Balancing the Varied Needs of Master of Music Education Students: Perceptions From Program Directors and Alumni

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of master of music education degree program directors and alumni from selected schools regarding the ways in which their music education master’s programs balance the varied needs of program participants. Findings are presented in the two broad categories of improvement in P–12 teacher learning and preparation for future scholarly work, and the discussion examines the qualitative comparisons between participant responses. Suggestions for graduate programs and future researchers are included.

Keywords

graduate education music education master’s degree

Balancing the varied needs of students in graduate music education programs has been historically challenging to the field. The Committee of Graduate Studies in Music Education¹ (1954) provided a rationale for the need for advanced degrees in music education and defined the various master’s and doctoral degrees at the time. The Committee stated that finding a balance between music and professional education coursework was a key challenge for both master’s and doctoral degrees.

The continued work of music education researchers studying the master’s program specifically documented (a) challenges in relevancy of research courses (Dorfman & Lipscomb, 2005), (b) support for the role of teacher research as a final project (Robbins et al., 2007), (c) differences in experiences of summers-only versus academic-year students (Conway et al., 2008), (d) perceived impact of the master’s degree on P–12 student achievement (Conway et al., 2009), and (e) motivations to pursue a music education master’s degree in a traditional or online program (Albert, 2015).

In a policy discussion, Barrett (2006) pointed to the potential benefits of graduate work for students in relation to developing a productive two-way movement between music education theory and P–12 teaching practices. She suggested master’s programs “can be especially strong in their capacities to engage teachers in the study of music and music teaching, which builds disciplinary depth, and also in fostering teacher-directed inquiry” (p. 26). Additionally, Conway (2016) reported a need for researchers to study balance in music education degrees:

Institutions need to be clear as to how they are balancing the need for master’s graduates to be well-prepared to return to P-12 as master teachers versus (or maybe in addition to) the need to be prepared for continued graduate work. . . . It was unclear as to whether the master’s degree is considered a training degree for the Ph.D. or whether it is considered a terminal degree.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of music education master’s program directors and alumni regarding the ways in which their degree program balanced the varied needs of program participants. Research questions included the following: (1) How do program directors describe their efforts to balance the varied needs of master’s degree students? (2) How do alumni teaching in P–12 schools describe their experiences in the master’s degree? (3) How do alumni who are now in higher education describe their experiences in the master’s degree? (4) What are the descriptive comparisons between responses of both types of alumni? and (5) How do alumni responses compare to those of program directors?

Theoretical Framework

Although there is a small literature base specifically examining music education graduate programs, teacher professional learning and teacher professional development have a strong presence in past literature. Conway and Edgar (2014) suggested that “Continuing education at the tertiary level can be a valuable form of [professional development, or PD]” (p. 490). In Eros’s (2013) study of PD of second-stage teachers, all three participants discussed graduate work as part of their professional development. One participant quoted that her master of music degree was “the most invigorating, renewing thing that has ever happened in my career” (p. 25). Thus, we have opted to discuss our findings regarding graduate programs in relation to frameworks of teacher learning drawn from the PD literature.

Bautista et al. (2018) provided an in-depth review of published professional development studies within seven music education journals. Music studies were examined in relation to “features of high-quality PD” (p. 1) drawn from pillars of research in general education (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). More specifically, Desimone’s (2009; Desimone & Garet, 2015) five “critical features” of teacher learning (Bautista et al., 2018, p. 6) were used to organize the discussion in the Bautista et al. article. These features include (a) content focus, (b) active learning opportunities, (c) collective participation, (d) duration, and (e) coherence as important to teacher professional learning. We consider these five features in the findings section of this article. Each will be described as they arise in the findings. It is important to note that these were not used as a priori codes in analysis given that we chose to use the framework for the purpose of discussion after findings were reported.

