Abstract
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to examine preservice music educators’ perceptions of teaching voice lessons to elementary and secondary students during an online synchronous fieldwork experience. I used Garrison et al.’s Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to analyze the participants’ perceptions of cognitive presence (i.e., triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution), social presence (i.e., emotional expression, open communication, and group cohesion), and teaching presence (i.e., structure and design of the fieldwork experience). During initial lessons, participants cited mostly triggering events and exploration, which occurred alongside indicators of social presence. Participants cited technological challenges associated with online synchronous learning (i.e., teaching presence) may have hindered instances of integration and resolution. Music teacher educators may consider using the CoI framework to structure collaborative and supportive online synchronous fieldwork experiences.
Keywords
In March 2020, colleges and universities transitioned to online coursework to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a virus that as of April 2022 killed over 6.1 million people worldwide (World Health Organization, 2022). When U.S. universities transitioned coursework to online platforms in the spring of 2020, course instructors in music reported increased/varying workloads (Biasutti et al., 2021; Shaw & Mayo, 2022), strains on their mental health (Miksza et al., 2022), and challenges associated with pivoting coursework and music education fieldwork to online modalities (Mercado, 2022; Miksza et al., 2022). Scant research on online music teaching and learning experiences may have exasperated these challenges associated with online instruction.
Researchers have found that online synchronous applied music lessons may be beneficial for basic discussions and exchanging resources (Biasutti et al., 2021; Dye, 2016), developing sight-singing skills (Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), and providing feedback on note and rhythmic errors (Dammers, 2009; Kruse et al., 2013). However, participants cited challenges, such as lacking nuanced feedback due to poor sound quality and lag time (Biasutti et al., 2021; Dammers, 2009; Kruse et al., 2013), awkward interpersonal interactions (Dammers, 2009), and shorter attention spans during online than in-person lessons (Biasutti et al., 2021). Therefore, synchronous lessons may provide “a baseline level of functionality” for developing musical skills (Dammers, 2009, p. 22).
A few researchers have examined preservice music educators’ (PMEs’) perceptions of online fieldwork experiences and have reported perceived benefits, such as a unique view of the profession (Reese, 2015), an increased focus on student development (Dye, 2016; Pike, 2017), and improved teaching skills (Mercado, 2022; Pike, 2017). However, they also have reported perceived challenges, such as slow instructional pace (Dye, 2016; Pike, 2017), limited access to technology (Mercado, 2022; Reese, 2015), and the inability to practice responsive teaching skills (Mercado, 2022). For example, Dye (2016) studied the behaviors of three PMEs and six middle school band students during online synchronous applied music lessons. During the synchronous lessons, PMEs delivered instructions and engaged in discussions more often than demonstrations, such as clapping, singing, and playing. Although PMEs reported that online fieldwork was less beneficial than in-person fieldwork for developing their responsive teaching skills (Mercado, 2022), online fieldwork can also facilitate diverse teaching experiences with students and mentor teachers (Pike, 2017; Reese, 2015). However, more research is needed to determine the specific benefits and challenges of online fieldwork, specifically, to determine if/how PMEs develop teaching skills during online synchronous fieldwork experiences.
Theoretical Framework
To examine online learning experiences, Garrison et al. (2000) developed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, which researchers can use to analyze the cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence in online coursework. Garrison et al. defined each presence as follows: (a) teaching presence—the course design and content, which instructors and students can facilitate; (b) social presence—how students project “personal characteristics into the [online learning] community” (p. 89); and (c) cognitive presence—how students approach problems and acquire solutions through indicators of triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution. Researchers have found that social presence and teaching presence can influence cognitive presence, with teaching presence possibly having the greatest perceived impact (Shea & Bidjerano, 2008; Szeto, 2015). In addition, practical application of the course content may facilitate students’ cognitive development (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Therefore, researchers in music education can use the CoI framework to analyze various online teaching and learning experiences, such as PME’s pedagogical skill development, collaborative learning environments, and teacher identity development.
