Abstract 

Partnerships between universities and school district music programs support preservice music teacher development. However, one topic rarely reported within research is the combination of the benefits and challenges involved with such an undertaking including the voice of multiple stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to present details, alongside the benefits and challenges, of a School-University Partnership between the University and School District during the 2018-2019 school year. Findings indicated that (a) high school instrumental musicians reported benefits and indicated challenges associated with their musical learning, (b) preservice music teachers valued the experience and identified challenges with their teaching opportunities during the School-University Partnership, and (c) preservice music teachers self-reported perceptions of seeing “a bigger picture” with regards to how school ensemble classrooms operate. These are likely essential factors in structuring School-University Partnerships and therefore may assist music teacher educators further understand how to structure future partnerships. 

 

 

The Benefits and Challenges of a Music Education School-University Partnership 

Partnerships between universities and school district music programs support preservice music teacher development (Kruse, 2012). Moreover, several common characteristics of university/school partnerships include providing preservice music teachers access to school-aged youth through fieldwork experiences, offering various professional development opportunities for preservice and in-service music teachers, and making on-site pedagogical support available to music teachers and learners. However, one topic rarely reported within research is the combination of the benefits and challenges involved with such an undertaking including the voice of multiple stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to present details, alongside the benefits and challenges, of a School-University Partnership between the University and a School District[1] during the 2018-2019 school year.

Framework from Music Education Research

School-University Partnerships in Preservice Teacher Education

            School-University Partnerships have the potential to result in transformative change for all stakeholders (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2008) and reciprocity is the foundation of these collaborations (Teitel, 2003). A defining aspect of School-University Partnerships is the premise of reciprocity, which is grounded in the qualities of mutual respect, shared authority, and the co-creation of goals and outcomes (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2008). Research from teacher education highlights that partnerships between universities and schools should maintain a commitment to the mutual benefits of stakeholders, as a truly reciprocal relationship may be described by different outcomes for each stakeholder. Collaborations which do not comprise of mutually beneficial results rarely lead to transformative change. 

Creating a School-University Partnership based on the premise of reciprocity is complex work and Dahlman et al. (2014) identified three areas in which university teacher education programs should focus their efforts: 1) creating more opportunities for preservice teachers to practice in the field; 2) using reflective practices and empirical evidence to make decisions; and 3) improving or increasing preservice teacher support throughout their experience with mentoring or co-teaching experiences. Another consideration for partnerships focuses on the authenticity of the experience. Rodger, Prater, and Blocher (2014) described the experiences of alumnus from professional development schools (PDS) as positive overall due to a balance between theoretical and practical application. Participants within the intensive program lauded the authenticity of the experience of being within a classroom before it was their own and that continuing these partnerships would save education. For secondary schools, partnerships focused on student learning alongside preservice teacher preparedness are more robust than those just focused on the latter. In addition to crafting an authentic experience, university-based and in-service teacher partners need to include student voices. Greb, Kirkman, and Grunau (2014) described a long-term collaboration as successful due partly to the extent to which student voices were honored through feedback and in the ways that the university was able to further enhance student learning. These researchers concluded that goals of these collaborations optimally work by allowing for flexibility rather than strictly following goals. 

School-University Partnerships within Music Education Research

            The topic of School-University Partnerships within music education research has been investigated by multiple researchers exploring several themes including the benefits and challenges of establishing a partnership (Burton & Greher, 2007; Conkling, 2007; Conkling & Henry, 1999; Henry, 2001; Kruse, 2011a; Robinson, 2001). Various types of music education partnerships have been documented in research ranging from a professional development partnership (Conkling & Henry, 1999) and more informal partnerships (Burton & Greher, 2007). From this range of music education partnerships documented in research, Burton (2011) listed multiple benefits for stakeholders including “(a) collaboration and shared practice, (b) the linking of theory to practice, (c) a greater understanding of how students mature and develop, (d) socialization into the profession, and (e) occupational identity formation” (p. 122).

            Despite the myriad benefits reported by researchers in music education, there are also inherent challenges. Brophy (2011) discussed that School-University Partnerships can sometimes cause conflicts in scheduling and interpersonal communication between stakeholders. Moreover, Kruse (2011a) reported that cooperating teachers may have a significant amount of preparatory work associated with a Partnership and that this could be a deterrent for in-service music teachers. Given that there are documented benefits and challenges to maintaining a School-University Partnership, these and other researchers encouraged future investigation on this topic to fully understand the motivations for and details of collaborations between secondary schools and university music teacher preparation programs (Brophy, 2011; Burton & Greher, 2007; Kruse 2011b; Robinson, 2001). 

The Current Study

Partnerships between universities and school district music programs support preservice music teacher development (Kruse, 2012). For instance, several common characteristics of university/school partnerships include a) providing preservice music teachers access to school-aged youth through fieldwork experiences, b) offering various professional development opportunities for preservice and in-service music teachers, and c) making on-site pedagogical support available to music teachers and learners. However, Brophy (2011) stated that researchers rarely examine the combination of the opportunities and obstacles involved with such an undertaking and previous research demonstrates a scarcity of secondary students’ perspectives (Kruse, 2012). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to present details, alongside the benefits and challenges, of a School-University Partnership between the University and School District during the 2018-2019 school year. Two research questions are posed to address recommendations from previous research:

1.     How do experienced music teachers, their students, and preservice music teachers describe the benefits of a School-University Partnership?

2.     How do experienced music teachers, their students, and preservice music teachers describe the challenges of a School-University Partnership?

 

Method

Research Design

            In the current study, we sought to explore the benefits and challenges of a School-University Partnership. We chose what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) label as a basic qualitative design, and past research in music education has employed similar designs (Conway, 2014; Conway, Edgar, Hansen, & Palmer, 2014; Conway, Hansen, Edgar, & Palmer, 2015; Parkes & Rawlings, 2019; Pellegrino, 2015; Pellegrino, Kastner, Reese, & Russell, 2018). 

Partnership & Participants

            The School-University Partnership under investigation involved multiple stakeholders and has existed for two years between The University and the School District. Authors two and three approached Author one during October 2017 to explore possible options for establishing a School-University Partnership that aimed to: (a) provide high school musicians with multiple opportunities to perform wind band repertoire that was not selected for curricular purposes or programmed for performance and (b) provide multiple teaching experiences for PSMTs to lead high school musicians in performing new music notation (i.e., sight-reading). The result of this partnership was creating an after-school event that was hosted by the School District. In February 2018, the first pilot event was held at one of the high school partner’s home building. All stakeholders decided to continue the partnership, modify the event, and formally study and document the benefit and challenges at the next event (2019). Details about the second event may be found in Appendix A.   

High School Partners. Two instrumental music programs from one school district were involved in the partnership. School A enrolls, on average, 2,500 students each academic year, grades 10 – 12. Within the band program, there are 200 youth participating in five large ensembles (three concert bands and two jazz bands). Two full-time faculty teach within the band program. School B enrolls, on average, 2,200 students each academic year, grades 10 – 12. Within the band and orchestra programs, there are 250 youth participating in seven large ensembles (two concert bands, three orchestras, two jazz bands, and three percussion ensembles). Two full-time faculty teach within the band program. 

University Partner. The University is the state flagship institution of higher education and is labeled a Carnegie Research One institution. With an estimated student enrollment of 33,000 students (24,800 Undergraduate; 8,250 Graduate), the NASM-accredited School of Music is housed within a large College of Fine Arts. Approximately one-third of the music majors are studying music education and there are three faculty teaching within this degree program. The PSMT participants (n = 10) were third-year students enrolled in an Instrumental Rehearsal Techniques course and volunteered to participant in this partnership event, which was not considered as a part of their grade. These students represented 56% of the entire course enrollment and Author one was the instructor of this course. Multiple safeguards associated with limiting teacher-student power differentials were essential and although these were required by the university institutional review board, it may be possible that PSMTs felt it necessary to participate. 

Data Collection

The perceptions of PSMTs, secondary musicians, and in-service music teachers were documented and analyzed. For our investigation, we primarily considered four data points including: (a) 10 PSMT teaching episode reflections, (b) two high school musician focus group interview transcripts (School A and School B), (c) one PSMT and in-service teacher panel discussion transcript, and (d) one researcher log book. These data points were influenced by recommendations from previous researchers (Brophy, 2011; Kruse, 2012). Data collection occurred during March 2019 and the researcher log with transcript inspections completed in May 2019. The following schedule outlines the when various components of this research occurred:

Table 1. Investigation Timeline

September 2018	Stakeholder meeting to discuss continued partnership and modify the second event based on informal documentation of the first
November 2018	Finalize event schedule; schedule high school facilities
January 2019	Repertoire selection; discussion with University PSMTs
February 2019	Secondary school musician volunteer recruitment; repertoire assignment to PSMTs
March 2019	Partnership event (2 concert bands and 1 string orchestra); PSMT reflections; high school musician focus-group interviews; panel discussion between PSMTs and in-service teachers
May 2019	Researcher logbook closed; interview transcripts created; data analyzed

 

Preservice music teachers completed a written reflection following the Eyler and Giles (1999) reflection protocol (What?; So What?; and Now What?) within one week of their teaching episode (see Appendix B for reflection prompts). During that week following the Partnership event, author one conducted two focus group interviews with the high school musicians to seek out and uncover their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of the event. The structured interview questions included: (a) Looking back on Friday evening’s event, what did you learn?; (b) What can you relate to your playing from this experience?; (c) Did you learn or apply any techniques to your playing?; (d) Are there any other thoughts or memories that you would like to share with me? Additionally, one panel discussion between the PSMTs and in-service music teachers was recorded and transcribed. The researcher logbook for the current study was an electronic file containing all communication between the authors including phone, e-mail, and informal meeting interactions (e.g., Facebook messaging, text messaging communication) and observation notes. Author one was assigned to keep and make notes within the logbook.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

The analysis protocol was framed within a long-term interaction with these data and the authors purposefully chose Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña’s (2015) recommendation for qualitative data analysis - engaging in a strategic, multi-stage protocol for examining the corpus of data. First, we began with an open-ended coding protocol while examining the PSMT reflections. Each author explored the data separately and as an approach to build internal credibility for the analysis of these data, the authors independently agreed on the final coding structure. The final themes converged through an axial coding procedure (Patton, 2015). In addition, we asked an external reviewer (an experienced music education researcher) to review the reflections, coding framework, and categorizations as a means of confirming the interpretation of these data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Findings and Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to present details, alongside the benefits and challenges, of a School-University Partnership between the University and School District during the 2018-2019 school year. Themes are organized to directly address the research questions and Miles et al. (2015) recommends presenting themes according to their uniqueness, frequency, and intensity. Themes that emerged from these data included that participants (a) valued the partnership for the musical benefits, (b) valued the partnership because of the “awakenings” that occurred, (c) valued the partnership because of the strengthened relationships among stakeholders, (d) identified musical challenges, (d) identified developmental challenges with the partnership, (e) identified logistical challenges, and (f) identified challenges with PSMT projection. Following the last theme within each research question, we offer a discussion of the findings with connections to past research. 

Musical Benefits for Secondary Musicians

            Music teacher and most secondary musician participants agreed that there were musical benefits for secondary musicians as a result of the Partnership. When discussing the musical benefits, the in-service teachers mentioned how having exposure to multiple PSMT conductors “opened their [secondary musicians] eyes to multiple interpretations of how similar musical events (e.g., rallentandos, fermati) can be approached” (panel discussion). When similar topics were posed to the secondary musician focus groups, one participant stated “I was noticing that I was becoming more flexible seeing different conductors because I feel like we had to be more aware. We can predict our teacher’s interpretation, but it was like the wild west – anything could happen – with the college students” (focus group A). Moreover, another secondary musician commented:

I noticed as we were sight-reading, we were listening more to ourselves as an ensemble. Our balance was getting better as we were listening to each other. Sometimes I feel like when we’re working on pieces, we just know what we’re supposed to sound like as a section. We’re not necessary listening to everyone. So, when we were being led by the college students, it was like a double whammy – unpredictable conductor interpretation and needing to listen deeper (focus group B).

PSMT participants did not report musical benefits from the partnership. 

Awareness among Secondary Musicians and PSMTs

A second benefit of the Partnership was related to the awareness of two participant populations: the secondary musicians and the PSMTs. All data points corroborated this theme. One piece of evidence to support this theme was documented through the PSMT reflections. For instance, one PSMT remarked “I learned that you cannot be too prepared for rehearsal” (PSMT 8). Another PSMT wrote:

I learned that I need to focus more on what’s happening in the back of the ensemble, my ears were mostly focused on the front stands which was not an accurate representation of what was going on. I know this piece because I played it before, but I wish I would have known the score better and invested more time in studying individual parts (PSMT 3).

Secondary musicians also commented about their awareness as a result of the Partnership. One musician mentioned “…with each new conductor, we were on high alert and had to be aware of time so we could stay together” (focus group A). 

            A subtheme within this category that emerged from the secondary musicians was an awareness of the developmental process associated with the journey from music student to music teacher. Within focus group dataset, 42 secondary musicians referenced noticing that the PSMTs were “in process.” For instance, they discussed “seeing what it’s like to be a music teacher in training” (focus group A). One secondary musician in Focus Group B mentioned “I learned that it is hard to do what they did.” Another piece of evidence that corroborates this subtheme documented an informal conversation between a secondary musician and the music teacher educator. The secondary musician said:

Before today, I didn’t think I could be a music teacher because my teachers are really good. I mean, how can could I ever be as good as my teachers? However, after seeing the college students, I know I could do that (researcher logbook).            

The final piece of ancillary evidence reinforces this subtheme and documents the level of interest in pursuing a career in music education. Applications to the School of Music from School A and School B increased by 450% (two applications 2018-2019; 11 applications 2019-2020) following the Partnership. Although we do not know the causation of the relationship between the Partnership and volume of applications, the association between these two variables are interesting to note.

Strengthened Stakeholder Relationships

            The third and final theme related to the benefits of the Partnership is the positive, continuous stakeholder relationship. This theme is described in three subthemes including the depth of relationship between the stakeholders, employee recruitment, and in-service music teacher professional growth. Organizing a partnership event may have the capacity to develop mutual feelings of trust and respect between in-service music teachers and music teacher educators (panel discussion). As a result of strong feelings of respect and trust, additional partnerships were developed as a result of the current partnership. For instance, in-service music teachers at the junior high schools that feed Schools A and B approached the university-based music teacher educator to develop an additional Partnership and event later that semester to provide different experiences (solo and small ensemble coaching; large group adjudication) between the musicians and the PSMTs (researcher logbook).

The second subtheme represents employee recruitment. Three of the PSMTs were offered part-time employment through the partner schools in various positions, including brass instructor, percussion instructor, as well as one PSMT being offered full-time instructor position (researcher logbook). The in-service music teachers discussed the possibility of recruitment with the PSMTs after seeing them teach their students and equated the recruitment as a positive outcome of the Partnership (panel discussion).

The third subtheme represents the professional growth of the in-service music teachers. During the process of planning our Partnership, the music teachers discussed their interest in the field of music teacher education, specifically the developmental journey of a PSMT (researcher logbook). Both teachers are enrolled in a Master of Music Education degree program and would discuss their current music education foundational coursework alongside what they were noticing during the Partnership (researcher logbook). Additionally, the teachers actively sought out opportunities to learn more about the field of music teacher education and attended professional development seminars about the topic (researcher logbook). 

Overall, the participants discussed details about how the Partnership benefits all stakeholders. These themes highlight important considerations for how School-University Partnerships are designed in the future. From the evidence previously presented, the secondary musicians benefitted from the Partnership. Kruse (2012) discussed lack of secondary students’ perspectives about School-University Partnerships and we are identifying this particular finding as a unique contribution to the music education research. Multiple studies document PSMT perceived benefits; however, no previously published research discussed secondary musician self-reported musical benefits of a School-University Partnership.

            The second benefit we documented was related to PSMT and secondary musician awareness and a portion of this finding corroborates previous research by Burton (2011). Specifically, we believe that our evidence, provided by the PSMTs, aligns with how they “socialize into the profession” (Burton, 2011, p. 122). However, the subtheme refers to the journey from music student to music teacher. Previous researchers in music education discuss the gradual shift in identity as well as task identification within and among PSMTs (Berg & Miksza, 2010; Miksza & Berg, 2013; Scheib et al., 2007) and with evidence from secondary musicians, we believe that previous research may also extend to secondary musicians. The notion of secondary musicians understanding that there is a developmental process of music teacher development and also seeing themselves as a member of the music teacher profession is a unique finding within the music education research.  

Research within teacher education scholarship identifies the role of the university-based teacher educator as a liaison, their work fostering relationships that support collaborative activity (Martin, Snow, & Franklin Torrez, 2011). The third theme was categorized into three subthemes including the depth of relationship between the stakeholders, employee recruitment, and in-service music teacher professional growth. Music education researchers have not documented these themes within previous researchers. Specifically, the distinctiveness of this finding provides additional information for the music teacher education community of researchers to consider. 

Musical Challenges for Secondary Musicians

Secondary musician participants discussed musical challenges alongside the benefits of the Partnership. One secondary musician disclosed a common challenge among their school’s concert band:

A few of the conductors were hard to follow … when people have done a lot of score study, it shows. When they just know the time signature and navigate through the score, it’s an eye bound approach with no eye contact. I tune them out (focus group A). 

Another secondary musician remarked “some conductors didn’t teach me anything. All they did was throw down some beats, cheerlead us along, and at the end of their time, I was the same musician when they started” (focus group A). These sentiments were also reinforced by other secondary musicians in Focus Group B. Almost one-third (31%) of secondary musicians remarked that they did not learn something new (focus group B). These opinions directly conflict with all of the PSMT reflections. Specifically, one PSMT wrote “I taught for musical understanding” (PSMT 1). 

A subtheme within musical challenges represents repertoire selection. The aim of the Partnership event was to provide repertoire for the secondary musicians to sight-read. Three secondary musicians from School A identified that the repertoire that was selected for the Partnership event was repertoire that they had previous performed. During the focus group interview, one secondary musician commented “… some of the music wasn’t sight-reading for me. I performed four of the pieces at [university] honor bands” (focus group A). This discussion highlighted how this repertoire did not present enough of a musical challenge for a few of the secondary musicians. Despite the intention of selecting repertoire that musicians had not seen previously (researcher logbook), it seems that this subtheme may have been inevitable and unavoidable.  

With Awareness Comes Misperception

The second theme we identified represents the developmental process of becoming a music teacher. The Partnership event required the PSMT to conduct one piece of repertoire twice (once with School A concert band and once with School B concert band). The secondary musicians would be sight-reading the notation; however, the PSMT prepared the music score two weeks before the event. One PSMT reported that she “… felt that there was a disconnection between what the students thought the objectives were and what we thought the objectives were” (PSMT 2). During the panel discussion, the university-based teacher educator asked for clarification about this comment and PSMTs discussed approaches to sight-reading with a large ensemble. The same PSMT explained “…I just didn’t know if I was supposed to conduct through the piece and that was the goal or if I was supposed to focus on a small segment of the song and teach” (panel discussion). Her PSMT peers discussed this comment and determined that the objective encompassed both aims and was dependent on the success of secondary musicians performing the notation (panel discussion). Appendix A displays details about the event and describing the objectives.

