Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this self-study was to explore how a college-level vernacular music course might have played a part in shaping inservice music educators’ teaching practices. Nineteen music teachers who graduated from the same teacher preparation program completed a 23-item researcher-constructed questionnaire that identified how they viewed, incorporated, and negotiated vernacular music practices in their classrooms. Overall, participants indicated that incorporating vernacular approaches in school music programs was important and that the vernacular music course positively impacted how they conceptualized music teaching. Participants reported including a wide variety of informal learning activities that involved technology, aural learning, and student-directed music projects. Conversely, participants identified time limitations, lack of resources, classroom management, and performance tensions as distinct challenges. Future directions include documenting turning points in students’ vernacular learning, monitoring curricular changes in PK–12 music programs, and fortifying preservice music teachers’ preparation in multimusical learning.

Keywords

curricular reform informal music learning music education popular music self-study research vernacular music

Introduction

Vernacular music-making is a recurring topic in music education curriculum reform (Isbell, 2016). Often contrasted with Western classical repertoire and performance practice, vernacular music can encompass a variety of popular, folk, rock, jazz, and other music traditions in society (O’Flynn, 2006). Related hallmarks of vernacular music-making include collaborative group learning, listening and functional aural skills, performing in various styles, and self-teaching (Woody & Adams, 2019). In school settings, researchers have noted vernacular music’s mercurial position (Isbell, 2016; O’Flynn, 2006; Woody & Adams, 2019) and its synonymous associations with musical creativity (Abramo & Reynolds, 2015; Giotta & Kruse, 2022; Randles, 2019), informal music-making (Hess, 2020; Jenkins, 2011; Kastner, 2014; Mercado, 2019), and popular music (Gramm, 2021; Isbell, 2007; Mercado, 2019; Vasil et al., 2019). Curricular offerings and classroom activities that incorporate diverse repertoire have been shown to engage a wide variety of students in meaningful musical pursuits (Williams, 2017) and have been promising avenues toward expanded musicianship, expressivity, and musical autonomy (Gramm, 2021; Green, 2008).

However, the ways that vernacular activities play out in school music settings are unclear. A related challenge is determining the degree to which music teacher preparation coursework in vernacular music-making transfers to inservice music teachers’ classrooms. Exploring the staying power of vernacular principles in the contextual realities of PK–12 music classrooms could be an important step in reevaluating music teacher preparation. The current study represented one such examination of inservice music teachers’ vernacular practices in school settings and the extent to which university coursework may have contributed to those practices. For the purposes of this investigation, the term vernacular was used as a way to refer to the breadth of terminology and learning practices outside Western classical music traditions (e.g., popular, folk, rock, jazz, hip-hop, rap, indigenous). While scholars have noted vernacular music’s amorphous definitions and inability to capture the full extent of authentic music-making experiences (Mercado, 2019; O’Flynn, 2006), vernacular music was employed here to denote the host of informal learning practices that can accompany musical creativity. Two primary areas of scholarship informed this study: (a) vernacular music and school settings and (b) preservice music teacher preparation in vernacular music.

Vernacular Music and School Settings

Vernacular music and its connection to informal and popular music in schools has been a growing area of inquiry (Isbell, 2007; Mercado, 2019; Moir et al., 2019; Weinstein & Haning, 2022). Researchers have highlighted the promise of incorporating popular music in school music programs and the learning processes associated with vernacular musicianship, such as songwriting (Giotta & Kruse, 2022; Vasil, 2019), musical creativity (Randles, 2019), functional aural skills (Woody, 2007), informal learning (Kastner, 2014), student-centered learning (Green, 2008), and peer mentoring (Gramm, 2021). Students (Blackwell et al., 2022; Mercado, 2019) and music teachers (Kastner, 2014; Vasil, 2019) have benefited from popular and informal music-making in the classroom, particularly in cultivating 21st-century skills (Vasil et al., 2019), energizing the Modern Band movement (Gramm, 2021; Powell, 2021; Randles, 2019), and reinforcing musical concepts and skills that students learn formally (Kastner, 2014; Weinstein & Haning, 2022). However, music teachers have disagreed about the perceived value and appropriateness of using popular music in the classroom, and how to incorporate it (Weinstein & Haning, 2022). A related matter has been the contradictory relationship between music teachers’ wariness of non-band, -choir, and -orchestra classes (Colquhoun, 2019; Rolandson & Conn, 2022; Sanderson, 2014) and music teachers’ eagerness to implement vernacular-inspired practices (Blackwell et al., 2022; Giotta & Kruse, 2022; Tracy, 2018; Vasil, 2019). The juxtaposition of school music offerings and the musical lives of students outside of school continues to be an overriding consideration (Green, 2008; Kastner, 2014; Weinstein & Haning, 2022) and holds implications for reexamining school music curricula.

Consequently, questions remain as to how and to what degree music teachers have integrated popular, informal, and vernacular music-making into their classrooms, especially in large ensemble settings, where flexibility for extended vernacular explorations may be limited (Elpus & Abril, 2019; O’Flynn, 2006; Rolandson, 2020; Weinstein & Haning, 2022). Researchers (Moir et al., 2019; Woody & Adams, 2019) have challenged music teachers to consider ways to advance vernacular music-making in school settings, and have urged music teacher educators to prepare preservice music teachers more holistically to meet the demands of musical diversity. Part of this process has involved reconciling tensions between formalized Western classical traditions and the informal skills that individuals display in vernacular and popular music-making contexts (e.g., structure and exploration, teacher-led and student-led, pre-composed and spontaneously composed) (Blackwell et al., 2022; Davis & Blair, 2011; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Isbell, 2016). Such notions could support a more thorough examination of vernacular genres and could provide a more equitable philosophical balance between utilitarian and aesthetic viewpoints (Hess, 2020; Jenkins, 2011; West & Cremata, 2016). Providing an array of ensemble choices in schools might be one way to meet the breadth of student motivation (Rolandson, 2020; Weinstein & Haning, 2022) for participating in school music offerings. Thus, examining further how music teachers have woven vernacular music practices into school contexts could be useful.