Design

Seidman’s (2019) conception of interview as a “method” in education research was the design. Seidman suggested: “As a method of inquiry, interviewing is most consistent with peoples’ ability to make meaning through language. It affirms the importance of the individual without denigrating the possibility of community and collaboration” (p. 13). Because we were interested in program directors’ and graduates’ individual views regarding their master’s program experiences as well as their responses regarding the “community and collaboration” of a degree program, we viewed Seidman’s “phenomenological approach to in-depth interviewing” (p. viii) as the most appropriate design.

Sampling

We began with an examination of 21 National Association of Schools of Music accredited master of music or master of arts in music education program websites chosen to represent a “typical sample” (Patton, 2015, p. 284) of programs from various geographic regions (see Appendix A in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article). We included small, medium, and large programs offered by both state and private institutions. The research team examined each program’s website along with links to program handbooks, syllabi, and other documents. We then created a matrix (see Supplemental File in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article) that included (a) name of school; (b) application requirements; (c) prerequisite number of years teaching; (d) type of degree; (e) residency expectations; (f) on-site, online, or hybrid program; and (g) exit requirements.

We then examined the matrix and used criterion sampling (Patton, 2015) to select seven participant schools based on the following criteria: (a) offered more than one type of master’s degree (i.e., online, hybrid, summers only, academic year), (b) website included ample program detail (degree outlines, exit requirements, syllabi, etc.), and (c) program director(s) responded to inquiry and was willing to participate in the interview. An effort was made to select both public and private institutions across a wide geographic area, and the seven programs of various sizes included universities in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Texas. All programs offered the master of music degree in music education (see Table 1 for participant school details).

Table 1.

Participant School Details.

Name of University	Interviewee	Degree Format	Students in Master of Music Programs
East Coast School of Music (ECM)	Program director	Academic year Summer	4–5 90
East Coast Research University (ECR)	Program director	Academic year Online	4–5 150–160
East Coast State University (ECS)	Program director	Academic year Hybrid Summer	5 9 2
Midwestern College of Music (MWM)	Former program director	Academic year Summer	2–3 150
Midwestern Research University (MRU)	Program director and summer director	Academic year Summer	2 30
Southwestern State University (SWS)	Program director	Academic year Summer	6–7 16
Western Research University (WRU)	Program director and summer director	Academic year Summer	6 18

Data Collection

During the fall term of 2016, each program director was interviewed (via phone) by one of the three research team members regarding goals for the master’s degree and experiences in design and implementation (for interview protocol, see Appendix B in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article). Our examination of the materials on the program website provided some background information for the discussions. For the Midwestern Research University (MRU), two separate interviews were held, one with the graduate director and one with the summer program director. For the Western Research University (WRU), both the graduate program director and the summer program director were on the same interview call. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was audio-recorded. During the interview, researchers asked directors for the contact information of two alumni (one in P–12 and one in higher education) whom they believed would be willing to participate in an interview.

During the winter term of 2017, six interviews were held with alumni who returned to P–12 schools (a P–12 teacher from Southwestern State University [SWS] was never secured), and five interviews were held with alumni who went on into higher education (East Coast School of Music [ECM] and East Coast Research University [ECR] did not have recent alumni who had continued into higher education available for participation). Our examination of the materials on the program website again provided some background information for these discussions. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was audio-recorded.

Analysis

Seidman (2019) referred to “studying, reducing, and analyzing the text” (p. 125). Each researcher initially studied and reduced (developed codes) the interviews they had conducted. We then met to analyze and discuss the data. Next, each researcher coded interviews originally conducted by the other researchers in the team. Two additional trained research assistants² were also involved in the coding process. They were provided our coding scheme and asked to follow it as well as provide other insights. The research team met again to analyze and discuss the final coding. Once findings had been written, we returned to analysis once more to view our findings through the lens of Desimone’s (2009) five features of teacher learning. As stated earlier, it is important to reiterate that these were not a priori codes, but instead, we only used the framework for the purpose of discussion after findings were reported.

