sources of pedagogical content knowledge: reports by preservice instrumental music teachers

http://jmt.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Music Teacher

http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/17/2/48The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1057083708317644

2008 17: 48Journal of Music Teacher EducationWarren Haston and Amanda Leon-Guerrero

Instrumental Music TeachersSources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Reports by Preservice

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association for Music Education

can be found at:Journal of Music Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jmt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/17/2/48.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2008Version of Record >>

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 12, 2014jmt.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 12, 2014jmt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmt.sagepub.com/

http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/17/2/48

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.nafme.org

http://jmt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jmt.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/17/2/48.refs.html

http://jmt.sagepub.com/content/17/2/48.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



48

Journal of MusicTeacher Education

Volume 17 Number 2Spring 2008 48-59

© 2008 MENC: The NationalAssociation for Music Education

10.1177/1057083708317644

Sources of Pedagogical Content KnowledgeReports by Preservice Instrumental Music TeachersWarren HastonAmanda Leon-GuerreroUniversity of Hartford

The purpose of the study was to better understand what influences preservice instrumentalmusic teachers’ acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Research questionswere as follows: (a) Are there identifiable applications of PCK in the preservice teachers’interactions with students? (b) To what source—apprenticeship of observation, methodsclasses, cooperating teachers, or intuition—do preservice teachers attribute these applica-tions of PCK? Video recordings of preservice teachers conducting a rehearsal were col-lected and analyzed for events that demonstrated PCK. Exemplary excerpts were selectedand reviewed with each participant. Interviews revealed a substantial amount of identifi-able PCK. Apprenticeship of observation, methods courses, and cooperating teacher wereeach cited by 2 participants as their primary source of PCK. One participant cited intuitionand methods courses equally. Determining where preservice teachers go to access PCK isthe first step in redesigning college methods courses to better account for previouslylearned PCK.

Keywords: teacher education; teacher knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge;music education; music teacher education

The point is that it is not sufficient for aspiring teachers to have an understanding of thedomain to be taught, and to know some general pedagogy. In addition, teachingrequires pedagogical knowledge that is specific to the domain to be taught.

–Sherin, Sherin, and Madanes, 1999, p. 4

Introduction

There are a multitude of factors that influence the acquisition of teaching skills—some that can be affected by teacher education and some that cannot. Teachers’

Warren Haston is an assistant professor of music education at the University of Hartford. He can be reachedat [email protected]. Amanda Leon-Guerrero is an adjunct lecturer at the University of Hartford andManchester Community College. She can be reached at [email protected].

at Dicle Ãœniversitesi on November 12, 2014jmt.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Haston, Leon-Guerrero / Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge 49

beliefs and knowledge are two of the factors that undergraduate teacher educationprograms attempt to influence. Our interest in teacher knowledge specifically has ledus to investigate the formation of these critical teacher attributes. Few or none of thepractical instructional techniques are derived from undergraduate teacher methodscourses (Leonhard, 1985). Instead, teachers frequently draw on knowledge gainedfrom their performance experiences, or apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975).

Traditionally, instrumental music education majors enter teacher education programswith many more hours of apprenticeship of observation than students majoring in othersubject areas. For example, a music student may have been through 7 or 8 years of play-ing in large ensembles (band, orchestra, marching band, jazz band), small ensembles, andprivate lessons.

Specifically, our students typically have invested more of their lives—clock hours aswell as years—in the field and, consequently, have well developed conceptions androutines of doing music. . . . Most have vivid images of music teacher models. (Wing,1993, p. 55)

Students cannot help but be heavily influenced by thousands of contact hours withtheir music teachers by the time they begin undergraduate music methods courses.There needs to be some consideration as to what role methods courses play in theacquisition of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by preservice instrumentalmusic teachers.

Shulman (1986) defines PCK as “the ways of representing and formulating thesubject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). In music education, Conway(1999) states, “Pedagogical content knowledge included an understanding of theproblems associated with learning on musical instruments and the strategies con-nected to successful instrumental music teaching” (p. 344). Since Shulman (1986)introduced a division of the teacher knowledgebase into three categories—subjectmatter content knowledge, PCK, and curricular knowledge—several studies havecontributed to PCK research. Gudmundsdottir (1990) adopted Shulman’s labelsunequivocally, and others have modified the labels (Ball, 1991; Cochran, DeRuiter,& King, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Sherin, 1997).

The consensus among these researchers is that teachers garner knowledge from amultitude of sources and that it is often difficult to delineate the domains from whichteachers draw while teaching. Complicating this matter for music educators is thecomplexity of music teacher PCK, including kinesthetic development, aestheticdevelopment, and what Schleuter (1991) calls “activities as concepts in action” (p. 49).Ballantyne and Packer (2004) define music PCK as “knowledge of music teachingtechniques, engaging students with music in a meaningful way, implementing themusic curriculum effectively, assessing students’ abilities in the various aspects ofmusic, explaining and demonstrating musical concepts” (p. 302).

There is a concern within the education profession regarding the effectiveness ofteacher training programs, specifically that of methods courses. Some feel there is a



50 Journal of Music Teacher Education

lack of connection between the content and curriculum of methods courses and theacquisition of knowledge that is essential for preservice teachers. Lacey (1977)claims that there seems to be a “discontinuity between training and the reality ofteaching” (p. 18). He concludes that colleges tend to focus on theoretical ideals andliberal philosophies that are unrealistic and immaterial to the job of teaching. Mardleand Walker (1980) suggest that many methods courses offer a narrow range of think-ing, thereby limiting the parameters in which the students learn to explore and ques-tion. Methods courses often offer exposure to methodologies of teaching withoutregard to educational theory. This limits the students’ knowledge of how and whyparticular methods should be used.

Limited qualitative research in music education validates these concerns. Ballantyneand Packer (2004) used questionnaires to gather data from teachers in the first 3 yearsof teaching. Teachers rated the importance and performance of 24 items of musicteacher knowledge and skills. Importance–performance analysis was used to map theitems into four categories—music knowledge and skills, nonpedagogical professionalknowledge and skills, general pedagogical knowledge and skills, and PCK and skills.Quadrant mapping of the items revealed that teachers rated PCK and skills as the mostimportant and lowest performed. Teachers reported a desire to receive more training ofPCK and skills during methods courses. Ballantyne and Packer report the findings asempirical evidence that music teacher education reform is needed.

Conway (2002) reported similar results after investigating the perceptions ofrecent graduates from a major American university. She gathered data from recentgraduates, their cooperating teachers, and administrators. Participants indicated thatstudent teaching, preservice fieldwork, ensemble work, and applied lessons were themost valuable parts of the program. The least valuable were the teacher educationcourses, observations of teaching that were seemingly random and disjointed, andinstrumental methods courses. On the basis of the recommendations of participants,Conway called for revision of the methods course sequence.

Gohlke (1994) used ethnographic techniques to complete small case studies on 8preservice music teachers. Participants were enrolled in a sophomore-level generalmusic methods class. Gohlke attempted to assess the change in attitude and knowl-edge of the participants from the beginning to the midpoint and the end of a semes-ter. She reported that students apply knowledge from various sources to newlyencountered settings and that the majority of this knowledge comes from years ofobserving their own ensemble directors. Participants seemingly gained more generalpedagogical knowledge (how students learn, classroom management) from themethods courses than PCK. Gohlke also concluded that a general music methodscourse was effective in overcoming students’ preconceived notions of what it meantto teach music in an elementary school.

Hodges’s (1982) study supports the view that methods courses have little impact onteaching practices. Findings from interviews and questionnaires suggest that the contentof the methods course was forgotten (or not authentically learned) by students, becausethey were not able to connect the particular methods or concepts with real-life teaching



situations. The current trend of incorporating field experiences earlier and more often inthe teacher education program is likely in response to the findings of older studies suchas this.

If methods courses are not effective sources of PCK, then from where do preserviceteachers learn? Both Maddox (1968) and Hanson and Herrington (1976) suggest that themain instructive force for preservice teachers is their own previous school experience:“Students entering college already know what teaching is” (Hanson & Herrington, 1976,p. 12). Mardle and Walker’s (1980) four stages of teacher learning support the belief thatapprenticeship of observation is a significant influence in the development of teachingskills. They believe that a preservice teacher progresses through the stages of observer,technician, decision maker, and researcher as he or she discovers teaching strategies. Asan observer, the student gathers information in the field about teaching through watchingother teachers and students. As a technician, the student begins to develop the skills ofteaching that continue to be put into practice as the student enters the stage of decisionmaker. Here the student expands his or her teaching experience to include analysis andevaluation. Finally, as a researcher, the student becomes reflective about his or her ownpractices and determines why and how certain interactions work (Mardle & Walker,1980, p. 108).

The literature that examines the effectiveness of methods courses within musicteacher training programs reveals discontent with the preparation of music educators(Boardman Meske, 1985; Leonhard, 1988; Taylor, 1970). Leonhard (1988) states that theresearch reveals an “alarming degree of dissatisfaction with methods courses” (p. 193).The problems outlined by Leonhard are as follows:

The courses are overly theoretical and unrealistic.They do not provide useful preparation for meeting current teaching problems.There is too much overlap among methods courses.They are uninteresting. (p. 193)

It is generally agreed that teachers gain the majority of their PCK through experience inthe classroom or apprenticeship of observation. This is not an acceptable reason to avoidinvestigating ways to improve teacher preparation programs. To suggest improvementsfor developing better prepared teachers, music teacher educators must first come tosome consensus about what perservice teachers know when first actively teaching andwhere those preservice teachers reach for PCK. Which pool of knowledge do preserviceinstrumental teachers tap when teaching? For the purposes of this study, the potentialsources of PCK are defined as follows: Intuition is unattributable PCK or independentcreative thought, apprenticeship of observation is the internalization of teaching mod-els during time spent as pupils (Lortie, 1975), methods courses are required musicteacher training program education courses, and cooperating teacher refers to contactwith a cooperating teacher while student teaching.





Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this research was to better understand what influences the acqui-sition of PCK in preservice instrumental music teachers. The two research questionsthat focused this study were as follows: (a) Are there identifiable applications ofPCK in preservice teachers’ interactions with their students? (b) To what source—apprenticeship of observation, methods courses, cooperating teachers, or intuition—do preservice teachers attribute these applications of PCK?

At present, most instrumental music teachers simply teach as they were taughtbecause of the extended hours of apprenticeship of observation (Schmidt, 1998).Music methods courses do not consistently fulfill the role they are intended to fill.Boardman (1990) called for new models of research to seek answers to these majorissues in music teacher education. Methods courses must be revised to either com-plement the PCK students learn through years of observations or correct improperapplications of knowledge. In this study, the researchers began an exploration as towhat source preservice instrumental music teachers attribute their PCK. It is hopedthat this leads to future research that offers viable suggestions for reforming musicmethods courses.

Method

This study was designed as a limited qualitative case study using analytic induction(also known as the constant comparative method; Ragin, 1994). Six sets of data werecollected. The 6 participants were preservice teachers engaged in student teaching. Allparticipants experienced a three-semester instrumental methods sequence in the sameuniversity music teacher education program. Methods courses contained a mixture oflecture-based teaching, peer teaching with secondary instruments, and field experiencewith large instrumental ensembles at the beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels.The amount of field experience varied each semester between 3 and 12 hours. Eachmethods course was team taught by a String Music Education professor and a Winds/Percussion Music Education professor, affording participants opportunities for expo-sure to varied teaching methods and philosophies. Participants then completed onesemester of part-time student teaching, 12 hours per week with a cooperating teacher,and one semester of full-time student teaching, 40 hours per week with another coop-erating teacher.

Each data set was collected during a teaching episode at each participant’sassigned school. Each participant was responsible for the design, implementation,and recording of the lesson. The researchers viewed each videotape to identify inci-dents of PCK to be discussed with the participant during an interview.

An interview protocol was developed to guide discussion of the video segmentswith the participants. To examine the validity of the PCK evaluation procedure, the




interviews were guided by the research questions and toward eliciting the goals of thepreservice teacher. This provided the opportunity to match the researcher-identified PCKwith the intended instructional goals and revealed the preservice teachers’ perceivedsources of attribution. In each of the instances of PCK across all participants, theresearcher-defined PCK and the preservice teacher concepts matched. About eachinstance, participants were asked, (a) Why did you stop the rehearsal, or what wereyou trying to accomplish? and (b) Do you recall where you learned that pedagogicaltechnique? Participants’ responses to the second question were coded and fell intothe following categories: intuition, apprenticeship of observation, methods courses,cooperating teacher, and other. (The other category was created to account for tworesponses that referenced books or workshops.)

The participants completed a researcher-designed survey that reported theirinstrumental training history. Participants were asked to report the number of yearsof participation in instrumental ensembles, number of years of private study, numberof ensemble and private teachers, participation in out-of-school music groups, andinvolvement of parents in music. These data were gathered to better understand themultiple ways by which participants acquired PCK.

Analysis

Using what Borg, Borg, and Gall (1996) define as reflective analysis, the researchteam relied primarily on “intuition and judgment in order to . . . evaluate the phenom-ena being studied” (p. 570). This approach is validated by Eisner’s (1998) conceptionof educational connoisseurship, a direct correlate of artistic appreciation of subtletiesgathered through experience and reflection. Identification of specific items of PCKwas based on established models (Ballantyne & Packer, 2004; Conway, 2002;Gohlke, 1994; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986) mediated into music education settingsby the researchers. As the research team viewed each videotape, a log of potential inci-dents of PCK was kept. At the conclusion of the discussion, the research team reviewedincidents that appeared to be rich data sources and came to consensus on the most obvi-ous PCK label to be applied. The clearest instances were chosen from each session, withclarity defined as (a) obvious verbal and physical reaction on the part of the preserviceteacher to student production of sound and/or (b) pedagogical approaches that weredirectly embedded in musical actions and concepts.

With regard to the first research question, several applications of PCK were iden-tified. A variety of instances of PCK in instrumental music teaching included subdi-vision for control of tempo, isolation of instrument groups for error detection,directed questioning, modeling, student self-evaluation, bowing techniques, transferof knowledge, aural skill development, phrasing, clapping and counting, breathingexercises, singing, and pizzicato technique. Table 1 lists specific instances of PCKused by each participant.




Table 1Instances of Pedagogical Content Knowledge by Each Participant

Participant Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Dwight Subdivision for control of tempoWriting in countsCount, clap, tapCounting off with subdivisionSmall-group performanceVaried use of rhythm chart

Albert Use of warm-up/tuning CDUse of fast air to increase volume, improve energy and pitch, and

maintain tempoRemediation of elements of embouchure formation to improve toneCounting off on pitch to aid pitch awarenessConsistency of sound from attack to release of notesUse of electronic tuner to analyze pitch fluctuationsModeling with primary instrumentConcept of phrasing to correct breathing on the bar linesEfficient breathing in tempo, including dropping a note when necessaryClapping and counting to teach rhythmsVisual representation of staccatoUse of metronome for note lengthIsolation of individuals and sections to provide feedback

Sam Directed questioningResponding to visual cuesExecuting dynamic markingsModeling efficient breathing at performance tempoStudent self-evaluation of performanceStudent modelingPitch awareness and techniques to correct

Cathy Breathing exercises as a focusing activityGood posture to enable efficient use of airBreathing exercises to increase enduranceTransfer of knowledge from breathing exercises to playingSinging intervals to aid in playing intervalsAssociating intervals with familiar songsInterval identification to improve aural skillsQuestioningVisual representation of notationFoot tapping for internal pulse and subdivisionRelating new concepts to previously learned conceptsTransfer of knowledge to altered rhythmic patternsListening to and evaluating self and othersUse of visual aid (board)Isolating and correcting performance errorsModeling fingerings

(continued)




During the interview process, the incidents of PCK listed in Table 1 were reviewedwith the participants. After identifying each incident, the participants attributed the PCKto one or more sources. Oftentimes, participants used specific labels themselves: “Ilearned that in my college methods course” or “My cooperating teacher does that all ofthe time.” Other times, the researchers coded answers according to the categories: “Myhigh school director always did that” (apprenticeship of observation), “I don’t knowexactly where I learned that. It just seems logical” (intuition), or “I learned that fromreading a book I found on my own” (other). Source attributions for each participant aredetailed in Table 2.

Table 2Source Attributions of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (in percentages)

Apprenticeship Cooperating Participant of Observation Intuition Teacher Methods Courses Other

Dwight 20 0 50 20 10Albert 32 25 21 21 0Sam 38 15 23 23 0Cathy 30 30 0.5 35 0Mark 20 40 0 40 0Sally 19 12.5 56 12.5 0

Table 1 (continued)

Participant Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Mark Bowing techniquesReviewing previously learned material to introduce a new conceptQuestioning for critical thinkingListening for and experiencing characteristics of formTransfer of knowledgeVisual representation of modal relationshipsAural identification of modality

Sally Directed questioningModeling performance of a scaleCounting off with subdivisionTuning to a pitch referenceAdjusting finger position for intonationProper execution of pizzicato at various dynamicsSubdividing to prevent rushing while playing loudMarking music to highlight dynamic changesWatching conductor for ensemble precisionModeling rhythm patternVisual reference and modeling of a new ornamentation



Discussion

The focus of Dwight’s lesson was tempo, using subdivision as a means for cor-recting inconsistencies. Fifty percent of Dwight’s attributions were cooperatingteacher, whereas apprenticeship of observation and methods courses accounted for20% each, and the last 10% was other. Dwight had 10 different ensemble directorsand private music teachers during his formative years. The lower attribution toapprenticeship of observation may be because of brief experiences with these direc-tors and teachers, whereas the everyday influence of the cooperating teacher hadmore impact. In addition, Dwight was a nontraditional student who had returnedafter working in a nonmusic profession to obtain teacher certification. It is possiblethat the additional time away from music instruction contributed to the lack of attri-bution to apprenticeship of observation, and the immediate and current influence ofthe cooperating teacher was stronger.

Albert began with an extensive warm-up that focused on breathing and tone produc-tion. The second part of Albert’s lesson dealt with the use of air in phrasing, articulations,and slide movement. Albert’s attributions were evenly distributed across the four primarysources of PCK, with a slight emphasis on apprenticeship of observation. Albert’s formalmusic education included seven ensemble directors and three private teachers. Addition-ally, Albert was involved in a number of musical activities outside of school. At homeAlbert had the additional influence of two parents who taught music. It appears thatAlbert’s exposure to multiple teaching models evenly influenced his acquisition of PCK.

In varied instances of PCK, Sam’s predominant methods were directed questioning,student self-evaluation, and student modeling. Sam’s objectives were student awarenessof pitch variance caused by poor tone production, and proper breathing techniques.Sam’s primary attribution was apprenticeship of observation. Cooperating teacher andmethods courses were equal seconds, and intuition was referred to the least. Samattended two universities for his undergraduate training and was influenced minimally bytwo sets of professors. On the other hand, he was in the school band throughout highschool and college for 11 years with only four different directors. It is possible that Sam’sitinerant nature as an undergraduate did not allow him ample time to latch onto the ped-agogical philosophies of his methods course professors, but he had more time to observeand learn from longer experiences with only four directors in 11 years.

Cathy began her lesson with an extensive warm-up that included breathing exercises,reminders about posture, and ear training to improve aural skills. One of Cathy’s teach-ing strategies was for students to transfer knowledge from one activity or exercise andapply it to another musical setting. Cathy’s primary attribution was methods courses.Apprenticeship of observation and intuition were the second-most cited. Cathy attendedthree institutions for her undergraduate training with significant time off between trans-fers. Although her college experience was itinerant, it is possible that the time away fromschool prior to her final semesters, which included methods courses, increased the influ-ence of the methods courses. It is likely that Cathy’s 14 years in school bands, as well as





4 years in a drum and bugle corps, provided ample opportunity for apprenticeship ofobservation. In addition, these varied experiences and Cathy’s status as a nontraditionalstudent might have provided her with the tools to intuit teaching strategies.

Mark attempted to develop students’ critical thinking skills by having them respondto and evaluate what they were hearing and transfer knowledge of previously learnedmaterials to new contexts and new concepts and by asking them directed questions.Mark cited intuition and methods courses equally and nearly exclusively, with addi-tional minimal reference to apprenticeship of observation. Mark spent 1 year in anorchestra during college and had no primary or secondary school orchestra experiences.He had one orchestra director and three private teachers. Most of Mark’s performanceexperience came from a jazz band and chorus during his undergraduate training. Inaddition to playing the string bass, Mark learned to play the piano and was primarilyself-taught. This limited ensemble experience seems to lead logically to limited appren-ticeship of observation. Methods courses were Mark’s most legitimate and significantexposure to teaching strategies. His advanced musicianship—he also has a compositiondegree—perhaps enabled him to be intuitive as a teacher.

Sally’s lesson included many concepts and focused on intonation—tuning to apitch reference, proper left-hand finger placement, and execution of dynamics—proper bowing and plucking technique, marking music, and watching the conductor.More than half of her attributions were for cooperating teacher. Apprenticeship ofobservation, methods courses, and intuition received minimal references. She spent9 years in school orchestras with four directors and, through 12 years of privatelessons, had four private teachers. Sally also participated in church orchestras out-side of school. It is not clear why Sally’s consistent performance experiences and hermethods courses did not seem to influence her acquisition of PCK. One possibleexplanation for citing cooperating teacher the most is that Sally was placed with avery strong and renowned cooperating teacher in accordance with her specific weak-nesses as a preservice teacher and either she was heavily influenced by the cooper-ating teacher or the impressions made by the cooperating teacher negated otherinfluences.

The data do not indicate an indisputable predominant source of PCK. Apprenticeshipof observation, methods courses, and cooperating teacher were each reported twice as thepredominant source of PCK. One of the participants cited methods courses and intuitionequally. This seems to contradict the findings of Ballantyne and Packer (2004), Conway(2002), Gohlke (1994), and Hodges (1982), all of whom reported an insignificant influ-ence of methods courses and primary influence of apprenticeship of observation. Thepresent study indicates a strong contextual element to perceived sources of PCK.Participants’ instrumental training history seems to affect the acquisition of PCK andshould be considered when pursuing this line of research. Previous research indicates aneed to revise methods courses, and the present study confirms this need, with only 2 par-ticipants citing methods courses as their primary source of PCK.




Although the present study provides information critical to filling a gap in themusic education research literature, the conclusions that can be drawn are limited.One more contextually embedded way of approaching this question would be to col-lect more in-depth field notes and a series of videotape and interview cycles in a sin-gle case study. The addition of field note data and additional interviews withstudents, cooperating teacher, methods course instructor, and participant wouldallow a richer story to be told about how one preservice teacher views the develop-ment and use of PCK while teaching instrumental music.

Implications for Teacher Educators

Further research in this area is needed for direct application to be made to theimprovement of preservice teacher preparation programs. Investigation of what factorswithin apprenticeship of observation result in the acquisition of PCK could identifystrategies useful to methods courses curriculum revision and implementation. An in-depth analysis of methods course content is necessary to determine whether there is dis-confirming evidence. If methods courses are found to be providing a strong grounding inPCK that matches the PCK found in the video segments, then the case could be madethat something in the methods course format or delivery is leading preservice teachers tomisattribute the source of PCK. Additionally, the roles of beliefs, philosophy, socializa-tion, and personal histories are particularly strong components to be considered in thedevelopment or revision of methods course curricula. As initially indicated in the presentstudy, these influences may directly affect preservice teacher PCK source attribution.

In the context of performance, older models of performance participation place strongemphasis on the role of the conductor as decision maker. Newer models of music instruc-tion, led by the National Standards for Music Education (Consortium of National ArtsEducation Associations, 1994), point to constructivist and inquiry-based methods thatrequire substantial modification of older forms of PCK. This may lead to a direct con-flict between the methods of acquiring PCK and types of PCK developed in the appren-ticeship of observation and the methods courses. This discrepancy can be mediated onlyby beliefs and philosophy.

References

Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject-matter knowledge part of the equation.In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Ballantyne, J., & Packer, J. (2004). Effectiveness of preservice music teacher education programs:Perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research, 6(3), 299–312.

Boardman, E. (1990). Music teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teachertraining (pp. 730–745). New York: Macmillan.

Boardman Meske, E. (1985). Teacher education, a wedding of theory and practice. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 81, 65–73.




Borg, W. R., Borg, M. D., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY:Longman.

Cochran, K., DeRuiter, J., & King, R. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model forteacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). The National Standards for Arts Education.Reston, VA: MENC.

Conway, C. M. (1999). The development of teaching cases for instrumental music methods courses.Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(4), 343–356.

Conway, C. M. (2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regardingpreservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 20–36.

Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational prac-tice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gohlke, L. J. (1994). The music methods class: Acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge by preser-vice music teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York:Teachers College Press.

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education,41(3), 44–52.

Hanson, D., & Herrington, M. (1976). From college to classroom: The probationary year. London:Routledge/Kegan Paul.

Hodges, C. (1982). Implementing methods: If you can’t blame the cooperating teacher who can youblame? Journal of Teacher Education, 33(6), 25–29.

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialisation of teachers. London: Methuen.Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,

75–95.Leonhard, C. (1985). An address presented to the symposium on teacher education, Madison, Wisconsin.

Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 9(1), 1–13.Leonhard, C. (1988). Methods courses in music education. In J. T. Gates (Ed.), Music education in the

United States: Contemporary issues (pp. 191–201). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Maddox, H. (1968). A descriptive study of teaching practice. Education Review, 120(3), 3.Mardle, G., & Walker, M. (1980). Strategies and structure: Some critical notes on teacher socialization.

In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 99-114).London: Crom Helm.

Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.Schleuter, L. (1991). Student teachers’ preactive and postactive curricular thinking. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 39(1), 48–65.Schmidt, M. (1998). Defining “good” music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs and practices.

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19–46.Sherin, M. G. (1997, March). When teaching becomes learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L., & Madanes, R. (1999). Exploring diverse accounts of teacher knowledge.

Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), pp. 1–19.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,

15(2), 4–14.Taylor, C. H. (1970). Opinions of music teachers regarding professional preparation in music education.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(4), 330–339.Wing, L. (1993). Music teacher education: Coming to our senses. Bulletin of the Council for Research in

Music Education, 117, 51–65.



sources of pedagogical content knowledge: reports by preservice instrumental music teachers

Documents