Update: Applications of Research in Music Education http://upd.sagepub.com/
Inclusion of People with Special Needs in Choral Settings: A Review of Applicable Research and Professional Literature Karen Salvador Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 2013 31: 37 originally published online 29 January 2013 DOI: 10.1177/8755123312473760 The online version of this article can be found at: http://upd.sagepub.com/content/31/2/37
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Music Education
Additional services and information for Update: Applications of Research in Music Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://upd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://upd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://upd.sagepub.com/content/31/2/37.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 29, 2013 What is This?
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
473760 /8755123312473760UpdateSalvador
UPDate31210.1177
Article
Inclusion of People with Special Needs in Choral Settings: A Review of Applicable Research and Professional Literature
Update 31(2) 37–44 2013 National Association for Music Education Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/8755123312473760 update.sagepub.com
Karen Salvador1
Abstract Despite long-standing antidiscrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which are meant to guarantee equal access, many school and community choirs appear to be populated primarily by students with typical physical, cognitive, and behavioral abilities. The purpose of this article is to review research and professional literature on integration of individuals with significant cognitive, speech/language, physical and/or behavioral challenges into school and community choirs. Because of the small amount of literature specifically pertaining to choirs, this review also includes pertinent literature from other performance ensembles and from elementary general music classrooms. Based on this review of literature, I will identify and describe common features or approaches of successfully integrated general music, instrumental, and choral programs. Finally, I will summarize these findings specifically with regard to their utility in school and community choral settings, with the aim of illustrating how choral directors might better include singers with special needs in their choirs. Keywords choir, choral pedagogy, disabilities, inclusion music education, special education
Review of Literature The 1992 Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (Colwell, 1992) included a chapter titled “Research Regarding Students with Disabilities” (Gfeller, 1992). The majority of studies cited in this comprehensive literature review focused on the musical abilities of specific disability groups (e.g., those with hearing impairment) in terms of their music aptitudes and achievement, their abilities to attain specific musical skills, and the effectiveness of specific instructional strategies. In closing, Gfeller stated, From a review of the aptitude and achievement research of students with disabilities, one thing is clear: musical potential and ability vary greatly from one disability to another, but also within each category of exceptionality, depending on the severity of the condition as well as the particular musical task. (p. 630)
One section of Gfeller’s (1992) chapter focused specifically on research on inclusion of students with disabilities in performance ensembles. She observed that descriptive research indicated disabled students were less frequently enrolled in performance ensembles, but she suggested that experimental research on instructional practices found these limitations were unnecessary. For example, she reported one study of adolescents with trainable mental impairment (IQ of 25–50), in which students demonstrated significant improvements in articulation, contour, and pitch accuracy over 1 year of choral instruction (Hughes, Robbins, Smith, & Kinkade, 1987). Gfeller (1992) concluded, “Outcomes suggest that music educators can expect more than ‘enjoyment’ and ‘socialization’ from disabled students involved in a properly designed choral program” (p. 628). Gfeller’s (1992) finding that individuals with disabilities were less likely to participate in performance ensembles than their typical peers has been supported by 1
University of Michigan–Flint, Flint, MI, USA
To state this differently: no assumptions can be made about the suitability of choral singing for an individual participant based solely on the characteristics associated with a specific disability label.
Corresponding Author: Karen Salvador, Department of Music, University of Michigan–Flint, 126 French Hall, 303 East Kearsley Street, Flint, MI 48502, USA. Email: ksalvado@umflint.edu
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
38
Update 31(2)
additional research since publication of the Handbook (Colwell, 1992). Nwa (1994) found that only 60% of students with identified exceptionalities participated in extracurricular activities in or out of school, including but not limited to band, orchestra, and choir. From a sample of 124 students, 12 (9.68%) participated in choir, and 3 (2.42%) were in band or orchestra. Despite the implication that this is a smaller percentage than among typical students, this study was difficult to interpret because of the small sample size and the lack of participation rates for typical students in the sample district. Nicholson (2003) also investigated extracurricular participation among high school students with special needs, but her data were based on special education teachers’ perceptions of student participation, and so they seem somewhat unreliable. Her findings indicated that all surveyed teachers (n = 30) reported at least one student on their caseload sang in choir (Nicholson, 2003). Similarly, Sharrock (2007) investigated participation rates in choir, for students with mild to moderate mental disabilities, based on the perceptions of special educators and choir teachers. His survey results indicated some disagreement among respondents: 81% of middle school choral teachers and 79% of high school choral teachers reported serving students with this diagnosis, while 59% of middle school special educators and 67% of high school special educators stated that they had students who sang in choir. Linsenmeier (2004) surveyed 942 Ohio secondary band and choir teachers about enrollment in their ensembles, and 331 teachers chose to participate. She then compared rates of involvement in music ensembles between those with and without disabilities and found that 15% of typical students and 5.86% of those with disabilities participated in band. Choir students comprised 15.82% of typical students and 7% of those with disabilities. Linsenmeier concluded, “Special education students are involved in high school band and choir at a rate that is much lower than that of regular education students” (p. 92). Hoffman (2011) found similar results. Although 13.6% of the school-age population received special education services at the time of his study, responding music educators from Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Rhode Island reported that students with special needs constituted only 6.8% of membership in bands, orchestras, and other instrumental performing groups. According to these studies, factors that limited participation in performance ensembles included the following: lack of perceived support from teachers and counselors (Nwa, 1994); academic ineligibility, behavior problems, physical limitations, and cognitive limitations (Nicholson, 2003); and ensemble directors’ preconceptions on behavior disruptions and lack of musicianship (Linsenmeier, 2004). Hoffman (2011) found a statistically significant
link between student population and rates of inclusion: As the student population increased, the rates of inclusion for students with special needs in instrumental ensembles decreased. Furthermore, according to Hoffman’s respondents, students with special needs struggled with sightreading, memorizing, and performing/reading rhythms in instrumental music settings. To be clear: It is illegal to exclude students from school activities (including “nonacademic” and extracurricular activities) on the basis of a disability. Although specific situations were not reported in the above surveys, some of the stated reasons for lower rates of participation among those with special needs seem potentially discriminatory. While there is evidence that special needs populations are less likely to participate in secondary performance ensembles, children with disabilities are typically included in elementary general music instruction. Therefore, this review will include a brief summary of findings about inclusion in the elementary music classroom that might apply in the choral setting. Because this research and professional literature pertained to elementary music, which is fundamentally different from choral instruction, it cannot be generalized to the choral setting. However, research and suggestions from other contexts can be appropriated into new settings. After the introduction of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, elementary music classrooms were among the first to experience mainstreaming of students with special needs. Integration of these children was difficult for many elementary music teachers, who lacked training and support (Atterbury, 1990). Due in part to the clear challenges posed by the new educational climate, the topic of inclusion in the elementary music classroom has surfaced perennially in the professional literature (e.g., Adamek, 2001; Hammel, 2004; McCord & Watts, 2006; Pontiff, 2004). Their suggested strategies for successful inclusion of students with disabilities into elementary music fell into four main categories: (a) close communication with special educators and/or classroom teachers, (b) appropriate placement of students, (c) making accommodations by adapting curriculum and assessments, and (d) being open-minded and willing to make inclusion work. Because each of these four strategies for inclusion seem transferrable to the secondary choral context, I will briefly elaborate on each one. Close communication with other teachers and treatment personnel—such as physical, occupational, or speech therapists; psychologists; and paraprofessionals— can help a music teacher understand each child’s specific strengths and struggles and guarantee consistent treatment of the student throughout the day (Adamek, 2001). Music teachers also see different behavior and abilities in some children than other teachers, so the conversation
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
39
Salvador should flow both ways, and music teachers should be included in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings (McCord & Watts, 2006). The communication recommended at the elementary level may also be helpful for secondary choral instructors as they strive to include students with special needs, not only by providing the choral teacher with ideas for specific strategies to help individual children, but also by ensuring that musicspecific supports are included in the IEP. For example, if the child has a paraprofessional in “academic” settings, perhaps that support would also be necessary in choir. Appropriate placement of children with disabilities is a contentious issue but one that is crucial to the success of the student. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act guarantees children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (Adamek & Darrow, 2005). However, not every student can function well in a large group like a choir: For some children, a self-contained classroom with a smaller number of children and supports specific to his or her needs is the most appropriate least restrictive environment. Music teachers, in conjunction with the rest of the child’s teachers, parents, and other stakeholders (including the child, in some cases) must make an informed decision about the individual child when choosing his or her music class placement (Hammel, 2004). Students with disabilities have the right to participate in secondary choral ensembles with reasonable accommodations. However, a child with disabilities cannot be required to participate if the choral context is not an appropriate placement, for example, if he or she is nonverbal. Scheduling convenience is not sufficient reason for a child who does not wish to sing in choir to be placed there. Good communication and appropriate placement will help a music teacher make appropriate accommodations to the music curriculum and assessments. Needed accommodations vary greatly from child to child and could include using alternate notation (Hammel, 2004). Finally, there is a ubiquitous undercurrent in this research that the teacher must be open-minded: willing to try new things, positive, flexible, and willing to devote time and energy to inclusion (Chen, 2007; Hammel, 2001). Although these articles pertained specifically to inclusion and mainstreaming in elementary classroom music, the suggestions (close communication with special educators, appropriate placement of students with disabilities, making reasonable accommodations, and being open-minded) may also help secondary choral teacher/directors as they strive to create inclusive choirs. Several specific research studies on special learners in elementary music provided cogent information for this discussion of inclusion in choir. Mozigo (1997) used a single trial to compare the pitch-matching abilities of third to fifth graders with learning disabilities with that of
their nondisabled peers and found that children with learning disabilities were significantly less able to match pitch. However, Kim (2002) measured improvements in pitch accuracy relative to text, rhythm, and melodic contour in the singing of 8- to10-year-old children with intellectual disabilities. She compared three different methods of improving pitch accuracy and found that although there were no significant differences among the different treatments, there was a significant improvement in pitch matching pre- to posttest in all the groups. Taken in tandem, these results indicate that while some students with cognitive deficits may have trouble matching pitch with their voices, working individually with those who have special needs could improve their singing. Chen (2007) surveyed certified elementary music teachers in Idaho and Washington, to examine curriculum, instruction, and adaptations in inclusive music education classrooms. Teachers reported that the only disability group that caused them to change their curriculum or delivery was those with orthopedic impairments (e.g., paraplegia, cerebral palsy). However, if special education teachers offered specific information about characteristics of students with disabilities, this appeared to affect curriculum design and delivery. Teachers who believed they were responsible for modifying curriculum for students with special needs rated themselves more positively with respect to curriculum and instruction practices. Teachers were more positive in their perceptions of the success of mainstreamed individuals when they (a) took students’ behavioral characteristics into account, (b) designed alternate projects to allow students to demonstrate mastery, (c) sequenced tasks from concrete physical activities to more abstract verbal and language-oriented responses, (d) believed their school was effectively implementing inclusive programs, and (e) evaluated the effectiveness of classroom adaptations (Chen, 2007). To extrapolate, secondary choral teachers may benefit from considering the behavioral characteristics of students with special needs when they design their instruction and then tracking the effectiveness of these accommodations. Furthermore, accommodations in the choral classroom could include alternate methods of demonstrating musicianship that are more concrete (singing or moving) rather than abstract (reading or writing). Hammel (2001) reported 14 essential competencies that elementary music teachers must demonstrate to successfully include special learners in music classes. These competencies included the following: awareness of various handicapping conditions, 1. acquaintance with various handicapping conditions (general knowledge), 2. knowledge of IDEA (legal aspects), 3. knowledge of music teacher’s role on evaluation team (assessment and evaluation),
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
40
Update 31(2)
4. ability to develop and use informal assessment procedures (assessment and evaluation), 5. ability to monitor the learning process of all students (assessment and evaluation), 6. ability to evaluate program effectiveness for specific learners (assessment and evaluation), 7. ability to identify areas of particular difficulty for a student (assessment and evaluation), 8. ability to modify, if necessary, the instructional program to accommodate special learners (curriculum planning), 9. knowledge of how to modify the physical environment of a classroom for special learners (classroom structure), 10. ability to encourage appropriate social interactions among all students (classroom management), 11. knowledge of effective classroom management techniques (classroom management), 12. knowledge of appropriate materials for diverse learning abilities and styles (methods and materials), 13. ability to adapt materials to provide for individual differences (methods and materials) 14. ability to communicate effectively with support personnel (communication skills). (Hammel, 2001, p. 11). These competencies were not formulated for choir directors in school and community settings, but developing similar competencies may help directors who wish to make their choirs more inclusive. This review of literature revealed relatively little research from the past 20 years on integration of individuals with special needs into school and community performance ensembles. Two methodological articles in the professional literature recommended similar accommodations in the instrumental classroom to those suggested for the elementary setting (Siligo, 2005; Zdzinski, 2001). Stough (1994) taught tone-chime choirs specifically for students with cognitive disabilities. Her research suggested ways of simplifying scores for those who have difficulty reading (e.g., color-coding, using symbols/icons, etc.). She concluded that for individuals with disabilities to succeed in an ensemble setting, the director needed plan differently and to assume more of the cognitive load (Stough, 1994). In the choral classroom, this might mean that the director might highlight the alto line for a student to make it easier to read the choral score. Or a teacher could highlight different verses in different colors, or color-code the form of a piece so that a student could see where to go back, what to skip the second time, and so on. A choral score could also be simplified by reproducing a modified copy with only the singer’s part. If a student receives assistance with reading from a paraprofessional in other settings, the paraprofessional may also assist with reading in choir by creating these alternate scores.
Tooker (1995) recommended similar accommodations for special learners in band. After individual and smallgroup instruction using a beginner band curriculum, some special education students in Tooker’s study could participate in high school band without further accommodation. Based on these findings, Tooker suggested individualized or small-group instruction, perhaps in self-contained special education instrumental music classes for the first semester or year of instrumental education, and use of alternate notation when cognitive abilities interfered with musical performance. He concluded, “Setting high expectations in the utilization of methods, materials, and instruments identical to the general education beginning band curriculum can bring some special learners to performance levels commensurate to their general education peers.” (p. 2) The choral parallel to this approach would be a smallgroup class voice or choral class specifically for the students with special needs, with the goal of students transitioning to the school’s choirs without further accommodation after a semester or two. Most research on inclusion in instrumental performance groups pertained to students with cognitive disabilities. Moss (2009) investigated the quality of experiences of blind (but otherwise typically able) band and orchestra students. These students used recordings or Braille music (or a combination) to learn their parts, and reported musical success. Because of the common practice of including disabled students in music classes for nonmusical goals such as socialization, Moss’s study revolved around the degree to which his 12 informants were accepted into the band or orchestra culture. These results varied, but many of the students with visual impairment felt more accepted in their musical culture than in their school culture as a whole. The climate established by the director and the “gatekeeping” of influential ensemble members were found to be crucial determinants in how completely the blind student was integrated into the culture. Choral students could also learn music “by ear” from recordings or in rehearsal. In addition, commercial software products such as GOODFEEL® allow sighted people with no knowledge of Braille to create Braille music by scanning printed music or converting Finale or Sibelius files. Moss’s study also suggests that directors who wish to be inclusive should examine social structures in choral classrooms, such as how accepting the overall climate is, and whether student leaders are determining who is accepted and who is not. The literature on inclusion specifically in choirs was even more limited. A review of professional literature revealed two recent articles. Both contained tips for successfully including students with special needs in the high school choral classroom. VanWeelden (2001) suggested specific strategies, such as using assigned seating for
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
41
Salvador physical and behavioral reasons and ensuring that the physical layout of the classroom was accessible. She also recommended writing the lesson plan on the board, limiting visual distractions, and being clear about expectations. Lind’s (2001) article focused specifically on students with learning disabilities. Many students with learning disabilities might have a difficult time with music reading. Highlighting a student’s part or even putting a white screen over the other parts so the student can only see her line may be helpful. Similar to the research in band and general music, Lind suggested color-coding and other iconic music reading aides. She emphasized that music reading must always be linked to sound, and that movement may also be appropriate to teach music reading concepts. Lind recommended using rote learning methods, demonstration, and improvisation as ways to vary how music is taught. Although adaptations suggested by Lind (2001) and VanWeelden (2001) may add to a teacher’s workload, many of the suggested teaching practices seemed to reflect excellent choral pedagogy for typical students as well as those with special needs. This literature review uncovered only three recent research studies related to inclusion in choral music. Cassidy and Sims (1991) investigated the effects of special education labels on evaluations of a youth choir. In their study, groups of middle school choir members (n = 119) and graduate and undergraduate music majors (n = 90) evaluated a choir performance under one of four conditions: (a) seeing a video of a choir labeled as handicapped, (b) seeing a video of a choir with no label (c) hearing a recording of a choir labeled as handicapped, and (d) hearing a recording of a choir with no label. They found that ratings were consistently higher when the group was labeled as handicapped. That is, standards were lower when judges knew the group was made up of people with disabilities. Sharrock (2007) surveyed special education and choir teachers from the 110 high schools and 131 middle schools in South Carolina that both offered chorus and housed a self-contained classroom for students with mild and moderate mental disabilities. The study was designed to explore existing mainstreaming practices and to compare the perceptions of special educators and choir directors about those practices. Surveys were returned by 43 high school choir teachers, 36 high school special educators, 48 middle school chorus teachers, and 41 middle school special educators. Results indicated that mainstreaming of students with mild to moderate mental disabilities into chorus was common (59% to 81% of respondents stated students were mainstreamed). Choral teachers (83%) were significantly more likely than special educators (12%) to perceive this mainstreaming as requiring a change to classroom procedures (p = .046; Sharrock, 2007, p. 44). Special educators (79%) were
significantly more likely than choral directors (58%) to view choral directors as having sufficient training to teach students with mild to moderate mental disabilities (p = .02). Sharrock (2007) also collected responses to openended questions on how special educators and choral directors could collaborate and how choral instruction might be improved for students with mild to moderate mental disabilities. Choral directors and special educators most frequently suggested peer partners or peer tutors as a way to help students with disabilities in the choral setting, and also mentioned cooperative learning and group work as helpful. Respondents suggested that instructional methods be adapted to be more aural, active, and hands-on rather than visual and abstract. They also suggested slowing the pace of instruction and including more repetition. Collaboration between special educators and choral directors, knowledge of each student’s IEP, and participation in IEP planning/placement meetings were recommended, as well as patience and a supportive attitude. Finally, respondents stated that students with mild to moderate mental disabilities sometimes had excellent musical abilities or musical potential and should therefore be encouraged to join choir if they were interested. Haywood (2005) used three case studies to describe the process of including students with special needs in choirs. One study presented an individual’s struggle to find a community children’s choir that would take her, and detailed her experiences of being rejected, of finally being accepted, and the role of singing in the choir in her life.1 The second case study depicted an intergenerational choir that included teachers, paraprofessionals, and students at a special school for those with severe disabilities. The third case study was a biography of a public school choir teacher who had consistently integrated students with special needs into her choirs over the 40-year span of her career. Haywood then formulated a model of the changes that occur in students, directors, and choirs as a result of including students with disabilities. She concluded, The ideal choir . . . includes all individuals, all people, all musicians in working toward the best musical experience possible. While this more inclusive model of choral music may create some conflicts and strains in today’s environment of competition and perfectionism, the journey toward creating choral settings which both include everyone and strive toward the best music making possible is surely worth the effort. (p. 25) Based on her three case studies, Haywood (2005) suggested several necessary characteristics of an inclusive
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
42
Update 31(2)
choir with regard to communication, the director, and philosophy. Haywood recommended an open dialogue be established among the prospective choir member, the choir director, school or community group administration, parents/caregivers, special educators, social workers, and others in order to elucidate the needs and goals of the prospective choir member. According to Haywood, choir directors do not need special training but must cultivate an open-mindedness and a willingness to make accommodations and to create a safe environment (physically and emotionally). Finally, in order to successfully integrate those with special needs into school and community choirs, Haywood proposed that choirs must develop a philosophy that is focused on process rather than product and is inclusive rather than exclusive. This philosophy would not necessarily preclude excellence in performance. However, such a choir would use different approaches on the way to excellence. The goals would not be sameness or competition, and the director, administration, and other members of the choir would have to be willing to take the chance that there may (or may not) be temporary (or permanent) effects on the sound of the group (Haywood, 2005).
Conclusion Choral conductor/teachers face considerable challenges as they strive to be inclusive in increasingly diverse school and community choir environments. By presenting a review of related professional and research literature from elementary, instrumental, and choral settings, this article has attempted to offer strategies for successful inclusion of children with special needs in choirs. The main points that appeared consistently throughout the literature included the following: a need for communication between the choir director and other members of the community, such as teachers, administrators, treatment professionals, parent(s), choir members, and the singer; characteristics of successful conductor/teachers; and suggestions for specific accommodations. Open communication with other teachers, parents, and treatment professionals about the abilities and desires of the prospective choir member is crucial to the appropriate placement of the singer. A choir could become a “dumping ground” if singers who do not want to be there are placed in it. Conversely, an open conversation could result in placement of a highly motivated singer who has some problems that need to be worked out. This open communication would also ensure sufficient supports (e.g., paraprofessionals, adapted materials) for the choir members with disabilities so that each individual can be included, and also so learning is not disrupted for other students. The IEP committee may be a good venue for this communication in a school setting (Sharrock, 2007).
Research suggests that conductor/teachers and peers have lower expectations for students who carry disability labels (Cassidy & Sims, 1991; Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002). However, as Gfeller (1992) pointed out, there is wide variation among individuals with the same label in music aptitude and achievement. Good communication with parents, teachers, and other treatment professionals about individual choir members could ensure that they are allowed to reach their potential as an individual singer and a choir member. Communication with administrators, other choir members, and the community about the choir’s commitment to inclusion are also a form of advocacy. Advocacy can be difficult, but it ensures equal access for those with disabilities to community and school ensembles, which is their right under the law. Directors and choir administrators may also need to advocate for choir members with disabilities in settings outside of choir, such as festivals or on tours, in order to ensure dignified treatment and equal access for all choir members. Hammel (2001) described the essential teacher competencies necessary for successful inclusion of students with special needs in the elementary general music setting. These competencies (listed earlier) could be developed by any conductor/teacher and seem applicable in the choral context; the books Music in Special Education (Adamek & Darrow, 2005) and Teaching Music to Students With Special Needs: A Label-Free Approach (Hammel & Hourigan, 2011) are comprehensive resources. Haywood (2005) asserted that special training of the conductor is not necessary—the director must simply be open-minded, willing to make changes and to create a safe atmosphere. However, these views are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps Haywood’s open-mindedness and willingness to accommodate and create a safe environment are the first steps toward Hammel’s (2001) competencies. Whether special training is needed or not, the director must be willing to overcome self-doubt on lack of training or experience with people with disabilities in order to establish an inclusive climate (Haywood, 2005). Sharrock’s (2007) survey indicated that increasing communication and collaboration with special educators may also be key to successful inclusion in choirs. Although Sharrock did not find significant differences in responses from choral directors based on their amount of formal training on students with special needs, perhaps the development of Hammel’s (2001) competencies or Haywood’s (2005) open-mindedness could be addressed by better training including undergraduate immersion experiences with people who have disabilities (Hourigan, 2009). The category “people with disabilities” could range from an adult who uses a wheelchair but has otherwise typical abilities, to a child who has attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, to an adolescent with autism who has
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
43
Salvador normal physical and intellectual skills but difficulty with emotions, communication, and behavior. Therefore, communication is key to providing the adaptations and accommodations that individual choir members need to perform at their best. Likely adaptations in the choral setting could include the following: allowing seated rehearsal, working to accommodate scheduling issues, inclusion of paraprofessionals or other caregivers, sending music home ahead of time, enlarging copies, covering all lines except the singer’s part, recording rehearsals so a student can listen at home, or using a peer buddy to help with social or academic difficulties. Ideas for these accommodations can be found in a variety of resources, including Hammel and Hourigan (2011), Adamek and Darrow (2005), Sharrock (2007), Haywood (2005), and the articles by Lind (2001) and VanWeelden (2001). However, there is no substitute for simply communicating with the prospective choir member and his or her caregivers, teachers, and treatment professionals.
Suggestions for Future Research People with disabilities who wish to be in school and community choirs have the right to be included under the same policies as other choir members. While it is likely that many choir directors “in the trenches” routinely accommodate students with various physical, cognitive, and/or behavioral disabilities, descriptions of settings, techniques, philosophies, and other considerations have rarely been reported in the literature. Most of the little available information on inclusion in choir consists of methodological articles recommending certain instructional practices. Although any systematic inquiry in this open field would be helpful, specific questions for future research studies could include the following: What accommodations are choir teachers making for students with specific disabilities in choir? How successful are they? Are there choirs in which the proportion of those with disabilities matches their proportion in the school as a whole? How is this achieved, and what are the pros and cons of such a system? What are the underlying philosophies of conductor/teachers in these inclusive programs? In light of festival ratings often figuring into performance reviews or tenure decisions for conductor/teachers, how are these evaluations affected by including students with disabilities? Does the inclusion of students with disabilities actually affect the overall performance of a choir? How do these scenarios play out in community choirs? Is a choir in a place of worship different, and how? Action research projects in which individual choral teachers reveal their journey to an inclusive choir may be especially helpful to practicing choir directors. In addition, many master choral conductor/teachers have produced videos on rehearsal techniques. These videos
typically feature outstanding demonstration choirs. A video on rehearsal in a musically excellent inclusive choir could demonstrate necessary accommodations, illustrate rehearsal practices, and show how high the musical bar can be set in such an ensemble. As this body of systematic inquiry accumulates, choir conductor/teachers in school and community settings may feel increasingly comfortable accommodating students with a variety of special needs. The Contact Hypothesis (an area of research in social science, particularly concerning race relations) posits that working toward a common goal is a powerful tool for integrating different populations (Linsenmeier, 2004). In a school or community choir, the pursuit of the best possible musical experience through the process of exemplary rehearsal could be the common experience that brings those with disabilities and their typical peers together. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note 1. This portion of the dissertation was excerpted and published in a peer-reviewed journal (Haywood, 2006).
References Adamek, M. S. (2001). Meeting special needs in music class. Music Educator’s Journal, 87(4), 23–26. 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, NY: Prentice Hall College Division. Cassidy, J. W., & Sims, W. L. (1991). Effects of special education labels on peers’ and adults’ evaluations of a handicapped youth choir. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 23–34. Chen, Y. (2007). A research procedure and study of elementary music curriculum for children with special needs in inclusive music programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Idaho, Moscow. Colwell, R. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference. New York, NY: Schirmer Books. Gfeller, K. E. (1992). Research regarding students with disabilities. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (615–632). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014
44
Update 31(2)
Hammel, A. M. (2001). Special learners in elementary music classrooms: A study of essential teacher competencies. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20(1), 9–14. Hammel, A. M. (2004). Inclusion strategies that work. Music Educator’s Journal, 90(5), 33–37. Hammel, A. M., & Hourigan, R. M. (2011). Teaching music to students with special needs: A label-free approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Haywood, J. S. (2005). Including individuals with special needs in choirs: Implications for creating inclusive environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Haywood, J. S. (2006). You can’t be in my choir if you can’t stand up: One journey toward inclusion. Music Education Research, 8, 407–416. Hoffman, E. C., III (2011). The status of students with special needs in the instrumental musical ensemble and the effect of selected educator and institutional variables on rates of inclusion (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Hourigan, R. M. (2009). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 152–168. Hughes, J. E., Robbins, B. J., Smith, D. S., & Kinkade, C. F. (1987). The effects of participation in a public school choral music curriculum on singing abilities in trainably mentally handicapped adolescents. Music Education for the Handicapped Bulletin, 2(4), 19–35. Kim, S. W. (2002). Effects of age, IQ, and three types of song instruction on singing accuracy among children with mental retardation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. (AAT 3057086) Lind, V. (2001). Adapting choral rehearsals for students with learning disabilities. Choral Journal, 41(7), 27–30. 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, Kent, OH. (AAT 3159804) McCord, K., & Watts, E. H. (2006). Collaboration and access for our children: Music educators and special educators together. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 26–33. Moss, F. W. (2009). Quality of experience in mainstreaming and full inclusion of blind and visually impaired high school
instrumental music students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Mozingo, J. M. (1997). The relationship between vocal pitchmatching and learning disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. (AAT 1387326) Nicholson, M. Y. (2003). Teacher perceptions of extracurricular activities participation among students with mild/moderate disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes towards persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 243–265. Nwa, W. (1994, July). The extent of participation in extracurricular activities at the secondary level of students with different exceptionalities in an urban school district. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference of the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education. Portland, OR. Pontiff, E. (2004). Teaching special learners: Ideas from veteran teachers in the music classroom. Teaching Music, 12(3), 52–56. Sharrock, B. R. (2007). A comparison of the attitudes of South Carolina special education and chorus teachers toward mainstreaming students with mild and moderate mental disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia. (AAT 3296686) Siligo, R. W. (2005). Enriching the ensemble experience for students with visual impairments. Music Educators Journal, 91(5), 31–36. Stough, L. M. (1994, October). Skilled performance in individuals with developmental disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation, Oklahoma City. Tooker, P. A. (1995). A case study of a high school special education beginning band class (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. (2005). A guide to disability rights laws. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm VanWeelden, K. (2001). Choral mainstreaming: Tips for success. Music Educators Journal, 88(3), 55–60. Zdzinski, S. F. (2001). Instrumental music for special learners. Music Educators Journal, 87(4), 27–29.
Downloaded from upd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN FLINT on July 18, 2014