20 Years of the MENC Biennial Conference

Review of Selected Literature

Several authors have conducted content analyses of MENC conferences. Hedden (1992/2010) analyzed data about research sessions at 12 MENC conferences from 1970 through 1990. By exploring the number of research presentations, number of presentations by individuals, and number of coauthored presentations, Hedden illuminated broad trends, including an increase in the number of research presentations, coauthorships, and authors who presented multiple sessions at a single conference. Other notable trends included a shift away from the paper-reading format prevalent during the early 1970s and an increased number of individuals appearing as presenters at multiple conferences.

Price and Orman (1999, 2001) and Orman and Price (2007) analyzed content from several past MENC conferences, and their analyses demonstrate several trends and implications for the profession. In 1999, they conducted a content analysis of sessions (N = 2,898) at MENC’s National Biennial In-Service Conferences from 1984 through 1998. Using information from published programs, each session was analyzed according to (a) its stated category or perceived purpose (e.g., educational sessions, general sessions, receptions, concerts), (b) its subject area within the stated category (similar to groupings used by MENC in published conference programs), and (c) its specific focus within the subject area (e.g., research, band, choir, orchestra, performing groups). The number of sessions in Price and Orman’s analysis ranged from a low of 253 (1990) to a high of 505 (1998). Educational sessions were more prevalent (59.6%) than sessions designated as demonstrations, lectures, and clinics. Performance-oriented events (including concerts, concert/clinics, and educational sessions focusing on music performance) accounted for 30.1% of sessions. General music sessions ranged from 6.7% (22) of sessions in 1984 to 12.1% (57) in 1996. Industry sessions promoting a particular product or products surged from 13.5% in 1984 to 32.3% in 1998, prompting a cautionary note that, although businesses may sponsor sessions of value, “care must be taken that conferences do not become product trade shows” (Price & Orman, 1999, p. 30) and that the growing predominance of industry sessions may be viewed as a “commercialization of MENC” (Price & Orman, 1999, p. 30). Technology sessions sponsored by industry increased from six sessions in 1984 (1.8%) to 90 in 1998 (17.9%), reflecting a 1,500% increase.

In 2001, Price and Orman replicated their 1999 study, analyzing the 413 sessions offered at the 2000 MENC conference. As in 1999, the largest proportion of sessions was educational (65.1%). Industry sessions constituted the largest proportion of sessions (28.8%), followed by sessions that focused on performance (20.8%). The proportion of technology-oriented sessions was greater than 25% and comprised more than 75.2% of industry sessions, continuing the increasing commercialization trend seen in their 1999 study. The authors lamented the lack of sessions related to inclusion of students with exceptionalities, as music teachers might benefit from sessions that prepare them to give these students a high-quality musical experience. Based upon these trends, Price and Orman (2001) suggested that MENC query its membership to determine whether the organization’s conference offerings are congruent with its members’ concerns and interests. The authors noted that their findings may assist MENC with determining if its conference offerings and trends meet the needs of those involved with teaching music and preparing music educators. As in their 1999 study, Price and Orman questioned the pervasiveness of industry sessions.

Orman and Price (2007) replicated the procedure from their 1999 and 2001 studies, this time exploring the content of two iterations of each of the following: the MENC biennial conference, the Midwest Clinic International Band and Orchestra Conference, the Orff-Schulwerk national conference, and the American Choral Directors Association (ACDA) national conference. For the 2002 and 2004 MENC conferences, educational sessions were, once again, most prevalent (representing 75.5% of total conference sessions in 2004), with industry-sponsored sessions being the most common, rising to 40.1% in 2002 and 44.4% in 2004. However, a shift away from industry sessions focused on technology occurred between the 2002 and 2004 conferences. After climbing to 72.2% of all educational sessions in 2002, the industry-sponsored technology sessions represented only 42.1% of educational sessions in 2004. Orman and Price noted that, compared with the other three conference types, MENC conferences had “the broadest offerings across subject areas” (Orman & Price, 2007, p. 159). After completing a comparative analysis of content among the various types of conferences, the authors cautioned those planning and submitting proposals to conferences to “consider whether these conferences adequately reflect the concerns, interests, and needs of their members” (Orman & Price, 2007, p. 161).

