The Role of Research in Music Education Master’s Programs: Examining Students’ Attitudes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine master’s students’ attitudes toward research in music education. Participants (N = 140) were students enrolled in master’s programs in music education in the United States who completed an online questionnaire. Participants reported generally positive attitudes toward research in music education, although there was a notable amount of variability. No significant differences in research attitudes were found among participants enrolled in academic year, online, and summer degree programs. However, participants who indicated future plans for doctoral study reported significantly more positive research attitudes than those who did not plan to pursue doctoral study. Responses to open-ended questions indicated ways that participants believed their master’s program improved their skills and knowledge regarding both teaching and research. These results provide descriptive data that illustrate how music educators view research and integrate it into their teaching.

Keywords

attitudes graduate study master’s degree online degree research summer degree

Since the Middle Ages, the master’s degree has functioned as a credential that offers distinction to those who have completed a rigorous course of study in their field (Fullbright, 1960). Master’s degrees were an outgrowth of the medieval guild system, and completion of a master’s degree signified an individual as a magister, which means “teacher” (Cassuto, 2015, p. 151). Prior to the early 20th century, master’s degrees designed for school music teachers were nonexistent, and music educators who pursued a graduate degree had to choose one or more related fields of study, such as musicology or psychology. Master’s degrees in music education began to emerge in the 1920s (Hash, 2020), and graduate study in music education quickly became a central focus area of the Music Educators National Conference (Ball et al., 1980; Committee on Graduate Study in Music Education, 1954; Gehrkens, 1940). Master’s programs in music education have grown in prominence and popularity since that time. Although traditional programs that occur during the academic year for full-time students have remained common, other degree options that allow for flexibility among working teachers began to emerge in the 20th century. For example, one of the first summers-only master’s degree programs for music educators began in 1943, and one of the first online master’s degree programs originated in 1999 (Hash, 2020).

Music educators who pursue a master’s degree in music education (MME)¹ still have the choice of various program delivery formats: (a) academic year programs, in which the majority of coursework is delivered face-to-face during the academic year (Albert, 2015; Conway et al., 2008); (b) online programs, in which the majority of coursework is delivered online via distance learning technology (Albert, 2015; Groulx & Hernly, 2010); (c) summer programs, in which the majority of coursework is delivered face-to-face during summer terms (Conway et al., 2008; LeBlanc, 1991); and (d) hybrid programs, which offer a combination of delivery formats (Fung, 2004). In a survey of MME students, participants reported that the most common motivations for master’s-level study were to become better teachers, to increase their salaries, to gain academic stimulation through graduate-level coursework, and to create a pathway to future graduate study at the doctoral level (Springer, 2020). However, Springer found that students’ motivations for pursuing a master’s degree differed according to their program’s delivery format. For instance, more participants in academic year programs selected to become a better musician as a motivation compared with participants from online or summer programs, and more participants in online degree programs selected to renew my teaching certificate or get an advanced credential as compared with those in academic year programs and summer programs. Therefore, it seems that different programs may attract master’s students with varied motivations and career plans, based on their program’s delivery format.

Graduate study serves as one of the common forms of professional development for music educators (Conway et al., 2009; Koner & Eros, 2019), and it is also when many music educators are initially exposed to research (Ball et al., 1980; Groulx & Hernly, 2010). MME students previously reported that they were exposed to research through a variety of ways in their master’s program, such as reading and discussing research articles, writing non-empirical papers (e.g., reviews of literature, position papers, historical papers), conducting empirical studies, delivering research presentations, and presenting research posters (Springer, 2020). Conway et al. (2009) also highlighted the role of culminating projects (e.g., thesis, comprehensive exam) as a way of engaging MME students with research and helping them to connect research with their pedagogy. Likewise, in another study, seven MME students (recent graduates or those who were nearing the completion of their master’s degree) engaged in an action research project while teaching (Conway et al., 2014). Those teachers reported that it was a positive experience overall and that the classroom research served as an unofficial form of professional development.

Music education faculty have previously reported that the MME seems to serve dual functions—both a teaching degree that functions to improve students’ pedagogical knowledge and skills, as well as an academic degree intended to teach students to think more broadly about larger issues through scholarly inquiry and philosophy (Springer et al., 2022). In addition, music education faculty reported that it was difficult to balance the practical, pedagogical needs of some master’s students while also providing a challenging, rigorous curriculum appropriate for those who aspire to future doctoral study in music education (Conway et al., 2020, 2021). Labaree (2003) attributed this difficulty to a “cultural clash” (p. 15) between teachers/practitioners and university faculty/researchers.

