics written down in advance. However, interviews were led in a conversational way, which included following up on what was said, even if it was not one of the preplanned topics. All teachers were asked to describe: (a) the experience of having two cooperating and two student teachers work together in the string classroom, (b) the benefits and disadvantages of having two student teachers apprenticing together, (c) the musical interactions, (d) if and/or how playing together musically affected educational interactions between teachers, and (e) whether they would have played as much during January and February without this musical collaboration. Additionally, student teachers were asked about their interactions with each other, their cooperating teachers, and their supervising teacher whereas cooperating teachers were asked to compare this experience with other cooperating teacher experiences they had. Interviews lasted from 62 to 75 minutes each.
Observations
As a university supervising teacher, I observed Marcy and Charles once each in the educational setting as defined in this study, even though they were observed multiple times by other university supervisors during the semester. Both observations took place at the middle school and both orchestra classes had more than 50 string students in attendance. I took notes, discussed them with Charles and Marcy individually immediately following the teaching experience, and wrote a report about each experience.
The musical interactions were not analyzed for my interpretation of the interactions, but rather, were meanings-of-music-making data (Pellegrino, in press-c): “The purpose of the music-making was to derive the meanings of music-making in the moment for the participants” (Pellegrino, in press-c). These music-making experiences consisted of seven rehearsals (once a week) and a concert. Observations of the interactions were entered into the researcher notes immediately following the interactions and perceptions of the interactions were discussed in the interviews.
Researcher’s Notes and Recollections
A calendar and notebook were kept to document the meeting times and recollections about the rehearsals, faculty concert, and social/informal interactions. Other documentation included e-mails, observation notes, and observation report. I chose to write notes about the interactions as they happened and reflected on the documented experiences before I interviewed the participants and the notes also served as data triangulation.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness was addressed by member checks and rich, thick description (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). Lincoln and Guba (1985) wrote, “The member check, whereby data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected, is the most crucial technique for establishing credibility” (p. 314). The transcripts, findings, and discussion sections were sent to the four participants to review. They were invited to make any comments or corrections in order to more accurately and fully represent each participant’s experience.
Merriam (2009) suggested that researchers include thick, rich description when reporting a basic qualitative study. She suggested describing the setting and participants of the study, as well as providing “a detailed description of the findings with adequate evidence presented in the form of quotes from participant interviews” (Merriam, 2009, p. 227). In this article, I have described the setting and participants as well as provided a detailed description of the findings with quotes from the participants. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that thick description serves a second purpose: “It is entirely reasonable to expect an inquirer to provide sufficient information about the context in which an inquiry is carried out so that anyone else interested in transferability has a base of information appropriate to the judgment” (pp. 124-125).
Analysis
Verbatim transcriptions were made of all interviews and all data were analyzed for meaningful statements. Then, these statements were separated into (a) educational interactions, (b) musical interactions, (c) observations from the supervising teacher, and (d) emergent themes. Finally, I rearranged and consolidated the findings to try to best represent the interactions.
Findings
Findings are separated into three categories: (a) educational interactions, (b) musical interactions, and (c) respect among participants.
Educational Interactions
Student and cooperating teachers agreed that the benefits of having two student teachers and two cooperating teachers working together included (a) two student teachers supported and learned from each other, (b) student teachers and cooperating teachers learn from each other, and (c) perceived benefits for fifth through eighth grade string students and cooperating teachers. Although Marcy and Charles mentioned wanting more time to rehearsal the full ensembles as a disadvantage of student teaching with another peer and Marcy expressed some uneasiness about being compared with Charles, the student teachers and cooperating teachers spent the vast majority of the interviews describing the benefits of this situation.
Two Student Teachers Supported and Learned From Each Other
Both Charles and Marcy explained how they had been through the whole master’s with teaching certification program together and Charles appreciated feeling as if they “were in it together, more like a support system.” Marcy spoke about how wonderful it was to have someone else “who is doing the exact same thing” and who understood her situation so personally and thoroughly. She added, “I felt like I could say what I wanted to him and, when I was frustrated or having a bad day, I could tell him.” Robert echoed this sentiment when he spoke about what he observed between Marcy and Charles and what he remembered experiencing when he was student teaching:
I definitely saw that they supported each other. They would talk with each other after school about how things went for them during the day. I remember as a student teacher feeling a little isolated. Even though you have that seminar once a week or you met with people, they are not interacting with the same people you are interacting with and it’s hard to describe exactly what you’re going through.
