The purpose of this study was to examine music student teachers’ (MST) perceptions of their student teaching seminar. MSTs immersed in their P -12 placements and the accompanying seminar at three state universities in the Midwest served as focus group participants. Through analysis of focus group interviews and course documents, we focused on MSTs’ perceptions of seminar purpose, structure, content, and assessment methods. Overwhelmingly, MSTs perceived the seminar as a professional learning community and a “safe place,” and they appeared to prefer frequent seminar meetings. While some MSTs felt more time per seminar was needed, others expressed difficulty in focusing after a full day of teaching. High-stakes teacher performance and portfolio assessments were a major focus of seminar content. We recommend incorporating activities into the seminar that support continued pedagogical growth and socialization into the profession.
BaumgartnerC. M. (2011). An examination of a pre-service music teacher’s reflection across consecutive teaching placements. Visions of Research in Music Education, 18. Retrieved from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v18n1/index.html
2.
BaumgartnerC. M. (2014). An examination of music student teaching seminars at Midwest universities. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 51–64. doi:10.1177/1057083713494013
3.
BaumgartnerC. M.CouncillK. H. (2017). Music student teaching seminars: An examination of current practices across the US. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35, 62–69. doi:10.1177/8755123315615183
4.
BausmithJ. M.BarryC. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness: The importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40, 175–178. doi:10.3102/0013189X11409927
5.
BergM. H. (2018, March). Retired teachers as mentors in the American String Teachers Association National Mentor Program. In ConwayC. (Chair), Symposium on the mentoring of beginning music teachers. Symposium conducted at the biennial Music Research and Teacher Education National Conference, Atlanta, GA.
6.
BergM. H.MikszaP. (2013). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller and Bown teacher-concerns model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 44–62. doi:10.1177/0022429412473606
7.
BulloughR. V. J.DraperR. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 407–420. doi:10.1177/0022487104269804
8.
CampbellM. R.ThompsonL. K. (2007). Perceived concerns of preservice music education teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 162–176. doi:10.1177/002242940705500206
9.
CollierS. T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 50, 173–181. doi:10.1177/002248719905000303
10.
ConwayC. (2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 20–36. doi:10.2307/3345690
11.
ConwayC. M.HodgmanT. M. (2006). Handbook for the beginning music teacher. Chicago, IL: GIA.
12.
CouncillK. H. (2013). Music education senior student teaching seminars in Pennsylvania: A pilot study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Pennsylvania Music Educators Association, Erie, PA.
13.
CouncillK. H.BaumgartnerC. M. (2017). Student teaching seminars: Ideas for a collaborative and meaningful culminating experience. Music Educators Journal, 104(1), 62–70. doi:10.1177/0027432117710314
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
DravesT. J. (2008). “Firecrackers” and “duds”: Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on their relationships with student teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(1), 6–15. doi:10.1177/1057083708323140
16.
ErosJ. (2014). Collecting and analyzing group data. In ConwayC.(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in music education (pp. 271–287). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
FitzpatrickK. (2011, September). Blogging through the music student teaching experience: Developing virtual communities of practice. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Music Teacher Education, Greensboro, NC.
18.
HouriganR. M.ScheibJ. W. (2009). Inside and outside the undergraduate music curriculum: Student teacher perceptions of the value of skills, abilities, and understandings. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(2), 48–61. doi:10.1177/1057083708327871
19.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
LitosselitiL. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London, England: Continuum.
21.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
MorganD. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OkraskiC. V.KissauS. P. (2018). Impact of content-specific seminars on candidate edTPA preparation and performance. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 685–705.
26.
ParkesK. APowellS. R. (2015). Is the EdTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness?Arts Education Policy Review, 116, 103–113. doi:10.1080/10632913.2014.944964
27.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
PaulS. J.TeachoutD. J.SullivanJ. M.KellyS. N.BauerW. I.RaiberM. A. (2001). Authentic-context learning activities in instrumental music teacher education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 136–145. doi:10.2307/3345865
29.
PritchardS. (2018). A profile of high-stakes assessment practices in music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(3), 94–105. doi:10.1177/1057083717750079
30.
SaenzA. L. (2012). The power of a teacher: Restoring hope and well-being to change lives. Peoria, AZ: Intermedia.
31.
SchelskeM.DenoS. (1994). The effects of content-specific seminars on student teachers’ effectiveness. Action in Teacher Education, 16(1), 20–28.
32.
StakeR. E. (2003). Case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
StanleyA. M. (2012). The experiences of elementary music teachers in a collaborative teacher study group. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 192, 53–74.
34.
StegmanS. F. (2007). An exploration of reflective dialogue between student teachers in music and their cooperating teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 65–82. doi:10.1177/002242940705500106
Vaughan-MarraJ. C. (2017, April). Meeting new teachers where they are: Digital mentoring program focused on orchestra content-specific support. Paper presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
37.
WeissE. M.WeissS. (2001). Doing reflective supervision with student teachers in a professional development school culture. Reflective Practice, 2, 125–154. doi:10.1080/14623940120071343
38.
ZeichnerK. M.ListonD. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23–48.
39.
Zoom Video Communications. (2017). Home page. Retrieved from https://zoom.us
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
