Examining Lesson Plan Use Among Instrumental Music Education Majors During Practice Teaching

Abstract

Undergraduate instrumental music education majors (N = 18) taught a series of 5-minute lessons to an ensemble of their peers. Investigators compared participants’ written lesson plans with activities demonstrated during teaching, and calculated frequencies and durations of teacher episodes, student episodes, and overall rates of pacing. Results suggest that although written plans tended to contain vague and nonspecific language, participants relied on their lesson plans during teaching in terms of general content. Analysis of teacher time use indicated that participants were able to significantly reduce teacher talk time and reduce latency time at the beginning of lessons. Findings are similar to previous research in some areas of time use but contrast with results of previous research in relation to participants’ reliance on lesson plans during teaching. The authors use these results to recommend deeper investigation into the nature of transfer of learned lesson-planning skills across various teaching contexts.

Keywords

effective teaching instrumental music teacher preparation preservice teachers

Introduction

The instrumental music rehearsal setting has provided researchers in music education opportunities to gain significant insight into specific attributes of effective instruction. These attributes include in-class behaviors related to eye contact, teacher proximity, verbal feedback, and time use during rehearsal, as well as out-of-rehearsal behaviors such as score study and planning effectiveness (Chaffin, 2009; Duke, 1999; Grant & Drafall, 1991; Price & Byo, 2002). Identification and description of these behaviors, particularly with attention to differences between novice and experienced teachers, can be helpful in developing curriculum and assessment methods used for preparing preservice teachers.

An important skill for preservice teachers to develop is the ability to plan lessons. Planning effective lessons is generally associated with good teaching (Madsen, Standley, & Cassidy, 1989; Tsui, 2009), and collegiate-level textbooks for undergraduate instrumental music education majors often include material specifically devoted to lesson planning (Colwell & Hewitt, 2010; Millican, 2012; Rush, 2006). Preservice teachers, however, do not always view planning as important (Butler, 2001; Chaffin, 2009; Teachout, 1997) and often consider planning lessons one of the more difficult aspects of learning how to teach (Conway, 2002). Research that describes how lesson-planning skills are developed during preservice preparation can assist music teacher educators in helping students overcome both the perception of importance and the difficulties in learning how to plan instruction.

Results of studies in the extant literature suggest that lesson plans developed by novice teachers tend to reflect seemingly random patterns of sequence, assessment, and rehearsal strategies (Lane, 2006; Schleuter, 1991; Schmidt, 2005); tend to be “wordy,” consisting of vague language and nonspecific learning outcomes (Brittin, 2005; Lane, 2006; Schmidt, 2005); and, in general, do not reflect transfer of material learned in other courses (Lane, 2006; Schmidt, 2005).

Instruction in lesson-planning preparation has been shown to have positive influences on effectiveness of verbal feedback (Duke & Madsen, 1991), frequencies of rehearsal episodes (Lane, 2008; Lane, 2010), attainment of learning outcomes during teaching (Duke & Madsen, 1991), sequence and prioritization of lesson activities (Duke & Madsen, 1991; Maclin, 1993), and time use during rehearsal (Lane, 2008, 2010; Maclin, 1993). Other factors that can influence planning skills among novice teachers include peer-colleague interaction (Snow, 1998) and accumulated experience (Chaffin, 2009; Lane, 2008, 2010).

A topic that has received little attention in lesson planning research is the relationship between intent (the content of the written lesson plan) and execution (what actually happens during teaching). Schmidt (2005) suggested that lesson plans written by novices do not always accurately reflect the detail of thought behind them, which may lead to misperceptions from teacher educators about the specific intent and subsequent behaviors demonstrated by their students. It seems, then, that systematic, detailed analyses of these relationships will help provide more clarity and understanding of how preservice teachers go about learning to develop and implement specific instructional strategies.

One specific area that can provide insight into the relationship between intent and execution is that of time use, specifically rehearsal pacing. In addition to measuring the rate of alternation between teacher and student activity episodes during rehearsals, analysis of pacing can also describe the frequency of performance opportunities for students and frequency of opportunities for feedback and instruction from teachers (Duke, Prickett, & Jellison, 1998; Yarbrough, Dunn, & Baird, 1996). Pacing has been analyzed as part of holistic teacher behaviors (Cassidy, 1990; Madsen, 1990), and as a single independent variable (Duke et al., 1998). Results of these studies indicate that brisk pacing (rapid alternations of teacher and student activity) can have positive effects on perceptions and evaluations of effective teaching. Other research has shown that instruction designed to help preservice teachers learn lesson-planning skills may influence pacing demonstrated during teaching (Lane, 2008, 2010), specifically, reduced teacher talk time; increased student performance time; and increased frequencies of instructional opportunities during rehearsals.

