Abstract
The development of musicianship is a fundamental learning outcome for music students. The purpose of this study was to examine the early socialization experiences of preservice music teachers, as well as their opinions about musicianship. A total of 138 undergraduate music education students completed a three-part online questionnaire. The large ensemble setting was the most common source of learning and participants believed this setting contributed to the development of overall musicianship more so than any other source of learning. “Learning songs from notation” and “Music analysis” were perceived as most valuable in developing musicianship. Kruskal–Wallis tests showed differences in conceptions of musicianship based on the instrument played, but not among other socialization variables. Based on the findings, I conclude that preservice music teachers are being socialized to conceive of musicianship in ways that suit an existing school model, rather than contemporary and evolving music cultures found outside of schools.
Keywords
What does it mean to be a comprehensive musician? Are comprehensive musicians different in some way compared with other types of musicians? Scholars and philosophers have examined the concept of musicianship in a number of ways but, as Rogers (1984) suggested, defining this term is challenging, rather like a “slippery bar of soap” (p. 12). Jorgensen (2003) has remarked that it refers to “thinking, being, and acting as a musician” (p. 197). Austin (1998) proposed it means “performing with understanding” (p. 25). Isbell and Stanley (2018) addressed musicianship in terms of flexibility, arguing that comprehensive musicianship involves the ability to successfully navigate diverse music settings, inside and outside of school, and throughout life. According to Elliot (2005), crossing over into different types of music environments requires unique and specific skills.
Although the definitions cited above are broad, specific competencies have been delineated for collegiate and school curricula. For example, The National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) expects all preservice music teachers to be able to sight read with fluency, play keyboard, rehearse and conduct, place music in historical, cultural, and stylistic contexts, and have a capacity to create original or derivative music (NASM, 2018). Organized lists of skills and understandings expected for primary and secondary school music students appear most prominently. The National Standards and Core Arts Standards target outcomes for P-12 students, while the NASM standards target outcomes for future musicians and music teachers in colleges and universities. The original list of nine standards was designed in 1994 as a curriculum framework (MENC, 1994). Twenty years later, these artistic processes were revised and condensed into the following categories: Creating, Performing, Responding, and Connecting (National Association for Music Education [NAfME], 2014a).
Music education scholars have argued that few music programs incorporate the standards in authentic and meaningful ways (e.g., Conway, 2008; Riley, 2009; Williams, 2007). The standards least likely to be implemented on a consistent basis are improvising, composing, evaluating, and understanding music in relation to other content areas, history and culture (Schmidt, 2000). It has been suggested this may be due to lack of preservice preparation (Brophy, 2002), inexperience with improvisation (Shuler, 1995), or general attitudes toward teaching creativity (Forsythe et al., 2007).
Many have argued in favor of expanding teacher education practice in ways that incorporate a diverse and comprehensive set of music skills (e.g., Barrett & Veblen, 2012; Isbell, 2016; Millican, 2008). Several professional organizations (College Music Society, NAfME, and NASM) have created guiding documents for music educators interested in developing student musicianship in a comprehensive fashion. Scholars have often framed this dialogue in terms of the relationship between the music worlds inside and outside of school (De Vries, 2010; Green, 2017; McPherson & Hendricks, 2010).
One specific example of a curricular model dedicated to developing ensemble musicians’ skills beyond reproducing notation is Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance (CMP). CMP has served as a planning model for teachers who wish to enrich performance-based rehearsals by involving students in improvising, arranging, composing, conducting, and analysis (Sindberg, 2007). The CMP program emerged out of a belief that large ensembles, rather than general music, remained the primary locations for music learning in secondary school. Because these ensembles emphasize technical proficiency over other outcomes, teachers would benefit from a more holistic framework for teaching music. According to Sindberg (2007), “A shift of emphasis from the primacy of technical performance to a more broad-based view has important implications for teaching and learning” (p. 26).