Despite the challenges involved in introducing students to research, learning about research methods is a goal of many MME programs (Ball et al., 1980; Madsen, 2003), and courses in research methods are common across programs (Groulx & Hernly, 2010; Phillips, 2008; Ross, 1997). Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005) surveyed graduate students before and after completing a music education research methods course to determine whether students’ attitudes toward research changed as a result of taking the course. Although those investigators reported that participants’ attitudes toward research generally became more positive from the beginning of the course to the end of the course, their responses suggested that completing a research course did not increase their desire to conduct future research or their ability to transfer research findings to their own teaching practice. Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005) described this phenomenon as a “cognitive division between research methods and classroom teaching” (p. 39) among master’s students. Further investigation of this cognitive division is needed to understand how music educators view the links between research and teaching.

Need for the Study

Although researchers have previously explored graduate students’ (Springer, 2020) and faculty members’ (Conway et al., 2020, 2021; Springer et al., 2022) perceptions of the MME, much remains to be known about master’s students’ attitudes toward research specifically. Researchers have suggested a need to bridge the gaps between research and pedagogy among music educators (Barry et al., 2001; Brand, 1984; Byo, 1991; Conway et al., 2014; Dorfman & Lipscomb, 2005; Madsen, 1985; Sheehy, 2016). As such, master’s students are an important population to study because many of those students also teach part-time or full-time while enrolled in graduate school. Considering that MME students in programs with varied delivery formats reported different motivations for graduate study (Springer, 2020), it could be that attitudes toward research may differ among students in academic year, online, and summer degree programs.

In addition, music educators have also suggested that master’s students who aspire to future doctoral study may differ from those who have no future plans for doctoral study (Ball et al., 1980; Phillips, 2008), but this characteristic of MME students has been debated among music educators. Phillips (2008), for example, stated that

Most students who enroll in graduate degree programs at the master’s level in music education are school music teachers. The vast majority of these people will not move on to doctoral study upon completion of master’s work. Therefore, the master’s curricula is not focused on developing scholars—the focus is on developing better music teachers who most likely will conclude their careers in teaching music at the K–12 level. (p. 4)

Others explained that music education faculty have a responsibility to provide a comprehensive and challenging curriculum for MME students that would be appropriate for those who aspire to future doctoral study (Conway et al., 2020, 2021). There seems to be a tacit assumption that these different groups of students—those who have plans for future doctoral study and those who do not—may have different attitudes toward research, but these assumptions have not been investigated empirically and remain speculative.

Furthermore, music education faculty reported that they provided different types of mentorship for different types of students in graduate programs (e.g., full-time vs. part-time, master’s vs. doctoral student; Bond et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important for faculty members to understand how students’ attitudes toward research may differ as a function of their program’s delivery format or whether they have plans for future doctoral study. That knowledge can help music education faculty recruit MME students more successfully and provide more targeted learning experiences for students in their programs.

The purpose of this study was to examine master’s students’ attitudes toward research in music education. The following research questions guided the study:

Research Question 1: What are current master’s students’ attitudes toward research in music education?

Research Question 2: Do students’ attitudes toward research differ as a function of their program’s delivery format (academic year, online, or summer)?

Research Question 3: Do students’ attitudes toward research differ as a function of their future graduate school plans (plans for doctoral study vs. no plans for doctoral study)?

Research Question 4: In what ways do students believe their master’s program prepares them to be better teachers and researchers?

Method

Survey Instrument

I developed a web-based survey instrument using Qualtrics to collect data for this study. The survey contained three sections. In the first section, participants provided demographic information (e.g., number of years of teaching experience) and information about their master’s degree program (e.g., program delivery format). In the second section, participants completed a 14-item scale measuring graduate students’ attitudes toward research in music education that was previously developed by Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005). Participants rated various statements about music education research in that section (e.g., “I see an important connection between research and how I teach music”) using a Likert-type scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). In the final section, participants responded to two open-ended questions: “In what ways is your master’s program preparing you to be a better teacher?” and “In what ways is your master’s program preparing you to be a better researcher?”