Preservice Music Teacher Preparation

Germane to vernacular music-making is preservice music teachers’ readiness to facilitate vernacular approaches. Notably, researchers have documented a general absence of vernacular, popular, and informal music experiences in music teacher preparation programs (Blackwell et al., 2022; Davis & Blair, 2011; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Isbell, 2016; Sorenson, 2021; Weinstein & Haning, 2022; Woody & Adams, 2019). This disparity has precipitated several examinations of music teacher curricula as a way to gauge the sustainability of vernacular music in school settings. For example, Isbell (2016) documented preservice music teachers’ experiences in a vernacular musicianship class and discovered that while participants held positive associations with learning music informally, they expressed some anxiety over a reduced reliance on notation and uncertain leadership roles during rehearsals. Preservice music teachers also appeared reticent to employ vernacular experiences in their future school contexts, which was unexpected given participants’ overall affirmative reflections on vernacular music-making. Previous research has shown similar reluctance among newcomers to informal music-making (Davis & Blair, 2011; Green, 2008; Kastner, 2014; Woody, 2007) and the irregular progression of building musical confidence (Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020).

In other examples, Sorenson (2021) and Blackwell et al. (2022) investigated preservice music teachers’ perceived readiness to teach popular music. Sorenson (2021) found that participants were most comfortable with teaching singing, music theory, and informal learning practices. Conversely, participants reported feeling only moderately prepared to teach popular music and attributed a perceived deficit to a lack of proficiency in key areas of undergraduate coursework (e.g., how to incorporate popular music, how to use music technology, how to play multiple instruments). Preservice music teachers in Blackwell et al.’s (2022) study also reported uncertainty toward incorporating popular music. Ongoing field experiences, however, helped to change participants’ perceptions of popular music and increased teacher identity as they built relationships over time with the same group of school students. Given that recurring opportunities for informal music-making appear essential for cultivating musical confidence (Blackwell et al., 2022; Green, 2008; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020; Isbell, 2016; Kastner, 2014; Springer, 2016), music teachers could benefit from professional development opportunities that reinforce popular music pedagogy and supplement potentially missing elements in undergraduate curricula (Sorenson, 2021). Finally, researchers (Isbell, 2016; Sorenson, 2021; Woody & Adams, 2019) have highlighted the importance of music education faculty who champion popular music ensembles and who incorporate vernacular music practices into existing undergraduate coursework; however, Isbell (2016) questioned the degree to which a vernacular musicianship course might shape preservice teachers’ philosophies moving forward.

A common theme across the aforementioned studies is how music teacher educators have engaged with preservice music teachers in an evolving curriculum. Achieving a balance between specialization and comprehensive music practices while simultaneously reimagining music teacher preparation curricula remains a prime consideration. This friction underscores the complexities surrounding curricular innovation and implementation (Kladder, 2020) as well as the role that self-study methodologies (Kitchen et al., 2020; Zeichner, 2007) could play in revealing the delicate interplay between theory, praxis, and outcomes in music teaching and learning.

Rationale and Purpose of the Study

Extant literature on vernacular musicianship has shown broad considerations related to informal and popular music-making in schools and music teacher preparation programs. The ways in which informal music practices have been woven into music spaces has been both promising and elusive (e.g., Giotta & Kruse, 2022; Hess, 2020; Mercado, 2019; Vasil et al., 2019), especially with regard to their position in school settings (Blackwell et al., 2022; Rolandson & Conn, 2022; Tracy, 2018; Woody & Adams, 2019). Inservice music teachers’ level of preparation also continues to be an area of relevance (Blackwell et al., 2022), particularly in light of the skills that are required to teach in both participatory and performative settings (Isbell, 2016; Sorenson, 2021). Although informal music learning appears to be of interest to music teachers and researchers (Green, 2008; Hess, 2020; Kastner, 2014; Moir et al., 2019), additional accounts from inservice music teachers are needed to clarify how vernacular music practices are playing out in school music programs. Furthermore, as music teacher educators continue to explore curricular reform (Isbell, 2016; Kladder, 2020; Randles, 2019), periodic self-reviews (Conway et al., 2016; Dansereau et al., 2022; Pellegrino et al., 2019) could become an important, evaluative step in considering the durability of such coursework. Currently, there are no known self-studies on inservice music teachers’ vernacular practices as they relate to previous university coursework. Examining the ways in which inservice music teachers apply university curricula in school settings could add perspective and innovation to an evolving music education discourse.

Therefore, the purpose of this self-study was to explore how an undergraduate vernacular music class might have played a part in shaping inservice music educators’ teaching practices. The current study also represented a personal, reflexive examination of one music teacher educator’s teaching practice as it related to alumni’s curricular decision-making. Specific research questions were the following:

Research Question 1: How do inservice music teachers view vernacular music practices after taking a course on vernacular musicianship?

Research Question 2: How do inservice music teachers incorporate vernacular music practices in their classrooms after having participated in vernacular music-making themselves?

Research Question 3: How do inservice music teachers negotiate perceived barriers in implementing vernacular music practices in their current teaching?

Method

Design

This research embodied a self-study design (Kitchen et al., 2020; Loughran, 2007), which teacher educators have used to identify, interrogate, and improve teaching practice. Specifically, self-study research allows teacher educators to examine their own practice while ascertaining what their students have learned (Lunenberg & Samaras, 2011), thus “bringing together the worlds of educational research and practice through the insider perspective of those simultaneously engaged in both” (Kitchen et al., 2020, p. 3). Self-study designs evolved from the qualitative methods and reflective traditions of action research (Feldman et al., 2004; Zeichner, 2007) and reinforce the value of knowledge in a particular area and how that knowledge advances through a collaborative, intentional examination of theoretical and practical positions.

However, Kitchen et al. (2020) acknowledged that “there is no prescribed self-study protocol or doctrine” and that “it is not a field with a prescribed method in search of a question. Rather it is inquiry driven” (Kitchen et al., 2020, p. vi). While self-study research privileges qualitative research techniques such as interviews, reflection journals, and artifacts (Loughran, 2007), quantitative surveys also have been used to examine programmatic outcomes, such as the teaching practices of teacher program alumni (e.g., Horng et al., 2015). Self-report questionnaires have been one way to evaluate teachers’ growth in pedagogical knowledge, practice, and confidence (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2009).

In music education research, music teacher educators have used self-study designs to examine aspects of their own programs. Researchers have explored the practice of teaching graduate students (Conway et al., 2016), the cooperative innerworkings of improving college students’ improvisation and composition skills (Pellegrino et al., 2019), and the critical analysis of a music teacher preparation program (Dansereau et al., 2022). A common thread between these studies was the qualitative, collaborative nature of reflection among the respective authors.

In the current study, a self-study design was an appropriate lens for examining the junctures between university coursework in vernacular music and teachers’ authentic applications of vernacular practices in school music programs. The inquiry-driven focus (Kitchen et al., 2020) was determining the extent to which a vernacular music course might have made a difference in the ways that program alumni approached music-making in their own classrooms. In contrast to previous music education self-studies that featured qualitative techniques (e.g., Conway et al., 2016; Dansereau et al., 2022; Pellegrino et al., 2019), the current self-study was based on questionnaire data that reflected program alumni’s teaching practices. This form of data collection allowed for a breadth of responses from a range of alumni across several years, provided descriptive information on alumni’s unknown teaching approaches, and represented an initial step in conducting a curricular review. Together, these elements resembled the methodological fluidity of self-study research (Kitchen et al., 2020; Loughran, 2007).

Course Context

In Spring 2016, I designed and introduced Vernacular Music in Education (VMIE) as a response to our faculty’s vision of creating a more expansive and inclusive music education curriculum at a medium-sized Midwestern university. In this course, students learn the beginnings of how to write songs, improvise, and perform on a variety of primary and secondary instruments (e.g., band, string, voice) as well as pop instruments that may be more unfamiliar (e.g., drum set, electric bass, electric guitar, keyboard, pop vocals, ‘ukulele). Throughout the semester, students actively explore autonomous music-making opportunities through constructing group cover tunes by ear, change of style tunes, and original songs in a variety of styles (e.g., Celtic, hip-hop, jazz, rap, rock), while simultaneously completing other curricular requirements related to lesson planning, assessment, and reflective teaching. Students learn to play new instruments on their own and work to apply knowledge of diverse music to the development of culturally responsive approaches to teaching music (Bond, 2017; Lind & McKoy, 2016). Students are called to negotiate the continua between formal and informal music-making and formal and informal learning (Isbell, 2016; O’Flynn, 2006; Woody & Adams, 2019) in an effort to prepare them for making overarching connections with their future music students. My role as class instructor is fluid and changes regularly based on the purpose of each session (e.g., facilitating class discussions, leading assessment work, recusing myself during student song development). Students work independently as groups on their musical creations, using their ears, recordings, homemade lead sheets, and each other as guides. The course currently is offered every spring semester as a required class for music education majors and as an elective for bachelor of arts students; however, the lasting qualities of this course are unclear, particularly as they relate to the contextual realties that school music teachers face on a daily basis. At the time of this writing, seven cohorts had taken VMIE and engaged in numerous class-related vernacular projects and activities.

Participants

I contacted alumni (N = 25) from the first six cohorts of the abovementioned music education program who enrolled in VMIE between 2016 and 2021 and then entered the music teaching profession between 2017 and 2022. Students in the seventh cohort were still enrolled in undergraduate coursework at the time of this study and were not eligible to participate. Of the eligible alumni population (N = 25), 76% agreed to participate (N = 19). Collectively, participants were early-career professionals from six states and two countries who taught music students across all grade levels. The mean years of teaching experience was 2.97 (SD = 1.76), with a range of .5 to 6 years of teaching experience. Participants held multiple and simultaneous roles as PK–12 music teachers (n = 12, 63%), graduate students (n = 4, 21%), freelance music teachers (n = 4, 21%), student teachers (n = 3, 16%), musical theater directors (n = 2, 11%), and college instructors (n = 2, 11%), totals which exceed the sample size. Regardless of teaching context or career stage, all participants taught school music students at the time of this study.

Participants reported being from choir (n = 7, 36%), band (n = 6, 32%), and orchestra (n = 6, 32%) traditions and claimed specific backgrounds as string (n = 6, 32%), voice (n = 5, 26%), brass (n = 3, 16%), woodwind (n = 3, 16%), and piano/keyboard (n = 2, 11%) specialists. In addition, the majority of participants (n = 12, 63%) taught multiple grade levels in multiple buildings (e.g., PK–5 and middle school, middle school and high school) and, accordingly, held assorted teaching assignments. From most cited to least cited, and again exceeding the sample size, participants taught elementary general music (n = 7, 39%); string orchestra (n = 5, 28%); choir and music technology (n = 4, 22%); band, chamber ensembles, secondary general music, and ‘ukulele (n = 3, 17%); music theory, musical theater, and piano (n = 2, 11%); and jazz band, music history, music appreciation, private and group lessons, community music offerings, and non-music classes (n = 1, 5%). While the overall sample size was small (N = 19), participants ultimately reflected a variety of backgrounds, experiences, and career stages, and were representative of their alma mater’s program size.

Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

As previously noted, questionnaires have been one tool for capturing self-study information (Horng et al., 2015; Kitchen et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2009). I collected data through a three-part, 23-item researcher-constructed questionnaire that was inspired by previous research on musical creativity and vernacular music-making practices (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2022; Isbell, 2016; Sorenson, 2021; Woody & Adams, 2019). The first questionnaire section contained eight 5-point Likert-type items that prompted participants to rate the level of agreement for each statement regarding their perception of vernacular music practices in the classroom (SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; N = Neutral; D = Disagree; and SD = Strongly Disagree). Sample statements included “Prior to taking VMIE, I was comfortable exploring vernacular approaches,” “VMIE made a difference in my actual teaching practice,” and “I have the ability to incorporate vernacular/informal approaches in the classes I teach” (see Supplemental Material for additional items.) Three additional check-all-that-apply items prompted participants to rank their level of experience in a variety of creative skills prior to and after VMIE (e.g., improvising, writing songs, playing by ear, singing pop vocals, learning pop instruments, performing in various styles), as well as the resources they use for learning more about vernacular music (e.g., colleagues, conferences, former teachers, students, TikTok, YouTube). The second questionnaire section consisted of four open-ended writing prompts that allowed participants to describe the music practices they have enacted in their respective contexts, as well as the rewards and challenges of doing so. The ending prompt invited participants to share topics that would be useful in future iterations of VMIE. The third and final questionnaire section contained eight check-all-that-apply items that solicited basic demographic information such as voice/instrument, ensemble background, career stage, current teaching position(s), current course assignments, and personal music-making activities outside of school. For consistency, the terms vernacular and vernacular/informal were used throughout the questionnaire to represent the breadth of music-making that can occur in school settings. The questionnaire was designed to be completed within 7–10 minutes.

Prior to launching the study, a content validity panel comprising one music education faculty member and four preservice music teachers reviewed the questionnaire and provided suggestions for modifications to improve the instrument’s clarity. Given the self-study research design (Kitchen et al., 2020) and restricted sample size, a full pilot study to determine questionnaire reliability was not necessary. Once questionnaire content and language were agreed upon, I distributed the finalized questionnaire to music education program alumni (2017–2022) (N = 25) through a secure and anonymized Qualtrics (2013) URL; questionnaire responses were unidentified and were not linked to participants’ names or e-mail addresses. Potential participants had 2 weeks to complete the questionnaire, and I sent automated reminders after 7 and 12 days, respectively. Because the return rate was high (N = 19, 76%), I did not attempt to elicit additional returns from non-respondents.

Analysis

Following the 2-week questionnaire completion window, I analyzed descriptive numerical and qualitative data for response trends (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and sorted and organized the data according to the research questions. Given the small sample size, I reported Qualtrics (2013) descriptive numerical data as frequencies and percentages, the latter of which were rounded to the nearest percentage point. For qualitative data, I analyzed thematic patterns within participants’ open-ended responses and organized them into core categories (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Because the level of qualitative analysis required to reveal broader meanings was beyond the scope of this study, thematic data served as descriptive material only. A faculty expert in music education research at a peer institution subsequently reviewed the initial findings for accuracy and suggested minor alterations for repositioning some open-ended response categories, which I adjusted accordingly. The aforementioned faculty member served, in part, as a “critical friend” (Bullock, 2020, p. 249) who worked with me collaboratively to corroborate data. Bullock (2020) noted that varying levels of collaboration can exist in self-studies, from highly collaborative relationships to collaboration with the literature. Self-study research allows for various analysis approaches that may be less interactive than other designs, such as action research, mixed methods, or fully qualitative self-studies (Kitchen et al., 2020; Loughran, 2007).

Findings

The first research question dealt with how music teachers viewed vernacular music practices and was addressed through participants’ Likert-type questionnaire responses. Participants (N = 19) overwhelmingly indicated that incorporating vernacular music approaches in school music programs was important (N = 19, 100%), although only 73% of participants (n = 14) agreed or strongly agreed that vernacular music practices were compatible with school music programs. Participants also indicated that VMIE made a difference in how they conceptualized music teaching (N = 19, 100%) and that it made a difference in their actual teaching practice (n = 17, 90%). From a musical readiness standpoint, 42% of participants (n = 8) felt comfortable exploring vernacular or informal learning approaches prior to taking VMIE, as opposed to 100% (N = 19) after taking VMIE. Participants also believed they had the ability to incorporate vernacular or informal music approaches in the classes they taught (n = 18, 95%), which stood in contrast to their perceived freedom to do so (n = 13, 68%). Descriptive results are summarized in Supplemental Appendix A.

The second research question focused on how music teachers have incorporated vernacular music practices in their classrooms and was addressed through participants’ Likert-type and open-ended questionnaire responses. Participants ranked their level of experience in a variety of creative skills before enrolling in VMIE and in their current teaching positions. The highest-ranked skills that participants reported using with students were playing by ear (n = 18, 95%), listening and analyzing (n = 17, 89%), using music technology (n = 16, 84%), and learning a tune by ear (n = 14, 74%), while the lowest-ranked skill was singing pop vocals (n = 9, 47%). In terms of frequency of use, nearly every skill category held a comparable, decreased relationship before and after VMIE, except for performing in various styles (n = 18, 95%) and composing (n = 15, 79%), which increased in participants’ teaching. All other categories declined in frequency in participants’ teaching, particularly with regard to learning a pop instrument (n = 11, 58%) and arranging (n = 9, 48%). Composite results are depicted in Supplemental Appendix B, where percentages reflect a summative combination of “frequently used” and “moderately used” responses.

