Faculty Perspectives on the Master’s Degree in Music Education

Research and Pedagogy in MME Programs

Dating back to when graduate music education programs originated in the 1930s and throughout their history (Hash, 2020), MME curricula have reflected differing perspectives on the relative balance between teaching/pedagogy and research. The National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) continues to allow for curricular variety among graduate programs by distinguishing between “practice-oriented degrees,” “research-oriented degrees,” and “degrees combining research and practice orientations” (NASM, 2020, pp. 126–127). The majority of MME students in Springer’s (2020) study believed that their program represented a combined focus on research and teaching (64.71%), rather than a sole focus on research (14.71%) or teaching (19.85%).

Connecting students’ pedagogical practice with research in music education is a common goal of MME programs (Ball et al., 1980; Conway, n.d.). Madsen (2003), for instance, emphasized that one of the primary aims of graduate music education programs should be for students to develop a “love affair” with a particular research area and gain the methodological skills to conduct research in the future (p. 72). Courses in research methods are common among MME programs (Caton, 1982; Groulx & Hernly, 2010). However, there is not always a clear connection between students’ success in a research methods course and their future engagement in research. Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005), for example, found that although graduate students reported more positive attitudes toward research overall after completing a research methods course, they did not express greater interest in conducting research. For this reason, music education faculty who teach in MME programs have offered various types of culminating projects intended to encourage students to connect research with their teaching practice, including master’s theses, action research projects, and curriculum projects, among others (Conway, n.d.; Conway et al., 2008, 2009, 2021)

Student perceptions of the MME degree are important because those perceptions will help music teacher educators understand students’ degree motivations and beliefs about the function of the degree. Springer (2020) surveyed current students from MME programs in the United States. Participants in that study reported a variety of motivations for choosing to pursue an MME degree, namely to become better teachers, to earn higher salaries, to gain academic stimulation, and to create potential pathways to doctoral study. However, chi-square results indicated that some degree motivations differed significantly based on the participants’ degree format (academic year, online, summer, and hybrid). For instance, more participants enrolled in online degree programs selected “to get a higher salary” compared with those in academic year and summer programs. Participants described a variety of “best aspects” of their MME program, such as scheduling benefits due to the degree format (e.g., online or summer), high quality courses, professors, and the ability to collaborate with other professionals. Participants also provided some suggestions for program improvement, which included updating course content to reflect the realities of teaching and offering MME coursework at times that worked with the schedules of full- and part-time music educators enrolled in those degree programs.

In recent investigations, music education faculty have also provided perspectives on the function of the MME degree. Conway et al. (2020, 2021) interviewed the program directors of seven MME programs. Those program directors in the 2020 study indicated a variety of challenges related to recruitment, enrollment, and funding of students; reputation of the program; state policy issues; the need for students to engage with empirical research and critical thinking to a greater extent; issues related to faculty time and student time commitments; and difficulty in defining success for the MME degree. Those program directors also explained that it was difficult to balance the scheduling flexibility needed for MME students while also providing rigorous instruction that would be appropriate for those who choose to pursue future doctoral study. Program directors in the second study (Conway et al., 2021) discussed the various needs of MME students, including the need to improve in their teaching and the need to prepare for future academic work. Based on these varied needs of MME students, Conway and colleagues noted that there was not a strong consensus regarding the purpose of the MME degree among those directors. Specifically, the authors explained that there was some disagreement whether the MME degree is for professional development or for broader educational aims.

Professional Development Goals for Teacher Education

Researchers in teacher education have sought to understand the ways in which goals and values of faculty influence curricular design. Malderez and Wedell (2007) proposed that the primary goals of teacher educators most often fall into one of five categories: good teachers, good teaching, teaching professionals, reflective practitioners, or technicists. They posited that the primary goal a teacher educator holds will influence the decisions they make about curricular focus.