I established content validity by sharing a draft of the instrument with two music education faculty members who taught at institutions that offered master’s degrees in music education. Their comments and suggestions were incorporated in the final version of the survey instrument used in the study (i.e., adding a suggested demographic question and adding the free-response item focused on teaching). No changes were made to Dorfman and Lipscomb’s (2005) attitude scale. The instrument demonstrated a high level of internal consistency reliability in the current study as evidenced by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .902 (Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010).

Sampling Procedure

I received approval to conduct this research from my university’s institutional review board (IRB) before commencing with the study. To recruit participants, I used a multistage sampling approach, which is useful in situations “when there is no adequate list of the individuals in a population and no way to get at the population directly” (Fowler, 2009, p. 28). First, I randomly selected five states from each of the four Census regions of the United States: Midwest, South, Northeast, and West. Then, after selecting those 20 states, I searched the National Association of Schools of Music website (NASM, n.d.) to identify all the institutions in those states that offered master’s degrees in music education. I generated an institution list that included all those colleges and universities in each state. Finally, I created an email database listing a music education faculty member at each of those institutions. When possible, I selected the individual who was listed as the music education coordinator or director of graduate music education. If those designations were not provided on the institution’s website, I selected a full-time faculty member in music education to include in the database.

After creating the email database, I contacted all those faculty members to ask if they would be willing to forward a recruitment email to the current students in their master’s program. Faculty members who agreed to participate forwarded a recruitment email to their current MME students. The recruitment email contained a description of the study, a statement indicating that participation was voluntary, and a Qualtrics link, which directed participants to the web-based questionnaire. Those who chose to participate provided their informed consent using IRB-approved consent procedures on the first page of the questionnaire. One hundred forty-seven participants clicked the link to begin the questionnaire, but seven did not finish the questionnaire. I included all participants who contributed responses to all the items on the research attitude scale, resulting in a final sample size of 140. According to the duration data provided by Qualtrics, the average time to complete the questionnaire was 6 min 48 s.

Participants

Participants (N = 140) were current students enrolled in master’s degree programs in music education in the United States. Demographic results indicated participants’ self-reported gender (female, n = 82; male, n = 55; bigender, n = 1; queer, n = 1; no response, n = 1) and number of years of teaching experience (M = 5.93, SD = 5.27). The largest number of participants were enrolled in academic year programs (n = 56), followed by online programs (n = 49), and summer programs (n = 32). Three participants indicated that they were enrolled in a hybrid program. In response to a question about future career plans (“What are your career plans after completing your master’s program? Select all that apply.”), participants selected “teaching music in public or private schools (pre-K through grade 12)” (n = 119), “completing a doctoral degree” (n = 65), “teaching in higher education (college/university level)” (n = 62), and “completing a master’s degree in another field” (n = 8). Thirteen participants selected “other,” which they specified to include plans such as “perform professionally,” “music therapy,” “teaching overseas in international schools,” and “teach professional development and training for military musicians.”

Results

The first research question concerned current students’ attitudes toward research in music education. Participants’ ratings of the 14 attitude statements are summarized in Table 1. The highest rated items were “There is tremendous value in systematically explaining how students learn music” (M = 4.38, SD = 0.73, Mdn = 4.00) and “My exposure to research is sufficient so that I can read it and understand it” (M = 4.26, SD = 0.73, Mdn = 4.00). Lowest rated items were “I feel very connected to research in music education” (M = 3.47, SD = 1.00, Mdn = 3.50) and “I feel very motivated to take an additional class in music education research methods, whether or not it is a requirement for my program” (M = 3.45, SD = 1.24, Mdn = 4.00). Because the instrument demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (α = .902), I also calculated a composite attitude score by summing participants’ ratings of the 14 attitude items (Thorndike & Thorndike-Christ, 2010). Attitude scores could range from 14 to 70 with higher scores reflecting a more positive attitude toward research. The sample reported a generally positive attitude toward research overall (M = 55.06, SD = 8.36, Mdn = 55.50), but there was notable variability, with attitude scores ranging from 23 to 70.

Table 1.

Students’ Attitudes Toward Research: Descriptive Statistics for Each Item.