Trustworthiness

The use of three researchers and our technique of scaffolding the interviews allowed us to listen for the voices of participants across all participant schools, which added to the validity of our study. In addition, we made use of all eight of Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) “Strategies for Promoting Validity and Reliability” (p. 259) in qualitative research, including (a) triangulation (we had multiple investigators and sources of data); (b) member checks (participants viewed the findings sections of our study as a validation of information); (c) adequate engagement in data collection (interviews were collected over 3 months, and regular analysis meetings took place over 18 months); (d) researchers’ position/reflexivity (our analysis meetings regularly included critical self-reflection of our own experiences and assumptions regarding master’s programs); (e) peer review (two trained research assistants assisted with analysis); (f) audit trail (careful notes were kept and shared); (g) rich, thick description (extensive details were collected and reported on regarding each setting); and (h) maximum variation (seven participant programs were chosen with program variation in mind with regard to size of program, geographic location, and program requirements).

Findings and Discussion

Findings in response to the research questions are presented within the broad categories of improvement in P–12 teacher learning and preparation for future scholarly work. Selected evidence from program directors, P–12 alumni, and higher education alumni are used to support the ideas in each section. Quotes always begin with directors and continue with alumni. A discussion of the comparison between types of alumni and between alumni and program directors is provided. Connections to Desimone’s (2009) five features of high-quality professional development and references to past literature are included where appropriate.

Improvement in P–12 Teacher Learning

Program directors and both groups of alumni agreed that improvement in P–12 teacher learning is a primary goal of the master’s degree. Participants highlighted student choice in course projects and varied offerings of practitioner workshops as ways in which the master’s programs led graduates to becoming better teachers. Music-making as part of courses and workshops was also regularly discussed.

Student choice in course projects

Program directors underscored the importance of student choice in creating projects for all classes (particularly within courses dedicated to curriculum design) in a way that would connect the work of graduate students to their P–12 music classrooms. The ECR program director suggested:

I think it’s really about allowing students (at least in my classes) to tailor assignments to their own individual situations and what they need—especially final curriculum class projects. It’s all about them and their schools and becoming better teachers and developing a stronger program at their schools.

The East Coast State University (ECS) program director discussed connection to master’s students’ teaching context as well:

They have to actually write about their curriculum in their school district. They have to describe their space, their materials, their students, their community, their demographic, and then they have to figure out how to grapple with their philosophy (whatever philosophy they think they have) and actually apply it. So, that is how we try to improve their teaching.

The director from Midwestern College of Music (MWM) discussed a similar connection to curriculum and also introduced action research as a strategy for connection:

Final projects can take on variety of formats, from extremely pragmatic—developing curriculum, lesson plans, writing music for your specific setting—to a more qualitative study or in some cases descriptive studies. We try to keep them in action research. We don’t want to get too experimental with protocols with ethical component.

The MRU director shared that:

The final project for the curriculum class in first year leads to developing curriculum for any focus they choose. It could be for one of their classes or programs; it could be a new unit or concept; it could be socially situated like engaging students with special needs; or it could be projects that focus on cultural issues such as making lessons relevant to historically marginalized populations. They become more critical of their teaching. In other classes with projects such as literature reviews, we encourage students to choose subjects that are relevant to their classrooms.

The WRU director shared an event where a pedagogy poster session replaces the traditional research poster session: “They pick certain aspects of the program that have really stood out and impacted their teaching and they create a poster around that.” When asked about the most valuable aspect of the degree, the P–12 alumnus from MRU said: “The curriculum class especially, . . . it was real-world application. I ended up doing a whole semester and I took it right back to my classroom.” The P–12 alumnus from ECS suggested: “In our final project, they wanted us to do something that mattered to us, whatever program we were in . . . it was really cool to have that. It really helped me grow in my teaching ability.”