The student teachers also learned from each other. The schedule was arranged so that two fifth-grade or two sixth-grade orchestra classes met one after the other. This offered the benefit of one student teacher being able to teach one class and observe their peer teach another class:
[It] was interesting to watch each other. I loved doing that. Sometimes he taught first and then I would teach first. A lot of times, it was an advantage for me to have Charles there because I learned things from him, both things I would and wouldn’t want to do. I learned a lot from Charles. I learned from Robert and Jack, too, but one of the things that I had that other students didn’t have is that I got to learn from my own classmate.
Marcy spoke about how she had taken notes when she saw Charles do something she liked and appreciated the opportunity of watching her peer grow as a teacher. The more Marcy spoke about the situation of having two student teachings placed together, the more she realized how valuable it was, saying she felt “really lucky” to be teaching with a peer.
Jack also noticed that the student teachers learned from each other and described using their observations of each other to help them realize what they needed to do to grow as teachers:
Definitely, one was trying to learn from the other all of the time. “Charles does this, I do this.” And I was not afraid of comparing them, “Do you see how she did this because you two have very different styles” . . . It was fun, from the standpoint that I could say to Charles, “You need to blend this” and then I could say to Marcy, “If you really want to keep kids in the program, I think there needs to be a daily moment where everyone just has a big chuckle—you have to make sure they feel comfortable and safe and it’s fun.
Charles described how Jack and Robert would discuss each person’s progress openly, sometimes comparing each of them as teachers, and how this helped him reflect and grow as a teacher. In these ways, co-apprenticing helped these student teachers learn with and from each other.
Student Teachers and Cooperating Teachers Learned From Each Other
Although we place student teachers with cooperating teachers so that they can learn how to become better teachers, Robert explained that, he learned from both of the student teachers as well. Robert explained how working with the student teachers helped him look “at things in a different way”:
They give you new ideas but also their personality and how they interact helps you interact in different ways, helps you see things differently. . . . Charles has an interesting sense of humor, so I was learning about looking at things in a different way. From Marcy, I learned a little more about teaching the younger kids, [especially] Kindergarteners.
Jack was Charles’s assigned cooperating teacher while Robert was Marcy’s but both Charles and Marcy described what they learned from each other’s cooperating teacher. Charles described how Robert and Jack’s styles were similar in terms of their approach to teaching students to play pieces but different in terms of planning and decisions about what to include in the curriculum. For example, Charles was impressed when Robert taught his students to play folk tunes with bass lines “by ear” and taught a theory unit to the eighth graders. Charles agreed that students “need to know something about the music that they’re playing” and he intended to include these types of activities in his curriculum when he became an in-service teacher.
Again, even though Robert was Marcy’s cooperating teacher, she spoke about how Jack mentored her, too. For instance, when preparing for my observation of Marcy’s teaching, Robert told her to choose which class she wanted to teach. Since she chose fifth grade and Jack was the lead teacher for the class, she worked with him when preparing for the observation: “Jack was really great when I asked him about the observation. Right away, he said, ‘This is what you should do’. . . . He was more of my cooperating teacher at that moment because I planned everything with him.” Although Jack praised Marcy’s teaching, saying she “has a very controlled style on the podium and the kids thought she was wonderful! You could tell because the attention level was very high,” he also encouraged her to incorporate more humor into her lessons.
Jack explained that he always learns from student teachers as they help him reevaluate his own teaching. He also described being inspired to learn more about modern music from Charles:
Charles is heavily into modern music and it always makes me reevaluate my thinking. There’s some [modern music I like to have my students play] . . . but it’s not the extremes that Charles is used to. And with someone who plays so well and is such a good musician, I’m always going, “I really need to think about this again.”
Whether the interactions between these teachers helped them reflect on their curricular or literature choices, the use of humor, or just how to interact and relate with students, working together helped these teachers look at things in a different way. Although we expect that the student teachers will learn from their cooperating teachers, cooperating teachers learned from their student teachers and the student teachers learned from each other’s cooperating teacher.
