Relationship of Preservice Music Teachers’ Primary Instrument Background and Teaching Effectiveness in Brass and Woodwind Techniques Classes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between preservice music teachers’ primary instrument background and their teaching effectiveness in brass and woodwind techniques classes. Study participants (N = 135) were preservice music teachers enrolled in secondary instrument techniques courses (brass and woodwinds) from fall 2011 through spring 2015 in three universities. Participants taught a 10-minute video recorded lesson to a beginning-level university student on a brass or woodwind instrument at the end of the semester. All videos were subsequently assessed by two researchers using a researcher-designed rubric. The results of analyses of variance showed that brass-teaching scores tended to be higher than woodwind-teaching scores for all groups. Brass players taught brass more effectively than woodwind players, and woodwind players taught woodwinds better than brass players. Brass and woodwind players scored higher than percussionists, vocalists, pianists, and string players in both brass and woodwind teaching. Implications for music teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

brass instrument techniques instrumental methods preservice teachers secondary instruments woodwinds

Facilitating the development of pedagogical knowledge and skill on secondary instruments is one of the most challenging tasks for educators of preservice instrumental music teachers. The National Association of Schools of Music’s (2015) Handbook 2015–16 states that undergraduate instrumental music education majors should gain “Knowledge of and performance ability on wind, string, and percussion instruments sufficient to teach beginning students effectively in groups” (p. 118). Additionally, secondary instrument courses are influenced by a variety of state and institutional policies that affect curriculum as requirements and/or constraints. After spending several years mastering their primary instrument, music education majors usually enroll in only a few semesters of coursework on secondary instruments. Reimer (1956) stated the following:

Recognizing the fact that it is impossible for a prospective instrumental music teacher to be as proficient on all instruments as he is on his major instrument, the ideal supplementary instrument course is geared to provide the student with as wide a background in the techniques, problems, and basic concepts of the instruments being studied as the limitations of time will permit. (p. 42)

Several researchers (e.g., Austin, 2006; Conway, 2002, 2012; Conway, Eros, Hourigan, & Stanley, 2007; Cooper, 1994; Hourigan & Scheib, 2009; Jennings, 1989; Russell, 2007; Teachout, 1997) have examined the structure, content, and student experience in secondary instrument courses (i.e., brass, woodwind, string, and percussion techniques or “methods” classes). Beginning music teachers often find secondary instrument classes to be among the least valuable aspects of their undergraduate education (Conway, 2002). Even high school and college band directors have rated the value of these classes behind student teaching, band ensembles, methods courses, conducting classes, applied lessons, and jazz ensemble (Jennings, 1989). However, it is difficult to determine why these perceptions exist because secondary instrument classes vary widely from institution to institution and even from class to class within institutions (Austin, 2006; Wagoner & Juchniewicz, 2017). Russell (2007) found that students enrolled in secondary instrument courses who had supportive peer groups, held a positive view of the course instructor, and could accept new information that contradicted previous knowledge had a higher level of investment in these courses.

Other researchers have examined perceptions of the most valuable aspects of secondary instrument courses. Cooper (1994) found that high school band directors and instrumental music educators believed that secondary instrument courses should focus on a combination of performance and teaching skills. Hourigan and Scheib (2009) reported that music student teachers perceived concrete technical information, specific to each instrument, as the most valuable aspect of pedagogical knowledge. Woodwind and brass fingerings were rated as the most important facet of content knowledge by these study participants. According to Conway et al. (2007), beginning teachers believe secondary instrument course instructors (e.g., music education faculty, performance faculty, or graduate teaching assistants from either area) should focus course content on teaching beginners effectively. Participants considered fundamentals more important than advanced playing techniques or concepts, and they implied that graduate instructors majoring in performance emphasize playing technique over fundamental pedagogy. The participants also acknowledged that covering all the knowledge and skills necessary to teach secondary instruments might be impossible during undergraduate coursework. Instead, they “agreed that the goal of the techniques courses should be helping teachers learn to think as creative, independent problem solvers who are adept at finding and using resources” (Conway et al., 2007, p. 44). This points to the need for music teacher educators to provide resources and practical experiences that can be expanded on as teachers gain experience.

Researchers (e.g., Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008; Hewitt & Smith, 2004) have also highlighted the strong influence that primary instrument background exerts on teacher behaviors, the acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge, and teacher identity development. Preservice teachers who are not brass or woodwind players may not see techniques courses on these instruments as important facets of their teacher development. Parker and Powell (2014) found that undergraduate music education majors remained invested in their initial identities created as early musicians (tied to their primary performance medium) even after completing techniques courses in other areas.

Weaver (2010) described a model program that implemented more effective secondary instrument curriculum configuration, delivery, and administration. Historically at this institution, a large university in the Eastern United States, secondary instrument courses had exhibited lack of consistent course formats (i.e., mixed-instrument family, like-instrument split-family, individual instrument), disparities in student development of pedagogical content knowledge, and absence of uniform requirements for students to demonstrate instrument playing and teaching skills. Improvements at this particular institution involved configuring the secondary instrument curriculum in mixed-instrument family classes (owing to the large size of the program and the requirement that all students demonstrate proficiency on at least three instruments in each family). Courses were taught by music education professors, applied music professors, and graduate assistants. As Cooper (1994) argued, graduate teaching assistants, who often teach secondary instrument courses at larger universities, may lack school teaching experience. This may contribute to teachers’ dissatisfaction with this aspect of their preparation. In consideration of this, the music education professors in this model program collaborated closely with the applied music professors and graduate assistants to identify teaching strategies and materials appropriate for more consistent development of pedagogical content knowledge, and to develop more uniform requirements for student demonstration of instrument playing and teaching proficiencies.

Responsibility for implementation of these improvements was formalized with the appointment of a music education professor as coordinator of the secondary instrument curriculum. Major outcomes of this implementation included continued flexibility in instructional delivery across courses, increased instructor accountability and student achievement within individual courses, greater instructor satisfaction stemming from more uniform course configurations and requirements of students, and increased student satisfaction with the quality of the secondary instrument components of the music education curriculum.

Study Need and Purpose

Although researchers have previously examined secondary instrument course structure (e.g., Austin, 2006; Weaver, 2010), student experiences in such courses (e.g., Conway, 2002; Weaver, 2010) and the relationship of coursework and identity development (e.g., Parker & Powell, 2014), no research has been undertaken examining the relationship between instrumental background and teaching effectiveness in secondary instrument techniques classes. Students’ backgrounds highly influence how they connect prior experiences with learning in university coursework. Students enrolled in secondary instrument courses do not arrive as blank slates—they have several years of prior experience with intense study of a single instrument. Given the fair degree of consistency of secondary instrument course curricula and instruction within and across the three institutions participating in this study (as described below), we were interested to examine the individual difference variable of primary instrument background as it relates to student teaching effectiveness in these courses. When designing curricula (on both degree program and course levels) it is important to better understand the relationship between students’ prior experiences studying a specific instrument and their ability to learn to teach different instruments. Improved understanding of this phenomenon may assist music teacher educators in differentiating instruction to better meet student needs in such courses. The research question driving this study was as follows: What is the relationship of preservice teachers’ primary instrumental background to their teaching effectiveness in secondary brass and woodwinds techniques courses?

Method

Study participants (N = 135) were preservice music teachers enrolled in secondary instrument techniques courses (brass and woodwinds) from fall 2011 through spring 2015 in three universities: University A—a large (29,000 students) university in the Eastern United States, University B—a large (38,000 students) university in the Southwestern United States, and University C—a mid-sized (9,000 students) university in the Southeastern United States. The participants’ primary instrument backgrounds were Brass (n = 38), Woodwind (n = 39), Percussion (n = 25), and Other (String, Piano, Voice; n = 33). We grouped the participants into these four large categories for purposes of statistical analyses.¹

University A was located in a state that certifies music teachers with a P–12 license (no specialty areas). The brass techniques class at University A met twice a week for 50 minutes per session and included trumpet, horn, trombone, euphonium, and tuba. The brass instructor was a music education professor whose primary instrument was clarinet and who had 9 years of public school band teaching experience.

University B was located in a state that certifies music teachers with a P–12 license (no specialty areas). At University B, the brass and woodwind techniques classes met twice a week for 75 minutes per session. The brass course included trumpet, horn, trombone, euphonium, and tuba. The brass instructor was a DMA horn student who had 8 years of experience as a staff member for high school bands. The woodwind class included flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone. The woodwind class instructor was a DMA clarinet student who had 6 years of public school band teaching experience.

