The Effect of a Peer Mentorship Program on Perceptions of Success in Choral Ensembles: Pairing Students With and Without Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of a peer mentorship program on students’ perceptions of comfort, skills obtained, and feelings of success while working with a peer with dissimilar abilities. The participants (N = 14), enrolled in choral ensemble classes, were divided into two groups: the peer mentors (n = 7), who were typically developing students, and the peer mentees (n = 7), who were students with disabilities who had an individualized education program. The researchers created a pretest–posttest survey, and all questions were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Peer mentee self-perceptions of success in the choral classroom revealed slight negative changes from the beginning to the end of the program. However, while some did not want to continue in the program for music skill acquisition, they all indicated a desire to remain in their peer pair for social reasons.

Keywords

children with disabilities choral ensembles peer mentee peer mentoring peer mentorship peer pairs students with disabilities special learners special needs

Children with disabilities can often be successful in music classes when they receive individualized attention and instruction that meet their specific needs (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Jellison, 2015; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014b). Music educators have indicated, however, that it can be difficult to provide customized instruction to this population during actual class time, especially within a music ensemble class (Frisque, Niebur, & Humphreys, 1994; Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden, 1990; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014a). Accordingly, music education and therapy researchers have advocated the use of educational supports that are regularly employed within the special education classroom (i.e., written words, color coding, icons, echoing, peer mentoring, and visual aids) to help tailor instruction for students with disabilities in music classes (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Cassidy, 1990; Hughes & Rice, 2006; Mazur, 2004, VanWeelden, 2011; Whipple & VanWeelden, 2012). Of particular interest to the current study is the educational support of peer mentoring.

Peer mentoring is a technique that pairs students, facilitating one student to provide individualized attention and instruction to another (Greenwood, Maheady, & Carta, 1991). This technique has shown to be helpful for students with disabilities as they enter secondary settings, since the increased curricular and teacher demands amplify the need for using teaching practices and instructional arrangements that will help reduce the possible skill disparity between students with disabilities and those without (Mastropieri, McDuffie, & Scruggs, 2009; Stenhoff & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2007). Furthermore, researchers conducting meta-analyses have found that peer mentoring not only can produce greater academic achievement but also may promote meaningful social interactions between students with disabilities and their typically developing peers (Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003).

To facilitate positive academic outcomes and social interactions in a peer mentorship program, experts in both general education and music education agree that teachers should carefully select, train, and monitor the peer pairs in their classrooms (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Beninghof, 1996; Sheldon, 2001; VanWeelden, 2001, 2011; Vaughn, Wanzek, & Denton, 2007). Specifically, teachers should consult with students to find those who would be willing to participate as either a peer mentor or mentee; match peer pairs through careful consideration of the students’ personalities, schedules, and leadership abilities (peer mentor); provide training to mentors on the skills needed to interact with their peers in this type of program; provide training to mentees about the possible opportunities available within a peer mentorship program; and monitor the program and/or peer pair relationship so adjustments can be made if needed (Beninghof, 1996). While the development of a peer mentorship program that includes both academic outcomes and social interactions can be time-consuming for music educators (Sheldon, 2001), secondary music ensembles oftentimes include student leaders who provide academic models (e.g., section leaders) as well as encourage peer socialization, thus providing a natural climate for a formal peer mentorship program to be implemented (Johnson, 2015).

Research investigating peer mentoring in general education has established an efficacy for fostering learning and academic achievement among students with learning disabilities across the curriculum; however, research on peer mentoring specifically in the music classroom has focused primarily on social behaviors and the effect on classroom management, not on student music skill growth (Alexander & Dorow, 1983; Darrow, Gibbs, & Wedel, 2005; Darrow, Novak, Swedberg, Horton, & Rice, 2009; Goodrich, 2007; Jellison, 2015; Johnson, 2011; Webb, 2015). Consequently, little research within the K–12 music classroom on skill-based peer mentoring has been conducted, and no research has investigated the use of this technique for students with disabilities in the secondary music classroom or rehearsal room. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of a peer mentorship program on students’ perceptions of comfort, skills obtained, and feelings of success while working with a peer who has different abilities than themselves in high school choral ensembles.

Method

The participants (N = 14) were students enrolled in choral ensemble classes at a large suburban high school in a midsized city within the southeast United States. These students were divided into two groups: the peer mentors (n = 7), who were typically developing choral students assigned to an individual student, and the peer mentees (n = 7), who were choral students with disabilities who had an individualized education program and received help from an individual student without disabilities. The high school chorus teacher identified the students to be in the peer mentor group, while the chorus teacher along with the exceptional student education coordinator identified the students to serve as peer mentees. Furthermore, the chorus teacher and exceptional student education coordinator created the peer pairs according to choral ensemble, voice part, and student personality.

The researchers created pretest–posttest surveys for both of the participant groups within the study. The surveys were designed using terms and approaches commonly found in peer mentorship literature. A pilot test for each of the survey tools was conducted using undergraduate music education students. While no issues were revealed during the pilot, it must be qualified that due to the lack of reliability information related to the current surveys, there may be uncontrolled error in participant responses and generalizability may be affected. For the peer mentor survey, questions that pertained to their perceptions of (a) comfort when talking and working with a peer with disabilities, (b) the music and nonmusic skills their peer mentee could obtain/were obtained within a choral ensemble with their assistance, and (c) the peer mentee’s feelings of success within the choral ensemble. Peer mentees answered similar questions on their survey and included their perceptions of (a) comfort when talking and working with a peer without disabilities, (b) the music and nonmusic skills their peer mentor could/did help them obtain within a choral ensemble, and (c) feelings of success within the choral ensemble when receiving assistance from their peer mentor. All questions on the pretest–posttest surveys were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored by the descriptors strongly disagree and strongly agree.

Following the obtainment of the appropriate institutional review board approval and consent/assent, the researchers asked all participants to complete their specific pretest. Directly after the pretest, the peer mentors began their training for this program by meeting individually with the chorus teacher. During this meeting the teacher discussed his observations of the challenges that may be encountered with their peer mentee in the choral rehearsal, as well as the solutions he or she believed would be or had already found to be helpful. This individual appointment was followed by two 45-minute training sessions with the researchers and chorus teacher in which the peer mentors were led in multiple activities (e.g., role-playing, problem solving, discussion) to help them become familiar with their responsibilities. Similar training was also given to the peer mentees prior to the implementation of the program in one 45-minute session, which was led by the researchers and chorus teacher. This session included role-playing and discussion to help them understand the function of their peer mentor and the assistance available to them.

Over the course of the 12-week peer mentorship program, the peer mentors were responsible for helping their peer mentee with music skills (e.g., following along within the music score, such as directing them to the correct words and/or music system) as well as nonmusic skills (e.g., remaining on-task during the rehearsal, such as gentle verbal or nonverbal reminders to pay attention to the chorus teacher) within each choral rehearsal. The peer pairs also met once a week during their lunch period, which gave them an extra opportunity to practice the music and nonmusic skills set by the chorus teacher, as well as time to help foster a greater social connection. Furthermore, all participants kept a journal throughout the program, in which three predetermined prompts/questions were listed to help students formulate comments about the program. For the peer mentor group, the prompts included the following: (a) Give examples of the types of music and nonmusic assistance you provided to your peer mentee this week. (b) In your opinion, explain whether the assistance you provided was helpful to the peer mentee and/or the chorus teacher. (c) Describe how you believe this program is working overall. For the peer mentee group, the questions included: (a) How did your peer mentor help you this week? (b) Did the help your peer mentor gave you help you or not? (c) How do you think the peer mentorship program is going?

At the conclusion of the program all participants completed the same survey from the beginning of the study, with only minor changes to the wording to accommodate for the completion of the program. This created a pretest–posttest design. Finally, all participants were given a chance to create an exit interview video in which they could discuss anything about the program overall, or any specific components of the program (e.g., their peer pair, the type of assistance they received/gave). The semistructured interview employed procedures suggested by Seidman (1998) and aimed to guide peer mentors and peer mentees through their experiences in the peer mentorship program. The areas of inquiry included (a) their experiences in the role of peer mentor/mentee; (b) their perceptions of their peer mentor/mentee; and (c) the overall perception of the peer mentorship program.

Results

Due to the small number of participants, no statistical tests were completed, and generalizations from the data should be made with caution. Furthermore, the research questions will be addressed in the following order: perceptions of comfort about talking with peers in the general school setting as well as in the choral classroom setting, perceptions of comfort about working with peers in the general school setting as well as in the choral classroom setting, perceptions of comfort on providing/receiving assistance in the general school setting as well as in the choral classroom, perceptions of peer mentee music skills obtained, and perceptions of peer mentee success in the choral ensemble. Finally, journal entries and exit interview videos were reviewed for possible themes and will be addressed at the end of this section.

When examining the responses for perceived comfort of talking with peers in the general school setting, the peer mentees had a slight positive gain from pretest to posttest (pretest M = 3.66, SD = 1.03; posttest M = 4.16, SD = 0.83); however, the peer mentor responses saw no change from pretest to posttest (M = 4.16, SD = 0.75). When examining the responses on perceived comfort of talking with peers in the choral classroom, both the peer mentees (pretest M = 4.16, SD = 0.98; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 1.00) and the peer mentors (pretest M = 4.66, SD = 0.51; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 0.51) indicated a more positive response in the pretest than the posttest. Table 1 contains a complete list of means and standard deviations for the category of perceptions of comfort about talking with peers.

Table 1.

Perceptions of Peer Mentor and Peer Mentee Comfort Levels.

	Talking to peers		Working with peers		Providing/receiving assistance to/from peers
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
In general
Peer mentor
Pre	4.16	0.75	4.16	0.75	4.50	0.81
Post	4.16	0.75	4.00	0.89	4.16	0.75
Peer mentee
Pre	3.66	1.03	3.83	0.98	3.50	1.37
Post	4.16	0.83	4.16	0.83	4.00	1.00
In chorus
Peer mentor
Pre	4.66	0.51	4.66	0.51	4.33	0.83
Post	4.00	0.51	4.66	0.51	4.66	0.51
Peer mentee
Pre	4.16	0.98	3.83	0.98	3.66	1.63
Post	4.00	1.00	4.00	1.00	3.83	1.30

Perceptions of comfort when working with peers in the general school setting were obtained from pretest and posttest responses from both participant groups. The peer mentees indicated an increase in perceived comfort (pretest M = 3.83, SD = 0.98; posttest M = 4.16, SD = 0.83), while the peer mentors’ responses slightly decreased (pretest M = 4.16, SD = 0.75; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 0.89). In the choral classroom, perceived comfort in working with peers slightly increased from pretest to posttest for the peer mentees (pretest M = 3.83, SD = 1.47; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 1.00), however, no change was recorded in the responses of the peer mentors (M = 4.66, SD = 0.51). All means and standard deviations are listed in Table 1.

The responses for perceived comfort in providing or receiving assistance from peers in the general school setting increased from pretest to posttest for the peer mentees (pretest M = 3.50, SD = 1.37; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 1.00), while the peer mentors’ responses showed a slight decrease (pretest M = 4.50, SD = 0.81; posttest M = 4.16, SD = 0.75). In the choral classroom both the peer mentees’ (pretest M = 3.66, SD = 1.63; posttest M = 3.83, SD = 1.30) and the peer mentors’ (pretest M = 4.33, SD = .83; posttest M = 4.66, SD = 0.51) responses to perceived comfort in providing/receiving assistance to/from peers increased from pretest to posttest. Table 1 contains a complete list of means and standard deviations for the category of providing or receiving assistance from peers.

Perceptions of peer mentee music skills were obtained from pretest and posttest responses from both participant groups. The peer mentees indicated positive changes in the following music skills areas: eye contact with the conductor (pretest M = 2.66, SD = 1.36; posttest M = 3.80, SD = 0.83), blending with the ensemble (pretest M = 3.50, SD = 0.83; posttest M = 3.60, SD = 1.34), following along with the text (pretest M = 2.66, SD = 1.50; posttest M = 4.00, SD = 0.70), following along with the score (pretest M = 3.50, SD = 0.83; posttest M = 3.66, SD = 1.14), and performance etiquette (pretest M = 2.66, SD = 1.21; posttest M = 3.60, SD = 1.67). Peer mentors indicated positive changes from pretest to posttest within the areas of understanding music terms (pretest M = 4.16, SD = 0.75; posttest M = 4.66, SD = 1.09) and following along with the score (pretest M = 4.16, SD = 0.75; posttest M = 4.66, SD = 0.51). All means and standard deviations are listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Perceptions of Peer Mentee Music Skills.

	Mentees		Mentors
	M	SD	M	SD
Posture
Pre	3.00	1.26	4.33	1.03
Post	3.00	1.22	3.83	0.98
Eye contact with conductor
Pre	2.66	1.36	4.83	0.49
Post	3.80	0.83	4.33	0.81
Tone development
Pre	4.00	0.89	4.50	0.83
Post	3.40	1.51	3.83	1.16
Matching pitch
Pre	4.00	0.89	4.50	0.83
Post	3.20	1.30	4.16	1.16
Blending with ensemble
Pre	3.50	0.83	4.66	0.51
Post	3.60	1.34	4.16	0.75
Inserting music markings
Pre	3.83	1.16	4.50	0.54
Post	3.40	1.14	4.33	1.03
Understanding music terms
Pre	3.66	1.21	4.16	0.75
Post	3.40	0.89	4.66	1.09
Following along with text
Pre	2.66	1.50	4.66	0.51
Post	4.00	0.70	4.66	0.51
Following along with score
Pre	3.50	0.83	4.16	0.75
Post	3.60	1.14	4.66	0.51
Note reading
Pre	4.00	0.89	3.83	0.75
Post	3.00	1.41	3.83	0.98
Rhythm reading
Pre	3.66	0.81	4.16	0.75
Post	3.20	1.09	3.83	0.98
Memorizing music
Pre	3.83	1.16	5.00	0.89
Post	3.40	1.51	4.50	0.54
Performance etiquette
Pre	2.66	1.21	4.66	0.81
Post	3.60	1.67	4.66	0.51

When examining the changes in means and standard deviations in the area of success in the choral classroom, generally the pretest and posttest scores saw negative changes from the responses of the peer mentees and positive changes from the responses of the mentors. Mentees’ responses were more positive in the pretest for the following statements: “I was successful in choir” (pretest M = 4.50, SD = 0.83; posttest M = 3.66, SD = 1.14), “My peer mentor felt I was successful in choir” (pretest M = 4.16, SD = 0.98; posttest M = 3.66, SD = 1.14), “My teacher felt I was successful in choir” (pretest M = 4.50, SD = 0.83; posttest M = 3.83, SD = 1.09), and “I would like to continue to have a peer mentor in choir” (pretest M = 4.61, SD = 0.75; posttest M = 3.66, SD = 1.51). For the peer mentors’ responses, the following statements were more positive in the posttest following the completion of the peer mentorship program: “My peer mentee was successful in choir” (pretest M = 4.33, SD = 0.51; posttest M = 4.50, SD = 0.54), and “My peer mentee felt successful in choir” (pretest M = 4.33, SD = 0.51; posttest M = 4.50, SD = 0.54).

Qualitative data were collected through journal entries and exit interview videos, providing a different lens through which to view the participants’ perceptions. The researchers coded each entry to determine possible themes that emerged throughout the project. An additional expert in the field of music education reviewed the coded data to offer feedback supporting or contesting the decisions made by the researchers. Due to the short journal entries of the participants, no disagreements emerged in the feedback provided by the peer reviewer. The majority of the peer mentors’ and mentees’ journal entries described their perceptions of the overall program as positive and included descriptors such as “good” or “great” within their responses. These feelings were also expressed in the exit interview videos, in which many of the participants described the program as “fun” and “enjoyable.” A few of the peer mentors did express slight feelings of frustration early on in the program, stating, “Progress is moving slowly, but we’re working through it”; however, these statements changed into more positive remarks by the end of the study.

Specific music and nonmusic themes also emerged. For example, focus of attention was mentioned several times by both the peer mentors and peer mentees as a skill the peer pairs were working on during the choral rehearsals. Other comments provided by the peer pairs were coded into the following categories: maintaining personal space, encouraging confidence in oneself, finding music and other materials for class, using correct singing voice, learning the music (i.e., pitches, rhythms, and lyrics), standing in correct singing posture, inserting conductor specified marks within the octavo, and finding their place within the music. While many of these skills were addressed in the survey tool, some emerged as individual focuses based on the needs within the peer pairs.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of a peer mentorship program on students’ perceptions of comfort, skills obtained, and feelings of success while working with a peer who has different abilities than themselves. The results found that all participants started and ended feeling quite positive about their experience in choir and the peer mentorship program, with only very slight changes noted in their perceptions when assessing the overall success of the program. There are several possible reasons for this result. For example, the chorus teacher, who was highly supportive and had previously incorporated casual peer tutoring within his choral ensembles on occasion, quite possibly preconditioned his students to know that any activity suggested would benefit them individually as well as the choral program as a whole. While the current study implemented a more formal peer mentorship program, which included music skills and social behaviors, a nurturing and supportive classroom culture was already in place. Another possible reason for the results could be the type of participants who were involved in the study. All students were asked if they wanted to be in a peer pair, and the chorus teacher described the peer mentors as “incredibly nice” and “just good kids.” Furthermore, the students who served as peer mentors were not necessarily members of the choral program’s leadership; however, the personality traits described in previous research for success in this role were highly evident in these individuals (Beninghof, 1996). One final reason for only slight changes in the results could be the small number of participants. The study was limited by the number of students who were mainstreamed into the choral classroom and who were willing to participate as a peer mentee within the program. During the planning portion of the study, a few students with disabilities, who were identified as possible participants for the program, elected to not have a peer mentor. Having the choice to participate is another important element of a successful peer mentorship program (Adamek & Darrow, 2010; Beninghof, 1996; Johnson, 2015; Sheldon, 2001; VanWeelden, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2007) and is especially true for students with disabilities, as they do not often have the opportunity to make independent choices about their education (Adamek & Darrow, 2010).

Social interaction (i.e., talking with, working with, and providing/receiving assistance from peers) was a major component of this peer mentorship project, not only between the members of the peer pairs but also with the participants’ general perception of peers who have different abilities than themselves. For both participant groups, comfort levels on talking with peers in the general school setting slightly increased; however, peer mentors indicated they were slightly less willing to talk with students with disabilities in the choral classroom at the completion of the program. About working with their peers of different abilities than themselves, the peer mentees’ perception increased from pretest to posttest, while the peer mentors remained the same. Finally, both participant groups were more comfortable providing/receiving assistance to/from their peers within the ensemble setting by the end of the program. Due to the small sample size of the current study, further research should be conducted examining social interactions within a music peer mentorship program to determine whether these results were specific to the current study or could be found in other music classroom settings.

The results of this study also revealed there was a slight decrease in the peer mentee group in perceptions of their own music abilities, which was not noted within the peer mentor group. Difference between the participant groups’ perceptions of music skill acquisition could be attributed to the peer mentors truly seeing improvement, while the peer mentees may have gained a more realistic perception of their actual music ability. This, perhaps, is one of the most important results of this research, as a common goal for music educators is to teach students in secondary-level music ensembles the necessary skills to become self-aware of their abilities and growth. Thus, the development of music self-awareness by the peer mentees in the current study may allude to an additional benefit for the implementation of a peer mentorship program in music.

Peer mentee self-perceptions of success in the choral classroom revealed slight negative changes from the beginning to the end of the program. However, while some of the peer mentees indicated they did not want to continue in the peer mentorship program for music skill acquisition, they all indicated a desire to remain in their peer pair for social reasons. It was apparent in the student journals and exit interview videos that friendships were fostered through the program, and the peer mentees perceived a better sense of belonging within the choral classroom and school community through these friendships.

Conclusion

While the current study did not analyze the results through statistical measures, the slight increases that were noted may warrant further investigation and development of peer mentorship programs within music classrooms. As an educational support, this type of program may provide a bridge between teaching the class as a relatively homogenous group and providing the individualized attention and instruction that is required to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. Thus, implementing a peer mentorship program could not only benefit the students with disabilities but could also benefit the teacher and the overall music program. Finally, further investigation in different music ensembles and classrooms implementing peer mentorship programs is warranted.

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.

References

Adamek

M. S.

Darrow

A.-A.

(2010). Music in special education. Silver Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association.

Alexander

Dorow

L. G.

(1983). Peer tutoring effects on the music performance of tutors and tutees in beginning band classes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 33–47. doi:10.2307/3345108

Beninghof

A. M.

(1996). Ideas for inclusion: A classroom teacher’s guide to integration students with severe disabilities. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Cassidy

J. W.

(1990). Managing the mainstreamed classroom. Music Educators Journal, 76, 40–43.

Darrow

A.-A.

Gibbs

Wedel

(2005). Use of classwide peer tutoring in the general music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(1), 15–26. doi:10.1177/87551233050240010103

Darrow

A.-A.

Novak

Swedberg

Horton

Rice

(2009). The effect of participation in a music mentorship program on the self esteem and attitudes of at-risk students. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 5–16.

Frisque

Niebur

Humphreys

J. T.

(1994). Music mainstreaming: Practices in Arizona. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 94–104. doi:10.2307/3345494

Gfeller

Darrow

A.-A.

Hedden

S. K.

(1990). Perceived effectiveness of mainstreaming in Iowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 90–101. doi:10.2307/3344929

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 732–749.

10.

Goodrich

(2007). Peer mentoring in a high school jazz ensemble. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 94–114. doi:10.1177/002242940705500202

11.

Greenwood

C. R.

Maheady

Carta

J. J.

(1991). Peer tutoring programs in the regular education classroom. Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems, 1, 179–200.

12.

Hughes

J. E.

Rice

B. R.

(2006). Strategies for serving the special needs for individuals in public school music settings. In Humpal

M. E.

Colwell

(Eds.), Early childhood and school age educational settings: Using music to maximize learning (pp. 144–152). Silver Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association.

13.

Jellison

J. A.

(2015). Including everyone: Creating classrooms where all children can learn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Johnson

(2011). The effect of peer-based instruction on rhythm reading achievement. Contributions to Music Education, 38, 43–60.

15.

Johnson

(2015). Peer-teaching in the secondary music ensemble. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 35–42. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i5.906

16.

Mastropieri

M. A.

McDuffie

K. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493–510.

17.

Mazur

(2004). An introduction to inclusion in the music classroom. General Music Today, 18(1), 6–11. doi:10.1177/10483713040180010103

18.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

Miller

T. R.

(2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257.

19.

Seidman

(1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

20.

Sheldon

D. A.

(2001). Peer and cross-age tutoring in music. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 33–38.

21.

Stenhoff

D. M.

Lignugaris-Kraft

(2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8–30. doi:10.1177/001440290707400101

22.

VanWeelden

(2001). Choral mainstreaming: Tips for success. Music Educators Journal, 88(3), 55–60.

23.

VanWeelden

(2011). Accommodating the special learner in secondary general music classes. General Music Today, 24(3), 39–41. doi:10.1177/1048371310396707

24.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2014a). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 148–160. doi:10.1177/0022429414530563

25.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2014b). Music educators’ perceptions of preparation and supports available for inclusion. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23(2), 33–51. doi:10.1177/1057083713484585

26.

Vaughn

Wanzek

Denton

C. A.

(2007). Teaching elementary students who experience difficulties in learning. In Florian

(Ed), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 360–377). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Webb

R. S.

(2015). An exploration of three peer tutoring cases in the school orchestra program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 203, 63–80. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.203.0063

28.

Whipple

VanWeelden

(2012). Educational supports for students with special needs: Preservice music educators’ perceptions. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30(2), 32–45. doi:10.1177/8755123312436987