Items	M	SD	Mdn	Min.	Max.
There is tremendous value in systematically explaining how students learn music	4.38	0.73	4.00	1	5
My exposure to research is sufficient so that I can read it and understand it	4.26	0.73	4.00	1	5
I think studying research is a very valuable part of my graduate program	4.25	0.83	4.00	2	5
I see an important connection between research and how I teach music	4.13	0.86	4.00	1	5
I have a positive feeling about the material we covered in research class	4.10	0.82	4.00	1	5
My exposure to research methods will likely change the way I teach music	4.09	0.92	4.00	1	5
I am knowledgeable about the types of research that music educators conduct	3.98	0.73	4.00	2	5
I aim to base my own teaching on research that has been done in my field	3.90	0.91	4.00	1	5
I use my role as a teacher to explore answers to questions that researchers might seek	3.86	0.92	4.00	1	5
I read music education research often and understand it	3.85	0.89	4.00	2	5
Research will be a very important part of my career as a music teacher	3.74	1.05	4.00	1	5
I am aware of the results of major research studies in music education	3.62	0.84	4.00	2	5
I feel very connected to research in music education	3.47	1.00	3.50	1	5
I feel very motivated to take an additional class in music education research methods, whether or not it is a requirement for my program	3.45	1.24	4.00	1	5

Note. Participants rated each item on a scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). These items were developed by Dorfman and Lipscomb (2005, p. 35).

For the second research question, I investigated how participants’ attitudes toward research might differ as a function of their program’s delivery format (academic year, online, or summer). Given that only three participants indicated that they were enrolled in a hybrid degree program, those participants were not included in this between-subjects analysis. Also, because hybrid programs involve a combination of face-to-face and online delivery formats, it would not have allowed for meaningful comparisons among academic year, online, and summer programs. Results of a Kruskal–Wallis test indicated no significant differences in attitude scores based on delivery format, H(2) = 4.294, p = .117, η²_H = .017. Mean and median attitude scores were similar for participants in academic year (M = 56.63, SD = 8.04, Mdn = 57.00), online (M = 55.12, SD = 8.98, Mdn = 56.00), and summer (M = 53.16, SD = 7.35, Mdn = 54.00) programs. This similarity in ratings across the different formats is illustrated in the upper panel of Figure 1.

The third research question was focused on how attitudes toward research may differ based on whether participants planned to pursue doctoral-level study in the future. Sixty-five participants indicated that they planned to continue with doctoral study in the future, and 75 indicated no future plans for doctoral study. I conducted a Mann–Whitney test to compare the attitude scores of these two groups. Results indicated a statistically significant difference between groups, U = 3,204.50, p = .001, r = .27. Participants who indicated future plans for doctoral study (M = 57.39, SD = 7.55, Mdn = 58.00) provided higher attitude ratings (i.e., more positive attitudes toward research) than those who had no plans for doctoral study (M = 53.04, SD = 8.55, Mdn = 53.00). The lower panel of Figure 1 provides a visual illustration of participants’ attitude scores in each group. As an additional descriptive measure, I conducted a chi-square test to determine whether the number of participants who reported plans for future doctoral study varied across each type of delivery format. There were no significant differences in the number of participants who reported doctoral study plans between academic year, online, and summer degree programs, χ²(2) = 4.52, p = .10, Cramér’s V = .18.

For the fourth research question, I explored how participants believed their MME program prepared them to be better teachers and researchers. Participants responded to two open-ended questions (“In what ways is your master’s program preparing you to be a better teacher?” and “In what ways is your master’s program preparing you to be a better researcher?”). I analyzed participants’ responses to those questions using a content analysis approach (Elo et al., 2014) composed of three stages: (1) preparation (making sense of the data, selecting the unit of analysis), (2) organizing (open coding, creating categories), and (3) reporting (categorizing, summarizing, and presenting the results of the analysis). I also shared a randomly selected subset of responses (25%) with a doctoral student in music education, who coded the responses using the same coding system. Intercoder reliability was calculated as the number of agreements divided by total observations, and results indicated a reliability value of .91 for the first question (“better teacher”) and .86 for the second question (“better researcher”). Results of the content analysis are summarized in Table 2 in the online supplement, and coding categories are referenced in italics in the paragraphs that follow.