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the relationship between intent (as described in written lesson plans) and execution (demonstrated by rehearsal pacing) among undergraduate instrumental music education majors in practice teaching contexts. The investigators used the following questions to guide the research:

Research Question 1: To what extent do preservice teachers rely on lesson plans when engaged in practice teaching tasks?

Research Question 2: Do preservice teachers demonstrate differences in rehearsal behaviors (specifically rehearsal pacing) when engaged in planned activities than when engaged in unplanned activities?

Research Question 3: Does instruction in lesson planning influence the use of and reliance on lesson plans during teaching?

Method

Participants

Undergraduate instrumental music education majors (N = 18) at a large Southeastern university served as participants for this study. Each participant was a member of the same section of an instrumental methods course taken during his or her fourth year of undergraduate study, generally one to two semesters prior to student teaching and completion of the undergraduate degree program. One of the investigators served as the instructor of the course.

Procedure

As part of the course, each participant taught a series of four 5-minute lessons to an ensemble of their peers performing on secondary instruments. The series of lessons spanned a period of 4 weeks, with each individual participant teaching on one assigned day per week during regularly schedule class times. Prior to the first week, the researchers randomly divided participants into three groups and assigned each group a specific day of the week to teach: Mondays, Wednesdays, or Fridays. Participants taught on their assigned days for the first and second lessons. For the third and fourth lessons, the researchers rotated the assignments to ensure that each group taught on different days. For example, the group assigned to teach Mondays during the first 2 weeks taught on Wednesday of Week 3 and Friday of Week 4. The researchers assigned days for the other two groups in a similar manner.

The investigators monitored the start and stop times of lessons using a digital stop watch. Each lesson began with one investigator providing the participant a verbal cue to begin (e.g. “You are on now”). After 4 minutes of the lesson, the investigators provided each participant a nonverbal cue (one finger held in the air) to indicate that 1 minute of teaching time remained. At the expiration of the 5-minute period, the investigator signaled the participant to stop with a verbal cue (e.g., “Thank you, time is up”). The course instructor directed the students in the band to avoid talking to each other or engaging in any other kind of distracting off-task behavior during lessons in order to allow the participants to focus solely on teaching and not on classroom management.

In previous studies (Lane, 2008, 2010), the researchers used 5-minute lessons for two primary reasons. First, the length of lessons allowed the researchers to observe participants on multiple occasions during normal course activities. Longer durations of lessons would have used too much available class time and detracted from other topics that needed to be covered during the semester. Second, the researchers reasoned that short durations of lessons would help address the issue of instructional efficiency. Given that most teacher education programs do not have the luxury of extensive time for preparation activities, the researchers believed that examining behaviors in short time frames would have more immediate opportunities for applications of results as opposed to examining behaviors in longer time frames.

Previous research in this area (Lane, 2008, 2010) demonstrated that the first lesson in this type of practicum setting tended to function primarily as an acclimation period. For example, in the first lesson of a previous study, one participant talked continually for almost the entire first half of a 5-minute lesson. Afterward, the participant attributed this excessive verbal behavior entirely to being nervous, and similar behaviors were not observed in subsequent lessons. For this reason, the investigators chose to eliminate the first lesson from data collection in an effort to get data that more accurately reflected what the participants did once the issue of nerves lessened. Therefore, from this point forward, the written references to the lessons will not account for this first acclimation lesson and will only consider the three subsequent lessons, hereafter labeled as Lesson 1, Lesson 2, and Lesson 3.

