Abstract
The purpose of this collective case study was to explore the self-initiated reflective practices of early and late career inservice music teachers in a variety of educational settings. This research was guided by the following questions: (a) How do music teachers in a variety of settings and career stages describe the reasons they engage in reflective practice? (b) How do early and late career music teachers describe their reflective practices and strategies? (c) What are the foci described in the reflective practices of early and late career music educators? The analysis generated categories of dispositions to improve teaching and student learning, reflective strategies and resources, and focus of reflection. The primary findings from this study suggest that music teacher participants understood the value and need to reflect for their own growth and development as teachers and for student learning. Participants articulated that they used similar processes and strategies in their reflective practices. The teachers in this study gravitated toward reflecting on student-related concerns and instruction and developed networks of reflective support. Expanding time and collaborative resources for reflection, developing guided frameworks for reflection, and supporting implementable reflective strategies to broaden thinking about practice may enhance the reflective initiatives of both early and late career music educators.
Keywords
Reflection is a critical process used by educators to foster responsiveness to students, lifelong learning, and changes to practice (Butke, 2006; Conway, 2008; Farrell, 2012; LaBoskey, 1994; Orzolek, 2018; Richardson, 1990; Schön, 1983, 1987). As Hookey (2002) notes, “inquiry into one’s own practice is . . . a major mode of achieving professional development” (p. 887). The value of reflection for teacher learning and development is demonstrated through its application as an essential facet of teacher licensure programs such as the preservice Educative Teacher Performance Assessessment (edTPA; 2019) and teacher evaluation frameworks (e.g., Danielson, 2014; Marzano et al., 2012). Yet, there is little research examining how self-initiated reflection is used by inservice music teachers to foster their growth and development as educators, especially with a coalition of participants teaching in a variety of music content areas and contexts.
Reflective frameworks
Schön (1983) theorized that reflection is enacted when professionals reframe problems because there are no prescriptive or methodological answers to the situations they encounter in practice. Reflection on teaching is actuated in-action and on-action (Schön, 1987). Reflection in-action is activated in the moment of teaching. This enables teachers to recognize the need for alternative approaches while actively engaged in instructional delivery and attend to the fluid conditions in classrooms. Reflection on-action is deliberative and involves examining instruction and student learning after the administration of learning sequences. Teachers reflect on the effectiveness of their instruction through different frames of thinking to determine whether alternative approaches would produce better outcomes given the circumstances of the learning environment and student response.
Rodgers (2002) framed reflective teaching as a systematic process of seeing the learning environment, describing and differentiating learning experiences, thinking from multiple perspectives, and taking intelligent rather than routinized action. Educators reflect on teaching and learning with critical lenses when they situate reflective descriptions, viewpoints, and actions within the broader cultural, social, and political contexts of student learning (Smyth, 1989). Liu (2015) argues that teachers establish a basis for critical awareness when they confront assumptions about schooling and society that underlie their ideas, beliefs, values, and actions.
The reflective framework delineated by Schön (1983) was the principal backdrop through which the perceptions and foci of music educators’ reflective practices were examined in this study. Although more recent frameworks of reflective thinking that include facets of critical reflection have been developed (e.g., Liu, 2015; Rodgers, 2002; Smyth, 1989), these models are contingent upon practitioners being guided to think critically about practice rather than simply examining problems and outcomes through professional action. I made no assumptions about the reflective guidance or quality of reflections utilized by practitioners; I simply sought to examine music teachers’ perceptions about why and how they utilized reflection and the strategies they implemented to problematize their teaching. Schön’s theory provided an open and flexible framework to examine reflective purposes and approaches. The conceptual framework of Colton and Sparks-Langer (1993) served as guide to observing teachers’ reflective processes. Their framework of teacher reflection and decision making asserts that reflection is embedded within collegial environments: The ways teachers work and interact in professional learning communities shape the way they think about practice.
For the purposes of this study, reflection was investigated as a process through which music educators examined their practice and made informed decisions about sustaining or changing their instruction (Farrell, 2012; Loughran, 2002). Reflective practices were defined broadly as the strategies or processes teachers used to review their teaching with descriptive, pedagogical, and critical lenses (Butke, 2006; Colton & Sparks-Langer, 1993; Liu, 2015). Reflective contexts consisted of the opportunities for collegial interaction, administrative feedback, professional development, and guided reflection (Colton & Sparks-Langer, 1993).
Review of literature
Researchers have examined the reflective practices of preservice music educators in practicum and service-learning settings (e.g., Bartolome, 2013; Berg & Lind, 2003; Conkling, 2003; Powell, 2016; Reynolds et al., 2005), and inservice music educators in a variety of settings (e.g., Conway et al., 2012; Raiber, 2001), including an elementary band teacher (Reynolds & Beitler, 2007), choral music teachers (Butke, 2006), and elementary general music teachers (Blair, 2008; Cullen, 2018; Delaney, 2011; McDonald, 2001). For example, Raiber (2001) investigated the relationship between reflective aptitudes and the instructional effectiveness of inservice educators teaching beginning through collegiate-level instrumental music. Findings showed that novice teachers with high aptitudes toward reflection operated with higher levels of instructional effectiveness. Conversely, the study also found that more experienced teachers with high ratings of instructional effectiveness demonstrated lower reflective aptitudes.
In a study of the challenges and benefits of utilizing reflective writing in a sixth-grade band class, Reynolds and Beitler (2007) found that a disciplined approach to reflection benefited the teacher by uncovering assumptions about teaching and learning processes and by placing accomplishments and frustrations in perspective within the context of instructional and logistical challenges. The authors also found a heightened sense of responsibility by the teacher to maintain reflective writing strategies when engaged with reflective collaboration. Conway et al.’s (2012) examination of music teachers’ perceptions of reflective writing showed that participants were motivated to engage in reflective writing because they were involved in a research study. In addition, participants acknowledged a sense of isolation as reflective practitioners and they considered reflective journaling to be a useful tool to think about practice.
Butke (2006) examined how reflection was used to understand and shape teaching in the choral classroom. Five participants in middle and high school choral settings used daily reflective writing entries, student feedback, and collaborative dialogue with the researcher to engage in reflection. Butke expanded upon Schön’s (1983) model of reflection by suggesting that the choral teachers engaged with reflection in-action, on-action, and the added facet of reflection for-action through thinking, writing, and conversing. Participants valued their constructive reflective dialogues with the researcher, but similar to findings from Conway et al. (2012), they felt isolated in their reflective practices and rarely found opportunities and time to engage in reflection outside of the research experience. Participants were motivated to reflect in an effort to perfect instruction and demonstrated tangible changes in their teaching. Butke’s (2006) use of Schön’s theory to frame reflection and use of reflective writing entries and collaborative dialogue as data sources were informative for the procedures used in the current study.
In an examination of collaborative reflection between two elementary general music teachers, Cullen (2018) found that participants shared their experiences about noticing behaviors from students and themselves, advanced their learning about students and approaches to teaching, and shared reflective exchanges that enabled them to change their attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning. Researchers have examined general music teachers’ professional development through communities of practice where participants engaged in critical reflection and problem solving with job-alike peers (Blair, 2008; McDonald, 2001). Participants valued support from collegial environments and demonstrated positive changes in classroom discipline, continued reflective practices, and increased collegial dialogue at school and district locations. Delaney (2011) examined elementary music teachers’ reflective responses to video-recorded lessons, and found that teachers perceived a benefit from using video as a reflective strategy and developed a better understanding about student relationships and the effectiveness of instructional strategies.
In summary, inservice music teachers found that reflection helped them (a) become better attuned to their students’ interests, needs, and learning (Delaney, 2011); (b) challenge their assumptions about teaching and learning and/or improve their teaching practices (Butke, 2006; Cullen, 2018; Reynolds & Beitler, 2007); and (c) appreciate and commit to opportunities to engage in critical reflection and collaborative dialogue in collegial learning communities (Blair, 2008; Cullen, 2018; McDonald, 2001) and through researcher-guided reflective practices (Butke, 2006; Conway et al., 2012; Reynolds & Beitler, 2007). Given that reflection has led to teacher change and development, it is surprising that there is little research on the self-initiated reflections of inservice music educators.
Purpose and research questions
The purpose of this study was to explore the reflective practices of early and late career music teachers in a variety of educational settings. This research was guided by the following questions:
Method
I used a collective case study design to examine the reflective practices of multiple music educators (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2014). My examination of each individual case was used to develop a broad understanding of music teachers’ perceptions of reflective practice in a variety of teaching environments. In addition to this individualistic level of analysis, I made cross-case comparisons to examine similarities and differences in reflective practices across contexts. Using both within-case and cross-case analyses enabled me to examine the reflective practices of music educators as both an individual phenomenon and a process with tendencies based on collective similarities (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Prior to starting this research, the design and data collection procedures were reviewed and approved by Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board using the social/behavioral protocol for human subjects research.
I examined the reflective practices of three early career (5 or less years of teaching experience) and three late career (20 or more years of teaching experience) music teachers in high school, middle school, and elementary school music classrooms in the Midwestern region of the United States. This sample was purposefully selected to examine cases of music educator reflection in a variety of teaching and career contexts. I selected participants for this study based on the criteria that they were recognized by either a music teaching colleague, music teacher educator, or administrative supervisor as being highly reflective about their teaching. In addition to demonstrating reflective dispositions, late career teachers were selected because they were described by music teaching colleagues as having a reputation of successful music teaching for 20 or more years. Although I purposefully selected teachers using a combination of stratified (early and late career educators) and criterion (reflective and successful practitioners) procedures (Patton, 2015), I had limited access to teachers that met these characteristics, which resulted in an overrepresentation of early career teachers in general music settings and late career teachers in secondary performance settings. I was unacquainted with any of the participants in this study prior to the start of data collection.
Participant cases
Cases of early career reflection (EC) 1 were examined through the reflective practices of Tony, Ally, and Mary. Tony was teaching elementary general music in a suburban public school district with two other general music teachers. Ally was teaching middle school general music in an urban independent charter school and was the only music specialist in her district. Mary was teaching general music and choir for two public elementary schools in a suburban school district where she frequently interacted with two middle school band teachers.
The reflective practices of Robby, Joy, and Peter were examined as cases of late career music teacher reflection (LC). Robby was an instrumental music teacher at a suburban public high school where he frequently interacted with three other music education professionals in his department. Joy was teaching elementary and middle school string orchestra in an urban public school and taught in a music department with three other music colleagues. Peter was teaching high school choir, guitar, and music theory in a suburban public school and interacted with the band teacher at his school. Table 1 shows participant details.
Participant Backgrounds and Teaching Contexts.
Note. Cases of early career teachers had 5 or less years of teaching experience, and cases of late career teachers had 20 or more years of teaching experience. BMusEd = Bachelor in Music Education; MMusEd = Master in Music Education.
Data collection and analysis
I collected multiple forms of data to examine the perceptions and reflective practices of music educators through interviews, observations, and reflective writing. I conducted an initial interview with each participant for 45 to 60 min using a semistructured interview protocol that facilitated continuity across participants but also provided opportunities to ask probing questions (protocol in Supplemental Materials). The initial interview was used to understand teachers’ perceptions about how reflection affects their teaching as well as the processes, resources, and topics they use during reflection.
I made three site visits to observe each participant teaching the same class and conducted pre- and post-observation interviews. During each site visit, I observed one full class period, which ranged from 40 to 60 min and took detailed fieldnotes. Pre-observation interviews were 5 to 10 min in length and provided me with information about the lesson plan, the students, and how teachers adapted their plans in-action if their teaching changed from the plan described. The combination of pre-observation interviews and observations gave me a glimpse at teachers’ spontaneous and internal reflection in-action (Schön, 1987). Post-observation interviews were 10 to 20 min in length and provided opportunities to ask teachers about their in-the-moment changes or reflection on-action immediately after a teaching sequence.
I requested eight reflective writing entries from participants using an online reflection form. Participants responded to the following reflective writing prompt: “Please write a reflection about your teaching with the focus class.” The prompt was purposefully open to reveal the reflective content participants gravitated toward naturally. I collected data over a 6-week time period to sample the reflective thinking of participants from a range of teaching experiences. The specific 6 weeks within the fall academic term were selected by convenience based on each participant’s availability to engage in reflective writing and observation activities. Although I requested eight reflective writing examples from each participant, two participants completed fewer than eight entries and one participant exceeded eight entries. Table 2 provides qualitative details about participants’ reflective writing entries.
Descriptions of Participants’ Reflective Writing Entries.
Note. Reflective writing entries were unguided. Participants were asked to reflect on their work with the focus class 8 times over a period of 6 weeks. No specifications concerning the length and content were provided.
I analyzed transcribed interviews, expanded accounts from fieldnotes, and reflective writing entries using a two-cycle process of open-to-focused coding (Emerson et al., 2011; Miles et al., 2014). During the first cycle of coding, I analyzed the dataset using an inductive approach to develop codes that represented recurrent and important patterns. I used descriptive coding to capture the content and processes of reflection described and written about by participants and witnessed through my observations (Becker, 1998; Miles et al., 2014). I completed a second cycle of coding using analytic induction to cluster codes into focused categories that were utilized in a process of deductive analysis (Miles et al., 2014). I was mindful of new data that did not fit the categorical picture and constantly revised categories and coding clusters to create a more focused image (Becker, 1998). I revised conceptually clustered matrices during each iteration of analysis for between-case comparisons (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014).
Trustworthiness was established with multiple iterations of data collection through repeated interviews, observations, and reflective writing entries; triangulation from different data sources; a sample of data coded by an outside auditor; and member checks (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2010; Miles et al., 2014). Although I took several steps to ensure trustworthiness of the data and attempted to bracket my experiences as a former high school instrumental music teacher, my teaching experience and personal reflective practices likely influenced my observations and analyses (Creswell, 2013). I maintained my role as an outside observer.
Findings
There are two finding categories: reflection to improve student learning, and reflective strategies and resources. These two categories provided evidence for cross-case comparisons of music teacher reflection and answered the research questions. At the end of each section, I relate some of the findings to past research.
Reflection to improve student learning
The participants of this study acknowledged that they were driven to reflect on their teaching and used reflection to improve instruction and student learning. Joy (LC) suggested, “reflection makes your teaching stronger and better and it helps you reach more students. You can tell if a teacher loves what they are doing by the way they reflect about it” (Interview 1). Joy considered reflection and the processes teachers use to reflect on their practice a signifier of caring and high-quality teaching.
Tony (EC) also noted that reflectiveness is a component of a quality educator: Well, I want to be a good teacher and good teachers are reflective. You start out the first year as a crappy teacher and you keep teaching and reflecting and you get better . . . So that is where the drive comes from, I want to be good at my job. (Interview 1)
In addition to his stipulation that good teachers are reflective, Tony’s comments also allude to his drive to be a continuous learner who uses reflection as a means for self-improvement.
In addition to their drive to improve teaching and instruction, participants also reflected on their teaching to improve student learning. Robby (LC) noted, “If I’m changing my practice, then I’m reflecting on and changing my practice for the kids that I’m teaching . . . all of them have different strengths and weaknesses and all of them learn differently” (Interview 1). Robby’s reflection transcends the quest for effective teaching strategies to finding the right strategies that meet the specific needs of his students to improve their learning experiences.
Joy (LC) articulated the need to set performance goals and consistently reflect on student learning and development toward those goals with the “underlying objective of improving both the playing quality and the learning experience in orchestra” (Reflective Writing Entry 5). Joy reflected on the learning experiences of her students in relation to the goals they had set and how she and her students could set higher level goals that offer new and improved learning opportunities.
Participants expressed a desire to reflect for growth and development, and they were invested in using reflection to improve instruction and help students learn. These findings are consistent with previous research which has shown that music teachers use reflection to revise goals, detect problems, develop solutions, and change practice (Berg & Lind, 2003; Butke, 2006; McDonald, 2001). Participants in this study demonstrated what LaBoskey (1994) has articulated as “passionate creeds” or an alertness about their teaching. They used this alertness to ask important questions about the learning environment to increase their understanding about how they could better support student learning.
Teachers across cases focused inwardly on aspects of instructional effectiveness, instructional goals, and deciding whether or not to change or adapt instruction. Outward reflection focused on student learning, needs and interests, and behaviors.
Inward focus on instruction
Reflection about changing and adapting instruction was a prominent subcategory for reflective thinking across cases. Mary’s (EC) reflective writing demonstrates a focus on instructional sequencing: “I’m working on quick, timed transitions with [students]. Before fall break, transitions were always very chatty, and it was tough to rein [students] back in” (Reflective Writing Entry 5). Participants used reflection about changing and adapting instruction to focus on personal development and building their instructional schemas.
Participants frequently addressed the effectiveness of their instruction based on student outcomes. Peter (LC) wrote, A discussion about which minor solfege (La or Do) to use, not only made me wonder if I was doing the right thing, but it made me then start to reflect on other areas that I could teach differently. For instance, using the piano less to teach parts, and get my students to read better. (Reflective Writing Entry 2)
Peter’s writing initially focused on the effectiveness of his instruction but transitioned to thinking about the possibilities of changing or adapting instruction. The reflective foci of teachers in this study frequently crossed borders and catalyzed reflective thinking in other focus areas.
Instructional goal setting was another prominent category addressed in participants’ reflections. Joy (LC) wrote, “Over winter break I created vibrato exercises . . . My goal was to teach the students beginning vibrato so that their slower piece for organizational contest would be more engaging, more musical, and more meaningful to them” (Reflective Writing Entry 6).
Joy’s reflections on instructional goals were connected to her concerns about developing meaningful and engaging musical learning experiences.
Music educators at both early and late career stages in this study described and demonstrated reflecting inwardly on their teaching effectiveness, instructional goals, and deciding whether to change or adapt instructional approaches. These findings are congruent with previous research showing that reflective practitioners demonstrated effective teaching behaviors (Raiber, 2001) and utilized reflection to notice teaching behaviors, generate and revise goals, and change instruction (Berg & Lind, 2003; Butke, 2006; Cullen, 2018).
Outward focus on students
Student behavior was a prolific focus category, especially for early career participants. Ally (EC) commented, “[I have] been having issues with the same three to four students about behavior in class. They manage to throw the entire class off because they can’t stop talking during the bell ringer” (Reflective Writing Entry 1). Tony (EC) demonstrated similar reflective responses about behavior: Man! Today was rough! I brought the same lesson I’ve taught 3 times and had polished to that class and it was a MESS. It seems to me like they were just way off, and I could only do so much. (Reflective Writing Entry 6)
Outward reflections on behavior were routinely accompanied by an inward examination of classroom management strategies and instructional approaches that may have exacerbated disruptive behaviors or enhanced positive learning interactions.
Participants also focused on student learning and development as they reflected about class sequencing and rehearsal procedures. Joy (LC) wrote, “After working on vibrato for several weeks, about 80% of the students were able to vibrate on half notes and whole notes. The [students] who were more advanced were able to vibrate on every note” (Reflective Writing Entry 6). This reflection placed student development within the context of several weeks of instruction on musical skill development.
The needs and interests of students were central concerns in the reflections of participants. As Robby (LC) noted, “it’s good to ask [the students] about their perspectives on performing their parts with the band so as to figure out how to help them. Based on their responses, my rehearsal on Wednesday will reflect those comments” (Reflective Writing Entry 4). Robby’s writing represents his approach to leveraging his reflective understanding about student needs to shape his reflection for action.
The teachers in this study reflected outwardly with foci on student behaviors, learning and development, and needs and interests. These findings align with previous research showing that teachers used reflection to notice student behaviors and modified their beliefs and understanding about instruction and learning based on reflective feedback (Cullen, 2018; Orzolek, 2018). Participants used their reflective realizations about students to develop and change practice.
Reflective strategies and resources
Participants adopted multiple strategies and utilized a variety of resources to inform their reflection. The similarities in reflective strategies are notable and suggest an influence of reflective training and expectations from teacher education, professional development, and evaluation programs. The findings in this section are divided into four subcategories: times and places, reflective writing, interaction with others, and in-the-moment adjustments.
Times and places
Participants in all cases demonstrated similar patterns of finding times and places to engage in reflection. For most, reflection is continuously occurring through the stream of feedback they receive during the activity of teaching (in-action) and through their review of student outcomes while engaged in reflective thinking (on-action).
As Peter (LC) articulated, “I feel like I’m always asking myself: Am I connecting the right way to the kids? Is what we’re doing benefiting them? Is it going anywhere? I am constantly wondering if I am doing things the right way” (Interview 1).
Tony (EC) also noted that reflection is a continuous act and, at times, a reflexive rather than conscious process: I would say that there is really a constant evolving to the way I’m teaching lessons . . . For instance, on the drive to work today . . . I thought, let me sit back and let me look back at what I was doing at this time last year because I remember feeling really good about it then. And so now I’m taking some things I was trying to do based on what I had done and I’m making things work better. (Interview 1)
The process of continuously asking questions about teaching and learning and reframing challenges based on previous experiences and the possibility of new approaches was common in all cases. Participants discussed using planning time, after-school time, and weekends to engage in reflective practice.
A lack of time to reflect was cited as a constraint on reflective thinking. As noted by Ally (EC) in her comments about reflective barriers: Time would be a big one. Sometimes there is just so much going on that I forget to do my reflection at the end of the day, or I’ve got the before and after school duties that all the teachers are supposed to be doing. (Interview 1)
Time constraints and extra teaching duties inhibited the ability of some participants to fully engage in the reflective process.
Teachers expressed a need to turn off the reflective cycle. As Mary (EC) mentioned in her response to a question about finding time to reflect: I think a lot of times it’s after school. Sometimes during a lunch or a planning period, although those times I usually try to get my brain in a different space so that I can reserve my energy for the rest of the day. (Interview 1)
Robby (LC) asserted, “having too much time to think can cause problems. That is why I like having time at the end of the day to complete my reflection and then put it away until my morning planning” (Interview 1). Shutting down reflection was important for mental recovery.
Most participants identified their classrooms, homes, and commutes to and from school as places where they engaged in reflective thinking. Consistent with findings from previous research (Butke, 2006; Reynolds & Beitler, 2007), participants in this study identified finding time for reflection a challenge. Despite this challenge, participants created time and space for contemplation, suggesting that their dispositions for reflection superseded the challenges that their demanding teaching schedules imposed. Participants also identified the need for time away from reflective thinking to feel more mindful and creative about finding solutions to the challenges they identified in their practices.
Reflective writing
Teachers across cases described using writing as a strategy to reflect on their teaching as they planned lessons, observed outcomes, asked questions, and reframed instructional approaches. Mary (EC) described using written lesson plans to reflect: I write out my lesson plans; I’m pretty detailed about it. And I’ll write my objective and look over it afterward to see if those objectives have been met. And if not, what was the cause of that? Was it pacing? Was it behavioral issues? Was it students in class that kind of caused things to lag behind a bit? Was it that I saw that my students needed something else during that lesson, so I changed pace a little and included a different activity that might not have been originally planned for that lesson? (Interview 1)
Mary’s comments provide an example for how she used reflective writing as a framework to reflect on the outcomes of instruction and to assess reflection in-action by reviewing the in-the-moment changes made to instruction.
Robby (LC) discussed using writing to reflect on and stimulate different approaches for rehearsal teaching: When the rehearsal is over, I’ll go back and look over what I did. I usually don’t write things down during rehearsal. After rehearsal, I’ll go back and ask: How did rehearsal go? What went well? What didn’t go well? And then write down some notes for tomorrow. And then, hopefully, I’m able to make adjustments . . . (Interview 1)
Although writing was frequently discussed as a reflective strategy, most participants used informal approaches such as note taking rather than formal reflective writing frameworks.
Interaction with others
Participants discussed how interactions with others provided them with new perspectives on teaching that they could use to reframe their reflective thinking. Mary (EC) suggested that administrative interactions during the teacher evaluation process informed her reflection. The support Mary received from her principal’s feedback enabled her to reimagine her teaching through the observer’s viewpoint and implement new ideas for managing student behaviors (Post-Observation Interview 3).
Robby (LC) noted the high frequency of his reflection with colleagues: “My reflection with my colleagues is a daily occurrence on some level. Some days we will have more time than others, but we are almost always talking with each other, trying to figure things out together” (Interview 1). Of course, Robby’s case was not universal and other practitioners did not have the luxury of departmental colleagues to interact with on a daily basis.
Joy (LC) valued her reflective relationships and recognized the challenge and necessity of developing those resources: I’m very fortunate to have events with built-in reflection opportunities between all of the orchestra teachers in my district. That is one of the difficulties in this field. It’s not like being an English teacher or an eighth-grade teacher with large departments of colleagues, you really have to create these opportunities for yourself. (Interview 1)
Joy’s comments show she benefited from some district-wide interactions but did not perceive the same benefit from daily departmental interactions that Robby expressed.
When asked if she reflects with other teachers, Ally (EC) responded, “Not really, no. I think I’m the only music teacher in the district” (Interview 1). Despite her perception of being isolated, Ally’s reflective writing shows that a collegial interaction informed her approach to improve student engagement and classroom management: One of the sixth-grade teachers suggested that I give the kids self-directed work in order to stay focused in class. I decided to try a found instrument project, a fun project where students were in charge of their pace and I wouldn’t have to be micro-managing their progress. (Reflective Writing Entry 6)
Although Ally felt isolated as the only music teacher in her district, she still leveraged the reflective resource of collegial interactions to inform her approach to instruction.
Teachers across cases acknowledged that their districts expected them to reflect on their teaching during teacher evaluation, but also noted that their districts did not provide much interactive guidance outside of the evaluation process. Robby (LC) discussed his district’s reflective support: “Officially, there isn’t any additional support beyond formal observations . . . As a district, it is encouraged to talk to one another and be reflective practitioners and so forth, but officially, there isn’t any additional support” (Interview 1). District-guided reflection and administrative interactions were perceived as being connected to evaluation and viewed as an opportunity to provide evidence of instructional effectiveness rather than as a process for critical inquiry and teacher development.
Diverse collegial relationships through departmental and school-wide interactions, community performance ensembles, administrative contact, district colleagues, music teacher friends, professional development, continuing education, and participation in music conferences, festivals, and professional organizations were all noted by teachers as important interactive resources to inform reflective thinking. Table 3 shows the different sources of interaction and reflective support cited by participants. Aligning with previous research (Blair, 2008; Conway, 2008; McDonald, 2001), participants perceived interactions with job-alike peers as a valuable resource for reflective thinking.
Music Teachers’ Interactions With Others as Reflective Support.
Note. A lack of reflection with department teachers and student teachers for early career cases may be attributed to the lack of interdepartmental specialists to reflect with and the lack of opportunities to serve as cooperating teachers because of experience levels.
In-the-moment adjustments
Participants frequently cited making in-the-moment adjustments to their instruction during the teaching process. Tony (EC) noted that he uses these adjustments to respond to students as they engage with the musical content during class: During lessons, I’m seeing what kids are achieving, what they are understanding, what they’re not, what their engagement is. And then, a lot of changes are happening in the moment, on the fly, but then, the next class that comes, I’m not going to start and make that same mistake again. There is that micro-in-the-moment reflection. (Interview 1)
Tony’s comment suggests that reflection in-action was not only informative for practical adjustments in the moment of teaching but also served as a means for making changes to subsequent instruction.
A class taught by Robby (LC) represented an example of how this process was implemented in rehearsal planning and instructional delivery. In a pre-observation interview, Robby asserted a desire to “keep rehearsal moving and not get bogged down in the details” (Pre-Observation Interview 3). He did not think the students would have high levels of focus and wanted to adjust the rehearsal plan to meet their needs. My observational fieldnotes show that the rehearsal started with the intention of performing four pieces of repertoire, but the ensemble only rehearsed one piece with extended work on tuning, articulation, and expression (Class Observation Notes 3). Robby stated in his post-observation interview: “I did not expect to work on so many details at the beginning of rehearsal, but I heard a need and was able to engage the students and went with it” (Post-Observation Interview 3). Robby’s action was one of many examples of how reflection in-action was used by teachers across cases to reshape instructional planning to meet the dynamic needs of students in the moment of teaching.
Many teachers in this study demonstrated the capacity to reflect while being engaged in teaching and the flexibility to immediately reshape their instructional approaches based on the feedback they received from students. The capacity to enact reflection in-action ultimately informed future teaching engagements in what Butke (2006) framed as reflection for-action.
Discussion
Findings from this study provide important insights into how and why inservice music teachers reflect on practice. Although previous research has examined the reflective practices of preservice and inservice music teachers using guided reflection (Butke, 2006; Cullen, 2018; Delaney, 2011; Powell, 2016), there are few examples of studies that have examined the self-initiated reflective practices of inservice music teachers in a broad range of teaching contexts and experience levels.
The music educators in this study perceived reflection as an essential component for continuing their development as teachers. Their drive to improve teaching and learning through reflection aligns with previous research which has shown that teachers benefited from reflection as they used it to change and perfect instruction (Butke, 2006; Conway et al., 2012; Reynolds & Beitler, 2007) and advance their understanding about their teaching and students (Cullen, 2018; Delaney, 2011). In concordance with Schön’s (1983) theory, the participants in this study used reflection to describe and understand what was happening in their teaching environments and to confront problems when they began to doubt the usefulness or effectiveness of their tacit knowledge and routine approaches. Participants reframed their thinking about teaching and learning using a wide variety of reflective processes and resources. In most cases, the processes and resources utilized by the music teachers in this study were self-initiated and constructed outside of the borders of their teaching environments.
Crossing reflective borders was also exhibited in how the participants processed content during their reflections. Schön (1983) argues that reflection on-action is grounded in thinking about the different approaches applied in-action. The teachers in this study used reflection in-action to identify discontinuities between their tacit expectations and the realities that emerged during their work with students. They reflected on their in-the-moment adjustments during the teaching process to inform and change instruction for subsequent teaching experiences in what Butke (2006) identified as reflection for-action. This cyclical process of toggling between reflection in-action and on-action along with cycling between reflecting inwardly about instruction and outwardly about students enabled both the early and late career educators in this study to continually refine their teaching.
Although participants in this study covered a wide array of reflective content, they primarily focused on descriptive and technical domains of reflection. Their reflections rarely examined teaching and learning within the context of students’ social, cultural, and political circumstances (Liu, 2015; Smyth, 1989). This is not to suggest that the participants in this study do not operate at critically reflective levels, but they did not appear to gravitate toward critically reflective issues when they were unguided by reflective frameworks or points of critical inquiry.
Finally, the reflective content on instruction and students for early career educators tended to be more narrowly focused than their late career counterparts. Early career teachers were inclined to focus almost exclusively on adapting or changing instruction and student behaviors. The reflective foci of late career educators were more evenly dispersed across inward subcategories of instructional effectiveness, instructional change, and instructional goals and outward subcategories of student behavior, needs and interests, and learning and development.
Implications
Music teachers across cases perceived time to think about practice and informal interactions with other teaching professionals as the most effective reflective thinking strategies. Shifting the balance of professional development time away from didactic policy initiatives toward more teacher-centered collaborations and facilitating interactions with other music educators are approaches that professional development providers can implement to support music teacher reflection. In addition, professional organizations that support music teaching and learning can reach out to early career educators and provide opportunities to engage with the organization and its members through mentorships and collaborative forums (e.g., Berg & Conway, 2016).
Districts can bolster the reflective content and critical inquiry of music teachers by providing reflective support structures. Snyder (2011) suggested that providing music teachers with multiple focus areas that they can use during reflection will minimize their fixation on a single dimension of their teaching during the reflective process. This may be particularly helpful for the early career educators that demonstrated a narrower range of reflective foci in this study. The rigorous reflective frameworks found in evaluation and credentialing protocols may provide depth to reflective thinking, but the application of these protocols in the daily realities of music educators is often not possible. Rather, music teachers can be guided to enhance their intrinsically derived and developing reflective practices by infusing their naturalistic reflective strategies with a greater variety of reflective foci and with critical lenses.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study and conclusions about the reflective practices of music educators should be broached with caution. Much of reflection is an internal process of reframing practice in-action and on-action (Schön, 1983). I had a small glimpse into this process through participant interviews, observations, and reflective writing. Although some participants suggested that they occasionally take notes and write lesson plans as a part of their reflective thinking, no participant indicated that formal writing was included in their reflective processes. The reflective writing participants completed as a part of data collection may have altered their natural processes, providing a misrepresentation of their reflective thinking (Maxwell, 2010). In addition, the small sample and unbalanced representation of teaching contexts between the early and later career cohorts in this study limit the generalizability of the findings to early and late career music teacher reflection more broadly.
Directions for future research
Several strategies and areas of reflective foci emerged from examining cases of music teacher reflection in this study. Survey and observational research of large samples of music educators and their teaching would be informative for determining whether the focus categories found herein are generalizable to music educators more broadly, and whether the emerging differences in reflective foci between early and late career educators are consistent with larger populations of music teachers at different career stages. Future researchers should examine how supportive interventions can enhance the network of reflective resources and expand the breadth of reflective content for music educators. It is also important to examine the effect music teacher reflection has on changing practice and student learning outcomes. Examining which reflective strategies, content orientations, and support mechanisms provide the most meaningful and effective change will enable schools and professional development providers to target their efforts as they work to enhance the development of reflective professionals.
Conclusion
If inquiry into one’s own practice is a primary mode to inspire music teacher growth, change, and creativity, then fostering the inherent desire and capacity of teachers to ask questions and frame their teaching from diverse perspectives should be a central aim of music teacher educators and professional development providers. Our continued understanding of how and why music teachers reflect on practice and what they reflect about is essential for supporting their development as creative practitioners that embrace growth and change in environments that are continuously evolving.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-rsm-10.1177_1321103X211016891 – Supplemental material for The reflective practices of early and late career music educators
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-rsm-10.1177_1321103X211016891 for The reflective practices of early and late career music educators by Casey Schmidt in Research Studies in Music Education
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author biography
References
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.