In response to the first open-ended question, participants described ways that their MME program helped them develop as a teacher. The largest number of participants described specific ways in which their teaching had improved (changes to pedagogical practice, n = 53), such as “My master’s program is preparing me to be a better teacher by helping me to craft better structured lesson plans and assessments.” A similar number of participants indicated that their MME program helped them think more broadly and critically about issues in music education (broadening perspectives, n = 48). One participant, for example, indicated that “The program deals with a plethora of issues and views in the education realm, and it gets me thinking in other ways that I haven’t thought of before.” Others mentioned the influence of particular classes and content areas in improving their work as teachers (courses and content areas, n = 30), the use of research to improve teaching (research, n = 29), authentic teaching experiences in the program (hands-on teaching experiences, n = 22), the opportunity to network and share ideas with other music educators (professional networking, n = 13), and specific curricular activities that helped them improve as a teacher (assignments, projects, and learning activities, n = 11). Eight responses did not align with the previous categories and were coded as other. Table 3 (online supplement) includes sample quotes from participants for each of the coding categories.

In the second open-ended question, participants described how their MME program prepared them to be a better researcher. The largest number of participants described the influence of specific courses and content areas that introduced them to research or helped them refine their research skills (courses and content areas, n = 53), such as “Taking Experimental Research has greatly helped to introduce music research.” Other participants made general statements about how their understanding of research improved during the program (general understanding of research, n = 48), including one participant who stated, “Because of my master’s program, I’m better prepared to read research articles and understand them.” Others mentioned specific learning activities that improved their knowledge of research (assignments, projects, and learning activities, n = 28), such as reading research articles, conducting an action research project, or writing a thesis. Less-frequent responses included hands-on experiences with research (hands-on research experience, n = 17), improvements in written and spoken communication skills (written and spoken communication skills, n = 15), the influence of specific professors (professors, n = 13), a growing attitude toward research in music education (attitude toward research, n = 7), their program’s reputation or philosophy as a research-focused degree program (program philosophy or reputation, n = 4), the ability to work with doctoral students (interaction with doctoral students, n = 3), and other (n = 2). Sample responses from participants to this question are provided in Table 4 in the online supplement.

Discussion

Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine master’s students’ attitudes toward research in music education. Results indicated that participants’ attitudes toward research were generally positive, although there was a notable amount of variability. The highest rated items (“There is tremendous value in systematically explaining how students learn music,” “My exposure to research is sufficient so that I can read it and understand it,” and “I think studying research is a very valuable part of my graduate program”) suggest that participants valued research and felt comfortable reading and interpreting research. However, similar to Dorfman and Lipscomb’s (2005) study, participants in the current study rated “I feel very motivated to take an additional class in music education research methods, whether or not it is a requirement for my program” lowest among the 14 items. Therefore, it may be that many of these students have a positive attitude toward research generally but do not seek opportunities for additional research training.

In a previous investigation, master’s students’ motivations for pursuing an MME degree varied according to their program’s delivery format (Springer, 2020), suggesting that participants in different types of degree programs may have different goals and interests in general. Anecdotally, I have also observed that some faculty describe students’ interests in research differently based on whether they are enrolled in academic year, online, or summer degree programs. However, results of this study indicated no significant differences in research attitudes among participants in different delivery formats. As shown in Figure 1 (upper panel), attitude scores were comparable across academic year, online, and summer degree formats. What is perhaps most apparent in that figure is the large amount of within-group variability in all degree formats. This finding suggests that comparisons of different “types” of master’s students based on their program’s delivery format may not be warranted. In addition, a similar number of participants in each type of degree format reported an interest in future doctoral study, which again illustrates the similarities of students across academic year, online, and summer programs.

Participants who indicated plans for future doctoral study reported significantly more favorable attitudes toward research than those with no plans for doctoral study. However, the differences between these two groups of students were relatively modest, and there was a large amount of variability in both groups, with students in both groups who reported positive attitudes and negative attitudes toward research (see lower panel of Figure 1). Because music educators have previously suggested that research functions differently for students in MME programs who have plans for doctoral study and those who do not have such plans (Ball et al., 1980; Phillips, 2008), this finding helps to clarify those assumptions empirically from the perceptions of current MME students.

Participants’ answers to the two free-response questions (“In what ways is your master’s program preparing you to be a better [teacher/researcher]?”) helped to provide more context to understand participants’ attitude ratings and how research functioned in their own teaching. In response to the “better teacher” question, participants commonly referenced changes to their pedagogical knowledge and teaching practices that occurred due to their graduate study. For example, one participant mentioned, “As an elementary music teacher, the program helps me sequence the information to prepare students for the next grade in music class,” and another explained that “My program has allowed me to become more comfortable teaching wind instruments, since almost all my teaching experience involves teaching drums and percussion.”