While previous analyses showed that educational sessions were the core of MENC conferences, they did not focus specifically on trends in educational sessions. The content analyses of Hedden (1992/2010), Price and Orman (1999, 2001), and Orman and Price (2007) counted and/or analyzed each conference event (e.g., business meeting, concert, educational session, reception). For example, in the Price and Orman studies, a middle school band performance was considered a “session.” While such large-scale analyses may provide valuable information for conference organizers, they do not focus specifically on trends in educational sessions. For the purposes of this study, we defined educational sessions as workshops or lectures focused on the improvement of music teaching and learning and ancillary topics. As previously established by Price and Orman (1999, 2001) and Orman and Price (2007), educational sessions make up the majority of events at MENC conferences. Assuming that educational sessions are meant to impart knowledge regarding important topics in music education and engage learners in those topics, it is logical to assume that educational sessions presented at MENC conferences would discuss relevant and timely topics for its members. It seems that an exploration specifically regarding educational sessions is timely and appropriate. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore (a) the trends in audience focus for educational sessions over the final 20 years of the MENC biennial conference and (b) the trends in content focus for educational sessions over the final 20 years of the MENC biennial conference.

Method

To obtain copies of the conference programs for years 1988 through 2008, we contacted the curator of the NAfME Historical Center archives, which are housed at the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library at the University of Maryland. The curator supplied programs from conferences in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994, and a colleague at our institution provided programs from 1996 to 2008. After obtaining the programs, we began the process of creating a coding scheme and codebook.

In developing our codebook and coding scheme, we briefly considered using the abbreviated text identifiers that accompanied each session at recent conferences but found this to be implausible for several reasons. First, MENC’s approach to using these identifiers has varied substantially over 20 years. In 1992 and 1994, there were no identifiers used to differentiate audience or content. In 1994 and 1996, sessions were identified by number range (e.g., 100s were “general music” sessions, 500s were “research”), but this explanation of the numbering occurred only once at the beginning of the program. From 1998 to 2008, abbreviated text identifiers were used for every session (e.g., coll means “collegiate”). Legends, which typically appeared at the beginning of daily conference listings, informed attendees of the various identifiers and their meanings. The categories were revised from year to year, growing in number from 15 identifiers in 1998 to a high of 32 identifiers in 2006. Finally, these categories identified either potential audiences (e.g., band, chorus, collegiate) or content (e.g., improvisation, conducting) but not both.

Because our focus was on the specific kinds of educational sessions rather than on all conference sessions, our codes differ significantly from those used by Price and Orman (1999, 2001) and Orman and Price (2007). We intended our codes to focus on the nuanced experience of conference attendees when faced with educational session choices. Our codes were an effort to attend to the decision-making process of an attendee as he or she decides if the session is aimed at him or her and if the content is of interest. Numerous factors affect the sessions available to an attendee at a given conference. Such factors include the amount/type of session proposals submitted, the constraints of the conference venue, financial considerations, and length/format of the conference program. As a result, the final conference program is not necessarily a pure reflection of the organizers’ preferences, though it can yield some insight.

We therefore looked collaboratively at a group of sessions from 2004 as a means of determining if we could inductively generate a list of session codes. Codes derived from this process matched many of the later identifiers (from 2006 and 2008) but also added nuance to MENC’s identifiers. As a pilot procedure, we coded all educational sessions from Friday, April 16, 2004 (72 sessions), and made revisions to our code list to help fill any perceived gaps. Some codes were combined and revised to account for disagreement and/or inconsistent usage. We then looked at 50 sessions from Friday, April 12, of the 2002 conference, made further refinements to the code list, and added brief code descriptions to our codebook to assist in differentiation. Our codebook is included as an appendix (see Tables S1 and S2 in the online supplemental material at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Once we arrived at a final list of audience codes and content codes (as listed in online Appendices S1 and S2 as well as in Tables 1 and 2), all four authors coded another 50 sessions from Friday, April 12, 2002, addressing both audience and content. Initially, we used two content codes when necessary (e.g., a session on the National Standards and technology). Ultimately, we decided on a single content code because doing so improved interjudge agreement. Sessions that were not coded included concerts/performances, networking events, business/closed meetings, receptions, master classes, and sessions with a title but no description (i.e., “open tech lab” ¹ ). We calculated interjudge agreement scores for each pair of raters (for both audience and content codes) and then adjusted this average to account for the agreement that would occur by chance. This adjusted value, known as Cohen’s kappa coefficient, is considered to be a robust calculation of interjudge agreement for categorical items (Cohen, 1960). The average interjudge agreement was k = 0.95 for audience (range of 0.93–1.0), and k = 0.83 for content (range of 0.71–0.94). While no one value of kappa is accepted universally (Bakeman, McArthur, Quera, & Robinson, 1997), Landis and Koch (1977) consider kappa values between 0.81 and 1.00 “almost perfect” (p. 165).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Percentages of Sessions Receiving Each Audience Code, by Year.

Year	1988	1990	1992	1994	1996	1998	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
(n, total sessions)	(171)	(135)	(129)	(233)	(331)	(338)	(303)	(283)	(264)	(196)	(210)	Average
All attendees	37.4	25.2	29.5	41.2	29.0	34.3	42.6	43.5	34.1	43.4	49.5	37.2
All ensemble	5.8	2.2	1.6	0.9	4.2	1.1	1.3	0.7	2.7	1.5	3.8	2.0
All general	8.2	3.0	3.1	5.6	6.0	3.3	4.6	2.5	10.2	6.1	7.1	5.2
Band	10.5	8.1	10.0	3.4	6.3	4.7	5.3	7.8	5.7	3.6	4.3	5.9
Chorus	8.2	11.9	9.3	7.7	10.0	5.5	6.9	9.2	7.6	7.7	6.7	8.3
Collegiate	1.8	2.2	1.6	0.9	1.2	1.9	2.0	3.9	3.0	2.6	4.3	2.4
Early childhood	0.6	3.7	2.3	1.7	3.3	5.5	1.7	3.2	1.1	0.0	0.5	2.3
Elementary general	5.8	5.2	7.0	8.6	6.0	6.6	9.9	12.4	6.8	8.2	4.8	7.6
Harmony instruments	1.2	1.5	0.8	2.1	3.9	8.0	5.6	1.8	2.3	5.1	2.4	3.4
Higher education	7.0	5.9	13.2	3.4	5.1	8.2	8.3	1.8	8.0	11.2	3.3	6.8
Instrumental	1.2	4.4	3.1	4.7	3.6	3.8	2.3	1.1	3.0	3.1	1.9	3.1
Orchestra	7.0	8.1	9.3	6.4	6.3	5.8	4.6	3.5	2.7	2.0	3.3	5.2
Other	2.3	16.3	6.2	11.2	12.7	9.3	3.3	3.9	10.6	3.6	6.7	8.4
Secondary general	2.9	2.2	3.1	2.1	2.1	1.9	1.3	4.9	2.3	2.0	1.4	2.3

Note. This table reflects the second coding with updated audience codes. Rounding caused some years’ percentages to total slightly more or less than 100; however, 0.0 does represent zero sessions in the given category.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Percentages of Sessions Receiving Each Content Code, by Year.

Year	1988	1990	1992	1994	1996	1998	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008
(n, total sessions)	(171)	(135)	(129)	(233)	(331)	(338)	(303)	(283)	(264)	(196)	(210)	Average
Administration	2.3	0.0	1.6	1.7	0.0	1.1	1.0	0.0	0.4	1.5	0.5	0.9
Advocacy	4.1	2.2	1.6	6.9	1.2	1.1	3.3	1.8	2.3	2.6	2.4	2.7
Arts integration/interdisciplinary	0.6	0.0	1.6	4.7	1.5	1.1	2.3	2.5	4.2	3.1	2.4	2.2
Assessment	0.6	3.7	0.8	3.9	3.9	2.2	4.0	3.5	3.8	2.0	3.3	2.9
Classroom management	1.2	1.5	1.6	0.4	0.9	0.0	0.3	1.1	1.5	2.0	2.4	1.2
Community outreach/engagement	4.1	0.7	1.6	0.4	1.2	1.6	1.3	0.7	1.5	0.5	0.0	1.2
Conducting	0.0	0.7	0.8	0.0	0.6	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.4	1.5	1.9	0.6
Creativity	5.3	1.5	0.8	6.4	5.7	2.4	4.3	5.7	7.6	4.1	3.3	4.3
Curriculum/standards	13.5	11.1	7.0	5.2	14.5	6.3	3.6	3.9	6.1	4.6	4.8	7.3
Jazz	0.0	0.0	1.6	0.4	1.2	0.8	1.3	3.2	3.4	1.5	1.9	1.4
Mentoring/induction	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.7	0.0	1.0	1.4	0.3
Multicultural	2.3	2.2	3.9	6.4	7.9	10.2	4.0	6.4	5.3	4.1	3.3	5.1
Other	12.3	20.7	17.1	19.7	14.2	11.3	9.6	13.4	9.1	7.7	13.8	13.5
Repertoire/instructional material	12.9	13.3	12.4	12.4	11.5	7.4	5.6	2.8	6.4	3.1	3.3	8.3
Research	5.8	6.7	9.3	4.3	3.6	4.4	3.6	4.6	4.2	6.6	6.7	5.4
Special learners	2.3	3.0	0.8	1.7	0.6	0.8	0.0	1.4	0.8	1.5	2.4	1.4
Teacher education	2.3	2.2	4.7	3.9	3.3	3.8	3.3	2.1	4.5	4.1	2.9	3.4
Teacher recruitment/retention	4.1	0.0	0.0	0.4	2.4	0.0	0.0	0.4	4.2	2.0	1.9	1.4
Teaching strategies	18.7	20.7	26.4	11.6	16.0	14.3	16.5	12.0	11.7	16.8	11.9	16.1
Technology	7.6	8.9	6.2	8.6	8.8	30.8	34.3	32.2	21.2	27.6	27.1	19.4
Urban/rural	0.0	0.7	0.8	0.9	0.9	0.3	0.7	1.8	1.5	2.0	2.4	1.1

Note. Rounding caused some years’ percentages to total slightly more or less than 100; however, 0.0 does represent zero sessions in the given category.

Because our high interjudge agreement suggested that independent coding was likely to generate sufficiently similar results, we split up conferences among the four researchers. We distributed the 11 programs so that no single researcher coded two successive conferences. However, after all sessions were coded (N = 2,593), it was clear that our audience codes were not sensitive enough to pick up some relevant differences. Specifically, because an unspecified attendee code did not discriminate adequately between sessions meant for all conference attendees and those targeted at unusual subgroups, we added separate codes for all attendees (all conference attendees, all ensemble, and all general) and replaced unspecified with other to capture the sessions that did not fit into the other 13 categories. We applied this new audience coding scheme and calculated final percentages for audience focus and content focus, which revealed a more realistic snapshot of conference session trends (Table 1).

Our findings shed light on potential trends over time, but they are limited by methodology. For the sake of consistency, we chose not to code the following pre- and postconference sessions or special miniconferences embedded within a particular year’s conference:

Results

Because each conference featured a different total number of sessions, results are reported as percentages for each code. Table 1 shows the percentages, by year, for each audience code, and Table 2 shows the percentages, by year, for each content code. The total number of sessions by year is also shown in Tables 1 and 2. The data revealed surprisingly few strong trends for either intended audience or session content, with a handful of notable exceptions.