Perceived Benefits for Fifth- Through Eighth-Grade String Students and Cooperating Teachers
All four of the teachers thought their situation benefited the fifth- through eighth-grade students, although it was beyond the scope of the study to examine whether the students agreed. Most of the classes had more than 50 students at a time and having four teachers working together was considered an advantage. Marcy said: “Charles and I taught a lot of sectionals. Charles was always doing cello sectionals and I was always doing viola or violin sectionals so, in that sense, having four people in the room is great for the students.” She also thought teaching sectionals was, “an advantage for the cooperating teachers.” Charles agreed:
I know it was beneficial for the kids and for [the cooperating teachers] because we could pull out [students] and have somebody with every section. Like, the eighth grade concert was three weeks after their festival and they learned all new music that was harder than the music that they did at the [state and local festivals] because it was just so easy when there are that many [teachers] there. I just took all the cellists and taught them the cello part and someone else took the basses.
Charles described another advantage: “If Robert would notice someone was having difficulty, he’d just send them outside the room and then we’d work on it with them and then put them back. So it was really luxurious.” Robert echoed these sentiments: “I think it was beneficial to the students because a lot of the time, we were able to divide the students in four.” He added, “Some would be playing with the basses or standing next to the basses or playing with the class. I thought that worked out.”
In addition to the benefits of having more teaching configuration options available, Robert spoke about two more benefits for both the students and coopering teachers: “I think it’s really good for the students. . . . There’s an energy that comes from having student teachers . . . and I think everyone learned a lot.” Then, he explained that “it was beneficial because then there was a lot of organizational stuff to do” because they moved into a different room and the cooperating teachers had time to attend to other issues while the student teachers were teaching. Whether the benefits were having more teaching configurations available and lowering the student/teacher ratio, having time to do some of the logistical work associated with teaching, or having a different energy in the room, these participants felt like the string students and cooperating teachers benefited from having co–student teachers.
Musical Interactions
I asked each participant to describe the experience of playing in a group with two student teachers, two cooperating teachers, and a university supervising teacher. Marcy described the musical interactions as “fun,” “supportive,” “motivational,” and “inspirational:”
Even though at first, I was really nervous about what you would think of me as a player, those nerves went away and I started having fun because you were all very supportive and no one judged me. . . . We made comments about what could sound better, but we really were there to enjoy each other’s company and to make music. . . . It was really fun, especially when we all could just joke around AND we sounded really good.
She added, “because you, Charles, Robert, and Jack are all such strong players, it was motivational and inspirational for me.” Robert said, “It’s always fun for me to play and perform outside of school. It gives some inspiration for what I’m doing in school but that was just fun. . . . I think it worked because everyone was a really high-level player.” All participants described being excited about the high level of playing, the ease with which we played together, and performing in the concert. Jack said, “the fact that we could actually play in a recital together was way over and above. Robert and I just thought it was the greatest thing. I mean, it was fantastic.” Robert mentioned that he and Jack had performed in the faculty concert three or four times before but added: “This is the most involved piece that we’ve played. . . . It was fun to have that goal of doing that performance. That made the playing different, I think.” In addition to the descriptions above, participants described (a) reaching a higher level of chamber music playing achieved by the student teachers, (b) forging relationships among teachers, and (c) educational and personal benefits of the musical interactions.
Higher Level of Music Making Achieved by the Student Teachers
Both student teachers described reaching a higher level of chamber music playing. Marcy said that playing in this group was a “completely different experience” because there was a “pretty big level difference” between her undergraduate music friends and members of this chamber group. She said,
I felt like, “Wow! We sound good because the people I’m playing with are such great musicians!” It was a great experience because, when am I going to have another opportunity like this? This could have been my best experience! . . . When we finished playing [the concert], inside I was like (in a hushed voice) “Oh, my god, I wish we could do that again . . . I was so proud of how we played and it was such an exciting moment. I definitely would recommend it for someone if they can . . . this was a great opportunity.
Charles thought “efficiency” and “investment” contributed to the higher level of music making:
Here, you have five different people with probably different teaching philosophies, at different stages of their lives and rehearsals were more efficient than what I’ve experienced before and I think the performance was more satisfying because I could tell that, you and Robert in particular, were invested in the musical rewards of getting to play.
He contrasted this with chamber musicians who he had played with in the past who “definitely did not give their all.” Charles felt rehearsals “worked out really well” and that “the compromises seemed to work.” Even though all acknowledged that we had limited rehearsal time, Marcy and Charles noticed that we spent most of the time playing and showing members of the group what we thought while playing as opposed to discussing many different options.