Also common were statements that participation in their graduate music education program helped them to think more broadly about music learning in general. One participant summarized,

I was constantly asked to question my techniques and techniques of others, and encouraged to engage in “cognitive dissonance” to get to the heart of music education. I was taught to think on a variety of levels and reflected on my own practice.

Another stated that

I am actually learning more about myself and what I am capable of, as well as continuously changing and developing my philosophy to complement what I am actually doing, as well as finding ways to adapt to the philosophy I already had.

A relatively small number of participants (n = 29, 13.55%) described research as a means to improve their work as teachers. This result was surprising because participants answered these two free-response questions after completing a research attitude questionnaire, which included questions that explicitly addressed the links between research and teaching (e.g., “I see an important connection between research and how I teach music”). In this way, completing the research attitude questionnaire may have primed them to think about research as a more salient aspect of their teaching, yet it was mentioned by a relatively small number of participants in response to this open-ended question. This finding may be further evidence of the research-pedagogy gap described by previous researchers (Byo, 1991; Dorfman & Lipscomb, 2005).

In response to the “better researcher” question, participants mentioned various courses and content areas that influenced their development of research knowledge and skills. For instance, one participant stated that “The one class I took on music research was PHENOMENAL. I wish all students could take this class.” Other common responses were that they gained a general understanding of research throughout their master’s degree (e.g., “Since I knew nothing about research before, I have learned a ton of information about research. And I also know now that research is for everyone to partake in, not just a select few that might be really good at it”). A small number of participants (n = 7, 3.68%) described a growing interest in and attitude toward research in their responses (e.g., “I learned different types of research from the beginning of the degree, and I never thought I would become passionate about researching”). Considered alongside the quantitative data from the research attitude scale, responses to these open-ended questions illustrate how a sample of master’s students in music education view research and use it in their teaching.

Implications

These results offer implications both for music educators and music education faculty who teach in MME programs. Music educators who aim to improve their teaching should consider enrolling in an MME program. Based on participants’ free responses, the music educators who participated in this study reported to have experienced numerous benefits as a result of their MME program, such as improving their pedagogical skills, gaining a broader perspective on music education, and learning about music education research. In addition, based on the results of this study, students in different types of delivery formats (academic year, online, and summer) reported a wide variety of research attitudes. Music educators who are considering MME degrees may recognize that when making the decision to begin an MME degree, regardless of their own perspectives on research, they are likely to find colleagues with similar attitudes in all types of degree programs. Furthermore, to gain more hands-on experience with research, music educators should consider action research as a vehicle for exploring their own teaching. The term action research refers to “studies of music teaching and learning that are designed and implemented by K-12 music teachers,” which allow them to answer questions that are unique to their own teaching situations (Conway & Borst, 2001, p. 4). Although action research is commonly offered as a culminating project option in some MME programs (Conway et al., 2014; Springer, 2020; Springer et al., 2022), teachers need not be enrolled in an MME program to engage in action research given its flexible and context-specific nature. Resources on action research are available for teachers (e.g., Conway & Borst, 2001; Laprise, 2017; Mills, 2017); interested teachers may read one or more of those resources as they consider how they could implement action research in their teaching. Finally, music educators who are interested in becoming more familiar with research should read from music research journals periodically. As a simple way of remaining up-to-date on current research, teachers may consider signing up for free email alerts from music education journals, such as Update: Applications of Research in Music Education.

I also propose certain implications for music education faculty who teach in graduate programs. Findings from this study indicated no significant differences in research attitudes from students enrolled in academic year, online, and summer programs. First, music education faculty should consider that even though students in different types of programs often have unique scheduling needs (Bond et al., 2023; Conway et al., 2021), those scheduling needs may not be indicative of different attitudes toward research. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that faculty members may view some students as “more interested” or “more serious” about research than others based on their program’s delivery format, and the results of this study do not corroborate this belief. Second, MME students who reported future plans for doctoral study reported significantly more positive attitudes toward research than those who did not report plans for doctoral study. However, those differences were relatively small. There seems to be ongoing discussion among music teacher educators about the global purpose of the MME degree—specifically, whether it is a terminal degree for teachers or a pathway to a future doctorate (Conway et al., 2020, 2021; Phillips, 2008; Springer et al., 2022). Results of this study suggest that it can function as both, with just under half of the music educators in this study reporting future doctoral study plans. Music education faculty who teach in graduate programs should consider offering a variety of project and assignment options for students to engage with research, which may differentially interest those who desire to remain in P-12 teaching positions and those who have aspirations for doctoral study.

When reflecting on the results of this study, the large spread in attitude scores across all groups is noteworthy. What types of knowledge and experiences cause music educators to have either positive attitudes or negative attitudes toward research? Labaree (2003) posited that different types of work associated with university faculty and P-12 teachers may contribute to a perceived disconnect between research and the “real life” of teachers and their pedagogy. Stated otherwise, research often forms a central part of the job duties of many university faculty—one that is reflected in their evaluations, incentives for promotion, salary, work assignments, and professional socialization. Teachers at the elementary and secondary level usually do not experience the same expectations and incentives for research. Consequently, some teachers may question the value of research and its impact on teaching and learning. These negative attitudes toward research are emblematic of a “cultural gap” (Labaree, 2003, p. 21) between teachers and researchers. To narrow this cultural gap, music education faculty who teach MME students should encourage students to make frequent transfers from the information they are learning in classes and the “real world” of music teaching and learning outside of their courses. In addition, school–university partnerships between P-12 teachers and university researchers would be helpful in reducing the gap. Teaching research methods and providing research experiences to undergraduate students—a practice also recommended by NAfME Senior Researcher Award recipients (e.g., Madsen, 1988; Sims, 2016)—may also help to address this gap. In addition, encouraging music educators to promote action research as professional development (Conway et al., 2014; Koner & Eros, 2019) may encourage more teachers to use research to improve their pedagogy.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are certain limitations of this study that should be considered. To be sure, participants who responded to this survey invitation may have had different attitudes toward research—likely more favorable ones—compared with those who chose not to participate in the study. Therefore, these findings may have been influenced by non-response bias. In addition, similar to other studies in which web-based questionnaires were forwarded to prospective participants through cooperating faculty members (Silvey, 2011; Sims & Cassidy, 2019), it was not possible to calculate a response rate in this study. The strength of the sampling approach was that it allowed me to recruit MME students from different types of degree programs from all regions of the United States, but the disadvantage is that it made it impossible to determine the response rate. Readers should therefore consider the results with this limitation in mind. Finally, because these data were collected at a single point of time, the participants in this study were at various degree stages in their MME program. Some were at the beginning stages of their program, and others were near the end of their program. A future longitudinal study would be beneficial to track MME students’ attitudes toward research through various stages of their degree program.

Research focused specifically on master’s students seems to be somewhat limited but emerging in the music education literature. This study contributes to the existing research by providing empirical data describing master’s students’ attitudes toward research in music education and how those students perceive the links between research and teaching. Music educators and music education faculty can use these data to better understand how research functions among various types of MME students in the United States. As with any study, more questions remain to be answered. In future studies, researchers may conduct a focus group or case study of inservice music educators who are enrolled in an MME program to explore what aspects of their graduate study they incorporate into their teaching and what gaps remain to be addressed. Given previous calls to introduce undergraduate students to research in music education (Madsen, 1988; Sims, 2016), it would also be beneficial to explore the research attitudes of undergraduate students. A comparative study of undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral-level music educators would also provide helpful data highlighting how attitudes toward research may change across these different academic stages. Continued investigation in these areas is needed to better understand how music educators engage with research.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233231184835 – Supplemental material for The Role of Research in Music Education Master’s Programs: Examining Students’ Attitudes

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233231184835 for The Role of Research in Music Education Master’s Programs: Examining Students’ Attitudes by D. Gregory Springer in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

D. Gregory Springer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Albert

D. J.

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

Ball

Ross

Mamlin

H. R.

Martin

Brookhart

D. E.

Cox

B. Y.

(1980). Report of the MENC commission on graduate music teacher education. Music Educators Journal, 67(2), 46–53, 66–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400579

Barry

N. H.

Taylor

J. A.

Hair

H. I.

(2001). A national survey of state music education board members: Their interests in and attitudes toward music education research. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512330102000105

Bond

V. L.

Vasil

Derges

J. D.

Nichols

B. E.

(2023). Mentoring graduate students in music education: A mixed-methods phenomenological study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 70(4), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294221081000

Brand

(1984). Music teachers versus researchers: A truce. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 80, 1–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40317867

Byo

J. L.

(1991). Research and the band director: Marriage not divorce. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 10(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512339101000102

Cassuto

(2015). The graduate school mess: What caused it and how we can fix it. Harvard University Press.