To examine online music teaching and learning experiences, Johnson (2017) used the CoI framework and found that course instructors perceived synchronous activities provided undergraduate music students an opportunity to develop their cognitive presence more so than asynchronous activities. Similarly, Mercado (2022) used the CoI framework to examine PMEs’ perceptions of their teaching presence in two fieldwork experiences. During the in-person fieldwork experience, PMEs led weekly in-person choral rehearsals with a group of 45 elementary students. When coursework moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the PMEs developed three online music lessons to be delivered asynchronously online to the elementary students. As a result of both fieldwork experiences, the PMEs perceived that they improved their direct instruction skills, but they did not have the opportunity to practice their responsive teaching skills during the asynchronous fieldwork experience. Therefore, in-person and online synchronous fieldwork may have a greater impact on perceived cognitive presence than a combination of in-person and online asynchronous experiences.
Although researchers have examined online synchronous instrumental music lessons (Biasutti et al., 2021; Dammers, 2009; Dye, 2016; Pike, 2017; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), there is a dearth of research on synchronous vocal music lessons and synchronous fieldwork in music teacher education. Therefore, the purpose of this instrumental case study was to examine preservice music educators’ perceptions of teaching voice lessons to elementary and secondary students during an online synchronous fieldwork experience. The central research question guiding this study was
Method
I conducted an instrumental case study and bound the synchronous fieldwork process as my system (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 1995). Three PMEs—Alva, Emerson, and Landry (pseudonyms)—enrolled in an online choral music methods course at the time of the study and signed up to teach five synchronous voice lessons. The participants were juniors in a choral music education undergraduate program, and they had completed an upper-division vocal pedagogy course prior to this study. This was their final semester prior to student teaching, and because of the pandemic, the course met online.
Description of the Online Synchronous Fieldwork
All lessons occurred over Zoom version 5.7.1. For the first two voice lessons, the participants taught each other and practiced a vocal warm-up sequence (i.e., alignment, breath, initial phonation, range, etc.). For the last three voice lessons, I assigned them to one student in the 5th grade, 7th grade, or 11th grade. I recruited these elementary/secondary students based on recommendations from their area music teachers (i.e., students who might not have access to voice lessons for monetary or travel restrictions). I registered the fieldwork with my institution’s youth protection program, developed a risk management plan, and obtained liability waivers from their parents/guardians. Prior to their first lesson, I asked the elementary/secondary students for their repertoire preferences. Then, I purchased the sheet music, created rehearsal/accompaniment tracks, and emailed the sheet music and tracks to the students 2 weeks before the first lesson. Finally, I met with the participants to assist in the development of their lesson plans.
After experiencing the peer lessons, the participants expressed some fears about teaching online, and they requested I lead the first of each lesson with the elementary/secondary students. Therefore, each participant taught four lessons (two to each other and two to their assigned elementary/secondary student), and the elementary/secondary students received three lessons each. During lessons with the elementary/secondary students, the participants led vocal warm-ups and worked on repertoire—providing feedback on breath support, resonance, tone quality, etc. When not teaching, the participants observed the lessons with their cameras turned off and microphones muted. In addition, each participant provided written feedback to each other after the lessons.
Data Sources
Case study research requires multiple forms of data (Creswell & Poth, 2018), and I collected the following sources: (a) interviews and focus groups—including one focus group after the third set of lessons (32 minutes), one focus group after the final set of lessons (28 minutes), and one semi-structured interview per participant after their final lesson (15–20 minutes each); (b) observations—including peer-feedback forms and researcher observation notes; and (c) documents—including guided written reflections, self-assessments, and lesson plans. All interviews and focus groups occurred over Zoom version 5.7.1.
I used Garrison et al.’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to construct the interview and focus group questions, and I asked the participants about their teaching, social, and cognitive presence throughout the fieldwork experience. After each teaching episode, the participants completed (a) guided written reflections, which contained prompts related to teaching skills (Rawlings et al., 2022; Rolfe et al., 2001); and (b) self-assessments, which were an abbreviated version of their student teaching evaluation form adapted for individual voice lessons (see supplemental resources to view the guided reflections, self-assessments, and interview/focus group questions).
Researcher Role
The fieldwork was a part of a choral music methods course, for which I was the instructor. However, the participants were not required to participate in the study as part of the course, and they could participate in the fieldwork experience without participating in the study. I received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct this study, and the participants completed consent forms. When recruiting participants from the choral methods course, I made clear in the IRB consent document that participation was not tied to their grades. All four students enrolled in the course signed up to participate in the fieldwork and the study, but because one student was an inservice teacher at the time of the study, I did not include their perspective in the analysis. To avoid conflicts of interest, I did not grade the participants on their teaching skills. Rather, the participants recorded a score on their self-assessment form, which served to aid in their self-reflection and planning for subsequent lessons.
While observing participants’ Zoom lessons with the camera off, I took notes in the form of written feedback, which I emailed to the participants. Then, immediately following each lesson, I completed my observation notes. My feedback to the participants provided specific suggestions to improve their teaching skills. In contrast, my observation notes contained descriptive accounts of the fieldwork experience, which I used when triangulating data during analysis (Patton, 2015). Although unplanned, on four occasions, the PMEs requested assistance during their lessons. Therefore, I turned my camera on and offered my support to the participants. Each of these instances lasted 5 min or less.
Data Analysis
For my first coding cycle, I used a priori coding—applying the coding template from Garrison et al. (2000), which included teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence, with specific subthemes for each of these three categories. In online learning experiences, researchers have found that a strong teaching and social presence can promote students’ cognitive presence (Shea & Bidjerano, 2008; Szeto, 2015). Therefore, during the second cycle, I used attribution coding, and I noted when participants’ perceptions of social presence and teaching presence occurred alongside indicators of cognitive presence. Finally, I completed category coding to merge the salient themes of cognitive, social, and teaching presence across participants (Saldaña, 2016). To address trustworthiness, I performed member checking (Creswell & Poth, 2018), triangulated the data, and completed a cross-case analysis (Ayres et al., 2003; Patton, 2015).
Case Profiles
I first analyzed the data within cases to examine the “individual experience” (Ayres et al., 2003, p. 872). For example, I compared interview data with individual reflections and self-assessments. The participants experienced breakthroughs and setbacks to their teaching during the synchronous fieldwork experience. Although some crossover occurred, in the following paragraphs, I will present case profiles and highlight each participant’s most salient perceived breakthrough.
Alva: Pacing
Alva was interested in teaching elementary and junior high choir. During this fieldwork experience, Alva described her life as chaotic due to the sudden merge of her work and home lives—she had young children at home and limited access to child care and reliable internet. Throughout the fieldwork experience, Alva worked to improve the pace of her synchronous voice lessons. In her interview, Alva explained,
I . . . stop and think . . . It’s like, “No, don’t stop and think, just keep going . . . Don’t worry about the lesson plans . . . the biggest thing was taking it one measure at a time, finding out what she was hearing versus what I . . . was hearing.
In the written reflections, she suggested that peer support and feedback helped her find an appropriate lesson pace for her student’s musical skills.
Emerson: Feedback
In high school, Emerson participated in the band program and had little experience with the choir before college. After several observations and fieldwork experiences in prior coursework, Emerson discovered a passion for elementary/general music education. During this fieldwork experience, Emerson worked on delivering meaningful feedback to his student. For example, Emerson wrote, “I’m not comfortable giving effective feedback” (Reflection 2). As the lessons progressed, Emerson asked the student to describe their vocal tone, which allowed him to structure more meaningful and effective feedback.
Landry: Vocal Heath
Prior to this fieldwork experience, Landry taught private voice for 2 years. When the pandemic occurred, she quickly moved her studio to Zoom. Therefore, teaching online was not a new experience for Landry. She had access to advanced technology, such as high-quality microphones, headsets, and high-speed internet, which may have contributed to some of the successful experiences she described during the synchronous fieldwork. Landry worked on research-based teaching techniques to support her student’s vocal health and development. For example, Landry shared specific techniques that she perceived improved her student’s vocal production and stated, “Definitely the air flow stuff and making sure that the vowels are optimized and centered” (Focus Group 1). During the final focus group, Landry explained that she plans to always prioritize vocal health and development over performance demands.
Findings
After analyzing the data within individual cases, I analyzed the data across cases (Ayres et al., 2003). When applying the subcategories of cognitive presence from Garrison et al. (2000; i.e., triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution), I found that perceptions of cognitive presence occurred alongside participants’ perceived breakthroughs (i.e., pacing, feedback, and vocal health). Although they did not progress through the subcategories in a strict linear fashion, triggering events and exploration occurred more often at the beginning of the fieldwork, and integration and resolution occurred more often at the end of the fieldwork. In addition, I analyzed their perceptions of teaching presence and social presence. I found that instances of social presence (i.e., emotional expression, open communication, and group cohesion) occurred more often alongside triggering events and exploration than integration and resolution. In terms of teaching presence (i.e., the structure and design of the fieldwork experience), the participants indicated technological challenges associated with synchronous learning may have limited steps toward integration and resolution. To illustrate what transpired, I used networks to display the “relationship[s] among the theoretical aspects” and elucidate “the links between the themes and their categories and subcategories” (Verdinelli & Scagnoli, 2013, p. 370). These networks demonstrate the participants’ perceived cognitive, social, and teaching presence (see Figures 1–3 in Supplemental Resources). The arrows represent the continuous nature of each presence as evidenced in the data. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the participants’ perceptions of cognitive, social, and teaching presence throughout the synchronous fieldwork experience.
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence is defined as how students “construct and confirm meaning” in online coursework (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 161). Specifically, researchers have suggested that students can move through the following four stages: triggering events, exploration, integration, and resolution (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the participants’ perceived cognitive presence in these four stages.
Triggering Events
Triggering events are defined as misunderstandings, a sense of uncertainty, and identification of a problem (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). Alva experienced a triggering event after she watched a recording of her first peer-teaching video. When she focused more on the lesson plan than the student, she perceived awkward transitions. Alva highlighted that her lessons felt slow and disengaged because she did not focus on the student’s demeanor.
Emerson described a triggering event that occurred when he could not provide effective feedback, and he stated, “For me, I don’t think I even really noticed times that. . .she wasn’t getting it” (Focus Group 1). Landry explained that her lesson plan sequence contributed to her student’s vocal issues. For example, after the second peer-teaching experience, Landry wrote that she did not plan “alignment exercises” during warmups (Reflection 2). Early in the fieldwork experience, triggering events emerged when Landry and Emerson cited problems their students experienced, and they attributed these problems to ineffective feedback and lesson planning.
Exploration
Exploration is defined as investigating the problem and searching for solutions (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). For example, Alva began to construct strategies to improve the pace of her lessons, such as asking the student to “analyze” their tone quality, and she shared, “[I] have to sort of just ignore the lesson plan and teach to the student” (interview). Alva suggested that a student-centered approach to teaching might improve the pace of her lessons. In his second reflection, Emerson wrote, “I don’t know what I’m specifically listening for. . .maybe a step toward fixing this would be to write in the lesson plan exactly what I’m listening for during the lesson.” Similarly, when planning out a lesson, Landry wrote,
I will . . . look closer at the kinesthetics I plan to use and practice them more on myself so that I can plan for the most effective one based on research and not just on instinct. . . I will research kinesthetic exercises more thoroughly. . . I will at least have a go-to list of gestures I can pull out with confidence. (Reflection 3)
While planning each lesson, Landry explored research-based vocal exercises and strategies to guide her student toward a healthy vocal tone.
Integration
Integration is defined as applying solutions to a problem (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). For example, Alva asked her student to engage in self-assessment techniques, which Alva perceived improved the pace of the lessons, specifically during transitions, and she wrote, “After some coaching, I was asking her what she thought of her pitch so I could get an idea of what she was hearing herself do” (Reflection 4).
Emerson struggled to incorporate effective feedback. For example, in his third reflection, he wrote, “The feedback I gave to the student was either generic and unhelpful or specific, but not helpful.” Emerson wrote clear objectives for each lesson, but he struggled to focus on the student and provide feedback.
Landry integrated specific strategies, such as “hand gestures” to improve her student’s tone. For example, she explained one particular lesson when her student “was pushing in his high range and kind of ‘chesting’ and, you know, trying to belt up there, and he also had a lot of like spread and defocusing in his sound that needed to just zero in” (interview). When asked what type of lesson plan helped Landry focus on her student’s tone, she stated, “The skeletal one left me more room to like revamp and improvise, which I think was one of the things that I was really good at, and I got a lot of positive feedback for” (interview). After implementing various methods of lesson planning, Landry perceived that a skeletal lesson plan helped her integrate techniques that supported a healthy vocal tone.
Resolution
Resolution is defined as testing theories or transferring new knowledge to a problem (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). Based on the data, Alva and Emerson struggled to approach resolution. For example, after working with her student on pitch matching, Alva shared, “I had a hard time remembering to. . . apply it. . .the pitch issue (interview). During the final focus group, Alva stated, “I need to practice . . . who wants to be my student?” Similarly, after the final lesson, Emerson wrote, “I also tried to give more specific feedback, but sometimes I was grasping for what to say. Knowing what I have succeeded in and what I haven’t is important. . . I can see what I need to improve” (Reflection 4). When asked what he might take with him to student teaching from this experience he stated, “I think being um, more patient . . . giving feedback, giving positive feedback and reinforcing their um, what they’ve been doing well” (interview). Although Alva and Emerson did not apply new strategies, they may have approached resolution through discussing skills they planned to apply to future teaching experiences. In contrast, Landry applied strategies to help students in her private voice studio and stated, “I do notice that my students stay a little bit more engaged and are a little more verbal during their lessons” (interview). Landry incorporated discussions and activities into other teaching experiences, which she perceived improved the lessons (see Figures 1–3 in Supplementary Files for additional examples of cognitive presence).
Teaching Presence
Teaching presence is the design and delivery of online course content and specifically involves instructional management, direct instruction, and building consensus, which teachers and students can facilitate (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). When analyzing teaching presence, technological challenges emerged as the salient theme, which aligns with instructional management. The participants specifically noted when technology impeded their perceived cognitive presence. For example, Alva wrote, “I kept looking into the camera to make sure I was staying on screen. . .I was a nervous wreck” (Reflection 1). Alva also described indicators of teaching presence, such as the course medium, influenced her cognitive presence. For example, Alva shared her experiences engaging with others on Zoom and stated,
Being on Zoom makes you more lazy honestly. Because I can be home. I can be like well, I need to turn my camera off and I’m going to fold laundry or whatever else . . . it’s made me more lazy as a student just because I—it’s more on the back burner because I’m not in a school environment. I’m at home where other things need to be done, too. (Focus Group 1)
Emerson also relayed technological challenges associated with teaching on Zoom. For example, Emerson stated, “I couldn’t see like, their full body. . .I probably would have been able to notice the tension more in person” (interview). The online environment created a perceived barrier to the cognitive presence that made it difficult to teach, assess vocal issues, and involve the students in the learning process (see Figures 1–3 in Supplementary Files for additional examples of teaching presence).
Social Presence
Social presence is how participants project their personalities within an online course and specifically involves emotional connection, open communication, and group cohesion (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes Fung, 2010; Garrison et al., 2000). For example, Emerson explained that feedback from group discussions may have promoted triggering events. After the first lesson with his eighth-grade student, Emerson stated, “I wasn’t noticing it until you mentioned. . .that he had a lot of tension, and so that’s something that I’m like oh, I need to look for that, and then we worked on just being more relaxed during his singing” (interview). Although observers turned their cameras off, Alva described indicators of social presence, such as the acknowledgment she received from other participants in the Zoom room, supported her while teaching. For example, Alva stated,
I know that they are there to learn as much as I am. And I also knew that afterwards they would be like, “This is everything you did good” and that, “You’re so awesome, Alva.” But . . . I also knew that some suggestions would also come. . . I needed a lot of suggestions. Because I am like, “I’m gonna learn a lot from this one” . . . but also having their cameras off was kind of like, it was nice having my own space. But just knowing that they were there was kind of, it was nice. (interview)
Similarly, Landy described the social environment as “validating” and stated,
Even when I know that like I’m technically doing stuff right, there’s like that little part of me that’s like you’re doing it wrong. You suck at this; you shouldn’t be in this major. But then to have people say, “You did this right . . . I’m glad you did this.” I’m like okay, I can do this. (interview)
Group observations, interactions, and support served as pivotal moments for the participants to move from the exploration stage to the integration stage of cognitive development. Emerson appreciated feedback, but he also experienced social pressure from teaching while other participants observed on Zoom. For example, he stated, “If I wasn’t doing as well, I was like oh, people are watching” (interview). Although indicators of cognitive presence appeared alongside indicators of social presence in the data, the participants did not perceive all social interactions as positive and helpful (see Figures 1–3 in Supplementary Files for additional examples of social presence).
Discussion
Teaching presence and social presence may influence perceived cognitive presence in online learning experiences (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Garrison et al., 2000). To encourage cognitive presence, Garrison and Arbaugh (2007) suggested that online instructors guide students through collaborative experiences. Therefore, during the synchronous lessons, I served as a facilitator—helping the PMEs as needed through written/verbal feedback. Teaching presence can also manifest in students and teachers (Garrison et al., 2000), and in this study, teaching presence manifested from the following spaces: (a) I provided feedback to the participants on their teaching skills; (b) the participants provided feedback to each other on their teaching skills; and (c) the participants provided feedback to the elementary/secondary students during the synchronous voice lessons. Therefore, this study presented a complex amalgamation of social presence and teaching presence. For example, Emerson was apprehensive to teach on Zoom while others observed, but he appreciated the support and feedback. Although PMEs can experience challenges during online fieldwork in music education (Mercado, 2022; Powell, 2020), Pike (2017) found that one-on-one synchronous lessons may develop certain teaching skills—such as delivering clear instructions and modeling appropriate musical skills. PMEs have suggested that they prefer in-person fieldwork, which may promote and develop responsive teaching skills, over online asynchronous fieldwork (Mercado, 2022). In this study, the PMEs had the opportunity to practice their responsive teaching skills in a small-group online environment. In addition, the peer feedback, self-assessments, and guided reflections may have promoted perceived instances of cognitive presence and social presence.
In this study, participants’ perceptions of cognitive presence emerged when they reflected on breakthroughs and setbacks they experienced as teachers during the synchronous fieldwork. The participants cited instances of triggering events in the initial written reflections—perhaps because they felt comfortable reflecting privately on problems and questions they encountered while teaching. Then, the participants described several instances of exploration and integration in data from the focus groups and peer feedback—perhaps because the social nature of those experiences encouraged participants to share possible solutions. Finally, there existed few instances of resolution. When describing instances of resolution, Landry cited outside teaching experiences that occurred alongside the fieldwork, which provided opportunities to test and transfer new skills (Garrison et al., 2000).
Teaching music lessons online can also create technological challenges in terms of lag time, visibility, and accountability (Biasutti et al., 2021). In this study, the Zoom classroom created a unique platform for synchronous fieldwork because only the teacher and student turned on their cameras. Landry described that the social presence (i.e., supportive interaction) during one particular lesson allowed her to overcome feelings of self-doubt in regard to her success as a music teacher. The CoI framework “is based upon common purposes and inquiry. . .where students can benefit from the perspectives of others” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 159). In this study, the synchronous platform provided experiences where the participants taught, observed, provided feedback, and engaged in discussions with the goal of advancing their craft as music educators.
Implications for Music Teacher Education
In synchronous fieldwork, PMEs may struggle with interpersonal interactions (Dammers, 2009), and, establishing a social presence at the onset of a course may foster cognitive presence (Redmond & Lock, 2006). Therefore, if music teacher educators organize synchronous fieldwork experiences, they should hold peer-teachings, group discussions, and observations over video-conferencing software to help establish a social presence. In online synchronous music lessons, students need more time to respond and adjust to instruction (Pike, 2017). Therefore, music teacher educators should consider planning multiple fieldwork experiences (both in person and online) across a degree program to allow PMEs to demonstrate cognitive resolution.
The participants in this study received written feedback from myself and their peers, and they also had the opportunity to request live support during the fieldwork lessons. PMEs have previously reported beneficial experiences during fieldwork when they received specific, constructive, and positive feedback (Kuebel, 2021). In this study, the live support within a small-group online environment may have contributed to the participants’ willingness to request assistance. For example, the observers turned their cameras turned off, and Landy shared “I forgot you all were there sometimes,” which made it easier for her to request and receive support. During the live support, I did not address the PMEs’ teaching skills, rather, I acted as co-teacher and worked directly with the elementary/secondary students. If music teacher educators incorporate live feedback, they should support and guide PMEs through the instructional episode rather than offer critiques in front of the K–12 students. Specific critiques should occur privately in written/verbal form or anonymized and incorporated into group discussions.
Garrison et al. (2010) suggested that teaching presence (i.e., organization and instruction) “is a significant determinate of student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community” (p. 32). As the music teacher educator in this study, I considered the implications of my own teaching presence during the synchronous fieldwork experiences and the dual roles I embodied. For example, in addition to the PMEs’ satisfaction, I also considered the satisfaction of the elementary/secondary students. Music teacher educators should expect to facilitate communication with parents/guardians, record practice tracks, and handle any unexpected deviations from the schedule when planning and organizing synchronous fieldwork. In addition, if elementary and secondary students attend synchronous courses in higher-ed, music teacher educators will need to check their institutions’ policies and procedures regarding minors in online classrooms. Although this fieldwork experience required extended planning and organization, the participants expressed gratitude for the opportunity to work with “real students” during the pandemic.
Suggestions for Future Research and Conclusion
Social interactions can be difficult to analyze in online coursework (Kreijns et al., 2014; Shea & Bidjerano, 2008). Although the synchronous lessons, peer feedback, and focus groups in this study provided opportunities to cross-analyze the data on social presence, researchers might consider other points of data when examining social presence, such as discussion forums, live-chat software features, and social media apps such as TikTok and Clapper. In this study, a previously established social presence may have contributed to perceived cognitive presence—this particular cohort interacted in person, virtual-only, and hybrid for 3 years before the fieldwork began. Therefore, researchers might examine perceptions of social, teaching, and cognitive presence in online coursework across a degree program. Specifically, researchers could compare PMEs’ social developments during online fieldwork in virtual-only, hybrid, and in-person degree programs. Finally, in this study, I examined individual voice lessons with elementary/secondary students. Future researchers might consider examining an online fieldwork experience where PMEs provide feedback to ensembles over video-conferencing software, which may provide diverse teaching experiences for PMEs.
I structured this online fieldwork experience because of in-person restrictions from the pandemic, and the participants reported that they preferred in-person over online fieldwork. However, the unique teaching and learning experiences from the synchronous fieldwork may transfer to future lessons. In addition, online synchronous fieldwork may alleviate challenges associated with in-person fieldwork, such as scheduling issues, distance to varied school environments (rural, urban, and suburban), and financial implications of PME travel. The pandemic fueled the implementation and investigation of virtual teaching and learning experiences, which may continue to have lasting impacts as researchers explore the benefits and challenges. Creating a sense of community in online coursework and fieldwork can pose a challenge, but educators can promote a collaborative teaching presence, encourage a supportive social presence, and continually assess cognitive presence using the CoI framework to create meaningful teaching and learning experiences for students online.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 – Supplemental material for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study by Emily M. Mercado in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 – Supplemental material for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study by Emily M. Mercado in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-3-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 – Supplemental material for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study by Emily M. Mercado in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-4-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 – Supplemental material for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study by Emily M. Mercado in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-5-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 – Supplemental material for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study
Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-jmt-10.1177_10570837221124839 for Preservice Music Educators’ Perceptions of Online Synchronous Fieldwork: A Case Study by Emily M. Mercado in Journal of Music Teacher Education
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was provided by the University of Utah College of Fine Arts faculty grant program.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
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.