Practitioner workshops

All seven participant programs had multiple course offerings within performance and conducting and/or certifications (i.e., Orff, Kodaly, music learning theory). Program directors and both groups of alumni highlighted these offerings as important for P–12 learning connections. The program director for ECS described this type of offering as an experience where “students come in for an intensive weekend and do a huge portion of their work in one weekend session.” The MWM director discussed the diversity of practitioner program offerings in their degree:

When students come to us, we have this very intensified summer program, for better or for worse. If you’re here for the full-blown program you’re in school from 8:30 a.m.-9:30 p.m. Going from performance to technique to choir to improv class to orchestra to doing graduate level research. It is intense, switches up a lot, [but] we try to keep it balanced.

MRU’s directors also discussed the rationale for these workshops and the nature of the time commitment and efforts to offer practitioner workshops across music specialty areas:

It’s intense, but the reason we offer workshops is to try to provide the practical and helpful skills knowledge and understanding that we hope our students will take back to their classrooms. . . . We are mindful of who we have in program (split of choral vs. instrumental) in trying to make sure we plan things that are relevant and exciting and forward-thinking for all of them.

Regarding practitioner workshops, the director of the program at SWS suggested:

We designed the summer term from the ground up to be 100% applicable for the classroom and that’s sort of the philosophical thread that goes through everything. All the courses in that are hands-on teaching, working with our summer camp students or working with peers in the class, really active music-making and teaching all the time.

All of the alumni participants made some reference to the workshop programs in their master’s degrees. For example, the P–12 alumnus from MRU said, “The workshops I took were amazing. It was so valuable to have different people each time, and you learn so much from each other, too.”

Music-making

Participants noted the challenge in finding opportunities for music-making during their graduate-level course work. Both participants from MRU described how the rigor and scheduling of the coursework was such that it left little time for additional ensemble participation or individual practice. The MRU P–12 alumnus explained that the absence of performance requirements did not hinder her desire to continue making music as an educator and felt “satisfied” with the performance expectations within the workshop experiences offered within the program. She went on to state that she was glad there was not a focus on music-making in the degree because she felt that she makes music all year and “didn’t think [she] could focus if that was a part of it.”

In contrast, the ECR P–12 alumnus stated that she would have liked “having some sort of opportunity to make music in a meaningful way, that would stretch me as an educator, whether that’s playing secondary instruments or learning more about improvisation for band students in a regular classroom.” Program directors recognized active music-making as a potentially important component of the degree but also acknowledged the challenges in designing and implementing these activities.

Discussion

As might be expected, the P–12 alumni discussed workshops as important elements of their master’s experience more than the alumni who continued on into higher education and were more focused on their preparation for that work. The comparison of program directors to alumni revealed that both groups viewed student choice in projects, practitioner workshops, and music-making as valuable elements of the music education master’s degree. Although, there was disagreement within alumni regarding the percentage of time devoted to each of these aspects of the degree program.

Content focus is the first of five features in Desimone’s (2009) framework for high-quality professional development. There is no doubt that the content of music teaching and learning was evident in these graduate degree programs. It is also clear that there is an effort to create programs that include work that could be described as “active,” “hands on,” “music-making,” “performing,” or “conducting.” All of these words are present in this presentation of findings and align with the Desimone feature of active learning opportunities.

Although the notion of collective participation (Desimone’s third feature) might be slightly altered in a degree program, the statement from one of the alumni participants that “you learn so much from each other, too” seems to resonate with this feature. Desimone’s fourth feature of duration is evidenced in the music education master’s degree, which is a sustained program. Finally, the feature of coherence seems to be quite apparent in our findings. Words appearing in the aforementioned findings included “connecting to their classrooms,” “connection to context,” “writing music for your specific setting,” “creating materials that are helpful to them in their classrooms,” and more.

Choice for graduate students and the mention of action research fits with what researchers have suggested about music education and adult student learning (Conway et al., 2013; Robbins et al., 2007). However, we were unsure of the collective understanding in the profession of what action research or teacher research really is. Some of the program director participants gestured to these sorts of designs as if they were “lesser” types of research, and we view that as a misunderstanding of the rigor of practitioner inquiry (Robbins, 2014).