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

Conway

C. M.

Borst

(2001). Action research in music education. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233010190020102

10.

Conway

C. M.

Edgar

Hansen

Palmer

C. M.

(2014). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 music teachers. Music Education Research, 16(4), 404–417. http://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.848850

11.

Conway

C. M.

Eros

Stanley

A. M.

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

12.

Conway

C. M.

Eros

Stanley

A. M.

(2009). Perceived effects of the Master of Music in Music Education on P–12 teaching practice. Research Studies in Music Education, 31(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X09344381

13.

Conway

C. M.

Marra

J. V.

(2020). Perceptions of program directors concerning design and implementation of the Master of Music degree in music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(3), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720926740

14.

Conway

C. M.

Vaughan-Marra

Marra

(2021). Balancing the varied needs of master of music education students: Perceptions from program directors and alumni. Journal of Research in Music Education, 69(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420951953

15.

Dorfman

Lipscomb

S. D

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

16.

Elo

Kääriäinen

Kanste

Pölkki

Utriainen

Kyngäs

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244014522633. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633

17.

Fowler

F. J.

(2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Sage.

18.

Fullbright

W. D.

(1960). The history and development of the master’s degree in music in the United States (Publication No. 6003448) [Doctoral dissertation, Boston University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

19.

Fung

C. V.

(2004). Perception of the need for introducing flexible learning in graduate studies in music education: A case study. College Music Symposium, 44, 107–120. https://symposium.music.org/

20.

Gehrkens

K. W.

(1940). Graduate study in music education. Music Educators Journal, 26(5), 19–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3385587

21.

Groulx

T. J.

Hernly

(2010). Online master’s degrees in music education: The growing pains of a tool to reach a larger community. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361765

22.

Hash

P. M.

(2020). A historical overview of music teacher education in the United States. In Conway

Pellegrino

Stanley

A. M.

West

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of preservice music teacher education in the United States (pp. 45–66). Oxford University Press.

23.

Koner

Eros

(2019). Professional development for the experienced music educator: A review of recent literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318812426

24.

Labaree

D. F.

(2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004013

25.

Laprise

(2017). Empowering the music educator through action research. Music Educators Journal, 104(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117708012

26.

LeBlanc

(1991). Planning your summer graduate work. Music Educators Journal, 77(7), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/3398168

27.

Madsen

C. K.

(1985). Making research apply to your classroom. Music Educators Journal, 71(8), 18–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3396491

28.

Madsen

C. K.

(1988). Senior researcher award acceptance address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(3), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344635

29.

Madsen

C. K.

(2003). Instruction and supervision of graduate students in music education. Research Studies in Music Education, 21(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X030210010601

30.

Mills

G. E.

(2017). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.

31.

National Association of Schools of Music. (n.d.). National Association of Schools of Music accredited institutions. https://nasm.arts-accredit.org/directory-lists/accredited-institutions/

32.

Phillips

K. H.

(2008). Graduate music education. Research and Issues in Music Education, 6(1), 1–6. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/rime/vol6/iss1/2/

33.

Ross

R. D.

(1997). The status of graduate music studies in the United States. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 134, 43–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40318879

34.

Sheehy

M. P.

(2016). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between K–12 music educators and collegiate music education researchers and instructors: Is there a disconnect? (Publication No. 10101048) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

35.

Silvey

B. A.

(2011). Undergraduate music majors’ perceptions of instrumental conducting curricula. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710387521

36.

Sims

W. L.

(2016). 2016 Senior Researcher Award acceptance address: Developing productive researchers through mentoring, rethinking doctoral dissertations, and facilitating positive publishing experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(3), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416667507

37.

Sims

W. L.

Cassidy

J. W.

(2019). Impostor phenomenon responses of early career music education faculty. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418812464

38.

Springer

D. G.

(2020). Students’ perspectives on the master’s degree in music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 30(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720951447

39.

Springer

D. G.

Adams

Nápoles

(2022). Faculty perspectives on the master’s degree in music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 31(2), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837211067758

40.

Springer

D. G.

Royston

N. S.

Allen

A. D.

(2023). Admissions and selection criteria for master’s students in music education degree programs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 32(2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837221120761

41.

Thorndike

R. M.

Thorndike-Christ

(2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Pearson.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB