SPRING-SUMMER 2004 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2

APPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH IN MUSIC EDUCATION

C O N T E N T S
Comments from the Editor
Ruth V. Brittin
3
CHORAL DIVISION
Choral Student Perceptions of the Music Contest Experience
Rick A. Stamer
5
ELEMENTARY DIVISION
An Inventory of Music Activities Used by Elementary Classroom Teachers: An Exploratory Study
Amy M. Giles and R. J. David Frego
13
INSTRUMENTAL DIVISION
The Procedure by Which Teachers Prepare Students to Choose a Musical Instrument
Jonathan G. Bayley
23
SPECIAL TOPICS DIVISION
The Teacher as Researcher in Beginning Instrumental Music
Colleen Conway and Tom Jeffers
35
Guidelines for Contributors
46

Legal Statement

UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education is copyrighted by MENC: The National Association for
Music Education. You can read or download a single print of an MENC online journal exactly as if you had
purchased a subscription to the journal in print form. You do not have any other rights or licenses to this material.
This material cannot be reproduced, retransmitted, or reprinted without permission from MENC. This means multiple
copies for handout or library reserve cannot be made. Placing on Web sites or school broadcast systems is prohibited,
and printing in full or part in other documents is not permitted. To make use of an article or a journal in any of the
aforementioned circumstances, please send a request to our editorial department at caroline@[Link], fax a request
to Caroline Arlington at 703-860-9443, or call 800-336-3768, ext. 238 for more information.
 Applications of Research in Music Education

Editor
Ruth V. Brittin
University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA

Choral Division
Suzanne Rita Byrnes
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Patricia Costa Kim

MENC Staff Seattle Symphony, Seattle, WA

Executive Director
Elementary Division
John J. Mahlmann
Nancy Barry
University of Oklahoma, Norman
Assistant Executive Director for Member
Programs and Publications Nancy S. Rasmussen
Ardene Shafer Walworth Elementary School, Walworth, WI
Director of Music Educators Journal and Other
General Music Division
Publications
Chelcy Bowles
Frances S. Ponick
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Assistant Editor
Cynthia M. Colwell
Lisa Renfro
University of Kansas, Lawrence
Director of Production
Instrumental Division
Adriane Darvishian
Colleen Conway
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Roy Legette
University of Georgia
UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education
(ISSN 8755-1233) is published twice yearly by MENC: Special Topics Division
The National Association for Music Education, 1806 Susan Tarnowski
Robert Fulton Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4348. Copyright College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN
© 2004 by MENC. Readers may make one copy of any
article in this journal for personal use. Published by the John M. Geringer
School of Music of the University of South Carolina Florida State University
from 1982 to 1989.
 Comments from the Editor
Ruth V. Brittin

Ah, spring . . . are you enjoying the budding trees, the return of the hummingbirds, and
wearing shorts as much as I? Spring is so symbolic of renewal, and yet summer often serves as
that season for teachers. Whether you are looking forward to the time to reflect or the
opportunity to delve into summer courses or workshops, the next few months may be a great
chance to recharge your batteries. The papers in this issue should help you do so.
For music teachers, spring represents an annual opportunity: contest. This assessment (or is it
a rite of passage?) is likely on your mind. Whether you are taking students, judging students, or
participating as a parent, spring is the season of festivals and competitions. From concert groups
to solo and ensemble to theme park outings, taking students into public performance settings is a
big part of the school music experience. Inviting an objective, experienced person with a fresh
set of ears to evaluate students’ progress is a time-honored tradition. Rick Stamer writes to us
from Texas, where most people indeed refer to this event as “contest.” The word itself is
intriguing; some teachers prefer the term “festival,” and certainly there is debate within all states
as to the best practice with these events. Having taught in several different states, each with a
different philosophy and approach to this type of assessment, I find Rick’s research on choral
contests fascinating. Little study has been done on choral festivals, and he raises many good
points, such as the developmental aspect of participating in high school contests. From his data,
it appears the choral contest experience is a bit different from the band experience; this is
something that surely needs to be further explored.
Spring brings another musical season, too. Many of you may be involved in recruiting
instrumental beginners for next year’s class. What does the research say about helping students
make good choices? Whether you recruit now or in the fall, your approach bears consideration.
Jonathan Bayley explores this issue with his survey of over 300 band directors in Alberta,
Canada. These teachers take an active role in helping students choose instruments, and his data
address issues of balanced instrumentation, gender stereotyping, and “stick-to-it-tiveness,” i.e.,
staying with an instrument beyond the point at which one realizes it is difficult and requires
practice. Dive into this paper; we can learn much from some “northern exposure”!
As spring moves into summer, take a look at our other two papers. First, Amy Giles and R.J.
David Frego have studied the music activities used by elementary classroom teachers. Whether
you are an elementary music specialist, an administrator, a curriculum specialist, or a university
educator, these data are very interesting. In particular, the authors explore the integration
approaches that nonspecialist teachers use with music. This should give ideas for creating a more
comprehensive approach to music across the school setting. And for those teaching in schools
with budget cuts or a consolidation of school personnel, this information may be even more
useful.
The second of our “food for thought” summer articles is a description of the action research
used in a beginning instrumental music setting by Colleen Conway and Tom Jeffers.
Specifically, they address the topic of assessment, and I think you will enjoy reading this
summary of their action research process. Perhaps this paper will inspire you to pair up in a
researcher-practitioner team, maybe this summer or in the fall. Certainly there are many
university faculty who would be very excited for a local teacher to say, “Would you be interested

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 3

in helping me explore ___________ . . .?”
To this end, please enjoy the spring/summer issue of Update!

—Ruth V. Brittin

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 4

 Choral Student Perceptions of the Music Contest Experience
Rick A. Stamer

Rick A. Stamer is assistant professor of music education in the Music Department at the
University of Texas at Arlington.

Each spring, thousands of choral students participate in large ensemble music contests
throughout the nation. These experiences offer students the opportunity to perform contrasting
pieces of choral music from various style periods and to receive constructive comments
regarding the quality of the presentation. Then, the choral ensemble receives a rating that is
meant to reflect the group’s level of musical achievement in relation to an expected level of
musical performance. While this process may seem straightforward, fair, and beneficial to a
student’s musical development, many times the music contest experience is more detrimental
than helpful. The benefits and detriments of the music contest experience have been debated in a
variety of sources, usually from the perspective of what individuals deem best for students
(Austin, 1990; Bauer, 1983; Bendell, 1983; Collins, 1999; Colwell & Goolsby, 1992; Faust,
1998; Goheen, 1983; Gomes, 1983; Griffith, 1983; Hylton, 1995; Kohn, 1986; Lamb, 1988;
Lovell, 1983; Miller, 1994; Moody, 1983; Roach, 1989; Roe, 1983; Walker, 1989). Prevalently
cited musical benefits of the contest experience are that it improves choral sound, offers the
opportunity for constructive criticism, and allows students to hear other groups and compare
their choir to choirs from other schools. Nonmusical benefits of the contest experience are that it
motivates singers to a higher level of musical achievement, is preparation for competition in life,
helps develop esprit de corps, and is a measure of the effectiveness of the choral program.
Frequently mentioned musical detriments of the contest experience are that too much time is
spent perfecting a small number of pieces, that competition promotes conformity rather than
creativity, and that the contest experience does not measure ensemble improvement over the
course of the year. Nonmusical detriments of the contest experience are that there is too much
emphasis on ratings, that competition produces winners and losers, and that scheduling often
makes it impossible for students to hear other groups. While this information may be useful in
debating the pros and cons of music contest, it does not address the benefits of the music contest
experience from the student perspective.
Several research studies have explored the perceptions of students, as well as directors,
parents, and administrators, regarding the instrumental music contest experience (Brown, 1985;
Burnsed, Sochinski, & Hinkle, 1983; Fleming, 1975; Hayslett, 1992; Head, 1983; Howard, 1994;
LaRue, 1986; Linn, 1988; Mills, 1988; Rogers, 1983, 1984, 1985; Rothlisberger, 1995; Sweeney,
1998; Werpy, 1995). Student responses from these studies indicated that the most important
reasons for participation in music contests were that they provide a sense of achievement for
students, help maintain quality student performance and high standards for music education,
provide a means for evaluation of the band program, and aid in identifying a clear goal for music
instruction. Additional studies have explored the perceptions of directors, administrators, and, to
a small degree, students, regarding the choral music contest experience (Battersby, 1994; Fett,
1987; Rittenhouse, 1989). Directors who participate in contests do so for motivational purposes
and musical benefits, as an opportunity to reinforce their teaching techniques and elevate their
ensemble standards, and as a way to improve public relations for the school. Administrators

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 5

favor contests as a way to enhance student motivation and as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness
of the choral program. Students generally approach the contest experience for the performance
experience, growing musically as a group, and singing quality music. Battersby indicates that
students perceived the primary musical benefits of the contest experience to be the performance
experience, motivation to do their best musically, musical growth for the group, and the
opportunity to prepare and perform quality repertoire. The primary nonmusical benefits of the
contest experience were that it promotes teamwork and is a social event. In all cases, students
consistently rated the musical benefits as more important than the nonmusical benefits of contest.
The literature reviewed helps to identify some of the benefits of the music contest experience
from director, administrator, and student points of view; however, limited research exists
focusing entirely on differences in choral student perceptions of the music contest experience.
To remedy this situation, the purpose of the present study was to determine choral student
perceptions of the music contest experience. By surveying choral students who participated in
music contest, the researcher desired to learn what students perceived as important aspects of the
music contest experience. This information may then be employed by music educators to
emphasize those significant aspects when preparing their choral students for music contest. This
information may also be used to begin assessing the current music contest format to determine if
it is meeting the educational needs of students participating in these events. These research
questions were asked:
• Are there differences in student perceptions in terms of the ratings aspects of music
contest for the individual? For the ensemble?
• Are there differences in student perceptions in terms of the musical aspects of music
contest for the individual? For the ensemble?
• Are there differences in student perceptions in terms of the individual perspective of the
benefits and detriments of the music contest experience? For the ensemble?
• Are there differences in student perceptions in terms of the social/travel aspects of music
contest for the individual?

Method
Subjects were 268 freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior choral music students from three
senior high schools. Choirs were selected on the basis of proximity to the researcher and their
willingness to participate in the research study. School populations at the three schools ranged
from 1,000 to 2,000 students. Choral student populations at the three schools ranged from 38 to
130 students.
To collect data, a survey instrument—Choir Competition Survey—was developed by the
researcher to measure student perceptions to a variety of statements about the music contest
experience. Survey statements were developed from components of the music contest experience
the researcher discovered through a review of related literature and surveys created by Burnsed,
Sochinski, and Hinkle (1983), Head (1983), LaRue (1986), Linn (1988), Mills (1988), Battersby
(1994), Howard (1994), Rothlisberger (1995), Werpy (1995), and Sweeney (1998). Areas of the
music contest experience addressed included motivation, ratings, musicianship, opportunity for
constructive criticism, development of group effort, and enjoyment. The completed survey
contains 30 statements designed to measure student perceptions regarding the ratings aspects of
music contest for the individual and the ensemble, musical aspects of music contest for the

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 6

individual and the ensemble, the benefits and detriments of music contest participation from the
individual and ensemble perspective, and the social/travel aspect of music contest. A Likert-type
scale rating system is employed to allow students to respond to each statement. Students indicate
their replies to each statement by circling one of the following responses: strongly disagree,
disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. A test of the survey was conducted to measure the
reliability of the instrument. The resulting reliability was .8373.1
The researcher visited each school to administer the Choir Competition Survey to all
participating students. Students were asked to read each statement carefully and to indicate how
well each statement expressed their feelings about choral music contests by circling one of the
following responses: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree. The researcher
collected the completed surveys and the students were thanked for their responses. The data
collected were analyzed using a Univariate Analysis of Variance procedure to determine if
differences existed among groups of students based on their gender and grade level.

Results
Analysis of the data yielded results outlined below, following the order of the research
questions.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the ratings aspects of
music contest from the individual perspective across the grade level groups. Sophomores and
juniors, significantly more than seniors, indicated that they like it and feel good when the choir
goes to music contests and receives good ratings.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the ratings aspects of
music contest from the ensemble perspective across the grade level groups. Overall, sophomores
place more emphasis on this aspect of music contest than freshmen, juniors, and seniors.
Specifically, sophomores, significantly more than juniors and seniors, believe that music contest
ratings are extremely important.
No significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the musical aspects
of music contest from the individual perspective across the gender and grade level groups. A
review of mean scores revealed that males place slightly more emphasis than females and that
freshmen and sophomores place slightly more emphasis than juniors and seniors on the value of
music contest in improving musicianship. In addition, sophomores, more than the other three
grade levels, believe that competing against other choirs makes the students better musicians.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the musical aspects of
music contest from the ensemble perspective across the grade level groups. Overall, sophomores
place more emphasis on this aspect of music contest than freshmen, juniors, and seniors.
Specifically, sophomores, more than the other three grade levels, state that music contest
experiences encourage ensemble members to pay more attention to musicianship. Juniors, more
than the other three grade levels, place more importance on music making than ratings.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the benefits and

1
A Cronbach’s Alpha test of the survey was conducted to measure the reliability of the
instrument. The resulting reliability, which is the variance of the true value divided by the
variance of the actual data, was .8373.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 7

detriments of music contest from the individual perspective across the grade level groups and
across the gender groups. Overall, sophomores place more emphasis on this aspect of music
contest than freshmen, juniors, and seniors. Specifically, sophomores, more than seniors, state
that they get excited about getting ready to participate in choral music contests and believe that
these contests make choir more enjoyable. Sophomores, more than juniors and seniors, state that
they practice more carefully because of music contests. When comparing female and male
perceptions, females state that they get excited about getting ready to participate in choral music
contests. However, males, more than females, state that they enjoy choir more because of choral
music contests.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the benefits and
detriments of music contest from the ensemble perspective across the grade level groups and
across the gender groups. Overall, sophomores place more emphasis on this aspect of music
contest than freshmen, juniors, and seniors. Specifically, sophomores, more than seniors,
emphasize that the choir works harder when preparing for contests, that students are more
willing to work together and group spirit is enhanced when preparing for contests, and that
students are more motivated to practice and participate in choir when preparing for contests.
Juniors, more than seniors, perceive that entering contests motivates students to practice and
prepare more thoroughly. One difference was noted between males and females. Males, more
than females, indicate that students are more motivated to prepare for choral music contest
experiences.
Significant differences were found in student perceptions in terms of the social/travel aspects
of music contest from the individual perspective. Overall, sophomores place slightly more
importance on this aspect of music contest participation than freshmen, juniors, and seniors.
Specifically, sophomores, more than freshmen, juniors, and seniors, state that choirs that attend
music contests have more fun.

Summary of Findings
The results of this study suggest that significant differences exist across gender and grade
levels in the perception of the importance of the music contest experience. A summarized review
of these differences follows.
Sophomores place more importance than freshmen, juniors, and seniors on the following
aspects of the music contest experience:
• Contest experiences encourage ensemble members to pay more attention to musicianship.
• Contest experiences motivate students to practice and participate in choir.
• Contest experiences encourage students to practice more carefully.
• Students get excited about getting ready to participate in contests and they make choir
more enjoyable.
• Choirs work harder when preparing for contest and, as a result, cooperation and group
spirit are enhanced.
• Contest ratings are extremely important and serve as a means of evaluating the
effectiveness of the choral program.
• Competing against other choirs makes the students better musicians.
One aspect of the music contest experience that sophomores and juniors place more
importance on than seniors was:

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 8

• Students like the experience and feel good when the choir goes to contests and receives
good ratings.
Juniors place more importance than freshmen, sophomores, and seniors on the following
aspects of the music contest experience:
• Making music at contest is more important than the rating the choir receives.
• Entering choral music contests motivates students to practice and prepare more
thoroughly.
Females place more importance than males on the following aspect of the music contest
experience:
• Students get excited about getting ready to participate in choral contests.
Males place more importance than females on the following aspects of the music contest
experience:
• Students enjoy choir more because of choral contests.
• Students are more motivated to prepare for choral contest experiences.

Discussion
An analysis of these findings reveals that sophomores attach great importance to the music
contest experience as a means of motivating students to practice more, work together, and pay
more attention to musicianship. As a result, the contest rating is an indication of the
accomplishment of the choir and serves as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the choral
program. In turn, the success the choir feels stimulates enthusiasm for future contest
participation and makes choir more enjoyable because the group has been rewarded for its hard
work. These beliefs are consistent with other studies in music education (Fett, 1987; Fleming,
1975; Head, 1983; LaRue, 1986; Rogers, 1985). One possible explanation for these beliefs may
be due to their directors’ influence. The choral directors may have communicated to their
students through their actions that contest participation is an important goal (Howard, 1994). If
this is true, then it appears that sophomores are more motivated to excel by external rewards
rather than internal rewards. They see the achievement of a positive contest rating as a tool to
stimulate motivation and cooperation. In comparison, juniors and seniors place less importance
on the competitive nature of contests and the value and significance of contest ratings, and more
importance on the value of making music rather than achieving a high rating (Battersby, 1994;
Rittenhouse, 1989). It appears that juniors and seniors are motivated by other aspects of the
choral ensemble experience; in fact, they believe that less emphasis should be placed on contests
and that competitions do not make choir more enjoyable. These findings seem to disagree with
the instrumental music contest experience perceptions of directors, students, and administrators,
who indicated that important reasons for participation in music contests were that they aid in
developing musicianship, help maintain quality student performance, and provide a sense of
achievement for students (Burnsed, Sochinski, & Hinkle, 1983; Howard; Mills, 1988; Sweeney,
1998; Werpy, 1995). The findings from this present study do not suggest that contest experiences
assist junior and senior choral students in meeting these educational goals.
The implications for choral music educators who participate in music contests are:
• As students progress through the choral program, the emphasis on music contest as a tool
to encourage development of musicianship, encourage participation in choir, focus
student learning, create an atmosphere of cooperation, and develop group spirit needs to

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 9

 be replaced with other motivating factors for developing the same goals.
• As students progress through the choral program, they place less importance on contest
ratings as a means of evaluating the quality of the choir and the effectiveness of the
choral program. The music educator will need to help the students discover a new
paradigm to evaluate quality musical ensembles and musical performances.
• Male students appear to enjoy choir more and are more motivated to prepare because of
choral competition experiences. As a result, contest experiences should be employed to
stimulate male interest and participation in choral ensembles.
• As students progress through the choral program, they may lack enthusiasm for the
contest experience. If contest participation is necessary and used by directors and
administrators to measure the effectiveness of the choral program, students will need to
be motivated to perform their best as a means of validating the quality of the program.
Suggestions for related research include:
• Repeating the survey with the sophomore students involved in this study to determine if
their views of the music contest experience change as they mature.
• Replicating the study through the survey of additional students and comparing the data
based on the criteria used in this study. The paucity of research related to the choral
music contest experience compared with instrumental music contest experiences warrants
further study to more effectively measure similarities and differences between choral and
instrumental students.
• Replicating the study through the survey of additional students and comparing the data
based on other criteria such as school demographics, school location, school size, choral
program size, director’s experience, and contest location.
• Examining music contest formats to determine if changes in activities may better meet
the educational needs of the students who participate in the contests.

References
Austin, J. R. (1990). Competition: Is music education the loser. Music Educators Journal, 76(6),
21–25.
Battersby, S. (1994). The perceived benefits of competitions/contests for choral directors and
students in the tri-state area (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers
College, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 11A:3344.
Bauer, W. (1983). Winners and losers: Point of view on competition. Music Educators Journal,
70(2), 28–33.
Bendell, C. J. (1983). Winners and losers: Point of view on competition. Music Educators
Journal, 70(2), 28–33.
Brown, J. D. (1985). The Gemeinhardt report 2. Elkhart, IN: Gemeinhardt.
Burnsed, V., Sochinski, J., & Hinkle, D. (1983). The attitude of college band students toward
high school marching band competition. Journal of Band Research, 19, 11–17.
Collins, D. L. (1999). Teaching Choral Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Colwell, R. J., & Goolsby, T. (1992). The teaching of instrumental music (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Faust, M. (1998). Advantages and disadvantages of participation in instrumental contests and
festivals. Unpublished master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 10

Fett, D. (1987). The influence of contest ratings on student and director attitudes toward state
large group choral competition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Drake University, Des
Moines, IA.
Fleming, R. C. (1975). Instrumental music contests and festivals: Perceptions of selected
educational personnel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 3491A. (UMI No. 76-
26942)
Goheen, S. (1983). Winners and losers: Point of view on competition. Music Educators Journal,
70(2), 28–33.
Gomes, M. (1983). Winners and losers: Point of view on competition. Music Educators Journal,
70(2), 28–33.
Griffith, O. (1983). Winners and losers: Point of view on competition. Music Educators Journal,
70(2), 28–33.
Hayslett, D. J. (1992). The effect of band contest participation upon band members’ perception
of contest rating importance, musical, achievement, and self-worth [CD-ROM]. Dialogue
in Instrumental Music Education, 16(2), 12–18.
Head, J. (1983). Attitudes towards musical activities among North Carolina high school band
students with directors using varying teaching emphases. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 44, 2400A. (UMI No. 83-28455)
Howard, K. K. (1994). A survey of Iowa high school band students’ self-perceptions and
attitudes toward types of music contests (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa,
1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, DA9433638.
Hylton, J. B. (1995). Comprehensive choral music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lamb, G. H. (1988). Choral techniques (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
LaRue, P. J. (1986). A study to determine the degree of consensus regarding outcomes of band
participation and the competitive elements in band programs among band directors, band
members of parent booster groups. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2497. (UMI
No. 86-23347)
Linn, M. A. (1988). Attitudes of Wyoming AAAA high school students regarding the use of
competition in their band programs. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Wyoming.
Lovell, W. (1983). The contest controversy. Instrumentalist, 38(3), 116.
Miller, R. E. (1994). A dysfunctional culture: Competition in music. Music Educators Journal,
81(3), 29–33.
Mills, D. L. (1988). The meaning of the high school band experience and its relationship to band
activities (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 50 (03), A643.
Moody, W. J. (1983). Education and contests. Instrumentalist, 38(1), 84.
Rittenhouse, J. H. (1989). Competitive and noncompetitive choral festivals at the secondary level
(Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 50, 06A:1477.
Roach, D. W. (1989). Complete secondary choral music guide. West Nyack, NY: Parker
Publishing.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 11

Roe, P. F. (1983). Choral music education (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Rogers, G. L. (1983). Attitudes of high school band directors, band members, parents, and
principals toward marching band contests (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3534A.
Rogers, G. L. (1984). Attitudes of high school band directors, band members, parents, and
principals toward marching contests. Update: Applications of Research in Music
Education, 2(4), 11–15.
Rogers, G. L. (1985). Attitudes of high school band directors and principals toward marching
band contests. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33(4), 259–267.
Rothlisberger, D. J. (1995). The impact of high school band on student education as perceived by
band students, band directors, and building level administrators (Doctoral Dissertation,
East Texas State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (09), A0.
Sweeney, C. R. (1998). A description of student and band director attitudes toward concert band
competition. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Miami.
Walker, D. E. (1989). Teaching music—Managing the successful music program. New York:
Schirmer.
Werpy, S. F. (1995). Relationship between selected factors of motivation for participation in
high school band and general motivation for musical experience (Doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (07), A210.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 12

 An Inventory of Music Activities Used by Elementary
Classroom Teachers: An Exploratory Study
Amy M. Giles and R. J. David Frego

Amy M. Giles is an adjunct faculty member at Ohio Wesleyan University, and R. J. David
Frego is assistant director of the School of Music at The Ohio State University.

Curriculum integration is among the most commonly discussed concepts in both educational
philosophy and research. While many schools continue to follow the separate-subject approach,
many experts in the field of education state that, particularly for young learners, knowledge and
experience are not compartmentalized; they are connected (Beane, 1995; Manins, 1994; Wilcox,
1994). This concept has led many educators to focus on ways of successfully integrating the
curriculum across and among subject areas.
There is a considerable amount of philosophical discussion of curriculum integration in the
current literature. Mason (1996) indicates the value of curriculum integration is in its ability to
connect school subject areas with the lives of students, but also identifies its risks. Some of these
potential problems include the trivialization of subject areas if they are only presented through
the perspectives of other areas or the issue that teachers often possess only limited knowledge of
all the subjects they are attempting to integrate. Also, teachers may not be familiar with this
model of education because they did not experience an integrated approach in their own
education and teacher preparation programs. Despite the large amount of curricular and
philosophical literature on the subject of interdisciplinary teaching, there is little empirical
research showing student progress and achievement as a result of this approach to education (St.
Clair & Hough, 1992). Research has shown, however, that an integrated curriculum model as
opposed to a traditional separate subject approach does not have a negative effect on students’
future academic success (Aikin, 1942; Kridel, 1994).
The concept of integration is of interest to the entire field of education, but holds particular
importance to educators in the arts. Benefits and risks of arts integration have been identified by
educational experts (Fowler, 1994; Smith, 1995). If educators hope to integrate the arts into a
curriculum effectively, they must understand that there are different types of integration with
different purposes. Bresler (1995) specifically examines the concept of arts integration by
identifying four different arts integration styles found in classrooms: the Subservient Approach;
the Affective Style; the Social Integration Style; and the Co-equal, Cognitive Style.
• The Subservient Approach is the type of integration where the arts are used strictly as a
vehicle for other academic objectives. This is the most commonly used approach to arts
integration.
• The Affective Style is found when teachers use the arts as a way of changing the overall
mood of the classroom, such as trying to create a calm atmosphere after recess or using
the arts to achieve goals such as creative expression or building self-esteem.
• The Social Integration Style involves the arts as a vehicle towards participation in school
or community events, and is often exemplified in the form of school programs,
assemblies, or holidays.
• The Co-equal, Cognitive Style occurs when teachers incorporate objectives that require

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 13

 both cognitive skills as well as aesthetic principles. The style places arts objectives on the
same importance level with other subjects.
There is considerable empirical evidence that examines the extent to which elementary
classroom teachers are integrating music into the classroom. McCarthy Malin (1993) found that
over half of elementary classroom teachers surveyed include music activities within the
curriculum at least once a month. Seventy percent of those studied responded that they include
some music activities at some point. There is considerable evidence indicating that primary
grade teachers include music in their classrooms more frequently than those who teach older
students (Bryson, 1982; Kinder, 1987; McCarthy Malin; Saunders & Baker, 1991). Saunders &
Baker found, though, that while many teachers are including music in the classroom, the time is
very limited; almost half of the teachers surveyed provided less than 30 minutes of music per
week.
History has shown that during times when classroom teachers were entirely responsible for
music education, singing was the primary focus of classroom music (Coffman, 1987; Picerno,
1970). Research indicates that this emphasis on singing as the primary music element in
elementary curricula has continued (Bryson, 1982; Kinder, 1987; McCarthy Malin, 1993;
Saunders & Baker, 1991). Other activities used most frequently include music listening,
movement activities such as folk dance, and correlating music with other subjects (Bryson;
Saunders & Baker). Few teachers surveyed included ways of creating music or the playing of
rhythm, melody, or folk instruments (Bryson).
The use of music in specific correlation with other subjects is viewed by many classroom
teachers as one of the most important types of music integration (Bryson, 1982; Saunders &
Baker, 1991). Bresler (1993) conducted a qualitative study on the inclusion of music in
elementary classrooms that indicates that this perception is common. The findings indicate that
when music is present in a classroom, it is usually used as a way of illustrating subject matter, a
break from other subjects, or simply as background music. This may result in a dismissal of the
aesthetic importance of music and create a superficial view of music only as entertainment.
Whitaker (1996) also conducted a qualitative study that addresses the issues associated with
music integration only in terms of using music as a means of learning other material. The results
of this study show a progressive devaluation of the music program and of the music specialist
when the role of music in an integrated setting is relegated to one of lower importance than other
subjects. Whitaker indicates that while the intent of music integration may be to promote music
within the classroom, a perceived decline in the importance of music can occur in actual
practice.
There are many different factors that affect how much and in what way music is included in
an elementary school classroom. One of the most apparent factors is the attitude of teachers
toward their musical ability and their beliefs and values regarding the inclusion of music
(Apfelstadt, 1989; Barry, 1992). Apfelstadt found that positive childhood singing experiences
have an impact on adult attitudes toward singing. Bresler (1993) also found teachers’ perceptions
about their own musical abilities to have a limiting effect on their attitude toward teaching music
in the classroom. Teachers surveyed were found to have little musical knowledge and stated that
college course work in music had been seen as irrelevant at the time it was taken and had since
been forgotten. This lack of ability was shown to have a direct effect on these teachers’ attitudes
regarding music teaching. They felt they were unable to sing or perform musical tasks and were

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 14

therefore reluctant to do so in the classroom.
Research has shown that most preservice and in-service teachers value the inclusion of some
music activities in the classroom (Apfelstadt, 1989; Barry, 1992; Kinder, 1987). There is also
research, however, that indicates that classroom teachers do not feel a responsibility to teach
music objectives as long as a music specialist is present. Byo (1999) found that general
classroom teachers felt little or no responsibility in teaching any of the National Standards for
Music Education, feeling only slightly more inclined to consider the standards that apply to
integrating music with other academic subject areas. Lack of time is listed as a reason for the
exclusion of music activities (Bresler, 1993; McCarthy Malin, 1993). Bresler (1993) writes that
teachers often reported feeling pressure from principals, superintendents, and fellow teachers to
focus only on academic subjects.
McCarthy Malin (1993) conducted a study that sought to answer questions regarding the
function of music in the classroom and factors that contribute to the incorporation of music
activities. The results showed that the three most frequently cited functions of music in the
classroom were use on special occasions, use as background music, and integration with other
subjects. The results also indicate that development of music skills and understanding was rarely
cited as a function of music within the classroom. McCarthy Malin states that this concept may
require further investigation as the study did not differentiate between the terms “using” music in
the classroom and “teaching” music.
The purpose of this current pilot study is to examine the amount and specific types of music
integration occurring in the elementary classroom. It will explore the collaboration of classroom
teachers with other teachers in the building including the music specialist; the amount of
responsibility classroom teachers feel towards teaching music objectives; and the effect that a
music methods course may have had on these classroom practices. This study will also explore
the effects of years of teaching experience and teachers’ personal opinions about the arts on their
practices of music integration. Research questions include: How much music is being integrated
into the elementary classroom and in what ways is it being included? To what extent do
classroom teachers collaborate with the music specialist and other teachers on the subject of
music integration? Do teachers feel any responsibility for teaching musical objectives? Does a
music methods course, the teachers’ amount of experience, or his or her personal opinions
regarding music have an impact on the inclusion of music in the classroom?

Method
Eighteen classroom teachers from three schools in an urban Midwestern school district were
recruited to participate in the study through the music specialists in their schools. These subjects
were evenly divided among grades one, three, and six. Grade four was specifically avoided since
that is a state testing year. The teachers were interviewed and audio-recorded in their own
classroom. This provided the opportunity to examine any music materials that the subjects may
have and use in their classroom. After obtaining some demographic information, the following
open-ended questions were asked:
1. Name, specifically, what types of music activities you include in your classroom and why?
2. How many minutes per week do you spend on music activities?
3. What are the factors in determining how much and what types of music you include in your
classroom?

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 15

 4. To what extent do you feel a responsibility to teach musical objectives when incorporating
music into your curriculum?
5. How often do you collaborate/discuss curriculum with your music specialist? Name
specific examples of this collaboration.
6. In your collaboration with other teachers in your grade level, do you ever discuss music
activities? Name specific examples of this collaboration.
7. What are the factors that determine this amount of collaboration (both with the music
teacher as well as other teachers)? (Are there any barriers to this collaboration?)
8. Did you take a music course in college (how many)? If so, do you use any of the activities
or strategies learned in that class in your classroom?
9. How many years have you been teaching? Specifically in this grade?
10. What are your general thoughts about music in the schools?
The interview questions specifically relate back to the research questions and purpose of the
study. See Table 1.

Table 1. Relationship of Purpose to Interview Questions

Purpose Interview
Questions
Examine the amount and types of music integration in elementary 1, 2, 3
classrooms.
Collaboration of classroom teachers with music specialist/other 5, 6, 7
teachers.
Amount of responsibility classroom teachers feel towards teaching 4
music objectives.
Effect of music methods course, teaching experience, personal 8, 9, 10
opinion on music integration.

Following the interviews, data were collected and analyzed based on the audiotapes of the
interviews. Music materials were listed in categories: recordings, books, instruments, or other.
Total number of minutes spent on music activities was analyzed according to grade level taught
and factors listed by the subjects that determined the amount of music used. The incorporation of
music in each classroom was also analyzed based on experience of the teachers and whether or
not they took a music course in college. Music activities were grouped into Bresler’s four styles
of arts integration. Anecdotal evidence was examined for subjects’ attitudes toward music in the
schools as well as specific examples of music integration in the classroom.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 16

Results
Materials found in the classrooms primarily fit within the categories of recordings (or
recording devices) and books. Of the 18 teachers interviewed, 4 teachers had books pertaining to
music. The books were either song books for the use of the teacher, such as patriotic song books,
or children’s literature books about music or sound that were stored on bookshelves from which
the children could choose books to read. Two subjects had pianos in the classroom.
Thirteen of the 18 subjects described music activities that are categorized as the Subservient
Style of arts integration including analyzing poetry and comparing it with music lyrics, using
rhythmic concepts to teach math, and singing specific songs about academic subjects such as the
alphabet, spelling, or science concepts such as the water cycle. Nine subjects cited activities that
fall into the Affective Style of integration. Subjects using this style of integration referred to
playing music in the background, particularly during writing or art projects. This occurred
throughout the grade levels. Five subjects described activities that would fit into the Social

Fig u re 1. A rts In teg ratio n Sty les Us ed

100

80

60
Subjects (%)

40

20

0
Su b s erv ien t A ffectiv e So cial In teg ratio n Co -eq u al, Co g n itiv e

Integration Style. The primary example of this style was the use of patriotic music in the
classroom. Only one teacher described an activity categorized as Co-equal, Cognitive Style of
integration. This activity was the teaching of songs to be sung in rounds, representing music
concepts such as form and harmony. See figure 1 for a breakdown of the styles used among all
the subjects.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 17

 Half of the subjects stated that they spent less than 15 minutes per week on music activities.
The remaining half averaged 42 minutes, with a median of 30 minutes per week devoted to
music activities. One teacher reported to be engaged in over 100 minutes of music per week. The
data revealed an even distribution of minutes devoted to music activities among the three grades.
Further, there was an equal distribution of experienced and novice teachers among the three
grades, indicating that there was no connection between number of years of teaching experience
and minutes spent on music activities. Grade level was not a determining factor in the style of
music integration used, as all styles except Co-equal, Cognitive were found throughout the
different grade levels.
The factor determining the number of minutes most often stated by the subjects was lack of
time and need to concentrate on academic areas in which students are required to take a state
proficiency test (56%). Of the teachers who mentioned proficiency testing as a factor, 70% used
music less than 15 minutes per week. Other reasons cited for quantity and type of music activity
were the potential for coordinating the activity with other parts of the curriculum (44%) and lack
of ability or training in the arts (16%).
Sixteen of the 18 subjects (89%) stated that they felt no specific responsibility to teach
musical objectives when incorporating music into their classrooms. Four subjects indicated little
or no collaboration between themselves and the music specialist. Two subjects stated that they
collaborated with the music specialist once every month. Other subjects indicated a more casual
collaboration. Some examples of this type of collaboration were statements such as, “we talk in
passing,” and that the music specialist “knows themes” occurring in the classrooms. Some
specific examples of themes on which the teachers collaborated were The Nutcracker and
patriotic music. Fourteen subjects (78%) stated that they do not collaborate with other teachers
within their grade level regarding music activities. Seven subjects cited time as one reason they
do not discuss music activities with other teachers.
All but 2 subjects took at least one college course in music. Of these 16 subjects, only 2 stated
that they currently use activities or strategies learned in that course in their classroom. Three
subjects indicated that they used some activities in previous years when teaching in a different
grade level. The 2 subjects who indicated that they use activities learned in their college music
course listed the use of recorder and rote teaching.
Responses to the question regarding general feelings about music in the schools were
overwhelmingly positive. Seven subjects stated that there should be more time allotted for music
or that they would like to be able to include more music in their own classrooms. One subject
expressed her feelings about music in the schools by stating that she would be “upset if it was
taken out.”

Discussion
The results of this exploratory study indicate that there is merit for further research that may
have implications for current classroom teachers, music teachers, and teacher educators. Results
outline how elementary classroom teachers interviewed in this study are incorporating music into
the classroom and reasons for the amount and types of integration occurring. It indicates the
extent to which these teachers are using activities learned in preservice music courses and what
other factors contribute to the use of music in the classroom. It also shows the general attitude of
teachers towards music in their schools.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 18

 Results support previous research that indicates the teachers’ use of music in the classroom is
primarily in service to other academic subject areas (Saunders & Baker, 1991). It specifically
supports Bresler (1995), who posits that the Subservient Approach to arts integration is the most
commonly found in the elementary classroom. Many of the activities mentioned that fit this style
of integration include singing of songs about other subjects, supporting existing research that
points to singing as the most common music activity in elementary classrooms (Bryson, 1982;
Kinder, 1987; McCarthy Malin, 1993; Saunders & Baker).
The second most common style of integration, the Affective Style, also serves other
classroom objectives, such as classroom management and mood. The results of this study do not
support Bresler’s (1995) statement that this style is most commonly found in primary (K–2)
classrooms. This style of integration was used in all grade levels in this study. Teachers who
used this style of integration indicated using music in the “background” during academic
activities such as reading or writing.
As expected, the Co-equal, Cognitive Style of arts integration was least commonly found
among the subjects. In general, teachers felt little or no responsibility to incorporate musical
objectives when including music in their curricula. This supports previous research (Byo, 1999)
and is likely an important factor in why the Co-equal, Cognitive Style of arts integration was
rarely used. It seems that teachers likely view their inclusion of music as a service to other
objectives and do not feel that they are responsible to teach musical elements. This lack of
emphasis on exploring musical objectives when incorporating music into the classroom leads to
further research questions. When music is integrated into the classroom only in order to achieve
other academic or social objectives, is music becoming devalued in the eyes of the students?
This question was addressed by Whitaker (1996), who described the risks involved in this type
of arts integration. The concept needs more exploration due to the extent to which the
Subservient Style of integration dominates the music activities found in the elementary
classroom in the present study.
Although most teachers stated that they do collaborate with the music specialist, indicating
the potential for a Co-equal, Cognitive integration through collaboration, most subjects indicated
a casual type of collaboration rather than a consistent time or amount of communication. Most
teachers mentioned few specific examples of collaboration.
The results of this study did not support previous research (Bryson, 1982; Kinder, 1987;
McCarthy Malin, 1993; Saunders & Baker, 1991) that indicates that primary grade teachers
(K–2) use more music activities overall than teachers of older grades. Grade level did not prove
to be a factor in determining the amount and types of music integration in the classroom.
Lack of time was most frequently listed as the reason for excluding music activities in the
classroom. This is consistent with previous research (Bresler, 1993; Byo, 1999; McCarthy Malin,
1993). Time constraints may also be related to the fact that the Subservient Approach was the
most commonly used style of integration. This supports Bresler (1993), who stated that teachers
are less likely to feel they are sacrificing academic time if they are using music strictly to
reinforce academic objectives. This is particularly noteworthy due to the extent to which teachers
stated their concern over the need to concentrate classroom time on subjects in which the
students are required to take state-mandated proficiency tests. This result was an unexpected
outcome of the study, as the teachers interviewed did not teach grade levels in which a statewide
proficiency test is given. As these tests become more prevalent throughout the United States and

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 19

more emphasis is placed on the results of these tests in measuring the quality of schools, this
issue will become more important. Further research, building on previous studies, is needed to
determine the effect of these types of high-stakes tests on arts integration.
Some responses support research positing that a teacher’s perceived musical ability has an
effect on the amount of music included in the classroom (Apfelstadt, 1989; Barry, 1992; Bresler,
1993). One subject stated, “If I could carry a tune and could keep a beat I would use it all the
time.” Another stated, “I wouldn’t even know what to use,” particularly in terms of the older
grade levels. Both teachers indicated that they used little or no music in their classrooms. These
statements may point to the effect of teacher confidence and perceived ability on the inclusion of
music in the curriculum.
The results of this study regarding teacher training could directly relate to the issue of teacher
confidence and perceived ability in the arts. While most of the teachers interviewed indicated
that they took at least one music course, only 2 subjects stated that they used activities learned in
those courses in their classrooms today. This indicates a discrepancy in what is being taught in
these courses and what teachers would find most useful, supporting previous research (Saunders
& Baker, 1991). These results could have implications for teachers of preservice music courses
for elementary education majors. Because teachers are primarily using the Subservient Style of
arts integration, it could be valuable to teach the different styles of integration and how they can
be effectively used in the elementary curriculum in preservice music courses. This could give
teachers the tools they need to successfully integrate music into the classroom while maintaining
the integrity of all subjects including the arts. This type of instruction could be particularly
useful for providing integration strategies for older grade levels.
The overall positive attitude towards music in the schools expressed by the teachers
interviewed shows that teachers may be receptive to more and different approaches to music
integration. Many teachers indicated that they saw a need for more music instruction, and many
specifically expressed their appreciation for the music specialists in their schools. Responses to
the question regarding overall feelings about music instruction in the school showed that
teachers view music as an enjoyable release and see value in specific music instruction. One
subject stated the importance of allowing students to see and experience some of the possible
results of music instruction—for example, providing opportunities for elementary students to see
ensembles from secondary schools in the district or professional ensembles from the community.
Other subjects described the potential for music to enhance other curriculum areas and referred
to the multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983) as an important approach to curriculum
integration. This general positive attitude towards music education indicates the potential for
successful music integration in the elementary classroom.
The possible implications of this study for current elementary classroom teachers are
extensive. While Bresler’s category title of Subservient may suggest a negative connotation, the
results of this study do not imply that using music in ways designed to achieve objectives of
other subjects is a poor form of integration. Teachers have and will continue to use music in the
classroom in ways that effectively supplement other subject areas, such as aiding in
memorization or illustrating a particular idea. This study shows, though, that teachers need to be
aware that there are different styles of integration and that by using the different styles they may
more successfully maintain the integrity of the various subjects, including the arts, within the
total curriculum. Further research could be done that would examine teachers’ awareness of their

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 20

own strategies of integration by asking them to categorize the music activities they use in the
classrooms into the four styles of integration. This research could enhance the present study by
more specifically determining teachers’ current understanding of the various styles of arts
integration.
There are specific implications for elementary music specialists as well. Teachers’
apprehension about their own abilities in music could be alleviated through more and very
specific examples of collaboration. Another important implication for music specialists is the
overall positive feeling expressed by the classroom teachers. Teachers may have a desire to
participate in more collaboration that could greatly enhance the music curriculum.
This study provides many opportunities for advancement in research in the area of music
integration in the elementary classroom. It leads to questions of how the different styles of arts
integration may affect students’ attitudes toward and value judgments about music. It also poses
the question about the effect of high-stakes testing on arts integration. The research could lead to
studies on teacher training courses, particularly investigations of the ways in which the different
styles of integration could be taught to preservice elementary school teachers. The implications
of the study show the importance of a collaborative effort in the integration of music into the
elementary school classroom and how that effort could lead to a positive, successful music
integration that maintains and supports the integrity of all curricular subjects, including the arts.

References
Aikin, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study: With conclusions and recommendations.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
Apfelstadt, H. (1989). Do we have to sing? Factors affecting elementary education majors’
attitudes toward singing. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 8(1),
24–27.
Barry, N. H. (1992). Music education in the elementary music methods class. Journal of Music
Teacher Education, 2(1), 16–23.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan,
76(8), 616–622.
Bresler, L. (1993). Music in a double-bind: Instruction by non-specialists in elementary schools.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 115, 1–13.
Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their
implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(5), 31–37.
Bryson, E. F. (1982). A study of the use of music activities by classroom teachers. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 43. (UMI No. 8228121)
Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the
national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2),
111–123.
Coffman, D. D. (1987). Vocal music and the classroom teacher, 1885 to 1905. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 35(2), 92–102.
Fowler, C. (1994). Strong arts, strong schools. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 4–9.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Kinder, G. (1987). A survey of the musical activities of classroom teachers with implications for

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 21

 undergraduate music courses for elementary education majors. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 48. (UMI No. 8723379)
Kridel, C. (1994). Reconsiderations: The story of the eight-year study: With conclusions and
recommendations. Educational Studies, 25(2), 101–115.
Manins, S. (1994). Bridge building in early-childhood music. Music Educators Journal, 80(5),
37–41.
Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher
Education, 47(4), 263–270.
McCarthy Malin, S. A. (1993). Music experiences in the elementary classroom as directed and
reported by in-service elementary classroom teachers. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 54. (UMI No. 9414331)
Picerno, V. J. (1970). The role of the elementary classroom teacher and the music specialist:
Opinions of the music supervisor. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(2),
99–111.
Saunders, T. C., & Baker, D. S. (1991). In-service classroom teachers’ perceptions of useful
music skills and understandings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3),
248–261.
Smith, R. A. (1995). The limits and costs of integration in arts education. Arts Education Policy
Review, 96(5), 21–25.
St. Clair, B., & Hough, D. L. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaching: A Review of the literature.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 373056)
Whitaker, N. L. (1996). Elusive connections: Music integration and the elementary classroom.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Muisc Education, 130, 89–99.
Wilcox, E. (1994). Teaching the whole child. Teaching Music, 2(2), 42–43, 62.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 22

 The Procedure by Which Teachers Prepare Students to
Choose a Musical Instrument
Jonathan G. Bayley

Jonathan G. Bayley is assistant professor of music education at the University of Windsor in

Ontario, Canada.

One of the major responsibilities that teachers have in the area of instrumental music
education is assisting students with the selection of musical instruments (Byo, 1991; Cannava,
1994; Powell, 1982). Teachers commonly desire to achieve a balanced instrumentation, which
takes into consideration student instrument choice and instrument availability (Cannava;
DeGregori, 1961; Fortney, Boyle, & DeCarbo, 1993; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996).
Many of the extant studies have focused on the results of the selection procedure as it relates
to student perception and instrument choice. These studies primarily investigated the popularity
of given instruments (i.e., the frequency with which an instrument was chosen), what instrument
males and females chose, and the reasons for their choices (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Byo, 1991;
Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993; Griswold & Chroback, 1981; Tarnowski, 1993).
The purpose of this present study was to investigate the procedure by which elementary and
junior high teachers in the province of Alberta, Canada, prepare students to make musical
instrument choices. More specifically, this investigation identified the nature of the educational
and musical experiences that occur prior to determining students’ instrument choices. These
choices relate specifically to wind and percussion instruments.
This study was designed in order to answer the following research questions: (a) What
procedural controls or guidelines do teachers implement in order to manipulate student
instrument selection? (b) At what time of the year are musical instrument choices made? (c) Are
feeder school visits/performances an aspect of teachers’ instrument selection procedure? If so,
how often do students see demonstrations of individual instruments during such activities? (d)
To what extent is the testing of students, or some form of student evaluation (musical, physical,
academic), a part of the instrument selection procedure? (e) To what extent are students active
participants during the instrument selection procedure? (f) What changes do teachers report they
have made to their instrument selection procedure since they began teaching? (g) How do
teachers view their role during the instrument selection procedure? (h) Which instruments do
teachers believe to be most favored by students? (i) Which instruments do teachers believe to be
least favored by students? (j) What reasons do teachers report that students give for choosing a
particular instrument or changing to another instrument? (k) To what degree does the music
industry play a role during the instrument selection procedure? (l) In what ways do teachers
counterbalance stereotypical gender associations? (m) What are the major influences that helped
teachers develop their present instrument selection procedure? (n) To what degree was the
instrument selection procedure a component of subjects’ preservice teacher education?
The present study attempts to complete the picture by investigating teachers’ behaviors and
perceptions with respect to this selection procedure.
A review of the literature shows that researchers have taken a variety of approaches in an
effort to identify why students prefer certain instruments more than others. Over the past three

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 23

decades, numerous studies have investigated subjects’ reasons for making instrument choices,
their timbre preferences, as well as aspects of gender stereotyping. Despite the fact that findings
vary, certain overall generalizations can be made.
Influences on Instrument Choice. Students have identified teachers, relatives, friends,
instrument availability, and perceived degree of difficulty as positively influencing their musical
instrument choices (Conway, 2000; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993). Reasons for
least preferring an instrument include perceived degree of difficulty, size, sound, and gender
associations (Delzell & Leppla; Fortney et al.; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996).
Timbre Preference. Nearly thirty years of research relating to various aspects of timbre
preference or acuity has revealed mixed results. When asked why they prefer a particular musical
instrument, students often state that it is the sound or timbre of the instrument that influences
their choice (Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993; Jellison & Flowers, 1991; O’Neill &
Boulton, 1996; Schmidt & Lewis, 1988; Sinsel, Dixon, & Blades-Zeller, 1997).
Much of the research relating to timbre preferences follows the investigative work of Gordon
(1986) who theorized that students would achieve greater success in music if they played
instruments for which they had an identifiable timbre preference. He designed the Instrument
Timbre Preference Test (ITPT) in an effort to identify students’ timbre preferences. He found
that students who played an instrument for which they had a timbre preference (as indicated by
the ITPT) benefited more from instruction, were more able to act as independent learners, and
displayed greater skill at sight reading (p. 14).
Subsequent research has questioned aspects of Gordon’s ITPT relating to validity and test
construction (Rideout, 1988; Schmidt & Lewis, 1988; Williams, 1996). Specifically, Rideout
found that ITPT scores did not correlate significantly with instrument selection (p. 62). Research
findings have also questioned whether subjects select an instrument because of a preference for a
particular timbre or because they are actually influenced by another variable, that of instrumental
range (Williams). Regardless of the inconsistencies in the research findings relating to the
Instrument Timbre Preference Test, Gordon has compelled practitioners and researchers to
examine the possible influence that timbre may have on musical instrument choice.
Gender Association. Implied in the research findings is the fact that gender instrument
associations are the result of social conditioning. Preferences and perceptions change over time,
especially for girls. The extant literature reveals that gender association is less prevalent with
very young children but by the third or fourth grades, differences in instrument choices between
the genders become more pronounced (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Tarnowski, 1993). As girls
increase in age, their instrument choices move towards the instruments traditionally identified as
feminine, e.g., flute or clarinet (Abeles & Porter). While both boys and girls do occasionally
choose instruments from both ends of the feminine-masculine continuum, girls tend to choose
from a wider variety of musical instruments than do boys (Abeles & Porter; Delzell & Leppla,
1992).
Researchers have investigated instrument selection from the perspective of gender association
and found that boys’ and girls’ choices differ with respect to specific instruments. Although
exact behavior cannot be predicted, boys are more likely to choose drums or larger and lower
instruments while girls are more likely to choose smaller, higher pitched instruments such as
flute or clarinet (Bruce & Kemp, 1993; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993).
When asked to rank instruments on a masculine-feminine continuum, adult subjects identify

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 24

flute as being most feminine and drums or low brass as being representative of masculine
instruments (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell & Leppla, 1992). When gender is not taken into
account, students overall report that they least prefer flute and tuba, instruments representing
opposite ends of the spectrum range (Fortney et al., 1993). And when asked to indicate which
instrument they believe a boy or girl would most like to play, girls show a greater degree of
accuracy than boys in estimating opposite gender preferences (Delzell & Leppla).
In an effort to acquire a more complete picture of gender preference, Sinsel et al. (1997)
investigated the role that psychological sex type plays in instrument choice. Results indicated
that students’ most preferred instrument was strongly matched with their psychological sex type
(as identified by the Children’s Sex Role Inventory, Boldizar, 1991). For example, masculine
students preferred stereotypical masculine instruments and feminine students chose feminine
instruments (based on previous research classifications, e.g., Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell &
Leppla, 1992; Griswold & Chroback, 1981). However, psychologically androgynous students
more often selected neutral instruments and made instrument choices more equitably across the
three instrument sex types.
Conway (2000), using a phenomenological interview design, found that students who broke
gender stereotypes expressed a desire to be different from other students (their peers), recognized
the positive support and encouragement they had received from parents and elementary
instrumental teachers, and were able to ignore negative comments from peers and others.
Manipulation of Outcomes. Research has shown that students’ choices can be manipulated as
a means of (a) encouraging the selection of less popular instruments (Byo, 1991), (b)
diminishing gender stereotyping, and (c) increasing student retention (Cannava, 1994).
Researchers have also investigated the degree to which students’ instrument choices can be
manipulated as a result of either the mode of presentation (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Byo) or the
gender of the presenter or demonstrator (Bruce & Kemp, 1993; Tarnowski, 1993).
Abeles and Porter (1978) found that with children between the ages of three and five, girls
were generally not affected by the mode of presentation, whereas young boys responded
differently in the unbiased presentation than in other conditions. In a later study, involving older
children in Grade 3, Byo (1991) found that the manner in which instruments were presented to
students influenced their instrument preferences.
The purpose of a study by Bruce and Kemp (1993) was to investigate what effect the gender
of an individual demonstrating a musical instrument would have on students’ instrument choices.
Results indicated that girls were influenced by the gender of the presenter when the instruments
were cello, flute, clarinet, trumpet, or trombone, whereas boys were influenced by the gender of
the presenter when the instruments were violin, flute, or clarinet, and to a lesser degree cello and
trombone.

Method
Survey Instrument. The survey instrument used for this study was a researcher-designed
questionnaire consisting of 26 questions; 24 were closed-ended and 2 were open-ended. When
appropriate, closed-ended questions concluded with an “other” category, thereby allowing
participants to provide a response not anticipated by the researcher. Most questions asked
respondents to reply to a 5-point Likert-style format (e.g., How often do students see
demonstrations of individual instruments during feeder school visits? 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 =

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 25

Sometimes; 4 = Frequently; and 5 = Always).
The overall content of the questionnaire, which related directly to the research questions, was
derived from a review of extant literature, the researcher’s personal teaching experiences, and
initial interviews with middle school music teachers. The survey questionnaire was comprised of
seven sections. In the first two sections, participants were asked to provide demographic
information relating to their educational setting and professional background. The remaining five
sections of the survey consisted of 19 numbered items, which were directly related to six
research question categories. The six categories that framed the research questions were: (a)
procedural controls and administrative responsibilities, (b) teachers’ perceptions and
expectations, (c) the role of the music industry, (d) teachers’ views about gender stereotyping
issues, (e) areas of influence that helped to shape or modify teachers’ present approach to the
instrument selection procedure, and (f) preservice music teacher education.
Procedures. The questionnaire and cover letters were field-tested by music educators (N = 7)
chosen from a purposive sample (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 287). Field test participants included
both males (n = 4) and females (n = 3) from rural (n = 4) as well as urban (n = 3) settings. The
average number of years of teaching experience was 20.4 years with a range of 19.5 (8.5–28)
years. Three of the music educators had a master’s degree, two were working on a master’s
degree, and two had a bachelor’s degree.
All of the participants returned their completed surveys and offered valuable constructive
criticism. The field test subjects stated that the survey questions were very clear, accurate, and
covered the important aspects of the instrument selection procedure. The value of pilot testing
was evident through modest revisions in the language of the questions, the format, and in some
response modes in order to make it easier for respondents to answer. Two survey questions were
eliminated in order to ensure that the questionnaire was an appropriate length.
In order to determine the potential members of the defined population, it was necessary to
identify which schools, within the province of Alberta, offered beginning band instruction. It was
also necessary to acquire the names of the teachers who were responsible for this instruction in
order to eliminate the possibility of duplicate mailings.
Three sources were used to identify the target population: (a) a list from the Department of
Education of all public and separate (parochial) schools in the province of Alberta, (b) the
Canadian Band Association Handbook, and (c) the Alberta Band Association membership list.
Written requests were also sent to the superintendents of each school district in the province,
asking for the names of the schools in their jurisdiction that offered beginning band instruction
as well as the names of the music teachers associated with the schools. When warranted,
follow-up telephone calls were made, resulting in a 100% response rate from superintendents.
By cross-referencing the published directory lists with superintendents’ data, it was possible to
identify the teachers who were responsible for beginning band instruction.
In order to track responses, an identification number was placed on the top right front page of
each of the questionnaires (Dillman, 1978, p. 177). Potential respondents who did not return their
questionnaires by the sixth week were sent a revised cover letter and another questionnaire. If
necessary, they were contacted by telephone, fax, or e-mail.

Results
Initially, 335 teachers were identified as being responsible for beginning band instruction in

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 26

the province of Alberta. Seven music educators were purposefully chosen from this population to
field test the Musical Instrument Selection Procedure questionnaire, thus reducing the identified
population to 328. Of the 328 educators who received questionnaires, 6 were later eliminated
from the study due to their noninvolvement in the instrument selection procedure. Thus, the final
research population, drawn from both public and separate school systems, numbered 322 music
teachers.
The first mailed survey request, combined with the “postcard” reminder, generated an initial
response rate of 53.7% (n = 173). Final results revealed that all six provincial zones had a return
rate of at least 70%. A total of 249 teachers returned completed questionnaires, thus representing
a 77.3% return rate.
Participants. Results indicated that gender representation among respondents was very equal.
Of the 248 teachers who stated their gender, 127 (51.2%) were male and 121 (48.8%) were
female. More than three quarters of the respondents (77.0%) stated that a bachelor’s degree was
the highest level of education they had attained. Thirty-one teachers (12.5%) stated that they
were working on a master’s degree while 22 (8.9%) indicated that they had obtained a master’s
degree. Three respondents (1.2%) were working on a doctoral degree while only one teacher
(0.4%) had completed a doctoral degree.
With respect to school system affiliation, 76.2% of teachers indicated that they taught for the
public schools while 23.8% indicated that they taught for the separate school system. More than
three quarters of the respondents (75.7%) indicated that beginning band was offered as an
elective class. The remainder (24.3%) indicated that beginning band was a required class in their
school. Nearly 40% (39.7%) of the separate schools offered beginning band as a required class,
whereas less than 20% (16.6%) of the public schools did.
The majority of respondents (61.2%) indicated that beginning band started in Grade 7 in their
schools. Slightly less than a quarter (24.5%) stated that in their schools beginning band started in
Grade 6, while only 11.4% indicated that beginning instrumental music began in Grade 5 in their
schools.
Piano/keyboards (18.6%) was the most frequently chosen principal instrument of the
respondents, followed by trumpet/cornet (15.8%), Bb or bass clarinet (14.6%), saxophone
(9.7%), piccolo/flute (8.5%), French horn (7.7%), and trombone (4.0%). More teachers chose
voice (3.6%) as their principal “instrument” than tuba (2.8%), baritone/euphonium (2.8%),
percussion (2.8%), oboe (2.0%), or bassoon (0.8%).
On average, respondents had 10.6 years of teaching experience, representing a range of 34
years (1–35). Twenty-three teachers (9.3%) indicated that they had only 2 years of teaching
experience. Nearly 60% (59.3%) indicated that they had 10 or fewer years of teaching
experience, while only 15% indicated that they had 20 or more years of teaching experience.
While no significant correlation was found between teaching experience and school system
(public or separate), a significant correlation was evident between teaching experience and
gender (males, M = 12.81 years; females, M = 8.39 years).

Summary of Findings Relating to Research Questions

1. What procedural controls or guidelines do teachers implement in order to manipulate
student instrument selection? Respondents (N = 249) indicated that they purposely restrict the

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 27

range of choices available to their students by initially excluding specific instruments from the
selection procedure. The instruments most often excluded were (a) piccolo (92.4%), (b) bassoon
(78.7%), (c) baritone saxophone (73.9%), (d) oboe (58.6%), (e) bass clarinet (51.0%), (f) drums
and mallet instruments (33.7%), (g) tenor saxophone (31.3%), (h) alto saxophone (24.5%), and
(i) drums only (19.3%). The percentages listed below represent those teachers who excluded
specific instruments because they were “not available” as choices for students: (a) bassoon
(53.2%), (b) baritone (50.0%), (c) oboe (38.6%), (d) piccolo (37.2%), (e) French horn (30.4%),
(f) tuba (30.0%), (g) bass clarinet (26.7%), (h) baritone saxophone (25.6%), (i) tenor saxophone
(18.4%), and (j) alto saxophone (15.0%). Both saxophone and percussion were excluded
primarily because they were considered to be “too popular with students.” A small percentage of
teachers indicated that they were “less familiar with the double reed instruments.” Teachers
indicated that physical qualities (i.e., size/weight) were a consideration when encouraging
students to choose an instrument. They stated that discipline, private lessons, and the limitations
of beginning band literature were factors to be considered when initially excluding musical
instruments from the selection procedure. A number of respondents also indicated that students
are asked to list their top three instrument choices and then the teacher chooses the appropriate
instrument from these three choices with consideration being given to ensemble balance.
2. At what time of the year are musical instrument choices made? The majority of teachers
(62.1%) reported that musical instrument choices were made during the first three weeks of fall
classes. However, 31.9% indicated that these decisions were made “at the end of the year, prior
to fall classes.”
3. Are feeder school visits/performances an aspect of teachers’ instrument selection
procedure? If so, how often do students see demonstrations of individual instruments during
such activities? Music educators were asked to indicate their responses based on a five-item
scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5). The majority of respondents (61.5%) indicated
that they were involved in feeder school visits/performances as one facet of their instrument
selection procedure. Of these, 47.1% indicated that students “frequently” (4) or “always” (5) saw
demonstrations of individual instruments during such activities. Less than 40% (38.7%) of
teachers indicated that students “sometimes” (3) saw demonstrations while 14.2% indicated that
students “never” (1) or “rarely” (2) saw demonstrations of individual instruments during feeder
school visits/performances.
4. To what extent is the testing of students, or some form of student evaluation (musical,
physical, academic), a part of the instrument selection procedure? Teachers were asked to
indicate their responses on a five-item scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5). Of a
possible 13 subcategory items, teachers identified “analysis of students’ physical characteristics”
(M = 3.59), “playing test [fittings]” (M = 3.31), and “rhythm ‘echo’ test” (M = 3.00) as being the
three most commonly used forms of testing/evaluation that were “sometimes” (3) used during
the instrument selection procedure. Music educators indicated that, on average, “physical
coordination test[s],” “music theory test[s],” and “academic record[s]” were “rarely” (2) used
while specific forms of testing such as standardized IQ tests or music tests by Leblanc, Gordon,
or Seashore were “never” (1) used. Some respondents indicated that they used other forms of
testing that involved evaluating students’ (a) past musical playing experience, (b) personality,
and (c) musical interests.
5. To what extent are students active participants during the instrument selection procedure?

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 28

Respondents were asked to indicate their responses on a five-item scale ranging from “never” (1)
to “always” (5). Teachers indicated that, on average, their students were “frequently” (4)
involved in a variety of activities of a visual, aural, and physical nature prior to making an
instrument choice. Such activities included (a) looking at a variety of musical instruments on
display, (b) touching/holding a variety of instruments, (c) viewing pictures/diagrams of musical
instruments, and (d) hearing live performances of musical instruments. Findings also indicated
that students “sometimes” (3) (a) produce a sound on a variety of instruments and (b) hear
recorded examples of musical instruments.
6. What changes do teachers report they have made to their instrument selection procedure
since they began teaching? More than two thirds (69.5%) of the respondents indicated that they
had made changes to their instrument selection procedure since they began teaching. Teachers
indicated that they had adopted a variety of improvements designed to enable them to (a) gain
greater control over the selection procedure, (b) achieve a more balanced ensemble, (c) improve
communication with both students and parents regarding aspects of the instrument selection
procedure, (d) ensure that students have greater opportunities to interact physically with a variety
of instruments prior to making a choice, (e) encourage students to develop an interest in the band
program at an earlier age, and (f) evaluate students more thoroughly in order to match them with
an appropriate instrument.
7. How do teachers view their role during the instrument selection procedure? The vast
majority of teachers (95.2%) indicated that they guide their students in making instrument
choices. Respondents indicated that they encouraged students to choose specific instruments
“rarely” (2) for financial considerations, “sometimes” (3) due to physical considerations, and
“frequently” (4) in order to acquire a balanced instrumentation.
8. Which instruments do teachers believe to be most favored by students? The vast majority
(95.5%) of respondents indicated that they believed that boys’ main preferences were limited to
three instruments: trumpet (39.7%), drums or percussion (37.2%), and saxophone (18.6%).
The vast majority of respondents (97.5%) identified flute (62.3%), clarinet (28.4%), and
saxophone (6.8%) as girls’ three most preferred instruments.
9. Which instruments do teachers believe to be least favored by students? The vast majority of
respondents (90.0%) indicated that they believed the flute was the instrument least preferred by
boys. Teachers (81.6%) reported that girls least preferred brass instruments, especially low and
large brass instruments. Specifically, nearly half of the teachers (46.4%) indicated that the tuba
was the instrument that was least preferred by girls.
10. What reasons do teachers report that students give for choosing a particular instrument or
changing to another instrument? For each stated reason, teachers were asked to indicate their
responses on a five-item scale ranging from “very weak” (1) to “very strong” (5). Teachers
perceived “friends” (M = 4.08) as having the strongest degree of influence (4 = “strong”) on
students’ instrument choices, while “cost of the instrument” was identified as having the least
degree of influence (M = 2.08). They also acknowledged that overall the “sound of the
instrument” was a “moderate” (3) influence on students’ instrumental choices.
Using a five-item scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5), teachers indicated that
students most often (M = 3.58) wish to change to another instrument because “the instrument is
thought to be too difficult to play.” They also indicated that liking better the instrument a
student’s friend plays (M = 3.24) as well as the size/weight of the instrument “sometimes” (M =

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 29

3.10) are given by students as reasons for wishing to change to another instrument.
11. To what degree does the music industry play a role during the instrument selection
procedure? Less than a quarter of respondents (23.0%) stated that music store personnel
demonstrated instruments to students in their schools during the instrument selection procedure.
12. In what ways do teachers counterbalance stereotypical gender associations? Over 60% of
teachers (61.9%) indicated that they took steps to address gender stereotyping (bias) during the
instrument selection procedure. They stated that by initiating class discussions, as well as using
videos, pictures, recordings, and live demonstrations, they felt they were able to convey more
effectively to their students that it is acceptable to play any instrument regardless of their gender.
13. What are the major influences that helped teachers develop their present instrument
selection procedure? For each stated reason, teachers were asked to indicate their responses on a
five-item scale ranging from “very weak” (1) to “very strong” (5). Teachers indicated that their
own “personal experiences” are the most significant (4 = “strong”) influence on their present
approach to the instrument selection procedure. “Fellow teachers,” “preservice teacher education
courses,” and “cooperating teachers,” had a “weak” (2) to “moderate” (3) influence while a
respondent’s “predecessor” was identified as having the least influence (1 = “very weak”) on
their selection procedure.
14. To what degree was the instrument selection procedure a component of subjects’
preservice teacher education? A majority of teachers (66.5%) reported that aspects of the
instrument selection procedure were “briefly mentioned” or “not addressed at all” during their
preservice teacher education, whereas less than a third of educators (28.9%) indicated that it was
“dealt with in some detail.”

Discussion and Implications

The results of this study indicate that music educators responsible for beginning band
instruction in the province of Alberta adhere to a variety of procedural and administrative
practices during the musical instrument selection procedure. In doing so, they indicated clearly
that they take an active role in guiding their students in making instrument choices.
During the instrument selection procedure, the nature and frequency of teacher-designed
learning activities vary widely. In order to develop a better basis for choosing a musical
instrument and encourage retention in instrumental music programs, students need a thorough
and systematic approach that introduces them to musical instruments through a deliberate
combination of aural, visual, and physical representations (Cannava, 1994). Teachers’ increased
attention to the inclusion of all three activities would encourage a richer understanding of each
instrument’s unique timbral, musical, and physical qualities. Therefore, students must have
increased opportunities to produce sounds on a wide range of musical instruments.
One of the goals of music educators should be to develop in our young musicians tonal
concepts of true band and orchestra sound (DeGregori, 1961). Respondents indicated that
students “sometimes” hear recorded performances of instruments. Hearing exemplar recordings
of all the instruments must be an integral part of the instrument selection procedure. By doing so,
students have an enriched opportunity to develop an understanding of proper tone and
musicality.
Recruitment activities represent another important opportunity during this selection procedure
(Cannava, 1994, p. 8). Since over a third of teachers indicated that they did not participate in

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 30

feeder school visits/performances, it is clear that many Alberta band teachers miss out on
potentially valuable recruitment and educational opportunities. Increased communication
between elementary and junior high school personnel could do much to improve student
recruitment. Although the exact nature of feeder school visits cannot be ascertained from the
existing data, it was found that actual instrument demonstrations occur on an irregular, even
spotty, basis. In view of the relative infrequency of these demonstrations, educators would be
wise to use this opportunity to introduce a wide range of musical instruments to this captive
audience. This may also be an ideal setting to encourage the selection of less known or less
popular musical instruments. Further research into the exact nature of feeder school involvement
by junior high and middle school instrumental music programs is warranted.
In the vast majority of schools surveyed (77.0%), music store personnel were not actively
involved in demonstrating musical instruments during the selection procedure. Despite the
obvious potential for a conflict of interest between business goals and educational objectives, it
would seem that the full potential of music stores, as an educational resource, remains
underutilized. When possible, the music industry should be invited and welcomed to participate
in the instrument selection procedure as a valued educational partner.
What is the specific nature of the music industry’s involvement during this administrative and
educational undertaking? In what ways might the music industry make a more significant
contribution, taking into consideration teacher needs and pedagogical approaches? It is clear that
further research is warranted in order to identify why personnel from the music industry are not
used more frequently and effectively during this selection procedure. Further study should also
investigate appropriate ways for these individuals to make positive contributions to music
education.
Music educators must strive continuously to achieve a balanced instrumentation within the
confines of a traditional instrumental music class. Although obvious to music educators, the
importance of obtaining a balanced ensemble has been a long-standing concern within the
profession. DeGregori (1961) observed that once the school administration has been sold on the
value of balanced instrumentation, the director must turn his or her attention to enlightening
students and parents (p. 58).
Since teachers indicated that they “frequently” encourage students to choose specific
instruments to meet the needs of balanced instrumentation, this study corroborates the practical
demand for such balance, and it confirms the reality that bands and their teachers are evaluated
on that basis (Byo, 1991; Sinsel et al., 1997). This may explain teachers’ high motivation to
manipulate selection outcomes.
When compared to their teachers, students, on the other hand, are concerned primarily with
playing an instrument of their own choice. Acknowledging that teachers and students have
different perspectives with respect to instrument selection, Powell (1982) claims that students
select instruments based on their chances for success. The ongoing challenge for music educators
involves creating a meaningful educational experience for all students while at the same time
ensuring that the selection procedure results in a balanced ensemble where students perform on
instruments for which they have the greatest possibility of success.
Teachers identified “friends” as having the strongest degree of influence on students’
instrument choices. With this in mind, constructive manipulation of peer influence may be a way
to achieve a more balanced instrumentation. When appropriate, friends and peers of beginning

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 31

students should be encouraged to serve as exemplars and mentors during the instrument selection
procedure. The involvement of more experienced students should include instrument
demonstrations and peer tutoring. This could be particularly valuable if such peer involvement
were to encourage the selection of less popular instruments or to diminish gender stereotyping.
Whereas previous research findings (Fortney et al., 1993) identified students’ peers as having a
moderate influence on instrument selection, this present study identified students’ peers as
having the most significant influence on instrument preferences.
Respondents indicated that students “frequently” wish to change to another instrument
because an instrument is thought to be “too difficult to play.” With this in mind, appropriate
teaching strategies need to be developed to address students’ perceptions that specific
instruments are too difficult to play. Previous research has not addressed the reasons why
students wish to change their initial instrument choice. However, when asked why they least
preferred an instrument, students stated that they believed the instrument was too difficult to play
(Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993).
Building student confidence early may encourage fewer instrument changes and help to
diminish students’ playing anxiety, thus increasing musical and educational success. Such
responsibilities make clear the fact that teachers have more than just administrative duties during
this selection procedure.
Music educators stated that they used videos, posters, recordings, and live demonstrations to
show that instrument selection was “gender neutral.” While many teachers acknowledged and
attempted to counter the selection of instruments based on gender stereotypes, the data here
reveal that their efforts have produced no fundamental change. Teachers’ perceptions of
students’ choices were consistent with earlier findings (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell &
Leppla, 1992; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996; Tarnowski, 1993). Many instrument gender associations
persist and remain polarized with respect to boys’ and girls’ choices. It is therefore essential that
gender-stereotyping issues be addressed more effectively during preservice teacher education. In
addition, workshops may be an ideal means of providing in-service teachers with pedagogical
strategies in order to address issues relating to gender and instrument selection.
Some teachers indicated that they initially excluded double-reed instruments due to their lack
of expertise with these instruments. Therefore, it is imperative that preservice education provides
teachers with an opportunity to develop the requisite skills to competently instruct students in
double-reed instruments. To do otherwise would seriously undermine the quality of students’
education. Additional workshops could be made available to practicing teachers in order to
address pedagogical aspects of double-reed playing.
One third of the teachers indicated that neither winds nor percussion were their primary
performing musical instrument. This reinforces the importance of ensuring that postsecondary
instrument techniques and methods courses are educationally sound with respect to current
pedagogy and curricular content. Also, workshops and graduate courses in wind and percussion
pedagogy should be made available to practicing teachers in order to strengthen their expertise in
beginning band instruction.
Given the relatively low level of graduate and postgraduate study among the surveyed
teachers, continuing education by Alberta music educators may not be highly valued. Within
Alberta, no graduate study beyond the baccalaureate is required to maintain teaching
certification. However, considering the limited teaching experience of a significant portion of

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 32

this population, postgraduate studies are certainly warranted. If students are to gain the benefits
of informed instruction from a highly educated teaching force, then music educators need to be
strongly encouraged to pursue graduate studies in music. This would increase their knowledge
base and potentially enrich their students’ music education. As a proactive measure,
postsecondary music educators must work to instill such a desire in undergraduate students
during their preservice teacher education.
In view of the pervasive lack of attention to the musical instrument selection procedure
during respondents’ preservice teacher education, most Alberta band teachers must learn these
techniques during their first years of teaching. To strengthen teachers’ skills in this area,
preservice teacher education programs need to address the topic of instrument selection more
thoroughly. As an integral part of required courses, preservice teachers could be encouraged to
(a) discuss the extant literature relating to instrument selection, (b) develop procedural controls
and administrative guidelines, (c) determine what role the music industry would play, and (d)
address issues relating to gender stereotyping and design teaching strategies that would diminish
this behavior. Further research is needed to ascertain the degree to which the instrument
selection procedure is addressed in postsecondary preservice music education methods courses.
Respondents indicated that, since beginning teaching, they have attempted to acquire greater
control over the selection procedure. For some, this has been a matter of limiting the number of
instruments from which students have to choose, whereas for others, it has been a matter of
giving “more structure to the process,” therefore administrating it with greater efficiency.
Teachers also indicated that they have attempted to improve communication with both students
and parents by taking the time to discuss, in greater detail, the nature of the instrument selection
procedure. This desire that teachers have shown to gain greater control over the entire procedure
may be the result of inadequate preservice teacher education. Regardless, respondents clearly
indicated that they received little or no external guidance as to how best to structure and
administrate the instrument selection procedure.
Music educators have a number of educational and administrative responsibilities, including
determining musical instrument selection for students. Such a responsibility involves
considerable planning and preparation in order that the end results are satisfactory from both an
administrative and a musical perspective. One of the primary goals for teachers responsible for
preparing students to choose a musical instrument is to ensure that the entire endeavor is a rich
educational experience for all students.

References
Abeles, H. F., & Porter, S. Y. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 26(2), 65–75.
Boldizar, J. P. (1991). Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: The children’s sex role
inventory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 505–515.
Bruce, R., & Kemp, A. (1993). Sex-stereotyping in children’s preferences for musical
instruments. British Journal of Music Education, 10(3), 213–217.
Byo, J. (1991). An assessment of musical instrument preferences of third-grade children.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 110, 21–32.
Cannava, E. S. (1994). Professionally guided instrument selection as a factor of beginning band
retention (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1994). Dissertation

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 33

 Abstracts International, 55 (10), 3129A.
Conway, C. (2000). Gender and musical instrument choice: A phenomenological investigation.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 146, 1–17.
DeGregori, G. W. (1961). Unbalanced instrumentation. The Instrumentalist, 16(1), 58.
Delzell, J. K., & Leppla, D. A. (1992). Gender association of musical instruments and
preferences of fourth-grade students for selected instruments. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 40(2), 93–103.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Fortney, P. M., Boyle, J. D., & DeCarbo, N. J. (1993). A study of middle school band students’
instrument choices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 28–39.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Gordon, E. E. (1986). Final results of a two-year longitudinal predictive validity study of the
instrumental timbre preference test and the musical aptitude profile. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 89, 8–17.
Griswold, P. A., & Chroback, D. A. (1981). Sex-role associations of music instruments and
occupations by gender and major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 57–62.
Jellison, J. A., & Flowers, P. J. (1991). Talking about music: Interviews with disabled
and nondisabled children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(4), 322–333.
O’Neill, S. A., & Boulton, M. J. (1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: A
function of gender? Psychology of Music, 24(2), 171–183.
Powell L. (1982). The embouchure speaks. The Instrumentalist, 36(9), 14–15.
Rideout, R. R. (1988). An informal application of Gordon’s timbre preference test. Journal of
Band Research, 24(1), 59–66.
Schmidt, C. P., & Lewis, B. E. (1988). A validation study of the instrument timbre preference
test. Psychology of Music, 16(2), 143–155.
Sinsel, T. J., Dixon, W. E., & Blades-Zeller, E. (1997). Psychological sex type and preferences
for musical instruments in fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45(3), 390–401.
Tarnowski, S. M. (1993). Gender bias and musical instrument preference. Update: Applications
of Research in Music Education, 12(1), 14–21.
Williams, D. A. (1996). A study of internal validity of the instrument timbre preference test.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(3), 268–277.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 34

 The Teacher as Researcher in Beginning Instrumental Music
Colleen Conway and Tom Jeffers

Colleen Conway is assistant professor of music education in the School of Music at the
University of Michigan, and Tom Jeffers is a retired music teacher from the Montville Public
Schools in Montville, CT.

Recent sources in music education have suggested that many pertinent research questions
might best be explored through the use of action research or teacher research (Conway & Borst,
2001; Leglar & Collay, 2002; Regelski, 1994). Leglar and Collay define the terms: “Action
research may be the most familiar term for classroom research by teachers (Schmuck, 1997;
Sprinthall, Reiman, & Thies-Sprinthall, 1996). Clandinin and Connelly (1995) referred to the
processes of teacher researchers as ‘personal experience methods,’ and S. Hollingsworth (1992)
and colleagues participated in ‘collaborative conversations’ (p. 260).” Music education sources
also suggest that the action research model has been under-represented in music education as a
design for research (Bresler, 1995; Rideout & Feldman, 2002).
In his recent discussion of philosophical issues and music education research Elliott (2002)
discusses the rise of postmodern thinking and its connection to the use of action research in
general educational research:

In parallel with the gradual decline of modernity and the rise of postmodern
thinking, educational research between (roughly) 1945 and 1970 became less
dominated by empiricist-positivist approaches . . . Coincidentally, humanistic and
postmodern scholars argued persuasively for more inclusive and socially sensitive
ways of investigating educational issues. Indeed, the strict “cognitive” focus of
much of the research in the 1960s and 1970s caused scholars (aware of
postmodern thinking) to emphasize the paucity of research on human subjectivity,
personal identity formation and gender issues. As part of this emphasis on the
“whole person,” educational research broadened to include Action Research,
Ethnography, Narrative Inquiry, Critical Theory, Feminist Inquiry, and
Postmodernism. (p. 87)

Nieto (2003) suggests:

All good teachers, whether they consciously carry out research or not, are
researchers in the broadest sense of the word. This is because good teachers are
also learners, and they recognize that they need to keep learning throughout their
careers if they are to improve. They probe their subject matter, constantly
searching for material that will excite and motivate their students; they explore
pedagogy to create a learning environment that is both rigorous and supportive;
they talk with their colleagues about difficult situations. Above all, they value the
intellectual work that is at the core of teaching. (p. 76–77)

The purpose of this paper is to describe the collaborative action research (Conway & Borst,

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 35

2001; Erikson, 1995; Henson, 1996) process used in an examination of assessment procedures in
beginning instrumental music. It is hoped that a discussion of the “how” of action research used
in this study may provide information to other music teachers interested in doing research in
their own classrooms. Based on our collaborative interaction we will also discuss the possible
implications of the teacher as researcher for teacher professional development and music
education research.

Formation of Research Relationship/Goals for the Project

Conway and Borst (2001) define collaborative action research as a relationship between a
group of teachers or between teachers and a university researcher. They suggest: “It may be
difficult for K–12 music teachers to find time to design and implement research. However,
collaboration with the university professor, for whom research is part of the job expectation,
makes equal-partner action research a possibility” (p. 3). Tom Jeffers (public school-based
researcher) and I (Colleen Conway, university-based researcher) met in the summer of 2001
when he was a participant in a summer instrumental music workshop at my university. At the
conclusion of the two-week workshop I presented a short lecture on action research or teacher
research and encouraged all the workshop participants to consider doing research in their
classrooms as a way of documenting their work with the workshop content. Several weeks later
Tom contacted me and expressed his interest in doing a collaborative project in his classroom.
He had been teaching beginning instrumental music for 33 years in the same elementary school
in Montivlle, CT. As Nieto (2003) suggests, as a reflective teacher, Tom had been doing the sorts
of thinking required for action research for years. I had taught beginning instrumental music for
seven years, was now teaching beginning instrumental music methods courses in teacher
education, and had conducted action research in the past. We brought varied expertise to the
project.
Tom and I spent the latter part of the summer of 2001 making decisions regarding just what
to study in his school. Late in August, Tom decided that he would like to develop and examine
various assessment procedures that would support the teaching techniques he had learned in the
summer workshop. We decided that it would be useful not only to develop assessment tools but
also to examine our perceptions of the tools as he used them over two years of teaching. We
were also interested in students’ and parents’ perceptions of the assessment tools. Tom had
already decided to retire two years from the time we started the study, so we designed a two-year
longitudinal study to take place during his last two years of teaching. In the fall of 2001, Tom
started a collaborative research notebook to document our research interactions as well as his
perceptions of the usefulness of the assessment tools. At the opening of 2001–2002 school year,
Tom discussed this research project with his building principal in Montville, CT, and they
decided to have Tom use the collaborative action research project as the primary goal for his
“Montville Public Schools Professional Growth Plan.” Figure 1 outlines the objective/plan of
action and data collection for the project as stated on September 19, 2001.
As the collaborative researcher, I began to search for past literature on the topic of assessment
in beginning instrumental music (Asmus, 1999; Blocher, 1997; MENC, 2001). As there was
little mention in music education assessment literature of research on parents’, students’, and
teachers’ perceptions of assessment, I also searched the general education literature and found

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 36

 Figure 1. Montville Public Schools Professional Growth Plan
___________________________________________________________________________

Name: Thomas Jeffers Date: September 19, 2001

Goal (expression of purpose and direction): To research and formulate an assessment tool
for instrumental music.

Objective Plan of Action Data Collection

Statement of specific, What step-by-step learning What data, information, or
measurable, and observable activities, action, and timeline evidence will you collect to
behaviors which outlines what will you use to accomplish this show progress toward your
you expect to accomplish in objective? What can the objective? How will you
order to achieve your goal. evaluator do to assist or collect it (e.g., survey)?
support your attainment of this
objective?
I will create an assessment tool This is action research which There will be a review by the
that will be used to evaluate, will be a collaborative project two principal researchers and
measure, and report student with an elementary a questionnaire sent to selected
progress in instrumental music instrumental music teacher students and parents asking
two times each year (January (Tom Jeffers) and University of them to indicate the level of
and June). It will be the goals Michigan Assistant Professor helpfulness and understanding
of this assessment tool to: 1. of Music Education (Dr. this assessment tool/report
Measure and evaluate student Colleen Conway). It will brings to them.
progress toward the include research of existing
curriculum goals. 2. Give literature on assessment at this
teachers, parents, and students and other levels and
meaningful feedback. original/adaptive work in
designing the assessment tool.
It will also include a student
and parent questionnaire on
the effectiveness of this
assessment tool.

We have mutually agreed upon the above goal(s) and objective(s).

Thomas Jeffers September 21, 2001

Signature of Staff Member Date Signature of Evaluator

studies of parent perceptions of grading procedures (Culbertson & Jalongo, 1999; Munk &
Bursuck, 2001; Pollio, Humphreys, & Eison, 1991; Shepard & Bliem, 1995); student perceptions
of grading procedures (Bursuck, Munk, & Olson, 1999; Zeidner, 1987); and various perceptions
of assessment and grading (Carlton, 1993; Colangelo, 1981; Donegan & Trepanier-Street, 1998;

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 37

Viadero, 1994) and report card reform (Allison & Friedman, 1995a, 1995b; Pardini, 1997). Most
of these studies examined perceptions at the secondary level and none reported perceptions of
assessment in music courses. However, these studies did provide methodological models for
examining parent, student, and teacher perceptions as well as baseline information for the
creation of parent and student interview protocols. I sent copies of all research articles to Tom.
Tom and I discussed issues of data collection and design. Early in September 2001, we
decided on the following research questions for the study: (a) How did parents describe the
assessment tools used in beginning instrumental music? What was valuable about the
achievement report provided to parents? What would parents change about the assessment
process? (b) How did beginning instrumental students describe their interaction with assessment
procedures? What was helpful to these students? What would they change? (c) How did the
teacher-researcher describe the process of using these assessment tools over the two-year period?
What suggestions for change or improvement did he provide throughout the two years? and (d)
What were the collaborative researcher’s perceptions of the assessment procedures used?

Tom’s Development of Assessment Procedures and Tools

Tom. The development of assessment procedures and tools began without a model. Many of
the descriptions of assessment practices that Colleen sent and that I located in the literature did
not reflect the areas of beginning instrumental music education that I felt were important to
report to students and parents. My first step was to list the areas that I hoped would represent
significant information to parents and students about students’ musical achievement and
instrumental executive skill development. While struggling with the beginning aspects of putting
those ideas down on paper, I sought assistance from other music educators who I knew had
similar goals for instrumental music. During the process of piecing all these ideas together and
developing the assessment format, I would send my ideas to Colleen for comment. In this way
we could discuss the progress of our project by e-mail or over the telephone. Her feedback was
invaluable to the development of the assessment piece.
The primary assessment task asked students to provide a videotape of musical activities for
assessment including movement to macro and micro beats in duple and triple meter, repeating
back rhythm patterns with and without syllables performed by the teacher (Tom) on a CD given
to each student; repeating back tonic and dominanat tonal patterns in major tonality as performed
by the teacher on the CD; and performing several folk songs by ear. I scored tapes using rating
scales developed for the study in the following areas: executive skills (posture, hand position,
embouchure, etc.); musical expression (phrasing, dynamics, tone, articulation); sense of tonality;
and sense of rhythm. For the student assessment part of the project I developed the following:
instructions to parents about the assessment; instructions to students; all of the rating scales; a
report card to send to parents based on the data; an “optional” parent assessment activity; a study
self-assessment; and the CD of rhythm and tonal patterns.

The Process of Data Collection

Data for the study included Tom’s log of interactions with the assessment tools; a mid-study
reflective interview with Tom (January 2002); a student instrumental music attitude survey
(collected in spring 2002 and spring 2003); a parent evaluation of the assessment tool (collected
in spring 2002 and spring 2003); telephone interviews with parents (spring 2002 and spring

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 38

2003); and focus group interviews with students (spring 2003 only). Tom collected all data that
was done on-site. He developed the student and parent questionnaires, and I (Colleen)
commented on them before they were used. I conducted the phone interviews with parents. I
developed an interview protocol, and Tom commented on it before it was used. We chose
parents to interview based on the responses on the parent evaluation of the assessment
procedures questionnaire.
For the student interviews, I developed the interview protocol and gave it to Tom for
feedback. We asked another teacher in Tom’s building to hold the student interviews in the
spring of 2003. We felt that we might get more honest answers from students regarding their
perceptions if someone other than their teacher was conducting the interviews, and I (Colleen)
was unable to go to Connecticut at this time.
Tom developed a videotape of his teaching for a presentation we did in March 2003, and this
served as observational data for me as the collaborative researcher. For the first time, I had an
opportunity to see Tom with his students doing the things we had been studying. Tom made
another video recording of his teaching and sent it to me in late spring of 2003 so I had another
opportunity to view Tom and his students in context.

The Process of Analysis

In their “Guidelines for Action Research,” Conway and Borst (2001) suggest:

Throughout the research process, the teacher researcher must assess when enough
data has been gathered. The data collection phase of an action research project
melds together with the analysis phase so that thoughts regarding the meaning of
the data begin to emerge during the process, not just after it. The action researcher
must search for meaning by coding the collected data and developing categories
to describe and organize themes presented in observations, diary notes,
interviews, and other materials. In collaborative action research projects, teachers
and university researchers may analyze data together. Such interaction adds
another important dimension of reflection to the research process. (p. 4)

Colleen. The most exciting part of this project for both of us has been the conversations via e-
mail and the phone regarding what has been happening in Tom’s classroom. As part of the
analysis, I had the parent phone interview tapes transcribed. In addition, we both listened to the
student interview tape. I listened several times to Tom’s tape from the middle of the study and
viewed his videotapes. We both examined the student and parent questionnaire data as well. All
data were viewed with the research questions regarding student, parent, and teacher perceptions
in mind. In terms of the coding and categorizing itself, I think the biggest challenge has been in
trying to draw from this data what might be useful for other teachers. Since Tom has now retired,
I think we both feel that we want to find a way to use this information to assist other teachers
with their classroom assessment.
Tom. This research project has been one of, if not the most, beneficial activity I have pursued
in my 35 years as an instrumental music teacher. I have attempted to construct assessment tools
and procedures a few times prior to this research project. Each prior attempt met with partial
success at best and most times with outright failure. One of the most important reasons for the

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 39

successful completion of the present project was having a collaborator. Just having to prepare
my work for Colleen forced me to be disciplined and complete each step along the way. Having
a partner to critique my work made it much easier to see the progress. Sharing each step along
the way made me feel secure about the work I was doing and the direction the project was
taking. The results of this project are directly linked to the experience, expertise, and enthusiasm
Colleen brought to the project. Being able to share ideas, listen to suggestions, and talk about
problems and frustrations made this project exciting and manageable. Our correspondence by e-
mail (the majority), telephone (usually after a number of e-mails), and in person led to the
creation of useful documents to record and communicate to parents their children’s progress in
beginning instrumental music.

The Collaborative Process

Tom. We did not always agree. For example, I developed a “Parent Evaluation of the
Instrumental Music Progress Report” (figure 2). When I presented the idea of this survey being
part of the packet, Colleen was very unenthusiastic. She tried to discourage me from including it,
feeling that we would receive little or no response. However, I did include it and it turned out to
be very successful, with the returns leading to many data-filled telephone interviews conducted
by Colleen. This is just one example of the value of the collaboration between a teacher and a
researcher. As the teacher of the students in this setting, I had a better sense than Colleen of what
might provide valuable information for the study.
Colleen. The process of writing with a coauthor is always more interesting than trying to
write alone. In this particular case, the research represents a “teacher-generated” inquiry. Leglar
and Collay (2002) suggest:

Teacher-generated research is distinguished by the nature of the research

questions, the methods of inquiry, and the cogency of the findings. Teacher
researchers explore problems that are important to teachers. They recognize that
the classroom is not a laboratory where experiments can be conducted under
controlled conditions. They often work in collaborative teams, discussing
methodology along with the topic of study. In fact, the changing conditions of the
teaching/learning setting require innovation and boundary-blurring methodologies
for anyone who chooses to study learning, whether teachers or outsiders. (p.
859–860)

I have found our discussions regarding the problems that are important to teachers to be
helpful in my own work with teacher education students. It is easy to lose focus of the daily lives
of teachers, and collaborative action research helps a researcher to keep that focus.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 40

Figure 2. Parent Evaluation of the Instrumental Music Progress Report
___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Parents: Please take a few minutes to fill this evaluation out and return it with the Progress
Report envelope. Your input is greatly appreciated and will be very helpful. Please include comments
where they are applicable. If necessary, please go to the back side for comments. Thank you. Mr.
Jeffers.

5 = Strongly Agree 4 = Agree 3 = Unsure 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree

A. I find the Progress Report easy to understand.

Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

B. The terms used in the assessment code are easy to understand.

Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

C. This Progress Report gives me more information than a single letter grade would.
Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

D. This Progress Report adequately covers many of the important issues in the study of beginning
instrumental music.
Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

E. This Progress Report gives me “musical” information about my child’s approach to making music.
Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

F. I feel this Progress Report gives my child important feedback about playing his/her instrument.
Please circle one: 5 4 3 2 1
Comments:

Print Student’s Name ________________________________________________________________

School: (circle one) Mohegan Dr. C. E. Murphy Oakdale

Print Parent’s Name _________________________________________________________________

Would you consider answering some questions in an interview for a research project (most likely
spring 2003) concerning this and future Progress Reports? YES NO

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 41

Implications for Teacher Professional Development
Hookey (2002) suggests:

Research carried out by teachers or other practictioners represents a significant

opportunity for professional development. This could include various individual
strategies and approaches such as action research or self-study, self-evaluation or
writing, working in mentoring or coaching pairs and diverse group strategies. (p.
890)

Tom. This research project presented a significant opportunity for my professional

development. All of the previous professional development that I had experienced in my
teaching career was dictated by administrators. They would choose what we would be studying
or learning about. They would set up when we would do it, where we would do it, how long it
would be for, and what the proposed outcome(s) would or should be. When I contrast traditional
professional development with the possibilities offered by collaborative action research, I find a
wide range of opportunities for investigating areas that are interesting or problematic to teachers.
The teacher can have the opportunity to learn about or improve some aspect of teaching that
pertains directly to his or her teaching and classroom environment. If research is something a
teacher is not familiar or comfortable with (and most classroom teachers are not), then
collaboration with a university professor is a way to initiate professional development that will
be applicable to his or her teaching and classroom situation. Results from the classroom inquiry
may also prove to be applicable and beneficial to other teachers in similar or possibly very
different teaching situations.

Implications for Teacher Preparation

In discussing the development of reflective music education practitioners at the undergraduate
level, Rideout and Feldman (2002) suggest:

Action research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) can be thought of as an extension

of the reflective practitioner movement. It, too, has become a common part of
teacher education programs. For the purposes of this discussion, we define action
research as systematic inquiry by practitioners to improve teaching and learning .
. . Clearly, action research has had little impact on research in music education
and music student teaching even though its potential contributions were
expounded 30 years ago (Colwell, 1972) and were reiterated in 1995 (Erikson,
1995; Ross, 1995). (p. 881)

I have suggested elsewhere (Conway, 2000) that “As we prepare for continued work with
undergraduate methods students and student teachers, we must help these students discover the
potential for research in their world and develop them into music education teacher-researchers”
(p. 29). As I now reflect on my work with Tom Jeffers in this collaborative action research
project, I am again reminded that if we want music teachers to care about research and to be
curious about their own teaching practice, then we must educate them in preservice and in-
service programs to realize that research in the classroom is possible and gratifying.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 42

Implications for Music Education Research
In their recent examination of research in music teacher education, Leglar and Collay (2002)
discuss the implications of action research:

Regelski (1994) contended that the positivist research paradigm “has had little
success in professionalizing educationists,” partly because researchers, working in
isolation are pursuing their own narrow agendas and because research based on
these agendas has not produced much useful information. Researchers’ distance
from the school context—their status as “outsiders”—has prevented them from
identifying and exploring issues that are important to practitioners. Regelski,
writing from the viewpoint of critical theory, argued that “the major reason for the
irrelevance of this research for teachers is its ‘elsewhereness’” (p. 65). “Most
research done in music education,” he went on to say, “fails to have any impact
simply because the problems selected are not seen as problems by those who
presumably would benefit from their solution” (p. 79). . . .
University researchers now have a near-monopoly on research activities, and
the questions they ask are not the same as those that interest P–12 practitioners. If
the theory-practice chasm is to be bridged, practitioners’ questions need to be
fully addressed within a culture of inquiry that permeates the profession. (p. 867,
869)

We have found our experiences in what Regelski calls a “culture of inquiry” to be

professionally valuable for both the higher education collaborator and the K–12 practitioner. We
encourage others to explore the action research/teacher researcher model and to submit results
from such collaborations to local and national conferences and journals for dissemination. This is
the key to the theory and practice connection.

References
Allison, E., & Friedman, S. J. (1995a). Reforming report cards. The Executive Educator, 17(1),
38–39.
Allison, E., & Friedman, S. J. (1995b). Hassle-free report-card reform. The Education Digest,
60(8), 55.
Asmus, E. P. (1999). Music assessment concepts. Music Educators Journal, 86(2), 19–24.
Blocher, L. (1997). The assessment of student learning in band. In R. Miles (Ed.), Teaching
music through performance in band (pp. 27–30). Chicago: GIA.
Bresler, L. (1995). Ethnography, phenomenology, and action research in music education.
Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 4–16.
Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D. D., & Olson, M. M. (1999). The fariness of report card grading
adaptations: What do students with and without learning disabilities think? Remedial and
Special Education, 20(2), 84–92.
Carlton, J. P. (1993). A case study analysis of parents’, teachers’, and students’ perceptions of
the meaning of grades: Identification of discrepancies, their consequences, and obstacles
to their resolution. Dissertation Abtracts International, 53, 10A:3503. (UMI No.
9306051)

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 43

Clandinin, D. J., & Connolly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Colangelo, C. (1981). A factor analytical study of the attitudes of principals, teachers, and
parents towards grading and reporting practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,
3A:923. (UMI No. 8119605)
Colwell, R. (1972). A critique of research studies in music education. Final report. U. S. Office
of Education Research Project 5-9-230306.
Conway, C. M. (2000). The preparation of teacher-researchers in preservice music education.
Journal of Music Teacher Education, 9(2), 22–30.
Conway, C. M., & Borst, J. (2001). Action research in music education. Update: Applications of
Research in Music Education, 19(2), 3–8.
Culbertson, L. D., & Jalongo, M. R. (1999). But what’s wrong with letter grades? Responding to
parents’ questions about alternative assessment. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 75(3), 130–135.
Donegan, M. M., & Trepanier-Street, M. L. (1998). Teacher and parent views on standardized
testing: A cross-cultural comparison of the uses and influencing factors. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 13(1), 85–93.
Elliott, D. J. (2002). Philosophical perspectives on research. In R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson
(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 85–102). New
York: Oxford.
Erikson, F. (1995). Where the action is: Collaborative action research in education. Bulletin of
the Council for Research in Music Education, 123, 10–25.
Henson, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 53–64). New York: Macmillan.
Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Learning to teach through collaborative conversations: A feminist
approach. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 373–404.
Hookey, M. R. (2002). Professional development. In R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson (Eds.),
The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 887–902). New
York: Oxford.
Leglar, M., & Collay, M. (2002). Research by teachers on teacher education. In R. Colwell and
C. P. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning
(pp. 855–873). New York: Oxford.
MENC. (2001). Spotlight on assessment. Reston, VA: Author.
Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2001). What report card grades should and do communicate:
Perceptions of parents of secondary students with and without disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 22(5), 280–287.
Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teachers College Press.
Pardini, P. (1997). Report card reform. The School Administrator, 11(54), 19–25.
Pollio, H. R., Humphreys, W. L., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Patterns of parental reaction to student
grades. Journal of Higher Education, 22, 31–42.
Regelski, T. A. (1994). Action research and critical theory: Empowering music teachers to
professionalize praxis. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 123,
63–89.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 44

Rideout, R., & Feldman, A. (2002). Research in music student teaching. In R. Colwell and C. P.
Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp.
874–886). New York: Oxford.
Ross, J. (1995). Research in music education: From a national perspective. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 123, 123–135.
Schmuck, R. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight.
Shepard, L. A., & Bliem, C. L. (1995). Parents’ thinking about standardized tests and
performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 25–31.
Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development.
In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (2nd ed.) (pp. 666–703). New York: Macmillan.
Viadero, D. (1994, August 3). Administrators out of tune with parents on school report cards.
Education Week.
Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The student’s
perspective. The Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 352–358.

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 45

 UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education
Guidelines for Contributors
UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education brings research in music teaching and
learning close to everyday practice, enabling teachers to apply the results of research readily in music
classrooms and rehearsal halls. Authors submitting manuscripts should refer to the following
guidelines:
1. Manuscripts must be research-based.
2. Manuscripts may present a single research study or a review of the literature.
3. Manuscripts must be comprehensible to music teachers untrained in research methodology and
statistics. Thus, writing should be as free of research jargon and statistical terminology as possible. A
quantitative manuscript that eliminates specialized jargon associated with statistics must be
accompanied by a not-to-be-published addendum that provides complete statistical information.
Reviewers must have access to all relevant data and analyses in order to assess appropriateness,
accuracy, and interpretation.
4. Manuscripts must emphasize the interpretation of research and the application of research results
in the music classroom or rehearsal hall. Bringing the usefulness of research into the foreground for
the reader must be a high priority of the author. This applies also to reviews of literature, in which
authors should make every attempt to synthesize research results and avoid presenting simple study-
by-study reports.
5. Quantitative manuscripts must conform to the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed., 2001). Nonquantitative and historical studies may conform to
APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed., 2003), or A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
Theses, and Dissertations (K. L. Turabian, 6th ed., 1996). Authors may not mix styles within a
manuscript.
6. Authors should submit four copies of typed, double-spaced manuscripts, which normally should
not exceed 20 pages. Type size should be no smaller than 12 points (double-spacing should include 28
points total for a line of text and the following line). Figures and drawings should be camera-ready.
7. To preserve the author’s anonymity in the review process, the manuscript should include no
clues as to his or her identity or institutional affiliation. The author’s name, address (including e-mail,
if available), and institutional affiliation should appear only on a separate cover sheet. Manuscripts not
conforming to this stipulation will be returned.
8. Manuscripts should be addressed to:
Ruth V. Brittin, Editor
Update
University of the Pacific
104 Buck Hall
3601 Pacific Ave.
Stockton, California 95211-0110

UPDATE, Spring-Summer 2004, 46