The music education “workshop” has been only minimally explored within music education research (Junda, 1994; Robbins, 1994/1995). Additionally, the mention of “hands-on music-making” is another area for future researchers to consider. Conway et al. (2008) suggested that a primary difference between the academic-year master’s of music education and the summers-only degree option was the opportunity to be involved in the music-making that happens throughout the year in an academic year at a music school. If Pellegrino (2011) is correct and music-making itself is an important professional development activity for music teachers, then master’s in music education program coordinators and researchers must continue to focus on providing and evaluating these experiences for program participants.

Preparation for Future Scholarly Work

When asked about how degrees may create future scholars, the director from ECM stated:

Hopefully all programs focus on developing critical thinking in research and writing, developing the ability to eliminate the poor writing we were taught in high school (writing 20 pages regardless of how much information you actually have to write about) and realizing that actual scholarly or academic writing is clear and concise and [that] your greatest weapon is a period.

The higher education alumnus from MWM discussed this same idea in suggesting that his master’s program taught him to “read and interpret” research and provided him opportunities to “build a research habit.” The P–12 alumnus from ECM suggested, “The more I taught, the more I realized I did need someone to push me toward the academic side of teaching.” She later added, “If I do choose to go on to get a PhD, I’m going to be thankful for the classes.”

As mentioned previously, the higher education alumnus from MWM was very positive about his master’s experience and appreciated the program’s focus on improving practice. However, he stated that as a PhD student, there were times when he wished he had experienced “more background” in research. The WRU higher education participant mentioned feeling lost and confused about quantitative research upon entering the PhD program he pursued. He did specify that his experience was situated with the faculty and program design at the time he attended and that he was aware of the continued efforts to better balance the current program.

Research course

All of the participant programs required at least one course in the degree focused on research. However, the ECR program director also suggested that in addition to research, “core music education courses are very scholarly.” The WRU director stated,

I think one unique thing about our program is that when our students take the research class, regardless if it’s during the summer or the academic year, they have to conduct research. . . . So, I think it supports future scholarly work in that’s an intentional decision we’ve made as a faculty about that class.

When asked about courses in relation to future scholarly work, the P–12 alumnus from ECM said, “I think the [courses] that focus on measurement and research writing courses and being able to decipher what people say were valuable.” The ECR P–12 alumnus said she appreciated that the master’s instilled in her a need to question the status quo. However, she suggested that she “might have been scared away had I known how much it was about research.”

Research mentorship

Six of the seven programs offered a thesis as an option for the master’s degree. This was discussed as a key element in supporting students toward future scholarly work. To help this process, several directors mentioned mentoring between the master’s student and a thesis chair as an important relationship to guide this type of culminating project. Some directors saw the thesis as preparation for the PhD degree programs. The ECS director offered that the thesis “is for students who are interested in research and want to be part of the intensive mentorship program under our faculty and for those who are really thinking they are PhD bound.” MRU directors shared that students “take the Introduction to Research course and then also have the opportunity to do collaborative work with faculty both on and off campus” and that “this collaborative work results in either a thesis or a final presentation, but both are considered scholarly.” When asked about research mentorships, the higher education alumnus from ECS said, “The research course gave me a lot of information about how to write a thesis, but I needed more time to discuss details with my professor about how to do the research, to deepen analysis.”

Discussion

For students aiming toward future PhD work, findings on research as the “content” seems appropriate and closely related to Desimone’s (2009) content focus. Participants also commented about students “having to conduct research,” which we believe gets at the active learning opportunity feature of high-quality PD. This section of findings has much less connection to the coherence feature of PD when considering the learners as P–12 educators. Of course, one might consider what is coherent for future researchers.

The research class itself appeared to be a key factor in preparing future scholars. However, we know very little about how research is taught and the importance of research mentorships in music education. Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005) documented a disconnect between the research course and the work of music teachers and suggested it was challenging for teachers to make the theory to practice leap in relation to research content.

The power of research mentorship has also had limited documentation in past research (Ball et al., 1980; Robbins et al., 2007). One of the first reports on graduate study in music education (Ball et al., 1980) discussed mentoring as an important element in graduate study and suggested the need to better understand characteristics of good research mentoring. Given our limited understanding of this topic, there is a need for future inquiry into how music education research is taught and the value of research mentorships in master’s programs.

Although both P–12 alumni and alumni continuing into higher education acknowledged the research class and research mentoring as important elements of the master’s degree, several alumni who continued into a graduate degree mentioned that they wished they had even more preparation at the scholarly level. However, they also recognized that program directors were doing the best they could to balance the varied program participant needs. Program directors and alumni were equal in their discussions of the research course and research mentoring as key features of graduate programs to help prepare graduates for future scholarly work.

Additional Insights From Descriptive Comparisons of Participants

Three additional themes emerged from this data, including (a) teacher career stages, (b) motivation to continue into higher education, and (c) the fluid nature of the ever-evolving master’s program.

Teacher career stages

There was variation within the responses of the six P–12 alumni regarding what they believed to be most helpful in their learning. The alumni with 3 to 5 years of teaching experience favored workshops, conducting classes, and ensemble work, whereas the alumni with greater teaching experience (≥6 years of teaching) tended to favor courses focusing on curriculum and assessment and psychology. The SWS higher education alumnus reflected on his experience as a teacher with 8 years of experience and said he was less excited about some of the more practitioner-focused content compared to his younger colleagues. The music education professional development literature has regularly documented that there is no one-size-fits-all model of professional development (Conway & Edgar, 2014). If graduate work is a form of professional development as Barrett (2006) and Conway and Edgar (2014) suggested, then it should seem appropriate for master’s programs to approach graduate teaching with the expectation that students value a diverse set of courses that elevate scholarship and classroom practices at the same time.

Motivation to continue into higher education

A theme that surfaced unrelated to our purpose and research questions concerned the idea that all five alumni participants who continued into higher education mentioned a personal connection to faculty at the institution where they ended up doing doctoral work and/or to a faculty mentor from their master’s degree experience who encouraged them to go on to doctoral work. For example, the ECS higher education alumnus said, “[Professor’s Name] really encouraged me to continue.” The higher education alumnus from SWS said the same: “I had a specific professor who really prepared me for continuing.” This was mentioned in passing by these participants but sparked our curiosity regarding the role of faculty mentors at the master’s level in encouraging future doctoral study. Teachout’s (2004) survey examined the factors that influenced teachers’ decisions to enter doctoral programs and reported that “relationship with University faculty member” was the third highest ranked response of positive reasons to attend graduate school (just after “love of learning” and “university environment”). Teachout also shared:

Reponses associated with the “Relationship with University Faculty” category most often described actual contacts initiated by university faculty as positive influences, including “I have a good connection /respect with the professors at my home institution,” “encouragement from faculty in my Master’s degree,” and “encouragement from graduate school faculty.” (p. 11)

Fluid nature of the ever-evolving master’s program

Program directors and alumni both discussed the pressure for programs to continually evolve. The primary reason described for this fluid approach was most frequently influenced by market forces. First, directors discussed the challenge in satisfying the perceived day-to-day needs of teachers while also designing a curriculum that provides the appropriate exposure to different aspects of the profession (e.g., philosophy, research). The director from ECM suggested: “We’re a completely tuition-driven institution. . . . We’re incredibly aware that people have to be here, we’re always playing the balance game of giving them what they want versus giving them what they need.” The SWS director said:

I’ve really heard this from people . . . “the reason I want to go to grad school is so my band gets better” or “my choir gets better” and “so we get a better score at festival, and anything that’s not related to that, I’m not interested in doing.” . . . So, research projects or classes on psychology and philosophy don’t interest them . . . but I personally refuse to run a program that’s like that.

It is interesting to note that the higher education alumnus from SWS stated that he chose to attend the SWS program because it was “rare” that it was not as “festival focused.”

Another commonly cited market force was the lack of school and state funding to support graduate work. SWS noted: “Around here, it’s starting to be the districts who subsidized master’s study have stopped doing it . . . [and] the salary supplements for having higher degrees are decreasing or being eliminated in many places.” The P–12 alumnus from MWM mentioned that a motivator in attending the program was that her “school will pay.”

Finally, directors noted a general push for more flexibility in the curriculum and delivery (online, hybrid, and summers). Attracting full-time master’s students seemed challenging due to the economics involved in teaching. The ECM director shared, “Once they’re in it [meaning their teaching job] there’s no stopping it—they’re concerned with their job and their student loans and they feel they can’t take time off.” Alumni also mentioned how flexibility was very attractive when they were considering which institution to apply to. The higher education alumnus from WRU discussed differences in programs that he perceived when looking into applying and that he “was searching for scheduling flexibility.” The SWS alumnus shared that he “did evenings” for years so he could keep teaching and complete the degree.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As was documented back in 1954 by the Committee on Graduate Study in Music Education, our evidence supported the idea that it is challenging for graduate programs to meet the diverse needs of master’s students. It was clear from the interviews that all program directors were aware of the varied needs of program participants and that the institutions were regularly working to refine their programs to meet these varied needs. In her informal interviews with six master’s program directors, Conway (2016) stated, “most of the programs attempted to accommodate both the need to prepare future doctoral students as well as better music educators at the P-12 classroom level.” The finding that described tracks as common in the master’s degree was also supported by Conway and examined by Conway et al. (2008) in relation to various perceptions of academic-year versus summers-only alumni. Alumni from the master of music degree in Conway et al. (2009) suggested that the final project, whether thesis or presentation, was the most powerful part of their master’s degree experience. Thus, it is reassuring to find in our study that program coordinators are working hard to design and personalize these exit requirements.

When considering the findings of this study in relation to the five critical features of teacher learning (Desimone, 2009), our study participants noted strong connections to all features (i.e., content focus, active learning opportunities, collective participation, duration, and coherence) when asked about improvements in P–12 teacher learning. Participants who viewed their master’s programs as preparation for future scholarly work cited experiences that may best relate to content focus and active learning opportunities. Connections to the other three features (collective participation, duration, and coherence) were not prevalent in the data, and therefore more research using the Desimone (2009) lens would be beneficial toward understanding the unique experiences found within master’s in music programs.

We conclude with quotes from the WRU alumni (we will call him Jason) that we believe frame this notion of balance in the degree. Jason is now a PhD student in music education at another institution and reflected that although he had only one research class in the master’s degree that he felt the course “primed the pump” for him in terms of curiosity and inquiry. He also shared that in his current PhD program (a Big Ten school not included in our study), they regularly accept PhD students without previous research experience, and he felt that understanding music education research started at “ground zero” in the PhD program. Jason stated that he appreciated the flexibility that the WRU degree offered because he wanted to experience “practical content” and at the time he sought a program with a less “rigid” curriculum. He shared that the master’s program was “eye-opening” and “in a crazy way, fun.” These perspectives from Jason illustrate that the program at WRU is appropriately adjusting to meet the varied needs of students with diverse goals and interests.

We would encourage those working with master’s level music educators to continue to grapple with the challenges associated with meeting the needs of various program graduates. Our work suggests that varied tracks and choices for degree completion are desirable, as are workshops and certification that are directly related to P–12 teaching practice, but that a well-intentioned focus on scholarship is important as well.

Supplemental Material

NEW_JRME-4016_R1_Conway_et_al_Supplemental_file_FINAL_9_4_20 – Supplemental material for Balancing the Varied Needs of Master of Music Education Students: Perceptions From Program Directors and Alumni

Supplemental material, NEW_JRME-4016_R1_Conway_et_al_Supplemental_file_FINAL_9_4_20 for Balancing the Varied Needs of Master of Music Education Students: Perceptions From Program Directors and Alumni by Colleen Conway, Jessica Vaughan-Marra and Christopher Marra in Journal of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Colleen Conway

Supplemental Material

Appendices A and B and the Supplemental File are available in the online version of the article at .