Forging Relationships Among Teachers
Musical interactions helped Marcy and me forge a relationship of trust and comfort. During an informal interaction, Marcy asked many questions about teaching and job interviews, such as “Will all districts have their own curriculum and will I be expected to follow it strictly?” and questions about method books, schedules, if team teaching situations were common, and so on. I was surprised at the speed and volume of the questions and she said that she had accumulated many thoughts and concerns but did not feel comfortable asking anyone until then. During the interview, I asked her about this informal interaction and Marcy explained how our musical interactions had affected our rapport:
I don’t think our relationship would be what it is if we didn’t have the experience of playing together. When you play with someone, you communicate, other than through words . . . you get to know someone even more, you kind of come out of yourself.
This trust and comfort extended to my observations of her while teaching. Marcy described “teaching better” when I observed her because she felt more comfortable with me after interacting in the supportive chamber music experiences:
Marcy and Charles described seeing different sides of people’s personalities through musical interactions:
I definitely saw a different side of Robert, too. He was looser and we were there to have fun. I definitely think that our relationship did change and I feel like we did become closer and music obviously had a big part to do with that. (Marcy)
Charles said, “It was neat. I got to see different sides of different people that I work with. You definitely understand people better after you play music with them.”
With Charles and me, having different interactions brought more insights into each other’s personalities. During the interview, he reflected back on the observation and admitted that, since he had known me as a fellow student, “I wasn’t as nervous as I should have been.” Charles said, “With you, there’s more a versatility than a consistency as far as how I know you. . . . It’s sort of a process of getting to know someone better.” He described seeing a more serious side to me when I was music making and debriefing with him after observing him teach. While observing Charles’s teaching, he was relaxed and entertaining but he appreciated my observations and worked to balance his use of humor in class with his educational objectives. He also added that he “hadn’t realized how out of control [his students] could get.”
Robert and Charles thought that the different roles disappeared when we played together and that different aspects to people’s personalities became more visible. Robert spoke about the equality of the members of the chamber group, even though there was inequality in the educational relationship: “I guess I was aware they were student teachers but when we were playing, I just kind of thought about playing the music . . . I think everyone had something to contribute and, I think in the playing, there was leadership everywhere.”
Charles made an interesting observation that echoed Marcy’s earlier quote:
There was a lot that didn’t need to be said during rehearsal. There was a lot more music-making because we could communicate just through the music so, I thought that was interesting because so much of our interactions with our cooperating teacher are verbal.
Charles believed that we were able to communicate through music making, which differed from normal lines of communication between these music teachers.
Jack spoke about the power of music making as a way of forging relationships, too: “I think, any time you can make music with somebody, it kind of cements the relationship. It kind of makes everybody feel a lot better about each other. I don’t care how simple, I don’t care at what level.” After making this statement in reference to the chamber musicians, he then tied in some educational implications, which is explored in the next section.
Educational and Personal Implications
Jack, Marcy, and Charles spoke about educational and personal implications of music making. Jack began discussing the musical interactions and then broadened it to share his philosophy of combining music making and teaching:
One of the things we do in class is always have the student teachers play with us . . . and demonstrate for the kids. Anytime you do that, then everyone sits up a little straighter and says, “Oh, that’s what it is. I get it now.” And we like to do it. It makes us feel good, too.
In reference to his string students’ reactions to the faculty concert, he said,
They say, “It’s cool. I heard you” and their eyes are big and they are more focused because those kids get it. And, modeling, I think is the best, the most important way to teach. The reason I’m playing the bass today is because I wanted to play like my middle school orchestra director. . . . It’s been the inspiration for my work.
Marcy realized that playing in the concert had implications for her relationship with her students:
It was so great to play this faculty concert and have kids come up to you and be like, “I saw you on stage!” That is so rewarding. They see you as a teacher but now they see you as . . . almost a different side of you. I totally love that and I totally felt a difference.
She felt that this added a layer of credibility and relateability between her students and herself. Interestingly, Charles did not notice a difference in how students related to him after seeing him perform in the concert but he did notice a difference in how they reacted to Jack: “I know students talked to Jack. . . . I think they appreciated seeing him be in a vulnerable place, having him play in front of people, which he is always making them do. It was probably fun for them.”
The concert and musical interactions also had personal implications for Marcy. During my informal interactions with Marcy, she explained feeling insecure about her playing in the past and how the “supportive atmosphere” in our group and the obvious investment in music making helped her find joy for music making again. She described this experience as a “healing experience,” one that helped her let go of the negative feelings associated with music making that she developed (Researcher’s notes). When asked about this in the interview, she explained,
I didn’t play for a couple of years . . . when I was a performance major, I liked it but I didn’t love performing . . . I actually missed it and playing together actually brought back a lot of these weird feelings. For the first time in a while, I actually really enjoyed it. I was excited and . . . it was so much fun for me . . . playing together did something just for me.
She also described finding more confidence in her playing while playing in this chamber group. “You play with so much confidence and you always said I should play out and, hearing you play and feeling comfortable gave me more confidence in my playing . . . it was inspiring for me.”
The musical interactions acted as a catalyst for Jack to reengage with his bass playing in a more serious way. He spoke about how Marcy and Charles encouraged him to play with us. “I hadn’t played a solo in 25 years! And they both were like, ‘Yeah, you should do that, go ahead.’ So I practiced two to three hours a day.” He explained his relationship with making music:
My performance degree was always a really important part of who I was and that was my goal all my life until I got to [university name] and found out that I could have fun being a music teacher. . . . It was fun and challenging and I was good at it.
Jack described his retirement plan of moving to another state where he would teach in an elementary or middle school program “and find a bunch of gigs to play and get back into my groove and see where I can go with it.”
Charles, who was concerned about finding balance, decided that he would not teach privately next year so he could have more time for music making: “I have a chamber music group where I’m moving to and I would like to put a lot of time into making that a priority and then a new music ensemble that I might be getting into, too.” He was excited about teaching and also appreciated that it would allow him to keep his own music making as his art.
Respect Among Participants
Both interactions generated more respect among participants. Charles and Marcy described respecting each other even more after witnessing the growth each achieved during their student teaching experiences:
I guess the teaching aspect of our relationship has changed, just because we’ve seen each other teach and I know that I respect her more because I know she’s made considerable improvement over the few weeks that she was there. (Charles) My relationship with Charles over this whole student teaching experience, I have to say I have a lot more respect for him. I’ve seen him grow a lot. When I saw him at the concert conducting, I was just like, “That was good!” I really was proud of him! (Marcy)
Marcy repeatedly spoke about the fantastic musicianship and playing abilities of all participants. At first, she was intimidated to play with us but, after we began playing together, she was relieved that she did not feel judged but rather, supported. She respected everyone’s musicianship and playing abilities.
Robert, Jack, and Charles described how both the musical and educational interactions generated more respect for all participants. Jack and Robert felt both student teachers were excellent musicians and players and were also impressed with their growth as teachers. Although Jack knew that Charles was a strong cellist, he was more surprised at Marcy’s playing level:
At first, I was afraid for Marcy in a middle school classroom because she kind of came off as laid back and quiet. Then I heard her play a little bit and then when we played together. It was significant. Then she got in front of the kids and she’s really quite strong. . . . To rehearse with her brought home more to me how strong she is. She’s the real deal.
Charles described how respect for each participant had grown after seeing a more serious side to Marcy and myself in teaching and playing, and watching Jack work hard in order to perform the bass quintet. He also respected Robert for his playing abilities and his curricular choices.
Discussion and Implications
All participants found value in both interactions and developed more respect for each other as they worked together musically and educationally. In this setting, student and cooperating teachers learned from each other, which mirrored Draves’s (2010) findings. Also, the two student teachers learned from each other, which corresponds to suggestions that apprentices learn from each other (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Smith, 1998) and student teachers, specifically, learn from each other (Bullough, 2008). Co–student teaching was regarded primarily as a positive experience by both cooperating and student teachers, similar to findings in general education (Bullough, 2008; Nokes et al., 2008). In addition, one student teacher expressed greater comfort with discussing educational concerns with me, a supervising teacher, after forging a relationship through musical interactions, similar to the experience Schmidt (2005) described. Educationally, Charles and Marcy formed a support system. This was different from how Robert felt when recalling his student teaching experience. The isolation he described was similar to Lortie’s (1975) description of many teachers who felt isolation. Therefore, music teacher educators may consider placing student teachers together, especially if it is possible to work with co-teachers.
Participants described a desire to balance teaching and music making, which was similar to past findings (Brewer, 2009; Gillespie & Hamann, 1999; Isbell, 2006, 2008; Russell, 2009). However, other descriptions were unique in the literature. Participants enjoyed the musical interactions, calling it inspirational, fun, and supportive, and performing in the concert was an important element of music making. Musically, both student teachers felt they had reached a new level of chamber music playing, and playing music together rekindled Marcy’s love of music and helped develop stronger relationships with her cooperating teachers and her supervising teacher. In light of these findings, music teacher educators might consider encouraging student and cooperating teachers to make music together.
Participants felt that performing for students lent credibility to them as music teachers in students’ eyes and participants enjoyed seeing their students’ reactions to them (or another teacher). Jack also described making music in the classroom as something that “cements relationships,” commands students’ attention, and “makes us feel good.” Jack and Marcy spoke about their identities as music teachers and music makers and, interestingly, this musical interaction was the primary music-making experience for Jack, Marcy, and me during this period of time. Jack, Robert, and Charles also spoke about their desire to balance teaching and music making in the future. Finally, Robert spoke about finding inspiration for teaching when he was making music outside the classroom and Jack thought that it inspired his students to hear their teachers making music outside the classroom. All of this led to my desire to study meanings of music making and the intersections of teaching and music making in the lives of string teachers and preservice music teachers (Pellegrino, in press-a, in press-b, 2013) but more research is needed.
Teacher socialization, job satisfaction, teacher identity, and teacher retention are topics of concern for the education profession in general (Day & Gu, 2010), music education profession (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Brewer, 2009; Draves, 2008, 2010; Gardner, 2010; Haston & Russell, 2012; Isbell, 2006, 2008; Pellegrino, 2009, 2011), and string education profession, specifically (Gillespie & Hamann, 1999; Pellegrino, 2010; Russell, 2008, 2009). Connections have been made between a teacher’s sense of well-being, identity, and effectiveness (Day & Gu, 2010), but these issues are often isolated and studied separately in music teacher research. Studies show that music making may positively affect string teacher socialization, job satisfaction, and teaching, (Gillespie & Hamann, 1999; Pellegrino, 2010, 2011; Russell, 2009, 2012) but more research is needed to better understand this connection for music teachers.
The interviews addressing the musical and education interactions became a catalyst for exploring deeply felt issues about occupational identity, philosophies of teaching, and the power of playing music together that were motivational, collegial, social, and personal. Although it was beyond the scope of this study to explore all these themes thoroughly, I suggest that giving music teachers time and space to explore these issues together may reap personal and educational benefits and that exploring the intersection of music making and teaching warrants more attention in future research.
In addition, these types of interactions might be considered a model of meaningful professional development for the cooperating teachers. The justification for this would be that all participants stated that they learned from each other, all benefited musically, and this group combined preservice teachers and in-service teachers, which are all stated goals of professional development experiences (Conway, 2007; Hammel, 2007; Pellegrino, 2011). Jorgensen (2008) wrote about connecting music, teaching, and who we are, therefore merging personal and professional lives of teachers. She wrote that music making was a meaningful activity for most music teachers in the past and often in the present, and believed it important for music teachers to engage in activities that bring happiness to their lives. Last, Jorgensen believed in becoming a personal model for students and acting as a musical exemplar. I suggest examining the impact of professional development that encourages music teachers to make music for personal and professional reasons.
Participants perceived that their students benefited from the four teachers being able to lead sectionals. The assumption seemed to be that sectionals were easier to teach and more beneficial for the students’ learning processes. Researchers might compare progress made by students who are placed in homogeneous groups with occasional full rehearsals as compared with larger, heterogonous classes in elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Even though the cooperating teacher participants were eager to play chamber music in this study, they had not initiated playing with their student teachers before. Music researchers might examine how often musical interactions between cooperating and student teachers occur and, if it is a rarity, why is it so? After reading about the positive reactions of these participants and knowing that many music teachers want to interact with other music teachers and to continue with their own music making, music teacher educators may be inspired to arrange these types of experiences for their student and cooperating teachers. Helping to form communities of music educators who support each other and enjoy interacting musically may break the cycle of isolation and be positive for both teachers and their students. Finally, perhaps student teachers who experience the benefits of learning environments that incorporate social, educational, and musical interactions with “members of the club” (Smith, 1998) will be more likely to recreate these types of experiences in the future.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.