Jmte article, final

Journal of Music Teacher Education OnlineFirst, published on February 24, 2010 as doi:10.1177/1057083710362462

Who Isn’t a Special Learner? A Survey of How Music Teacher Education Programs Prepare Future Educators to Work With Exceptional Populations

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X) 1­–12 © MENC: The National Association for Music Education 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1057083710362462 http://jmte.sagepub.com

Karen Salvador1

Abstract As music educators are faced with an increasing number of students with various exceptionalities, their ability to differentiate instruction for those with special needs becomes paramount. The purpose of this survey was to investigate how music teacher preparation programs addressed the topic of differentiation for exceptional populations at the undergraduate level. Specifically, the survey asked if NASMaccredited universities that granted doctoral or master’s degrees in music education (a) required a course, (b) offered a course, or (c) in some other significant way systematically addressed the topic of teaching music to special populations. A link to a brief online survey was e-mailed to representatives of 212 institutions. Of 109 respondents, 29.6% required a course in teaching music to special populations, 38.9% indicated that this type of course was available, and 59.8% reported purposefully integrating the teaching of exceptional populations throughout their coursework. Respondent comments led to further literature review and discussion of the lack of consistent instruction with regard to this topic in undergraduate music education programs.

Keywords music teacher preparation, special learners, undergraduate music education curriculum Public school systems in the United States serve more students with identified exceptionalities every year. Multiple factors have contributed to this increase, including changes in special education law, such as the 1975 introduction of Public Law 94-142 1

Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Corresponding Author: Karen Salvador, 221 Music Practice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 Email: huberkar@msu.edu

2

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

(the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) and the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1990, as well as improvements in the identification and diagnosis of those who require services (Adamek & Darrow, 2005). Special education law guarantees that all students have access to a free and appropriate individualized public education in the least restrictive possible environment, including instruction in all subject areas and access to activities. To adapt Atterbury (1990), in order to be a competent music educator and do the heroic job often demanded, teachers must be prepared to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of an increasing variety of people, including students who speak English as a second language, are gifted and talented, or have physical, cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral difficulties.

Review of Literature A review of the professional literature indicated that in-service music teachers were concerned about how to integrate exceptional learners into their classrooms. For example, the Music Educators Journal had special issues devoted entirely to this topic in 1982, 1990, and 2001 (“Music for Every Child,” 1982; “Special Focus: Inclusion,” 2001; “Special Focus: Mainstreaming,” 1990). Practitioner articles frequently examined some aspect of teaching music to special education populations, ranging from specific advice such as strategies for teaching students who are blind (Smaligo, 1998) to broader issues such as inclusion in the choral classroom (e.g., VanWeelden, 2001) and how music therapists and music educators can work together (e.g., Montgomery & Martinson, 2006). These articles had titles such as “Inclusion Strategies That Work” (Hammel, 2004), tended to feature concrete ideas about how to integrate students with special needs, and seemed to focus on elementary more often than on secondary settings.

Most research articles on music education and special populations have been descriptive in nature. In their study concerning mainstreaming practices in Iowa and Kansas public schools, Gfeller, Darrow, and Hedden (1990) found that, although music teachers were expected to instruct students with special needs, most had little or no preparation for integrating these students into their classrooms. The 262 respondents reported the most difficulty in teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders. In a study of Arizona music teachers, Frisque, Niebur, and Humphreys (1994) found that 84% of 107 respondents taught students with special needs. Of teachers who taught special education populations, 40% reported that they did not have any preparation in special education, “while the training of another 20% was limited to in-service[s] and other types of workshops” (p. 98). The investigators concluded that teachers seemed to have developed their own criteria for what constituted success for exceptional students in music class, typically based on participation or behavior management, not on progress with music skills or content.

The aforementioned descriptive research along with the relative abundance of practitioner literature offering advice on how to teach music to exceptional populations begs the question of what music teacher preparation programs offer in this area.

Salvador

3

Heller (1994) sent a 52–item survey to 103 music methods course instructors. Only 26.9% of respondents reported any training in special education, and of those, 64.4% classified their preparation as less than adequate. The majority of the programs (70%) in which these methods teachers taught relied on coursework from outside the music education area to address strategies for teaching learners with special needs.

In 2000, Colwell and Thompson investigated 171 university catalogues concerning undergraduate coursework in teaching music to special learners. These institutions were randomly chosen from each state based on the 1992 National Association of Schools of Music Directory, to include one research level I university, one state-funded regional, and one private school where possible. The researchers then added any school with a music therapy program that was not already represented. Seventy-four percent of these schools offered a special education course to their undergraduate music education students, and 86% of these programs required at least one course in special education. Of the 140 special education courses available, only 30 were music content specific. Programs required 89% of the courses that were not specific to music, whereas only 43% of the music specific courses were required. Colwell and Thompson attributed the lack of music content-specific special education coursework to five possible factors: certification demands in an already credit-heavy degree, difficulties in adding new courses to a curriculum, lack of personnel with the expertise and time to teach the course, university requirements (i.e., number of credits to degree), and NASM requirements (50% music content, 30–35% general studies, and 15–20% professional education). The Colwell and Thompson study was published in 2000. Based on the time-consuming nature of investigating 171 course catalogues and writing a paper and the lag between submission and publishing, it is safe to assume that their data are now at least 10 years old. The present study used a brief online survey to find answers to similar questions.

Purpose and Problems The purpose of this study was to investigate how institutions address the topic of differentiation of instruction for exceptional populations in their undergraduate music teacher preparation programs. Specifically, the survey asked if schools that grant doctoral or master’s degrees in music education, and who were accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) to certify music teachers, (a) required a course, (b) offered a course, or (c) in some other significant way systematically addressed the topic of teaching music to special populations.

Method Respondents Respondents for this study were representatives of tertiary music schools. Institutions were selected based on the criteria that they were accredited by NASM to grant

4

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

doctoral degrees in music education (PhD, DMA, DM, or EdD; N = 52) or master’s degrees in music education (MM, MME, MA, or MS; N = 160). I sent the survey invitation to the e-mail address of the contact person listed in the 2007 NASM Directory for each selected institution. In case the contact person thought that another individual was better suited to answer the survey, the e-mail included a suggestion that the invitation could be forwarded to a different person.

Design The invitation e-mail contained a link to an anonymous survey, which was hosted on SurveyMonkey.com. I sent invitation letters to doctoral degree-granting institutions on March 11, and I sent a reminder on March 24 to those who had not yet responded. Letters to master’s degree-granting institutions were sent March 13, with a reminder on March 25. I did not accept responses after April 3. Because I used the 2007 NASM Directory, a few recipients responded to inform me that they had retired and asked me to send the survey to their replacement or indicated that they had already forwarded it to their replacement. In such cases, I e-mailed the link as suggested. Six e-mails were returned as undeliverable (two doctoral, four master’s), and I could not resend. Also, one person on the list had previously opted out of a SurveyMonkey survey and was automatically excluded by the server. SurveyMonkey takes this precaution to avoid being viewed as a nuisance or as spam by recipients. Returned e-mails and opt-outs resulted in surveys being sent to 205 recipients (49 doctoral institutions and 156 master’s institutions).

The survey consisted of five questions. The first three questions were yes/no: 1. Does your institution require undergraduate music education majors to take a course in teaching music to special education populations?

2. Does your institution offer a course in teaching music to special learners that music education undergraduate students could take?

3. Is teaching music to special learners integrated in a consistent, planned curriculum throughout your institution’s music education coursework?

The final two questions were open-ended: 1. If you wish, please comment on or clarify your answers to any of the above questions.

2. If your institution offers a course(s) in teaching music to special learners, would you please cut and paste the relevant course descriptions into this text box?

The first three questions yielded simple percentage answers (yes/no). Data from question 4 were coded for themes, using the constant comparison method of qualitative data analysis (Creswell, 1998). Sample course descriptions from question 5 were used to reveal different approaches to preparing educators for teaching students with special needs.

Salvador

5

Limitations The design of this study included several limitations. Although respondents were listed as the contact person for their institution in the NASM Directory, they were not necessarily the optimal person to respond to this survey. That is, another person from the same institution may have answered the survey differently, depending on their familiarity with or their role within the music education program as well as a variety of other factors. In addition, this survey was sent to only master’s and doctoral degreegranting institutions. Based on the programs with which I was familiar and in the absence of studies indicating otherwise, these institutions seemed more likely to offer relevant coursework due to their greater resources in terms of faculty and the variety of courses they were able to offer. If I were to replicate this study, I would include a sizeable random sample of undergraduate institutions.

Results Of the 205 invitations, 109 institutions responded to the survey. This constituted a 53.2% total return rate, with 51% of doctoral institutions (N = 25) and 53.8% of master’s institutions (N = 84) responding. These rates of return were lower than anticipated.

The survey was brief, the subject line on the e-mail was “Five-Item Music Teacher Preparation Survey,” and I sent reminder e-mails in an attempt to encourage the maximum possible return. In addition, I invited recipients to forward the link to another person in their department if they wished. Using the NASM Directory meant that the contact person was likely to be a dean, director, chair, or other person who may have chosen not to respond for any number of reasons. With that in mind, a 53.2% overall return seemed acceptable. Table 1 shows results for the first three questions.

Sixty respondents chose to answer question 4, which invited respondents to comment on or clarify answers to the first three questions. After coding the data using the constant comparison method of qualitative data analysis (Creswell, 1998), main themes found in these answers included the following: (a) Required coursework in special education is taught by the department/school/college of education, (b) this topic is difficult to integrate into the already credit-heavy load of music education students, (c) our faculty lack the expertise to teach a course in this topic or to integrate this topic across our curriculum, and (d) our faculty believe that this topic should be intentionally integrated throughout music education coursework. Trustworthiness of this data analysis was substantiated through peer review of my coding.

I selected as exemplars responses that eloquently stated each of these emergent themes. The following comment illustrated the first two themes: Though the reality of teaching students with special needs is ever present in pre-K–12 music education, our institution has yet to address this issue in the curriculum. It is a source of contention among faculty, some who wish to incorporate more learning experiences for undergraduate music ed majors and some

6

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

Table 1. Responses to Questions 1, 2, and 3

Doctoral (N = 25) N Yes

Require a course? 9 Offer a course?

14 Integrated in curriculum?

15

Master’s (N = 84)

Combined (N = 109)

% Yes

N Yes

% Yes

N Yes

% Yes

36 56 62.5

23 28 49

27.4 33.3 59

32 42 64

29.6 38.9 59.8

who are less inclined because of the increased curriculum/credit load students would then have to bear. At this time, like many institutions, the bulk of training for teaching students with special needs for music ed majors comes from the Special Education classes our students take in the College of Education.

The third theme, lack of appropriate faculty to teach this topic, was illustrated in this comment: “I think we try to address these issues in all of our methods classes, but due to a variety of factors (lack of faculty expertise, for example) I don’t think we do as well as we could at this—it is a shortcoming in our program, and one we need to address.” The fourth theme, institutional preference for integrating differentiation across the music education content area, was articulated in this comment: Our curriculum is infused with topics like these—we have thoughtfully chosen to teach this topic as a central component to all of our methods and MUED courses, not as a separate course. We are able to do this because we have several MUED faculty members with expertise in this area, and we strongly believe that this, and other topics, should be taught in a holistic and embedded approach— not as a separate and stand alone course. This approach is far more beneficial than a separate cross-campus or MUED course.

Thirty institutions chose to include relevant course description(s) in their responses (question 5). Two representative sample descriptions are included below: (1) a typical music education content-specific course and (2) a typical general special education course. Any identifying information, such as course instructor or course number, has been removed: 1. Music and Special Education (3 credits): Prereq: MUED 3**; parallel MUED 4** or 4**. Function and contribution of music in the education of students with special needs. Methodology, materials, and practicum for the development of effective musical experiences for Pre–K to 12th graders with various exceptionalities, including giftedness. Federal and state legislation, Individual Education Programs (IEPs), assessments, adaptations of curriculum materials, current methodologies, and research.

Salvador

7

2. SPED*** (3 credits): Curricula and methods for educating students with diverse abilities in elementary classrooms. Characteristics of students with disabilities and students who are English language learners. Emphasizes inclusive lesson design, curricular adaptations, and collaborative teaching.

Please note the apparent focus on the elementary grades in the second example. Emphasis on inclusion in elementary grades seemed to be a feature of many content-specific and general course descriptions included in the survey responses.

Discussion Of 109 respondents to this survey, only 29.6% of the institutions required a course in teaching music to special populations. This number may be an overestimation, because two respondents stated in the comments section that the course they were talking about was not music specific (therefore, was not a course in teaching music to special populations). A course was available at 38.9% of responding schools, and 59.8% of institutions reported that they integrated the teaching of exceptional populations throughout their coursework. Doctoral degree-granting institutions were more likely than master’s-granting institutions to require such a class and much more likely to offer one. However, rates of integration of this topic across music education coursework were similar. These results indicated a wide variation in the ways that music teacher preparation programs approached preparing future educators to work with exceptional populations. In combination with comments provided by respondents, the survey data raised several intriguing questions.

Do some music teacher preparation programs address this topic at all?

Twenty-six respondents (23.9% of total responses) answered “no� to the first three questions and did not comment for questions 4 and 5, indicating that they neither required nor offered a course in teaching music to special populations, and they did not integrate this topic into their planned curriculum. Despite these data, I hesitate to conclude that individual faculty who teach undergraduate music education courses in these programs never mentioned exceptional populations. It is troubling to imagine this material presented as a single day session in a few classes scattered through the degree program when individual professors make time. It is unfortunate that data from this study indicate that this may be the case, because 40.2% of respondents stated that this topic was not addressed in a sequential, planned way throughout their curriculum.

Several respondents mentioned that they felt that lack of consistent, planned opportunities for undergraduate music education majors to learn about special education populations was a weakness of their program that they were trying to address, but that no one on faculty had the needed expertise.

How might institutions compensate for lack of faculty with the appropriate expertise to teach this course or to help integrate this topic across music education course offerings?

Lack of faculty expertise was frequently mentioned as a factor contributing to a lack of content-specific special education instruction for music education undergrads

8

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

in the responses to this survey. This stumbling block was anticipated by Colwell and Thompson (2000): Many music education faculty may not feel comfortable training students in the current laws applicable to mainstreaming, or feel well versed in presenting information about the diversity among disabilities or the techniques necessary for adapting general music activities or secondary rehearsal strategies. (p. 219) These researchers went on to suggest that an area music therapist may work with methods teachers or be invited to teach these topics. Several survey respondents mentioned outstanding faculty in the area of music education for special populations, and one responding institution offered bachelor’s and master’s degrees in special music education. This indicated that music teacher educators may be becoming more prepared to teach in this area. Perhaps, some of these special music education experts would be willing to share course materials or to offer advice. Whatever the solution, this survey supported the previous literature in finding that undergraduate music education students may not have adequate exposure to content-specific instruction in adapting and differentiating music learning for exceptional students (see Hourigan, 2007; Linsenmeier, 2004).

How important is content-specific knowledge to teaching exceptional populations?

The majority of respondents indicated that instruction on special education populations was delivered in general education coursework. In fact, this survey may overestimate the number of courses required/offered in teaching music to special populations, because several respondents included comments like this one: Music education majors are required to take 6 hours of special education coursework offered through the College of Ed. The course is not taught in music but does involve applications to music. If you are asking if we (in music) offer a “music and special education” course, the answers above would be “no.”

That is, the respondent answered that, “yes,” they require a course and that, “yes,” they offer a course in teaching music to exceptional populations, but this course is actually one in the college of education in which students are asked to make applications to music from what they are learning, which is different from contentspecific instruction. It is clear that information concerning special education diagnoses, etiology, classroom management, laws, and procedural issues (such as Individual Education Plans) applies across all content areas. However, general/special education faculty may not be able to help music education students understand how issues of diversity play out in the general music or ensemble rehearsal settings. Because of the many challenges to introducing a stand-alone course in music education for exceptional students (including an already credit-heavy degree and lack of faculty expertise), perhaps another approach would be to integrate this topic throughout subject area offerings.

Salvador

9

In the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, York and Reynolds (1996) suggested that general education and special education should not be taught separately. Instead, they should be integrated within each content area so that all teachers are taught to differentiate instruction for all their students. This model suggests that teaching music to exceptional students would be best presented as integrated into all music education coursework. Hourigan (2007) further suggested that absence of special needs preparation . . . underscores the need for music teacher educators to find a way to “bridge the gap” somewhere in the curriculum. Fieldwork has been shown to be a powerful tool to assist future teachers in combining theory with practice. This could be a way to attempt to fill the void left by lack of curriculum for future music teachers in special education without adding other course requirements. (p. 35) The question of whether certain topics require hands-on experience is related to questions about the necessity of content-specific instruction. A course description submitted by a respondent read in part, This workshop will focus on the following aspects of teaching music to children with disabilities: (a) Navigating the Special Education System (Including Special Education Law); (b) Adapting and Accommodating Children with Special Needs; and (c) Issues associated with mainstreaming and inclusion. Students will also receive training with actual students who struggle with disabilities through fieldwork experiences with area summer special education programs.

In contrast, one respondent commented, “We offer an online graduate level course through our outreach program. It is taught by [music education professor] and it [is] excellent.” Many respondents had mentioned number of credits to graduation as a problem with adding this topic, so the time required for hands-on learning may be an undue burden for undergraduates. With an already credit-heavy degree and as online courses in music education become more common, music teacher educators will need to weigh the value of experiential learning and decide as a profession if there are areas that require interaction for students to gain the needed skills and information.

Couldn’t interested music education majors just take a music therapy course?

Several respondents commented that this material was covered in music therapy courses that undergraduates could take in addition to their other coursework. However, undergraduates who are already in such a credit-heavy degree program may be unlikely to elect an additional course that does not “count” toward graduation. More important, it is inappropriate for music teacher preparation programs to allow interest to dictate whether or not an undergraduate student learned how to differentiate music instruction for all students.

Even if a student chose to take this extra course, there is a fundamental difference between music therapy and music education: Music therapists use music to achieve

10

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

therapeutic goals (ranging from behavioral goals such as increased socialization, to psychotherapeutic goals, to physical goals such as increased motor coordination), whereas music educators work to increase each student’s music skills and conceptual understanding. Some music therapists have extensive experience in school settings, whereas others have specialized in different areas (medical, psychotherapeutic, etc.) and may not have thought about school populations since their board certification exams.

Depending on the philosophical orientation and expertise of the available music therapy faculty, courses that focus on planning and adapting musical experiences for children with special needs may be helpful to music education students. However, because music therapists have different goals from music educators, therapy courses are likely to cover issues that are unimportant to music educators, such as designing treatment plans, and to lack information on educational issues, such as sequential instruction of music skills and concepts. It is certain that many music therapists are experts in adapting music and music activities for people with special needs. Stating that existing music therapy coursework may not address the needs of a music educator does not mean that music therapy faculty could not be valuable resources. Some may even be willing and able to teach a stand-alone course in music education for exceptional populations. As Colwell and Thompson (2000) concluded, collaboration with music therapy faculty, graduate students, or area music therapists may be one way to integrate this information into music education degree programs. One survey respondent described this type of collaboration: We have been allowed to have a music therapist/music educator teach a section of the required special education course, tailoring it for the specific challenges of music classrooms. There is no separate course description for this section, since the section must include all the same information as the traditional course; examples and practica for this section are specific to music.

Are we adequately addressing the needs of exceptional populations across grade levels and ensemble types?

Many institutions reported that they addressed the needs of special learners substantially within their elementary methods courses. Two representative comments illustrate this point: Teaching music to special learners is incorporated into our Elementary Music Methods course. They also take an education course entirely devoted to Working with Exceptional and Diverse Learners.

Because of credit hour constraints, it is impractical to offer a dedicated course in this area. We ensure that our students are acquainted with IEPs and other educational modification strategies. When students are placed in elementary settings they are in schools that are mandated to include all students in all subject areas. Therefore, our students are, at least, exposed to special learners and,

Salvador

11

at best, work with students with special needs as they work with all students. (italics added) It stands to reason that elementary teachers need this information, because they are likely to serve an entire school population and thus to teach a variety of exceptional students. It is true that elementary general teachers must teach all students and therefore may be most in need of information on how to differentiate instruction.

However, secondary teachers should also be taught this information, in particular because research indicates that students with special needs are less likely to participate in secondary music (Linsenmeier, 2004). Perhaps, with more focus on the needs of older exceptional learners, music educators could more easily foster musicality in a broader range of students.

Implications for Further Research Based on the findings of this study, there appears to be a need for research into the value of music content-specific special education coursework in the preparation of future music teachers. Additional areas for further research include more specific descriptive research into models for how differentiation of instruction can be integrated in specific music education classes such as secondary choral and instrumental methods. The scholarship of teaching and learning model of classroom action research may be especially enlightening as a way for classroom teachers, methods teachers, and other music education faculty to share their ideas and experiences for integrating this important topic throughout undergraduate music education curricula. Content analysis of the practitioner literature concerning teaching music to students with special needs may help music teacher educators identify topics and areas that may be missing from current music education coursework.

Perhaps, by integrating content-specific strategies for differentiation of instruction throughout music education coursework and incorporating practica with diverse populations, music teacher preparation programs could help future music teachers adapt their instruction not only for special education populations but also for students who are English learners, those who are considered at risk, and gifted students. Maybe an appropriate goal for music teacher preparation programs would be to help music teachers become increasingly adept at reaching each of their students as individuals. In the words of one survey respondent, “Who isn’t a ‘special learner’?”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure/Funding The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

12

Journal of Music Teacher Education XX(X)

References Adamek, M. S., & Darrow, A. A. (2005). Music in special education. Silver Spring, MD: The American Music Therapy Association.

Atterbury, B. W. (1990). Mainstreaming exceptional learners in music. New York: Prentice Hall College Division.

Colwell, C. M., & Thompson, L. K. (2000). “Inclusion” of information on mainstreaming in undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music Therapy, 37(3), 205–221.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frisque, J., Niebur, L., & Humphreys, T. (1994). Music mainstreaming practices in Arizona.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 94–104.

Gfeller, K., Darrow, A., & Hedden, S. (1990). Perceived effectiveness of mainstreaming in Iowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(2), 90–101.

Hammel, A. M. (2004). Inclusion strategies that work. Music Educators Journal, 90(5), 33–37.

Heller, L. (1994). Undergraduate music teacher preparation for mainstreaming: A survey of music education teacher training institutions in the Great Lakes region of the United States.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Hourigan, R. M. (2007). Teaching music to students with special needs: A phenomenological examination of participants in a fieldwork experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Linsenmeier, C. V. (2004). The impact of music teacher training on the rate and level of involvement of special education students in high school band and choir. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University (AAT 3159804).

Montgomery, J., & Martinson, A. (2006). Partnering with music therapists: A model for addressing students’ musical and extramusical goals. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 34–39.

Music for every child: Teaching special students [Special issue]. (1982). Music Educators Journal, 68(8).

National Association of Schools of Music. (1992). National Association of Schools of Music directory. Reston, VA: Author.

Smaligo, M. A. (1998). Resources for helping blind music students. Music Educators Journal, 85(2), 23–27.

Special focus: Inclusion [Special issue]. (2001). Music Educators Journal, 87(4).

Special focus: Mainstreaming [Special issue]. (1990). Music Educators Journal, 76(8).

VanWeelden, K. (2001). Choral mainstreaming: Tips for success. Music Educators Journal, 88(3), 55–60.

York, J. L., & Reynolds, M. C. (1996). Special education and inclusion. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 820–836). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.