Notes

Author Biographies

Colleen Conway is professor of music education at the University of Michigan. Her research interests include preservice and in-service music teacher education and qualitative research designs.

Jessica Vaughan-Marra is assistant professor of music education at Seton Hill University. Her research interests include new music teacher digital mentoring and instructional technology use in the music classroom.

Christopher Marra is assistant professor of music education and director of instrumental activities at Seton Hill University. His research interests include social identity, teacher retention, and preservice and in-service music teacher education.

References

Albert

(2015). Online versus traditional master of music in music education degree programs: Students’ reasons for choosing. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(1), 52–64. http://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714548588

Ball

Ross

Mamlin

Martin

Brookhart

D. E.

Cox

B. Y.

(1980). Report of the MENC commission on graduate music teacher education. Music Educators Journal, 67(2), 46–53. http://doi.org/10..2307/3400579

Barrett

J. R.

(2006). Recasting professional development for music teachers in an era of reform. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(6), 19–30. http://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.107.6.19-28

Bautista

Yau

Wong

(2018). High quality music teacher professional development: A review of literature. Music Education Research, 19(4), 455–469. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1249357

Borko

(2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033008003

Committee on Graduate Study in Music Education. (1954). Graduate study in music education: A report on graduate study in music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 2(2), 157–170. http://doi.org/10.2307/3343697

Conway

C. M.

(2016). Perspectives from graduate faculty teaching in graduate programs in music education. New Directions in Music Education, (3). www.newdirectionsmsu.org/issue-3/conway-perspectives-from-faculty-teaching-in-graduate-programs-in-music-education

Conway

C. M.

Edgar

(2014). Music teacher professional development. In Conway

C. M.

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of qualitative research in music education (pp. 479–500). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199844272.013.025

Conway

C. M.

Edgar

Hansen

Palmer

C. M.

(2013). Teacher research as professional development for the music teacher. Music Education Research, 16(4), 404–417. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.848850

10.

Conway

C. M.

Eros

Stanley

A. M.

(2008). Summers-only versus the academic year master of music degree: Perceptions of program graduates. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 178, 21–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319336

11.

Conway

C. M.

Eros

Stanley

A. M.

(2009). Perceptions of master’s graduates regarding the effects of the master of music in music education program on P-12 teaching practice. Research Studies in Music Education, 31(2), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X09344381

12.

Darling-Hammond

Chung Wei

Andree

Richardson

Orphanos

(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

13.

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward between conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. http://doi.org/1010.3102/0013189x08331140

14.

Desimone

L. M.

Garet

M. S.

(2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 252–263. http://doi.org/1010.25115/psye.v7i3.515

15.

Dorfman

Lipscomb

S. D.

(2005). Graduate music students’ attitudes toward research. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15(1), 31–42. http://doi.org/10.1177/10570837050150010106

16.

Eros

(2013). Second-stage music teachers perceptions of their professional development. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22(2), 20–33. http://doi.org/10.1177/1057083712438771

17.

Junda

M. E.

(1994). A model in-service music teacher education program. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 3(2), 6–20. http://doi.org/10.1177/105708379400300203

18.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

19.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

20.

Pellegrino

(2011). Exploring the benefits of music-making as professional development for music teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(2), 79–88. http://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2011.546694

21.

Robbins

(1994/1995). Levels of learning in Orff SPIEL. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 123, 47–53. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/40318690

22.

Robbins

(2014). Practitioner inquiry. In Conway

C. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 186–208). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199844272.013.011

23.

Robbins

Burbank

M. K.

Dunkle

(2007). Teacher research: Tales from the field. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 17(1), 42–55. http://doi.org/10.1177/10570837070170010108

24.

Seidman

(2019). Interviewing as qualitative research (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

25.

Teachout

D. J.

(2004). Factors affecting individuals’ decisions to enter music teacher education doctoral programs. Action Criticism and Theory for Music Education 3(3). http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Teachout3_3.pdf

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

0.19 MB