Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of undergraduate music education majors regarding the skills needed to teach popular music classes, and their comfort level with those skills. Preservice music educators (N = 81) completed a researcher-designed questionnaire describing their previous experiences with popular music, their perceptions of necessary teaching skills for popular music instruction, their comfort level with those skills, and their overall feelings of preparedness to teach popular music. Respondents rated the teaching skills of ear training, piano/keyboard, and informal learning practices as most important. In addition, respondents indicated that they were most comfortable with the teaching skills of singing, music theory, and informal learning practices. In general, respondents felt moderately prepared to teach popular music, but many believed they were lacking important knowledge and skills, including proficiency on various instruments, understanding how to integrate popular music, and music software proficiency. Implications for music educators are discussed.

Keywords

music education popular music preparation preservice teaching skills

The inclusion of popular music in the schools has been a topic of research for decades and gained national exposure at the Tanglewood Symposium in 1967. The resulting Tanglewood Declaration included language about music educators’ responsibility to include popular music in their curricula in suggesting that “the musical repertory should be expanded to include music of our time in its rich variety, including currently popular teenage music . . . ” (Choate et al., 1967, p. 51). Although expectations about popular music were expressed during the Symposium, music educators have continued to debate the necessity of and uses for popular music in the schools since that time (MacClusky, 1979; O’Brien, 1982; Pembrook, 1990). For example, in 1999, music educators at the Housewright Symposium gathered to assess the progress that had been made since the Tanglewood Symposium. The published culmination of their efforts, entitled Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education, included a number of statements that advocated for the use of popular music in schools (Branscome, 2016; Madsen, 2000).

In the years since Vision 2020, popular music course offerings have risen in number, as educators and administrators have attempted to provide students with varied and relevant music experiences (Abril & Gault, 2008; Allsup, 2011; Davis & Blair, 2011; Isbell, 2007; Kuhn, 2012; Mantie, 2013; Sanderson, 2014). To this end, classes such as Modern Band,¹ guitar, piano, steel pan ensemble, and music technology have increased in popularity recently (Veronee, 2017). However, despite the plan established by the authors of Vision 2020, the abundance of research on popular music as it relates to music education, and the increase in popular music course offerings, the inclusion of popular music in the curriculum remains a contentious topic among music teacher educators and inservice music educators (Cutietta, 1991; Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Isbell, 2007; Kruse, 2015; Kuzmich, 1991; MacClusky, 1979; Mantie, 2013; Newsom, 1998).

Music teachers have historically received limited training with regard to popular music in undergraduate music education courses (Davis & Blair, 2011; Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Springer, 2016; Springer & Gooding, 2013; Wang & Humphreys, 2009). In fact, Asmus (2001) suggested that undergraduate music education programs should not immerse preservice music educators in heavy course loads that do not accurately reflect the needs of the communities in which they will be teaching. This gap in preservice music educator preparation is troubling given that research findings have indicated that many P–12 students do not connect with the music—primarily Western art music—being taught in the schools. These students perceived it as separate from their music (Mills, 2000) and lacking relevancy based on their music preferences (Kuzmich, 1991; O’Brien, 1982; Temmerman, 1993).

This tension between in-school music and out-of-school music is often attributed to the fact that many music education programs are still rooted in the Western art tradition, where formal, teacher-directed methods for teaching and learning music are the norm (Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Isbell, 2016). The result is a population of inservice music teachers who were underexposed to popular music ensembles as well as methods for teaching them (Kruse, 2015; Springer, 2016; Springer & Gooding, 2013; Wang & Humphreys, 2009). Those creating the undergraduate music education curricula in colleges are initially faced with the same problem as researchers: how to define popular music (Davis & Blair, 2011). Because popular music is difficult to define—and a wide array of classes can therefore fall under the term popular music—deciding what types of popular music courses undergraduate music education students should be prepared to teach is problematic. In addition, most music education degrees already have large course and credit requirements, and there is debate with regard to how to incorporate popular music courses into these already demanding degree programs (Asmus, 2001; Davis & Blair, 2011; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020). Options for integrating popular music pedagogy into the undergraduate music education curriculum range from creating performance-based popular music ensembles to weaving popular music history and pedagogy into all facets of the degree program (Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020).

Although many teaching skills are transferable between popular music and Western art music, popular music instruction requires the addition of some pedagogical approaches that do not come naturally to many classically trained musicians. According to researchers and pedagogues, informal learning strategies are essential in the popular music classroom (Green, 2002; Isbell, 2016; Vasil et al., 2019). This means shifting away from teacher-centered instruction in favor of student-led learning. Teachers must assume that students enter the classroom with a considerable amount of prior knowledge about popular music and will therefore play an active role in their own music growth and expression (Isbell, 2007). In informal music learning environments, students work in small peer groups or alone, music is learned aurally rather than through notation, and the curricular path is more flexible (Green, 2002; Isbell, 2016; Lebler, 2008).

One reason peer learning takes a more prominent role in the popular music classroom is because popular music comes from an aurally transmitted tradition (Allsup, 2011; Boespflug, 1999) in which musicians create, recreate, and compose through intensive collaboration with peers (Newsom, 1998). As a result of the aural learning practices that occur in popular music settings, spontaneous composition and improvisation are hallmarks of the genre (Boespflug, 1999; Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Green, 2002; Kuzmich, 1991). These practices lead to less reliance on written music notation. Written notation, if it exists at all, tends to be rudimentary and functional (Green, 2002), and it is often notated after the fact. As Dunbar-Hall (1993) noted,

the utilization of forms of notation other than standard stave notation [in popular music] requires teachers and students to come to terms with the notion that not all music could be, or needs to be, written in the notation used for art music of the common practice period. (p. 24)

In addition to the informal learning practices associated with popular music, educators must be prepared to address those music elements that are of particular concern to musicians who perform popular music. Elements such as rhythm, texture, and timbre are of the utmost importance in popular music (Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000b; Isbell, 2007). Music educators should be prepared to direct special attention to these elements in order to maintain the authenticity and integrity of popular music (Cutietta, 1991; Newsom, 1998). However, Niknafs (2019) reminded educators that not all popular music fits the mold of mainstream American popular music. She proposed that implementing a concept-oriented framework can allow teachers to “start thinking more broadly about how local and global soundscapes can reciprocally enrich one another and how students’ conceptualizations of popular music can be expanded on from a global perspective” (Niknafs, 2019, p. 26).

Music educators should also be prepared to use the tools that are represented in the popular music industry, such as recording and sound engineering equipment (Tobias, 2015). Recording equipment and other forms of music technology are core components of popular music in that popular musicians use recordings as part of the aural learning process in the early stages of song development. Later on, technology becomes a necessity as they work to record and preserve their own compositions and performances (Boespflug, 1999; Kuhn, 2012; Lebler, 2008; Tobias, 2015). Kuhn (2012) argued that technology is a driving force behind practically all modern music creation and urged educators to use music technology themselves, while also being prepared to teach it to their students.

Need for the Study

Researchers have demonstrated the importance of including popular music in the curriculum (Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000b; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Pembrook, 1990) and have also shown that preservice music educators typically receive limited training in this area (Davis & Blair, 2011; Springer, 2016). In addition, researchers have described the teaching skills required for popular music pedagogy extensively (Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Green, 2002; Isbell, 2007). What remains to be known is whether preservice music educators recognize the importance of these particular teaching skills in relation to popular music pedagogy, and how comfortable they are with those skills. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of undergraduate music education majors regarding the skills needed to teach popular music classes and their comfort level with those skills. The following research questions guided this study:

Research Question 1: What teaching skills do preservice music educators believe are necessary to teach popular music courses?

Research Question 2: What are preservice music educators’ comfort levels with common popular music teaching skills?

Research Question 3: What do preservice music educators perceive to be the likelihood that they will teach a popular music course during their careers?

Research Question 4: How prepared do preservice music educators currently feel to teach a popular music course?

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants (N = 81) were undergraduate music education majors from a large research university in the southeastern United States. One respondent did not complete some of the demographic items, so the totals do not match the sample size. Demographic data indicated respondents’ gender (female, n = 43; male, n = 37), student classification (freshman, n = 10; sophomore, n = 36; junior, n = 28; senior, n = 6), and primary degree focus (instrumental, n = 45; choral, n = 24; general music, n = 11).

Institutional review board approval was granted before commencing with the study. I distributed and collected paper questionnaires during normally scheduled class meetings, and participation in the study was optional. Although popular music and various music teaching and learning strategies were reviewed to some extent in required courses, students at the institution where the survey took place were not required to take any classes dedicated specifically to popular music or popular music pedagogy. Students could elect to participate in popular music ensembles if they so choose, but for the current study, only required courses for music education majors were chosen for questionnaire distribution (e.g., Introduction to Music Education, Secondary Instrumental Methods, and Choral Music Methods). Such classes were chosen to sample from students of various student classifications and music teaching areas. Because the students in these classes represented a wide variety of preservice music educators—and were currently immersed in an undergraduate music education curriculum—they were chosen to help answer the research questions on their perceptions and comfort levels with popular music teaching skills. A total of 81 questionnaires were distributed and completed, resulting in a 100% response rate.

Survey Instrument

The data collection instrument used for the current study was a researcher-developed questionnaire based on prior research focused on popular music pedagogy (Bernard, 2012; Kruse, 2015; Springer, 2016; Springer & Gooding, 2013). After creating the first draft of the questionnaire, I conducted a pilot study with a sample of preservice music educators who did not participate in the main study, and modifications were made to the questionnaire (e.g., inclusion of additional list items and rephrasing of open-ended questions). In order to establish content validity, I sent the revised questionnaire to three music education faculty who have published research literature in the field of popular music. These individuals judged the questionnaire to be valid for its intended use, and their suggestions about clarity and functionality were integrated into the finished instrument (e.g., alphabetization of list items, consolidation of certain terminology, and refinement of the popular music definition provided at the beginning of the questionnaire). Similar to recent descriptive studies (Regier et al., 2019; Silvey et al., 2016; Sims & Cassidy, 2016), I did not calculate statistical reliability indicators given the descriptive nature of the current study and the heterogeneous nature of the items rated on the questionnaire.

A paper questionnaire that contained four sections was distributed to potential respondents. At the beginning of the questionnaire, they were informed of the purpose of the study and were provided a brief definition of the term popular music. Although there is extensive research on popular music in the field of music education, many authors have expressed that it is a difficult term to define and can mean different things to different people (Davis & Blair, 2011; Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000a; Springer, 2016; Springer & Gooding, 2013). Therefore, the following description of popular music was taken from the mission statement for the Popular Music Education Special Research Interest Group (SRIG) on the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) website and was provided on the first page of the questionnaire to encourage a consistent interpretation of this term:

Popular Music Education is more than a pedagogy (e.g., Kodaly, El Sistema) or a style of music (e.g., Jazz, Zydeco). It is, rather, a way of approaching music education through vernacular musicianship and informal learning using repertoire, instruments, and practices familiar or readily accessible to students. (NAfME, 2016, para. 2)

The first section of the questionnaire consisted of several demographic questions designed to determine the respondents’ year in college, area of specialization, and any prior popular music experience. In the second section, respondents answered three questions pertaining to popular music teaching skills. In that section, they were first given a list of 14 teaching skills that are associated with teaching popular music. These included the ability to play a wide array of instruments, arranging, composing, computer music notation software, dancing/movement, digital audio workstations, ear training, guitar, improvising, informal learning practices, music theory, piano/keyboard, singing, sound system operations. Respondents were asked to select which skills they perceived to be necessary to teach popular music. Then, they were asked to rate their comfort level with each of the same 14 popular music teaching skills using a Likert-type scale anchored by 1 (very uncomfortable) and 6 (very comfortable). Finally, respondents were given the same 14 popular music teaching skills and asked to decide which five skills they deemed to be the most important. They were then asked to put these “top five” skills in rank order with 1 being the most important.

In the third section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked the likelihood that they might teach a popular music course at some point in their career (1 = not likely at all, 6 = very likely), the likelihood that they would integrate popular music into other, more traditional music courses (1 = not likely at all, 6 = very likely), and their current self-perceived level of preparedness to teach popular music (1 = very unprepared, 6 = very prepared). In the fourth and final section of the questionnaire, respondents responded to the following open-ended questions: “What skills do you currently possess that you think would help you teach popular music in the future?” and “What skills do you think you are lacking that would help you to teach popular music in the future?”

Results

Skills Required to Teach Popular Music

The first research question involved the skills preservice music educators believe are necessary to teach popular music courses. Respondents were provided with a list of 14 teaching skills that are commonly associated with popular music pedagogy and were asked to select all skills they believed were necessary to teach popular music. The three most frequently selected items were ear training (n = 65), piano/keyboard skills (n = 62), and informal learning practices (n = 61). The items that were selected least often were composing (n = 22), dancing (n = 31), guitar (n = 33), and sound system operations (n = 33). Data from the remaining results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Frequency Count and Mean Comfort Levels of Popular Music Teaching Skills.

Teaching skill	n	M	SD
Ear training	65	4.51	1.12
Piano/keyboard	62	4.23	1.19
Informal learning practices	61	4.70	1.00
Singing	60	4.86	1.26
Arranging	57	3.31	1.44
Improvising	51	3.15	1.37
Computer music notation software (Finale, Sibelius, etc.)	50	3.72	1.33
Ability to play a wide array of instruments	46	3.41	1.25
Digital Audio Workstations (Pro Tools, Garage Band, Adobe Audition, etc.)	40	2.69	1.19
Music theory	38	4.68	1.15
Guitar	33	3.65	1.37
Sound system operations	33	2.90	1.37
Dancing	31	3.40	1.51
Composing	22	2.67	1.34

Note. n represents the number of times a particular teaching skill was selected as necessary to teach popular music. The value shown is out of a possible 81. M represents the mean comfort level rating of each teaching skill on a scale of 1 to 6 (1 = very uncomfortable, 6 = very comfortable).

Respondents were also asked to identify and rank the top five most important teaching skills from the original list of 14. Results indicated that the following teaching skills were selected within participants’ “top five” list most frequently: ear training (n = 51), music theory (n = 48), piano/keyboard (n = 46), arranging (n = 45), and informal learning practices and singing, which were tied (n = 35). The items that were selected the least frequently for respondents’ “top five” list were composing (n = 9), dancing (n = 10), sound system operations (n = 15), digital audio workstations (n = 18), and guitar (n = 18). The frequency counts for all items are provided in Table A in the online supplemental material accompanying this article.

Comfort Level With Popular Music Teaching Skills

The second research question focused on preservice music educators’ comfort level with the same 14 common popular music teaching skills from Research Question 1. When asked to rate their comfort level on a scale of 1 (very uncomfortable) to 6 (very comfortable), respondents demonstrated an overall moderate level of comfort with each skill. Respondents’ highest comfort ratings were for singing (M = 4.86, SD = 1.26), music theory (M = 4.68, SD = 1.15), and informal learning practices (M = 4.68, SD = 1.00), whereas their lowest comfort ratings were for computer music notation software (M = 2.67, SD = 1.33), digital audio workstations (M = 2.69, SD = 1.19), and sound system operations (M = 2.90, SD = 1.37). Data summarizing respondents’ comfort levels with all teaching skills are summarized in Table 1. In general, the skills with higher frequency counts tended to have higher mean comfort ratings, and lower frequency items tended to have lower mean comfort ratings.

To determine whether these observed differences in comfort ratings were statistically significant, I conducted a Friedman analysis of variance test using Kendall’s W as the effect size (Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014). Nonparametric statistics were calculated because data were nonnormally distributed. Results indicated that there were significant differences among participants’ comfort ratings, χ²(13) = 338.91, p < .001, W = .32. As a post hoc measure, I conducted a series of Wilcoxon sign-rank tests on all possible pairings of the 14 skills to determine the source of the significant differences. Because multiple pairwise comparisons were made, a Bonferroni correction was used to reduce the likelihood of Type 1 errors. Significant differences (based on a Bonferroni-corrected value of p < .00055) were found on 53 of the 91 possible pairs. The results of these pairwise comparisons are displayed in Table B in the online supplemental material accompanying this article.

Preparedness to Teach Popular Music

For the third and fourth research questions, I was interested in determining the likelihood that respondents believed they would teach popular music courses in the future as well as their perceived preparedness to do so. Using a scale anchored by 1 (not likely at all) and 6 (very likely), respondents rated how likely it would be that they would teach a popular music course and how likely it would be that they would integrate popular music into other traditional music classes. Their ratings indicated a relatively high likelihood that they would teach a popular music course (M = 4.58, SD = 1.14) and integrate popular music into other traditional music classes (M = 5.15, SD = 1.03). However, when asked to rate their level of preparedness to teach popular music, results were somewhat lower (M = 3.50, SD = 1.10).

To determine if there was a difference in the preparedness ratings between upper division and lower division students, I compared the preparedness ratings of the two groups (juniors/seniors and freshman/sophomores, respectively). Descriptive statistics revealed that upper division students reported an overall higher level of preparedness for teaching popular music (M = 3.67, SD = 0.99) than lower division students (M = 3.35, SD = 1.16). However, results of Mann Whitney U test revealed that this observed difference was not statistically significant (U = 630.50, p = .12).

In a prior study by Springer and Gooding (2013), preservice music educators at a single institution were asked to rate their level of preparedness to teach popular music. The researchers noted that “a disproportionately large portion of the sample . . . responded that they felt prepared to teach popular music” (p. 32), even though the vast majority had taken between zero and one course in popular music pedagogy. They also speculated that perhaps the students were receiving some type of informal popular music training in other settings. Therefore, I asked the respondents in the current study to indicate any popular music experience they had prior to or outside of their college curriculum. Results indicated that 93.8% of respondents had experience in at least one area that is typically associated with popular music (e.g., contemporary worship band, rock band/garage band, glee club). The three most common areas in which respondents had prior experience were piano/keyboard (n = 53), guitar (n = 49), and music theater (n = 44).

It should be noted that respondents were not provided with the option to select “jazz” as an area in which they had prior experience, as the definition of popular music used for the current study excluded that style of music. However, participation in jazz ensembles provides students with the opportunity to engage in music activities such as improvisation and learning-by-ear, elements that are often associated with popular music pedagogy. In fact, when asked to select areas in which they had popular music experience outside of their curriculum, three respondents indicated participation in jazz ensembles in the space provided for “other.” Therefore, it is possible that participation in jazz influenced participants’ perceptions of some of the items in the questionnaire.

Open-Ended Responses

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to respond to two open-ended questions about what popular music teaching skills they believed they currently possessed, as well as those they thought they lacked. Ninety-five percent of the respondents answered at least one of the open-ended questions. Due to the recurrence of several specific words and phrases by the respondents, I used an in vivo coding method to identify and develop themes that emerged from the data (Saldaña, 2009; Strauss, 1987). In order to establish reliability for these themes, I recruited a doctoral music education student to independently code 30% of the responses. A reliability value (calculated as the number of agreements divided by the sum of agreements and disagreements) of .94 was found, indicating a high level of interobserver reliability.

With regard to skills that the respondents believe they do currently possess, the most common themes were related to (a) personal knowledge of popular music, (b) having an openness or willingness to learn, (c) prior experience with pop (or related) ensembles, and (d) proficiency on various instruments. When asked what skills they believed were lacking, the most common themes were related to (a) lack of knowledge of how to teach/integrate popular music, (b) lack of software and technology knowledge, (c) lack of proficiency with instruments (specifically piano and guitar), (d) a lack of arranging skills, and (e) lack of personal experience in a pop ensemble. Sample responses for all themes are presented in Table C in the online supplemental material accompanying this article.

Discussion

Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice music educators’ perceptions of popular music teaching skills—specifically their comfort with those teaching skills and their preparedness to teach popular music in general. Respondents rated “ear training,” “piano/keyboard,” and “informal learning practices” as the most important popular music teaching skills. The fact that they selected “ear training” and “piano/keyboard” so frequently suggests that they place a high level of importance on these teaching skills. Although this may be attributed to the fact that ear training/aural skills and piano/keyboard are core components of music education degree programs—they are required to complete four semesters of aural skills and piano/keyboard coursework at many institutions—it is possible that they recognized the importance of the aural learning tradition and the frequent use of piano/keyboard as they relate to popular music pedagogy. The teaching skill labeled “informal learning practices” was the third most selected item and was also one of the most highly ranked items in terms of importance. This finding is interesting given that prior research has indicated that music education majors are immersed in degree programs that focus heavily on the formal learning traditions associated with the Western classical tradition (Davis & Blair, 2011; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020). The fact that the respondents rated this item so highly suggests that they have been exposed to informal learning practices in extracurricular settings. Based on the high percentage of students (93.8%) who indicated involvement with popular music ensembles or instruments outside of the collegiate setting, this seems likely.

The two least frequently selected items were “sound system operations” and “composing.” Because the concept of copying and reproducing preexisting songs is a hallmark of the informal learning tradition (Green, 2002), the low frequency of selection for “composition” could perhaps make sense. However, “sound system operations” was only selected as a necessary skill by 33 of the 81 respondents. Given the frequency with which a popular ensemble (especially in a Modern Band setting) might be engaging with sound systems, this seems low (Burstein & Powell, 2019). There is currently no course at the sampled institution which requires music education majors to learn or engage with sound system equipment. It is possible that the lack of exposure translated to a perceived lack of importance by the respondents.

Regarding the second research question, respondents rated their comfort with common popular music teaching skills. Again, the high comfort rating of “informal learning practices” (M = 4.70) is noteworthy because prior research has suggested that undergraduate students are not generally exposed to informal learning practices in their degree programs (Davis & Blair, 2011; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020). Indeed, the students in the current study were not required to take a course specifically designed around popular music pedagogy. Therefore, a high level of comfort with informal learning practices may have developed outside of the formal undergraduate curriculum.

In order to answer the third research question, respondents rated their level of preparedness to teach popular music. The mean rating of 3.50 out of 6 suggests that the students in the current study felt moderately prepared to teach popular music, which is slightly higher than the preparedness levels of students in similar studies (Springer, 2016; Springer & Gooding, 2013). Because the vast majority of students indicated that they had experience with nontraditional ensembles or instruments outside of their formal curriculum, the participants’ above average feelings of preparedness to teach popular music could be attributed to these extracurricular experiences.

In order to determine if there was a difference in preparedness to teach popular music between upper and lower division students, I compared the means of the two groups. Although the mean preparedness to teach popular music was higher for upper division students (M = 3.67) than for lower division students (M = 3.35), there was no significant difference in preparedness ratings between the two groups. Because methods courses occur in the upper division coursework at many institutions—and the students at the current institution do not, in fact, have any required upper division coursework dedicated to popular music instruction—the lack of significantly higher feelings of preparedness by upper division students is not surprising.

In the final section of the questionnaire, respondents described the teaching skills they believed they currently possessed and lacked for teaching popular music. Hamilton and Vannatta-Hall (2020) posited that one of the most beneficial skills a teacher can have to be an effective educator of popular music is “open-mindedness and curiosity” (p. 56). Many of the respondents for the current study described these qualities when asked to list skills they believed they currently possessed that would help them to teach popular music in the future. For instance, one respondent’s answer to this question was “open mind and willingness to try new/modern styles; can happily learn new instruments given time and resources.” Another respondent wrote “flexibility; aptitude/willingness to learn,” and a third said “I . . . have a very good ear, along with of course, the enthusiasm to teach such a course!”

Another commonly cited item by respondents was a proficiency on various instruments. In particular, respondents cited a proficiency on guitar and piano as being particularly useful. Interestingly, proficiency on various instruments was just as frequently cited as a skill that respondents were lacking. In fact, one respondent stated, “I don’t know how to play most instruments that are typical to popular music.” The respondents were correct in noting the importance of competency on instruments typical to popular music. According to Burstein and Powell (2019), the most common instruments used in the Modern Band setting are guitar, bass, drums, and keyboard. Designing effective curricula and instruction that is centered on these largely nonclassical instruments would be difficult without a certain level of proficiency on them.

That several respondents discussed feeling a general lack of knowledge on how to teach or integrate popular music into the curriculum also warrants discussion. For instance, one respondent noted, “I really have not been taught anything formally about how to teach popular music. I have had an emphasis on classical music most of my life.” Similarly, another respondent wrote, “How to teach popular music. We know jazz, classical, and so on, but no pop.” This echoes results of previous research which showed that undergraduate music programs still place a heavy emphasis on the Western classical canon (Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Isbell, 2016), with much less attention directed toward non-traditional styles of music and/or pedagogy (Dunbar-Hall, 1993; Springer & Gooding, 2013).

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, I propose the following recommendations for music educators and music education faculty. First, because of the current respondents’ varied beliefs about certain curricular practices and their comfort with those practices, music educators should participate in professional development experiences that are focused on popular music pedagogy to supplement any gaps in preservice training they may have. Several of the respondents in the current study indicated that they were unsure of how or why to integrate popular music into their curriculum, so continued exposure to professional development in this area would be beneficial.

In addition, music education faculty should continue to incorporate popular music pedagogy into the undergraduate music education curriculum to the fullest extent possible. Incorporating elements of popular music pedagogy into preexisting classes may be beneficial in cases where adding additional courses or ensembles is impossible. For instance, including units on topics such as Modern Band and informal learning strategies in preexisting methods courses would help to supplement students’ knowledge of popular music pedagogy. However, giving students the opportunity to participate in popular music ensembles and engage in peer-teaching experiences therein would provide them with the most salient exposure to popular music teaching skills, and should be a priority when possible.

Limitations and Future Research

Certain aspects of the current study limit the generalizability of these findings. The sample was drawn from one institution, so the attitudes and perceptions of students at other institutions cannot be assumed on preparation to teach popular music. Caution must also be exercised when interpreting the results of self-reported items, particularly with regard to respondents’ ratings of comfort levels with various teaching skills. Self-reporting can sometimes lead to biased responses due to respondents’ desire to provide socially acceptable answers. For example, caution should be used in interpreting the high comfort ratings provided for the skill of “informal learning practices.” Because a definition was provided at the beginning of the questionnaire that specifically used the phrase “informal learning,” respondents might have felt that it was socially appropriate to place a high level of importance on that skill.

Future researchers should examine popular music with a larger portion of the population, specifically by gathering data from more than one institution. In addition, researchers could examine the perceptions of inservice music educators about these popular music teaching skills to determine whether those who currently teach popular music in P–12 settings have similar perceptions to preservice music educators concerning the necessary teaching skills for popular music pedagogy. It would also be beneficial to gather information from inservice music educators about the level of undergraduate preparation they received to teach popular music. Finally, it could be helpful to track the perceptions of and comfort with popular music over time in a given degree program. A longitudinal study such as this could help faculty at institutions discover what parts of the curricula are most effective with regard to increasing preservice teachers’ understanding of and comfort with popular music pedagogy. The growth of popular music ensembles in P–12 music education does not appear to be slowing; however, preservice music educators seem to have mixed feelings about and training in popular music pedagogy. Therefore, ongoing research on popular music pedagogy is needed for music educators.

Supplemental Material

FINAL_SupplementalTable_A_ – Supplemental material for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills

Supplemental material, FINAL_SupplementalTable_A_ for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills by Rachel Sorenson in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Supplemental Material

FINAL_Supplemental_Table_B – Supplemental material for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills

Supplemental material, FINAL_Supplemental_Table_B for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills by Rachel Sorenson in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Supplemental Material

FINAL_Supplemental_Table_C_ – Supplemental material for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills

Supplemental material, FINAL_Supplemental_Table_C_ for Perceptions and Preparedness: Preservice Music Educators and Popular Music Teaching Skills by Rachel Sorenson in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rachel Sorenson

Notes

References

Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408317516

Allsup

R. E.

(2011). Popular music and classical musicians: Strategies and perspectives. Music Educators Journal, 97(3), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432110391810

Asmus

(2001). How many courses? What content? Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(2), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837010100020102

Bernard

(2012). Finding a place in music education: The lived experiences of music educators with “non-traditional” backgrounds. Visions of Research in Music Education, 22(1), 1–28. www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v22n1/visions/Bernard_Music_Educators_with_Non_Traditional_Backgrounds.pdf

Boespflug

(1999). Popular music and the instrumental ensemble. Music Educators Journal, 85(6), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399519

Branscome

(2016). Vision 2020 and beyond: Imminent deadlines of the Housewright Declaration. Contributions to Music Education, 41, 71–91. www.jstor.org/stable/24711129

Burstein

Powell

(2019). Approximation and scaffolding in modern band. Music Educators Journal, 106(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119857801

Choate

R. A.

Fowler

C. B.

Brown

C. E.

Wersen

L. G.

(1967). The Tanglewood symposium: Music in American society. Music Educators Journal, 54(3), 49–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3391187

Cutietta

R. A.

(1991). Popular music: An ongoing challenge. Music Educators Journal, 77(8), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/3398149

10.

Davis

S. G.

Blair

D. V.

(2011). Popular music in American teacher education: A glimpse into a secondary methods course. International Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410396962

11.

Dunbar-Hall

(1993). Designing a teaching model for popular music. International Journal of Music Education, 21(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149302100102

12.

Dunbar-Hall

Wemyss

(2000a). Popular music and music teacher education: Relationships between course content and course design. Research Studies in Music Education, 15(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X0001500107

13.

Dunbar-Hall

Wemyss

(2000b). The effects of the study of popular music on music education. International Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576140003600104

14.

Green

(2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Routledge.

15.

Hamilton

Vannatta-Hall

(2020). Popular music in preservice music education: Preparedness, confidence and implementation. Journal of Popular Music Education, 4(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00013_1

16.

Isbell

(2007). Popular music and the public school music curriculum. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233070260010106

17.

Isbell

D. S.

(2016). Apprehensive and excited: Music education students’ experience vernacular musicianship. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714568020

18.

Kruse

A. J.

(2015). Preservice music teachers’ experiences with and attitudes toward music genres. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(3), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714530721

19.

Kuhn

(2012). Reaching the other 80% by adding music technology to your curriculum. Triad, 79(4), 96–98.

20.

Kuzmich

(1991). Popular music in your program: Growing with the times. Music Educators Journal, 77(8), 50-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3398154

21.

Lebler

(2008). Popular music pedagogy: Peer learning in practice. Music Education Research, 10(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079056

22.

Little Kids Rock. (2020, July 1). Modern band. www.littlekidsrock.org/the-program/modernband/

23.

MacClusky

(1979). Peaceful coexistence between pop and the classics. Music Educators Journal, 65(8), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3395676

24.

Madsen

C. K.

(2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music education. MENC.

25.

Mantie

(2013). A comparison of “popular music pedagogy” discourses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(3), 334–352. https://doi.org/0.1177/0022429413497235

26.

Mills

S. W.

(2000). Recognizing middle school students’ taste for popular music. General Music Today, 13(3), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/104837130001300302

27.

National Association for Music Education. (2016, May 21). Popular music education SRIG: A special research interest group of the National Association for Music Education. https://popularmusicedsrig.wordpress.com/

28.

Newsom

(1998). Rock’s quarrel with tradition: Popular music’s carnival comes to the classroom. Popular Music and Society, 22(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007769808591711

29.

Niknafs

(2019). Engaging with popular music from a cultural standpoint: A concept-oriented framework. Music Educators Journal, 106(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119855693

30.

O’Brien

J. P.

(1982). A plea for pop. Music Educators Journal, 68(7), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/3395940

31.

Pembrook

R. G.

(1990). Popular music in research and in the classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(2), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512339000800209

32.

Regier

B. J.

Scherer

A. D.

Silvey

B. A.

(2019). An examination of undergraduate conductor practice behavior. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(3), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083719890288

33.

Saldaña

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

34.

Sanderson

D. N.

(2014). Music class offerings beyond bands, choirs, and orchestras in Nebraska high schools (Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln). http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/musicstudent/78/

35.

Silvey

B. A.

Springer

D. G.

Eubanks

S. C.

(2016). An examination of university conducting faculty members’ score study attitudes and practices. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715616442

36.

Sims

W. L.

Cassidy

J. W.

(2016). The role of the dissertation in music education doctoral programs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715578285

37.

Springer

D. G.

(2016). Teaching popular music: Investigating music educators’ perceptions and preparation. International Journal of Music Education, 34(4), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415619068

38.

Springer

D. G.

Gooding

L. F.

(2013). Preservice music teachers’ attitudes toward popular music in the music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 32(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123313502349

39.

Strauss

A. L.

(1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.

40.

Temmerman

(1993). School music experiences: How do they rate? Research Studies in Music Education, 1(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9300100107

41.

Tobias

E. S.

(2015). From musical detectives to DJs: Expanding aural skills and analysis through engaging popular music and culture. General Music Today, 28(3), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371314558293

42.

Tomczak

(2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 1(21), 19–25. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c08/127f9e736e8db15bec81d69f547d672f9f58.pdf

43.

Vasil

Weiss

Powell

(2019). Popular music pedagogies: An approach to teaching 21st-century skills. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(3), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083718814454

44.

Veronee

K. E.

(2017). An investigation of non-traditional secondary music courses in select states (Publication No. 10266272) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

45.

Wang

J.-C.

Humphreys

J. T.

(2009). Multicultural and popular music content in an American music teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761408099062

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.02 MB