Correspondingly, participants provided specific examples of vernacular practices they have enacted in the music classroom through their open-ended responses. Themes across participants’ entries tended to fall into the categories of technology (e.g., BandLab, GarageBand, Soundtrap, WalkBand, teacher-made tutorials), invention (e.g., arranging, aural learning, beat-making, call-and-response, composition projects, improvisation, original lyrics, pop song transcriptions), student-driven material (e.g., song selection, collaborative learning, [Lucy] “Green-inspired” vernacular bands), and expanded music offerings (e.g., acoustic/tech ensembles, drumming, music production, music technology, ‘ukulele). Participants reported they valued the flexibility of incorporating vernacular practices through apps and improvisatory musical activities that required students to make musical decisions in the moment. Frequently, participants noted their own excitement at observing their students’ high level of engagement and increased problem-solving acumen. Overall, participants reported that their decision to integrate vernacular practices was the right approach for their particular context. Descriptive thematic findings and sample quotations are summarized in Supplemental Appendix C.

The third and final research question dealt with how music teachers have negotiated perceived barriers in implementing vernacular music practices and was addressed through participants’ open-ended and Likert-type questionnaire responses. Themes across participants’ open-ended responses tended to fall into the categories of time limitations (e.g., general time constraints, inefficiency of informal learning), lack of resources (e.g., technology funding, music funding, home-spun curricula), classroom management (e.g., developmentally appropriate activities, patience, student attention, sustained focus), and performance tensions (e.g., large ensemble expectations, looming concerts, pressure to perform, teacher self-doubt). The challenges that participants described represented internal conflicts surrounding the macro process of informal music-making and the resultant “messiness” that can accompany such practices. Participants did not report external opposition from school administrators, colleagues, students, or students’ parents. Descriptive thematic findings and sample quotations are summarized in Supplemental Appendix D.

Correspondingly, two Likert-type items showed how music teachers have worked to reconcile some of the abovementioned barriers. A portion of participants’ negotiation process appeared to involve locating trusted resources for enhancing and inspiring their vernacular teaching approaches. From most cited to least cited, participants reported consulting colleagues and YouTube (n = 14, 72%), students (n = 13, 67%), former teachers and university faculty (n = 10, 50%), books/articles and state music conferences (n = 7, 39%), TikTok and blogs/vlogs (n = 6, 33%), and personal reflection and course design (n = 1, 5%) in an attempt to improve their teaching. Participants also reported how they have cultivated their own musicianship through community music-making endeavors. From most cited to least cited, participants indicated that they partake in freelance gigging (n = 6, 32%); digital music recording/composition (n = 5, 26%); professional/semi-professional ensembles, chamber groups, and religious/worship music (n = 4, 21%); community choirs (n = 2, 11%); and community bands, community orchestras, rock bands, and self-directed song learning (n = 1, 5%). Seventeen percent of participants (n = 3) reported participating in no musical activities outside of the school day.

Discussion

The purpose of this self-study was to explore how an undergraduate vernacular music course might have played a part in shaping inservice music educators’ teaching practices. Of particular interest were how inservice music teachers viewed vernacular music practices in general, how they incorporated vernacular music activities in their classrooms, and how they negotiated perceived barriers in implementing such approaches. A broader discussion of the findings, and how they relate to my own practice as a music teacher educator, is presented below, followed by future considerations for the profession.

First, participants overwhelmingly indicated that incorporating vernacular music activities in school music programs was important and that VMIE positively impacted how they conceptualized music teaching and their current classroom practices; however, some participants expressed reticence regarding whether vernacular music approaches were compatible with school music programs. In addition, while participants in the current study believed they had the ability to incorporate vernacular or informal music activities in the classes they teach, fewer participants believed they had the freedom to do so. These paradoxical findings are consistent with previous research that has shown contradictory relationships between the theoretical and practical feasibilities of incorporating vernacular and popular music in school settings (Isbell, 2016; Sorenson, 2021; Springer, 2016; Vasil et al., 2019). It appears that while VMIE helped to increase participants’ musical confidence and readiness to teach informally (Gramm, 2021; Hamilton & Vannatta-Hall, 2020), having the latitude to actuate vernacular practices consistently in their classrooms may be elusive. Such curricular tension appears to play a continued role in the decisions that inservice music teachers make in implementing change slowly (Vasil, 2019) and balancing content, skills, and repertoire, especially in large ensembles (Rolandson, 2020; Rolandson & Conn, 2022; Woody & Adams, 2019).

Given this first set of findings, I was encouraged that participants found VMIE useful in their development as teachers and that I was able to create a safe space for students to explore a wide range of musical and pedagogical approaches. I have been intentional about reinforcing skills that students have learned in previous methods courses (e.g., assessment techniques, creative musicianship, divergent thinking, diverse learning styles, lesson plan flexibility), which appear to have transferred, in part, to participants’ teaching. Still, I fully recognize (and feel) the friction between curricular depth and breadth in VMIE. Given that VMIE is a departmental seminar that requires additional written work, it is difficult to balance music-making episodes with academic expectations, while simultaneously preparing students to conceptualize how vernacular music could fit into a school culture they have yet to inherit. Perhaps the tensions and limitations that participants noted in their own teaching are not that different from mine, in that both of us have been negotiating the interconnected continua between depth, breadth, and formal and informal learning with our students. Moving forward, I plan to interrogate my own responsiveness to the spaces I devote to self-directed music activities and to more guided, practical discussions that would benefit students’ development as teachers.

Second, participants reported incorporating a wide variety of informal learning activities in their classes, the majority of which involved technology, aural learning, and student-directed music projects. Music teachers used apps such as BandLab and GarageBand to facilitate beat-making, short composition projects, pop song transcriptions, and learning tunes by ear. In other cases, music teachers explored musical creativity (e.g., improvisation, composition, hybrid instrumentation) within large ensembles or expanded music offerings beyond large ensemble settings, which are trends that Tracy (2018), Woody and Adams (2019), and Weinstein and Haning (2022) acknowledged. Although the majority of hands-on projects came from elementary and secondary general music teachers, there were several instances among secondary ensemble directors, particularly from middle school choir and orchestra teachers. Given that choirs and beginning strings have fewer transposition considerations than beginning bands, it is possible that musical explorations like composition, improvisation, and learning by ear can be accomplished more readily in large groups of singers or string players. An unexpected finding was that secondary ensemble teachers appeared to veer away from purely repertoire-based ensemble teaching, although the vast majority of participants taught multiple grade levels (e.g., elementary and middle school) and may have been empowered to apply student-centered teaching practices from one context to another. This approach supports the holistic teaching and learning skills that Abramo and Reynolds (2015) and Vasil (2019) espoused and could indicate that more school districts have shifted from music specialist positions (e.g., band classes only, choir classes only) to more generalist positions (e.g., multiple levels, multiple mediums). Participants’ relative comfort in employing assorted teaching approaches also could have been attributed to the extensive instructional modifications that music teachers and VMIE students enacted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given this second set of findings, I realized that participants did demonstrate acumen in locating, studying, and implementing new musical practices with their students. While participants reported less personal music-making than when they were preservice music teachers, which I expected, the independence with which they designed lessons to spark and feature their own students’ musical creativity was reassuring. As I continue to examine my own teaching practice, however, I anticipate recalibrating one or more class projects to meet some of the course deficiencies that participants helped me to recognize. Namely, scaffolding song projects for success with younger students, arranging and implementing vernacular activities in groups with mixed instrumentation (e.g., woodwinds, strings, brass, electric guitar, ‘ukulele, bucket drums), reinforcing skills that are associated with specific genres (e.g., beatboxing, guitar/drum riffs, popular voice techniques), and curating more resources on diatonic improvisation and learning by ear. Such practices could assist music teachers in modeling more confidently for their students and could deepen their own teaching practice (and mine).

Third, participants reported perceived barriers they have encountered with implementing vernacular music practices and how they have attempted to negotiate those difficulties. Most notably, participants named time limitations and classroom management as distinct challenges. Participants reported that the unstructured, student-driven nature of informal learning, while necessary, was also inefficient, and that the flexibility of such activities hastened students’ fleeting attention and disruptive behavior. Blackwell et al. (2022) described similar challenges in maintaining student-centered instruction and student focus, which mirrored Vasil’s (2019) discussion of teachers balancing both structure and chaos and formal and informal learning. Regardless of the grade level they taught, participants in the current study appeared to live in a space of moderate instability and looked to diverse repertoire and creative music experiences to capture students’ attention. Participants also indicated the conflict they felt between facilitating vernacular activities and preparing for looming concert dates. This contradictory relationship appeared to be an internal conflict that participants negotiated, as they did not report external opposition from school administrators, students’ parents, or other community stakeholders. Participants’ self-directed, internalized expectations for curricular reform appeared to parallel the internal locus for change that Vasil’s (2019) participants harbored. Finally, participants in the current study indicated that they primarily consult colleagues, students, and YouTube when searching for vernacular ideas and ways to improve their teaching. Given that teachers reported conferring with students in discussions about music that was important to them, participants appeared to display the interconnected tenets of collaborative learning, out-of-school connections, and culturally relevant pedagogy that West and Cremata (2016) and Mercado (2019) outlined.

Given this third set of findings, it became clear to me that participants made thoughtful connections between their skills as music teachers, their students’ needs, and the inherent complexities of their schools. These intersecting layers reflect the often unpredictable sociological landscapes that music teachers negotiate and can intensify the need-to-know response when pedagogical dilemmas arise. While participants reported benefiting from small-group jam sessions with their VMIE peers, I could provide in future classes more detailed discussions on applying vernacular approaches in an array of settings; for example, examining more closely the intricacies of how budgets, school schedules, student learning gaps, and serving high-needs populations might impact how music teachers initiate and maintain vernacular experiences. Presenting such considerations through more case study vignettes and classroom teaching videos could afford students opportunities to untangle perceived barriers that they could apply to future decision-making. This instructional dissonance likely can be attributed to the curricular depth and breadth quandary mentioned earlier, which remains a challenge in a course like VMIE.

Overall, the findings in this study showed positive connections between an undergraduate vernacular music course and participants’ teaching practices; however, this link should be interpreted with caution, as it cannot be construed as a purely causal relationship. It is unlikely that VMIE alone triggered innovative music teaching among participants. Rather, course experiences likely worked in conjunction with a network of colleagues, school students, personal dispositions, and teaching experiences during COVID-19 that cultivated participants’ penchant toward incorporating vernacular teaching practices. It is conceivable that music teachers explore and experiment with vernacular practices as they do other teaching skills, and that over time, vernacular teaching becomes a part of what teachers employ and serves as another tool for expanding students’ musical understandings.

Given the questionnaire-based self-study design, the aforementioned results are limited due to the small number of research participants, the potential for positive response bias on questionnaire items, and the restricted applicability of the findings to other settings. Questionnaire responses showed a variability of vernacular practices in school music programs, although participants’ enthusiastic view of VMIE and vernacular music-making could have been attributed to participants’ positive affinity with their alma mater and its program faculty. This study also featured the curricular facets and alumni perceptions of only one music teacher preparation program, which further limits transfer to other programs. Conversely, these same parameters simultaneously met the assumptions for self-study research (Kitchen et al., 2020) and represented the spirit of addressing curricular shifts within a single university program. Ultimately, these considerations worked in concert to provide a modest window into the enigmatic spaces between curricular offerings and teaching practice. Opportunities for negotiating these spaces are outlined below.

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Directions

This self-study generated new insights for my own teaching practice as I design future iterations of VMIE. I came to understand that program alumni from the initial VMIE cohorts appeared to have reconciled, at least in part, their perceptions of formal and informal music continua in school settings. While I was heartened to learn that participants were experimenting with and championing the practices we explored together in VMIE, this empirical snapshot represents the beginning of a new relationship with current and future alumni. Moving forward, I can take a more informed approach to tailoring this course based on alumni’s actual teaching experiences (e.g., creating new music classes, curating vernacular resources, easing skepticism, making pedagogical decisions, reconciling time and performance limitations). Additional benefits include documenting turning points in students’ music learning, monitoring trends in PK–12 music teaching, and learning how alumni explore vernacular applications in and beyond large ensemble settings. These elements could function as practical models for preservice music teachers in VMIE and could reinforce the notion that informal, vernacular approaches simply could be examples of good teaching. Knowing alumni’s realities could help me to create more overarching programmatic connections through VMIE rather than isolated vernacular experiences. In essence, this approach could fulfill an ongoing curricular cycle, where preservice music teachers learn strategies in VMIE and where I subsequently learn from their experiences as inservice music teachers to adjust course content accordingly. The application of music education coursework to inservice music teachers’ pedagogical practices remains an enduring interest.

The findings depicted in this self-study also could provide insight for music teachers and music teacher educators who are interested in pursuing vernacular practices in the classroom. Music teacher educators could continue to reexamine shared concepts across their respective curricula (e.g., assessment, creativity, lesson planning, learning styles) and the ways in which these topics can be reinforced through vernacular lenses. Case study vignettes based on program alumni’s experiences could be particularly helpful in problematizing and illuminating how vernacular practices can play out in school music settings and could be natural additions to any music education methods course. Faculty also could coordinate robust field experiences in schools with vernacular programming as a way to foster relationships with area stakeholders, not only for authentic, contextual mentoring, but as a means for showing preservice music teachers that this type of teaching is possible. Similarly, scheduling guest speakers and program alumni who have implemented vernacular approaches in their work would be advantageous for sharing practical and logistical ideas, allaying concerns about incorporating vernacular music, and cultivating personal, professional, and musical connections among preservice and inservice music teachers. Furthermore, supporting or advising student-led vernacular ensembles or music clubs could be an additional way to connect informal music-making to complementary aspects of music education degree programs. These types of interactions could assist preservice music teachers in developing their musicianship skills in the context of their roles as music students and future music educators, and could inform how music teaching and learning can look along an extended continuum.

Future research could include self-studies with a full spectrum of self-study methodologies (e.g., collaborative qualitative data), which could reveal potential differences between music teachers’ increased teaching confidence in vernacular musicianship and their actual practice in facilitating such approaches. Music education faculty also could extend open invitations to alumni to share their work through practitioner presentations or action research projects as a way to highlight the range of teaching models that exist. Continued narratives from inservice music teachers and their students are needed to clarify how vernacular practices are appearing in school music programs. Music teachers’ level of preparation in multimusical learning also persists as an area of special interest and could be explored through a variety of research designs, particularly as preservice music teachers make meaningful connections across musical and pedagogical coursework. As school students, music teachers, and music teacher educators continue to shape music education’s evolving identity in the 21st century, applications from future research could help to uncover additional stories regarding vernacular music-making opportunities in schools and could be fundamental in framing a vision of music education in the coming decades.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837231182400 – Supplemental material for Inservice Music Teachers’ Vernacular Practices: A Self-Study of Curricular Application

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837231182400 for Inservice Music Teachers’ Vernacular Practices: A Self-Study of Curricular Application by Nathan B. Kruse in Journal of Music Teacher Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nathan B. Kruse

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abramo

J. M.

Reynolds

(2015). “Pedagogical creativity” as a framework for music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714543744

Blackwell

Matherne

Momohara-Ho

(2022). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning popular music. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 31(3), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837211067215

Bond

V. L.

(2017). Culturally responsive education in music education: A literature review. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 153–180. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26367441

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bullock

S. M.

(2020). Navigating the pressures of self-study methodology: Constraints, invitations, and future directions. In Kitchen

Berry

Bullock

S. M.

Crowe

A. R.

Taylor

Guðjónsdóttir

Thomas

(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 245–267). Springer.

Colquhoun

S. E.

(2019). A survey of in-service music teacher preparedness for teaching non-traditional music courses and ensembles in secondary-level schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.

Conway

Palmer

C. M.

Edgar

Hansen

(2016). Learning to teach graduate students: A self-study by students and a faculty member. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 34(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314553130

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Dansereau

D. R.

Goodrich

Hendricks

K. S.

Smith

T. D.

K. T.

(2022). Reaching to transgress: A critical self-study of a teacher education program. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 31(2), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837211053626

10.

Davis

S. G.

Blair

D. V.

(2011). Popular music in American teacher education: A glimpse into a secondary methods course. International Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410396962

11.