University C was located in a state that certifies music teachers with a P–12 license (no specialty areas). At University C, the woodwind techniques classes met 3 times a week for 50 minutes per session. The woodwind techniques class at University C included flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone. The instructor was a music education professor whose primary instrument was saxophone and who had 3 years of public school band teaching experience.

Study participants representing all three universities were enrolled in brass or woodwind techniques courses as freshman, sophomore, or junior music education majors, and were not concurrently enrolled in any other techniques courses. While participants had taken courses in the music core (theory, ear training, piano), they had not yet taken any upper-division music education courses.

Participants taught a 10-minute lesson to a beginning-level university student (who had no background on brass or woodwind instruments and had not taken brass or woodwind techniques courses) on a brass or woodwind instrument at the end of the semester. This student group comprised music and nonmusic majors. Each lesson, which served as part of the final exam for the course, took place in the classroom and was video recorded by a graduate student who followed a standardized protocol.

We designed a holistic rubric to assess each recorded lesson (see the Appendix in the online supplemental material). The Secondary Instrument Teaching Assessment Rubric addresses pedagogical content knowledge in relation to two sets of fundamental skills: instrument setup (instrument assembly, posture, instrument carriage, hand position) and tone production (breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece placement, and basic articulation). Teaching effectiveness is rated at three levels (excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory) based on number of mistakes or lapses and level of preparation across three modes of teaching behavior (verbal instruction, modeling, and verbal feedback). Ratings were omitted if a participant did not address a fundamental skill using a specific teaching modality through the course of the lesson.

We executed a series of pilot tests during fall 2010 and spring 2011 for purposes of refining the peer teaching assignment and rubric, and improving interrater reliability. Students who participated in the pilot tests (n = 45) were enrolled in brass and woodwinds techniques classes at Universities A and C, and an additional university (whose students were not included in subsequent data collection). During the pilots, the class structure—including the course instructors—were either identical (in the case of Universities A and C) or very similar to the class structure during the subsequent data collection.

The pilot tests enabled us to standardize the peer teaching assignment instructions given to participants and the video-recording protocol. Concerning the rubric, we confirmed the content validity and face validity of the fundamental skills groupings and modes of teaching behavior with music education colleagues and graduate students. We also added the category of “Omitted” to proficiency levels of teaching effectiveness. “Omitted” represents the absence of a teaching behavior rather than another proficiency level for teaching effectiveness (i.e., no rating assigned rather than a zero rating). Over the course of the two semesters of pilot tests, we improved interrater reliability from moderate to very strong (see reliability statistics in the Findings section), owing to improvements in the assignment instructions, video-recording protocol, and rubric as well as to our cumulative experience applying the rubric to the 45 pilot lessons.

We (S.R.P. and M.A.W.) served as both the instructors of two of the instrumental techniques classes and the adjudicators of the teaching videos used in this study. Our prior experience using the rubric with the 45 pilot lessons served as adjudicator training, during which each of us demonstrated a solid grasp of the scoring procedure. Our discussions during the piloting process helped us examine our own biases and scoring habits. By evaluating participants enrolled in each other’s classes as well as in our own, we served as cross-checks for each other. The strong interrater reliability (as described below) that resulted from our training experiences and cross-examinations gave us confidence to proceed as adjudicators in this study.

Findings

Interrater Reliability

We computed Cohen’s kappa to evaluate the interrater reliability between the two judges. Kappa is superior to simple percentage agreement because it takes into account the agreement that might be due to chance, and as such represents the percentage of agreement between the judges that is above and beyond chance (Cohen, 1960). A kappa was computed for each pair of ratings across the three modes of teaching behavior (e.g., verbal instruction) and eight fundamental skills (e.g., instrument assembly) resulting in 24 kappa statistics ranging from .785 to 1.00. The overall average of these kappas (weighted by cell sizes) was .895, indicating exceptionally strong interrater agreement. Reliability was equally strong when evaluated across the fundamental instrument skills (weighted average kappas ranged from .839 to .942) and modes of teaching behavior (weighted average kappas ranged from .853 to .962).

Dependent Variables and Descriptive Statistics

Given the strong interrater reliability, we averaged the judges’ ratings to yield one score for each participant across the fundamental instrument skills and modes of teaching behavior. We also explored whether there were possible group differences based on two sets of fundamental instrument skills. The first set of fundamentals comprised instrument assembly, posture, instrument carriage, and hand position. The average of all ratings for these skills across all modes of teaching behavior represented the dependent variable for this set (Fund 1). The second set of fundamentals comprised breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece to mouth, and articulation. The average of all ratings for these skills across all modes of teaching behavior represented the dependent variable for this set (Fund 2).

Descriptive statistics for each outcome variable are presented in Table 1. The variables were slightly negatively skewed due to a tendency for ratings to be more toward the positive end of the scale. However, the skewness was not excessive and within the bounds of reasonable symmetry. Likewise, the kurtosis values indicated that normality was within reasonable bounds for each variable. Although the distributional shape statistics were reasonable overall, the skewness and kurtosis for Fund 1 tended to be more extreme than Fund 2. This may be the due to a ceiling effect on the scale for Fund 1 with scores averaging more toward the high end. It is possible that the rubric used, therefore, may be more sensitive to assessing tone production skills (Fund 2) than basic setup skills (Fund 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Outcome Variables.

Variable	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	N
Fund 1	2.621	0.468	−1.458	1.637	135
Fund 2	2.229	0.633	−0.557	−0.958	135

Note. Fund 1 includes instrument assembly, posture, instrument carriage, and hand position. Fund 2 includes breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece to mouth, and articulation.

Group Comparisons

We conducted a series of 4 (participants’ primary instrument group) × 2 (instrument type taught) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to evaluate whether there were differences among the participant primary instrument groups (brass, woodwind, percussion, other), the type of instrument taught (brass, woodwind), and any possible interaction effects such that teaching effectiveness for the instrument taught may depend on the participants’ primary instrument backgrounds. We conducted these ANOVAs on both of the fundamental skill set variables.

The Levene’s test of the homogeneity of variance assumption was statistically significant (using α = .05, p = .008 and .018 for Fundamental skill set 1 and Fundamental skill set 2, respectively) in each analysis. However, this test was exceptionally powerful given the sample size. The Levene’s F ratios were modest, Fund 1: F(7, 126) = 2.87; Fund 2: F(7, 126) = 2.54, and none of the observed standard deviations was more than twice the size of the others, except in two cases of a slightly larger difference. As a check to evaluate whether unequal variances might influence results, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs for the participants’ primary instrument group (4 levels) on each of the outcome variables using a Games–Howell post hoc test which does not assume equal variances. The statistical significance of the pairwise comparisons with this approach were identical to those reported below using Tukey honest significant difference (HSD). Overall, given the small magnitude of this particular p value, the overall uniformity of the results, and the robustness of ANOVA to moderate violations of the assumption, the variances appeared reasonably homogeneous and we considered the assumption tenable.

Fundamental Skill Set 1

For the first fundamental skill set, participant primary instrument group explained 21% of the teaching rating variance (η² = .208). This main effect was statistically significant, F(3, 126) = 12.031, p < .001, power = 1.00. Tukey HSD post hoc tests indicated statistical differences between participants whose primary instrument was woodwind or brass compared with the “other” group (string, piano, voice). The woodwind and brass groups were statistically significantly higher than the “other” group, and although the woodwind and brass means were larger than those of the percussion group, these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, teaching ratings for percussionists and the “other” groups were significantly lower. The main effect for instrument taught was also statistically significant, F(1, 126) = 15.704, p < .001, power = .976, with a moderate amount of variance explained (η² = .090). Teaching brass resulted in higher teaching effectiveness means than did teaching woodwinds.

The interaction effect for the fundamental skills yielded a low-to-moderate effect size (η² = .067) that was statistically significant, F(3, 126) = 3.868, p = .011, power = .813. Figure 1 illustrates this interaction along with the main effects. The general pattern was the same as observed for the total scores, but somewhat more pronounced with the first fundamental skill set. Overall, teaching brass tended to result in higher effectiveness scores than did teaching woodwinds. Those with brass as a primary were best at teaching brass instruments, and they were about one half a standard deviation (SD = 0.517) better at teaching brass than teaching woodwinds. Those with woodwind as a primary yielded the best scores for teaching woodwinds, and they were nearly identical in their teaching of brass. The interaction effect observed resulted from (a) the higher mean for woodwind instruction from those with woodwind as a primary and (b) the drop in scores for percussionists and “others” (string, piano, voice) when teaching woodwinds.

Figure 1.

Interaction plot of means for participant primary instrument by instrument taught for the first set of fundamental instrument skills (instrument assembly, posture, instrument carriage, and hand position).

Fundamental Skill Set 2

The above outcome patterns were observed as well for the second set of fundamental skills, although the strength of the results was noticeably weaker. The main effect for participant primary instrument group was statistically significant, F(3, 126) = 3.026, p = .032, power = .700, but the variance explained was low to moderate for this dependent variable (η² = .062). None of the pairwise means was statistically significantly different based on Tukey HSD post hoc tests, but the same pattern of means was observed. The main effect for the type of instrument taught was also statistically significant, F(1, 126) = 10.963, p = .001, power = .908, with a low-to-moderate effect size (η² = .062). Again, teaching brass resulted in higher teaching effectiveness means than did teaching woodwinds.

Figure 2 presents the cell means, and the interaction effect observed for this outcome was not statistically significant, F(3, 126) = .411, p = .746, power = .130, η² = .008. As with above, those with brass as a primary tended to be better at teaching brass instruments, and those with a woodwind primary tended to be better at teaching woodwinds. Percussionists and “others” yielded the lowest teaching effectiveness means for either of the instrument types taught.

Figure 2.

Interaction plot of means for participant primary instrument by instrument taught for the second set of fundamental instrument skills (breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece to mouth, and articulation).

Discussion

Scores for teaching effectiveness were higher for all participants, regardless of primary instrument background (i.e., brass, woodwind, percussion, string, piano, voice), when teaching brass instruments. This may be due to the greater homogeneity of brass instruments. Because woodwind instruments have fewer transferable skills between instruments in some cases (e.g., embouchure formation on flute is quite dissimilar to embouchure formation on clarinet), perhaps woodwind instrument techniques should be given more emphasis in the curriculum than brass techniques.

The pedagogical effectiveness in teaching brass instruments was greatest for brass primaries, followed by woodwind primaries, and the pedagogical effectiveness in teaching woodwind instruments was greatest for woodwind primaries. On average, brass primaries’ teaching of brass was rated much higher than their teaching of woodwinds, and woodwind primaries’ teaching of woodwinds was rated slightly lower than their teaching of brass. Again, this suggests that more time should be devoted to woodwind techniques for all students, regardless of primary instrument. This increased emphasis could be accomplished by requiring additional semesters of woodwind techniques study, or by reconfiguring mixed-instrument family format courses into like-instrument split-family or individual instrument formats.

In teaching Fundamental skill set 1 (i.e., instrument assembly, posture, instrument carriage, hand position), brass and woodwind primaries were significantly more effective than percussion, string, piano, and voice primaries. In teaching Fundamental skill set 2 (i.e., breath support, embouchure, mouthpiece to mouth, articulation), brass and woodwind primaries were more effective than percussion, string, piano, and voice primaries, although not significantly. This highlights the challenges for nonbrass and non-woodwind primary students in brass and woodwind techniques classes. Instructors of brass and woodwind secondary instrument techniques courses should consider providing more opportunities for development of pedagogical content knowledge to percussion, string, piano, and voice primaries so that they attain proficiency levels on par with brass and woodwind primaries. When considering the overall curriculum, it is possible that more credit hours should be allotted to the study of secondary instruments.

Further differentiation of instruction in secondary instrument techniques classes may be warranted at the individual student level. Although we noted trends across instrument types, individual students, regardless of instrumental background, will have varying levels of experience and comfort with each instrument. Therefore, course instructors may consider diagnostic procedures at the beginning of the term to identify any such disparities. These may be addressed by providing individualized tutoring outside of class (by instructors, teaching assistants, peers), or perhaps by differentiating the scheduling of assessments in the course so that students who need more time to meet course proficiency standards may have additional time to do so.

A limitation of this study was the variance of some characteristics across the techniques classes (e.g., different instructors, instrument groupings, amounts of class time, student prior experience with instruments). To examine the effect of the variable of interest (primary instrument background), we standardized the assessment and video recording procedures as well as the rubric. Due to some variance among the universities themselves, further standardization of the course structure was not possible. However, because secondary instrument techniques courses vary widely in design and content nationally (Austin, 2006), we believe that the findings from our procedures represent a relatively authentic portrait of this phenomenon in real-world practice.

Another limitation arises from our grouping of string, piano, and voice students together for the purposes of statistical analysis. Because we had relatively small numbers of participants in these performance areas, we did this grouping to avoid small or empty cell sizes in our factorial ANOVA design. However, doing so introduced interpretive complications. We might expect that participants in these different areas would show varying levels of effectiveness in teaching woodwind and brass instruments, but that is impossible to determine based on our sample sizes, groupings, and design.

More research on the relationship of techniques courses and musician/teacher identity is needed. Due to music education majors’ strong musician/teacher identities centered on their primary instruments, which they develop before entering music education programs (Parker & Powell, 2014), changing their perceptions of the value of developing pedagogical content knowledge on other instruments may be a significant challenge for teacher educators. Motivating students to take the time and effort needed to develop proficiency on instruments outside their main performance areas may be made more difficult because their identities are so closely aligned with their primary instruments.

The development of a more robust evaluative rubric that not only allows for greater differentiation of teaching effectiveness (beyond three basic levels) but also addresses other competency areas, such as the teaching of basic technique or expressive skills, may enhance future studies. Training third-party adjudicators to evaluate the videos would help control for experimenter bias. The use of nested research designs and hierarchical linear modeling techniques, in an effort to determine which effects might be attributable to individual difference variables (i.e., participant teaching background) as opposed to institutional variables (i.e., course configurations, course instructor background), might make future studies more robust.

These results suggest ways in which music teacher educators can further develop, refine, and implement effective models of secondary instrument techniques courses, an important component of the music education curriculum. To develop an optimal classroom atmosphere within secondary instrument courses, we suggest that researchers further examine the role of peer groups, the relationship between the students and course instructor, and the attitudes of students about the acquisition of new information (Russell, 2007).

With this research, we addressed an underexamined aspect in the music teacher education literature concerning preservice teacher instrumental background in brass and woodwind techniques courses. It would be valuable to replicate this study with participants in string and percussion techniques courses. With a more complete picture of the relationship between primary instrument background and teaching ability on various secondary instruments, music teacher educators can better enhance curricula to meet the needs of music teachers.

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.

Supplemental Material

See Appendix in the online supplemental material.

Notes

References

Austin

J. R.

(2006). The teaching of secondary instruments: A survey of instrumental music teacher educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(1), 55–64. doi:10.1177/10570837060160010107

Brewer

E. W.

Kuhn

(2010). Causal-comparative design. In Salkind

N. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1, pp. 124–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen

(1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104

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

Conway

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

Conway

Eros

Hourigan

Stanley

A. M.

(2007). Perceptions of beginning teachers regarding brass and woodwind instrument techniques classes in preservice education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173, 39–54.

Cooper

L. G.

(1994). A study of the core curriculum for the preparation of instrumental music educators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(1), 37.

Haston

Leon-Guerrero

(2008). Sources of pedagogical content knowledge: Reports by preservice instrumental music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 1 7(2), 48–59. doi:10.1177/1057083708317644

Hewitt

Smith

(2004). The influence of teaching-career level and primary performance instrument on the assessment of music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 314–327.doi:10.1177/002242940405200404

10.

Hourigan

Scheib

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

11.

Jennings

D. L.

(1989). The effectiveness of instrumental music teacher preservice training experiences as perceived by college and high school band directors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(4), 825.

12.

National Association of Schools of Music. (2015). Handbook 2015–16. Reston, VA: Author.

13.

Parker

E. C.

Powell

S. R.

(2014). A phenomenological study of music education majors’ identity development in methods courses outside their areas of focus. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 201, 23–41.

14.

Reimer

(1956). College course in supplementary instruments. Music Educators Journal, 42(6), 42–44. doi:10.2307/3388090

15.

Russell

J. A.

(2007). I know what I need to know: The impact of cognitive and psycho-social development on undergraduate music education majors’ investment in instrumental techniques courses. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 171, 51–66.

16.

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

17.

Wagoner

C. L.

Juchniewicz

(2017). An examination of secondary wind instrument methods courses. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(3), 51–64. doi:10.1177/1057083716665883

18.

Weaver

M. A.

(2010). Orchestrating secondary instrument playing and teaching proficiencies for future music educators: Effective curriculum configuration, delivery, and administration. In Schmidt

(Ed.), Collaborative action for change: Selected proceedings from the 2007 Symposium on Music Teacher Education (pp. 183–197). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB