Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge of an Expert Band Director Teaching Lips Slurs

Abstract

The purpose of this case study was to describe how one band director used pedagogical content knowledge while working with beginning-band students to help them develop the skill of playing brass lip slurs. Data were generated from (1) video recordings of each class over two different weeks during the school year, (2) “think aloud” interviews in which the teacher described what educational actions and decisions the teacher was making, and (3) detailed observation notes. I used cognitive task analysis to develop a concept map illustrating components of pedagogical content knowledge the teacher used during instruction. The teacher combined content knowledge, knowledge of students, and curriculum knowledge providing examples of how pedagogical content knowledge manifests itself in teaching beginning band. Examining the teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge revealed core teaching practices that may be useful for music teacher educators to understand and develop.

Keywords

band instruction and study beginning band cognitive task analysis concept maps core practices pedagogical content knowledge pedagogy music education music teacher education

Pedagogical content knowledge has been shown to be a useful framework for investigating effective music teaching and learning (Bauer, 2012; Chandler, 2012; Duling, 1992; Forrester, 2015; Gohlke, 1994; Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008; Millican, 2008; Raiber & Teachout, 2014; Venesile, 2011). While studies of pedagogical content knowledge in music are beginning to be more widespread, studies of the pedagogical content knowledge of specific music subjects or specific music skills are rare. Little research has been conducted investigating pedagogical content knowledge in beginning-band instruction (Worthy & Thompson, 2009) or exploring the teaching of brass lip slurs even though these skills are well documented as important exercises used to develop flexibility, embouchure strength, tone quality, and tone production (Bellamah, 1976; Cole, 2008; Johnson, 2002; Ramsey, 2001). This case study was designed to describe the pedagogical content knowledge used by an expert band director teaching brass lip slurs in the context of beginning-band instruction.

Shulman (1987) recommended investigating how teachers use pedagogical frameworks to illuminate the specific ways teachers communicate fundamental concepts within a discipline. The specific pedagogies used by experts in teaching beginning band have received limited attention (Kelly, 1997; Millican, 2013; Sehmann, 2000; Worthy & Thompson, 2009). Kelly (1997) found that lessons in conducting significantly improved the rhythmic performance of beginning-band students. Sehmann (2000) described the effect of breath instruction on the performance of elementary brass students and found that instruction emphasizing posture and breathing exercises significantly impacted measures of volume and capacity of air displacement when compared with a control group. In a study of expert beginning-band teachers (N = 3), Worthy and Thompson (2009) identified several important differences in beginning-band instruction when compared to music teachers of students at different levels. In particular, they noted differences in pacing, instruction, and classroom management style when compared with teachers of advanced students. The authors also noted a particular emphasis on tone quality, pitch accuracy, and articulation. Worthy and Thompson (2009) suggested that teaching beginning band required a different set of pedagogical tools than teaching other types of ensembles and music classes. Millican (2013) examined three expert beginning-band teachers and found that they each had clear mental images of ideal performance elements such as tone quality, hand position, posture, and so forth. In addition, the experts in that study valued modeling, comparison of poor and acceptable playing examples, and the use of questioning as teaching techniques.

This study uses pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to investigate and describe beginning-band instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge refers to the ways in which teachers understand their subjects in order to teach concepts and skills of a particular discipline to others (Shulman, 1987). Researchers in music generally represent pedagogical content knowledge as the amalgam of (1) music knowledge and skills with (2) pedagogical knowledge and skills (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004; Chandler, 2012) with some authors developing frameworks like the one used in this study that categorize teaching elements into more discrete categories such as (1) content knowledge, (2) curriculum knowledge, (3) knowledge of students, and (4) general pedagogical knowledge (Millican, 2012, 2013; Raiber & Teachout, 2014; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Several studies use pedagogical content knowledge as the framework to describe a wide variety of music teaching contexts (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004; Bauer, 2012; Chandler, 2012; Duling, 1992; Forrester, 2015; Gohlke, 1994; Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008; Venesile, 2011). While this concept has been acknowledged as a valuable skill in delivering effective instruction (Chandler, 2012; Millican, 2008; Raiber & Teachout, 2014), it may also be used as a framework to analyze and describe effective teaching (Colwell, 2011).

The purpose of this case study was to describe how one band director used pedagogical content knowledge while working with beginning-band students to develop brass lip slur proficiency. To illustrate the pedagogical content knowledge used by the teacher in this study, I asked, “What does the teacher in this study need to know and be able to do to teach lip slurs to beginning-band students?”

Method

I used cognitive task analysis techniques to gather, analyze, and present the data used for this study (Barnard & May, 2000; Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006; DuBois & Shalin, 2000). Cognitive task analysis is a technique in which researchers seek to create “a ‘user friendly’ expression” of the knowledge and skills experts need to accomplish particular tasks (Crandall et al., 2006, p. 51). While there are many iterations of cognitive task analysis procedures, it is generally agreed that there are three primary and separate processes involved in the technique: (1) knowledge elicitation from a person of expertise, (2) data analysis, and (3) knowledge representation (Crandall et al., 2006).

To initiate the cognitive task analysis, I used social interaction analysis to find a teacher who has demonstrated a high degree of proficiency among a group of practitioners (Mieg, 2001; Stein, 1997). I contacted 24 respected wind and percussion educators from a large southwestern state who were either past middle school honor band finalists, directors invited to address state music conferences on topics related to beginning-band instruction, or who were middle school band advisors enrolled in a statewide music teacher mentoring program. These directors recommended names of outstanding beginning-band directors in the state, and I selected one of the four highest rated nominees living closest to my location to facilitate multiple site visits.

The expert band director in this study has been teaching middle school band for 17 years, and this director’s ensembles have a consistent history of strong performance evaluations. I hoped that my personal and professional relationship with this director, as well as my own prior experience as a beginning-band teacher, might facilitate our discussions about the classes I observed and inform coding of the data I collected.

The school in which I observed was a large suburban school with an enrollment of approximately 1,500 sixth- through eighth-grade students. I used a purposeful sampling technique (Patton, 2002) to limit the classes I observed to two classes—a beginning horn class and a beginning euphonium and tuba class. Each brass student was in the first year of instrumental study.

I then began knowledge elicitation, the first step in cognitive task analysis, basing my data collection procedures on Rovegno’s (1992, 1995) previous work with physical-education teachers. I collected data from three different sources for this study: video recordings of each class, interviews with the teacher, and detailed observation notes. This combination of data collection methods is often used in cognitive task analysis to provide greater trustworthiness of data and deeper insight into the phenomena being investigated (Crandall et al., 2006). I videoed the teacher in my study leading consecutive lessons during 2 different weeks during the school year based on my availability to spend a majority of the day on site. I placed a video camera in an unobtrusive location for each lesson to collect audio and video data. Class durations ranged from 45 to 50 minutes with a total of 360 minutes of instruction documented on video.

Immediately after most of the classes I observed, I selected several video segments from the lesson and allowed the director to engage in “think aloud” sessions (Ericsson, 2006) in which the teacher described what was taking place in the video, what the teacher was hearing, and what educational decisions the teacher was making. Interview prompts such as “What were you thinking when . . .” and “I noticed that you . . .” were purposefully open-ended to encourage the teacher to freely describe thought processes. I made comprehensive field notes during the on-site observations and interviews. To further establish trustworthiness of my data collection and analysis, I invited the teacher to review my observation notes and coding of several segments of the videos.

The entire data set included observations of many different types of rehearsal frames including pre- and postclass activities, announcements, rhythm exercises, long-tone studies, lip slurs, articulation exercises, and so forth. It was not my intent at the beginning of this project to make lip slurs the focal point of the analysis, but that is where the data led. Every class contained specific instruction and practice involving this skill, and this topic accounted for the most instructional time across the horn class (17 minutes) and the low brass class (39 minutes). Furthermore, our discussions about lip slur pedagogy accounted for 29% (25 minutes) of the total interview time. This inductive formation of the analytical focus is typical of many cognitive task analyses (Crandall et al., 2006).

The data analysis phase of cognitive task analysis consists of (1) preparing the data, (2) structuring the data, (3) identifying findings, and (4) discovering meaning in the data (Crandall et al., 2006). I used several quality control checks often used by cognitive task analysis researchers to improve the trustworthiness of the data. In the data collection phase, I attempted to verify what I was observing during the follow-up interviews as recommended by Crandall et al. (2006). In addition, the design of the project allowed me to observe lip slur teaching frames repeatedly over several days across a span of 6 months (DuBois & Shalin, 2000). Additionally, I asked the band director in my study to review my findings and the concept maps I produced for accuracy and validity.

My next task was to structure the data. Crandall and her colleagues (2006) describe this phase as “pulling apart data and decomposing it in order to organize it in different ways and begin to understand the patterns within it” (p. 113). In this phase, I used rehearsal frame and interview coding along with my field notes to identify details and discrete elements of the knowledge and skills used in teaching lip slurs using pedagogical content knowledge as a framework in which (1) content knowledge, (2) knowledge of students, (3) curriculum knowledge, and (4) general pedagogical knowledge served as primary domains (Novak, 1998).

In the final phase of data analysis, the cognitive task analysis researcher seeks to discover meaning and structure within the data. This structural analysis is often accomplished though the generation of concepts maps to represent various elements of experts’ knowledge and cognitive skills (Hoffman & Lintern, 2006; Novak, 1998). Concept maps are “graphical depictions of the knowledge structure in a specific task or work domain” (Crandall et al., 2006, p. 125). The codes generated from the analysis of the rehearsal frames, interview sessions, and field notes related to lip slurs were placed into five broad knowledge domains (Novak, 1998): (1) musician skills, (2) mechanics and concepts, (3) teaching skills, (4) curricular skills, and (5) knowledge of common problems.

Findings

Findings illustrate four of the components of Shulman’s (1987) pedagogical content knowledge framework: (1) content knowledge, (2) general pedagogical knowledge, (3) curriculum knowledge, and (4) knowledge of students. The concept map generated by the analysis (see Supplemental figures available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data) outlines the pedagogical content knowledge involved in teaching lip slurs to these beginning-band students using the data I collected from my observations, teacher interviews, and my field notes.

Several teaching practices emerged from my analysis related to musician skills and general teaching skills. Musician skills (Supplemental Figure 1, available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data) included a working knowledge of transpositions, vocal and instrumental performance skills, and ear-training skills. All these skills fall into Shulman’s category of content knowledge. The use of transposition skills while the teacher was modeling was most evident as the teacher performed music concepts on the trombone for the beginning horn class (the horn reads up a perfect fifth from the sounding pitch of the trombone). For example, the director demonstrated improper performance of an ascending lip slur giving specific guidelines first by saying, “We don’t want to be smiling as we ascend on a brass instrument,” and then immediately played an ascending triad on the trombone (F, A, C) at the correct sounding pitch for the horns (C, E, G).

The director in my study consistently used singing and instrumental models to convey music concepts. At one point, one of the beginning horn players was having difficulty finding initial pitches and was overshooting the notes of an ascending slur on an A major triad using 1st and 2nd valves.

Teacher:

All right. Play right there—1 and 2.

Student:

[plays the lip slur too high]

That’s a great lip slur, but you’re too high. [Singing on A] Start a little lower.

[Plays A up to E]

[Sings A up to C#]. Don’t go too high for that note. Start again.

[Plays A, C#, E—correctly, but with an unsteady sound]

Better! Do it again.

[Plays A, C#, E—correctly]

There we go!

Teaching skills identified in this study (Supplemental Figure 2, available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data) included isolating music concepts, the ability to leap backward in a difficult task to a point where the students can perform correctly (Duke, 2009), the use of probing questions as a teaching technique, circulating throughout the physical space of the classroom, using consistent terminology, and scaffolding to support student learning. These skills can be categorized as general pedagogical knowledge using the Shulman framework. The expert teacher in this study used scaffolding to support students’ development of lip slur skills in several ways. When students needed extra help finding the correct starting pitch, the teacher would either model the first note on the trombone or sing the pitch to help the students locate the first note of the slur. When students had trouble moving between higher and lower notes accurately, the teacher would add informal hand signs signifying whether the next note was “higher” or “lower” in relationship to the previous note.

The teacher in this study used probing questions to provoke and guide discussion to pique curiosity and inspire student-centered learning of content. The low brass class on one occasion was having difficulty taking in enough air to make it through the lip slurs as the notes got lower during the exercise.

Teacher:

We are not getting all the way through our slurs, and I know you can do it. . . . You’ve got to take more air into your body, and you’ve got to remind yourself to do that after your first slur. And why do you have to take in more and more and more air as you go down the valve series? How come, Graham?

Graham:

‘Cause you use a lot of energy all the way through?

All the way through what?

All the way through the valve series at the beginning, so when you’re going through it you’ve already used a lot of energy to do it all . . .

OK, I understand that. Sure. How about the tubing? [Waits] Everybody push down 1st valve. Now follow 1st valve through your tubing. Are you going through more tubing?

Another student: Yes.

OK. Push down first and second. Did you just add tubing or take away tubing?

Class: Add.

OK. Push three valves down 1, 2, and 3. Did you add more or take away?

Chris: Added a lot!

Added a lot! Look at all the tubing you have to go through. That’s a lot! You’ve got to take in more air as you go down your valve series.

In this case, rather than providing a teacher-centered solution to performance problems leaving little opportunity for dialogue or discovery, the teacher led the students in an analysis of how to solve a specific problem—not taking in enough air to make it through their lip slurs—in such a way as to develop a concept of playing brass instruments.

The teacher used consistent terminology across all the class periods I observed and throughout the year. For example, in one of classes in the first set of my observations the teacher assisted a horn player who was struggling with an ascending slur by saying, “Increase your air speed and pressure.” In the low brass class later that day, the teacher worked with a euphonium student struggling to get the second note of a slur out clearly:

Teacher:

Let’s start that first note again. Think [sings “toh” on D].

Student:

[Plays again; still bobbles second note]

Teacher:

So we gotta get a faster air speed and air pressure for that note.

Four months later, in my second set of observations, I recorded the teacher helping the students think through problems the class was having moving up to the highest note of a slur: “OK. Now what’s happening [is] . . . our air pressure and air speed is not quite there for the F.”

The teacher monitored student performance and changed the material when necessary by leaping back to a point where students could be successful in order to solve difficult problems. The teacher explained his thought process to me during one of our interviews as we viewed a clip from the previous class showing a tuba student struggling with a lip slur on the lowest notes of his instrument:

At this point I’m thinking, “All right, maybe we need to change notes.” I noticed that we were at the bottom of his horn—the lowest valve series—and I could just hear that he probably was going to run out of air and not really be successful getting [the slur] on that note, so I thought, “You know what, we need to go back to open [no valves—a shorter length of tubing] and work on that.

Three specific pedagogical areas emerged in my analysis of the lip slur lessons: knowledge of mechanics and concepts, knowledge of common student problems, and curricular knowledge. Supplemental Figure 3 (available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data) shows the wealth of subject specific content knowledge this teacher drew upon to teach these lessons; these can be categorized within the Shulman model as content knowledge. This knowledge of mechanics and concepts included specific pedagogical concepts such as how to play higher or lower in the harmonic series, knowledge of fingerings on each of the brass instruments, mechanical breathing concepts that contributed to acceptable tone quality and successful execution of lip slurs, proper formation and use of the embouchure, and concepts related to the production of characteristic tone quality on each instrument. One example demonstrates the teacher’s understanding of mechanics and concepts of playing brass instruments including embouchure formation, moving higher in the harmonic series, specific practice strategies:

The thing you’ve got to watch in your mirrors when you practice at home is that you don’t let your corners go up or back. We don’t want to be smiling as we ascend on a brass instrument. [Plays F, A, C] See how my corners stay set?

I noted the knowledge of common student problems and misconceptions (Supplemental Figure 4, available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data). For example, the teacher guided the students through activities working to avoid adding muscular tension, collapsing the oral cavity, or pulling the corners of their mouth back and up as they ascended in the harmonic series.

The director in my study combined specific subject matter knowledge with a knowledge of students and curricular knowledge in explaining the mechanics of executing a lip slur. In Shulman’s model, this would be representative of knowledge of students. In one of the first low brass classes I observed, the teacher made the following comments while addressing the students’ incorrect use of the tongue during the ascending slur exercise:

OK. For the second note [of the slur] I don’t want your tongue to do anything. You went [sings “Taaaah, Taaaah”]. We want you to do this with your tongue [sings and holds palm to the ground steadily “Taaaaaa, Aaaaaah”]. See how the tongue just sits down here? It doesn’t do anything.

The expert teacher in my study also demonstrated curricular decision making within the teacher’s understanding of brass pedagogy (Supplemental Figure 5, available online at http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data). These items fit into Shulman’s category of curricular knowledge. These skills included sequencing of materials and instruction such as knowing that descending lip slurs were generally easier than ascending, understanding that tempo and range impacted the difficulty of particular slurs, and knowing typical sequences for introducing skills such as sliding slowly between harmonics before moving quickly between notes. We visited about sequencing lip slur skills in our interview after one of the low brass classes: “That’s something I learned from a mentor that I have come out once a month. . . . One thing that he stressed to me earlier was that [they] don’t do lip slurs up until they can do them down.”

Discussion

This case study helps to illuminate some specific ways elements of pedagogical content knowledge are used when teaching specific concepts to beginning-band students. Teaching fundamental skills of slurring between harmonics on brass instruments involved (1) specific musician skills, (2) general teaching skills, and (3) knowledge of brass playing mechanics and concepts each aligned with knowledge of students and understanding effective sequencing and presentation of music concepts.

Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge

By highlighting how an expert teacher used specific music skills and knowledge of specific music concepts and mechanics related to teaching lip slurs to beginning-band students, a catalog of subject-specific pedagogy in three areas emerged, including (1) transposition skills, (2) performance skills, and (3) ear-training skills. This begins to flesh out some of the specific content knowledge music teachers need, as researchers have recommended in other content areas (van Es, Tunney, Goldsmith, & Seago, 2014).

As Shulman (1987) points out however, this content knowledge is not sufficient to communicate these ideas to the students; teachers need to be able to package this knowledge by considering how students relate to material, what sequencing and materials help students best, all the while using their general pedagogical skills. It is not enough that preservice teachers understand teaching concepts and mechanics of playing—they must also develop fluency and experience with content, concepts, and the ways students interact with these elements to put their knowledge into action (Schon, 1983). Expert teachers approach each performance problem as a unique case and then “attend to the peculiarities of the situation at hand” based on their experiences as they develop pedagogical content knowledge (p. 129).

Pedagogical content knowledge involves combining discrete knowledge and skills in a dynamic way to communicate ideas and develop skills to a particular group of students in a specific setting. On many occasions, the expert teacher demonstrated this ability to put knowledge into action. There was evidence of the expert teacher’s highly trained musical ear as the director evaluated aspects of the student performance to give feedback to improve student performance and to guide further development (Duke, 2000; Raiber & Teachout, 2014). As with expert teachers in Millican’s (2013) study, this teacher continually compared student performances with a clear mental image of the ideal performance (Duke, 2009). These instances of pedagogical content knowledge appeared to facilitate more student interaction, insight, and understanding as evidenced by marked improvement in individual student and ensemble performance.

Core Practices in Music Teaching

Investigating this teacher’s work through the lens of pedagogical content knowledge revealed several core teaching practices that may be useful to music teacher educators. A growing number of researchers have begun to document practices that effective educators use in various subject areas (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Forzani, 2014; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013). Specifically, this teacher used the core practices of leaping backward to address difficult tasks (Duke, 2009, pp. 112–116), pedagogical questioning (Haston, 2013; Millican, 2013; Wilson et al., 1987), and the use of consistent terminology, modeling, and scaffolding to support student learning (Millican, 2013). These are core practices that occur frequently in effective teaching, that novice teachers can master and put into action, and allow developing teachers’ insight into how students learn new materials and skills (Grossman et al., 2009).

Suggestions for Future Research and Implications for Music Teacher Education

This study focused on teaching lip slurs to beginning-band students, but any topic—such as articulation, long tones, rhythmic skills, breathing, or scales—or any grade level could have been investigated. Research into these areas would not only help catalog important concepts teachers should know and understand to teach specific skills but can also provide insight into core practices in music teaching. Adapting some of the research methods used to study ensemble conductors in school settings (Cavitt, 2003) to focus on the pedagogical content knowledge and core practices of ensemble instruction might give a new perspective on these teachers’ practices and may offer insight into expert teaching in other areas of music teaching (Colwell, 2011).

Although the results of this study cannot be generalized, the findings may make music teacher educators wonder how preservice teachers might connect their “methods class” knowledge—illustrated by the content knowledge elements proposed in this study—with their clinical teaching experiences in which they need to put the core teaching practices enumerated here into action. Allowing preservice teachers to engage in authentic teaching episodes, such as microteaching sessions, discussions of case studies, thoughtful review and critique of accomplished teachers, and teaching episodes in early field experiences and student-teaching internships, may allow music-teacher educators to guide the development of core practices like the ones illustrated in this study (Haston & Russell, 2012; Killian & Dye, 2009; Paul et al., 2001; Wiggins, 2007). As preservice teachers engage in the practice of teaching music skills and concepts (e.g., those presented in Supplemental Figure 3), music teacher educators can check for understanding of these concepts, the preservice teachers’ musician skills (Supplemental Figure 1), and guide their development of core teaching skills. Preservice teachers may develop these skills and at the same time deepen their understanding of common problems and misconceptions that their students may encounter by engaging in thoughtful early fieldwork. By putting these core practices and pedagogies into action through these types of authentic experiences, we add the “pedagogy of enactment” to the teacher-preparation curriculum (Grossman et al., 2009, p. 274) by connecting various elements of the typically separated components of the undergraduate curriculum (Darling-Hammond, 2006; McDonald et al., 2013). Additionally, by allowing novice teachers to experiment with how they put content knowledge into practice—by giving life to their “book knowledge”—they begin to develop their professional identities as teachers (Grossman et al., 2009; Killian & Dye, 2009; Teachout & McKoy, 2010).

This line of research may be helpful in developing common educational practices that develop student engagement and learning (McDonald et al., 2013; Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). While the expert teacher in this study demonstrated clear pedagogical decision making and strong core practices, anecdotal evidence shows us that novice teachers often have the tendency to view core practices in teaching abstractly. For example, knowing that effective teachers do something called “scaffolding instruction” may make sense abstractly, but providing specific examples in areas of specialization allows novices to see these concepts in action. Identifying examples using a particular area of specialization—teaching beginning band in this case—may help preservice teachers better understand these concepts by giving them concrete examples that might be more familiar to them.

The teacher in this study taught relatively small heterogeneous classes in a large suburban setting. It is quite possible that changes in the class size, composition, and environment would affect the educational decisions that this teacher made, and may have changed the way the teacher presented material (Schwab, 1983). The observations made in this study were conducted over two weeks across two different time frames in the beginning-band students’ development. More consistent and frequent observations could document changes in core practices that may occur within the learning and teaching environment as teachers introduce, develop, and then reinforce playing skills and music knowledge. The successful manipulation of teaching approaches in which the classroom educator balances the variables of student, subject, and environment is in fact a strong indicator of effective teaching (Schwab, 1983), and may be an indicator of well-developed pedagogical content knowledge. Although the nature of pedagogical content knowledge means that the specific results of this study are not generalizable, the findings in this study may point to a meaningful way in which we can begin to describe pedagogical content knowledge and core teaching practices in specific music teaching contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental materials are available at .

References

Ballantyne

Packer

(2004). Effectiveness of preservice music teacher education programs: Perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research, 6, 299–312. doi:10.1080/1461380042000281749

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

F. M.

(2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497–511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479

Barnard

P. J.

May

(2000). Toward a theory-based form of cognitive task analysis of broad scope and applicability. In Schraagen

J. M.

Chipman

S. F.

Shalin

V. L.

(Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 147–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bauer

W. I.

(2012). The acquisition of musical technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22, 51–64. doi:10.1177/1057083712457881

Bellamah

J. L.

(1976). Survey of modern brass teaching philosophies. San Antonio, TX: Southern Music.

Cavitt

M. E.

(2003). A descriptive analysis of error correction in instrumental music rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 218–230. doi:10.2307/3345375

Chandler

K. W.

(2012). A survey of choral methods instructors at NASM-accredited institutions: Pedagogical content knowledge orientation and the choral methods class (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3527275)

Cole

(2008). Establishing an effective rehearsal procedure for middle school students. In Miles

(Ed.), Teaching music through performance in beginning band (Vol. 2, pp. 33–49). Chicago, IL: GIA.

Colwell

R. J.

(2011). Reflections on music teacher education. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 10, 128–160. doi:10.2307/3345690

10.

Crandall

Klein

Hoffman

R. R.

(2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

11.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

DuBois

Shalin

V. L.

(2000). Describing job expertise using cognitively oriented task analyses (COTA). In Schraagen

J. M.

Chipman

S. F.

Shalin

V. L.

(Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 147–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Duke

R. A.

(2000). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48.

14.

Duke

R. A.

(2009). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources.

15.

Duling

E. B.

(1992). The development of pedagogical-content knowledge: Two case studies of exemplary general music teachers (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 9227261)

16.

Ericsson

K. A.

(2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In Ericsson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Forrester

S. H.

(2015). Music teacher knowledge: An examination of the intersections between instrumental music teaching and conducting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan). Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/111554

18.

Forzani

F. M.

(2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 357–368. doi:10.1177/0022487114533800

19.

Gohlke

L. J.

(1994). The music methods class: Acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge by preservice music teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 9504621)

20.

Grossman

Hammerness

McDonald

(2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 273–289. doi:10.1080/13540600902875340

21.

Haston

(2013). Perceived use of teacher questioning in secondary music ensembles. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 195, 77–94. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.195.0077

22.

Haston

Leon-Guerrero

(2008). Sources of pedagogical content knowledge: Reports by preservice instrumental music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17, 48–59. doi:10.1177/1057083708317644

23.

Haston

Russell

J. A.

(2012). Turning into teachers: Influences of authentic context learning experiences on occupational identity development of preservice music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 369–392. doi:10.1177/0022429411414716

24.

Hoffman

R. R.

Lintern

(2006). Eliciting and representing the knowledge of experts. In Ericksson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 203–222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Johnson

(2002). Brass performance and pedagogy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

26.

Kelly

S. N.

(1997). Effects of conducting instruction on the musical performance of beginning band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 295–305. doi:10.2307/3345588

27.

Killian

J. N.

Dye

K. G.

(2009). Effects of learner-centered activities in preparation of music educators: Finding the teacher within. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19, 9–24. doi:10.1177/1057083709343904

28.

McDonald

Kazemi

Kavanagh

S. S.

(2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education a call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 378–386. doi:10.1177/0022487113493807

29.

Mieg

H. A.

(2001). The social psychology of expertise: Case studies in research, professional domains, and expert roles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Millican

J. S.

(2008). A new framework for music education knowledge and skill. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(1), 67–78. doi:10.1177/1057083708323146

31.

Millican

J. S.

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

32.

Millican

J. S.

(2013). Describing wind instrument teachers’ thinking: Implications for understanding pedagogical content knowledge. Update, 31, 45–53.

33.

Novak

J. D.

(1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

34.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Paul

S. J.

Teachout

D. J.

Sullivan

J. M.

Kelly

S. N.

Bauer

W. I.

Raiber

M. A.

(2001). Authentic-context learning activities in instrumental music teacher education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 136–145. doi:10.2307/3345865

36.

Raiber

Teachout

(2014). From music student to teacher. New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Ramsey

D. S.

(2001). Beginning band: Goals and objectives. In Miles

Dvorak

T. L.

(Eds.), Teaching music through performance in beginning band (pp. 13–26). Chicago, IL: GIA.

38.

Rovegno

I. C.

(1992). Learning to teach in a field-based methods course: The development of pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(1), 69–82. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(92)90041-Z

39.

Rovegno

I. C.

(1995). Theoretical perspectives on knowledge and learning and a student teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge of dividing and sequencing subject matter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 284–304.

40.

Schon

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

41.

Schwab

J. J.

(1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 239–265.

42.

Sehmann

K. H.

(2000). The effects of breath management instruction on the performance of elementary brass players. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 136–150. doi:10.2307/3345572

43.

Shulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

44.

Stein

E. W.

(1997). A look at expertise from a social perspective. In Feltovich

P. G.

Ford

Hoffman

R. R.

(Eds.), Expertise in context (pp. 181–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.

45.

Teachout

D. J.

McKoy

C. L.

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

46.

van Es

E. A.

Tunney

Goldsmith

L. T.

Seago

(2014). A framework for the facilitation of teachers’ analysis of video. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 340–356. doi:10.1177/0022487114534266

47.

Venesile

C. J.

(2011). The acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge by vocal jazz educators (Doctoral Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 857033005)

48.

Wiggins

(2007). Authentic practice and process in music teacher education. Music Educators Journal, 93, 36–42. doi:10.2307/4101537

49.

Wilson

S. M.

Shulman

L. S.

Richert

A. E.

(1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In Calderhead

(Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London, England: Cassell Educational.

50.

Windschitl

Thompson

Braaten

Stroupe

(2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903. doi:10.1002/sce.21027

51.

Worthy

M. D.

Thompson

B. L.

(2009). Observation and analysis of expert teaching in beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 29–41.