Musicians who embody music stylistic diversity and music comprehensiveness will at some point move beyond the setting within which they first learned to be musical. Isbell (2016) indicated that when classically trained music education students encounter experiences which require them to use music skills they have yet to acquire or fully develop, they often become uncomfortable and apprehensive. More specifically, undergraduate and graduate students were typically comfortable working in small peer-led groups but became anxious and uneasy making music without the aid of notation. While participants believed their musicianship developed during the course and that they learned new pedagogical methods, they were reluctant when asked about bringing similar experiences to their future music programs.
Of course, many musicians are successful across diverse music settings. Isbell and Stanley (2018) studied 11 college-aged musicians who demonstrated consistent skill and comfort making music in a variety of styles and settings both in and outside of school. The musicians were presented a list of the nine 1994 standards and asked to rate the importance of each in terms of how these skills helped them “code-switch” across the different groups. The ability to learn songs by ear and to improvise were selected as the two most important skills. Additionally, their ability to effectively navigate music settings was mediated, in part, by the music school culture. The code-switching musicians felt that while moving across ensembles inside the music school was rewarded, their activities in ensembles outside of the school remained either on the periphery or completely hidden.
Bouij (2004) showed a strong association between music comprehensiveness and the development of music teacher identity. Research by Randles (2011) and Shouldice (2014) supports the notion that young students’ perceptions of themselves as musicians play a significant role in determining their opinions of what it means to be a successful musician. Furthermore, the early socialization by which preservice teachers acquire beliefs, values, and skills of a professional music educator is strongly influenced by role models and experiences taking place in the school setting prior to college (Isbell, 2008). Scholars have argued that the influence of this socialization period lingers well into college (Woodford, 2002).
The development of musicianship is a fundamental learning outcome for college music students. According to NASM, musicianship refers to “the body of knowledge, skills, practices, and insights that enables music-making at any level” (NASM, 2018, p. 85). Furthermore, undergraduate music students are expected to graduate with the ability to “communicate effectively across the specializations of musical practice” (p. 85). Although school music leaders have flexibility, it nevertheless remains necessary that graduates emerge from school with “comprehensive musical competence” (p. 86). Making music at any level, across specializations, and with comprehensive competence remains a challenge and, at least according to NASM accreditation criteria, a desirable outcome for all college music students. Researchers have shown that musicians from popular music backgrounds typically learn music in ways that differ from classical musicians, use a different set of skills, and that these differences have significant implications for school pedagogy and the realization of calls for reform in music teacher education (Green, 2017; Hallam et al., 2018; Lebler, 2008).
Music teacher educators have been tasked with developing a broad set of music competencies such that more preservice music teachers graduate with the confidence and capability to reach larger, more diverse populations of young people. Among the challenges involved with this task is learning how to expand on the music skills preservice music teachers arrive to campus with so that they may be better prepared to bring a diverse set of music skills into schools and teach a broad array of artistic skills and knowledge. A deeper understanding of the process by which early socialization experiences influence the development of opinions about musicianship among preservice music teachers may be helpful.
The purpose of this study was to examine the early socialization and opinions of musicianship held by preservice music teachers. Specific research questions were as follows:
Method
Questionnaire Development
A three-part online questionnaire was developed to gather information about early socialization experiences and comprehensive musicianship beliefs. Items in the first part of the questionnaire addressed demographic information, including year in school and primary instrument. Participants also were asked if they knew how to play additional instruments, including those customarily found outside of the typical school band or orchestra. In the second part of the questionnaire, which focused on early socialization experiences (Isbell, 2008, 2016; Lebler, 2008), participants identified their most significant teacher and musician role models and, in an open-ended response, described their most significant music memory prior to college and explained why it was so memorable.
Through additional socialization items, participants indicated where they learned how to play music and which of 13 sources (people, contexts, and experiences) was most responsible for their early music learning. Sources of learning included the general music classroom, band/orchestra/choir rehearsals, informal bands/groups outside of school, church groups, group lessons in/outside of school, individual lessons in/outside of school, friends in/outside of school, family members, watching videos, and copying records. Participants could add sources not on the list.