For audience codes, both band and orchestra sessions showed a relatively marked decline over this 20-year period. Chorus sessions did not quite show the same decline, although the percentage for chorus in 1998 (5.5%) was far from the peak percentage of 11.9% in 1990. Orchestra sessions peaked in 1992 and generally declined, while band sessions peaked in 1988 and varied considerably in percentage thereafter. Early childhood sessions, after being relatively stable for most of the period, declined in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Despite a low point in 1994, sessions aimed at collegiate music education majors showed the only overall upward trend. Modest peaks existed for elementary general (2002) and higher education (1992). Our second round of coding revealed that a large number of sessions seemed to be intended for all conference attendees. Percentages for this all conference attendees code ranged from 25.2% (1990) to 49.5% (2008). This trend seems to fit with the professional aim of MENC/NAfME—to be the umbrella organization for all music educators.

For content codes, technology sessions showed the most notable trend overall: It surged from 8.8% in 1996 to 30.8% in 1998, with a high point of 34.3% in 2000, after which the trend leveled off. It should be noted that many of these technology sessions were sponsored demonstrations by equipment and software manufacturers. Individual demonstration sessions often reappeared multiple times in a given conference year, consistent with findings by Price and Orman (1999, 2001). In our coding, we counted these recurring sessions multiple times (if it happened multiple times, our numbers reflect that). In doing so, we attempted to capture the conference attendee’s experience; if a session was offered multiple times, it accounted for a larger percentage of that conference/day.

The overall rise in technology sessions was the only decisive trend, but it is possible to discern subtle movements in other content areas. For example, advocacy sessions spiked in 1994, and arts integration/interdisciplinary sessions had two modest gains in 1994 and 2004; creativity and jazz sessions peaked in 2004. After an initial dip, curriculum sessions increased in number from 12 in 1994 to 48 in 1996, after which they trailed off again, and the multicultural code spiked in 1998. Other codes hit low points from which they eventually rebound: classroom management around 1998, special learners in 2000. Sessions dealing with community outreach/engagement, repertoire/instructional materials, and teaching strategies showed relatively steady decline over time, whereas interest in urban/rural and mentoring/induction showed a slight uptick at the end of this 20-year period. Teacher recruitment and retention was only an occasional area of interest, accounting for nearly or exactly 0% in 6 years (1990, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002) but occasionally rose, to 4.1% in 1988 and 4.2% in 2004.

In their previous content analyses, Price and Orman (1999, 2001) noted a perceived commercialization of MENC biennial conferences. To explore this phenomenon, we calculated the percentage of industry-sponsored sessions by year. We counted the number of sessions with a sponsor listed (e.g., “presented by Hinshaw”) or a session in which the description indicated that the session was promoting a specific brand or product exclusively. Our analysis indeed did uncover a marked increase in the percentage of industry-sponsored sessions, ranging from 19.6% of total sessions in 1996 to 49.1% in 2002. These data are reflected in Table 3. Although not a decisive trend, these data suggest that the increased commercialization was, in fact, a real phenomenon.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Percentage of Industry-Sponsored Sessions, by Year.

Year	Total Number of Conference Sessions	Total Number of Industry-Sponsored Sessions	Percentage of Industry-Sponsored Sessions
1988	171	39	22.8
1990	135	31	23.0
1992	129	32	24.8
1994	233	47	20.2
1996	331	65	19.6
1998	338	158	46.7
2000	303	129	42.5
2002	283	139	49.1
2004	264	99	37.5
2006	196	71	36.2
2008	210	76	36.2

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the content and intended audiences for educational sessions offered at MENC biennial conferences in order to illuminate trends and topics in professional development. In terms of audience focus, sessions aimed at all attendees constituted the largest percentage of sessions at every conference over this 20-year period, while some audiences (e.g., collegiate) were targeted rarely. In terms of content focus, several areas received little or no attention at any of these conferences, including teacher recruitment/retention, mentoring/induction, conducting, and jazz. Results also revealed a general decline in the number of sessions focused on traditional large performing ensembles (band, choir, and orchestra). Results indicated a constant presence of industry-sponsored sessions, which coincided in later years with a significant increase in technology-focused sessions. On this last point, we share the same concerns as Price and Orman (1999, 2001) regarding the commercialization of MENC. In years such as 2002, where industry-sponsored sessions accounted for around half of all educational offerings, we wonder whether MENC excluded its membership from presenting in favor of commercial product demonstrations.

Although we revised our codebook several times and eventually achieved acceptable interjudge agreement, the scheme itself remains imperfect. In particular, the large number of sessions receiving the audience code unspecified after the initial coding of all sessions suggested that our codebook was not sufficiently sensitive to the audience possibilities. Even in our second round of coding, the other category may not have captured the nuances present, since some sessions coded other were intended for unique combinations of various audiences (e.g., chorus and elementary general) and some for limited audiences (e.g., editors of state journals). Including audience codes all general (applicable to all general music settings), all ensemble (applicable to band, chorus, and orchestra), and all conference attendees increased the sensitivity of our approach, but further revisions to the coding scheme could uncover more gradations and improve validity. In our agreement check, we found that our interjudge agreement was stronger when we used only one content code for each session. This improvement in reliability may have sacrificed some validity, as this approach did not account for sessions that clearly covered more than one content area (a session that addressed both technology and assessment, for example). This decision to use only one content code may have obscured more subtle topic trends.

In general, our analysis reveals a diversity of audiences and content focuses among the sessions offered at these biennial conferences. Within these codes, several trends merit discussion. The overall surge in technology sessions perhaps speaks to the growing role that devices and software play in music education, the increasing prevalence of personal computers and software during this period, and access to the growth and influence of the Internet in daily life. However, the role of technology at MENC conferences may speak as powerfully about the strong role that commercial entities play at our professional conferences (Price & Orman, 1999, 2001). Although our coding scheme did not include a separate category for these industry-sponsored product demonstrations, we performed a secondary analysis to determine the percentage of overall sessions as well as technology sessions that were industry sponsored by year. As indicated above, we included any session with a sponsor listed or any session whose description clearly indicated that the session’s main purpose was to demonstrate or promote a particular product or brand. In 2002, nearly half of the sessions offered were industry sponsored (49.1%), though the percentage of industry-sponsored sessions fell to 36.2% in 2008. Our finding that commercial entities sponsored one third to one half of sessions during 20 years of the MENC biennial conference is cause for further dialogue about the role of industry at MENC/NAfME professional development events. The percentage of technology sessions sponsored by industry was consistently higher than the percentage of overall sessions. From 1988 through 1996, around half of technology sessions were industry sponsored (46.15%, 50%, 50%, 55%, and 44.82%, respectively). A spike occurred in 1998, with increased levels sustained through 2008; in these years, the percentages of technology sessions sponsored by industry grew to 91.07%, 81.37%, 89.01%, 89.26%, 83.33%, and 92.98% respectively.

Other localized increases in sessions may be interpreted in light of contemporary events. The marked increase in curriculum/standards sessions from 1994 to 1996 may reflect the influence of the National Standards for Arts Education (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994). The peak of multicultural sessions in 1998 might reflect the larger professional interest in “world” music that emerged in the 1990s (as documented by Green, 2008, p. 13). Understanding whether these localized increases signify sudden interest in the field or attempts by MENC to market its conferences to a broad audience would require a better understanding of how sessions were selected.

Certain conference trends may point not only to membership changes and the gradual “recasting” of the MENC conference but also to shifting interests within the profession. For example, we noted a general decline in sessions targeting the three traditional large ensemble types (band, chorus, and orchestra) that long have formed the core of American secondary music education. There may be multiple explanations for this trend. Throughout its history, MENC has maintained relationships with several allied organizations, including the ACDA and the American String Teachers Association (ASTA). The reduction in ensemble sessions at MENC conferences may have resulted from the fact that members of these organizations stopped submitting sessions to MENC conferences. ASTA, for example, began holding its own conference in 2003, possibly explaining the subsequent decline in sessions for the orchestra audience code. Similarly, it is possible that the creation of the biennial Society for Music Teacher Education (SMTE) symposium in 2005 (SMTE, n.d.) caused the subsequent reduction in teacher education sessions. Because this MENC biennial conference no longer exists in its original form, having been split into two separate conferences, it seems prudent to consider the results from multiple perspectives.

Teachers’ professional development needs in areas underrepresented at MENC conferences may be satisfied in other ways. While there has been a consistent focus on teaching strategies in ensemble settings at the conferences we examined, it is perhaps surprising that sessions about conducting, an activity in which ensemble teachers are often engaged, were so rare across these years. This perhaps reflects the profession’s growing interest in course offerings outside the traditional ensemble setting (Green, 2008; Kratus, 2007; Williams, 2011; Woody, 2007) or may reflect a perception that conducting is not an appropriate topic for MENC conference sessions. It may be that events such as the Midwest Clinic; conferences sponsored by organizations such as Chorus America, ACDA, and ASTA; and weekend/summer workshops and/or graduate programs at various colleges and universities are viewed as the venues of choice for professional development related to conducting.

If the contents and intended audiences of these conference programs signal music education’s priorities, the lack of discernible trends in some areas presents cause for concern. As the profession pursues new interests and identifies areas that deserve collective attention, trends in conference topics ought to show the community responding to these calls to action. One might expect that calls to focus on content from the National Standards (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994), such as students’ creative abilities (composing, improvising, arranging), might have resulted in more creativity sessions, but no such trend exists. As we learn more about the needs of students with exceptionalities and in urban/rural populations, we should make space for these important topics in our conference sessions, yet they remain underrepresented in our findings. This echoes the findings of Price and Orman (1999, 2001), who also found that sessions related to students with special needs (termed “exceptionalities” in their taxonomy) were surprisingly rare. Whether this is because few proposals around these topics were submitted or because few were accepted, these omissions should attract attention and inspire action on the part of conference organizers and presenters.

Authors of future research should continue to investigate this important subject. A replication of this same study with a revised codebook may offer a clearer representation of trends that can inform both those who organize conferences and those who submit session proposals. While several trends became clear through our analysis, a more detailed codebook could help clarify some of the ambiguities inherent in broad categories, like all conference attendees and other. State music education associations might choose to engage in similar content analyses for their own state conferences, since many teachers can attend state conferences easily but might find the financial and logistical hurdles to attending a national conference prohibitive (for one state-level analysis, see Kiehn & Kimball, 2008). Now that NAfME has chosen to hold two separate national conferences—one for in-service music teachers and another for researchers and music teacher educators—authors of future content analyses might check for alignment between the interests of these two populations. It would be valuable to know whether the directions pursued by scholars and teacher educators seem consonant with the interests and needs of the practitioner base and vice versa.

On the basis of our findings, we recommend that NAfME conference organizers give special attention to the underrepresented topics at practitioner and research conferences. Special calls could highlight important topics not generally highlighted at past MENC conferences (e.g., urban/rural music education, students with exceptionalities, composing, improvising, etc.). NAfME also could survey its members to see whether they agree that underrepresentation of certain topic areas hinders their professional development. Such a survey may uncover even more topic areas that NAfME members would like to see highlighted at subsequent national professional development conferences. Last, the split of the MENC biennial conference into two events raises questions. Do professional music educators believe that K–12 teachers and higher education faculty should be addressing the same set of issues? Or should one group lead the other? As alluded to by Webster (2014), would the two music education constituencies benefit from intermingling at the same conference? A national survey could help clarify answers to these questions.

We hope this study enlightens discussion and future action as conferences are developed and planned. In particular, we hope that this study will empower presenters and conference organizers to target “gaps in the market” as they develop proposals and conference programs. Although certain audiences and topics may remain perennial favorites, knowledge of and attention to underrepresented audiences and content areas may enable conference attendees to use their time at conferences more wisely and productively. Attention to these topics also may attract participants who are interested particularly in specific content areas, perhaps extending the conferences’ reach to more, and more varied, participants.