This experimental study closely compares multiple aspects of applied instrumental music lessons in face-to-face and online lesson settings. Three middle school students (one saxophonist, two tubists) had lessons with a saxophone and tuba instructor respectively. Each student had a mix of face-to-face and online video lessons which were videotaped and coded for a variety of factors. When on-line lessons were compared to face to face lessons, there was a 28% increase in student playing, a 36% decrease in off-task comments by the instructor, a 28% decrease in teacher playing (modeling), and an increase in student eye contact. In the online lessons, less than 3% of the time was spent on technology issues, although audio and video quality concerns were mentioned.

I am personally interested in this study because I had conducted a similar qualitative study, which was published in 2009 in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. The findings in both studies seem to be similar: that online applied lessons are functional and perhaps more efficient in some aspects, yet compression issues, particularly audio quality, remain a central concern. My personal conclusion is that this format is not yet ready to be a replacement for face-to-face lessons. Instead, I find this approach most exciting where it can be used to overcome issues of distance and create musical interactions where none were possible before.

The first survey is basically complete (although a few more envelopes may trickle in).  After contacting the  school principals online three times and a fourth time via snail mail, 518 out of 1832 have responded – or 28.4%.  I had hoped for a higher response rate, but given the size of the sample, I have enough to examine the data with confidence.  The second survey should be complete in a few weeks, and then I can really dig into the data.  It will be fun to see how this set of data compares to the findings from the survey I completed in New Jersey two years ago, in which 28% of New Jersey high schools had tech-based music classes.  Any guesses what that percentage will be nationally?

The findings won’t be released until I present the study at ATMI in Minneapolis in September, but I’ll hint that the attitudes toward technology-based music classes are interesting.

Linda Hartley and Ann Porter examined how the starting grade level (fourth, fifth, or sixth) in string programs in Ohio affected recruitment, retention, and performance. Recruitment and retention were addressed through a survey of string teachers in Ohio.  Thirty-one percent (172 teachers) responded to questions about starting grade and enrollment. The responses indicated that starting grade level made no difference in recruitment, and that retention improved for programs with a later start.

In order to examine the effect upon performance, the authors visited and recorded 22 middle school orchestras (at a median seventh grade level) toward the end of the school year.  The recordings were then evaluated by three judges utilizing a festival-style rating system. The starting grade level did not have a statistically significant impact upon the judges ratings. In other words, orchestras that began in instruction in sixth grade performed as well as those that began in fourth or fifth grade.

This study raises interesting questions, particularly for music teachers in my part of the world (New Jersey) where instrumental instruction typically follows an early grade, pull-out lesson approach with less frequent class meetings.  While the impact of frequency is not addressed directly in this study, one wonders if students would be better served by waiting to begin instruction when more frequent (optimally daily) instruction is possible.  Another aspect that needs to be explored is the trade-off between less-frequent small group instruction vs.  daily large group instruction.

Anecdotally, my sense is that we are not getting our ‘bang for our buck’ from the pull-out lesson approach.  This study is helpful in illustrating that alternative approaches to beginning instruction may be equivalent at worst, and an improvement at best.

Adding to an extensive body of research on musical preference, Ginocchio examines the effect of length and kind of music study on student preferences.  One hundred-seventy six collegiate music appreciation students were surveyed on their history of studying music, and were asked to rate their level of preference for 20 short musical excerpts representing 12 different styles of music, covering popular and non-popular styles Generally speaking, more years of music study correlated with higher levels of appreciation of non-popular (jazz and classical) styles.

Interestingly, there were differences in preference levels between types of musical study (band, choir or piano).  Generally speaking, band students displayed increased levels of preference for non-popular music (including vocal classical music) while choir and piano students did not. Since the students who studied music are, to some extent, a self-selecting population, this study can not prove these courses as the cause of increasing student appreciation of jazz and classical music – it can only  demonstrate a correlation. (In other words, it is possible that the students who choose and stay in band are pre-disposed to like non-popular styles of music, resulting in the higher correlation).  Still, it is interesting to consider the broader outcomes of our performance classes, including the effect of band and choir upon later music listening habits.

Hopefully, all music instruction deepens students’ musical experiences and broadens their access to multiple musical styles.  It is my hope that technology-based music classes may be particularly effective in meeting this objective. As these classes become increasingly common, their effect upon students’ musical style preferences should be examined, as well as further studies on the effect of performance-based classes.

This finding raises interesting questions for technology-based music classes designed to reach non-traditional music students in the United States. First, is ‘the other 80%’ (students not in band, choir, or orchestra) evenly split split by gender? Even if it is evenly balanced, is it possible that high level of male enrollment in the typical music technology class could be a benefit in reaching ‘the other 80%’? I’ve always considered the gender gap in music technology as a concern, and I still do. However, it is interesting to consider the issue as a strength for technology-based music classes.

Kevin Gerrity, in his survey of principals of Ohio public schools (n=179), found that these principals had a generally favorable attitude toward music education. However, they ranked music as less important than the subjects measured in No Child Left Behind (math, reading, social studies, science, and writing).  Combining factors including staffing, course offerings, and instructional time, Gerrity found that 43% of Ohio schools had weakened since the enactment of NCLB, while 40% held steady, and 17% had strengthened. The reduction of instructional time, primarily through the inclusion of non-music academic instruction within music classes, seemed to be the primary weakening factor.

While this study cannot attribute causality, it does present some interesting correlations that strengthen anecdotal evidence that NCLB has not been music friendly. Looking forward to upcoming discussions of merit pay for teachers, the music education community needs to be proactive in suggesting how effective music instruction be measured.  Being left out of the measurements again could further marginalize music within the school curriculum.

Linda Thornton and Martin Bergee conducted an interesting survey exploring why students choose to major in music education. Their sample included 242 undergraduate students from music schools at 12 large research universities in the United States.

Participants were asked to indicate the  influences that led them to choose music education.  The results for the top influences were: influence of ‘important others’ 24%; love of music 20%; love of teaching 11%; and  participation in a musical organization 10%. These results mirrors what I see in my interviews of prospective music education students at Rowan University. While music is a central component in their decisions, the social factors play a critical role as well.

Another interesting aspect of the study explored the students’ post-college plans. The respondents’ plans included:  70%  teaching, 13% graduate school, 5% leave music, and 4% music (non-teaching). When asked how to best recruit future music teachers, the respondents’ top two suggestions were: providing opportunities to teach (18%), and demonstrations of job satisfaction (15%).

Recruiting future music teachers has been a topic of concern across the country. It is certainly an ongoing priority of NJMEA here in New Jersey.  This study points to the important role that music teachers play as our best resource for recruiting future music teachers.  As ‘important others’ and professional role models who have daily contact with potential music majors, they have a great deal of influence. Ethically, teachers need to provide counsel that is in their students’ best interest, of course. However, by accurately reflecting their job satisfaction to their students and by working to provide opportunities for peer and cadet teaching, teachers can share their excitement for music teaching and help their students make a more informed career choice.

In this study, Carl Hancock examines data on teacher retention between 1988 and 2001 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). He found that  during this time period, 84% of music teachers remained  in their positions after any particular year.  Of those who left their positions, 10% moved to another school, while 6% left the profession. These results were similar to the results for the teaching profession in general.

This information is of particular interest to pre-service teachers about to enter the field (and those of us who are anxious for them to be hired!)  Based on my limited experience with the music teacher market in New Jersey, I strongly suspect that the retention rate was abnormally high this year, as mid-career teachers opted not to move (especially if it involved a home sale) and late-career teachers delayed retirement in order to boost their retirement savings. Since these moves are presumably only deferred, it stands to reason that this trend will reverse itself and we may see a year or two with retention below 84% and a very active job market.  Whether the trend reverses itself in time for next year’s hiring season remains to be seen.

This study collected two sets of data on gender and instruments, and compared it with the data from two previous studies over the past 30 years. The first set of data was on which instruments college students (n=180) viewed as being male or female. The classifications are not surprising (female-flute, violin, clarinet ; male-drums, trombone, trumpet ) The range of scores (indicating the strengths of the gender-instrument association) was lower than 30 years ago, but similar to data from 15 years ago. The second set of data was collected on what instruments middle school students are playing (n=2001). Again, the results demonstrate distinct differences in instrument choice by gender, and that little has changed in these choices over the past 30 years.

For music teachers, it is important to create an environment in which students feel free to choose the instrument they are interested in playing, regardless of gender roles. Freedom of individual choice is the central issue. The lack of change indicated by this study may indicate that this freedom is not being fully realized.

This is only one aspect of gender in music education. I’m also interested in the role of gender in whether students choose to participate in performance ensembles in middle and high school. Of course, in the relatively new area of technology-based music classes, we are aware of serious gender gap (with males being much more likely to participate). Strategies need to be developed to close that gap before stereotypes become as entrenched and intractable as they appear to be with regard to  instrument choice.

Ables’ literature review and discussion are  thorough. For anyone who wants to explore this issue further, his article is a great starting place. It is nice to see an area of research in music education that is being broadly explored and where data can be addressed longitudinally.

In this study, Victor Fung emailed a two question survey to full professors of music education at Tier I universities in the United States (n=78).  A surprisingly low 31% responded.  This does not lessen the value of the article, given that the value of the sample comes from the distinguished background of the respondents. It is an still interesting point.  How can it be that a majority of leaders of research in music education in the United States can’t or won’t participate in a short survey in their field?

One of the issues raised in the article is the disconnect between research and practice. This is certainly not a new concern, but an important point. It occurs to me that reading research is not unlike becoming a listener in a particular genre of music. Connecting to jazz for example, if a listener who is new to jazz starts out listening to John Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme”, they are likely to turn it off, wondering why this is great, much as many readers who start out reading studies with complex statistical procedures may scratch their heads and close the journal.   The real value of research its influence on practice. Toward that end, as many channels as possible need to be opened so that research does influence practice. If a study remains in a journal on shelf, it is limited. When a study becomes the topic of discussion, debate (or a blog) for teachers, it has influence.

Victor Fung creates a helpful model for identifying research questions and points out the need for researchers to learn from other researchers in other parts of the world.