The National Standards for Music Education (MENC, 1994) and research by Isbell and Stanley (2018) informed the third section of the questionnaire. In this section, participants were asked to rate how important (1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important) they felt the following skills were at developing comprehensive musicianship: composing, arranging, learning songs by ear, improvisation, learning songs from notation, copying another person/model, music analysis, understanding music history. This list has been used to describe what students should know and be able to do in the arts (NAfME, 2014a) and was therefore useful in establishing construct validity. The reliability of responses to skill importance items was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α = .71). Using a similar 5-point rating scale, they were asked to rate their level of comfort playing with and without a conductor and with and without notation. The questionnaire received institutional review board approval after it was pilot tested with 10 music education students in their junior year. No changes were necessary after pilot testing.
Data Collection
Data were collected at a large public research university located in the southern United States. Participants were recruited through music education classes during either their freshman, sophomore, or junior year. This was not however, a cross-sectional study. Data were collected over a 3-year period as students enrolled in an Introduction to Music Education or a Secondary Methods class. Responses were anonymous and each person had the right to refuse to participate. A total of 153 students were sent invitations to participate.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were conducted on all demographic and socialization data. Because the data did not meet assumptions of the analysis of variance, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were selected as the most appropriate procedures to examine differences in opinions of musicianship according to primary instrument and role models. Analyses of these differences across primary instrument were intended to uncover a more nuanced understanding of early socialization for college musicians. Qualitative responses were analyzed using frequency counts and open coding procedures recommended by Saldana (2015). An additional researcher independently analyzed the raw qualitative data. These two sets of codes were then compared and organized as a final step in the qualitative analysis procedure.
Findings
Demographics
A total of 138 students responded to the questionnaire (90% response rate). Thirty-one participants (22%) were freshman, 80 (58%) were sophomores, and 27 (20%) were juniors. Fifty participants (36%) majored on a brass instrument, 43 (31%) on a woodwind instrument, 29 (21%) were vocalists, eight (6%) were percussionists, and eight (6%) were string players. The participants indicated they also played a variety of other instruments. Seventy-one participants (51%) played instruments not typically found in a school band or orchestra. These included the following: bass guitar, electric guitar, ukulele, mandolin, and piano/keyboard. Fifty-three (38%) participants played instruments other than their major instrument, but these were limited to instruments typically found in the school programs or those they learned in recent university secondary instrument classes. Fourteen participants (10%) did not know how to play other instruments.
Precollege Experiences
Sources of Learning
Participants were asked to indicate where they learned how to sing or play their instrument. They were provided a list of 13 sources of music learning, allowed to select as many as they wished, and had the opportunity to add additional sources to the list. More participants (n = 113, 81.9%) selected the large ensemble (e.g., band, orchestra, or choir) rehearsal than any other source of music learning. The general music classroom was selected by 80 (58.0%) participants. Individual lessons outside of school were a source of music learning for 70 (50.7%) participants. Thirty-seven (26.8%) of the participants indicated they had experience making music in informal bands outside of school.
Using the same list of 13 sources of learning, participants also were asked to identify, which was most responsible for their music development. The large ensemble rehearsal was selected by over half of the participants (n = 74; 53.6%). This was followed by individual lessons outside of school (n = 26; 18.7%) and the general music classroom (n = 14; 9.8%). A chi-square goodness-of-fit test showed that the locations of learning most responsible for music development were not equally distributed among the sample, χ2(10) = 334.08, p < .000. A complete list of all sources of music learning and those selected as most responsible for learning to be musical appears in Table 1.
Overall Sources of Music Learning and Sources Most Responsible for Music Learning.
Includes multiple responses.
Role Models
Participants were asked to identify their most significant teacher and musician role models prior to college. The school music teacher was selected as the top teacher role model for 95 (68.8%) participants and was also the top musician role model, selected by 81 (58.7%) participants. The private lesson teacher was the second most popular selection as both teacher (n = 23; 16.7%) and musician (n = 28; 20.3%) role model.
Most Significant Memories
Additional information about early socialization was gathered through an open-ended response item where participants were asked to describe their most significant memory (inside or outside of school) and to explain why it was so memorable. These qualitative data were helpful in providing a more detailed understanding of socialization among this sample of musicians. Overall, the most frequently cited memories were associated with performances in the large ensemble (typically an honor or All-State ensemble) or marching band. Students who described these events often remarked about the expressive qualities of the ensemble and large audiences. Many students also mentioned the lasting impressions from a guest conductor. Nearly all of the memories were associated with the school setting.
Opinions of Musicianship
Preservice music teachers were asked to rate the importance of various music skills and understandings in the overall development of musicianship. The area rated most important was “learning songs from notation” followed by “music analysis.” The knowledge/skill areas considered least important were “composing” and “copying another person/model.” A complete list of ratings for skill/understanding areas appears in Table 2.
Ratings of Importance for the Development of Comprehensive Musicianship.
Note. Range: 1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important.
Kruskal–Wallis tests of musicianship importance responses across student primary instrument categories revealed statistically significant differences for “learning songs by ear,” χ2(4) = 9.88, p = .042, “copying another person/model,” χ2(4) = 21.28, p < .000, and “understanding music history,” χ2(4) = 10.13, p = .038. Post hoc Mann Whitney U analyses showed that percussion players placed less value on learning songs by ear compared to all other musicians (brass: U = 85.5, p = .006, r = .36; woodwinds: U = 95.0, p = .035, r = .29; strings: U = 9.5, p = .024, r = .58; vocalists: U = 46.5, p = .005, r = .49). Brass players believed copying another person/model was more valuable than did woodwind players (U = 657, p = .001, r = .35) and vocalists (U = 353, p = .000, r = .44). String players believed that understanding music history was more valuable than brass players (U = 94, p = .039, r = .27), woodwind players (U = 81, p = .042, r = .29), and percussionists (U = 6, p = .007, r = .70).
Participants were asked to use a 5-point rating scale (1 = extremely uncomfortable, 5 = extremely comfortable) to rate their comfort playing with and without a conductor. Overall, participants were more comfortable playing with a conductor (M = 4.62) than they were without (M = 4.16). The difference in comfort was greater when participants were asked, using the same scale, to report their comfort level playing with notation (M = 4.30) and without notation (M = 3.17). Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests indicated that differences between comfort playing with and without a conductor were statistically significant (Z = −5.06; p < .001) as were the differences in ratings of comfort making music with and without notation (Z = −7.06; p < .001).
Implications for Music Teacher Education
The large ensemble rehearsal was the dominant source of music learning for the participants in this study and was the key element in their socialization as music educators. Not only was it the most common source of learning, participants also indicated the large ensemble contributed to their overall musicianship more so than any other source of learning. When asked to describe their most significant music memory, participants’ most common narrative was centered on large ensemble performances and conductors. The school music teacher was also the primary role model, both as a teacher and as a musician. These findings support those of other researchers who have examined socialization with national samples of preservice music educators (Austin et al., 2012; Isbell, 2008).
The role of the large ensemble as the principal means for music instruction in schools has been a historical issue in American music education (Mark & Gary, 2007). Authors have been critical of models of music education that place the large ensemble paradigm into the primary setting for music instruction at the expense of other forms of music making (Mantie, 2012; Shively, 2004). Creativity and improvisation are not commonly addressed in this setting (Conway, 2008. Renowned band director Frank Battisti (1989) recognized that many students do not graduate with skills to play music outside the large ensemble and criticized the common practice of emphasizing the “short-term reward of competitive recognition rather than toward the development of musical skills, understanding, and creativity” (p. 23).
The strength of memories from the large ensemble was not an unexpected finding considering that making music in this setting was much more common than was playing in informal bands and with friends outside of school. The school ensemble often performs more regularly and in front of more people than does the typical informal band. Informal bands often do not have a single leader and may consist of people with less opportunity or motivation to perform publicly. Indeed, the emphasis on process (playing) over product (performing) is a defining characteristic of informal music making (Folkestad, 2006). While it is true that a persistent focus on product over process has been a criticism of school music (Allsup & Benedict, 2008; Mark & Gary, 2007; Whitener, 2016), it is clear that public concerts, especially with selective ensembles, often result in very powerful and long-lasting emotional memories.
Learning Inside and Outside of School
Participants’ music lives prior to college were examined closely as a way of understanding connections, or lack thereof, between the formal, organized music experiences in school and the less structured, informal settings outside of school. Although the majority of music learning took place in school rehearsals and lessons, learning did also take place outside of school. For those that did learn music outside the large ensemble, the most common location was the individual private lesson. Social activities outside of school such as playing in informal bands, making music with friends, or in group lessons were not as common as were the less-social activities such as watching videos and copying recordings.
Even though private lesson instructors have highly varied, personalized approaches to teaching (Kingsbury, 2001) these settings often replicate the school milieu in that they are predicated up the one-way transmission of knowledge from teacher to student with a teacher deliberately choosing and controlling the learning environment (Nerland, 2007). For participants in this study, music learning outside of school seemed to represent more of an extension of the school setting (role of teacher and student) than it did a complementary or unique experience. This could also be evidence that teachers in private lesson settings often prioritize skills and knowledge relevant to the large ensemble setting, such as executive skills and reproducing notation, over those frequently used by popular or folk musicians (aural learning, collaboration, and experimentation).
Nearly half of the participants in this study played instruments not typically found in the school music program. There were, however, no significant differences in these participants’ opinions of musicianship compared with participants who either did not play any other instruments or played only the instruments located in school ensembles and college methods classes. This finding stands in contrast to results reported in a related study conducted by Isbell and Stanley (2018). The “code-switching” college musicians who participated in their study also enjoyed playing a variety of instruments, but indicated they valued learning songs by ear, improvising, composing, and arranging over other skills. These “code switching” musicians were musicians who were also regularly active performing in a variety of “real life” settings—clubs, restaurants, basements, open mic nights, family gatherings, and concert halls. They were comfortable playing with and without notated music and often made spontaneous decisions while performing. This is evidence that although a variety of instruments are being played by young musicians in schools, it is often the case that school musicians seek out the support of notation and do not frequently play by ear, regardless of whether these instruments are part of the school ensemble.
Music Skills
Although comprehensive musicianship continues to be prominently featured in accreditation documents and professional documents, it remains possible for people from different music backgrounds to interpret the concept in unique ways. This study provided an opportunity to examine these differences more closely and compare opinions of the participants in this study with those of college and professional code-switching musicians (Isbell & Stanley, 2018). Learning songs by ear, improvising, and composing were the most valuable skills for musicians who frequently navigated multiple music worlds. Participants in this study, however, believed reading notation and analyzing music were more valuable skills in terms of developing comprehensive musicianship than were creativity and improvisation. Composing and copying another person were rated least valuable.
Isbell and Stanley’s (2018) research with code-switching musicians was primarily qualitative, with a much smaller sample than this study, but the same data collection instrument (musicianship rating scales) was used in this study. Together, these studies may help provide a more nuanced understanding of musicianship. It appears that it may not be as much a matter of the type or number of instruments a person knows how to play as it is a matter of how a person acquires the skills too be musical and how they put these skills to use to make music on a regular basis. Increased exposure to informal/vernacular strategies of music making, such as experimentation, aural learning, trial and error, peer collaborations, may do much to expand opinions of musicianship among preservice music educators. Woody and Lehmann (2010) determined that musicians with vernacular experiences apply a more sophisticated set of strategies to learn melodies and were more efficient than were musicians whose experience was focused solely on traditional school music.
Socialization Cycle
Researchers who have examined diverse artistic processes in music education have concluded that the creativity-based outcomes (composition, arranging, and improvisation) are less likely to be addressed in consistent and meaningful ways (Riley, 2009). The skills that are emphasized in schools (reading notation and analyzing music) are also those participants believed were most important in terms of developing comprehensive musicianship. Findings from this study may help teacher educators better understand how a cycle of socialization becomes established and sustained, a cycle that favors certain skills and understandings over others. Young musicians who thrive in school music programs understandably place great value on the skills necessary for their individual success over other skills not a part of regular assessment and evaluation. As young people grow and further develop a sense of identity as a musician, their sense of self is in part determined by their opinions of what it means to be a successful musician (Bouij, 2004; Randles, 2011; Shouldice, 2014). This same set of formal skills then become the focus of admission into teacher preparation programs, the centerpiece of college methods classes, and the primary criteria for student teaching success. A socialization cycle then begins to perpetuate itself as young teachers enter the profession and are expected to function within the existing large ensemble paradigm.
Conclusions
Data were collected from a single institution, string and percussion majors were underrepresented, and the majority of the participants attended secondary school in the southeast region of the United States. Despite these limitations, interpretations of these findings may provide guidance for people looking to adapt teacher preparation programs. Rather than searching for ways to insert additional ensembles, music styles, or instruments (e.g., guitar, djembe, computers) into curricula, more attention should be placed on diversifying how music is experienced through the organization of the environment, roles of teacher and learner, and methods of making meaningful music decisions. These approaches are possible in any music ensemble. Experiences that require musicians to compose and arrange music or learn without the aid of notation and conductors should also become commonplace.
According to study findings, rehearsal methods designed to embed creativity and improvisation within the large ensemble (e.g., Buonviri, 2013; Herb, 2011) may not be reaching school musicians in a substantial way. These and other methods can be used in teacher preparation courses to challenge preconceived notions of what an experience in a large ensemble could look and sound like. Because of the region where the majority of participants attended secondary school, it is possible that ensemble rehearsal methods incorporating creative musicianship to a greater extent may be more prevalent in other areas of the country. If so, different results could be obtained in replications or extensions of this study.
Elpus and Abril (2011) reported that, in 2004, only 21% of high school seniors participated in school music ensembles. Yet, according to a 2009 Gallup survey, 58% of households have at least one music instrument player; 43% of households have two or more players (Schimitt & Lamond, 2011). Among households with at least one person who plays an instrument, the number of players younger than age 18 increased from 2006 (30%) to 2009 (35%). In 2009, fretted instruments were purchased more than any other instrument ($1.06 billion in sales). From 2006 to 2009, sales of pianos and portable keyboards increased 43% and 34%, respectively, while wind instrument purchases declined 1.6% over the same time period (Schimitt & Lamond, 2011). This is all evidence that a large number of young people are making music but not participating in school programs. Research evidence indicates these people likely make music in different ways and use different skills than do musicians in schools (Green, 2017; Hallam et al., 2018; Lebler, 2008). Teacher preparation programs should identify and admit more of these young musicians who already possess different musicianship skills and have experience making music independently of the school music program so that diverse populations of students might interact and learn from one another.
One of the NAfME goals is “Comprehensiveness: Uplifting the human spirit and providing opportunities for all students to create, perform, respond, and connect to all styles of music” (NAfME, 2014b). Appeals to reach broad populations of young musicians are not limited to primary and secondary education; NASM calls on college musicians to make music “at any level,” “across specializations,” and with “comprehensive” competence. Similar charges for reform have existed for decades in music teacher preparation and have to some degree directly addressed the need for schools of music to prepare young musicians in diverse ways. Findings from this study reinforce a notion that preservice music teachers are still being socialized to conceive of musicianship in ways that suit an existing school model of music making, rather than the contemporary and changing music culture that exists beyond school walls.
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.