Elpus

Abril

C. R.

(2019). Who enrolls in high school music? A national profile of US students, 2009–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419862837

12.

Feldman

Paugh

Mills

(2004). Self-study through action research. In Loughran

J. J.

Hamilton

M. L.

LaBoskey

V. K.

Russell

T. L.

(Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (pp. 943–977). Kluwer Academic.

13.

Giotta

D. P.

Kruse

N. B.

(2022). “An unmarked puzzle box”: High school students navigating creative experiences through songwriting. Contributions to Music Education, 47, 37–59.

14.

Gramm

W. M.

(2021). Peer mentoring in modern band [Doctoral dissertation, Boston University] (Order No. 28317250). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/peer-mentoring-modern-band/docview/2494886617/se-2

15.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate.

16.

Hamilton

Vannatta-Hall

(2020). Popular music in preservice music education: Preparedness, confidence and implementation. Journal of Popular Music Education, 4(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00013_1

17.

Hess

(2020). Finding the “both/and”: Balancing informal and formal music learning. International Journal of Music Education, 38(3), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761420917226

18.

Horng

Zheng

Lit

Darling-Hammond

(2015). The preparation, professional pathways, and effectiveness of Bank Street graduates. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

19.

Isbell

D. S.

(2007). Popular music and the public school music curriculum. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233070260010106

20.

Isbell

D. S.

(2016). Apprehensive and excited: Music education students’ experience vernacular musicianship. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714568020

21.

Jenkins

(2011). Formal and informal music educational practices. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 19(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.19.2.179

22.

Kastner

J. D.

(2014). Exploring informal music learning in a professional development community of music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 202, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.202.0071

23.

Kitchen

Berry

Bullock

S. M.

Crowe

A. R.

Taylor

Guðjónsdóttir

Thomas

(Eds.) (2020). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.). Springer.

24.

Kladder

J. R.

(2020). Re-envisioning music teacher education: An investigation into curricular change at two undergraduate music education programs in the U.S. Arts Education Policy Review, 120(4), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2019.1670311

25.

Lind

V. R.

McKoy

C. L.

(2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Taylor & Francis.

26.

Loughran

(2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(12), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296217

27.

Lunenberg

Samaras

(2011). Developing a pedagogy for teaching self-study research: Lessons learned across the Atlantic. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.008

28.

Mercado

E. M.

(2019). Popular, informal, and vernacular music classrooms: A review of the literature. Update: Applications for Research in Music Education, 37(2), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318784634

29.

Moir

Powell

Smith

G. D.

(Eds.). (2019). The Bloomsbury handbook of popular music education: Perspectives and practices. Bloomsbury Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350049444

30.

O’Flynn

(2006). Vernacular music-making and education. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406065475

31.

Pellegrino

Beavers

J. P.

Dill

(2019). Working with college students to improve their improvisation and composition skills: A self-study with music teacher educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(2), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083718787825

32.

Powell

(2021). Modern band: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320988528

33.

Qualtrics. (2013). Qualtrics [Computer software]. http://www.qualtrics.com

34.

Randles

(2019). Modern band, songwriting, and curricular innovation. In Conway

Pellegrino

Stanley

West

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of preservice music teacher education (pp. 881–892). Oxford University Press.

35.

Rolandson

D. M.

(2020). Motivation in music: A comparison of popular music course students and traditional large ensemble participants in high school. Contributions to Music Education, 45, 105–126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26974519

36.

Rolandson

D. M.

Conn

D. R.

(2022). Large ensemble teachers’ support for popular music courses in high schools. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837221091525

37.

Sanderson

D. N.

(2014). Music class offerings beyond bands, choirs, and orchestras in Nebraska high school [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

38.

Schmidt

Baran

Thompson

Koehler

Punya

Shin

(2009). Examining preservice teachers’ development of technological pedagogical content knowledge in an introductory instructional technology course. In Gibson

Weber

McFerrin

Carlsen

Willis

(Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009 society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 4145–4151). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

39.

Sorenson

(2021). Perceptions and preparedness: Preservice music educators and popular music teaching skills. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320957945

40.

Springer

D. G.

(2016). Teaching popular music: Investigating music educators’ perceptions and preparation. International Journal of Music Education, 34(4), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415619068

41.

Tracy

E. J.

(2018). Innovators in the classroom: In-service teachers creating and implementing non-band, -choir, and -orchestra courses in their high schools [Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University]. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=case1523004518027062

42.

Vasil

(2019). Integrating popular music and informal music learning practices: A multiple case study of secondary school music teachers enacting change in music education. International Journal of Music Education, 37(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419827367

43.

Vasil

Weiss

Powell

(2019). Popular music pedagogies: An approach to teaching 21st-century skills. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(3), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083718814454

44.

Weinstein

J. R.

Haning

(2022). Directors’ use and perceptions of popular music in middle school concert band. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 22, 3–18. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/fmea/rpme/2022/00000022/00000001/art00001?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf

45.

West

Cremata

(2016). Bringing the outside in: Blending formal and informal through acts of hospitality. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416637596

46.

Williams

(2017). Preference for popular and world music: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(3), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123316630349

47.

Woody

R. H.

(2007). Popular music in school: Remixing the issues. Music Educators Journal, 93(4), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/002743210709300415

48.

Woody

R. H.

Adams

M. C.

(2019). Diversifying musical experiences in schools and music teacher preparation programs: Considering vernacular and popular music. In Conway

C. M.

Pellegrino

Stanley

A. M.

West

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of preservice music teacher education in the United States (pp. 893–904). Oxford University Press.

49.

Zeichner

(2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296219

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB