Forum: 2 Students with Disabilities in the String Classroom: An Integrative Review

Abstract

There is limited information on students with disabilities in the string classroom. The aim of this integrative review was to synthesize the existing knowledge and trends regarding educational practices for students with disabilities in the string or orchestra classroom. A total of 20 articles met inclusion criteria. The majority of available information consisted of expert opinion, with no true experimental designs found on string/orchestral education for students with disabilities. The analysis revealed that having a disability does not prevent a child from achieving on a string instrument, although barriers and challenges to participation do exist. Furthermore, the review showed that investigations specifically targeting string educators or teaching strategies in the string classroom are limited at best. More research is needed to better understand how students with disabilities can be effectively included in the string classroom.

Keywords

orchestra strings education disabilities inclusion music

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was enacted in 1975, mandates children ages 3-21 with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education (NICHY, 2012). Since its inception, the number of students with disabilities served in United States public schools has increased from 8.3% in 1976-77 to 13.8% in 2004-05, with a slight drop to 13.1% in 2009-10 (U. S. Department of Education, 2012). Due to this inclusive legislation many students now attend “non-traditional academic classes such as music, art and physical education with their non-disabled peers, as an integration experience” (Simeonsson, Carlson, Huntington, McMillen, & Brent, 2001, p. 50). Unfortunately there are often barriers to involvement in these non-traditional academic areas (Simeonsson et al., 2001). At the same time, teachers have the responsibility to ensure a proper music education for all students (Mazur, 2004).

The desire to provide music education for all was an important concept in early 20th century music education. Early leaders in the Music Supervisors National Conference (now NAfME: National Association for Music Education) advocated for the inclusion of music as a core subject, and its leaders promoted efforts to address inequalities in music education for underserved populations (Hoffman, 2011). By the 1940's and 50's committees were established within the organization focusing specifically on music for exceptional children (Mark, 2008). Today, music has been recognized as an important educational aspect for all students, even those with multiple, severe, or profound disabilities (Ockelford, Welch, & Zimmerman, 2002). In fact, evidence suggests that students with disabilities can and do achieve in music education classes at levels similar to their peers who are typically developing (Hoffman, 2011).

Problem Identification and Purpose

In spite of the progress in music education for students with disabilities, inequalities still exist. Students with disabilities are frequently not included in music classes at rates comparable to their typically developing peers (Hoffman, 2011). Furthermore, students are often not included in ensemble programs at the same rate that they are included in general music courses (Frisque, Niebur, & Humphreys, 1994; Zdzinski, 2001). The purpose of this integrative review was to critically analyze the existing knowledge and trends regarding educational practices for students with disabilities in the string or orchestra classroom. Specifically, educational practices geared toward children with disabilities were examined.

Method

Integrative Review Framework

In order to best synthesize the literature available on string instruction for children with special needs, an integrative review approach was chosen. An integrative review is a broad research review method that allows for inclusion of diverse methodologies including both experimental and non-experimental studies. Integrative reviews involve a more comprehensive approach than the better-known systematic review format, and are appropriate when multiple types of literature are to be reviewed (Haslbeck, 2012). The current review was conducted using a framework developed by Whittemore and Knaf (2005). The process outlined in this framework was based on Cooper's (1982; 1998) research review process but modified specifically for integrative reviews. The review process was conducted in five stages: (a) problem identification, (b) literature search, (c) data evaluation, (d) data analysis, and (e) presentation.

Definitions

In order to clarify the provision of services for children with disabilities in the public school setting, IDEA has defined disability using a categorical approach. In total there are 14 categories, with definitions for specific disability terms outlined within each category. Category examples include autism, developmental delay, and intellectual disability, among others (NICHY, 2012). For the purpose of this review, disability was defined according to the IDEA definition. String education was defined as orchestral or guitar classes or ensembles. Inclusion was defined as placing a child with disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend.” [Rogers, 1993, p. 1].

Databases and Search Strategy

We obtained studies primarily through a comprehensive computer-assisted search of selected databases (see Table 1).

Table 1

Databases Searched

Database name	Search results	Potentially relevant	Articles included^a
ProQuest Education	1,530	24	8
ERIC	212	5	1

Identifies total number of articles included from a specific source. Some articles may have been found by searching databases and by hand searching journals. These duplicates were eliminated in the final count of included articles.

This search was enhanced by hand searching the table of contents of relevant music journals (see Table 2).

Table 2

Journal Searched by Hand

Journal name	Potentially relevant	Articles included^a
American String Teacher	4	4
International Journal of Music Education	0	0
Journal of Community Music	0	0
Journal of Music Therapy	3	1
Journal of Research in Music Education	5	2
Music Educators Journal	7	5
Music Therapy	0	0
Music Therapy Perspectives	1	0
String Research Journal	0	0
Update: Applications of Research in Music Education	2	0

Reference mining was also used to identify potential literature. The search, which occurred in January and February of 2014 and was updated in July of 2014, yielded a total of 1,937 potential articles. We independently reviewed articles identified by the search using the inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to identify applicable articles. We then met to compare results and resolve discrepancies.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For the purpose of this review, we limited papers to English language articles from the United States. Papers from the United States were chosen to ensure that all work was based on similar educational practices and laws governing the education of students with disabilities. Papers were only included if they specifically referenced orchestral or string instruction with students with disabilities and provided identifiable information specific to orchestral or string education in the results section. Additionally, papers that referenced education practices and perceptions were included if the authors expressly stated that string educators (or preservice educators) were included in the sample. Examples of articles that were excluded are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Examples of Excluded Articles

Author	Reason for Exclusion
Colwell (2002)	Did not include specific teaching strategies for orchestra classes.
Darrow & Gfeller (1991)	Did not differentiate practices of orchestral music educators from band music educators.
Gfeller (2000)	Did not include specific teaching strategies for orchestra classes.
Gfeller, Darrow, & Hedden (1990)	Did not differentiate perceptions of orchestral music educators from band music educators.
Gooding, Hudson, & Yinger (2013)	Did not differentiate perceptions of orchestral music educators from those of other music educators.
Grant (1977)	String lessons (on the autoharp) took place in a music therapy setting rather than a school setting, addressing non-musical rather than musical goals.
Hahn (2010)	Did not differentiate perceptions of orchestral music educators from band music educators.
Hammel & Gerrity (2012)	Did not differentiate perceptions of orchestral music educators from those of other music educators.
Josepha (1964)	String lessons took place in a music therapy setting rather than a school setting, addressing non-musical rather than musical goals.
McDowell (2007)	The purpose of the study was not to investigate perceptions of working with special learners, although participants did mention this in their open-ended responses.
McCord & Watts (2006)	Did not include specific teaching strategies for orchestra classes.
Ockelford, Welch, & Zimmerman (2002)	Did not focus on educational practices in the U.S.
Orman & Price (2007)	Did not investigate perceptions, practices, or teaching strategies of string/orchestral music educators working with students with disabilities.
Schraer-Joiner & Prause-Weber (2009)	Did not include specific teaching strategies for orchestra classes.
Van Camp (1983)	Unpublished manuscript; was not published in a journal or a thesis/dissertation.
VanWeelden & Whipple (2014)	Did not differentiate perceptions of orchestral music educators from band music educators.

We included articles that met the following criteria: 1) studies conducted in the U.S. and written in English, 2) refer specifically to music AND string OR orchestra AND inclusion OR disability, 3) must be in the school setting, 4) must have experimental, pre-experimental, descriptive, or case study design, or be expert opinion, and 5) published articles and unpublished dissertations/theses. Articles excluded were: 1) papers that referred to music education for students with disabilities but did not explicitly refer to orchestral or string settings, or 2) informal unstructured interviews and media pieces about music programs for students with disabilities that did not identify teaching strategies.

Data Extraction

We independently read and extracted data from the relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data included (a) author and year of publication, (b) design, (c) participants, (d) outcomes measured, and (e) results. We then compared the mined data to verify the accuracy and ensure that all relevant information had been extracted.

Data Evaluation

After evaluating the papers based on the above inclusion criteria and eliminating duplicates, we identified a total of 43 as potentially relevant. The numbers of articles identified for inclusion through search databases and hand searching journals are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In total, 20 papers met the parameters for inclusion. A critical appraisal was then conducted to assess the strength of evidence in papers that met the inclusion criteria. Levels of evidence were assigned based on an adaptation of those identified by the U.S. Department of Education (Whitehouse, 2002) and What Works Clearinghouse (U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences, 2012) guidelines for evidence-based education. Levels of evidence are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

Levels of Evidence (Adapted from Whitehurst, 2002)

Level	Source of Evidence
I	Randomized controlled trial (experimental)
II	Nonrandomized controlled trial (quasi-experimental)
III	Pre-post comparison (pre-experimental)
IV	Descriptive studies, correlational studies
V	Case studies, qualitative structured interviews
VI	Expert opinion

We independently appraised the articles and then met to compare results and discuss any discrepancies. Agreement was met on all articles. Included studies are shown in Table 5, along with the levels of evidence to which they were assigned.

Table 5

Levels of Evidence for Included Studies

Author	Article/Study Design	Level of Evidence
Bergonzi (1996)	Expert Opinion	VI
Chadwick & Clark (1980)	Expert Opinion	VI
de l'Etoile (1996)	Expert Opinion	VI
Frisque, Niebur & Humphreys (1994)	Descriptive	IV
Hash (2003)	Expert Opinion	VI
Hessler-Binder (2002)	Expert Opinion	VI
Hoffman (2011)	Descriptive	IV
Hourigan (2009)	Case Study	V
Hourigan & Hourigan (2009)	Expert Opinion	VI
McCord & Fitzgerald (2006)	Expert Opinion	VI
Mixon (2005)	Expert Opinion	VI
F. Moss (2009)	Case Study	V
K. Moss (2009)	Expert Opinion	VI
Pinta (2013)	Case Study	V
Riveire (2012)	Expert Opinion	VI
Scott, Jellison, Chappell, & Standridge (2007)	Case Study	V
Shelfo (2007)	Descriptive	IV
Siligo (2005)	Expert Opinion	VI
Van Camp (1989)	Pre-post comparison	III
Vance (2004)	Expert Opinion	VI

Results

Defining Characteristics of the Studies

In order to organize, summarize, and present data extracted from retained papers into a manageable framework, a series of tables were constructed. Papers were grouped into three main categories: (a) those that dealt with preservice or inservice music educators’ perceptions and practices when working with students with special needs, summarized in Table 6; (b) those that empirically studied practices for string instruction with students who have special needs, summarized in Table 7; or (c) expert opinion on educational practices for teaching special learners to play string instruments, summarized in Table 8. The following data were included in Tables 6 and 7: (a) author, (b) study design, (c) participants, (d) outcomes measured, and (e) results of the study. For articles that constituted expert opinion, the following information was included in Table 8: (a) author, (b) student population, (c) purpose, and (d) key points/teaching strategies.

Table 6

Studies on Preservice or Inservice Music Educators’ Perceptions and Practices when Teaching Special Learners

Author	Design	Participants	Outcomes Measured	Results
Frisque, Niebur & Humphreys (1994)	Descriptive/correlational, survey (IV)	107 music educators from AZ (9 taught strings)	Mainstreaming practices in Arizona music education classrooms	String teachers cited student interest as the primary reason for mainstreaming into music class (as opposed to musical ability, socialization, or other reasons).
Hoffman (2011)	Descriptive, survey (IV)	166 instrumental music educators from ID, MS, NE, NV, NM, & RI (11.4% or 19 primarily orchestra/strings)	Status of students with disabilities in instrumental ensembles; effects of institutional/educator variables on inclusion	Only 8.1% of students in orchestra/strings classes were students with disabilities. The number of students with special needs in orchestra classes decreased as the number of years in orchestra increased.
Hourigan (2009)	Qualitative case study, including semi-structured interviews (V)	4 preservice music teachers (2 with a concentration in strings), 2 cooperating teachers and the researcher	Perceptions of fieldwork in a special needs classroom	Both string participants wrote positive comments about the field experience in their journals, and one of them stated that she will feel more confident and comfortable teaching children with disabilities as a result of participating in a field experience.
Scott, Jellison, Chappell, & Standridge (2007)	Qualitative semi-structured interviews (V)	43 music teachers in inclusive settings from central TX, as well as “Eastern and Midwest school districts” (15 orchestra)	Perceptions, opinions, and experiences	63% of orchestra teachers received information about placement of students and 60% received support for students with disabilities in their classroom and 87% participated in IEP meetings. 100% reported having contact with and learning from parents. More than 1/3 reported positive benefits of inclusion for students with special needs, typical students, and themselves.
Shelfo (2007)	Descriptive/correlational, survey (IV)	214 band and orchestra teachers from MD (17.7% or 38 orchestra; 15% or 32 combined string/band)	State of inclusive education in Maryland school band and orchestra programs	No differences in responses based on teaching area (orchestra or band). Of students with disabilities in instrumental music classrooms, the most frequently reported was specific learning disability. 63.6% of teachers did not participate in IEP development. Teachers reported having received limited training; attitudes toward students with disabilities improved with increased training. Instrumental educators felt that students with disabilities would be better served in general music or self-contained classes.

Table 7

Studies which Measured Outcomes of String Instruction for Special Learners

Author	Design	Participants	Outcomes Measured	Results
Van Camp (1989)	Single group pretest-post-test (III)	24 middle school students with mild mental handicap who received instruction in homogeneous classes (all violins) or heterogeneous classes (violins, violas, and cellos)	String performance	All students improved string skills over the 12 weeks of instruction although skill scores were somewhat lower than expected norms. Student attitudes were positive for 78% of students. All string judges concluded that string classes for students with mild mental handicaps are feasible. Class setting (heterogeneous vs. homogeneous) did not significantly impact skill acquisition.
F. Moss (2009)	Qualitative semi-structured interview (V)	11 students who are blind or visually impaired in band or orchestra (1 ninth grader named “Mark” who played violin in orchestra)	Mainstreaming/full inclusion experiences in secondary instrumental ensembles (band & orchestra)	The participant who played the violin cited the following as helpful to his success in orchestra: 1) studying with a private teacher, who recorded the parts to pieces being learned in orchestra so the student could listen to and memorize them, 2) listening to other students play in order to learn his music, and 3) hearing a metronome in orchestra rehearsals, which his director sometimes used to keep the group together.
Pinta (2013)	Qualitative case studies (V)	3 students with disabilities, within an inclusive guitar class of 38 students	Feasibility of inclusive guitar classes	All three participants developed guitar skills over the course of 18 weeks of guitar instruction, and two were able to complete the curriculum with modified assignments. The student who did not complete the guitar curriculum was nevertheless able to work on IEP goals within guitar class. Students showed growth in social skills, since these skills were necessary for participation in the class. Results support the need for individually designed instruction for students with disabilities in inclusive classes, as well as a need for more research on effective teaching techniques.

Table 8

Articles which Constituted Expert Opinion (Level VI)

Author	Student Population	Purpose	Key Points/Teaching Strategies
Bergonzi (1996)	All students	Defines arts access; analyzes the status of high school string programs	The traditional attitude of selectivity in instrumental education programs may increase the chances of program elimination.
			String teachers must create programs that relate to local school culture and include all opportunities for all students, including those with disabilities.
			Teachers must recognize that there may be barriers to access for certain types of students.
			Teachers must move beyond the “one-size-fits-all” program design. More attention should be given to non-traditional delivery systems for string instruction.
Chadwick & Clark (1980)	Students with physical disabilities	Describes ways to adapt musical instruments, including string instruments, for individuals with physical disabilities	Picks may be used to strum various string instruments, such as banjos, dulcimers, guitars, zithers, and cellos. The spiral pick is recommended over flat picks, which can be difficult to grasp.
			Straps can be added to dowel picks to help individuals with physical disabilities strum stringed instruments.
de l'Etoile (1996)	Students with developmental disabilities, physical disabilities, mental retardation, disruptive behavior disorders and learning disabilities	Provides strategies for students with differing disabilities in various music class settings including guitar. Includes descriptions of successful teaching strategies	Use open tuning on guitar.
			Use well-known, simple two- or three-chord songs.
			Obtain info on students’ disabilities.
			Develop an understanding of how students’ disabilities impact learning.
			Set appropriate expectations.
			Recognize the importance of pacing and repetition when presenting materials.
Hash (2003)	Students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing	Discusses physical environment, teaching practices, and instrument selection.	Create a physical environment that promotes success (eliminate extraneous sounds, consider seating placement within the ensemble, etc.).
			Small groups of like instruments are best for teaching.
			Monitor hearing aids for volume levels.
			Adjust teaching practices; face the student, use visual aids, speak in a low-pitched voice, etc.
			Carefully select the instrument played; guitar and electric bass are both good options. Instruments that require more in-depth pitch discrimination (e.g., brass, violin, etc.) may not facilitate the most successful experience.
Hessler-Binder (2002)	String students who are blind	Describes rewards and challenges of working with this population.	Treat students who are blind like other students, to appeal to the other senses, and discusses use of braille/computer music.
			Convey concepts based on non-visual sensory information. For example, to promote quick lifting off of the fingerboard you could tell the student to play like the “fingerboard were on fire” (Hessler-Binder, 2002, p.80).
			Use hand-over-hand or manual assistance as needed.
			Consider the use of Braille music (computer software may provide assistance with this).
			Use recordings to help students learn music.
			Pair a student with a visual impairment with a student with sight to teach bowings.
Hourigan & Hourigan (2009)	Children with autism	Provides rehearsal strategies for orchestra.	Simplify rehearsal language.
			Practice rehearsal routines outside of class.
			Use peer assistance or tutoring.
			Provide alternate forms of the music (recordings, etc.).
			Resource (i.e., re-write) parts as needed.
			Visit concert venue prior to the performance.
McCord & Fitzgerald (2006)	Children with various disabilities	Provides recommendations on selecting string instruments for students with disabilities (including physical disabilities, hearing losses, ADHD) to play, as well as tips for helping them read, write, and play music.	Strings are a good choice for students with breathing issues.
			Viola/violin may allow vibration conduction through the jaw bone, potentially making it a good choice for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
			Bass is good for children with ADHD.
			Cello/bass may be better for students with motor coordination difficulties.
			String a violin in reverse may facilitate success for some students with disabilities.
			A bow guide may help students with poor wrist control.
			Tape on a fingerboard can serve as a guide for in-tune fingers.
			Tape on the bow can promote correct use of the tip, middle or frog.
Mixon (2005)	Exceptional students	Discusses teaching strategies for exceptional learners.	Work with physical and/or occupational therapists to identify appropriate instrument choices.
			Consider restring string instruments to accommodate student needs.
			Modify notation or parts.
			Plan for behavior problems.
			Carefully plan and assess your plan.
K. Moss (2009)	All students	Proposes that curricular offerings must be accessible/applicable to all students.	The author points out the need for increased access to string instruction for (a) ESL students, (2) students with disabilities, and (3) adult beginners. All students, regardless of age, talent, giftedness, or musical background can learn to play string instruments.
			Children with intellectual disabilities who become frustrated might benefit from private instruction.
			Learning by rote, using flashcards and exercises may facilitate success.
Riveire (2012)	Various disabilities including dyslexia, learning disabilities, developmental delays, and orthopedic challenges	Discusses how the use of variations on a theme can be used for students with developmental delays, disabilities, and orthopedic challenges.	The author provides specific applications for students with dyslexia, ADHD, and more. Starting with a repertory song will ensure that everyone knows the tune.
			Variations can be built of the tune to promote (a) peer assistance, (b) parental involvement, (c) playing by rote, and (d) creation of stripped-down versions.
			Variations can allow the student to focus on pitch and intervallic relationships, eliminating verbal labels that may be confusing.
			Variations can allow teachers to address hand-eye coordination challenges.
			Variations allow teachers to address a skill problem for greater periods of time while maintaining student attention.
			Students with limited mobility can benefit by variations that facilitate their involvement.
Siligo (2005)	Students with visual impairments	Provides a discussion of practical teaching applications like recordings, learning concert pitch, etc.	Assess students’ skills to determine necessary adaptations.
			Recordings can be provided so that students can memorize parts. Begin by recording the student's part slowly, stating the note names. Then record the part in real time.
			Provide braille music when appropriate.
			Encourage peer mentoring from sighted mentors.
			Students can write out parts in literary braille, (i.e., using the braille alphabet).
			Students must be taught how to transpose concert pitch into print pitch.
			Students who have learned by ear may need to be taught musical terminology so that they can describe what they are playing.
Vance (2004)	Students with dyslexia	Provides teaching strategies for students with dyslexia.	Make recordings available for student listening.
			Choose instruments based on student strengths.

Data Analysis

A variety of types of papers were found in the literature including Level III pre-post comparison studies (n = 1), Level IV descriptive studies (n = 3), Level V case studies (n = 4), and Level VI expert opinion articles (n = 12). No true experimental design (Level I) or quasi-experimental design (Level II) studies were found. Five of the included articles were dissertations or theses and the remaining 15 were published in music education or music therapy journals. The majority of the published studies (12 out of 15, or 80%) constituted expert opinion. The earliest included study was published in 1980, and the most recent in 2013. The majority of the included studies were published between 2000 and 2009 (n = 12), with a smaller number published in the 1980s (n = 2), 1990s (n = 3), and the present decade (n = 3).

Studies Measuring Music Educators’ Perceptions and Practices

Four of the studies investigated inservice music educators’ perceptions and practices when teaching special learners, either through surveys (n = 3) or semi-structured interviews (n = 1). A fifth study (Hourigan, 2009) investigated practices and perceptions of preservice music educators over the course of a field placement with students with special needs. In this study, results were measured using semi-structured interview, journals, and observations. Two of the studies that collected information about practices and perceptions using survey methods included correlational data (Frisque et al., 1994; Shelfo, 2007). All five of the studies of educators’ perceptions and practices included orchestral/string music educators in their sample along with music educators who taught in other areas (band, chorus, or general music). The percentage of orchestral/string music educators within each study's sample ranged from 8.4% to 50%, and the number of orchestral/string participants in each study ranged from 2 to 70. It is worth noting that none of these studies focused exclusively on teachers of string/orchestra classes. Also, string/orchestra teachers made up 50% or less of study participants, even when the only other participants were band teachers (as was the case in Shelfo's 2007 survey of instrumental music teachers, in which 17.7% of participants taught orchestra and 15% taught combined string and band classes). Two of the studies on educators’ practices and perceptions were dissertations (Hoffman, 2011; Shelfo, 2007). Two of the published studies appeared in Journal of Research in Music Education and the third appeared in Journal of Music Therapy.

Studies Measuring Student Outcomes

Three studies investigated outcomes of string/orchestra instruction for students with disabilities, either through pretest-posttest comparison (Van Camp, 1989), semi-structured interviews (F. Moss, 2009), or a collection of qualitative case studies (Pinta, 2013). All three of the studies in this category were dissertations. Participants included 24 middle school students with mild mental handicaps (intellectual disabilities) who were taught to play the violin, viola, or cello over the course of 12 weeks (Van Camp, 1989); a ninth grade student who was blind and was surveyed about his experiences playing the violin in a mainstreamed orchestra classroom (F. Moss, 2009); and high school students with autism spectrum disorders (n = 2) or a specific learning disability (n = 1) who were taught to play the guitar over the course of 18 weeks (Pinta, 2013). One of the students in Pinta's study who was on the autism spectrum also displayed challenging behaviors. One of these studies involved self-contained classes for students with special needs (Van Camp, 1989), whereas the other two involved students with special needs in inclusive music classes (F. Moss, 2009; Pinta, 2013). Both of the prospective studies that measured student achievements in learning to play string instruments reported positive results, meaning that the students made progress in learning to play stringed instruments, although not without certain modifications and challenges (Van Camp, 1989; Pinta, 2013).

Articles Containing Expert Opinion

All 12 of the articles that constituted expert opinion were published in music education journals, primarily Music Educators Journal (n = 5), and American String Teacher (n = 4), with American Music Teacher, Research & Issues in Music Education, and Teaching Music each having one publication from this category. Six articles focused on teaching strategies for a specific exceptionality, including students with physical disabilities (Chadwick & Clark, 1980), autism spectrum disorders (Hourigan & Hourigan, 2009), dyslexia (Vance, 2004), visual impairments (Siligo, 2005), and students who are blind (Hessler-Binder, 2002) or deaf/hard-of-hearing (Hash, 2003). The remaining six articles outlined suggestions that would be appropriate for use with multiple exceptionalities.

Discussion

The number of articles on teaching students with special needs in string/orchestra classes has increased over the past 35 years, possibly as a result of increased inclusion (Simeonsson, et al., 2001); however, much of the research in this area falls into the expert opinion category. The included expert opinion articles provided practical applications for individuals with specific disabilities and needs, including children who are deaf/hard-of-hearing or have visual impairments, autism, or a specific learning disability. Additionally, authors of the expert opinion articles provided suggestions to improve the environment for students with disabilities (Hash, 2003), as well as specific teaching strategies like the use of variations on a theme to accommodate different levels of learning in one group (Riveire, 2012). Although having recommendations from experts in the field are indeed helpful, educators should be aware that these suggestions may not have been rigorously tested. At times, experts disagree on educational practices, and additional research is needed in order to determine best practices for working with students with special needs in string/orchestra classrooms.

The studies on educators’ practices and perceptions of working with students with special needs provide important information that can be used to help determine future directions for research, practice, policy, and training of preservice music educators. The finding from the Hoffman (2011) study that the number of students participating in orchestra decreased as the number of years in orchestra increased raises questions about the ability of students with special needs to continue to participate in orchestra for more than one year; however, given the small number of orchestra/string teachers in this study (19), further research with a greater number of participants is necessary to elaborate upon this finding.

Both the studies by Scott et al. (2007) and Shelfo (2007) asked participants questions about involvement in IEP meetings (via semi-structured interviews or surveys, respectively), with conflicting findings. In Shelfo's survey of band and orchestra teachers in Maryland, approximately 64% reported that they did not participate in their students’ IEP development. In contrast, only 13% of orchestra teachers in Scott et al.'s study of music teachers from central Texas and other school districts in the East and Midwest reported in their semi-structured interviews that they were not involved in the IEP process. These differences could have to do with regional differences, or could be a result of differences in methodology. Future research could investigate levels of participation in the IEP process among string/orchestra teachers, particularly with regard to regional trends and potential barriers.

In response to Shelfo's (2007) survey, instrumental music educators in Maryland reported having had limited training in working with students with special needs, although those with more training reported having improved attitudes about working with special learners. In Hourigan's (2009) qualitative study of a preservice field experience that allowed music education students opportunities to work closely with special learners, one of the participants who had a concentration in string teaching reported feeling more confident and comfortable teaching students with special needs as a result of the field experience. Additional descriptive research (similar to Shelfo's study) is needed to identify specific areas in which music educators in string/orchestra settings feel the need for additional training in working with students with special needs, whereas future studies of the qualitative nature (similar to Hourigan's study) can help design effective models for providing training to preservice music educators. In addition to descriptive and qualitative research on perceptions and practices of music educators working with special learners, there is a need for further quantitative research that is experimental, quasi-experimental, and pre-experimental variety. Such research is necessary in order to establish best practices and guidelines.

Of the three studies that investigated the achievement and perceptions of students with special needs in string/orchestra classes, only one article was identified as having a pre-experimental, pre-post comparison design (Van Camp, 1989). There are inherent challenges to conducting controlled studies in educational settings, and pre-experimental studies in which students serve as their own controls are often easier to implement. Although quasi-experimental and experimental studies are helpful in developing evidence-based practice, additional case study designs and pre-experimental research may be necessary first in order to determine the feasibility of inclusive teaching practices with students with special needs. Once the feasibility of an educational practice has been determined, its effectiveness relative to other practices can later be evaluated through more controlled studies.

Recommendations

All of the studies included in this review that investigated perceptions and practices of preservice and inservice string/orchestral music educators included music educators from other teaching concentrations as well (i.e. band, chorus, and/or general music). Additional research is needed that specifically focuses on string/orchestra teachers’ perceptions and practices related to teaching students with special needs. More research is needed on effective teaching practices for meeting the needs of special learners within string/orchestra classrooms; however, there were several exceptionalities for which no empirical studies could be found, including on students who are deaf/hard-of-hearing, students who are blind/visually impaired, and students who have physical impairments. Existing research regarding string/orchestral teaching practices for students who have mild intellectual disabilities (Van Camp, 1989), autism spectrum disorders, behavioral challenges, and/or learning disabilities (Pinta, 2013) is limited; future research could replicate these studies with larger sample sizes using pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, or experimental designs.

Participants in Shelfo's (2007) study generally felt that students with disabilities would be better served in general music or self-contained classes, as opposed to inclusive instrumental music classes. This highlights the need for future research on barriers to inclusion of students with special needs in band and orchestra classes. There is also a need for investigation of teacher attitudes about inclusion in ensemble-based instrumental courses.

Five of the studies included in this review were dissertations or theses; these constituted 25% of all articles reviewed and accounted for 63% of the studies that were not considered expert opinion. This indicates a need for increased publication and wider dissemination of studies on working with students who have special needs. Likewise, there is also a lack of information about teaching exceptional students being shared via presentations and research poster sessions at conferences of professional music organizations (Orman & Price, 2007). This further illustrates the need for increased distribution of information on this topic.

Conclusion

Research on inclusion practices for students with special needs in instrumental music classes indicates that having a disability does not preclude learning to play a musical instrument. However, barriers and challenges currently exist for students with special needs who are interested in participating in orchestra or string ensembles at school. One of the first steps toward removing these barriers is to better understand them through additional research.

References

Bergonzi

(1996). School teachers forum: The National Standards in Music—Access to string study for all children. American String Teacher, 46(2), 69–72.

Chadwick

D. M.

, & Clark

C. A.

(1980). Adapting music instruments for the physically handicapped. Music Educators Journal, 67(3), 56–59.

Colwell

C. M.

(2002). Learning disabilities in the music classroom: Implications for the music educator. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21, 9–16. doi: 10.1177/87551233020210020401

Cooper

H. M.

(1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52, 291–302.

Cooper

H. M.

(1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darrow

A. A.

, & Gfeller

K. E.

(1991). A study of public school music programs mainstreaming hearing impaired students. Journal of Music Therapy, 28, 23–39. doi: 10.1093/jmt/28.1.23.

de l'Etoile

(1996). Meeting the needs of the special learner in music. American Music Teacher, 45(6), 10–13, 88-89.

Frisque

, Niebur

, & Humphreys

J. T.

(1994). Music mainstreaming: Practices in Arizona. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 94–104. doi: 10.2307/334594

Gfeller

K. E.

(2000). Accommodating children who use cochlear implants in music therapy or educational settings. Music Therapy Perspectives, 18, 122–130.

10.

Gfeller

K. E.

, Darrow

A. A.

, & Hedden

S. K.

(1990). Perceived effectiveness of mainstreaming in Iowa and Kansas schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38, 90–101. doi: 10.2307/3344929

11.

Gooding

, Hudson

, & Yinger

(2013). Students with special needs in the 21st century music classroom: Practices and perceptions of Orff- and Non-Orff educators. Approaches: Music Therapy & Special Music Education, 5, 166–174.

12.

Grant

R. E.

(1977). A developmental music therapy curriculum for the mildly mentally retarded, ages six through twelve (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia: Athens, GA.

13.

Hahn

K. R.

(2010). Inclusion of students with disabilities: Preparation and practices of music educators. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

14.

Hammel

A. M.

, & Gerrity

K. W.

(2012). The effect of instruction on teacher perceptions of competence when including students with special needs in music classrooms. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 31, 6–13. doi: 10.1177/8755123312457882

15.

Hash

P. M.

(2003). Teaching instrumental music to deaf and hard of hearing students. Research & Issues in Music Education, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol1/hash.htm.

16.

Haslbeck

F. B.

(2012). Music therapy for premature infants and their parents: An integrative review. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 21, 203–226. doi: 10.1080/08098131.2011.648653

17.

Hessler-Binder

(2002). Rewards and challenges of teaching blind string students. American String Teacher, 52(1), 80–83, 85.

18.

Hoffman

E. C.

(2011). The status of students with special needs in the instrumental musical ensemble and the effect of selected educator and institutional variables on rates of inclusion. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

19.

Hourigan

R. M.

(2009). Preservice music teachers’ perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 152–168. doi: 10.1177/0022429409335880

20.

Hourigan

, & Hourigan

(2009). Teaching music to children with autism: Understandings and Perspectives. Music Educators Journal, 96(1), 40–45.

21.

Howick

, Chalmers

, Glasziou

, Greenhalgh

, Heneghan

, Liberati

,… Thornton

(2011). Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence document. Retrieved from http://www.cebm.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-Background-Document-2.1.pdf.

22.

Josepha

S. M.

(1964). Therapeutic values of instrumental performance for severely handicapped children. Journal of Music Therapy, 1, 73–79. doi: 10.1093/jmt/1.3.73

23.

Mark

M. L.

(2008). A concise history of American music education. Reston, VA: MENC-The National Association for Music Education.

24.

Mazur

(2004). An introduction to inclusion in the music classroom. General Music Today, 18(1), 6–11.

25.

McCord

, & Fitzgerald

(2006). Children with disabilities playing musical instruments. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 46–52.

26.

McCord

, & Watts

E. H.

(2006). Collaboration and access for our children: Music educators and special educators together. Music Educators Journal, 92(4), 26–33.

27.

McDowell

(2007). Are they ready to student teach? Reflections from 10 music education majors concerning their three semesters of field experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16, 45–60. doi: 10.1177/10570837070160020106

28.

Mixon

(2005). Including exceptional students in your instrumental music program. Teaching Music, 13(3), 30–34.

29.

Moss

F. W.

(2009). Quality of experience in mainstreaming and full inclusion of blind and visually impaired high school instrumental music students. (Order No. 3354033, University of Michigan). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 334-n/a. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.uky.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304928945?accountid=11836. (304928945)

30.

Moss

(2009). Busting a myth about string teaching and playing. American String Teacher, 59(1), 26–29.

31.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) (2012). Categories of disability under IDEA. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/wpcontent/uploads/docs/gr3.pdf.

32.

Ockelford

, Welch

, & Zimmermann

(2002). Music education for pupils with severe or profound and multiple difficulties- current provisions and future needs. British Journal of Special Education, 29, 178–183. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.00266

33.

Orman

E. K.

, & Price

H. E.

(2007). Content analysis of four national music organizations’ conferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 148–161. doi: 10.1177/002242940705500205

34.

Pinta

K.J.

(2013). Inclusion strategies for the high school guitar class. Unpublished Master's Thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

35.

Riveire

(2012). Building rhythm and technique in a multi-level reality. American String Teacher, 62(1), 24–29.

36.

Rogers

(1993). The inclusion revolution. Phi Delta Kappa Research Bulletin, 11, 1–6.

37.

Schraer-Joiner

, & Prause-Weber

(2009). Strategies for working with children with cochlear implants. Music Educators Journal, 96(1), 48–55. doi: 10.1177/0027/432109341274

38.

Scott

L. P.

, Jellison

J. A.

, Chappell

E. W.

, Standridge

A. A.

(2007). Talking with music teachers about inclusion: Perceptions, opinions, and experiences. Journal of Music Therapy, 44, 38–56. doi: 10.1093/jmt/44.1.38

39.

Shelfo

K.L.

(2007). The status of inclusive education in Maryland school band and orchestra programs. (Unpublished Master's thesis.) University of Maryland, College Park.

40.

Siligo

W. R.

(2005). Enriching the ensemble experience for students with visual impairments. Music Educators Journal, 91(5), 31–36.

41.

Simeonsson

R. J.

, Carlson

, Huntington

G. S.

, McMillen

J. S.

, & Brent

J. L.

(2001). Students with disabilities: A national survey of participation in school activities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 49–63. doi: 10.1080/096382801750058134

42.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=64

43.

Van Camp

D. J.

(1983). A violin class for exceptional teenagers. (Unpublished paper for Music 775). Ohio State University, Columbus.

44.

Van Camp

D. J.

(1989). An investigation of the effects of a researcher-designed string music curriculum on the playing skills of mildly mentally handicapped middle school students grouped in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

45.

Vance

K. O.

(2004). Adapting music instruction for students with dyslexia. Music Educators Journal, 90(5), 27–31.

46.

VanWeelden

, & Whipple

(2014). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 148–160. doi 10.1177/0022429414530563

47.

U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). WWC practice guide for educators TM development guidelines. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_pg_manual.pdf.

48.

Whitehurst

G. J.

(2002). Evidence-based education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/director/pdf/2002_10.pdf.

49.

Whittemore

, & Knaf

(2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

50.

Zdzinski

S. F.

(2001). Instrumental music for special learners. Music Educators Journal 87(4), 27–29, 63.