Comparing Time Use and Teacher Behaviors in Beginning and Advanced Middle School Band Settings: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare teachers’ time use and teaching behaviors including teacher talk, modeling, physical location/proximity to students, conducting, and instructional choices in middle school (Grades 6–8) beginning and advanced band settings, with the goal of identifying practices that are specific or unique to each setting. Participants (N = 5) were expert middle school teachers who were recorded while teaching a heterogeneous beginning band and an advanced band class. I compared episodes of teacher and student behaviors including instruction, modeling, group/individual performance, and student talk, documenting frequency and time use in both settings. Results indicated differences in frequency and time for all observed episodes, with differences supporting greater emphasis placed on individuals in the beginning setting. I also found that teachers in the advanced setting addressed rehearsal frame targets representing traditional rehearsal goals more frequently (e.g., phrasing, articulation), whereas teachers in the beginning setting addressed targets representing typical beginning band goals more frequently (e.g., vocabulary/terms, rhythm literacy.)

Keywords

beginning band instrumental music instruction middle school band preservice teacher preparation rehearsal frames time use

In preparing to enter the instrumental classroom, it is beneficial for preservice teachers to consider the nature of beginning band instruction as part of their curriculum. However, due to the number of competencies that music education students must demonstrate, many preservice teachers will receive only limited exposure to beginning pedagogy, and as a result, they will show limited knowledge and ability in beginning instrumental instruction (Conway, 2002). In the student teaching setting, supervising teachers have cited instrument pedagogy and beginning instructional techniques as areas where preservice teachers need improvement (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004; Brophy, 2002; Conway, 2002; MacLeod & Walter, 2011), and preservice teachers have reported a lack of retention from their instrumental techniques courses due to the broad scope and short amount of time devoted to each topic of study (Conway et al., 2007). If preservice teachers’ preparation is to include work with beginning instrumentalists, they may need additional emphasis on specific instrument pedagogy as well as effective teaching practices for beginners in their teacher preparation programs (Austin, 2006; Lethco, 1999).

Time use is an important aspect of effective teaching practice in the instrumental classroom. Researchers who previously examined instrumental instruction from the perspective of time use found that the greatest percentage of rehearsal time is typically spent in performance, followed by teacher talk/instruction (Goolsby, 1996, 1999; Witt, 1986). Furthermore, researchers have found the time spent in these activities can be affected by the available rehearsal time (Goolsby, 1999), proximity of performance (Pontious, 1982), concepts addressed (Cavitt, 2003), difficulty of the music in relationship to performer competence (Worthy, 2003, 2006; Worthy & Thompson, 2009), student familiarity with the style of music being performed (Thurman, 1977), and teacher maturity (Goolsby, 1996).

Another method for documenting effective teaching practices involves identification of rehearsal frames. A rehearsal frame is defined as a unit of analysis consisting of (1) the identification of an element or target in need of change, (2) the sequence of tasks that progress toward remediating the identified problem (decontextualization), and (3) the reintegration of the problem in its original context (recontextualization; Duke, 1994). Through use of rehearsal frames, observers can identify target concepts, and this information can be used to consider instructional focus as a function of time and/or frequency for a particular target (Cavitt, 2003; Worthy, 2003, 2006). Worthy and Thompson (2009) documented instruction in beginning band settings through rehearsal frame analysis, finding different target emphasis, instructional pacing, and rates of teacher talk/student performance when compared to findings with more advanced ensembles (Cavitt, 2003; Worthy, 2003, 2006).

Although there are commonalities regarding instruction in the instrumental classroom that are consistent across levels, there is evidence that students’ age and musical level can have an impact on the teacher’s time use and behaviors. Previous studies about time use and rehearsal frames have involved both the advanced and beginning band settings (Cavitt, 2003; Goolsby, 1996, 1999); however, these studies did not make a direct comparison of time use and rehearsal frames with the same teacher in both beginning and advanced band settings. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare teachers’ time use and teaching behaviors including teacher talk, modeling, physical location/proximity to students, conducting, and instructional choices in middle school (Grades 6–8) beginning and advanced band settings, with the goal of identifying practices that are specific or unique to each setting. By considering what expert teachers choose to do differently in these two settings, it may be possible to identify concepts that could prove useful in both beginning and advanced band settings. The following research questions were included:

Research Question 1: Were there differences in episode frequency and time use for teacher verbal instruction, performance, modeling, or student behaviors between the two settings?

Research Question 2: Were there differences in episode frequency and time use for specific teaching behaviors, including presence on the podium, active conducting, and individualized student instruction between the two settings?

Research Question 3: How much overall time did teachers devote to preparatory activities in the two settings?

Research Question 4: How many and what kind of instructional targets did teachers emphasize in the two settings?

Method

Participants

The participants (N = 5) in this study were expert middle school band teachers (female, n = 3; male, n = 2) from a large school district in a southern state. For purposes of this study, expert was defined as teachers who (1) were established middle school band directors with longevity in teaching beginning band (range 16–29 years, M = 22.8 years), (2) had measurable success in leading high-quality performance ensembles as demonstrated through music performance assessment ratings and status as a state-approved adjudicator, and (3) had gained the respect of the professional community as demonstrated through serving as invited clinicians and/or as peer-reviewed conference presenters. I sought to control for the variables of personality, teaching style, and idiosyncratic preferences by documenting the same five expert teachers in both the beginning and advanced settings. Additionally, by using the same teachers for both settings, I sought to control for differences in the student population itself. Consistent with previous studies (Duke & Simmons, 2006; Johnson et al., 2016; Worthy & Thompson, 2009), university faculty recommendations, professional leadership endorsement, and records of professional achievement supported these teachers’ selection as experts.

Although the teachers used in this study met these criteria, the group of participants were not randomly selected. I contacted all teachers in the participating school district who met the criteria as outlined previously, and selected sites/teachers based on availability and administrative support of the project. The participating district is one of the top 10 largest school districts in the nation, and the school settings represent suburban populations in five different geographic regions and different feeder chains within the district. School enrollments ranged from 919 to 1,853 students, and the free/reduced-price meal percentages ranged from 32% to 50%. I obtained institutional review board approval from the university and from the school district, and all teacher-participants gave informed consent electronically.

Procedures

I recorded five participants, each teaching a heterogeneous beginning band class and an advanced band class on the same instructional day, which resulted in 10 recorded rehearsals. The video camera was mounted on a tripod, and the recording was framed so the teacher was the focus of the recording; students were excluded from the recording as much as was feasible. I used the Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral Evaluation (SCRIBE 4.2) software (Duke & Stammen, 2011) to document behaviors and time use.

There were three layers of observation for each recorded rehearsal. The first layer included time and episode frequency for six categories: (1) teacher instruction—all teacher verbal/nonverbal instruction including periods of intentional downtime; (2) teacher instrumental modeling—any performance on a wind instrument or keyboard by the teacher for demonstration; (3) group performance—engaging the entire ensemble in playing, singing, counting, sizzling, or breathing; (4) section performance—engaging a smaller grouping of students (less than the entire ensemble) in playing, singing, counting, sizzling, or breathing; (5) individual performance—engaging an individual student in playing, singing, counting, sizzling, or breathing, and encompassing any teacher interjections of less than 1 second in duration; and (6) student talk—episode of talking by an individual lasting longer than 1 second. These categories were determined prior to viewing the videos and were inspired by categories of observation from prior literature (Goolsby, 1996, 1999; Napoles, 2006; Worthy & Thompson, 2009). The category student talk was added and expanded to include questions, responses, and statements by students after viewing the first few videos. Additionally, the total time devoted to preparatory activities was documented in this layer, defined for purposes of this study as teaching activities from the beginning of instruction until the first selection of literature (Brendell, 1996). Using the SCRIBE software, I observed the class period in its entirety, beginning documentation once students were seated and group instruction was initiated by the teacher. I recorded teacher and student behavior in the categories listed above and calculated the total amount of time and episode frequency. The point at which the teacher began rehearsing repertoire was also noted during this observation.

The second layer of observation included three categories: (1) presence on the podium—time the teacher was standing on the podium or, in cases where there was not a physical podium, in the square space in front of the teacher’s music stand; (2) active conducting—time the teacher was leading the group through sustained use of a discernable beat pattern lasting longer than one measure; and (3) individualized instruction—time the teacher provided individual feedback or direction to a student while in close proximity to that student (often including physical contact) to give information or to correct posture, hand position, technique, or other behaviors. Using the SCRIBE software, I observed the class period in its entirety, beginning documentation once students were seated and group instruction was initiated by the teacher. I recorded teacher and student behavior in the categories listed above and calculated the total amount of time and episode frequency.

The third layer of observation entailed identifying segments of the class period that could be classified as rehearsal frames. I created individual videos for each rehearsal frame, and each video was viewed separately to identify the target(s). I based target identification on the teacher’s verbal indication of the target, or through inferring the target focus based on teacher behaviors, and then notated the targets on a checklist. Targets included on the checklist were derived from prior rehearsal frame research in advanced settings (middle school, high school, collegiate; Cavitt, 2003; Worthy, 2003, 2006). Additionally, I added beginning-focused targets to this checklist to accommodate classification of frames in the beginning setting. These targets were derived from prior rehearsal frame research in the beginning setting (Worthy & Thompson, 2009) as well as from research regarding beginning band fundamentals (Singletary, 2018). See Online Supplemental Appendix A for the checklist.

An independent researcher viewed each observation layer, documenting segments of the recorded class period (totaling 20% of total recorded time) using the same interface and operational definitions. Observers obtained overall agreement of 90%, 83%, and 86% for Layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Disagreements in Layers 1 and 2 were in time use classification, while disagreements in Layer 3 were in target classification, specifically in the frames where observers identified multiple targets. I adapted methods and operational definitions from prior research (Cavitt, 1998, 2003) to maximize content validity. Similar to Cavitt (1998, 2003), I used SCRIBE software and documented teacher/student behaviors in multiple viewings, taking notes on the SCRIBE time line to document specific activities. I chose to identify and observe expert teachers to ensure that the noted differences in instruction were rooted in effective practice, further supporting content validity and increasing the chances that the data could result in effective practices.

Data Analysis

Sums and percentages were used to report descriptive results. Additionally, binomial comparisons were used to compare the frequency of episodes between the two settings.

Results

A total of 394.60 minutes (approximately 6 hours and 36 minutes) of rehearsal were observed; 202.21 minutes were observed in the advanced setting and 192.39 minutes in the beginning setting.

Were There Differences in Episode Frequency and Time for Teacher Verbal Instruction, Performance, Modeling, or Student Behaviors Between the Two Settings?

When considering the overall total of both settings (1,358 episodes), the most frequently observed episodes were for teacher instruction (636 episodes, 47%), followed by group performance (359 episodes, 27%), and section performance (205 episodes, 15%). The fewest observed episodes occurred in teacher instrumental modeling (33 episodes, 2%). When examining these behaviors in the beginning and advanced band settings, respectively, the frequency of observed episodes followed a similar pattern; however, there were some notable differences. There were significantly fewer episodes of individual performance in the advanced band setting (22 episodes) than in the beginning setting (40 episodes; z = −2.16, p < .05); there were significantly fewer episodes of student talk in the advanced setting (15 episodes) than in the beginning setting (48 episodes; z = −4.03, p < .01). There were significantly fewer teacher instrumental modeling episodes in the advanced setting (8 episodes) than in the beginning setting (25 episodes; z = −2.79, p < .01). Conversely, there were significantly more section performance episodes in the advanced setting (132 episodes) than in the beginning setting (73 episodes; z = −4.05, p < .01). See Table 1.

Table 1.

Frequency Data for Episodes of Teacher Instruction, Teacher Instrumental Modeling, Group Performance, Section Performance, Individual Performance, and Student Talk.

Setting	Teacher instruction	Teacher instrumental modeling	Group performance	Section performance	Individual performance	Student talk
Advanced	332	8^**	185	132^**	22^*	15^**
Beginning	304	25^**	174	73^**	40*	48^**
Overall	636	33	359	205	62	63

p < .05. ^**p < .01.

The greatest amount of time in either setting was devoted to teacher instruction (the sum of teacher verbal instruction and instrumental modeling), which totaled 250.09 minutes overall. When instruction was divided by type, verbal instruction occurred for the greatest amount of class time (advanced setting: 116 minutes; beginning setting: 129.64 minutes), while instrumental modeling occurred the least (advanced setting: 0.76 minutes; beginning setting: 3.69 minutes). Time spent in performance (the sum of group performance, section performance, and individual performance) occurred the second highest amount in both the beginning and advanced settings, totaling 149.61 minutes overall. Specifically, more total rehearsal time in the advanced setting was devoted to group performance (66.12 minutes, 33%) and section performance (14.07 minutes, 7%) than in the beginning setting (group performance: 48.82 minutes, 25%; section performance: 9.69 minutes, 5%). Individual performance, however, occurred slightly more in the beginning setting (6.62 minutes, 3%) than in the advanced setting (4.29 minutes, 2%). Student talk was observed for a total of 4.24 minutes overall across both settings. However, these behaviors were observed for more time in beginning setting (3.53 minutes, 2%) than in advanced setting (0.71 minutes, <1%). See Table 2.

Table 2.

Total Time and Percentage of Class Time Devoted to Teacher/Student Behaviors.

Teacher/student behavior	Total time (in minutes)	% Of total class time^a
Teacher verbal instruction
Advanced	116.00	57
Beginning	129.64	67
Total	245.64	62
Student group performance
Advanced	66.12	33
Beginning	48.82	25
Total	114.94	29
Student section performance
Advanced	14.07	7
Beginning	9.69	5
Total	23.76	6
Student individual performance
Advanced	4.29	2
Beginning	6.62	3
Total	10.91	3
Teacher instrumental modeling
Advanced	0.76	<1
Beginning	3.69	2
Total	4.45	1
Student talk
Advanced	0.71	<1
Beginning	3.53	2
Total	4.24	1

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Were There Differences in Episode Frequency and Time for Specific Teaching Behaviors, Including Presence on the Podium, Active Conducting, and Individualized Student Instruction Between the Two Settings?

Presence on the Podium

Teachers had fewer episodes of transitioning on/off the podium in the advanced setting (60 episodes) than in the beginning setting (73 episodes), and the overall time spent on the podium corresponded (advanced: 155.17 minutes, 77% of class time; beginning: 101.69 minutes, 53% of class time).

Active Conducting

Overall time and percentage of class time spent actively conducting the ensemble in the advanced band setting (42.43 minutes, 21%) was more than 3 times the amount and percentage of class time spent conducting in the beginning band setting (12.20 minutes, 6%). As shown in Table 3, binomial comparison indicates a significant difference in the number of episodes of active conducting (z = −5.33, p < .01), with 113 episodes occurring in the advanced setting and only 45 occurring in the beginning band setting.

Table 3.

Frequency, Total Time, and Percentage of the Class Period Actively Conducting.

Setting	Frequency	Total time in active conducting (in minutes)	% of total time^a
Advanced	113.00^**	42.43	21
Beginning	45.00^**	12.20	6
Totals	158.00	54.43	14

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

p < .01.

Individual, Proximal Instruction

Binomial comparison indicated that teachers engaged in significantly more episodes and also spent more time in individual, proximal instruction in the beginning setting (78 episodes; 10.73 minutes) than in the advanced setting (23 episodes; 1.73 minutes; z = −5.37, p < .01).

How Much Overall Time Did Teachers Devote to Preparatory Activities in the Two Settings?

I documented the total time for preparatory activities in both band settings (advanced: range 7.18–14.78 minutes, M = 10.98; beginning: range 14.08–18.37 minutes, M = 16.23). Teachers spent a greater amount of time and a greater percentage of time in in the beginning setting in preparatory activities (84.63 minutes, 44%) than in the advanced setting (53.78 minutes, 27%).

How Many and What Kind of Instructional Targets Did Teachers Emphasize in the Two Settings?

In the 394.60 minutes of rehearsal, a total of 54 rehearsal frames were identified for analysis (range 1.03–7.18 minutes, M = 3.29 minutes) for a combined duration of 177.85 minutes (45% of all class time). Overall, 28 of the frames (52%) were in the advanced setting, and 26 frames (48%) were in the beginning setting. The targets most frequently observed were pitch accuracy and rhythm accuracy (13 frames each), followed by dynamics (7 frames), phrasing, (5 frames), and vocabulary/term (5 frames). In the advanced setting, rhythmic accuracy was the most frequently observed target (8 frames) while in the beginning setting pitch accuracy was the most observed target (6 frames). See Table 4.

Table 4.

Frequency of Rehearsal Frames Devoted to Each Target Type.

Target category	Advanced	Beginning	Overall	% Of total frames
Pitch accuracy	6	7	13	22
Rhythm accuracy	8	5	13	22
Dynamics	6	1	7	12
Phrasing	3	2	5	8
Vocabulary/term^a	1	4	5	8
Articulation	3	1	4	7
Rhythm literacy^a	0	4	4	7
Embouchure^a	0	2	2	3
Posture/instrument carriage^a	1	1	2	3
Tempo	1	1	2	3
Intonation/tone	1	0	1	2
Note literacy^a	0	1	1	2
Technical facility^a	1	0	1	2
Breathing/airflow^a	0	0	0	0
Totals	31	29	60	—

beginning-focused targets included to accommodate classification of frames in the beginning setting.

Discussion

Time Use

In both the beginning and advanced settings, teacher instruction encompassed over half of the class time. This finding is in contrast with prior research regarding time use in the instrumental setting with mixed levels of instruction (Goolsby, 1996, 1999; Witt, 1986) where performance encompassed the largest percentage of time in the overall instructional period. However, prior investigations in middle school, and specifically in beginning band, have shown higher durations and rates of teacher talk comparable to results found in this study (Napoles, 2006; Worthy & Thompson, 2009). Teacher instruction episodes occurred most frequently in both settings, followed by group performance and section performance episodes. However, individual performance, student talk, and teacher modeling episodes were observed in higher frequency and a greater amount of time in the beginning setting than in the advanced setting. In contrast, teachers in the advanced setting used a more traditional rehearsal approach, where full ensemble performance was interspersed with identifying and addressing musical problems in smaller instrument groupings, and the teacher was less likely to model as a means of instruction. This may seem to be an intuitive result due to the performance skill of the advanced ensemble. However, all observed groups were capable of group and section performance of a traditional rehearsal based on skill alone, and yet the expert directors chose to interact differently and provide more opportunities for individual interaction with their beginning ensembles.

Preparatory Activities

Teachers devoted a greater amount of time to preparatory activities in the beginning setting than in the advanced setting. Beginning teachers spent almost half the class period in this type of activity and used this preparatory time for concept teaching in addition to physically warming up. Preparatory activities in the beginning setting were wide-ranging and not only included traditional warm-up activities (e.g., long tones, scales) but also included activities such as imitation, rhythm performance, and performance-based games as well as individual student performance and feedback. In the advanced setting, preparatory activities encompassed roughly a quarter of the class period and, while still instructional in nature, focused on traditional warm-up activities and group performance. Although both ensembles were in close proximity to a performance (spring concert), the expert teachers in this study chose to spend almost half the beginning class period on preparatory activities. This roughly even division of time use in the beginning band setting may be illuminating; teachers did not seem to feel an urgency to rehearse the literature at the expense of other types of instructional activities, even in close proximity to a performance.

Rehearsal Frame Targets

Results showed that rehearsal frame targets previously observed in research with advanced ensembles (Cavitt, 1998, 2003; Worthy, 2003, 2006; i.e., articulation, dynamics, intonation/tone, phrasing, rhythm accuracy, technical facility) were addressed more frequently in the advanced setting (29 frames) than in the beginning setting (17 frames). Conversely, the target categories that were added to this study to accommodate beginning instruction (Singletary, 2018; Worthy & Thompson, 2009; e.g., posture/instrument carriage, breathing/airflow, embouchure, rhythm literacy, note literacy, and vocabulary/terms) were addressed more frequently in the beginning setting (12 frames) than in the advanced setting (2 frames). When considering teaching using the rehearsal frame paradigm, the target emphasis may be considered a behavioral indicator of different priorities for the two settings. In a more advanced setting, some of the primary fundamentals may be considered to be mastered, or integrated in student performance (Singletary, 2018). For example, teachers may certainly remind students to form an embouchure properly or provide instruction on breathing/airflow at any level, but teachers may include embouchure formation or breathing/airflow as part of a higher order fundamental such as tone quality or intonation for more advanced students. Also of interest is the participants’ difference in emphasis on dynamics between the two settings, with six frames of dynamics observed overall in the advanced setting and only one in the beginning setting. This supports prior research (Worthy & Thompson, 2009), suggesting that beginning teachers may choose to focus instruction towards goals other than dynamics at the earlier developmental stage.

Podium/Conducting

Despite similar episode frequency and percentages of time spent in group performance, teachers in the beginning setting transitioned on/off the podium more frequently and spent only about half the class on the podium as compared to the advanced setting where teachers were on the podium for three quarters of the class. Additionally, teachers in the beginning setting were engaged in alternate behaviors including circulating throughout the ensemble, making individual corrections, clapping/snapping to keep the beat, giving verbal instruction over the ensemble, and modeling/performing on an instrument with the ensemble. Because teachers were circulating in the ensemble in the beginning setting, they were able to make more individual, hands-on student corrections and comments to students. In the beginning band setting, teachers engaged in individualized instruction episodes more than 3 times as often as they did in the advanced setting, reinforcing the idea of the teacher as a model and coach rather than a conductor for beginners. The time devoted to this type of hands-on/proximal instruction appears minimally at only 5% of total class time, but these interactions occurred typically in 3- to 10- second episodes (e.g., an adjustment of a hand position, a fingering, or a horn angle.) When considering the brevity of each interaction, 2 to 3 minutes of these behaviors may provide an opportunity to provide brief individual feedback to many students.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has limited generalizability due to the small sample size and the nature of the instructional settings selected. The teachers represent one region and one school district, and all were teaching beginning band in a large heterogenous class setting. Regional standards and practices may not be representative of band instruction in other places, and certainly instruction in the homogenous setting would be substantially different in terms of instructional choices. Further exploration could include a diversity of location, time of year, and more teachers to create a more comprehensive profile of time use and instructional focus. While this exploratory study may not reach broad conclusions, it may serve as a starting point for future research on a larger scale. The collection of data at the end of the school year provides an interesting comparison (as the beginning band students are nearing the end of the first year of instruction and are at a relatively advanced point in their development); however, documentation of these behaviors at a different time in the year could provide valuable insight. All schools were in preparation for their spring concert performance, but the performance dates varied in proximity and may have had an effect on instructional choices. While comparisons between beginning and advanced levels of instruction in middle school are of particular interest in this study, further research documenting teacher behavior at two levels in other situations (e.g., one teacher in their top ensemble and their third ensemble) could provide useful information.

Conclusion

It is important for preservice teachers to have information regarding successful beginning band instruction to use as a model. The structure and content of a beginning band class are necessarily different at the start of the year when students are just beginning to make sounds and learn the instruments, but there are differences that persist throughout the beginning band experience that are valuable to note and define. Differences in the role of the teacher and their use of time in the beginning setting seem to indicate a focus on individuals and on skill and concept development that persists through the first year of instruction. By sharing these differences with preservice teachers, it may be possible to prepare them more effectively for teaching beginning band and, therefore, help them to create more student success in the long term. A strong foundation in beginning band can create a positive trajectory for an entire band program.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233211006388 – Supplemental material for Comparing Time Use and Teacher Behaviors in Beginning and Advanced Middle School Band Settings: An Exploratory Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233211006388 for Comparing Time Use and Teacher Behaviors in Beginning and Advanced Middle School Band Settings: An Exploratory Study by Laura Singletary in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Laura Singletary

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Austin

J. R.

(2006). The teaching of secondary instruments: A survey of instrumental music teacher educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837060160010107

Ballantyne

Packer

(2004). Effectiveness of preservice music teacher education programs: Perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research, 6(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380042000281749

Brendell

J. K.

(1996). Time use, rehearsal activity, and student off-task behavior during the initial minutes of high school choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345409

Brophy

T. S.

(2002). Teacher reflections on undergraduate music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 12(1), 1–7. Academic OneFile.

Cavitt

M. E.

(1998). A descriptive analysis of error correction in expert teachers’ instrumental music rehearsals [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/pqdtft/docview/304458048/abstract/DA567E581A284C13PQ/1?accountid=4840

Cavitt

M. E.

(2003). A descriptive analysis of error correction in instrumental music rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345375

Conway

(2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345690

Conway

Eros

Hourigan

Stanley

A. M.

(2007). Perceptions of beginning teachers regarding brass and woodwind instrument techniques classes in preservice education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173, 39–54.

Duke

R. A.

(1994). Bringing the art of rehearsing into focus: The rehearsal frame as a model for prescriptive analysis of rehearsal conducting. Journal of Band Research, 30(1), 78–95.

10.

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, 7–19.

11.

Duke

R. A.

Stammen

(2011). SCRIBE: Simple Computer Recording Interface for Behavioral Evaluation (Scribe 4.2 for observation and assessment) [Computer software]. Learning & Behavior Resources.

12.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1996). Time use in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of experienced, novice, and student teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345442

13.

Goolsby

T. W.

(1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing identical band compositions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345722

14.

Johnson

Williams

Parisi

Brunkan

(2016). Behavioral characteristics and instructional patterns of expert teaching, and the transfer of those behaviors into a musical setting: Two case studies. International Journal of Music Education, 34(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415619060

15.

Lethco

L. A. M.

(1999). Preparing undergraduate music majors to teach beginning instrumentalists: The effects of self-evaluation, teacher observation, and performance-oriented instructional approaches on teacher behaviors and pupil responses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College]. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/pqdtft/docview/304511923/abstract/9ADDD8541304CE0PQ/1?accountid=4840

16.

MacLeod

R. B.

Walter

J. S.

(2011). A descriptive study of cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding student teacher preparation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.190.0021

17.

Napoles

(2006). The relationship between type of teacher talk and student attentiveness. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837060160010103

18.

Pontious

M. F.

(1982). A profile of rehearsal techniques and interaction of selected band conductors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/70817

19.

Singletary

(2018). Instructional content and frequency in the beginning band setting: Defining the fundamentals. Journal of Band Research, 54(1), 49–70.

20.

Thurman

V. L.

(1977). A frequency and time description of selected rehearsal behaviors used by five choral conductors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/pqdtft/docview/302856613/citation/1C4CDA025DFF41BBPQ/1?accountid=4840

21.

Witt

A. C.

(1986). Use of class time and student attentiveness in secondary instrumental music rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344796

22.

Worthy

M. D.

(2003). Rehearsal frame analysis of an expert wind conductor in high school vs. college band rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 156, 11–19.

23.

Worthy

M. D.

(2006). Observations of three expert wind conductors in college rehearsals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 168, 51–61.

24.

Worthy

M. D.

Thompson

B. L.

(2009). Observation and analysis of expert teaching in beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 29–41.

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