According to Malderez and Wedell’s (2007) framework, teacher educators who focus on producing good teachers design curricular experiences to develop personal or interpersonal teacher qualities and teacher identity. Faculty whose primary goal is to produce good teaching focus instructional aims on developing teaching skills and pedagogical knowledge. Those interested in developing teaching professionals focus on skills held by nonteaching professionals in the same field. For example, a music teacher educator with a teaching professionals focus would spend the most instructional time on developing musicianship skills necessary for professional performers, composers, or conductors. Instruction might focus on composition, conducting, private lessons on an instrument, or improvisation. Those who most value skills related to critical thinking and reflection hold the goal of developing reflective practitioners. Finally, teacher educators who aim to produce technicists most value the skills related to accurately following a lesson plan or curriculum guide. The authors argued that the goal of technicist was an outdated one that was relevant historically but one that few teacher educators still valued.

Need for the Study

Although the MME degree is one of the most common forms of professional development for music educators, research on degree perceptions has been relatively scarce with only a few recent additions. Springer’s (2020) descriptive results highlighted current MME students’ perceptions of the MME degree and how they believed the degree met their professional and academic needs. Conway et al. (2020, 2021) reported the perceptions of seven MME program directors, who noted that there seemed to be varied opinions regarding the primary purpose of the MME degree. The findings related to measuring program success with these seven faculty encouraged us to consider whether a broader sample of faculty across the United States might have similar views to help generate proposed solutions for the profession. A survey of faculty perceptions would also allow for a comparison of faculty responses with student responses published in a previous study (Springer, 2020). If students are the consumers of MME programs, it is important for music teacher educators to understand how the perceptions of students may align—or not align—with those of the faculty teaching in those programs. Understanding these varied perceptions may aid in successful recruitment, admission, and instruction of students in those programs. In addition, understanding both faculty and student perceptions will help music teacher educators communicate with students regarding the benefits of MME degrees.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine music education faculty members’ perceptions of the MME degree. We posed the following research questions:

Method

Results

For our first research question, we asked participants to answer “What do you believe are your students’ primary motivations for enrolling in the master’s degree program at your institution?” using a 15-item checklist with the instruction to select all that apply. The most common degree motivations selected by participants were “to become a better teacher” (n = 72, 94.74%), “to get a higher salary” (n = 58, 76.32%), and “to create a possible pathway to doctoral study in the future” (n = 51, 67.11%). The least common motivations selected were “to share experience and knowledge with colleagues” (n = 9, 11.84%), “to perform in collegiate ensembles” (n = 6, 7.89%), and “other” (n = 6, 7.89%), which participants specified to be seeking a path to an administrative position, not feeling ready to teach, filling in gaps from undergraduate education, and enhancing professional networks. Descriptive results for all motivations are summarized in Appendix B in the Online Supplemental Material.

Our second research question was focused on how students engaged with research and pedagogy in their MME programs. Most participants described their MME program as having a dual focus both on research and teaching (n = 48, 63.16%), rather than a sole focus on research (n = 4, 5.26%) or teaching (n = 24, 31.58%). Sixty-six participants (86.84%) reported that a music education research course was required in their MME program, and fewer (n = 6, 7.89%) indicated that a research course was an elective/optional. Few participants (n = 3, 3.95%) reported that a research course was not part of their MME program. Participants also reported a variety of required culminating projects at their institutions (thesis, n = 51; written comprehensive exam, n = 30; spoken presentation, n = 30; action research project, n = 27; oral comprehensive exam, n = 27; curriculum project, n = 11; recital, n = 10; student teaching, n = 6; additional courses or credit hours, n = 3; “other,” n = 5). “Other” responses included a series of shorter papers, portfolios or ePortfolios, and work toward National Board certification.

We asked participants two questions using parallel wording (“On average, how well do your students understand music education [research/pedagogy] before they enroll in your master’s program?”), which they rated on a scale anchored by 1 (not at all well) and 5 (extremely well). Due to non-normal data distributions as evidenced by statistically significant Shapiro–Wilk tests (p < .001), we conducted nonparametric tests for these analyses. Results of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (using effect size r recommended by Field, 2018) indicated a significant difference in participants’ ratings, T = 2,145.00, z = −7.19, p < .001, r = .58, with students’ knowledge of pedagogy (Mdn = 3.00, M = 3.19, SD = 0.57) being rated higher than their knowledge of research (Mdn = 1.00, M = 1.54, SD = 0.68). We also asked the questions “How much do your students engage with music education [research/pedagogy] in your master’s program?,” which were rated on a scale anchored by 1 (none at all) and 5 (a great deal). Results indicated no significant difference in their ratings of research (Mdn = 3.00, M = 3.47, SD = 0.81) and pedagogy (Mdn = 4.00, M = 3.71, SD = 0.87), T = 763.00, z = −1.26, p = .21.

We also explored faculty perceptions of their MME students’ within-program engagement related to research and pedagogy. Participants responded using select-all-that-apply checklists. Results are displayed in Appendix C (Online Supplement). Participants indicated that their students learned about research primarily through “reading research articles” (n = 73, 96.05%) and “discussing research articles in class” (n = 72, 94.74%). Least common research activities were “creating/presenting a research poster” (n = 39, 51.32%) and “other” (n = 3, 3.95%). Participants clarified these “other” responses to be small class projects to practice collecting human-subjects data and the lack of a research requirement due to a practicum-focused degree program. Regarding pedagogy, participants selected “reading articles on pedagogy/teaching strategies” (n = 71, 93.42%) and “watching and reflecting on their own teaching videos” (n = 48, 63.16%) as most common activities, and “live observations of inservice teachers in local schools” (n = 20, 26.32%) and “other” (n = 7, 9.21%) as least common activities. Participants described “other” responses as required pedagogical coursework (e.g., instrumental techniques, elementary methods, or conducting), observing and giving feedback to other graduate students, teaching in their own classrooms (for students serving as graduate teaching assistants or continuing to teach PK–12 music while enrolled in graduate school), and in-class discussion groups.

For our third research question, participants responded to two open-ended questions: “In your opinion, what is the primary purpose of a master’s degree in music education?” and “In your opinion, what is the most important goal for students graduating from your master’s program in music education?” We analyzed responses to these questions using an iterative coding process. Two of the researchers coded 20% of responses independently using descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016), then met to discuss our observations and create a code book. While creating the code book, we noticed that our codes aligned with the potential goals for teacher education programs proposed by Malderez and Wedell (2007) and chose to use these goals as a framework for creating a coding scheme (Saldaña, 2016). For example, Malderez and Wedell (2007) described the goal of good teachers as aiming to improve personal and interpersonal qualities, focusing on the teacher-self, and creating well-rounded educators through personal development. Therefore, initial codes such as personal development or interpersonal skills were subsumed into the category good teachers. As shown in Appendix D in the Online Supplemental Material, we maintained good teachers, good teaching, teaching professionals, and reflective practitioners from the Malderez and Wedell framework, but not the technicist category as there were no responses aligned with that goal. In addition to the codes taken from Malderez and Wedell (2007), we added research skills, compensation, certification/licensure, academic advancement, and leadership to best reflect our participants’ responses. The code book is displayed in Appendix D (Online Supplement), along with a description of each code and sample responses.

Using this code book, we recoded the initial responses and coded an additional 20% of responses. We then calculated intercoder reliability by dividing the number of agreements by total responses, resulting in a reliability rate of 82.2%. Having reached this acceptable level of reliability (Fraenkel et al., 2012), we coded the remainder of responses. Following our last round of coding, we met once more to reconcile disagreements (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), which allowed us to reach 100% agreement on coding.

We coded 112 responses to the question “In your opinion, what is the primary purpose of a master’s degree in music education?” The largest portion of the participants’ answers centered on developing better teaching skills (good teaching, n = 44). The second most common response was to improve research skills (research skills, n = 24). See Appendix E in the Online Supplement for a summary of responses to that question. Regarding the question “In your opinion, what is the most important goal for students graduating from your master’s program in music education?,” we coded 89 participant responses. The largest portion of participants mentioned improved teaching skills (good teaching, n = 35) followed by developing reflective practice (reflective practitioners, n = 13). See Appendix E for the complete results.

In their open-ended responses, many participants wrote about the unique nature of skill development in the MME compared with undergraduate work. They argued that students could think about teaching skills more deeply and interact with them in a different way after having spent some time in the classroom (e.g., “To further education after having experienced real-world teaching”). Several participants mentioned the value of developing academic writing skills in preparation for future academic achievement. Others noted the importance of being able to interact with research and translate it into practice (e.g., “ . . . learn how to use research as a tool to improve their teaching and musicianship”). Most commonly, participants placed high value on a blend of teaching and research skills. As one participant wrote,

[the MME degree] serves, in some ways, as a capstone to techniques and concepts learned during the undergraduate and refined through practical experience. It simultaneously sets the student up for terminal coursework through an orientation toward research and the kinds of thinking that dominate academic questions over practical heuristics.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine music education faculty members’ perceptions of the MME degree. Participants agreed almost unanimously that students’ primary motivation for pursuing the degree was to become a better teacher. Faculty members believed the next most common motivations were to get a higher salary, to create a possible pathway to doctoral study in the future, and to gain academic stimulation through graduate level coursework. We were not surprised to see that performing in collegiate ensembles was considered the lowest motivation for enrolling in an MME program, given the variable nature of those opportunities, especially in online, hybrid, or summer delivery options. Conway et al. (2008) expressed that performance in ensembles and the potential for private lessons was an attractive element of the traditional program during the academic year; it is possible that faculty and student expectations are tempered in alternative contexts.

When asked how students engaged with teaching and research in their programs, most participants described their MME program as having a dual focus on both research and teaching. Our participants believed that students entered the program with a greater understanding of pedagogy compared with research. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in time allocation between pedagogy and research once they were in the program. Conway et al. (2009, 2021) explained that culminating projects for master’s programs are an important way to connect students’ research with their teaching practice. Culminating projects reported by participants in this study were diverse and included traditional theses, comprehensive exams, spoken presentations, and action research projects. Faculty may value curricular flexibility when working with students of varied interests and career goals. The type of culminating projects offered by institutions may be related to an institutions’ admissions practices. For example, a program that offers a recital option as a culminating project may have admissions procedures that support that option (e.g., a performance audition on the student’s primary instrument). In future studies, researchers may investigate the admissions practices of MME programs alongside the culminating projects required by those programs.

Aside from these culminating projects, participants indicated that their students learned about research through a variety of means, and nearly all participants selected reading research articles and discussing research articles in class. More than half of the participants selected other research activities, including writing nonempirical research papers, doing empirical research, giving a spoken research presentation, and creating/presenting a research poster (see Appendix C in the Online Supplement). As with research, faculty reported that students were engaged with pedagogy by reading representative articles (perhaps as an introductory strategy), but watching/reflecting on teaching videos was the most common pedagogical activity. Fewer faculty selected more direct, hands-on experiences (e.g., observations of teachers in schools, peer teaching, field teaching), lending support to the idea that some students may perceive a disconnect between theory and practice. Anecdotally, we have observed that even though many faculty state that improving students’ pedagogical knowledge is an important area of focus for their MME program, pedagogy courses are often not required for the degree in some programs. Considering how certain activities (e.g., feedback on teaching videos and self-reflections) may be common pedagogical elements in MME programs, that feedback may have limited impact without corresponding pedagogical coursework.

When designing this study, we were interested in comparing the responses of faculty members with the student perspectives in a previous study (Springer, 2020). Results were largely similar, with a few exceptions. Both faculty (this study) and students (Springer, 2020) selected the same “top four” degree motivations (see Appendix B in the Online Supplement), suggesting that faculty and student perceptions may be relatively aligned regarding degree motivations. Also, the majority of students and faculty in these two studies overwhelmingly perceived the degree to have a dual focus on teaching and research. There is evidence to suggest that, irrespective of the type of program, faculty and students seemed to agree that master’s programs do serve the goals of both research and teaching, functioning as a bridge between undergraduate programs with a teaching focus and doctoral programs with a research focus. The extent to which traditional academic year programs, hybrid, summer, and online programs vary in the research/teaching percentage allocation is unclear because many participants reported that their institution offers more than one delivery format (e.g., online program and academic year program). This varied allocation was also considered unclear by Conway et al.’s (2020, 2021) participants.

The extent to which faculty (this study) and students (Springer, 2020) reported that MME students engaged with pedagogy and research in their degree programs was also similar. Both groups of participants reported that students entered the degree with greater knowledge of pedagogy than research. Both groups also indicated that students engaged with pedagogy and research to a similar degree. These consistent results suggest that as undergraduates and practitioners, the focus of the degree program is on pedagogy, and as students move into a master’s program, the research focus is introduced without neglecting the pedagogical elements.

There was more discrepancy between faculty and students’ perceptions with respect to specific pedagogical activities in which students engage. Although both groups cited “reading articles related to pedagogy and teaching strategies” most frequently, faculty believed that “watching and reflecting on their own teaching videos” occurred more often than students did. Previous student responses (Springer, 2020) indicated that pedagogical activities were largely passive in nature; more than half of the participants only selected “reading articles about pedagogy/teaching strategies.” Faculty responses in this study indicate the presence of more pedagogical activities that are somewhat incongruent with the perspectives of the students in the previous study. These differences may be due to the fact that some participants’ institutions offered a master’s degree track with initial certification/licensure (e.g., an MME degree that included certification/licensure, a fifth year add-on to the undergraduate degree, or a Master of Arts in Teaching degree). Although we cannot make inferences because these findings are the result of two distinct studies, these descriptive differences may indicate a mismatch in perception of faculty and students that could be explored in future studies.

Participants’ open-ended responses largely confirmed our quantitative data. Faculty noted that improving teaching skills was the primary goal of master’s programs in general, including theirs in particular. Participants also considered developing research skills to be important, along with engaging in reflective practice. The goals of building leadership in the profession and increased compensation were toward the bottom of the list of priorities expressed by faculty.

In a discussion of teacher preparation goals, Malderez and Wedell (2007) argued that the majority of teacher educators focus on good teaching and reflective practice and that the technicist goal is outdated and rarely a focus for modern educators. The majority of responses in this study aligned with one of the four teacher preparation goals, with good teaching and reflective practice receiving the most comments and no responses related to training technicists. We note that some of the focus on good teaching in participants’ responses could be due to program-specific goals. A small number of participants (n = 6) indicated “student teaching” as an option/addition to the master’s degree, which suggests that these programs may offer initial certification. The goal of good teaching was the most common response among all participants, however, and this focus aligns with the Malderez and Wedell (2007) framework. This framework for teacher preparation goals may be useful in future studies examining music teacher educator goals at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

As with other researchers, we found that teaching and research are both considered important components of the master’s degree program. Faculty participants understand that students wish to improve their teaching, but appear equally committed to developing students’ research skills through a variety of activities. Moreover, these research activities are designed to encourage reflective thinking, thereby potentially bridging the research-practice gap as students use research to inform their teaching or elucidate good practices.

Given that the master’s degree is a terminal degree for most students and an avenue for more advanced degrees for some students, finding the desired balance between research and pedagogy is important. Conway et al. (2020) noted that program directors sometimes struggle with the needs of practitioners—who prefer convenient scheduling and flexible options—and their own desire to provide rigor in the curriculum. This tension is further exacerbated when it is not clear which students will be pursuing doctoral work later. One possible solution is to cater the capstone project specifically to students’ interests; students wishing to pursue advanced study may engage in a more rigorous research project, while other students may instead choose a practitioner tool for effective pedagogy.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material