In this episode, I kick off a mini-series on music aptitude by discussing the two stages of music aptitude and how they are related to brain development.
* This guest post was authored by Sarah Boyd, graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, Lead Teaching Artist for the Detroit Symphony, and director of Hummingbird Music Together. Click here and here to learn more about Ms. Boyd and her work.
How do young children use spontaneous singing in their everyday lives?
What did the researcher do?
Due to technological advances, Dean was able to capture continuous audio recording of fifteen children, ages three and four years, at home in daily life. In total, over 180 hours of audio footage were recorded from parents monitoring a small recording device that the child wore on their clothes. The mobile recording technology allowed the children to be recorded without disrupting daily routines. Data was collected without relying on adult observation. Most families recorded over 2-4 days, and the total time that each child was recorded ranged from 4 hours to 24 hours. Once the recordings were collected, Dean manually located episodes of singing within the recordings and created audio-clips for analysis. Each clip was labeled according to the type of singing behavior, context, communication intent, and the function of the singing. The four types of singing behaviors identified after analysis of the clips were improvisatory singing, singing based on learned songs, humming, and chant. Dean then further analyzes the context of clips that included spontaneous singing.
What did the researcher find?
Spontaneous singing is the most common form of singing in young children.
Data showed that all fifteen children improvised songs to some degree. On average, children spent almost 5% of their total recorded time (total time, not just musical clips) in spontaneous song. It was the most frequently recorded type of singing behavior and the type recorded for the longest total time. Dean points out that although previous major studies refer to chant as the main singing behavior in young children, this is not the case for these 3- and 4-year-olds at home.
Children use music in ways that are meaningful to them and suit their needs.
In addition to improvising songs, children rarely sang unaltered versions of conventional songs they knew. Children made use of spontaneous singing during self-directed play, especially when playing alone. After play, children used spontaneous song during stationary activities (bath, meals) or parent-directed activities like transitioning or waiting. Dean asserts these findings suggest that “singing may act as a substitute for physical activity, reflecting an active state of mind even when the body is relatively still” (p. 11).
Children amend their singing behaviors based on their social context.
Children sang songs they knew, or improvised songs with words that had meaning, when they were singing to communicate with others. The motivation behind their singing behaviors seemed to be to be understood and share common songs with their family or caregivers. In contrast, when children were alone, their spontaneous songs had less focus on language and meaning. These improvisations were highly exploratory, with more humming, nonsense words, and syllables. The focus appeared to be experimentation and altering songs for their own purposes – narrating their own play or experimenting vocally.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Early childhood educators – both music and classroom – need to develop and foster an environment where spontaneous song has a place in classroom life. Furthermore, the improvisational songs of children need to be recognized as a fundamental singing behavior that is valuable to their musical development. Notably, the study showed that the children who improvised the most had families who included a wide repertoire of song in their daily life. Children will benefit from having a large repertoire of songs in their listening and singing vocabularies, upon which they can draw from when in spontaneous song. Using a wide variety of tunes in your classroom – include a variety of tonalities and meters – can provide this repertoire for children.
Spontaneous song occurred most during free play but was also found in active and stationary contexts – which shows us that singing can be a part of any and all activity! Educators can model using their own spontaneous song while washing hands or cleaning up, making music a part of your daily classroom activities. Be aware of the “hum” of your classroom – if you hear a child’s song, validate it by singing something back to them, either an echo or your own musical idea. This shows that you value their music making.
Finally, children are aware of what is accepted socially with music, and they quickly add words or sing conventional songs when interacting with adults. Allow children the freedom to sing without words, thus enabling them to focus on the music at hand. Just as 3- and 4-year-old children need to explore in order to teach themselves through play, the same is true with music. Children will flourish in a classroom that gives space for spontaneous song, as it is what comes most naturally to them.
Can a brief intervention designed to solicit empathy for Black individuals reduce implicit bias among white preservice teachers?
What did the researchers do?
Whitford and Emerson randomly assigned 34 white preservice teachers to two groups, both of which completed the Race Implicit Association Test as a measure of their implicit bias at the beginning of the study. Next, each group was asked to read either the experimental or control group passage, type their thoughts and feelings for 10 minutes after reading, and then complete the Implicit Association Test again. Participants in the control group read an article about integrating technology into elementary science lessons and were asked to write about how this made them feel, what they liked about it, and how they might improve the lessons. Participants in the experimental group read descriptions of 10 personal experiences of explicit racism from Black student peers, and they were asked to imagine themselves in the Black students’ situations and write about how this made them feel, how they would have reacted, and how these experiences might be prevented.
What did the researchers find?
Although the two groups did not differ on their Implicit Association Test scores before the intervention, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups’ post-intervention scores. Possible scores range from -2.0 to 2.0, with scores closer to zero indicating less bias. While the control group mean only went from 0.53 to 0.47, the experimental group mean went from 0.57 to 0.18, indicating significantly less implicit bias after the intervention.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Whitford and Emerson’s results suggest experiences soliciting empathy can be effective in reducing negative bias toward Black individuals. Specifically, White teachers who consider and empathize with Black students’ experiences with explicit racism may show less bias toward Black students, thereby reducing discriminatory discipline. Okonofua and Eberhardt found in this study that teachers responded more harshly to behavior infractions committed by students with Black-sounding names than with White-sounding names. However, according to Whitford and Emerson, “our results indicate that teacher training aimed at racial consciousness, and personal awareness of implicit bias holds promise for promoting empathy within the education workforce” (p. 680). Similarly, Okonofua, Paunesku, and Walton found in this study that teachers who take an empathic mindset punish students less severely and that their students have greater respect for them and are more motivated to behave well in the future. As Whitford and Emerson state, “School discipline inequality is one of the major contributors to the prison pipe-line for at-risk children and adolescents, but it does not have to be” (p. 682). Empathy interventions can be one effective strategy for turning the tide.
How does singer movement affect choral sound and perceptions of choral sound?
What did the researchers do?
Grady and Gilliam audio-recorded a non-auditioned, mixed-voice university choir performing a 16-measure excerpt (Klebanow’s arrangement of “Erev Shel Shoshanim”) under three conditions: standing still, slight swaying (up to 2 inches in any direction), and full-body swaying (“natural swaying that could exceed 2 in. in any direction and include a shifting of weight between feet” (p. 290)). Two weeks later the singers were invited to participate as “singer-listeners,” which 19 of the 29 choir members agreed to do. In addition, the researchers invited 16 “expert listeners” with graduate degrees in music education or choral conducting and experience in choral teaching/conducting to participate. The singer-listeners and expert listeners were asked to rate the overall choral sound and expressiveness of each of the three audio recordings (heard in random order and blinded to condition) and to rank them in order of preference. In addition, the researchers acoustically analyzed the sound of each recording for timbre (“spectral energy”) and pitch.
What did the researchers find?
Acoustical analysis showed significant differences in spectral energy between all three conditions, with full-body swaying showing a the highest mean and no movement showing the lowest. Acoustical analysis also showed that the slight sway condition resulted in the smallest overall pitch deviation, with no movement resulting in the largest overall pitch deviation.
In terms of singer-listeners’ perception of overall choral sound, the average rating was lowest for the no-movement performance and highest for the full-body swaying performance. Although the lowest average rating from expert listeners was also for the no-movement performance, expert listeners rated the slight-swaying performance as having the best choral sound. When rating expressiveness, expert listeners gave the highest average rating to the full-body swaying performance and lowest to the no-movement performance. Singer-listeners also gave the lowest average rating to the no-movement performance but the highest rating to the slight-swaying performance. However, the only statistically significant difference was between expert listeners’ ratings of overall choral sound for slight swaying versus no movement.
When asked to rank the three recordings in order of preference, singer-listeners most preferred the full-body-swaying performance while expert listeners preferred the slight-swaying recording. Both groups ranked the no-movement performance as least preferred.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Many music educators require their students to stand still while singing because they believe this makes the choir’s performance more visually appealing. However, the results of this study indicate that requiring students to stand still can be detrimental to their pitch, expressiveness and overall choral sound. The researchers also asked the singers to comment on their experiences in each of the three conditions, and the singers remarked “that the full-body swaying helped them feel ‘more free’ and ‘breathe easier’ and that ‘anxiety/tension was reduced’” while they “were ‘stiff’ and ‘tight’ during the no-movement condition, with a ‘tendency to hold and clutch’” (p. 299). Teachers might reconsider the requirement that students stand still while singing and experiment to see whether and what kinds of movement might have the best effect on singers’ sound and experience of singing.
Related Studies:
McCabe (2006) found benefits of movement for beginning instrumentalists.
Do older students perceive stronger gender stereotypes among musical instruments than younger students? Can exposure to counter-stereotyped musicians affect students’ instrument preferences?
What did the researchers do?
Pickering and Repacholi conducted a study involving 156 kindergarten students and 158 fourth-grade students. They showed the students videos of high-school musicians playing one of eight instruments that had previously been identified as either feminine (flute, violin, clarinet, cello) or masculine (drum, saxophone, trumpet, trombone) by Australian adults. The musicians wore school uniforms and all played the same musical excerpt. Participants were divided into three groups: one who viewed videos that aligned with gender stereotypes (e.g., females playing “feminine” instruments and males playing “masculine” instruments), one who viewed “counter-stereotyped” musicians (e.g., males playing “feminine” instruments and females playing “masculine” instruments), and one who simply viewed a static image of the instrument (with no musician visible).
Pickering and Repacholi had each student view their assigned videos individually (in a room separate from their classroom) and then asked them which instrument they would most like to play.
What did the researchers find?
Students in the control group (who saw static images rather than musicians) were significantly more likely to select instruments consistent with gender stereotypes than those inconsistent with gender stereotypes. There were, however, no significant differences in stereotyping by gender or age.
When all three groups were compared, Pickering and Repacholi found that students in the control group and the gender-consistent group were equally likely to prefer gender-consistent instruments. However, students exposed to the counter-examples were significantly less likely to choose gender-consistent instruments.
What does this mean for my classroom?
The issue of gender-stereotyping of instruments persists in music education. However, the results of this study suggest that exposing students to musicians who defy gender stereotypes can help them resist rather than perpetuate these stereotypes. When choosing audio/video or live examples for use in the music classroom, music educators should be conscious of who is represented and work to actively combat gender stereotypes. In addition to noticing the gender of instrumentalists featured in the music classroom, teachers should also pay attention to the gender of composers and conductors so that students see women represented in these roles. Music educators might also notice who is (or is not) represented in our professional materials, such as textbooks and journals. (This study found that women are much less likely to be represented as conductors in photographs published in the Music Educators Journal.) Similarly, teachers can notice the race/ethnicity of those who are represented. This noticing is the first step to taking action in ensuring that the representation in our classrooms is one that allows ALL students to see themselves represented in a diversity of musical roles.
In this episode, we experience some musicianship skill-building (including learning a tune by rote, chord roots by rote, and tonal/rhythm patterns), which will get us into improvisation!
What research exists on children’s singing and what insight can it provide for music educators?
What did the researcher do?
In order to offer suggestions for helping children learn to sing, Hedden conducted a literature review of existing research studies pertaining to prepubescent children’s singing. This included studies of both internal factors (e.g., vocal range, pitch matching, sex differences) and external factors (e.g., solo versus group, use of accompaniment, use of text, vocal modeling).
What did the researcher find?
In synthesizing the 50+ studies on children’s singing, Hedden identified many important themes. While I cannot present them all in this post, here are a few I find to be particularly valuable for teaching elementary general music:
✴ Young children can sing short patterns more accurately than whole songs.
Hedden summarized numerous studies that suggest young children may struggle with singing complete songs. Children in these studies were more able to accurately sing short patterns or individual pitches.
✴ Children benefit from whole group, small group, and solo singing experiences.
A number of researchers have studied whether children sing more accurately in solo or in large or small groups, to varying results. Ensuring that students experience both seems to be most beneficial.
✴ Children may benefit when singing is introduced on neutral syllables before text.
Though research findings have varied, there is some evidence to suggest that children may sing less accurately when learning songs with text. “There appears to be some merit in introducing singing on neutral syllables to offer one challenge at a time” (Hedden, 2012, p. 58).
✴ Learning a song by rote or immersion may be more effective than phrase-by-phrase.
Children may have an easier time absorbing and retaining a new melody when they’re given numerous opportunities to listen in a focused way before being asked to sing. “As the child hears the song several times, [they] will gain familiarity with the pitch contour…. This process is akin to that of language acquisition, in that the young children hears certain words and phrases repeatedly before attempting to replicate them” (p. 58).
What does this mean for my classroom?
Because young children initially sing short patterns more accurately than whole songs, we can provide students with opportunities to echo short tonal patterns or chime in on short melodic patterns within a song. For example, you might model singing “Frog Song” and pretending to make your hand hop upward on the “ga-gung” pattern. Then you might invite students to chime in on that pattern whenever it occurs during the song.
Most music classes feature ample opportunities for students to sing as a whole group. To build musical independence, we can also add opportunities for students to sing in small groups and in solo. For example, once students are familiar with “Frog Song,” I add a frog finger puppet on the “ga-gung” pattern, inviting students to sing the rest of the song as I sing that pattern in solo while moving the frog puppet in an upward motion. Then I pass out three puppets to three individual students, who each sing one “ga-gung” in solo with the puppet while the rest of the class sings the rest of the song. Once students are familiar with the activity, it also provides an opportunity for singing assessment, using a rating scale such as the following:
4 = Student sings the entire tonal pattern accurately.
3 = Student sings the tonal pattern with slight intonation error.
2 = Student performs the pattern in singing voice but inaccurate pitches.
1 = Student performs the pattern in speaking voice.
You could also have students echo short tonal patterns in solo, as shown in this video:
Kindergarten Students Echoing Tonal Patterns on Neutral Syllables
When teaching students a new melody, one approach is to use this process for teaching a song by rote, common among practitioners of Gordon’s Music Learning Theory:
Teacher models singing the song while students listen.
Teacher models singing the resting tone (on “bum” or solfege) and invites students to audiate and sing the resting tone whenever they pause and gesture during the song.
Teacher models moving to the microbeats (e.g., tapping, etc.) and invites students to move to the microbeats as they listen to the teacher sing the song.
Teacher models moving to the macrobeats (e.g., swaying, etc.) and invites students to move to the macrobeats as they listen to the teacher sing the song.
Teacher and students move to simultaneous macrobeat/microbeat while the teacher sings the song.
Students close their eyes and sing the song silently in their heads, raising their hands when they are finished. (Teacher should be sure to give a starting signal/cue.)
Students sing the song independently (without the teacher).
Songs can also be taught through immersion by engaging students in imaginative play as you expose them to the song. For example, you might…
Pretend to stir a different ingredient into a big pot of soup each time the teacher sings the song. Invite individual students to suggest ingredients to add!
Pretend to make a pizza, acting out a different step each time the teacher sings the song (stir, roll dough, poke dough, toss in the air, sway and sing or chant “tick-tock” to the beat while baking, slice to the beat, eat!)
Pretend it’s a snow day and do a different action each time the teacher sings the song (wake up/stretch, jump for joy, build a snowman, sledding, snow angels, snowball fight).
Pretend to bake cookies (stir, roll dough, use cookie cutters, “tick-tock”, frost, eat!), acting out a different step each time the teacher sings the song. Here is a video of this activity using a song in Lydian tonality sung on neutral syllables:
Informal Music Guidance: Kindergarten Students Absorbing a New Song
Playful activities like these allow students to hear and absorb the song a number of times so that by the time you ask them to sing it, they can already audiate it and are ready to sing.
Finally, since children may initially sing more accurately without text/lyrics, consider first teaching songs on a neutral syllable, such as “bum”, “loo”, “da”, or a combination of syllables.
Enter the giveaway! To win a copy of Developing Musicianship Through Improvisation, simply visit the GIML website (www.giml.org) and click on “Chapters.” Then send an email to everydaymusicality@gmail.com with the name of the chapter that is closest to you. You don’t need to be a GIML member to win, but if you are, mention that in your email for a BONUS entry! Deadline to enter is February 16.
Send in your questions related to MLT and have them answered on an episode in 2021! Email them to everydaymusicality@gmail.com.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
How do movement type, gender, and tempo affect children’s steady beat accuracy?
What did the researcher do?
Rose studied 119 kindergarten students in two schools who were divided into two groups: one that was asked to pat their hands to the beat and one that was asked to step their feet in place to the beat. Each student was asked to move to the steady beat to a musical excerpt heard three times at different tempi (slow/quarter-note = 80 bpm, medium/quarter-note = 100 bpm, and fast/quarter-note = 120 bpm). The hand-patting students were asked to tap the beat with both hands simultaneously on a MIDI controller while the foot-stepping students were asked to step (alternating) on a piece of foam with a MIDI controller against it. The researcher then calculated how many of the 16 total beats each participant accurately moved to at each tempo and conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with hand/foot grouping and gender as the between-subjects variables and tempo as the within-subjects variable.
What did the researcher find?
The students were least accurate at the fast tempo and most accurate at the medium tempo, but these differences were not statistically significant. There was also no significant difference by gender. There was, however, a statistically significant difference by movement type: students who patted their hands to the beat were more accurate than students who stepped to the beat across all three tempi.
What does this mean for my classroom?
If music teachers wish to help students accurately move to the steady beat, they may find more initial success in asking students to pat with their hands rather than step with their feet. Rose noted that this seemed to be a result of a struggle with balance when standing on one foot at a time. However, it could also be that the alternating bilateral movement required of stepping with alternating feet was the reason for the decreased accuracy when compared to the parallel bilateral hand-patting. If teachers notice students are struggling to keep a steady beat with alternating movement, they might remediate to provide more experiences with parallel movement first or spend more time on parallel movement before progressing to alternating movement in the first place.
The effects of movement type and tempo should also be considered when formally assessing students’ steady beat accuracy. Teachers might experiment with various beat movement experiences and/or provide a variety of opportunities through which students can demonstrate their beat competency to ensure it is being measured validly and reliably.
Does instruction improve memory for culturally unfamiliar music?
What did the researchers do?
Morrison and colleagues used a quasi-experimental design to study 110 students in six fifth-grade classes at two elementary schools. At the beginning of the study, all students completed a music memory test in which they heard examples of culturally familiar (Western) and culturally unfamiliar (Turkish) music. For each type of music, students listened to a longer excerpt (25-33 sec.) and then were asked to listen to 12 shorter excerpts (4-8 sec.) and answer whether or not they had heard each in the longer excerpt.
Four classes were randomly assigned to experience 8 weeks of instruction in Turkish music. The unit consisted of “singing, moving, playing instruments, and listening, with an emphasis on music literacy and cultural context” (p. 367). This included lessons on Turkish culture and a culminating experience in which Turkish culture bearers demonstrated instruments, discussed musical traditions, and answered questions. Students in the two control classes experienced similar lessons but with English, East African, and Appalachian music instead of Turkish.
After the 8-week instructional unit, students completed the listening test again. Morrison et al. used a multivariate repeated-measures ANOVA to analyze differences in students’ pretest and posttest scores.
What did the researchers find?
Results indicated that all participants’ scores for both Western and Turkish music improved from pretest to posttest. However, all students more accurately remembered Western music than Turkish music on both the pretest and posttest. Furthermore, students who experienced the 8-week instructional unit on Turkish music did not remember Turkish music more accurately than students who had not experienced the unit.
What does this mean for my classroom?
If we consider memory as an indicator of music comprehension, the results of this study would suggest that experiencing culturally unfamiliar music does not increase students’ comprehension of that music after 8 weeks. This has several implications:
Hannon and Trehub (2005) found that, while adults’ ability to discriminate between examples of Balkan music was unchanged after 1-2 weeks of listening, infants’ ability to do so improved after 2 weeks of exposure to Balkan music. Along with the findings of the Morrison et al. study, this suggests that exposure to a variety of musics should occur as early as possible in a child’s life.
Eight weeks is a relatively short period of time, and students only received 30 minutes of instruction each week. It is possible that more extensive exposure could result in greater recognition/comprehension.
That students who experienced instruction in Turkish music did not show improved aural comprehension of Turkish music may have been a result of the nature of the instruction itself. Morrison et al. did not provide specific details as to how the instructional experiences were designed to help students comprehend Turkish music or whether there were certain musical aspects (e.g., meter, mode/tonality) that may have made the Turkish music more difficult for students to recognize. The researchers did state that the unit emphasized music literacy and cultural context, but it is unclear how these concepts would facilitate greater aural comprehension of culturally unfamiliar music. If the unit had focused on helping students audiate the tonal and rhythmic context (e.g., tonal center, beat levels) of the music and helping students develop an aural/oral vocabulary of tonal patterns and rhythm patterns inherent in Turkish music, it is possible students may have shown improved aural comprehension.
Who enrolls in urban middle school and high school music classes?
What did the researcher do?
Kinney obtained student demographic information from one large midwestern metropolis area. This district was comprised of mostly minority students (62% Black, 26% Caucasian, 9% Hispanic, 3% Asian, <1% Native American), and 78.5% of students were enrolled in free/reduced lunch programs. Since elective choices began in 6th grade in this district and state standardized tests were administered in 6th, 8th, and 10th grades, Kinney collected data for students in those three grades.
Kinney assembled a database that indicated whether each student in 6th, 8th, and 10th grade was enrolled in band, strings, or choir. This database also included the following information for each student:
reading achievement test score
math achievement test score
free/reduced lunch status (as an indicator of SES)
number of parents/guardians in the home
district mobility (whether the student had moved into the district in the past year),
school mobility (whether the student had transferred schools within the district in the past year)
ethnicity
sex
Kinney used these factors as variables in conducting a multinomial logistic regression to build a predictive model for initial 6th grade enrollment and 8th/10th grade enrollment/retention in band, orchestra, and choir.
What did the researcher find?
Statistical analyses revealed the following student characteristics to be significant predictors of whether a student was more or less likely to enroll in elective music classes at each grade level:
What does this mean for my classroom?
Results suggest that students with higher math achievement are more likely to participate in instrumental music in urban schools. However, the fact that this was consistent across the span of grade levels suggests “that higher achieving students are attracted to instrumental programs from the outset and that systematic differences between this population and the general school population remain relatively stable over time” (p. 36). This provides evidence against the common argument that participation in music raises standardized tests scores and instead implies the difference lies in who chooses to participate in instrumental music in the first place.
Band teachers should be aware that student SES can predict whether a student participates in band. Teachers should be conscious of the fact that SES can be a limiting factor for student enrollment and find ways to make access to band class accessible to students who might struggle to afford an instrument or other supplies.
High school band programs typically involve various before- and after-school requirements (e.g., marching band, pep band), which may be why students from two-parent/guardian homes were more likely to participate in band in high school. It is possible that single-parent/guardian homes encounter more challenges in navigating these extra activities. For example, a single parent who works the night shift may not be able to transport their child to or from before- or after-school activities. High school band teachers should be aware of these challenges and work to mitigate them so that all students have equal opportunity to participate.
Finally, teachers should be aware of the ways in which enrollment trends may reflect racial and gendered “norms” of who participates in band, orchestra, or choir. Only band reflected a more balanced enrollment of males and females, while females were two to three times as likely as males to enroll in orchestra or choir. While race/ethnicity trends varied across grade levels and ensemble types, the data implies that white students tend to more consistently enroll in ensemble classes. Teachers can be mindful of these trends in their recruiting efforts, and all music educators can work to defy racial/ethnic and gender stereotypes in the repertoire they choose, the materials they use, and the musicians who are represented in their classrooms. “Through deliberate, conscientious efforts to reach students often underserved by music ensemble offerings, teachers will no doubt create a more democratic, equitable, and viable elective choice for all” (p. 41).
To enter to win a copy of Music Play: Post a photo, image, or graphic on social media with the text “I am a music teacher because…” or “Music is important because…” AND add the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #GIApublications. (Either set the post privacy to public so I can see it when I search for the hashtags OR tag the “Everyday Musicality Podcast” page on Facebook OR email a screenshot of your post to everydaymusicality@gmail.com.)
To enter to win a copy of Music Play 2: Rate and review the show on your podcast app of choice, and email a screen-cap of your review to everydaymusicality@gmail.com OR post it to the “Everyday Musicality Podcast” page on Facebook.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
Shouldice and Eastridge accessed 6 years (2013-2018) of District Concert Assessment ratings sponsored by the Virginia Band and Orchestra Directors Association (VBODA), which are publicly available on the VBODA website. Data included ensembles’ overall performance ratings and director names, which Shouldice and Eastridge used to code each ensemble performance according to the assumed gender (male/ female) of the director(s). If the first name of a director was ambiguous or gender-neutral (e.g., Robin, Jamie), they performed an internet search to ascertain gender (via pronouns, title, and/or photograph). Finally, Shouldice and Eastridge then conducted statistical analyses to ascertain the percentages of ensembles receiving each rating (by level and director gender) and whether there was a statistically significant relationship between director gender and overall performance rating.
What did the researchers find?
At both the middle school and high school levels, male-directed ensembles were more likely to receive a I rating while female-directed ensembles more likely to receive a II rating. The table below shows the percentages of ensembles receiving each rating by director gender, and the bar chart shows the comparison of I and II ratings by gender and level.
Table 1. Percentages of Ensembles Receiving Each Rating, by Director Gender.*
Figure 1. Number/Comparison of I and II Ratings Included in Chi-Square Analyses.*
*Due to required assumptions of the Chi-Square test, multiple ensemble performances from the same director were randomly removed so that only one listing was included for each director, which is why 3,229 performances are reflected in Table 1 but only 730 in Figure 1.
What does this mean for my classroom?
We cannot definitively infer the cause behind the association between ensemble ratings and director gender discovered by Shouldice and Eastridge. However, it is worth reflecting on possible explanations for this finding. One explanation might be that societal norms expect and permit men to display the behaviors and characteristics that are associated with being a successful band director (such as assertiveness and competitiveness) whereas these traits may be less expected and/or acceptable in women. Another potential explanation could be that women are more likely to be hired for band teaching jobs in smaller and/or rural schools/districts, which may be more likely to earn lower ratings than ensembles from larger school districts. Finally, female-directed bands may receive lower ratings than male-directed bands as a result of gender bias, either explicit or implicit.
One possibility is that gender bias might influence judges to rate female-directed groups differently than male-directed groups. Given that previous research findings suggest larger ensembles or those performing more difficult classifications of music may tend to receive higher ratings than smaller ensembles or those performing easier music, it is also possible that gender bias may be an influence in the hiring practices that lead to greater numbers of men than women securing jobs in larger, more prestigious programs that are likely to perform more advanced repertoire.
The results of this study indicate that although improving, a gender imbalance still exists in the secondary band teaching profession. Discrimination in the hiring process may be one possible explanation for this persistent gender imbalance, as suggested by findings of existing research. It is critical that those involved in the hiring process examine their own biases and actively work toward more equitable hiring of men and women. It is also crucial to strive for more equitable representation of women in the field of secondary band teaching. Rather than reinforcing the common image of conductor as male, music educators and music teacher educators might actively work to provide students with images of women in these teaching roles.
Related Research Summarized by “Research to Real Life”:
* This guest post was authored by Dr. Lisa Martin, Assistant Professor of music education at Bowling Green State University. Click here to learn more about Dr. Martin and her work.
What characterizes the practice habits of middle school band students?
What did the researchers do?
A total of 30 middle school band students were video recorded as they practiced in a room by themselves for 20 minutes. The student participants were instructed to practice their band repertoire as if working on it at home. Miksza, Prichard, and Sorbo analyzed each video to determine (a) how students organized their practice with regard to time spent on given musical excerpts, (b) which musical objectives students prioritized (e.g., rhythmic accuracy, pitch accuracy), and (c) what strategies students employed to achieve various musical goals. The researchers also rated each practice session using a researcher-developed self-regulation scale to provide an overall picture of the extent to which students demonstrated self-regulated behaviors in their practice.
What did the researchers find?
In terms of practice organization, students tended to practice longer segments of music (nine or more consecutive measures), and they were less inclined to focus on segments of four measures or less. Across the 20-minute practice session, students spent an average of 2 minutes 45 seconds on each segment. As the practice session progressed, students spent significantly less time on each segment. Overall, there was a high degree of variability in the frequency and duration of these practice segments.
Students tended to focus primarily on pitch accuracy as their main objective, and less attention was paid to objectives such as dynamics or rhythmic accuracy. The most commonly employed practice strategies were repetition and varying the tempo. Around half the participants demonstrated irrelevant playing, and approximately one third clapped/tapped or wrote on their music during the practice session.
With regard to the self-regulation ratings, the researcher-developed measurement yielded a possible score range of 12 to 60, with higher scores suggesting greater self-regulation. Participants had a mean score of 30.86 on this scale, and those with higher self-regulation ratings typically utilized a higher number of practice strategies during their session. Those students who employed more irrelevant playing in their practice session tended to have lower self-regulation ratings.
What does this mean for my classroom?
When working with developing musicians, teachers should not assume students inherently know how to practice effectively. Younger students can struggle with establishing priorities during their practice, may find it difficult to identify specific challenges to address, and tend to employ a limited range of corrective strategies. Teachers can help students establish discrete goals for their practice and improve practice time efficiency by modeling practice strategies during class time. The range of self-regulation ratings and demonstrated practice behaviors in this study also suggest that differentiated approaches toward practice instruction could be useful.
Does an empathic mindset related to student misbehavior result in more positive outcomes than a punitive mindset?
What did the researchers do?
Okonofua, Paunesku, and Walton conducted three experiments. In Experiment 1, they randomly assigned 39 teachers to either an empathic- or punitive-mindset condition. Each teacher was asked to read a short article in which they were reminded either “that ‘good teacher-student relationships are critical for students to learn self-control’ (empathic mindset) or that ‘punishment is critical for teachers to take control of the classroom’ (punitive mindset)” (p. 5221). Then they read three minor misbehavior records, described how they would discipline each student, and rated the extent to which they considered each student a “troublemaker.”
In Experiment 2, the researchers asked 302 college students to “imagine themselves as middle-school students who had disrupted class by repeatedly walking around to throw away trash” (p. 5222). Each student then read a description for how their imaginary teacher (“Mrs. Smith”) responded—either by giving them detention and sending them to the principal (punitive) or by asking them about their behavior and moving the trashcan closer to their desk (empathic). After this, the students rated how much respect they would have for Mrs. Smith and their motivation to behave well in the future.
Experiment 3 was a longitudinal study in which the researchers “tested whether encouraging an empathic mindset about discipline would reduce student suspension rates over an academic year” (p. 5222). Thirty-one teachers at five diverse middle schools in California participated in this study. These teachers participated in two online modules, the purpose of which they were told was “to review common but sometimes neglected wisdom about teaching and to collect their perspectives as experienced teachers on how to best handle difficult interactions with students” (p. 5223). After consenting to participate, each teacher was randomly assigned to either the empathic mindset condition or the control condition. Modules in the control condition focused on using technology to promote learning. For the empathic-condition, the first module focused on “non-pejorative reasons why students sometimes misbehave in class and how positive relationships with teachers can facilitate students’ growth” (p. 5223). The materials encouraged teachers to “understand and value students’ experiences and negative feelings that can cause misbehavior” and reminded them that “a teacher who makes … students feel hear, valued, and respected shows them that school is fair and they can grow and succeed there” (p. 5223). This included stories from students and opportunities for teachers to reflect on how they could incorporate the ideas into their teaching. Two months later, teachers completed the second module, which in the empathic condition focused on reminding them that “students’ feelings about and behavior in school can and do improve when teachers successfully convey the care and respect students crave” (p. 5223). At this time, students were also asked to complete a survey assessing the school climate, specifically focusing on perceived respect from teachers and other school adults. At the end of the school year, the researchers collected students’ suspension rates from each school.
What did the researchers find?
The results of Experiment 1 showed the teachers with an empathic mindset chose to punish students less severely and were less likely to label students as troublemakers than the teachers with a punitive mindset.
In Experiment 2, students whose teacher responded with empathy reported having greater respect for the teacher and being more motivated to behave well in the future than students whose teacher responded punitively. Furthermore, the greater the respect the student reported having for the teacher, the more motivated they were to behave well in the future.
Experiment 3 results showed that students whose teachers received the empathic-mindset intervention were half as likely to be suspended as students of the control teachers, even when statistically controlled for race, gender, and prior-year suspensions. In addition, students with a history of prior suspension whose teachers received the empathic-mindset condition reported feeling more respected by their teachers than did those who were students of the control teachers.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Students whose teachers take a punitive approach to discipline may feel less respected and less inclined to behave well in class. However, students will likely feel more cared for and respected if we try to have empathy for them, to understand the reasons behind their misbehavior, and to assume positive (or at least neutral) intentions. Doing so can help build a positive, caring relationship with the student, which may lead them to want to do better in the future.
Some ideas from teachers who participated in this study include the following:
“When asked how they ‘would like … to improve your relationships with your students?’ teachers powerfully echoed the intervention themes: For example,
‘[I] greet every student at the door with a smile every day no matter what has occurred the day before’;
‘[I] answer their questions thoughtfully and respectfully no matter what their academic history with me has been’; and
‘I NEVER hold grudges. I try to remember that they are all the son or daughter of someone who loves them more than anything in the world. They are the light of someone’s life!’” (p. 5223)
How can teachers support students who have experienced trauma?
What did the researcher do?
Rosenbaum-Nordoft conducted a review of research studies and other literature pertaining to childhood trauma. She synthesizes these findings in her article and provides suggestions to equip teachers to more effectively support students in elementary school classrooms.
What did the researcher find?
Rosenbaum-Nordoft first gives an overview of the roots and effects of complex trauma. Trauma is rooted in the body’s fear response, which is “the brain’s natural reaction to perceived or actual threats” (p. 4). When the brain is alerted to possible danger, it suspends logical thought and prepares the body to protect itself through one of three responses: fight, flight, or freeze. “A fight, flight, or freeze response can lead to a rapid reactivity to a perceived threat, including self-protective behaviors such as agression, withdrawal [e.g., running away], or freezing [e.g., becoming non-responsive]” (p. 5). Repeatedly experiencing this fear response over time can lead to chronically elevated levels of stress hormones, hindered brain development, mental health concerns like anxiety or depression, poor impulse control, and impaired ability to concentrate and learn. “Children in a state of fear retrieve information from the world differently than children who feel calm” (Perry, as cited in Rosenbaum-Nordoft, 2018, p. 5). Therefore, it is important for teachers to acknowledge the long-term implications of complex trauma on physical and mental health and use a “trauma-informed lens” in the classroom.
“A trauma-informed approach to supporting students … expands the lens through which educators view educational success so that it includes both academic achievement and mental health” (p. 6). Teachers should be on the lookout for signs of trauma in students and take this into consideration when responding to student behaviors. For example, rather than seeing a student as “‘bad,’ unmotivated or hostile” (p. 6) and asking “What is wrong with this student?”, a teacher might shift their thinking to instead ask “What is the function of that behavior?” Asking the latter question can help the teacher identify triggers for the behavior, which can then be prevented or mitigated. Rosenbaum-Nordoft provides several examples of how behavior can be analyzed in this way using functional behavioral analysis.
Finally, the author stresses the importance of relationships in supporting students who have experienced trauma. For example, she cites a study in which the researchers “found that having a trusted adult in the school was associated with greater academic gains” and “that teachers who take the time to listen and communicate an attitude of acceptance, accessibility, warmth and knowledge supported the trust in the relationship” (p. 6). Taking the time to get to know students and build a positive relationship will help them feel safer in school, thus enabling them to learn more effectively.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Life has changed drastically over the past five months throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, it is likely that many of our students are experiencing trauma. In order to help our students through this difficult time, we must first attend to connecting with them and making them feel seen, valued, and safe. Building relationships should be our main priority as we move forward with our students.
The National Child Traumatic Stress Network provides a number of helpful resources, including “Trauma-Informed School Strategies during COVID-19.” Visit their website here.
Does race influence teachers’ perceptions of student misbehavior?
What did the researchers do?
Okonofua and Eberhardt conducted two related studies.
Study #1:
The researchers recruited 57 K-12 teachers (38 white, 2 black, 1 Asian, 16 of unknown race) from various school districts across the United States. They showed each teacher a school record for a middle school student who had misbehaved twice, asking them to imagine they were the student’s teacher. The student was assigned either a stereotypically Black name (Darnell or Deshawn) or a stereotypically White name (Greg or Jake). After reading about each of the student’s two behavior infractions (one for insubordination and one for class disturbance), the teacher was asked to answer the following questions on a scale ranging from 1, not at all, to 7, extremely:
How severe was the student’s misbehavior?
To what extent is the student hindering you from maintaining order in your class?
How irritated do you feel by the student?
How severely should the student be disciplined?
The order of the two infractions (class disturbance/insubordination) varied randomly across participants to mitigate order effect. After reading and responding to both infractions, the teacher was asked to rate the likelihood they would say the student is a troublemaker. Finally, they asked how likely it was that the student was Black and what they suspected was the study’s hypothesis. (These final questions were used to identify any participants who may have been manipulating their responses based on their assumptions about the study’s hypothesis.)
Study #2:
The first study was replicated with 204 more K-12 teachers (166 White, 17 Black, 10 Asian, 6 Latino, 2 other, 3 unknown) with an addition: After teachers rated the likelihood they would say the student was a troublemaker, they were also prompted to rate the extent to which they felt the student’s behaviors indicated a pattern and the likelihood they would imagine suspending the student at some point.
What did the researchers find?
Study #1:
Although teachers’ ratings of infraction severity, hindrance, and irritation did not vary by race in reaction to the first infraction, there was a statistically significant difference by race for the second infraction, with teachers rating students with stereotypically Black names more harshly than students with stereotypically White names. Similarly, teachers felt the students with stereotypically Black names should be disciplined more severely after the second infraction than students with stereotypically White names. “Thus, after only two strikes, racial disparities in discipline emerge” (p. 620). Furthermore, “the more likely teachers were to think the student was Black … the more likely they were to label the student a troublemaker” (p. 620).
Study #2:
Again, teachers’ ratings after the second infraction revealed perceptions that the misbehavior was more severe, more irritating, and more of a hindrance and warranted more severe discipline when the student had a stereotypically Black name. In addition, “the more likely the teachers were to think the student was Black, the more likely they were to label the student a troublemaker” (p. 621) and “the more likely they were to imagine themselves suspending that student in the future” (p. 622).
What does this mean for my classroom?
Though many studies and statistics show Black students are disciplined at higher rates and/or with greater severity, most only show a correlation. However, the findings of this study show a direct causal relationship between race and perceptions of misbehavior. According to Okonofua and Eberhardt, “what we have shown here is that racial disparities in discipline can occur even when Black and White students behave in the same manner. We have shown experimentally, for the first time, that teacher responses can contribute to racial disparities in discipline” (p. 622).
Since teaching is a helping profession, it can be assumed most teachers choose their career out of a desire to help others and make a difference. Like the teachers who participated in this study, though, none of us are immune to implicit bias. All educators must work to heighten awareness of their own implicit biases to help ensure all students are treated fairly and have equal opportunities for success.
Elpus, K., & Grisé, A. (2019). Music booster groups: Alleviating or exacerbating funding inequality in American public school music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(1), 6-22.
What did the researchers want to know?
What were key financial and demographic characteristics of U.S. music booster groups in 2015, and how does the amount raised by booster groups relate to household income in the community served?
What did the researchers do?
Elpus and Grisé assembled a dataset from publicly available information. This included IRS nonprofit tax return data from 2015. After going extensive lengths to find and record financial information for 5,575 music booster groups from across the U.S., Elpus and Grisé gathered 2015 U.S. Census data pertaining to the annual household income for the city in which each booster group resided and added this to the database. Finally, they calculated a variety of statistics and conducted statistical analyses to answer their research questions.
What did the researchers find?
The states containing the most booster groups were Texas (n = 846), California (n = 594), and Ohio (n = 431). The state with the fewest was Wyoming (n = 1). Elpus and Grisé identified four groups that earned over $1 million in revenue, all of which were in Texas or California. Close examination showed that the group with the second highest revenue “was responsible for raising funds to provide annual salary and benefits for multiple music teachers in the district’s elementary and middle schools, which would not have had music ensembles in the absence of private fundraising. Many of these funds were raised by mandatory contributions from the families of students enrolled in music education” (p. 16).
To examine the relationship between booster group fundraising and household income, Elpus and Grisé looked at whether each booster group filed a Form 990-N (annual income up to $50,000), a Form 990-EZ (annual income between $50,001 and $199,999), or a full Form 990 (annual income of $200,000 or more). They then recorded the median household income within each booster group’s ZIP code to calculate whether the three filing groups differed in average median household income. ANOVA results showed significant differences between the average median household incomes for all three groups. In other words, music booster groups that raised more funds were more likely to reside in communities with higher median household incomes. Further analysis (fixed effects regression model) revealed that, for every additional $1,000 in local median household income, a Form 990-EZ-filing group raises an additional $305 in revenue while a full Form 990-filing group raises an additional $1,637 in revenue.
What does this mean for my classroom?
While it may be make us feel good to believe that music booster groups provide funding for under-resourced music programs, the reality is that booster groups generating more revenue serve schools in wealthier communities, and community wealth tends to also be correlated with public school funding. Thus, not only do booster groups not level the playing field for under-funded music programs, they actually exacerbate funding inequality.
Grutzmacher, P. A. (1987). The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural perception, reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of first-year instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(3), 171-181. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/3344959
GIVEAWAY #2: If you would like to enter to win a copy of “The Ways Children Learn Music” by Eric Bluestine, share your favorite episode of this podcast so far on social media and add the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications. You can do this on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Just remember to set the post privacy to “public” or tag Everyday Musicality Podcast on FB so that I’ll be able to see it when I search for the hashtags. Winner will be announced on May 12, so enter by May 5!
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
Shouldice, H. N. (2019). ‘Everybody has something’: One teacher’s beliefs about musical ability and their connection to teaching practice and classroom culture. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(2), 189-205.
What did the researcher want to know?
How does one elementary music teacher’s beliefs about musical ability…
manifest in her actions and decision-making in the classroom?
manifest in her interactions with students and the classroom culture she creates?
relate to her beliefs about the purpose of music education?
What did the researcher do?
In contrast to the belief that musical talent is “innate” and possessed by only some, Shouldice studied one elementary music teacher (“Deena”) who believes that all students have musical potential. She observed in Deena’s classroom twice weekly (each for one entire school day) during a two-month period. Data consisted of field notes from observations, regular semi-structured interviews with Deena, teacher journal entries, and various teaching artifacts (e.g., classroom website, written correspondence to parents). These data were analyzed to identify the ways in which Deena’s actions in the classroom, interactions with students, and beliefs about the purpose of music education seemed to connect to her beliefs about musical ability.
What did the researcher find?
Shouldice identified three main themes:
I. Enabling Success for All
Deena believes “everybody has something” in terms of musical potential but that students’ current level of musical ability is affected by factors like varying prior musical experiences, effort, and musical self-esteem. For this reason, Deena attempts to communicate to her students that, just as in other subjects, “everybody is at different places,” normalizing differences among students’ abilities and sending a message that all can be successful with varying amounts of effort and time.
Because Deena believes students are all in “different places”, what qualifies as musical “success” looks different for each child, and thus they each need something different from her in order to be successful. She enables individualized opportunities for success in two main ways: (1) by providing all students with differentiated learning experiences at varying levels of difficulty according to their needs, and (2) by helping each student tap into their musical strengths through incorporating a variety of activities.
II. Power of the Learning Environment
In order to nurture each child’s musical potential, Deena creates a positive learning environment with three salient characteristics:
It is safe.
Students feel free to explore and make mistakes without fear of failure or pressure to be perfect.
It is supportive.
Students’ musical confidence is built by focusing on what they CAN do rather than what they can’t. In addition, the teacher communicates to students a persistent belief that they all will succeed eventually, and the students encourage and celebrate one another.
It is empowering.
Enabling students to feel musically empowered helps develop their musical identities, thus increasing their motivation to continue engaging with music.
III. Encouraging Lifelong Musical Engagement
“Because Deena believes that all of her students have musical potential, she sees it as her duty to ensure that each and every one of them develops musical skills and understanding and, in doing so, hopes to achieve her ultimate goal of enabling all students to continue on to a lifetime of participation and engagement with music” (p. 198). In order to achieve this goal, Deena works to help her students develop musical independence[ Ways she does this—here or in applications?] (so they can continue to make music on their own) and have positive musical experiences (so they want to continue to make music in the future).
What does this mean for my classroom?
A music teacher’s conscious or unconscious beliefs have an inevitable impact on what goes on in their classroom, whether the teacher is aware of it or not. A teacher who believes all students can be successful in music may be more likely to persist in helping all students achieve, while a teacher who believes in innate talent may be more likely to give up on students they don’t perceive as being “talented.” It is worth reflecting on one’s own beliefs about musical ability and the ways these beliefs might be manifesting in one’s classroom.
Rather than expecting all students to achieve at the same level at all times, the teacher might work to make sure each student is appropriately challenged and can feel successful. Specific strategies include the following:
Varying the difficulty levels of activities within a class period, including a mix of challenging and more basic activities, and varying the kids of activities so that each student can feel successful with something.
Providing multiple parts of varying difficulty within an activity and giving students an opportunity to choose the part that is appropriately challenging for them. (Just be sure to communicate to students that all parts are important, and it’s not bad if a student chooses an easy part.)
Differentiating instruction by adapting content difficulty for each student within an activity. For example, if you are having students engage in tonal/melodic pattern echo-singing, you might differentiate instruction so that each student echoes a pattern that is appropriately challenging for them. I described one such example in my dissertation (on which this article was based), in which Deena would sing a short tonal pattern with solfege for each student to echo in solo. I describe on page 95, “For Mari, a girl who struggled with using her singing voice, Deena sang a simple descending tonic pattern. For Gordon, a boy who had consistently been using his singing voice to accurately echo tonic and dominant patterns, Deena sang a subdominant pattern comprised of leaps. After hearing Priya accurately echo a tonic pattern on her first turn, Deena later returned to her for a second turn in which she gave her a more difficult subdominant pattern.”
Although many teachers like to stress the importance of perfection in music, this can have the detrimental effect of leading students to be afraid of making mistakes, causing them to be less likely to take risks or to keep trying when they are unsuccessful for fear of embarrassment. Instead, music teachers can work to establish a classroom culture in which it is safe (and expected!) to make mistakes so that they will persist through challenges. In addition, empowering students to feel like musicians can help them persist.
Finally, we might equip students to continue engaging with music beyond our classroom by helping them develop musical independence. Some ways to do this include the following:
Don’t always sing/play with your students or conduct for them, so they can’t use you as a crutch.
Use small group activities to encourage students to take greater responsibility for and ownership of their music-making and learning.
Find ways of eliciting individual student response in your classroom, such as prompting students to sing/play short patterns in solo. Start this as early as possible and incorporate as frequently as possible so that students come to see individual response as a “normal” part of music class.
For more examples, see the entire dissertation on which this article was based.
GIVEAWAY #2: If you would like to enter to win a copy of “The Ways Children Learn Music” by Eric Bluestine, share the podcast on social media and add the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications. You can do this on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Just remember to set the post privacy to “public” or tag Everyday Musicality Podcast on FB so that I’ll be able to see it when I search for the hashtags.
All tunes in this episode were composed by Heather Shouldice and will be published in her forthcoming book.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
Given that existing research suggests infants gradually lose the ability to discriminate speech sounds in unfamiliar languages, do we also lose the ability to discriminate rhythmic sounds in unfamiliar meters?
What did the researchers do?
Hannon and Trehub conducted three related experiments using Balkan folk music in isochronous and non-isochronous meters. Isochronous meter is one in which the beats are evenly spaced (e.g., 2/4, 3/4, 6/8), and non-isochronous meter is one in which the beats are not evenly spaced (e.g., 5/8, 7/8).
In experiment #1, they studied 52 infants (11-12 months old) with no prior exposure to Balkan folk music using two isochronous (even meter) melodies and two non-isochronous melodies (uneven meter) melodies. Each melody was accompanied by “a drum pattern that subdivided each measure into either a long-short-short or a short-short-long sequence of temporal intervals” (p. 12640), as shown below in Figure 1. Each test stimulus either preserved or disrupted the original meter.
Rhythmic patterns used by Hannon & Trehub
Each infant was randomly assigned to be familiarized with either the even-meter excerpts or the uneven-meter excerpts. The infant was seated on their parent’s lap in front of two monitors, one of which would flash a red light and then show random documentary video footage while a melody was heard. “Infants were first presented with 2 min of the familiarization stimulus, consisting of four 30-s repetitions [of either the even- or uneven-meter excerpts] alternating between monitors” (p. 12640). Then the test stimuli were played six times each, “with the structure-preserving and structure-disrupting test stimuli alternating between monitors” (p. 12640). Each test ended when the infant looked away for 2 sec or when 60 sec had passed. An observer recorded the total time each infant spent looking at the monitor and not looking at the monitor for each test stimulus.
In experiment #2, parents of 26 infants (11-12 months old) with no previous exposure to Balkan music were given CDs of uneven-meter music from Macedonia, Bulgaria, or Bosnia and asked to play it for their baby twice daily for two weeks. After two weeks, each infant was tested using the same procedures as experiment #1.
In experiment #3, Hannon and Trehub studied 40 adults with no previous exposure to Balkan music. They used the same stimuli as the infants in experiments #1 and #2 and asked the adults to rate each variation according to how similar it was to the familiarization stimulus. Each adult was tested at the beginning and end of the experiment. In the interim, half of the adults were given the CD of uneven-meter music and asked to listen to it twice daily for 1 or 2 weeks.
What did the researchers find?
Results of experiment #1 showed that, for even meter, infants spent significantly more time looking at the monitor while hearing the structure-disrupting stimuli than during the structure-preserving stimuli. This indicates that they were able to perceive the structure-disrupting stimulus as novel/unexpected and thus remained interested longer, suggesting the babies were able to differentiate between the stimuli in even meter. However, looking times did not vary between structure-disrupting and structure-preserving variations in the non-even meter, suggesting that the babies were not able to perceive the differences in non-even meter variations.
Results of experiment #2 showed infants spent significantly more time looking at the monitor while hearing the structure-disrupting stimuli than during the structure-preserving variation for both meters, suggesting that the infants who had been exposed to recordings of music in an uneven meter for two weeks were able to distinguish between the stimuli in a non-isochronous meter.
Results of experiment #3 showed the adults were able to more accurately recognize music in even meters than in uneven meters. In fact, “in the [even] condition, adults tended to rate the structure-disrupting variations as more similar to the original stimulus than the structure-preserving variations” (p. 12642), suggesting that they “assimilated the original [uneven] rhythms into a Western, or isochronous, metrical framework” (p. 12643). While the adults who had listened to recordings of uneven/non-isochronous music performed slightly better on the second test, there was no statistically significant difference from those who had not listened.
“In short, adults failed to attain native-like performance after exposure to foreign musical structures, in contrast with 12-month-old infants, whose postexposure performance in the foreign musical context was equivalent to their preexposure performance in the familiar musical context” (p. 12643).
What does this mean for my classroom?
Results of this study suggest that we lose our ability to accurately perceive unfamiliar meters as we get older. Thus, it is important that infants and young children be exposed to music in a wide variety of meters, both even and uneven, as early as possible. By doing so, we will help preserve their ability to accurately perceive and make sense of rhythms in both even and uneven meters, facilitating greater understanding of music in the future.
Music teachers should be aware that older students may struggle to accurately perceive rhythms in meters beyond duple and triple. If students will be expected to perform repertoire in uneven meters (e.g., 7/8, 5/8), the music teacher should provide extensive opportunities for students to be exposed to music in such meters well in advance of being asked to perform them.
In addition to passive listening to less familiar meters, students might also be encouraged to move their bodies as they are listening. In his book Learning Sequences in Music, Gordon (2012) suggested that moving with continuous fluid movement—in a smooth and uninterrupted manner—can help us feel the space between the beats and thus prepare us to move to the beat. The music teacher might sing or play a recording of a melody in an uneven meter and ask students to move their torsos and/or various body parts in large, fluid circles as they listen. Other imagery to prompt students to move with flow includes pretending to stir a large pot of soup or pretending to smoothly paint the space around them with a paintbrush. Once students can move in a continuous fluid manner while listening to uneven-metered music, model pulsing or flicking your fingers to the big beats.
GIVEAWAY #2: If you would like to enter to win a copy of “The Ways Children Learn Music” by Eric Bluestine, share your favorite episode of this podcast so far on social media and add the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications. You can do this on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Just remember to set the post privacy to “public” or tag Everyday Musicality Podcast on FB so that I’ll be able to see it when I search for the hashtags.
All tunes in this episode were composed by Heather Shouldice and will be published in her forthcoming book.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
What guidance can existing research provide to help music educators better meet the needs of transgender singers?
What did the researcher do?
Aguirre conducted a literature review of existing research studies pertaining to the transgender singing experience or that provide suggestions for working with transgender singers.
What did the researcher find?
Aguirre first presents definitions of relevant terminology:
sex = designation (male or female) assigned at birth
gender = social construct that encompasses both gender identify and gender expression and exists on a spectrum (not only male/female but also nonbinary, etc.)
transgender = describing one whose birth-assigned sex does not align with their gender identify, gender expression, or both. Note: “The proper term to use when discussing this population is transgender, not the past tense verb ending in -ed, as using the verb form of this word implies that something has happened to this person” (p. 37).
male-to-female transgender (MtF or trans-female/woman) = someone whose birth-assigned sex was male but identifies as female
female-to-male transgender (FtM or trans-male/man) = someone whose birth-assigned sex was female but identifies as male
(**NOTE: Some feel that the the terms MtF/FtM are inappropriate because they suggest that something “happened” to the person. Instead, we might use the terms AFAB (assigned female at birth) or AMAB (assigned male at birth).
Aguirre’s review of the literature found the following:
Many educators feel unprepared to work with the LGBTQ community.
While some studies show that many transgender students report having more positive experiences in their music classes compared to the rest of school, other studies show that some music teachers are not comfortable using gender-neutral language in their classrooms.
The choral classroom may be a more likely source of obstacles for transgender students than other music classrooms. This is due to gendered voice parts, gendered ensemble types, gendered rehearsal language, and/or gendered concert attire that are prevalent among many choral music education programs.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Music educators should be sensitive to the unique needs of all students but especially of their transgender students. Existing research shows that transgender students notice and appreciate their teachers’ efforts to provide a more inclusive environment. Here are some ways that music teachers can make their classrooms a more inclusive environment for their trans students:
Avoid gendered language when addressing students. Instead of “boys and girls” or “ladies and gentlemen”, try using a gender-neutral term, such as “students”, “musicians”, or “everyone.” Specifically in the choral classroom, try referring to students by voice part rather than sex (e.g., “sopranos and altos” rather than “ladies/girls”).
Be sure to address students by their correct pronouns (e.g., they/them, she/her, he/him). At the beginning of each semester, you might ask students to complete an information/background form, in which you ask them to indicate their preferred pronouns. After reviewing these, prepare for class by devoting conscious attention to practicing the correct pronouns of any students you find yourself misgendering. Practicing the proper pronouns outside of class will help you use them more comfortably and automatically in class. It is also acceptable to avoid pronouns altogether and use a student’s preferred first name. This article provides some helpful tips for using gender-neutral pronouns.
Teach your students that “voice part, like sexuality, is independent of gender identity or gender expression…. Tenors and basses do not have to be males, while sopranos and altos do not have to be females” (p. 39). Note that this is not an entirely new concept, as some cisgender females with low voices may sing tenor or cisgender males with high voices may sing alto/countertenor.) (NOTE: Cisgender refers to someone whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.)
If you currently have gendered ensemble names, consider renaming these to be gender-neutral. For example, “men’s choir” could become “tenor/bass choir”; “women’s choir” could become “treble choir”.
Choose gender-neutral concert attire or allow students to choose the option in which they will feel most comfortable.
Be aware of specific needs of trans men versus trans women. Some female trans students (AMAB) may be able to sing in their falsetto if their preference is to sing the also or soprano part. Provide such students with this option as well as guidance in doing so. Male trans students (AFAB) who are starting testosterone may experience voice change similar to adolescent cisgender males and need the same sensitivity and guidance from their teacher.
Rewrite vocal parts for specific students when needed.
Resources:
Website: queeringchoir.com provides some helpful information and sources.
If you would like to enter to win a copy of “The Ways Children Learn Music” by Eric Bluestine, share your favorite episode of this podcast so far on social media and add the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications. You can do this on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Just remember to set the post privacy to “public” or tag Everyday Musicality Podcast on FB so that I’ll be able to see it when I search for the hashtags.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
Does engaging in informal, participatory music-making affect adults’ perceptions of their own musicality and their likelihood of engaging in particular musical activities in the future?
What did the researchers do?
Woody, Fraser, Nannen, Yukevich engaged a group of 35-40 individuals in a participatory music-making session at a summer camp/retreat for adults. Unlike presentational music-making, in which there is a clear distinction between performers and audience-members, participatory music groups include everyone present as a participant who is expected to contribute to the music-making (Turino, 2008).
Before the session, 31 adults completed a questionnaire, which included items prompting them to rate their own musicality, how likely they would be to engage in various musical activities, the degree to which musical skills are a result of experience and/or innate talent, and the degree to which various musical skills are something anyone or only a musician can do. Two of the researchers then engaged the participants in the hour-long participatory music-making session, which involved using ukulele and various percussion instruments to play/sing the song “Hey Jude” and focused on enjoyment rather than correctness. Immediately after the session, participants were asked to complete the same items rating their own musicality, likelihood to engage in various musical activities, and beliefs about talent, as well as two additional open-ended questions about the experience. Based on the participants’ open-ended responses, the researchers categorized participants as lower, moderate, or higher self-efficacy regarding the participatory music-making experience.
What did the researchers find?
The participants who had formally studied an instrument considered themselves more musical than those who had not, but they were no more likely to engage in various musical activities overall. (There were no differences between those who had sung in a school choir and those who had not.) Those who had formally studied an instrument were more likely to have lower self-efficacy for the participatory music-making experience, while those who had not formally studied an instrument were more likely to have moderate or high self-efficacy for the participatory music-making.
In comparing the pre- and post-test responses, the researchers only found increased likelihood of engaging in one musical activity—playing a musical instrument informally with family or friends. Those who were categorized as having moderate or high self-efficacy for the experience showed gains in their self-ratings of musicality, while those who were categorized as having low self-efficacy for the experience showed a decrease in their self-ratings of musicality.
What does this mean for my classroom?
“Our results may provide some useful insights for those of us in the music education profession who wish to encourage greater music-making among people. Rather than trying to convince people that they are in fact musical as a precursor to them behaving more musically, perhaps they just need to be engaged in music activities with the assurance that ‘being musical’ is not needed. As they enjoy the artistic, social, and individual rewards of that activity, that behaviour will naturally be reinforced.” (p. 326)
The fact that the musical activity rated as most attainable for the general population was “playing a fretted instrument (e.g. guitar, ukulele, banjo)” and the overall self-reported likelihood of “playing a musical instrument informally with family or friends” increased suggests that informal experiences with playing these instruments may be effective means for helping more people engage with music. According to the authors, participatory music-making “can help encourage a society that better values lifelong musicianship for everyone” (p. 327).
Resources:
For more on distinctions between participatory music and presentational music-making, see this chapter from Thomas Turino’s (2008) book Music as Social Life.
Does experience with playing an instrument by ear help students’ aural skill development?
What did the researchers do?
Baker and Green examined 32 instrumental students (ages 10-14 years) taught by four teachers. Sixteen of the students experienced ear playing strategies, and the other 16 learned only from notation. Before the instruction period began, each student was given a test in which they were asked to listen to a recording of a short melody twice and then play it back on their instrument (without notation). Then, for a period of 7-10 weeks, half of the students experienced instruction that incorporated ear playing strategies. These included playing along with a recorded pop-funk bass riff by ear, playing a classical piece by ear, and choosing a piece in any style to learn by ear. After the instructional period, all students were tested again. Each student test performance recording was rated in terms of pitch accuracy, contour accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, tempo accuracy, and closure (stopping before or continuing until the end).
What did the researchers find?
Analysis revealed that the students who had experienced instruction that included ear playing strategies achieved greater gains than students who had not.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Playing by ear is a skill that can be learned. Providing students experiences with playing instruments by ear will improve their ability to do so!
For more information on informal music learning, see this post, which summarizes a study by Dr. Julie Derges Kastner and includes ideas for application and links to resources.
GIVEAWAY: If you would like to enter to win a copy of “Navigating Music Learning Theory: A Guide for General Music Teachers” by Jill Reese, post a picture on social media with a description of why you love teaching with MLT with the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications on or before February 25. (Be sure to set the post to “public” or tag the “Everyday Musicality Podcast” Facebook page!)
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
How has new music teacher mentoring changed (or not) in the preceding 10+ years?
What did the researcher do?
Conway conducted a follow-up with 13 teachers who had participated in her previous study when they were in their first year of full-time music teaching (during 1999-2000). Each participant read Conway’s original research report as well as interview transcripts and their email logs, journals, and questionnaire responses from the original study. They then reported their reactions to these documents via email and participated in an individual interview with Conway, in which they discussed their current views regarding mentoring of beginning music teachers.
What did the researcher find?
In examining the new data from this study, Conway identified several themes. Now that the participants have experience teaching and mentoring, they expressed that mentoring is a valuable professional development experience for the mentor as well as the mentee. Another theme was that participants had mixed feelings about who should serve as mentors, particularly retired teachers; while some felt that retired teachers have much to offer as mentors, others expressed a feeling that new teachers may perceive retired teachers as out-of-touch. A third theme was that new teachers must be proactive in seeking out answers and take responsibility for their own learning and growth.
There were several areas of consistency between the original study (published in 2003) and new data collected in 2010. These included a lack of consistency in new teacher mentoring programs, a delay in mentees pursuing curricular questions until after an initial “survival” phase, and the need for music-specific support. Time for the mentor to observe in the mentee’s classroom also continues to be vital.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Districts/administrators still may need to be convinced of the value of mentoring for new teachers, and if a mentor teacher is not provided, new teachers must seek out their own mentors. New music teachers might also consider forming relationships with different types of mentors, including music-specific and building-/district-specific (but not music) mentors. In order to maximize their ability to provide context-specific assistance, mentors should find a way to observe in the mentee’s classroom. If in-person visits are not possible due to time or distance restrictions, video-conferencing software (e.g., Skype) or sharing of digital video footage provides new opportunities for mentors to directly observe their mentees and offer targeted support.
GIVEAWAY! If you would like to enter to win a copy of “Navigating Music Learning Theory: A Guide for General Music Teachers” by Jill Reese, post a picture on social media with a description of why you love teaching with MLT with the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications. (Be sure to set the post privacy to “public.”)
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
To what extent do various sources of self-efficacy predict music achievement, and how does this relationship vary by ensemble setting, school level, student sex, or years of enrollment in secondary school ensembles?
What did the researcher do?
Zelenak studied 73 band and orchestra students who were auditioning for elite “all-county” ensembles. Self-efficacy was measured via the Music Performance Self-Efficacy Scale (MPSES), which students completed before their auditions. The MPSES, which Zelenak designed and used in two previous research studies, contains 24 items that measure the four sources of self-efficacy:
Enactive Mastery Experience: previous experiences of success or failure in an activity
Vicarious Experience: using others’ accomplishments to understand one’s own capabilities
Verbal/Social Persuasion: others’ expressed opinions of one’s capability
Physiological/Affective States: degree and quality of arousal brought on by the task
Music achievement was evaluated using judges’ scores of students’ auditions, which consisted of a prepared exercise, scales, and sight-reading.
What did the researcher find?
Analysis revealed enactive mastery experience to have the strongest relationship to overall self-efficacy. However, verbal/social persuasion was the strongest positive predictor of achievement, followed by enactive mastery experience.
In comparing the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement among various groups of students, Zelenak found a modest significant correlation between these factors among string participants but no significant differences by ensemble type (band/strings), school level (high school/middle school), or sex (female/male). Similarly, Zelenak found no correlation between self-efficacy and years of enrollment in instrumental ensembles.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Zelenak’s finding that verbal/social persuasion was more strongly correlated with achievement than was enactive mastery experience suggests that “musicians may use feedback, critiques, and comments received from others to appraise their ability to complete the performance successfully rather than reflecting on past performance experiences” (p. 72). Therefore, music educators should be aware of the power of their feedback to affect students’ musical self-efficacy and future music achievement.
The kinds of feedback we give students also matters. Zelenak references educational psychology literature that suggests teachers “[emphasize] the ways in which students have done well, [provide] students with reasons to believe that they can be successful in the future, [be] specific when telling students how they can improve their classroom performance, and [communicate] that improvement is likely” (p. 72).
ENTER THE GIVEAWAY! If you would like to enter to win a copy of Navigating Music Learning Theory: A Guide for General Music Teachers” by Jill Reese, post a picture on social media with a description of why you love teaching with MLT with the hashtags #everydaymusicalitypodcast and #giapublications.
Support the podcast by becoming a patron on Patreon!
What is the relationship between developmental tonal music aptitude and singing achievement among elementary students?
What did the researchers do?
Hornbach and Taggart studied tonal aptitude and singing achievement among 162 students in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade at two elementary schools in Michigan. Tonal music aptitude was measured using the Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA), a published developmental music aptitude test, which was administered by the general music teachers at the two schools. Singing achievement was measured by asking each individual student to sing a familiar song (“Bow Belinda”); performances were audio-recorded and later assessed by Hornbach, Taggart, and an independent judge using the rating scale shown below.
What did the researchers find?
Analysis showed that mean singing achievement scores tended to increase from kindergarten through second grade and then drop between second and third grades. Mean tonal aptitude scores also increased across grade levels, with one school showing a drop between second and third grades. There were no significant correlations found between singing achievement and developmental tonal aptitude scores at any grade level. While tonal aptitude scores did not differ significantly between the two schools, students from School 2 demonstrated significantly higher singing achievement than students from School 1.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Singing achievement and tonal music aptitude seem to be separate from one another. Therefore, a teacher should not assume that a child who demonstrates low singing achievement has low tonal potential nor that a child who demonstrates high singing achievement necessarily has more “talent” than students with lower singing achievement. The fact that students at one school scored significantly higher in singing achievement that students at the other school (despite there being no significant difference in aptitude scores) suggests “that if singing is taught, students’ singing achievement may improve” (p. 328).
Music educators should also be conscious that a student’s lack of success in demonstrating singing skill may be due to choice rather than inability. The drop in singing achievement from second to third grade among students at both schools “may be the result of issues relating to social rather than musical development” (p. 328). Due to increasing social awareness and/or self-consciousness, third-grade students may have chosen not to use their singing voices, even if they were capable. “Teachers and parents may need to find ways to encourage the valuing of singing voice use by children in the upper grade levels in elementary school, as it may be that peer pressure results in less singing achievement in older children” (p. 328).
How do HR professionals perceive music teacher job candidates’ performance on interview prescreening instruments?
What did the researcher do?
Shaw’s study participants were human resource professionals from five different school districts in one metropolitan area in the Midwestern U.S. Of these five districts, three were using the Applitrack TeacherFit instrument, one was using the Ventures StyleProfile, and one was using Gallup’s TeacherInsight. Except for the district that used the Gallup’s TeacherInsight, the other four districts also screened top candidates before selecting interviewees by administering the HUMANeX Ventures instrument over the phone or in person; this tool is aimed to gauge candidates’ teaching-related characteristics in the themes of drive and values, work style, relationships, influences, and thought processes. Shaw conducted multiple interviews with each HR professional, all of whom were former principals and/or teachers (though none had taught music).
What did the researcher find?
In general, most participants observed that candidates applying for elementary teaching jobs typically performed better than secondary candidates on the prescreening measures, particularly in terms of empathy and relationship building. However, they perceived music teachers to be lacking in these areas regardless of whether applying for elementary or secondary music teaching jobs. Most of the participants expressed “the feeling that music candidates viewed themselves as directors of large programs” rather than focusing on individual student growth. One participant explained, “They’re after excellence, molding a group of kids in a unified way to perform” (p. 107). This HR professional “felt that music teachers he had interviewed thought only about ‘getting a superior rating at contest,’ and were modeling their approach on an ‘old-school’ drill sergeant style teaching more common in the past” (p. 107).
What does this mean for my classroom?
Music educators should reflect on the extent to which they prioritize large-group performance and program goals over focus on individual students. Being a music teacher is hard! It is easy to get so caught up in doing things the way they’ve always been done that we lose sight of other possible ways of looking at things. Hearing HR professionals’ perspectives that many music teachers “are in it for the wrong reasons,” namely because “they like the performance” (p. 107), might prompt us to step back and ask ourselves some important questions, such as the following:
To what extent do I relate to my students as individuals?
When a student is struggling, do I try to respond with empathy? Or am I angry because that student’s behavior is detrimental to the group? Why do I feel this way?
What is more important to me as a music educator: group performance or individual student experiences? Why?
As a music teacher, what am I even there for? What is my larger purpose?
We may not have immediate answers, but reflecting on questions like these can help us remain thoughtful about who we are as educators.
Is there an association between the music aptitude of children and the music aptitude of their biological parents?
What did the researcher do?
Guerrini compared the music aptitude test scores of 88 elementary school students to those of their biological parents. To measure the children’s music aptitude, their elementary music teacher administered the Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA) or the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA) during the students’ regular music class time. Both PMMA and IMMA are published music aptitude tests for children developed by Edwin E. Gordon. To measure the parents’ music aptitude, Guerrini administered the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation (AMMA) to any parent who volunteered to participate. The AMMA is a published music aptitude test for adolescents and adults, also developed by Gordon. Scoring of all tests resulted in measurements of tonal aptitude and rhythm aptitude, as well as a composite music aptitude scores, for each child and parent. Guerrini then completed statistical analyses to compare children’s music aptitude scores to those of their biological parents.
What did the researcher find?
Guerrini found no significant association between children’s music aptitude test scores and those of their biological parents. Tonal, rhythm, and composite scores were categorized into low, medium, and high aptitude groupings for both children and parents, and there were no significant relationships between these categorizations. For example, parents with high tonal aptitude were no more likely to have children with high tonal aptitude than were parents with medium or low tonal aptitude, and a child with low tonal aptitude was equally likely to have a parent with high or low tonal aptitude.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Many persons assume that musical ability is inherited from one’s parents. However, Guerrini’s results do not support this assumption. Those who believe musical ability is inherited tend to conflate music aptitude and music achievement. While music aptitude is one’s potential to achieve musically, music achievement is one’s observable musical ability at a given point in time. In order for one’s music aptitude to manifest as music achievement, it must be nurtured in a rich and supportive musical environment. It is probable that parents who demonstrate high music achievement are likely to provide the type of supportive musical environment that will nurture their children’s music aptitude. This may result in higher levels of observable music achievement among their children than children who lack a rich musical environment at home, making it appear that music is “in their blood.” However, in terms of the “nature versus nurture” debate, “the results of [Guerrini’s] study seem to point to the nurture theory” (p. 31).
How and to what extent do music teachers experience role stress?
What did the researcher do?
Scheib conducted a collective case study of all four of the music teachers at one midwestern US high school. He observed them over the course of six months, interviewed each teacher twice, and collected a variety of documents, such as their job descriptions and concert programs. Scheib analyzed the data in relation to six previously-identified stressors from existing research on occupational stress:
Role ambiguity: when it’s not entirely clear what your job is.
Role conflict: when different people’s expectations of you contradict each other.
Role overload: when you have so much to do that you can’t do any of it well.
Underutilization of skills: when you have skills that you don’t get to use.
Resource inadequacy: when you don’t have what you need to do your job.
Nonparticipation: when you don’t have a say over what your job is.
What did the researcher find?
The four teachers didn’t experience a lot of role ambiguity or non-participation. Since these teachers each had several years of experience, they knew what their roles in the program were and had plenty of say over what they did.
The teachers experienced role conflict in several ways. One of the most important was that the roles of parent and spouse sometimes conflicted with their music teaching roles. There were conflicts within the music teacher role, too, as there are many different and competing roles that music teachers fill. Building a strong performance program and helping students become well-rounded musicians can feel like contradictory goals, but both seem important. There are also many administrative responsibilities that might conflict with other roles.
Underutilization of skills is sometimes called “role underload,” and it might seem like a person couldn’t have role overload and role underload at the same time. However, these teachers experienced both. The sheer number of different and often conflicting responsibilities led to role overload; these teachers just had too much to do. The underload came from having to do things that weren’t music-related and seemed like they should be done by someone else. Fund-raising, preparing spaces for rehearsal and performance, and managing schedules were some of the causes of role underload. One of the teachers felt like his role overload caused underutilization of skills; he didn’t have time to plan well, so couldn’t use his musical skills as effectively as he would like.
Surprisingly, the teachers in this study felt like they had adequate resources in the traditional sense. Scheib wrote that “they realize and accept the limitations of funding that comes with working in a publicly financed system” (p. 133). Instead, these teachers’ resource inadequacy came in the form of staff and students. They had big ideas about how their programs could grow but not always enough teachers in the department or students in the classes to make it work. Class scheduling was one of the main problems for getting students in classes.
What does this mean for my classroom?
Music teacher stress comes from many different places. Using the theory of role dynamics, music teachers can understand their stress in terms of some of the stressors studied here. Once you start to understand where your stress is coming from, you might be able to do something about it!
Scheib had some good advice in his article; here are a few helpful thoughts:
“The subjects report that they themselves are to blame for any tension or stress they endure, since they are the sole determiners of the expectations and roles of their position” (p. 135). If you are stressed about something, then think about why you’re doing it. Is it the best thing for your students? Does someone important expect it of you? Maybe it’s stressful ultimately because it doesn’t need to be done, or at least not the way you’re trying to do it.
“Often, stress comes from the incongruence of the teacher’s expectations and beliefs versus what the system allows… Teachers need to understand that each music program is, to some extent, confined by the system that surrounds it” (p. 135). Every school has different students, teachers, schedules, budgets and other resources. Trying to push beyond what’s possible is not a sign of dedication and strength; it’s a stressor that could hurt your program in the long run. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t push at all, it just means to be smart about what, how, and who you push.
“Communication is the best weapon in the battle of incompatible role expectations” (p. 135). If different people expect different things from you, get them in the same room and talk it out. You’re only one person and there are only so many hours in the day, so you have to figure out how to prioritize some things and let others go.
* This guest post was authored by Seth A. Taft, PhD Candidate in music education at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Everyday Musicality 