Another challenge within this theme was that 47% of the PSMTs were reluctant to engage in conceptual teaching during their teaching episode because of their preconceived notion of what sight-reading is and is not. One PSMT wrote “when we sight-read at the University, the conductor doesn’t stop to teach. I had a difficult time getting through the music and didn’t know if I should stop and fix it or just keep going” (PSMT, 4). This evidence demonstrates a dilemma made clear during the panel discussion. Additional PSMTs discussed their misperception of how to lead a sight-reading teaching episode. Another PSMT remarked “I was just thinking ‘what would Dr. Borden do?’…the band was tearing apart and I just kept conducting. That was obviously the wrong decision” (PSMT 10)

Logistical Challenges

            Music teacher participants discussed logistical challenges associated with preparing for and executing the Partnership event. Preparing for the Partnership event took many hours distributed across six months including collaborative meetings between the university-based teacher educator and the in-service music teachers (researcher logbook) and Table 1 displays the timeline of events leading up to the Partnership event. This event took place on a Friday afternoon and evening and in-service music teachers reported challenges recruiting enough secondary musicians to accommodate the instrumentation for two concert band ensembles (panel discussion; researcher logbook). Despite the secondary musicians volunteering for this opportunity, 50% of these musicians reported feelings of false reciprocity (focus groups A & B). Two musicians said “it wasn’t worth my time because I missed time hanging out with my friends” and “I thought I needed to be a better sight-reader and as it turns out, I’m pretty good at it … I didn’t really learn enough to recommend participating in the future” (focus groups A & B, respectively). Alongside this challenge, the music teachers reported many challenges finding a date requiring the rehearsal spaces necessary for the event. Ultimately, only one day was available among all stakeholder schedules.

            Another logistical challenge reported by the PSMTs focused on preparing folders with the correct notation for the Partnership event. Each PSMT was responsible for preparing music folders the repertoire assigned to them and this involved labeling folders with an instrument name and part number, collating the sheet music to the appropriate folder, and collaborating with their peers to determine when these tasks would be completed (researcher logbook). This task resembles the work of a music teacher that teaches a large ensemble. PSMTs reported many challenges ranging from lack of communication among themselves to not having collated a piece of repertoire into the folder to not labeling the folders (panel discussion). During the panel discussion, the university-based teacher educator asked for clarification and the PSMTs reported two reasons for the logistical challenge. First, the PSMTs underestimated the time it would take to the complete the task and second, some did not understand the task and did not ask for assistance (panel discussion).  

PSMT Projection

The final challenge that we identified was PSMT projection. Hochreich (1975) defines projection as “… external attitudes [that] may be viewed as a built-in defense; to the extent that an individual habitually blames external factors for failure” (p. 540). Data analysis revealed a finding not generalizable across the data points; however, evidence was reported by two PSMTs. One PSMT wrote a reflective comment after receiving feedback following the first teaching episode: 

I took the cooperating teacher’s advice and I regret this decision. When I tried this strategy, I wasted so much time talking about the score, but the kids didn’t really pay attention anyways … I feel like that the advice was all circumstantial and it didn’t really apply to me in that context (PSMT 2).

Both in-service music teachers independently agreed these discussions took place after PSMT 2 led a rehearsal with a concert band. Another PSMT made a related comment. He reported “… my cooperating teacher said ‘I scared the students a little bit,’ but I guess that makes sense in a way. But for all intents and purposes, that’s not a bad thing” (PSMT 9). Both of these statements are evidence of PSMT projection or blame shifting.

Musical challenges for secondary musicians are not unique themes within the School-University Partnership research in music education (Kruse, 2012). Kruse (2012) reported secondary musicians being challenged through the interpretation of conducting gesture and unclear learning outcomes. Although this specific finding was not duplicated through the current study, a possible connection is the lack of learning through the Partnership event. It is plausible that if the PSMTs would have elucidated their learning outcomes, the secondary musicians would have reported more significant learning experiences. One of the goals of the Partnership event was to select repertoire for sight-reading; however, three secondary musicians had seen 40% of the repertoire at prior events and it is difficult to determine if this challenge influenced their opinions of their overall learning. 

Misperceptions were reported as a challenge within the current study and understanding these misperceptions can be framed within preservice teacher development research. One framework of preservice teacher development found within music education research is Fuller and Brown’s (1975) framework (Miksza & Berg, 2013). Fuller and Brown recommended a three-stage teacher concerns framework as an approach of theorizing teacher development. The stages represent types of concerns that tend to be the primary focus of attention during the process of becoming a teacher and include (a) concerns about self, (b) concerns about tasks, and (c) concerns about students and the impact of teaching. Given the challenges reported by the PSMTs, it appears that their statements represent stage one and two concerns. PSMTs were provided with rehearsal strategies as this category of rehearsal can be a rare experience (sight-reading) as an attempt to thwart self and task concerns associated with teaching the secondary musicians. Nonetheless, PSMTs reported both self and task concerns related to their ensemble teaching experiences. The developmental process of becoming a music teacher is complex and not linear. 

There were multiple logistical challenges with organizing the Partnership event and this theme is unique within the corpus of research on music education School-University Partnerships. All stakeholders experienced logistical challenges and these challenges ranged from scheduling facilities to organizing folders of notation to recruiting secondary musicians. Despite the in-service music teachers and university-based music teacher educator planning timeline, aligning multiple calendars, and recruiting secondary musicians proved to be a challenging task. One of the considerations of planning the event was curricular implementation as to not disrupt the developmental teaching of the secondary musicians or PSMTs. Another consideration was to not overburden the secondary musician’s or PSMT’s school calendars by placing the event to close to other required obligations. Engaging in organizing a School-University Partnership requires advanced planning; however, this advanced planning may not ensure success or alleviate logistical challenges.   

Lastly, PSMT projection or blame shifting was a unique, unanticipated theme that emerged from the current study. This minority theme may represent a greater concern for preservice music teacher development related to a PSMT’s disposition or mental state toward teaching. Abrahams (2011) discussed how School-University Partnerships might encourage positive teaching dispositions and “… are valuable for the nurturing of preservice teacher dispositions” (p. 113). Despite this documented value of School-University Partnerships encouraging teaching dispositions, it is possible that the two PSMTs within this study may be deviant cases and their experiences considered as not generalizable. 

New Directions for Music Teachers and Music Teacher Educators

The purpose of the current study was to present details, alongside the benefits and challenges, of a School-University Partnership between the University and School District during the 2018-2019 school year. Through reflecting on these findings, stakeholders involved with or seeking School-University Partnerships must be cognizant of the inherent benefits and challenges associated with a Partnership. Although the previously reported findings may not be generalizable to other contexts, the information collected from the current study may be useful in examining new directions for School-University Partnerships. Overwhelmingly, the voices of secondary musicians was an important data point to include and as Kruse (2012) highlights may be utilized “… to cultivate active and engaged–not silent–partners in the collaborative process” (p. 69). These findings are important because (a) there are a myriad of musical benefits and challenges associated with School-University Partnerships and; (b) these Partnership events may illuminate developmental processes related to music teacher preparation. Notwithstanding, these contributions to the research literature, there are some important recommendations to consider for future studies.

First, data analysis revealed a myriad of musical benefits and challenges associated with School-University Partnerships. Among the musical benefits, secondary musicians experienced multiple interpretations of how similar musical events (e.g., rallentandos, fermati) can be approached through witnessing PSMTs teaching episodes; however, they also disclosed challenges interpreting conducting gestures. Given that this event was a one-day experience, one new direction for this Partnership may be to structure a multi-day experience with the PSMTs engaging with the secondary musicians. Researchers in music education have examined longitudinal School-University Partnerships (Kruse, 2011a; 2011b) and despite the logistical challenges, it seems that a future experience that was longitudinal in design and resembling the complex work of instrumental music teachers (e.g., leading group technical study, small ensemble coaching, large ensemble rehearsal) may benefit all stakeholders. 

Lastly, Kruse (2012) highlighted the importance of include school-aged youth as important voices to consider when studying School-University Partnerships. Our study focused on youth enrolled in high schools and we believe that their perspectives revealed new information about understanding the benefits and challenges associated with Partnerships. From the data, we are intrigued that secondary musicians had the capacity to understand preservice teacher development and potentially saw an occupational opportunity. A new direction for our Partnership will be to explore how these stakeholders may be able to provide solutions and assist in the design of a new event that could address some of the challenges associated with a perceived lack of reciprocity.   

The current study validated and extended the previous research on School-University Partnerships. Importantly, our findings validate the prominence of secondary musician data in understanding the benefits and challenges of Partnership events. Related to new directions for music teachers and music teacher educators, our findings suggest that there are a myriad of musical benefits and challenges for secondary musicians associated with School-University Partnerships and developmental processes to address with PSMT. Partnerships are complex ventures to establish and without reciprocity for all stakeholders as a primary focus, the potential to result in transformative change is limited.

 

 

References

 

Abrahams, F. (2011). Nurturing preservice music teacher dispositions: Collaborating to connect practice, theory, and policy. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 108–114.

 

Berg, M. H., & Miksza, P. (2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20, 39–55. doi:10.1177/1057083710363237 

 

Boyle-Baise, M., & McIntyre, D. J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or community settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3^rd ed., pp. 307–330). New York: Routledge.

 

Burton, S. L. (2011). Perspective consciousness and cultural relevancy: Partnership considerations for the re-conceptualization of music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 122–129. doi:10.1080/10632913.2011.566082

 

Burton, S. L., & Greher, G. R. (2007). School-university partnerships: What do we know and why do they matter? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 13–22. doi:10/3200/aepr.109.1.13-24

 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2008). Carnegie classification 

for community engagement. List of 2008 institutions. Retrieved September 20, 2019, 

from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/

 

Conway, C. M. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Conway, C., Edgar, S., Hansen, E., & Palmer, C. M. (2014). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 music teachers. Music Education Research, 16(4), 404–417. doi:10.1080/14613808.2013.848850

 

Conway, C., Hansen, E., Edgar, S., & Palmer, C. M. (2015). Teacher Research and Adult Learning in Music Education. Learning Landscapes, 8(2), 135–155. Retrieved from http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/index.php/learnland/article/view/Teacher-Research-and-Adult-Learning-in-Music-Education

 

Conkling, S. W. (2007). The possibilities of situated learning for teacher preparation: The professional development partnership. Music Educators Journal, 93(3), 44–48.

 

Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (1999). Professional development partnerships: A new model for music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4), 19–23. 

 

Dahlman, A., Chapman, C., Hoffman, P., Zierdt, G., Rosendale, A., Kennedy, P., Page, S., Hoffman, A., & Preimesberger, P. (2014). Partnering to achieve authentic and mutually beneficial teacher preparation through innovative clinical practices. In J. Ferrera, J. L. Nath, & I. N. Guadarrama (Eds.), Creating Visions for University-School Partnerships(pp. 3-19). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

 

Fuller, F., and Brown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (ed.), Teacher Education: 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 25–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Greb, F., Kirkman, N., & Grunau B. (2014). The university and elementary school: A partnership focusing on kindergarten through fifth grade (k-5) student learning. In J. Ferrera, J.L. Nath, & I.N. Guadarrama (Eds.), Creating Visions for University-School Partnerships (pp. 167-177). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

 

Henry, W. (2001). Music teacher education and the professional development school. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(2), 23–28.

 

Hochreich, D. J. (1975). Defensive externality and blame projection following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 540–546.

 

Kruse, N. B. (2011a). Navigating on-site teaching experiences: Multiple perspectives from two school university partnerships. Visions of Research in Music Education, 19. Retrieved from http://www.usr.rider.edu/vrme~/

 

Kruse, N. B. (2011b). Sociological perspectives of school-university partnerships: Contextual learning through three lenses. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 115-121. doi: 10.1080/10632913.2011.566080 

 

Kruse, N. B. (2012). Silent partners: Uncovering middle school and high school students’ perceptions of their roles in two school-university partnerships. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 31(1), 63-71, first published on September 24, 2012 as doi: 10.1177/8755123312458438 

 

Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299-311.

 

Miksza, P., & Berg, M. H. (2013). Transition from student to teacher: Frameworks for understanding preservice music teacher development. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23, 10–26. doi:10.1177/1057083713480888 

 

Parkes, K. A., & Rawlings, J. R. (2019). The preparation of music teacher educators to use and teach assessment. Contributions to Music Education, 44, 145–165.

 

Pellegrino, K. (2015). Student, cooperating, and supervising teacher perceptions of educational and musical interactions during student teaching. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(2), 54–73. doi:10/1177/1057083713508653

 

Pellegrino, K., Kastner, J. D., Reese, J., & Russell, H. A. (2018). Examining the long-term impact of participating in a professional development community of music teacher educators in the USA: An anchor through turbulent transitions. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 145–159. doi: 10.1177/0255761417704214.

 

Robinson, M. (2001). From visitors to partners: The evolution of a methods course. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 11(1), 21–26.

 

Rodger E., Prater G., & Blocher M. (2014). Alumni perceptions of their school-university partnership programs. In J. Ferrera, J.L. Nath, & I.N. Guadarrama (Eds.), Creating Visions for University-School Partnerships (pp. 129-139). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

 

Scheib, J. W., Albert, K., Haston, W., Hellman, D., Hourigan, R., Miksza, P., & Moore, M. W. (2007). Roles, identity, socialization, and conflict: The transition from music student to music teacher. Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE). Retrieved from http://smte.us.wp-content/uploads/2007/02/rolesidentitysocializationconflict.pdf

 

Teitel, L. (2003). The professional development schools handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

School-University Partnership Event 

Site Location: School A

 

Ensemble	Location	Time Slot	PSMT	Repertoire
School B	Choir	5:00 p.m.	1	Salvation is Created
School A	Band	5:00 p.m.	2	Toccata (for Band)
School B	Choir	5:17 p.m.	3	March of the Belgian Para.
School A	Band	5:17 p.m.	4	Yorkshire Ballad
School B	Choir	5:34 p.m.	5	Satiric Dances
School A	Band	5:34 p.m.	6	Cajun Folk Songs
School B	Choir	5:51 p.m.	7	Joy
School A	Band	5:51 p.m.	8	Australian Up-Country Tune
School B	Choir	6:08 p.m.	9	Kentucky–1800
School A	Band	6:08 p.m.	10	Albanian Dance
6:25 p.m.			BREAK
School B	Choir	6:40 p.m.	2	Toccata (for Band)
School A	Band	6:40 p.m.	1	Salvation is Created
School B	Choir	6:57 p.m.	4	Yorkshire Ballad
School A	Band	6:57 p.m.	3	March of the Belgian Para.
School B	Choir	7:14 p.m.	6	Cajun Folk Songs
School A	Band	7:14 p.m.	5	Satiric Dances
School B	Choir	7:31 p.m.	8	Australian Up-Country Tune
School A	Band	7:31 p.m.	7	Joy
School B	Choir	7:48 p.m.	10	Albanian Dance
School A	Band	7:48 p.m.	9	Kentucky–1800

 

Schedule

4:45 p.m.         University PSMTs arrive

HS Musicians in place (Band Room & Choir Room) for warm-up with in-service music teachers – Orientation with University-based teacher educator.

 

5:00 p.m.           Rotation 1 begins 

6:25 p.m.           Rotation 1 ends & Break

6:40 p.m.           Rotation 2 begins

8:05 p.m.           Rotation 2 ends/clean-up (we all leave when the directors do).

 

Teaching Description

The aim of this teaching practicum is to provide preservice instrumental music teachers an opportunity to sight-reading experience with high school musicians. Preservice music teachers will conduct one (1) selection indicated above using the teaching procedure below. Additionally, these preservice teachers will prepare folders for the ensemble musicians (e.g., Flute 1, Flute 2, Trumpet 1) according to the instrumentation provided (folders are to be completed and submitted to university-based teacher educator by March 4, 2019. Both teaching demonstrations will be video recorded for informal self-evaluation and, if necessary, coaching with university-based teacher educator. In-service teachers will provide verbal coaching and the University instructors may provide written comments. 

 

*Please bring a primary or secondary instrument, scores, and baton. PSMTs will perform in the ensemble if not assisting with video recording or other logistical tasks. 

 

Teaching Procedure:

Each PSMT will have 17 minutes total for each score (12 minutes teaching/5 minutes coaching/transition). The PSMT will prepare a lesson plan for this teaching practicum. PSMTs will instruct the players. This instruction includes:

·       Identifying the goal of the sight-reading rehearsal, explaining and modeling the procedures, and assessing the musical outcome. Teachers will reteach, if appropriate improvement has not been achieved (Hint: the goal of sight-reading is not always to run through the entire piece). 

·       You may select any notation to rehearse as long as you directly apply the levels of listening and rehearsing.

o   Tone, Balance, Blend

o   Rhythm & Tempo

o   Pitch & Intonation

o   Articulation & Style

o   Expression & Musicianship

·       Following the 12-minute teaching segment, in-service music teachers will provide 5 minutes of verbal coaching. 

·       While one PSMT teacher is offering instruction, please assist in the following tasks:

o   Video recording each teaching demonstration for future reflection.

o   Instructional time keeping

o   Additional logistical support 

 

This will be an exciting evening with multiple missions being accomplished and multiple layers of music education simultaneously occurring. 

 

 

Appendix B

 

Reflection for Partnership Event

 

SECTION 1. WHAT did you learn? –Drawing from your observations and conducting the high school musicians, list and describe what you learned from leading the ensembles rehearsals in terms of the following: 

 

Demonstrates acceptable understanding of music context and skills:

1.     An ability to hear and current music notation errors.

2.     Knowledge of music terminology and symbols.

3.     Appropriate score analysis techniques (harmonic, rhythmic, structure, understanding of musical styles). 

Demonstrates acceptable understanding of conducting skills:

1.     Executes clear conducting patterns that include appropriate size, style, and tempo.

2.     Displays a high level of musicality

3.     Facilitates student performance through clear gestures, independence of hands, and eye contact

Delivery of the message:

1.     Diagnoses specific student music performance challenges.                                                                           

2.     Presents effective solutions to student music performance challenges.

3.     Uses a variety of musical rehearsal techniques and displays effective conducting skills.

4.     Describe the nature and effectiveness of questioning techniques used in the lesson. 

5.     Sequence – in what ways did the design and delivery of information and execution of activities function to support the students’ understanding of the concept?

 

SECTION II. “SO WHAT?” Write 3-5 sentences address the following question in each of the categories above:

 

Why is this important going forward to your future teaching presentation?

 

SECTION III. “NOW WHAT?” Write 3-5 sentences address the following question in each of the categories above: