1 / 21

Linda Neelly , Mary E. Yakimowski , and Sarah D. Newton

Office of Assessment. Rethinking Music Teacher Education for the Greater Good of All Learners: Perspectives of Music Teachers. Linda Neelly , Mary E. Yakimowski , and Sarah D. Newton Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association

jaclyn
Télécharger la présentation

Linda Neelly , Mary E. Yakimowski , and Sarah D. Newton

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Office of Assessment Rethinking Music Teacher Education for theGreater Good of All Learners:Perspectives of Music Teachers Linda Neelly, Mary E. Yakimowski, and Sarah D. Newton Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association Rocky Hill, Connecticut October 2011

  2. Overview Purpose Review of Literature Methodology Results Implications of Results Future Avenues

  3. Purpose of this Study Gain perspectives on music teacher pre-service education for 21st century music learning and teaching.

  4. Research Questions • What are the perspectives of music teachers about pre-service ed for the next 10 years? Follow-up Questions: • Are there differences in the perspectives of primarily-vocal versus primarily-instrumental teachers on selected areas to focus? • What are the most significant opportunities for the professional development of music educators for the next 10 years? • What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years?

  5. Literature Review • Jones (2010): Teacher Education needs to consider that the musical skills and talents of future students may not be evident in the same frameworks of 21st Century thinking • Mantie (2008): Possibilities exist to interact technologically with inner city students in order to facilitate their constructions as enhancements of their musical identities • Ahlestedt’s (2002): Surveyed 237 elementary school music teachers: 85% suggested more field experiences 86% recommended increased pedagogical studies 27% urged more music-specific coursework 16% advocated for learning with a practicing teacher

  6. Methodology - Sampling 102 respondents CT, RI, MA, NY, VT, and NH National Association of Music Merchants, National Association for Music Education graduate students University #1 graduates of the University #2

  7. Instrumentation • Background Information • Professional Characteristics • Professional Experience • Educational Viewpoints Analyses • Descriptive Statistics • Analysis of Variance • Post-hoc Testing (as necessary)

  8. Participant Characteristics • 56.44% female • 89.22% White • 55% teach in elementary, 48% in middle, 42% in high schools • 69.69% work in suburban, 29.29% in rural, • 23.23% in urban communities Primary Teaching Area

  9. Descriptive Results

  10. ANOVA Results Did the importance of teacher preparation components vary as a function of respondents’ primary musical teaching areas (vocal, instrumental, or both)? • Standardized assessment skills [F (2, 75) = 3.32, p < 0.05]. • Post-hoc analysis: Vocal (M = 3.54) > Instrumental (M = 2.76)

  11. Music educator standards statements (Highest): a. Ability to teach music at various levels to different age groups and in a variety of classroom and ensemble settings (M = 4.64) f. Ability to accept, amend, or reject methods and materials based on personal assessment of specific teaching situations (M = 4.58) 4.64 4.26

  12. Descriptive Results • Music educator standards statements (Lowest): c. Ability to assess aptitudes, experiential backgrounds, orientations of individuals and groups of students, and the nature of subject matter, and to plan educational programs to meet assessed needs (M = 4.26) 4.64 4.26

  13. Qualitative Results What offerings of your teacher preparation program were the most valuable in your preparation for the next 10 years? Field experiences Research Diversity Faculty experience “The best experiences were those that involved going into schools and working with actual students…Music education majors need to be in the classroom early and often.”

  14. Qualitative Results What are the most significant opportunities for the professional development of music educators for the next 10 years? Incorporation of technology Additional learning opportunities Modernization of programs Assessment “Nobody knows more about teaching music than current music teachers.”

  15. Despite general satisfaction with their respective music teacher education programs, those surveyed in this study indicate that present preparation of future music educators may not be adequate, in light of the changing needs of students and evolution of the field of music education. Respondents’ ratings of their teacher preparation programs Perceptions of this field’s ability to train future educators

  16. Implications of Results What does all of this mean for music education?

  17. Future Avenues • Where do we go from here? • Areas for future research

  18. Summary Purpose Review of Literature Methodology Results Implications of Results Future Avenues

More Related