Music

The instructor of the course provided the music used for each lesson, and all participants used the same music for each lesson’s planning and teaching activities. Similar to procedures used in prior studies (Lane, 2008, 2010), the researchers selected music that gradually progressed from simple unison textures to a full band score. There were no predetermined errors identified or marked in parts, nor were students in the band instructed to perform any specific errors. For Lesson 1, the music consisted of one single-line unison excerpt from a standard beginning band method book (participants also used this music during the initial acclimation lesson). Music for Lesson 2 consisted of a short three-part Bach chorale transcribed and scored for the practicum ensemble by one of the researchers. Music for Lesson 3 was Movement 2 of Soldier’s Procession and Sword Dance (Margolis, 1999), a Grade 1 piece for beginning band. Musicians in the practicum band (a total of 22 members) performed on wind instruments, which ensured the performance of all wind parts in the pieces used for Lessons 2 and 3. The researchers chose to avoid using percussion instruments in order to help minimize the process of ensemble setup/takedown during the limited amount of time prior to and after class meetings.

Lesson Planning

Procedures used in previous research (Lane, 2008, 2010) allowed participants to plan the first few lessons in the series left to their own devices, with increasing guidance provided by the course instructor as the series of lessons progressed. The investigators used a similar model in the current study. Participants planned the acclimation lesson and Lesson 1 using any method they chose; the instructor of the course provided only very basic guidelines for the written plan, and these related primarily to format (e.g., typed, printed, etc.). The instructor did not identify or require specific elements that should be included in the written plan such as objectives, time allotments, or lesson activities.

For Lessons 2 and 3, the instructor of the course provided more specific guidelines for lesson plan content. For Lesson 2, the instructor directed participants to include at least one specific learning outcome and to describe the approximate time allotment for each activity they listed in their plan. The instructor also directed participants to provide a brief description of assessment criteria that would be used to determine student achievement and guide progress to the next lesson activity.

For Lesson 3, the instructor asked participants to use the same guidelines as Lesson 2 but included two additional parameters. First, the instructor directed participants to limit lesson content to topics or activities related to three areas: performance of right notes and rhythms, tempos and tempo changes, and performance of articulations. The investigators chose to limit participants to these issues based on results of prior research (Lane, 2006) that indicated preservice teachers tended to feel overwhelmed when attempting to plan lessons and experienced difficulty processing the amount of teaching possibilities present in a full score. The investigators hoped that limiting topics would allow participants to focus less on sorting through large amounts of potential content and more on the actual process of planning. The investigators determined that this seemed particularly important given that participants were planning lessons that lasted only 5 minutes in duration. Second, the instructor directed participants to include at least three individual student performance opportunities during the lesson. Previous research has indicated the necessity for individual attention during group lessons; in addition, results of prior studies (Lane, 2008, 2010) indicated that preservice teachers tended to rely very heavily on group performance during teaching activities. Therefore, the investigators implemented this parameter to ensure that participants gained experience working with individual students in a group setting.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both researchers attended each class meeting during the data collection period and used a digital camera to record all lessons taught during the 4 weeks. The researchers used the video recordings of Lessons 1, 2, and 3 for each participant and the corresponding written lesson plans used by participants during teaching as primary data sources. The researchers analyzed the video recordings for each of the 18 participants teaching three 5-minute lessons (a total of 54 lessons and 270 minutes of video) and 54 written lesson plans as primary data sources. In addition, the researchers recorded field notes and other observations during the data collection periods for use as secondary data sources.

Analysis of the video recordings consisted of two separate stages of viewing. First, investigators watched each participant teach each of their three lessons in order and compared the specific lesson plans (what the participant intended to do while teaching) with the participant’s in-rehearsal behaviors (what the participant actually did while teaching). Using the plans as a guide, investigators labeled specific teaching episodes as either “planned” (P) or “unplanned” (U). A planned episode was one that could be observed on the videotape and that had some type of indication on the written plan that the participant intended to address the specific topic or activity prior to teaching the lesson. An unplanned episode was one that could be observed on the videotape, but there were no indications on the written plans that the participant intended to address the topic or activity prior to teaching the lesson. For the purposes of this study, the investigators chose not to consider comparisons of sequence indicated on the written plan compared with the sequence of events as they occurred during lessons. The primary reason for this decision was to limit the focus on the simplest unit of reliance on a plan. The investigators reasoned that the simplest unit should serve as the basis for this project, and that sequence could be included and accounted for in future studies.

After the first viewing, the researchers watched the videotapes again and recorded the durations of teacher and student episodes. Using procedures similar to those described in previous studies (Lane, 2008, 2010), the researchers started timing the first teacher episode after a verbal cue from the course instructor to the participant (e.g., “You are on now.”). All observations of lessons began with a teacher episode. The first student episode began when the students in the class engaged in some type of active doing, for example, counting, clapping, playing on instruments, and other similar activities. The second teacher episode began after the last sound made by the students, and the second student episode began when the students engaged in music activity. This procedure of timing alternating teacher and student episodes continued throughout the 5-minute lesson period. In cases where the participant was engaged in a teacher episode at the time the 5-minute period ended, the researchers did not count this teacher episode in data collection, and ended the observation period with the last student episode. If the last episode occurring was a student episode, the researchers stopped the clock and recorded the duration of the student episode as ending simultaneously with the expiration of the 5-minute period. This procedure ensured that in all cases, the researchers ended the observation period with a student episode, thereby providing an equal number of student and teacher episodes for comparison in data analysis.

The investigators timed and categorized a total of 1,722 episodes observed on the video recordings. Using these data, the investigators calculated mean durations of student episodes, mean durations of teacher episodes, and mean rates of pacing (the mean durations of all episodes) for each of the three lessons. In addition, the investigators calculated the mean durations of the initial teaching episode: in other words, the average amount of time it took participants to engage the students in active doing, as opposed to passive listening while the teacher talked. The investigators reasoned that shorter durations of initial teacher episodes would reflect elements of planning in that a participant who spent time developing a plan thoroughly prior to teaching may spend less time getting started on working toward that plan than a participant who did not develop the plans thoroughly.

The researchers used independent samples t tests to compare means of teacher episode frequencies, teacher episode durations, student episode frequencies, student episode durations, rates of pacing, and durations of initial teacher episodes across each of the three lessons. To compensate for the increasing alpha due to multiple t tests, the investigators used the Bonferroni correction (Pallant, 2010, p. 209). This adjustment resulted in a significance level of p < .025 for all comparisons. In addition, the investigators calculated Cohen’s d to measure effect sizes for comparisons with statistically significant differences (Cohen, 1992). Effect sizes are interpreted in relation to Cohen’s categories (p. 99) of “small” (d = 0.2), “medium” (d = 0.5), and “large” (d = 0.8).

Reliability

To ensure reliability of observations, investigators viewed the video recordings separately and independently from each other. After each investigator completed the video observation and data collection process, they randomly selected 20 complete lessons to use for reliability analysis. The 20 lessons yielded a total of 485 episodes for reliability analysis, which represented slightly more than 25% of all recorded episodes. The investigators used a two-part process to establish reliability among observations: comparisons of recorded frequencies of episodes and comparisons of recorded durations of episodes.

First, the researchers analyzed the recorded frequencies of episodes. For each lesson the researchers compared the counted number of episodes. If both researchers recorded the same number of episodes for the lesson, they counted each episode as an “agreement.” For example, if both researchers recorded 7 teacher episodes, they recorded a total of 7 “agreements.” In cases where there was a difference in the number of episodes, they counted the lowest recorded number of episodes as “agreements” and counted anything over that (the difference) as “disagreements.” For example, if one researcher recorded 8 teacher episodes and the other recorded 10, the researchers recorded 8 “agreements” and 2 “disagreements.” To measure reliability among recorded frequencies of observations, the researchers used the formula of total number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements. Results showed 98.1% agreement in recorded frequencies of episodes.

The next stage of reliability analysis required comparisons of durations among the same number of episodes. To facilitate this process, the investigators reviewed the data, determined where the discrepancies among recorded episode frequencies occurred, and removed the episodes considered as “disagreements.” Then, the investigators examined reliability of recorded episode durations within those episodes that both investigators observed and agreed. This process yielded a total of 476 episodes for analysis of recorded durations.

The investigators labeled recorded durations that were the same or that were within one second of each other as agreements and any difference greater than one second as a disagreement. For example, if one investigator recorded the duration of an episode at 7 seconds and the other recorded 8 seconds, the investigators labeled this as an agreement. By contrast, if one investigator recorded the duration of an episode at 7 seconds and the other recorded 9 seconds, the investigators labeled this as a disagreement. Similar to the analysis of episode frequencies, the investigators used the formula of total number of agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements. Results showed that the investigators agreed on 89.5% of recorded durations.

Results

Lesson Plans

In general, lesson plans written by participants tended to be vague and nonspecific in nature. Plans tended to reflect statements such as “Work on brass articulation from the beginning to Measure 9” but did not clarify the specific procedures, techniques, or individuals that would be included in the instructional activity. Therefore, what emerged from analyses of the written lesson plans was a picture of overall intent on the part of the teachers as opposed to a more detailed description of what they intended to accomplish. Plans contained few descriptions of specific techniques and, in general, did not contain descriptions of specific criteria or methods of assessments. Examples of statements from plans are provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Examples of vague statements from lesson plans.

The researchers intended to compare the frequencies of planned and unplanned episodes across lessons to gain perspective on the participants’ reliance on written plans during teaching. Results showed, though, that there were fewer than 5 total teaching episodes (from a total of over 150) that were unplanned in Lesson 1 and there were no instances of unplanned episodes from any of the 18 participants in either Lesson 2 or Lesson 3. Therefore, the results indicated that participants used their plans and for the most part did not deviate from their written intentions (at least in terms of general content), especially as the series of lessons progressed.

Episode Frequencies, Durations, and Rehearsal Pacing

In Table 1 are the mean frequencies of teacher episodes in each of the three lessons. Mean frequencies of teacher episodes have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Given that the analysis procedure ensured that the number of teacher and student episodes were equal for each lesson, the mean frequencies of student episodes observed can be considered identical. In general, each lesson contained approximately 14 to 16 opportunities for instruction or feedback (teacher episodes) and 14 to 16 opportunities for student performance. Results showed no significant differences among means of episode frequencies across the sequence of three lessons.

Table 1.

Mean Frequencies of Teacher Episodes for Lessons 1, 2, and 3.

	Lesson 1	Lesson 2	Lesson 3
Episode frequency	15.5	14.7	16.1

Table 2 lists mean episode durations and rates of pacing for Lessons 1, 2, and 3. All means have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a second.

Table 2.

Mean Durations of Episode Types and Mean Rates of Pacing for Lessons 1, 2, and 3.

Episode type	Mean duration
Episode type	Lesson 1	Lesson 2	Lesson 3
Teacher	11.5*^a	9.3	9.3*^b
Student	7.6*^a	9.5	9.0
Rate of pacing	9.5	9.4	9.2

Significant difference between Lesson 1 and Lesson 2

Significant difference between Lesson 1 and Lesson 3.

p < .025.

Results indicated significant differences in Teacher Episode durations between Lessons 1 (n = 291) and 2 (n = 277), t(566) = 5.43, p = .016, d = 0.206, and between Lessons 1 (n = 291) and 3 (n = 293), t(582) = 2.59, p < .001, d = 0.291. In general, participants demonstrated significantly shorter durations of Teacher Episodes in Lessons 2 and 3 than in Lesson 1. Results indicated no significant differences in Teacher Episode durations between Lessons 2 and 3. Student Episode durations increased significantly between Lesson 1 (n = 291) and Lesson 2 (n = 277), t(566) = 2.29, p = .023, d = 0.180; results showed no significant differences in Student Episode durations between Lessons 2 and 3 (n = 293) or between Lessons 1 and 3. Rate of Pacing did not increase or decrease significantly between any of the three lessons.

In addition to teacher and student episode durations, the researchers calculated mean durations of Initial Teacher Episodes—or stated differently, the average amount of latent time between the start of the lesson and the first student activity episode. As shown in Table 3, results indicated significant decreases in Initial Teacher Episode durations between Lesson 1(n = 18) and 2 (n = 18), t(17) = 10.15, p = .001, d = 0.414; Lesson 2 and Lesson 3 (n = 18), t(17) = 5.39, p < .001, d = 0.372; and Lessons 1 and 3, t(17) = 3.79, p = .001, d = 0.623.

Table 3.

Mean Durations of Initial Teacher Episodes for Lessons 1, 2, and 3.

	Lesson 1	Lesson 2	Lesson 3
Initial teacher episode duration	18.5*^a	15.8*^b	12.3*^c

Significant difference between Lesson 1 and Lesson 2.

Significant difference between Lesson 2 and Lesson 3.

Significant difference between Lesson 1 and Lesson 3.

p < .025.

In addition to the primary findings, the investigators observed two additional trends that are worth noting. First, student episodes tended to consist almost entirely of group/section performances. Work with individual students during these episodes happened rarely until Lesson 3, when participants were specifically directed by the course instructor to include individual performance opportunities during student episodes. The second trend was that participants appeared to struggle with in-class assessment; in other words, they seemed to have had great difficulty knowing when a predetermined lesson objective had been met. Very often, participants tended to move on from one activity to the next because of the mandates of time use or lists of activities described in their lesson plan rather than listening to individual students to determine if a stated learning outcome or targeted performance goal had been achieved.

Discussion and Conclusions

Findings of the current study support results of previous research in that plans developed by participants included seemingly random sequences of nonspecific rehearsal strategies (Lane, 2006; Schleuter, 1991; Schmidt, 2005) and tended to included vague, nonspecific wording (Brittin, 2005; Lane, 2006; Schmidt, 2005). Additionally, results support previous findings that indicated positive changes in rehearsal behaviors such as increased frequencies of rehearsal episodes and reduced teacher talk time, though the influence of instruction on the change in these behaviors was less clear than what has been found in other studies (Lane, 2008, 2010; Maclin, 1993). The opportunity to teach multiple times and gain teaching experience seemed to be related to the observed changes in rehearsal behaviors, supporting the idea of accumulated experience as a primary element in developing lesson plan skills (Chaffin, 2009). Results of the current project differed from studies in the extant literature suggesting that novices do not rely on written plans while teaching (Schmidt, 2005); participants in the current study tended to rely on written plans, at least in terms of general content.

Based on the results of data analysis, the investigators concluded the following about the three primary research questions guiding the study:

To what extent do preservice teachers rely on lesson plans when engaged in practice teaching tasks?

Results of this study suggest that in general, participants relied on their lesson plans throughout the series of three lessons, at least in terms of the broad area or activity being addressed. Participants rarely deviated from their plans in terms of general content, though description of content was vague and general in nature. The reliance on plans may be due to the influence of the class structure, and may change depending on the context in which teaching occurs (e.g., practice teaching settings compared with authentic classroom settings).

Do preservice teachers demonstrate differences in rehearsal behaviors (specifically rehearsal pacing) when engaged in planned activities than when engaged in unplanned activities?

Due to the large difference between frequencies of planned episodes and unplanned episodes, results of this study did not provide sufficient enough data for a meaningful comparison. There were not enough occurrences of unplanned episodes to generate data for analysis. The heavy reliance on lesson plans may reflect the influence of the course context for the activity, and reliance on plans may vary a great deal in more authentic contexts of teaching and learning.

Does instruction in lesson planning influence the use of and reliance on lesson plans during teaching?

In general, there was little evidence of the influence of lesson planning instruction on participant’s reliance on lesson plans during teaching. The initial teacher episode duration time did decrease significantly; this decrease, though, may be a result of the participants feeling more comfortable with the activity of teaching as the lessons progressed rather than from the influence of specific instruction or preparation in lesson planning. Compared to the nature of influence reported in previous studies (Lane, 2008, 2010), results of the current project were less clear.

Recommendations for Future Research

The most critical issue raised by the findings of this project is that of transfer of learned skills across varying contexts. For example, participants in the current study taught 5-minute lessons to a peer ensemble within a controlled environment of a collegiate-level practicum. Opportunities for transfer within this context would be, by design, limited and in some sense more easily manifested given that participants were only focused on teaching and not distracted by other issues such as student behavior or classroom management. Within this controlled environment, participants relied on their lesson plans very heavily and tended to implement specific elements of planning (e.g., the directions to hear individuals as part of Lesson 3) following guidance from an instructor.

By contrast, participants in Schmidt’s (2005) study were engaged in working with young students in a more authentic setting of teaching and learning. In this context, there were other factors for participants to consider while teaching, including the longer durations of lessons, student behavior, variance among student ability and achievement levels, and so on. And, participants were free from the specific directions for elements of lessons that were a part of the current study. Subsequently, participants in Schmidt’s study showed less evidence of transfer of skills learned in other contexts into their teaching, demonstrating a tendency to “teach on the fly” with little reliance on written lesson plans.

Given these contrasting results, it appears that there is a need for deeper investigations into the nature of transfer of lesson planning skills from controlled environments to authentic environments of music instruction. Future research could help provide valuable perspective for music teacher educators to help facilitate the transfer of learned teaching skills across the varying contexts in which preservice teachers engage (course-related activities, peer teaching, practicums, student teaching, etc.).

If, as the results of the current study indicate, participants rely on lesson plans during controlled activities within a structured, course-based environment, then questions as to the types of activities that help develop effective teaching behaviors during these courses (and that help maintain these behaviors over time) deserve attention. Additionally, results of the current study support the notion that lesson plans written by preservice teachers do not always accurately reflect the detail of thought behind them. Given this trend, future studies should investigate ways that help teacher educators understand their students thought processes more clearly—what types of evidence from students are most trustworthy and what strategies can obtain evidence of thoughts and intentions more efficiently. Results of such studies could be useful in helping develop appropriate learning outcomes and instructional activities for methods courses.

Results of recent research have done much to help provide solid foundational perspectives on the processes used by novice music teachers in planning lessons. The important questions seem now to be less related to describing the lesson-planning processes of novices, and more related to how these processes can be informed, developed, and transformed across experiences during teacher preparation. Further research that helps teacher educators better understand the intentions and thought processes of preservice teachers can provide much-needed insight and can assist in development of instructional strategies that are more effective and more efficient.

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

Brittin

R. V.

(2005). Preservice and experienced teachers’ lesson plans for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 26–39. doi:10.1177/002242940505300103

Butler

(2001). Preservice music teachers’ conceptions of teaching effectiveness, microteaching experiences, and teaching performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 258–272. doi:10.2307/3345711

Cassidy

J. W.

(1990). Effect of intensity training on preservice teachers’ instruction accuracy and delivery effectiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 164–174. doi:10.2307/3345180

Chaffin

C. R.

(2009). Perceptions of instrumental music teachers regarding the development of effective rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 181, 21–36.

Cohen

(1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 98–101.

Colwell

R. J.

Hewitt

M. P.

(2010). The teaching of instrumental music (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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

Duke

R. A.

(1999). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–43.

Duke

R. A.

Madsen

C. K.

(1991). Proactive versus reactive teaching: Focusing observation on specific aspects of instruction. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 108, 1–14.

10.

Duke

R. A.

Prickett

C. A.

Jellison

J. A.

(1998). Empirical description of the pace of music instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 265–280. doi:10.2307/3345628

11.

Grant

J. W.

Drafall

L. E.

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

12.

Lane

J. S.

(2006). An analysis of undergraduate instrumental music education majors’ approaches to score study in varying musical contexts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 215–230.

13.

Lane

J. S.

(2008). The effect of lesson planning training on rehearsal pacing of undergraduate instrumental music education majors in practice teaching settings. Southern Music Education Journal, 3, 40–51.

14.

Lane

J. S.

(2010). An analysis of relationships between lesson planning training and rehearsal pacing of undergraduate instrumental music education majors in practice teaching settings. Journal of Band Research, 46, 52–63.

15.

Maclin

J. P.

(1993). The effect of task analysis on sequential patterns of music instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 48–56. doi:10.2307/3345479

16.

Madsen

C. K.

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

17.

Madsen

C. K.

Standley

J. M.

Cassidy

J. W.

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

18.

Margolis

(1999). Soldier’s procession & sword dance. Brooklyn, NY: Manhattan Beach Music.

19.

Millican

J. S.

(2012). Starting out right: Beginning band pedagogy. Landham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

20.

Pallant

(2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.

21.

Price

H. E.

Byo

J. L.

(2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In Parncutt

McPherson

G. E.

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 335-351). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

22.

Rush

(2006). Habits of a successful band director. Chicago, IL: GIA.

23.

Schleuter

(1991). Student teachers’ preactive and postactive curricular thinking. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 48–65. doi:10.2307/3344608

24.

Schmidt

(2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 6–25. doi:10.1177/002242940505300102

25.

Snow

S. L.

(1998). Rehearsing in the choral context: A qualitative examination of undergraduate conductor/teacher planning processes and relationships to emergent pedagogical knowledge evidenced in teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(03A), 684.

26.

Teachout

D. J.

(1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 41–50. doi:10.2307/3345464

27.

Tsui

A. M.

(2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 421–439. doi:10.1080/13540600903057179

28.

Yarbrough

Dunn

D. E.

Baird

S. L.

(1996). A longitudinal study of teaching in a choral rehearsal. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 8, 7–31.