Describing Instrumental Music Teachers’ Thinking

Abstract

Pedagogical content knowledge, the particular ways that teachers understand their subjects in order to instruct others, has been described and explored in the math and science education fields in some depth, yet little research exists illustrating this concept in music instruction. I used a descriptive approach to explore expert beginning band teachers’ thinking as they viewed videotaped performances of sixth-grade instrumental music students in their first year of instruction. I categorized the expert teachers’ comments using models of pedagogical content knowledge from previous research in other subject areas in order to understand how music teachers use these skills. Teachers in the study each demonstrated a clear mental image of what they wanted to see and hear in student performances, and each used modeling, comparison, and questioning techniques to develop awareness skills in their students. The findings have implications in teacher education and teacher development in music.

Keywords

beginning band instruction expert teachers instrumental music music education music teacher education pedagogical content knowledge

In 1987, Lee Schulman wrote an article describing the complex and specialized ways teachers understand their subjects. Schulman called this unique way in which teachers work with and visualize their subjects in order to teach them to others pedagogical content knowledge. This type of knowledge is a way of “representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others” (Schulman, 1987, p. 9).

Schulman (1987) argued that merely understanding a subject that one intends to teach is insufficient; this understanding must be combined with knowledge of general pedagogical principles, curricular knowledge, and knowledge of learners and their characteristics. Pedagogical content knowledge can be described as the amalgamation of these categories resulting in a special kind of knowledge that “intertwines content with aspects of teaching and learning” (Ball & Bass, 2002, p. 4). Not only do teachers understand their subjects well, but their content knowledge is interwoven “with knowledge of how students think about, know, or learn this particular content” (Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008, p. 375). The relationship between content knowledge, curricular knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics, and general pedagogical knowledge can be visualized as overlapping to create a region that represents pedagogical content knowledge (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Visual representation of a portion of Schulman’s (1987) framework.

A high degree of subject matter knowledge or skill in a particular area does not guarantee that a person will be successful conveying that knowledge or skill to others. In the field of reading education, Phelps and Schilling (2004) argue that an advanced knowledge of phonemes, the basic building blocks of speech and language, is insufficient in itself to guarantee success in conveying the basics of learning how to read or spell. Students sometimes make mistakes when learning language that, on the surface, may not be obvious to an accomplished reader. Phelps and Schilling argue that “knowledge of phonemes and the relationships between phonemes and written language may not be sufficient knowledge for making sense of students’ decoding or spelling errors” (p. 36). In music, one might assume that because a performer reads music at sight well, she or he should be able to teach others to sight-read. Experience tells us this is not so. Effective teachers have a special relationship with the content that incorporates their students’ understanding of concepts and skills in a way that is integral to students’ acquisition of knowledge and skill in a content area.

Since the publication of Schulman’s article in the 1980s, many researchers, especially in the math and science realms, have described specific components of pedagogical content knowledge. Effective teachers have a knowledge of

what students find interesting and challenging about a subject (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004)

students’ common difficulties in a given topic (Tamir, 1988)

specific strategies to teach concepts within a particular discipline (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Rowan, Schilling, Ball, & Miller, 2001; Tamir, 1988)

representations that may be useful in presenting a specific content idea (Ball & Bass, 2002; Hill et al., 2004; Rowan et al., 2001)

appropriate sequencing of instruction (Hill et al., 2008)

typical student errors and misunderstandings of content (Hill et al., 2004; Hill et al., 2008; Rowan et al., 2001)

Evidence of pedagogical content knowledge also manifests itself when teachers predict student mistakes (Phelps & Schilling, 2004) and as they interpret student work and performances (Hill et al., 2004; Hill et al., 2008)

In addition to the application of the Schulman model among researchers in the science and math education fields, the concepts presented in that model as they apply to teacher certification and licensure have been adopted by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008), the National Association of Schools of Music (Niermen, Zeichner, & Hobbel, 2002), and other teacher accreditation agencies (e.g., Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 1992).

Although pedagogical content knowledge is relatively new in the world of music teaching research, scholars in science, math, and language arts pedagogy have laid a fairly substantial groundwork for studying this topic in more depth (Boz & Boz, 2008; Magnusson et al., 1999; Phelps & Schilling, 2004; Rowan et al., 2001; Veal, 2004). Deborah Ball at the University of Michigan led the first group to measure pedagogical content knowledge, which her team calls Mathematical Knowledge for Teachers, and to correlate teacher pedagogical content knowledge to students’ success (Ball & Bass, 2002; Hill et al., 2004; Hill & Lubienski, 2007; Hill, Rowman, & Ball, 2005).

Few studies of pedagogical content knowledge in music exist. Although pedagogical content knowledge has been shown to be a valued skill across a wide demographic of music teachers in the United States (Millican, 2007, 2008), only a few music scholars have begun to investigate and describe just what pedagogical content knowledge looks like in music education. Some scholars describe sources of pedagogical content knowledge in music teaching (Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008), and some attempts have been made to describe expert teaching in music at the collegiate level. In their study of three expert college music teachers, Duke and Simmons (2006) describe several aspects of teaching that highlight the strong bond between mastery of content and conveying that information to students. They found that, among other things, expert applied teachers during private instruction have a clear auditory image that guides their decision making and that teachers value modeling musical skills and performances to their students as an effective way to convey musical concepts.

Method: Describing Teachers’ Thinking in Terms of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The purpose of this study was to begin to describe how pedagogical content knowledge might manifest itself in beginning band instruction. Using the work of Hill et al. (2008) as a guide, my initial goal was to conceptualize pedagogical content knowledge in music education by analyzing the how music teachers interact with the students in realistic scenarios. Three research questions were developed in an attempt to tap into teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge:

Research Question 1: What do teachers notice about student performances?

Research Question 2: What are the ways teachers choose to address performance issues?

Research Question 3: How might these statements be categorized in order to describe the ways teachers use pedagogical content knowledge in their classrooms?

Most of the research into pedagogical content knowledge in the math and science fields either features short, realistic, written scenarios as prompts to elicit comments from teachers or uses written work from teachers in order to measure or describe their pedagogical content knowledge (Boz & Boz, 2008; Kersting, Givvin, Sotelo, & Stigler, 2010; Rowan et al., 2001; Veal, 2004). I thought it would be difficult and unrealistic for potential participants to work through written scenarios using typical instrumental performance problems. Whereas math, science, and reading studies might realistically use scenarios that represent students’ work in written form, analysis of music teachers’ thinking would be better suited to the use of authentic student performances in which the aural and visual elements of the performance could be experienced firsthand. To present several identical scenarios to different groups of teachers, I collected video clips (n = 52) of sixth-grade beginning band students (n = 28) from one suburban middle school. The students who performed on the clips were all in their first year of instruction. Each of the students was taught by one of two instructors and met in heterogeneous woodwind or brass classes. The students played one or two lines of their own choosing from their beginning band method book. I selected clips (n = 21) that displayed a variety of student performance errors for my final compilation, which included flute, clarinet, trumpet, and trombone performances. Performances on other instruments were not included in the final compilation because of the limited number of participants on those instruments.

I used a social interaction analysis approach to identify three expert teachers who taught beginning band. Researchers use social interaction analysis to select experts who have demonstrated a high degree of proficiency among a group of practitioners (Meig, 2000; Stein, 1997). In this approach, researchers strive to find a “person of specialization” (Hoffman & Haynes, 2003). To find expert music teachers, I contacted respected wind and percussion presenters and educators from across a well-populated southern state by culling the list of past middle school honor band finalists, lecturers who had been invited to address the state music educators association or the statewide bandmasters association on topics related to beginning band instruction, as well as middle school band advisors enrolled in a statewide music-teacher mentoring program. I sent 91 queries inviting these people to nominate effective beginning band instructors. I was open in my request for nominations in that I did not specify a requirement for nominators’ personal observation of potential nominees’ teaching before being recommended; it is entirely possible that some of the nominees were forwarded to me solely based on their professional reputation or by inference based on the performance skill of a teacher’s advanced ensembles.

I received 24 responses to my query and selected three nominees who received the most votes to comprise my panel of expert teachers for practical reasons; each of the three received a similar number of votes, and each teaches within a 100-mile radius from each other, which facilitated my site visits. Each of the three experts is a well-known and respected educator with long line of accomplishments. Amy¹ is a middle school director who has led four of her bands to the state honor band finals and has taught beginning band students for 16 years. Beth is a three-time honor band finalist with 27 years of teaching experience. Cindy is a two-time honor band finalist who has taught middle school band for 27 years. Each has presented clinics in beginning band instruction at the state, regional, and national levels.

I videotaped interviews with each expert separately. During the interviews, each expert viewed 14 short clips from the collection of beginning band instrumentalists. To help put the experts at ease with the process, I began each interview with 7 clips of students in the area of specialization for each teacher (flute, clarinet, or brass). I followed this up by showing each expert 7 other clips that included performances on flute, clarinet, trumpet, and trombone. I asked each participant to comment on what she might say or do to correct problem areas she identified in each videotaped performance. I transcribed a total of 3 hours of interviews and used HyperRESEARCH to code the experts’ comments. I coded each instance of pedagogical content knowledge drawn from a list taken from established models (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004; Duke & Simmons, 2006; Hill et al., 2004) in order to place their statement and decisions into categories. Table 1 shows the frequency of participants’ statements in each pedagogical content knowledge area.

Table 1.

Most Common Elements of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Pedagogical content knowledge item	Number of occurrences
Teachers evaluate student performance compared to a mental image or model	58
Teachers understand the outcomes of the manipulation of variables to positively affect student performance	38
Teachers gather and interpret specific data to interpret student work	36
Teachers develop specific rules, procedures, and guidelines to help students master principles of performance	33
Teachers make conscious decisions about sequencing instruction, and they prioritize which issues they choose to address	27
Teachers anticipate and predict student problems	22
Teachers engage students by having them compare their performances with teacher and peer models	22
Teachers engage students with specific, deliberate questions leading to awareness of the physical processes of making music	22
Teachers use representations to help students understand musical concepts	14
Teachers understand common student misconceptions and misrepresentations	14

Data Verification

I used triangulation, peer review, and member checking procedures to help verify my findings. First, I asked an experienced public school teacher to review my coded interview transcripts to confirm my choices in selecting codes; I revised or expanded some of my coding of participants’ statements based on her recommendations. I then sent each member of my expert panel a rough draft of my report and asked them to verify that the conclusions I drew appeared legitimate and accurate; each participant agreed that her statements had been described and analyzed correctly. Last, I sent my work to several music education colleagues familiar with pedagogical content knowledge and qualitative analysis techniques and asked them to assess the plausibility of my coding and conclusions.

Describing Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Music Instruction

Listing elements of expert music teaching is not without precedent (Duke & Simmons, 2006), but this list helps describe what pedagogical content knowledge looks like for beginning band instruction. Each teacher in the study has a clear mental image of what she want to see and hear, and each uses modeling, comparisons, and questioning techniques to develop awareness skills in her students. Although there is overlap among the categories, the most frequent examples of pedagogical content knowledge are described as they pertain to music instruction below.

Teachers Evaluate Student Performances Compared with a Mental Image or Model

As students perform each excerpt, the teachers simultaneously evaluate their performances while referencing a mental image or model of the ideal performance. This image may be a visual representation or an aural one. Amy, a brass expert, clearly referenced a visual mental image of ideal trombone playing position while she watched one of my clips. “His hand position’s wrong. His left hand is totally wrong. He moves his trombone every time he moves the slide.” Beth, a flutist, compared her visual image of the ideal flute player with what she saw in the video when she commented, “I don’t see any red from the bottom of her lip, and what I’d like to see is her (bottom) lip up against her bottom teeth with the corners in so that she’s got a nice, flat chin.”

The experts maintained clear aural models of what each instrument should sound like, and they could instantly categorize and identify the sources of performances that did not match those models. Amy identified a stuffy sound in one particular trumpet performance and immediately commented, “His tongue’s in the wrong place.” Beth thought of the ideal performance of a line and evaluated what she heard on the video. “She’s playing everything real ‘tooty.’ There’s no sustained sounds, so she’s really not playing the correct rhythm.” Amy summarized the skill that each had demonstrated succinctly: “You just compare what you’re supposed to play with what they’re doing.”

Teachers Understand the Outcomes of Manipulating Variables to Positively Affect Student Performances

The teachers understand that changing one aspect of a performer’s setup will affect their performance in some way. When asked how Beth might help a flute student with poor hand position, she said, “I would ask her to just bend that (left) wrist a little bit . . . and get the palm of her hand closer to the flute. . . . What happens when you do that, automatically, your fingers bend.” These experts understand that if they do X differently, then Y will change. Amy commented on a trumpet performance: “He could (have his corners) in more and (flatten his chin to be) more open and get a better sound.” Perhaps frustratingly for novice teachers, some of their suggestions might not be immediately obvious to a young teacher. Beth added, “Surprisingly enough, the hand position is going to change her tone too.”

Teachers Gather and Interpret Specific Data from Students to Interpret Their Performances

While it is already been stated that teachers evaluate performances compared with a mental image or model, this skill isolates the ability to absorb an amazing amount of information from student performances. Expert teachers filter specific data to crystallize the most important factors that help them make teaching decisions. Cindy, who is a flute player but teaches all her beginning brass players, analyzed data from a trumpet performance: “It looks like his face is moving just a little bit when he tongues . . .” By analyzing aural data, Beth was able to make a judgment based on her past experiences to interpret what she heard in a clarinet performance.

She was using a lot of tongue on the reed and a lot of reed. I mean, you could tell she was probably using about a half an inch of tongue – probably about a quarter of an inch of reed at the top.

As stated earlier, much of the teachers’ data analysis incorporates comparison with a mental image or model. Amy demonstrated her mastery of this technique as she worked through a trumpet articulation problem while mentally replaying the student’s performance. She said, “And it sounds like . . . [Closes eyes and imitates good and poor articulation comparing the two.] She probably also has the tip of her tongue down and is tonguing ‘DAA, DAA, DAAT’—that kind of business.”

Teachers Develop Specific Rules, Procedures, and Guidelines to Help Students Master Principles of Performance

Each of the teachers expressed ways in which she establishes and develops the routines and habits necessary for successful performance on wind instruments. Cindy outlined specific procedures for moving from a rest position to a playing position. Amy outlined specific guidelines related to positioning music stands to improve posture and performance for brass players. Beth outlined specific procedures for assembling the flute “We have a special way of doing that too! We start with the head joint, and yes, we place it in a certain way.” When encountering performance problems presented in the videotaped excerpts, each teacher recalled specific routines, rules, and procedures that she had accumulated and used successfully over years of teaching.

Teachers Make Conscious Decisions about Sequencing Instruction, and They Prioritize Which Issues They Choose to Address

Each teacher noticed and mentioned performance issues that they would ignore until other underlying fundamental issues were addressed. Beth noted that breath development work would have to wait until correct posture was established with a flute player she observed. “Once I got her to do the posturing, then I would work on her breathing.” Both Amy and Cindy addressed problems in a particular trumpet performance but also added that tone quality would be their first priority. Amy said, “She’s not tonguing correctly, but I wouldn’t even worry about the tonguing until we can play a long tone right.” Cindy was more blunt in her comment. “I’d get into what the trumpet’s supposed to sound like before I would start teaching anything (else).”

Teachers Anticipate and Predict Student Problems

Experts understand the breakdowns that commonly occur when students learn. Amy described a typical scenario when teaching brass embouchure formation. Often students will fail to maintain the integrity of the embouchure as they exhale. “A lot of times that happens just when they start blowing; they blow so hard that they bust out their bottom lip.” Teachers can also predict what issues might arise if certain aspects of a student performance are left unaddressed. Cindy watched two performances by a particular trumpet player who allowed his cheeks to puff in an extreme manner. She shook her head and said, “There’s [sic] those cheeks—which will hinder him.” Beth combined the knowledge of common student mistakes with the realization that if left unaddressed, these issues would inhibit further progress on the flute.

A lot of times you can see kids, especially when they just want to take the shortcut and just get a sound, they’ll get their flute real high up on their lip . . . and so what’s happening is they’re covering the aperture hole, getting it real high and covering. You don’t have to use very much air (when you do that). They’ll get a sound, but it won’t be a very good sound. It will be very flat, and they won’t be able to do any volume.

Teachers Engage Students by Having Them Compare Their Performances with Teacher and Peer Models

Amy clarified this point, “Instruction has to come through listening; they have to be able to hear it.” Students develop discriminative listening skills by comparing their own performances, or imitative examples of their performances, with ideal models. Beth provided the following hypothetical conversation as an example.

You know, when you have them stop and listen to themselves or listen to others . . . (I’ll ask them) “What do you hear—the difference between this one and this one?”

(They will say,) “This one’s longer” (or) “this one’s shorter.”

“Which do you like best?”

“I like the longer one.”

“Why do you like the longer one?”

So (we’re) developing critical listening too.

Amy stated that her students develop sharply honed skills of aural discrimination if this process is followed throughout the students’ initial development.

And my students can start to hear it, because I’ll say, “What does that sound like?” And they’ll go, “It sounds like they’re tonguing too far back” or “It sounds like they’re not tonguing with the tip of the tongue.” The kids start to hear it because I imitate it so much.

Teachers work with visual models as well. When asked about embouchure formation, Amy commented that she demonstrated much more than she spoke. “You know, I don’t really talk about that. I just say, ‘Do this. Do this. Do this.’” Cindy added that she does “a lot of monkey see, monkey do. Tell me what I didn’t do.” Students develop the ability to quickly evaluate these models, and teachers use this skill to their advantage. While discussing hand position on flute, Beth noted, “All I have to do is do it (incorrectly), and they (lower their fingers to correct hand position).”

Teachers Engage Students with Specific, Deliberate Questions Leading to Awareness of the Physical Processes of Making Music

A primary instructional mode for each of the teachers, closely entwined with modeling and developing student awareness, was the practice of engaging students with leading questions. Rather than providing the student with the answers, these experts coaxed the information out of the students and led them to an awareness of how to make their performances better (Millican, 2010). This questioning technique also helps teachers check for understanding. Beth said, “We do a lot of ‘Why do you?’ and ‘Which one is?’ and ‘What do you think?’ and ‘What would you say if you were me?’ kind of stuff.” Cindy added, “I love to put it back on the kids. ‘What did you hear?’ That’s after … they knew what it was supposed to sound like.”

Implications

On the surface level, the categorization of statements from a small group of expert teachers may seem to represent a simple listing of good teaching techniques. How is this list anything more than a mere list of diagnostic and prescriptive strategies? Any experienced teacher will immediately recognize that the statements describing pedagogical content knowledge are common to effective teaching. If one digs deeper into the nature of these statements, one realizes that these statements get to the heart of pedagogical content knowledge in that they are not simple reactions to correct a pedagogical problem. On a deeper level, these specific teaching techniques combine a teachers’ knowledge of students, knowledge of content, understanding of curriculum and sequencing, and general teaching skills in order to communicate both abstract and concrete musical concepts to students in an effective way (see Figure 1). Hopefully, this study provides examples of specific ways successful music teachers can apply concepts of pedagogical content knowledge that have been outlined in other subject matter areas. Although this study focused on teachers engaged in beginning band instruction, hopefully teachers in other music subject areas or teachers at other levels of musical development can recognize and implement instruction that uses the concepts of pedagogical content knowledge into their classrooms.

To be effective instrumental music instructors, teachers need to possess certain highly developed, integrated skills that build on their own initial mastery of music content and performance skill. First of all, successful teachers need to have a clear mental image of the visual and aural aspects of playing each of the instruments they are teaching and be able to interact with students, and their visualizations and conceptions, to achieve that goal. Amy was dismayed that some teachers lack clear mental impressions of the sounds they want their students to produce. “Are you teaching them how to make their instrument sound the way it’s supposed to sound? Well do you know what it’s supposed to sound like? If you don’t, then you really have a problem, right?” Cindy emphasized that teachers should have at least a rudimentary ability on every instrument they teach.

Even if it’s just being able to play a note or two that sound great to where (the students) look at us and go, “OK, that’s what it sounds like” . . . You may not be a star at the instrument, but model.

Preservice and less experienced teachers should take opportunities to familiarize themselves with the characteristic sounds of each instrument they teach and consistently hone their modeling skills on each instrument.

Second, in addition to being able to identify performance problems, teachers must also understand what causes these problems and be able to interact with students to affect positive change in their performances. This involves really understanding how students work as well as understanding the mechanics of making music. Beth said, “Young teachers, rather than going to what’s causing the problem, they look at—totally ignore, really—the problem. So they really don’t see it.” Teachers must be able to articulate, in multiple, meaningful ways, how to address each problem using probing questioning techniques and modeling to help achieve the goals they have set forth for their students (Millican, 2010). These expert teachers each cited observation of great teachers dealing with common problems of student performance as the primary influence on their development as teachers.

Prospective teachers must be given opportunities to hone these skills (Ball & Forzani, 2009). In music, the most beneficial experiences are those in which young students can carry out the “apprenticeship of observation” in early field experiences and student teaching internships in addition to their methods courses (Haston & Leon-Guerrero, 2008, p. 57). Music teacher educators need “a reliable system that can begin with ordinary people willing to learn the practice of teaching and actually equip them to do the work effectively” (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 498).

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

One of the key elements of pedagogical content knowledge is the integration of subject matter knowledge with knowledge of learners and their characteristics. The design of this study prevents the panel of experts from really knowing and interacting with the students in a meaningful way. Although the experts in this study did not have a true familiarity with these particular students, it is plausible to expect that, with a combined 81 years of teaching experience, these teachers would have run across students with these types of problems and have had experience leading students of this type to improve their playing skills and knowledge of musical concepts.

Although I made every effort to select authentic scenarios to present to the panel of experts, the video excerpts were from one particular school and may be too exclusive in the playing issues on which the experts commented. The teachers could not actually interact with the students, so the complexity of the teaching environment was not accurately recreated. The process used in this study did not allow for teachers to try multiple approaches and did not offer the opportunity for the students to demonstrate any positive change in their performances, which has been shown to be a key indicator in expert teaching (Duke & Simmons, 2006).

Experts may indeed follow through and execute the ideas expressed in these interviews exactly as stated, but it would be helpful to confirm those statements by conducting long-term observations of an expert teachers working with beginning band students. Some of the approaches and sequences these experts use are difficult to self-report in an interview setting. Some research suggests that many teachers have difficulty articulating why certain things might be difficult for students; teachers merely acknowledge the task is difficult and move on to conquer the activity at hand (Hill et al., 2008). Using a longitudinal approach to data collection, one may be able to ascertain if the approaches and ideas set forth in these staged, videotaped scenarios are reflected in actual practice. Longitudinal studies in other music areas and at all levels of development would be helpful in triangulating and verifying the implications of this preliminary study.

A logical next step is to compare the responses of novice or preservice teachers with the responses of the expert panel. This approach assumes that there is a continuum from novice to expert and that there are discrete indicators that allow researchers to monitor the progress of individuals along that continuum (Chi, 2006). A measurement instrument, perhaps based on those developed in the math and science education fields, might be a useful tool in music teacher evaluation if one can determine discrete indicators of membership in levels along a novice–expert continuum using pedagogical content knowledge as a guide. Of particular interest is the notion that strong pedagogical content knowledge among teachers is an indicator of student success.

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.

Notes

References

Ball

Bass

(2002, May). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

F. M.

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

Ballantyne

Packer

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

Boz

(2008). A qualitative case study of prospective chemistry teachers’ knowledge about instructional strategies: Introducing particulate theory. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 135–156.

Chi

M. T. H.

(2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In Ericsson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

(2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170. Retrieved from http://cml.music.utexas.edu/assets/pdf/DukeSimmons2006.pdf

Haston

Leon-Guerrero

(2008). Sources of pedagogical content knowledge: Reports by preservice instrumental music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(2), 48–59.

Hill

H. C.

Ball

D. L.

Schilling

S. G.

(2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372–400.

Hill

H. C.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2007). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and school context: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21, 747–768.

10.

Hill

H. C.

Rowman

Ball

(2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.

11.

Hill

H. C.

Schilling

S. G.

Ball

D. L.

(2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.

12.

Hoffman

R. R.

Haynes

L. F.

(2003). The boiled frog problem. IEEE: Intelligent Systems, 18(4), 68–71.

13.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.

14.

Kersting

N. B.

Givvin

K. B.

Sotelo

F. L.

Stigler

J. W.

(2010). Teachers’ analyses of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 172–181.

15.

Magnusson

Krajcik

Borko

(1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical ontent knowledge for science teaching. In Ness-Newsome

Lederman

N. G.

(Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

16.

Meig

(2000). The social psychology of expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Millican

J. S.

(2007). Secondary instrumental music teachers’ evaluation of essential knowledge and skills for successful teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Oklahoma, Norman.

18.

Millican

J. S.

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

19.

Millican

J. S.

(2010). Reverse the information and performance flow for musical understanding. Music Matters, 2(2), 4–6.

20.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

21.

Niermen

G. E.

Zeichner

Hobbel

(2002). Changing concepts of teacher education. In Colwell

(Ed.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 818–839). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

22.

Phelps

Schilling

(2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31–48.

23.

Rowan

Schilling

S. G.

Ball

D. L.

Miller

(2001). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in surveys: An exploratory study. Retrieved from http://www.sii.soe.umich.edu/documents/pck%20final%20report%20revised%20BR100901.pdf

24.

Schulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

25.

Stein

E. W.

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

P. J.

Ford

K. M.

Hoffman

R. R.

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

26.

Tamir

(1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 99–110.

27.

Veal

W. R.

(2004). Beliefs and knowledge in chemistry teacher development. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 329–351.