THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN I. … relationship between john i. goodlad’s twenty postulates and...
Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN I. … relationship between john i. goodlad’s twenty postulates and...
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN I. GOODLAD’S TWENTY POSTULATES
AND EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCES IN MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION
by
LAUREN SHUTT RINGWALL
(Under the Direction of Mary A. Leglar)
ABSTRACT
John Goodlad has been a respected voice in the area of school and curriculum
reform since the late 1960s. In the early 1990s he expanded his work to include teacher
preparation, calling for a “simultaneous renewal” of both schools and teacher education.
In 1991 he proposed a set of 19 suggestions to strengthen teacher education programs and
thereby improve K-12 education (1994). Since 2000, when a 20th was added to the list,
these precepts have been known as the “Twenty Postulates.” They set forth specific
criteria for programs leading to the certification of teachers in a format that would engage
the school site in simultaneous renewal of its own mission while providing a training site
for future educators. Among other benefits, the Postulates offer a design model for the
administration of field experience collaborations between universities and public schools.
The purpose of this study is (a) to examine Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates in relation to
current school-university collaborations in teacher education; and (b) to determine to
what extent Goodlad’s model is currently being used in music teacher education
programs in colleges and universities in the United States.
INDEX WORDS: music teacher education, John I. Goodlad, field experiences,
Twenty Postulates, school-university collaborations
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN I. GOODLAD’S TWENTY POSTULATES
AND EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCES IN MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION
by
LAUREN SHUTT RINGWALL
Bachelor of Music, Georgia Southern University, 1991
Master of Music, Georgia Southern University, 2000
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2006
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN I. GOODLAD’S TWENTY POSTULATES
AND EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCES IN MUSIC TEACHER EDUCATION
by
LAUREN SHUTT RINGWALL
Major Professor: Mary A. Leglar
Committee: Allen Crowell
Adrian Childs
David Haas
Donald Lowe
Electronic Version Approved:
Maureen Grasso
Dean of the Graduate School
The University of Georgia
August, 2006
iv
DEDICATION
This document is dedicated to H. Jack Mullis, who started me on this path, and to Mark
Ringwall, who traveled it with me.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks are extended to the members of my doctoral committee for their support,
encouragement and wisdom throughout my studies.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................v
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................3
Need for the Study.....................................................................................................4
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................5
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................5
Document Organization ............................................................................................6
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................8
Definition and Implications of Goodlad’s Postulates................................................8
Goodlad’s Early Work...............................................................................................9
A Collaborative Model ............................................................................................11
Research Related to Goodlad’s Model ....................................................................17
The Early Field Experience.....................................................................................26
The Nature of Early Field Experiences ...................................................................27
Theoretical Proposals ..............................................................................................28
Practical Applications..............................................................................................43
3 PROCEDURES............................................................................................................53
Summary of Procedures ..........................................................................................53
Subjects ...................................................................................................................54
vii
Survey Design and Distribution ..............................................................................55
Treatment of Data....................................................................................................57
4 ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................................................................58
Survey Response Rate .............................................................................................58
Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................61
5 FINDINGS...................................................................................................................97
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................103
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................108
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................128
A PILOT STUDY..........................................................................................................128
B COVER LETTER FOR STUDY...............................................................................130
C SURVEY....................................................................................................................141
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
John Goodlad has been a respected voice in the area of school and curriculum
reform since the late 1960s. In the early 1990s he expanded his work to include teacher
preparation, calling for a “simultaneous renewal” of both schools and teacher education.
In 1991 he proposed a set of 19 suggestions to strengthen teacher education programs and
thereby improve K-12 education (1994). Since 2000, when Postulate 20 was added to the
list, these precepts have been known as the “Twenty Postulates.” They set forth specific
criteria for programs leading to the certification of teachers in a format that would engage
the school site in simultaneous renewal of its own mission while providing a training site
for future educators. Among other benefits, the postulates offer a design model for the
administration of field experience collaborations between universities and public schools.
Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates, which have been adapted to many school sites and
training programs, are as follows:
1. Programs for the education of the nation’s educators must be viewed by
institutions offering them as a major responsibility to society and be adequately
supported and promoted and vigorously advanced by the institution's top
leadership.
2. Programs for the education of educators must enjoy parity with other
professional education programs, full legitimacy and institutional commitment,
and rewards for faculty geared to the nature of the field.
3. Programs for the education of educators must be autonomous and
secure in their borders, with clear organizational identity, constancy of budget and
personnel, and decision-making authority similar to that enjoyed by the major
professional schools.
4. There must exist a clearly identifiable group of academic and clinical
faculty members for whom teacher education is the top priority; the group must
be responsible and accountable for selecting diverse groups of students and
2
monitoring their progress, planning and maintaining the full scope and sequence
of the curriculum, continuously evaluating and improving programs, and
facilitating the entry of graduates into teaching careers.
5. The responsible group of academic and clinical faculty members
described above must have a comprehensive understanding of the aims of
education and the role of schools in our society and be fully committed to
selecting and preparing teachers to assume the full range of educational
responsibilities required.
6. The responsible group of academic and clinical faculty members must
seek out and select for a predetermined number of student places in the program
those candidates who reveal an initial commitment to the moral, ethical, and
enculturating responsibilities to be assumed, and make clear to them that
preparing for these responsibilities is central to this program.
7. Programs for the education of educators, whether elementary or
secondary, must carry the responsibility to ensure that all candidates progressing
through them possess or acquire the literacy and critical-thinking abilities
associated with the concept of an educated person.
8. Programs for the education of educators must provide extensive
opportunities for future teachers to move beyond being students of organized
knowledge to become teachers who inquire into both knowledge and its teaching.
9. Programs for the education of educators must be characterized by a
socialization process through which candidates transcend their self-oriented
student preoccupations to become more other-oriented in identifying with a
culture of teaching.
10. Programs for the education of educators must be characterized in all
respects by the conditions for learning that future teachers are to establish in their
own schools and classrooms.
11. Programs for the education of educators must be conducted in such a
way that teachers inquire into the nature of teaching and schooling and assume
that they will do so as a natural aspect of their careers.
12. Programs for the education of educators must involve future teachers
in the issues and dilemmas that emerge out of the never-ending tension between
the rights and interests of individual parents and interest groups and the role of
schools in transcending parochialism and advancing community in a democratic
society.
13. Programs for the education of educators must be infused with
understanding of and commitment to the moral obligation of teachers to ensure
equitable access to and engagement in the best possible K-12 education for all
children and youths.
14. Programs for the education of educators must involve future teachers
not only in understanding schools as they are but in alternatives, the assumptions
underlying alternatives, and how to effect needed changes in school organization,
pupil grouping, curriculum, and more.
15. Programs for the education of educators must assure for each
candidate the availability of a wide array of laboratory settings for simulation,
observation, hands-on experiences, and exemplary schools for internships and
3
residencies; they must admit no more students to their programs than can be
assured these quality experiences.
16. Programs for the education of educators must engage future teachers in
the problems and dilemmas arising out of the inevitable conflicts and
incongruities between what is perceived to work in practice and the research and
theory supporting other options.
17. Programs for the education of educators must establish linkages with
graduates for purposes of both evaluating and revising these programs and easing
the critical early years of transition into teaching.
18. Programs for the education of educators require a regulatory context
with respect to licensing, certifying, and accrediting that ensures at all times the
presence of the necessary conditions embraced by the seventeen preceding
postulates.
19. Programs for the education of educators must compete in an arena that
rewards efforts to continuously improve on the conditions embedded in all of the
postulates and tolerates no shortcuts intended to ensure a supply of teachers.
20. Those institutions and organizations that prepare the nation's teachers,
authorize their right to teach, and employ them must fine-tune their individual and
collaborative roles to support and sustain lifelong teaching careers characterized
by professional growth, service, and satisfaction. (Source: The National Center
for Educational Renewal)
Purpose of the Study
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates in
relation to current school-university collaborations in teacher education; and (b) to
determine to what extent Goodlad’s model is currently being used in music teacher
education programs in colleges and universities in the United States.
Research questions were as follows:
1. Is the music teacher education program viewed by colleges and universities as a
major responsibility to society? [Postulates 1, 2]
2. Do music teacher educators perceive their programs to be adequately supported
and promoted by the institution’s top leadership? [Postulates 1, 2]
4
3. To what extent do university faculty and school site supervising teachers
engage in collaborative planning for pre-student teaching field experiences in music?
[Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10]
4. What formats are used for collaborative planning between school site teachers
and university faculty? [Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16]
5. Prior to initial early field experiences, do music teacher educators address non-
teaching issues (conflicts between current practice and other options, teacher role
socialization, and school/interest group tension)? [Postulates 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16]
6. Are early field experiences more commonly offered as a component of
coursework or as a separate course? [Postulates 10, 15]
7. What criteria are most often used in selecting school sites for early field
experiences? [Postulates 10, 15]
8. Do pre-service teachers utilize research in preparation for work in the
classroom? [Postulates 11, 14, 16]
9. Do music education faculty maintain contact with recent graduates for the
purpose of easing their transition into teaching and for program evaluation and reform?
[Postulates 17, 18, 19, 20]
Need for the Study
An examination of the literature yields numerous publications on the topic of
school reform in response to recent government mandates and on the need for reform in
teacher education programs. Goodlad, for example, has been actively involved in
research on school and teacher education reform since 1970 and has recently emphasized
the importance of “simultaneous reform” (Goodlad, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1994,
5
1993, 1992, 1990, 1988, 1986, 1983, 1970; Goodlad, Soder and Sirotnik, 1990). Though
teacher education reform and school-university collaborations have been treated by some
authors, none have directly assessed the extent to which college and university music
education programs are responding to Goodlad’s specific suggestions for simultaneous
renewal in teacher education and P-12 education. In particular, none have assessed
impact of Goodlad’s work on collaboration between university and school site faculty in
providing early field experiences in music education.
Limitations of the Study
Data describing current practices in early field experience collaborations between
universities and public schools was gathered from colleges and universities in the United
States. Data collection will be limited to institutions accredited by both the National
Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and the National Council for the Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE) that offer a Bachelor of Music Education degree or the
equivalent at the undergraduate level. The study was further limited to the flagship public
institution in each state and the next largest institution that meets the stated criteria (N =
100).
Definition of Terms
The terms in this study will be defined as follows:
Apprenticeship approach: A model based on work in the classroom supervised by a
master teacher.
Clinical faculty/cooperating teacher/mentor: A public school teacher who supervises
early field experiences in his or her classroom.
6
Early field experience: An observation and/or teaching opportunity in the public schools
that occur prior to the student teaching term.
Partner school: A public school site which works in collaboration with the university to
plan and evaluate early field experiences.
Pre-service teacher: An undergraduate student enrolled in a degree program leading to
certification in P-12 education.
Twenty Postulates: The set of 20 precepts set forth by Goodlad for simultaneous renewal
of teacher education and public school programs.
School site: The public school setting where pre-service teachers engage in early field
experiences.
School-university partnership: A formal program involving university faculty and public
school teachers in the planning and administration of early field experiences.
Document Organization
The document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Review of Literature
Chapter 3. Procedures
Chapter 4. Analysis of the Data
Chapter 5. Findings
Chapter 6. Discussion and Conclusions
7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Since the National Committee on Excellence in Education published the
groundbreaking work A Nation at Risk in 1983, teacher education has been drawn into
sharp focus as the means to reform education and to effect the types of change that will
benefit students well into the 21st century. In 1986 the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching
as a Profession followed A Nation at Risk with a report geared toward the preparation of
teachers, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-First Century, which responded to
the alarms raised by the 1983 document with a sense of urgency that 21st century
teachers needed to be trained to meet the needs of a changing student population.
John Goodlad, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles
and the University of Washington, and one of the most influential voices in teacher
education reform, wrote in 1991:
There is a natural connection between good teachers and good
schools [which] has largely been ignored…Excellent teachers do not in
themselves ensure excellent schools.
But it is folly to assume that schools can be exemplary when their
stewards are ill prepared…With the whole of teacher training enterprise
conducted in conditions of near impoverishment (with respect to resources
of money and faculty time), it is little wonder that teacher education is
Second Hand Rose and that teaching is a not-quite profession. (pp. 2, 3,
268)
8
Development and Implications of Goodlad’s Postulates
Goodlad formulated his Twenty Postulates based on the results of a study
conducted in the late 1980s which examined the teacher preparation programs of 29
public and private colleges and universities in eight states (Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik,
1990). This study followed Goodlad’s 1984 study of schools, and the combination of the
results of these two projects was the impetus for Goodlad’s theory of the simultaneous
renewal of education and teacher training programs. In 1985 Goodlad formulated 19
postulates for teacher education reform that served as the basis for the creation of the
Center for Educational Renewal at the University of Washington. (He added a 20th
postulate in 2000.) The Center grew from two projects conducted by Goodlad and
Sirotnik in the 1970s and early 1980s, A Study of Educational Change and School
Improvement and A Study of Schooling. After the establishment of the Center, Goodlad
and colleagues began an in-depth Study of the Education of Educators (SEE) in the
United States. The Center then established the National Network for Educational
Renewal (NNER), to which public schools could apply to become members. As the
underlying philosophy for the NNER, member schools must demonstrate a commitment
to “site-based management and school renewal” (Goodlad 1994, p. 89), including reform
of their curriculum and a documented desire to train teachers. In 2001 the NNER
consisted of 33 colleges and universities, 100 school districts, and nearly 500 partner
schools (Parkay & Stanford, 2001, p. 486).
The 1990 study by Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotkik found disjuncture in the
administration of teacher training programs, especially in respect to field experiences.
Teacher training students were taught by several different segments of the faculty, often
9
with little to no contact between faculty members in terms of course content, peer- and
field-teaching activities, and contextual teaching experiences. College and university
faculty members were not compensated adequately for field supervision, either by credit
hours rewarded for supervision or in monetary remuneration. The most carefully planned
programs were found in smaller, liberal arts colleges, where the students felt a strong
sense of identity with one another and with their faculty supervisors, and where faculty
were encouraged to place their efforts in the classroom rather than in research and
publication, and were thus allocated the resources and time to devote their attention to the
supervision of pre-service teachers (Colwell & Wing, 2004).
Goodlad’s Early Work
Throughout his career Goodlad has asserted that school reform and teacher
education reform are “dependent, interrelated, and interacting components of one social
system, albeit a malfunctioning one” (1970). His main concern was a duple problem
regarding the preparation of teacher education students: the schools of education were not
preparing future teachers for the dynamic classroom of the present day, and the classroom
setting was not responding to the changing needs of its constituents, the students.
Goodlad examined the course content in teacher education programs and declared that
courses must be “about something,” directly relating to the process of teaching and
learning, rather than simply transmitting information, as was the educational model of the
past. The need for extensive hands-on experience was articulated throughout Goodlad’s
work, and continues to be the focus of his precepts. “In effect, then,” Goodlad wrote,
the teacher education program must be academic and clinical in character. The
future teacher must teach individuals in groups; he must manage a class; he must
10
become a participating member of a faculty group, seeking to change a segment
of school practice; and he must, simultaneously, inquire into all of these as he
experiences them. The courses about education, in turn, must place all of this in
perspective without losing either figure or ground (Goodlad, 1970).
A major influence on Goodlad’s work was James Bryant Conant’s 1963 work The
Education of American Teachers. Conant urged colleges of education and liberal arts
faculties to work together in the interest of training future educators, rather than spending
their time “wringing their hands” about the current status of teacher education. Conant
became a mediating force between the competing political entities of education, seeking
to unite them and forge compromises whereby all could be best served. The Education of
American Teachers was a widely read and highly controversial work, with some critics
labeling it a drastic departure from the status quo in teacher education, and others
viewing its recommendations as redundant. Some critics felt that in the 27
recommendations Conant set forth, he ignored the basic structure of the school
curriculum as an important aspect of the training of future teachers, and that he focused
instead on too many political and legislative aspects of the teacher education program.
Goodlad often referred to Conant’s work in the development of the Twenty Postulates,
and expanded on Conant’s call for the participating entities to work together for mutual
benefit.
Goodlad referenced Conant’s study, summarizing the comments of new teachers
regarding their training in colleges of education:
But this is not how teacher education courses have been constructed and taught.
One result is the substantial disillusionment of the student who comes into them.
He expects to get his hands dirty and his feet wet in real classrooms with real
children or youth. At least this is what literally thousands of young men and
women told us when we interviewed them through James B. Conant’s study of the
education of American teachers. Instead, they find themselves to be largely
passive recipients of learning fare not too unlike that in psychology, philosophy,
11
history or whatever. Consequently, they condemn their education courses, not so
much for their intellectual impoverishment as for their failure to bring them into
the nitty gritty of teaching itself (Goodlad, 1970, p. 245).
Goodlad also found a concurrent and often conflicting set of values with which
the pre-service teacher is often faced, from the theoreticians of the history, philosophy,
and psychology of education to the hands-on classroom teacher, with the methods and
practicum professors falling somewhere in the middle. The student moves through
various value systems, culminating in the apprenticeship of student teaching, where the
overarching philosophy tends to re-create the current system, rather than focusing on
inquiry as a mode for change and renewal.
A Collaborative Model
Goodlad identified three separate faculty groups, all of whom are influential in the
education of the future teacher: The liberal arts and sciences faculty, the
education/methods faculty, and the public school faculty, the third of which wields the
most influence on the development of the novice teacher, yet commonly has the least
amount of input into the teacher education curriculum. The creation of what Goodlad
labeled the “center of pedagogy“ would bring these three groups together in a shared
partnership, where each group held an equal say in the planning and assessment of pre-
service teacher education activities (Farrace, 2002).
The dual mission of the university faculty—research and teaching—was
identified by Goodlad as impeding the professional development of pre-service teachers.
Pressures on university faculty to produce plentiful research, he feared, were taking away
valid time and resources that could be devoted to the development of future teachers.
12
Goodlad called for the clinical experience to move to a more individualized form of
instruction, with the one-on-one relationship between the pre-service teacher and the
clinical faculty member being paramount to the program’s success in training teachers.
Goodlad called for “an interrelated series of proposals” to address both core
issues: the renewal of schooling itself, and a concurrent revision of teacher education as a
whole. Beginning with the baccalaureate program, Goodlad proposed a curriculum in
which every course taken by the pre-service teacher in the university setting should be
geared toward the eventual entry into the teaching field.
According to Goodlad, even core courses, such as math, should be centered for
the education major around the goal of preparing him or her to teach. From the beginning
he emphasized the importance of clinical experiences in teacher preparation. Admission
to the teaching program would be immediately followed by membership in a
“collaborating school” that functions in conjunction with the college or university
campus. These early experiences would include the pre-service teacher’s duties as a
teacher aide, acclimating the student to the classroom environment and serving as a
limited to hands-on experience in the school. As the student moved through the teacher
education program, duties and responsibilities would increase from teacher aide to intern
to ultimately “resident teacher” status, much like the medical resident status used by
Conant as a model for the clinical internship (Goodlad, 1970).
The clinical faculty would consist of practitioners in the schools who have been
identified as having superior teaching skills. These teachers would be called upon to
explore and share with pre-service teachers their motivations and processes for delivering
effective instruction in the classroom. This inclusion of the classroom teacher would
13
bridge an existing gap in many teacher education programs, wherein many of the
education professors are many years removed from the day-to-day workings of the
classroom and are unable to identify current trends and practices in school development.
This is not to say that the classroom faculty member would replace the education
professor in providing instruction in the teacher education program. The clinical faculty
based in the school site would work in concert with the college or university education
faculty to present seminars on topics of interest to beginning teachers. This collaborative
approach to teaching would yield results both in the nature of educational inquiry and in
the needs of the developing teacher.
A rethinking of the sequence of education courses was another aspect of
Goodlad’s recommendations. Goodlad asserted that “it is unrealistic to believe that any
sequence of courses, however carefully prepared, will suffice for all students” (Goodlad,
1970, p.248). Rather than designing the teacher preparation curriculum as a straight line
approach, with a specific sequence undertaken by all students, Goodlad proposed that an
interchangeable set of modules in various media be used to identify certain needs of
certain pre-service teachers. The modules would be selected by the faculty as needs are
assessed through a feedback system administered by the clinical and university faculty in
response to guided teaching experiences in the collaborating school.
Inquiry as a component of Goodlad’s model extends not only to the evaluation of
pre-service teachers’ experiences, but to the experiences of all participants in the
collaborating school. Regular critiques of teaching by all members of the teaching team
would be conducted, with examples being reviewed from aides, interns, resident teachers
and clinical faculty. This would add a particular dimension to the inquiry process, as pre-
14
service teachers would not only be the recipients of critical analysis of their own
teaching, but would also actively participate in discussion and analysis of model teaching
experiences with clinical faculty and peers on their teaching team.
By establishing Centers of Pedagogy, colleges of education would foster a regular
relationship with the school site, working together in a partnership that would benefit
from its longevity, as university faculty members and clinical faculty work together in
setting goals and establishing procedures. This centralization of field experiences would
also allow the program to address deficiencies in pre-service teachers who may be
lacking in academic or teaching skills, enabling the faculty to use remediation strategies
to develop skills prior to the student teaching experience, where most deficiencies are
currently identified. According to Goodlad (1991):
Present procedures in teacher education simply perpetuate the course-taking
syndrome so deeply imbedded in our entire system of education [and] guarantee
only that future teachers meet the academic demands of classes, not that they
demonstrate growth in traits essential to effective teaching. (p. 242)
The Centers of Pedagogy would serve to imbed teaching in every aspect of the
pre-service teacher’s preparation from the inception of the program and replace the
traditional model of taking courses for two or three years, then entering the classroom on
a limited basis. Work in the college classroom would occur concurrently with field
experiences in the center of pedagogy, with the school site teachers and the university
faculty sharing responsibility for the authorship of goals, aims and syllabi for courses, as
well as the planning, supervision and evaluation of preservice teachers.
The collaborative model proposed by Goodlad called for a more stringent
acceptance policy for education majors, and thus caused controversy in schools where
education was a well-populated program. Goodlad stated that schools of education should
15
limit their number of students accepted into the program to the number that could be fully
served by an intensive, hands-on program. Countering his critics who asserted that a
highly selective program would endanger a vocation that was already beset by critical
shortages of personnel, Goodlad countered that, at the time of writing, it currently took
“five or six teachers to make a full career,” due to attrition (Farrace, 2002; Turner, 2001).
A more complete, in-depth preparatory experience would guide and support the
beginning teacher and limit the number of beginning teachers who resign and choose
other career tracks due to a sense of isolation and ill-preparedness in the early years of
their teaching experience (Thomas and Loadman, 2001).
Goodlad’s assertion that the preparation of teachers would be better served by a
five-year program of study, with the fifth year consisting of a full-time, field teaching
experience has been supported in the literature, as well. Thomas and Loadman (2001)
reported that a 1990 benchmark study identified the satisfaction rate to be higher among
graduates from five-year baccalaureate programs in education, as compared to their
counterparts in four-year education programs:
The seven-year study suggested that graduates from five-year programs, in comparison
with four-year program graduates, are more satisfied with the quality of and time for
preparation, are more satisfied with their internships, are more confident in their teaching
ability, and enter the profession in higher numbers, at higher pay rates, and stay in the
profession longer than those from four-year degree programs.
Also, data from five-year program graduates showed that they rated 11 of their 12
classroom skill indicators “very good” at much higher rates than did their counterparts
from four-year programs.
16
In 1999, Goodlad summarized six “lessons” for the establishment and
continuation of the “symbiotic partnership” between universities and public schools
necessary for the in-depth preparation necessary to the future of teacher education and
school renewal. First, both the school site and the university must place teacher education
at the fore in their mission and avoid the “myopic tendency,” found particularly in
colleges and universities, to consider primarily their own role in the process. Second,
Goodlad expands Conant’s analogy of the teaching hospital collaboration to include the
idea that there must be several “teaching” schools in place, in order to provide numerous
and varied teaching experiences. Third, the administration must be prepared to respond to
the need for a different structure of management in order to address staffing, budgetary,
organizational, governmental and curricular concerns. Fourth, aspecific mission must be
in place at the inception of the program, not as an afterthought following program
activities. The mission would clearly delineate duties and responsibilities of the different
groups participating in the field experience process and articulate specific conditions
under which all entities would exist and perform. Fifth, given the cyclical and transitory
nature of administrators and faculty in all groups, governance of the program must be
shared so that the departure of one administrator or faculty member does not disrupt the
entire program and cause a chain reaction of restructuring and reorganization. Finally, the
top administration of colleges and universities must promote and encourage faculty
involvement on a daily basis to the activities surrounding teacher education. Lessening
the pressure to engage in outside research and publication and giving adequate release
17
time and teaching credit for working with teacher education candidates is a worthwhile
venture and should be supported by the university (Goodlad, 1999).
Research Related to Goodlad’s Model
Giebelhaus and Bowman (2002) investigated the current practices in mentoring
pre-service teachers and found that the most commonly used criteria for the selection of
mentors was the willingness on the part of the classroom teacher to supervise a field
experience participant. In their study, the group that received extensive orientation and
training in mentoring practices reported a greater understanding of their duties and
responsibilities for the field experience and a greater sense of communication with the
university campus. Classroom teachers were trained in the supervision of four main
areas: organizing student knowledge, creating an environment for student learning,
teaching for student learning, and teacher professionalism. Prior to the study, field
experience supervisors in the public school classroom reported uncertainty with their
roles and the feedback to be given to the pre-service teacher, both in amount and format.
Giebelhaus and Bowman concluded that effective mentoring models could serve as a
guiding force in what is one of the most crucial stages of the pre-service teacher’s
development.
Ganser and Wham (1998) surveyed 454 classroom teachers regarding their
supervision of field experiences and found that while the field experience in both the
early and student teaching stages was the single most important influence on the
development of the pre-service teacher, communication with the university campus is
often scattered or, in extreme cases, lacking entirely. Supervising classroom teachers
18
reported a high degree of personal satisfaction with the experience of guiding a young
teacher, but benefits in terms of compensation and other credit given were lacking.
Validation of the veteran teacher’s practices and knowledge was reported to be a benefit
of the experience, and the opportunity to assess and gain new knowledge of current
practices was seen by the respondents as being beneficial, even after the field experience
had concluded. The Goodlad model addresses these needs, allowing the university faculty
members access to current classroom and school conditions and the classroom teacher
access to recent research for use in the planning of curriculum and classroom actitivites.
Glass (1997) agreed with other researchers that the amount and nature of
communication within the triad is of the utmost importance to the success of the field
experience program. Clear expectations and goals must be established at the beginning of
the experience, with all members participating in the articulation of objectives.
Encouragement of reflective practice must be an integral part of the experience. Most of
the existing research focused on the role of the cooperating teacher, thus there is a need in
the research base for in depth study of the university supervisor’s role. Glass found that
many university supervisors lack training in supervisory procedures. The pre-service
teacher, then, is often caught between the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor
and the university policies which may or may not have been clearly articulated to the
triad members, including the university supervisor. The university supervisor can
contribute a wealth of expertise to the group by providing constructive criticism from the
viewpoint of someone who is not in the classroom on a daily basis and thus brings a fresh
perspective into the site, and by helping to focus conversations on educational issues at
hand. The university supervisor also addresses issues of professional growth as well as
19
socialization, emotional and technical issues that arise during the experience. There is a
continued need for interaction between the cooperating teacher and the university
supervisor, with the university supervisor usually stepping in only when corrective action
is needed, according to Glass. If the university supervisor is unavailable and visits are
sparse, the shift of the partnership changes from a triadic relationship to a dyadic one,
consisting of the field experience participant and the cooperating teacher.
The college supervisor’s role is often seen as the least defined role, as daily
contact is seldom present. Institutional support for field supervision by university faculty
members is often lacking, being placed as a low priority in the faculty load, and lacking
rewards in both credit toward tenure and monetary compensation. Existing research also
compared the supervisory tasks of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor,
finding that the cooperating teacher tended to focus on the immediate classroom setting,
with site-specific and classroom management concerns forming the bulk of the
cooperating teacher’s concerns. The university supervisor tended to focus on roles and
responsibilities of the triad members, as well as conducting the business pertaining to the
experience: placement, scheduling and other administrative tasks. The multiple studies of
field experience in general education tend to focus on the same factors, when it is the
form and content of training that is in need of investigation. At the same time, music
teacher educators should employ the same methods of reflective inquiry to examine their
own practices in teaching, especially in the areas of modeling and effective supervision
practices.
20
Collaboration in field experience was also investigated by Neirman, Zechner and
Hobbel (2002). Often collaboration extended only as far as the assignment of students to
field experience locations, with no real exchange of ideas taking place in the areas of
planning for instruction, evaluation and the setting of goals for the field experience.
Fant (1996) found a lack of systemized, development of a proscribed teacher
education program in the colleges and universities in the study, with many decisions
being based on convenience and tradition, rather than reflection, program evaluation and
ongoing scholarly inquiry. Most of the programs studied cover the same topics in
coursework and field experience requirements, but there existed a wide divergence in the
time allotted to these topics and to the emphasis placed on certain activities. Most
notably, Fant found a range of 0–300 hours in the total requirements for field experience
hours in the colleges and universities included in the study. The nature of early field
experience activities was widely divergent as well, including both live observations and
the viewing of videotaped lessons, micro- and macro-teaching experiences, observation
journals and evaluations, internships, reflective seminars and laboratory classes. The
placement of early field experience was varied as well, with some schools including early
field experiences in the foundations of education curriculum, others including it as part of
the methods class, and still others requiring observation visits and teaching outside the
existing curriculum as a supplement to methods and foundations courses. The tendency in
the earliest field experiences was to have visits conducted in a group, for observation
purposes only. Some programs offer a choice of classrooms based on the pre-service
teacher’s interest in future teaching placements, while others mandated that all
participants visit all levels and areas of instruction in order to familiarize them to a wide
21
range of teaching responsibilities. The number of visits by the preservice teacher to the
school site varied from one visit to twenty-five sessions, spaced over several months,
with the average clock hour requirement falling in the range of 40–60 hours for the
observation component of the program. Goodlad’s model standardizes the field
experiences, embedding it as a natural and concurrent facet of the teacher training
program.
Wollenzien (1999) studied existing music teacher education programs in the
North Central division of the Music Educators National Conference, based on the work of
Schmidt in 1985. The research survey included the number of student teachers in
representative institutions during the previous academic year, the use of semester or
quarter systems and the ways in which the academic calendar affected the scheduling of
pre-service field experiences, requirements regarding clock hours mandated during the
field experience including students teaching, and degrees and emphasis offered by
participating institutions. Additionally, the numbers of hours required in certain areas of
the music education degree coursework were compared, with the basic divisions of
coursework being music, music education, student teaching, professional education and
general education/liberal arts courses.
The methods classroom is not without benefits to the pre-service teacher.
Thiessen and Barrett (2002) investigated the New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium, stating that “although university classrooms can scarcely recreate the
conditions practicing teachers face in elementary and secondary schools, their use as
fertile hatcheries for ideas, closely interfaced with field experience, will lead to the
development of pre-service teachers’ capacities for innovative and collaborative
22
endeavors.” The authors are in agreement with the findings of Cannon (2002) and Willis
(1989), that the university must also look beyond the school to the community in offering
teaching experience to their music education students, not to supplant the field
experience, but to enhance it.
Hopkins, Hoffman, and Moss (1997) articulated the benefits of the PDS model,
which references the work of Goodlad, to the public school teacher:
1. The improvement of learning experiences in the classroom
2. The opportunity to participate in the development of the profession
3. The opportunity to determine the settings in which educators function
4. The development of a sense of responsibility for teacher education through
active involvement in the preparation of pre-service teachers.
They further concluded that in place of the earlier, triadic relationship of university
supervisor-public school supervisor-pre-service teacher, the PDS model would provide
consistency among field experience placement sites, establish clear expectations for the
teaching duties and evaluation of participants, and elevate the status of the classroom
teacher to that of a participating clinical faculty member, serving as an equal voice in the
school-university relationship.
Goodlad’s recommendations have been used in many colloquia, seminars,
publications and programs designed to reform and renew the teacher education
curriculum. In 1991, the University of Northern Iowa held an invitational conference to
address perceived problems in teacher education, many of which were articulated by
Goodlad. The nature of the conference, as Goodlad advocated for the nature of teacher
education, was collaborative, with Goodlad’s 1990 book Teachers for Our Nation’s
23
Schools serving as the departure point for discussion and debate. Participants included K-
12 teachers, K-12 administrators and college and university faculty members in schools
of education, with the focus of conference activities being the creation of a shared vision
for the direction of teacher education. Attendees were encouraged to look more closely at
the whole picture of teacher training, rather than focusing exclusively on the aspects of
the program that affected their daily activities. Careful scrutiny was given to Goodlad’s
Nineteen Postulates, with the four dimensions of teaching serving as an overarching
guide:
1. Facilitating critical enculturation
2. Providing access to knowledge
3. Building an effective teacher student connection
4. Practicing good stewardship (Else, 2000, p.42).
Prior to the conference’s opening, each conference participant selected one of six
focus areas to investigate. The 55 conference attendees then wrote a position paper on
one of the following topics, with the papers being distributed to registrants before their
arrival:
1. Institutional mission
2. College/university faculty
3. Curriculum issues
4. Program procedures/methodology
5. Links with schools
6. State relationship (Else, 2000, p.45).
While attending the conference, participants shared their position papers and
endeavored to reach a group consensus on each topic. Attendees met with groups who
had chosen their particular topics, with the following recommendations being made for
each area:
24
Institutional Mission
1. Reassess and clarify the institution's mission.
2. Identify a mission that recognizes the unique characteristics and
strengths of the institution.
3. Develop, as leaders, a shared vision of teacher education that
recognizes the primacy of the endeavor.
4. Commit to excellence in every aspect of teacher education
programs.
5. Strive, as teacher educators, to establish and nurture mutually
beneficial relationships with other units in the institution.
6. Clearly define the concept of teacher education with a focus on the
holistic development of the person as a teacher.
7. Ensure that faculty reward criteria acknowledge that teacher
educators engage in a variety of roles: teaching, research, clinical
supervision, and service to schools.
8. Protect the resources and governance integrity of teacher education
programs within the institution.
College/University Faculty
1. Significantly reduce the number of state rules, regulations, and
mandates which affect teacher education licensing and teacher education
programs.
2. Encourage selected school districts to apply for external funds to set
up model schools, programs or classrooms.
3. Upgrade significantly the entrance requirements into teacher
education programs.
4. Recruit private sector and public sector external funding to support
unique, innovative programs.
5. Form post secondary institution steering committees composed of
representatives of the Local Education Agency (LEA), the Area Education
Agency (AEA), and 2 year and 4 year institutions to look at the logistics
and technical aspects of programs and help
facilitate the connections which lead to a 4 year pre-service program.
6. Form an early childhood to grade 16 steering committee charged
with providing a 5 and 10 year plan to unify the efforts between LEAs and
teacher education institutions.
7. Design exchange programs, mentor programs, and in-service
programs for staff development of post secondary teachers.
8. Expect that teachers at all levels will become knowledgeable about
and committed to appropriately using the standards from the various
professional organizations to enhance their teaching.
9. Form a 10-12 person study committee from this conference to make
recommendations to appropriate organizations and bodies.
10. Study the technology of interactive/laser distance learning to assess
25
its ability to help develop a quality in-service program for Iowa teachers.
Curriculum Issues
1. Provide aspiring teachers in the teacher education program with the
desire for reflective inquiry and participatory democracy while
assuming the responsibility for their actions and non-actions.
2. Rethink the relationship between courses and practice in higher
education and the "to be" lived experiences of teachers and schools.
3. Make public the concerns and issues that have not previously been a
part of public debate as the outcomes of teacher education are
reconstructed.
4. Offer teacher educators new paradigms in the way they think about
education and teacher education.
Program Procedures/Methodology
1. Articulate a socialization process between higher education and the
school to incorporate responsibility in the teaching culture by: (a)
mentoring; (b) forming cohort groups; (c) applying sound educational
principles through reflection and practice; and (d) attending to the
social and emotional needs of colleagues, students, and community
constituents.
2. Form teacher development centers in certain schools for the purpose
of university/college and K-12 school personnel collaboration.
3. Include specific indicators and assessments for admission to teacher
education programs.
4. Evaluate all college/university and school faculty involved in
teacher education on effective teaching skills.
5. Involve college/university faculty in schools continually through
teaching, serving on committees, and conducting research.
Links with the Schools
1. Engage AEAs in annually convening joint meetings of
representatives from teacher preparation programs and LEAs to more
closely
align curricular/instructional approaches with current research and best
practice, to implement mentoring programs, to determine staff
goals and needs, and to establish K-12 teacher recruitment processes.
2. Though AEAs, offer regular conferences by subject, level, or
strategy.
3. Promote legislation dealing with fiber optics for establishing a
communication link among all publics involved in the preparation and
induction of the classroom teacher.
4. As a critical component of college/university faculty evaluation,
include participation in those service activities which provide direct
linkages with schools.
26
State Relationship
The state should:
1. Identify 6-10 broad outcomes for students who complete an
approved teacher preparation program.
2. Approve the systems for determining student success in achieving
these outcomes.
3. Provide supportive and coherent legislation and policies to facilitate
the conceptualization, development, and delivery of a teacher
education program fully involving K-12 school systems and higher
education.
4. Provide adequate financial resources to deliver these high quality
educational programs for the preparation of teachers.
5. Continue its evaluations with a redesigned state program approval
system of teacher education programs using state and national
standards.
6. Hold the approved teacher preparation program responsible for its
own outcomes by approving the assessment program each particular
preparation program uses to meet its continuing responsibility for this
lifelong learning of educators. (Else, 2000)
Many of the current programs in teacher education reform can be traced to the
work of Goodlad and his associates, who were strongly influenced by Conant’s clinical
model. Though existing under different titles with different organizational structures, the
PDS, laboratory school, key, school and partner school share the same vision of
concurrent teacher education reform and school renewal. Through the collaborative
efforts of the Center of Pedagogy, teacher education can be placed at the forefront of the
college of education’s mission, with a dedicated faculty for whom the education of
teacher is the top priority.
The Early Field Experience
Goodlad considered the field experience to be a prominent factor in the training
and socialization of the preservice teacher, with the selection of candidates, school sites
and field experiences to be of the utmost importance in the training program. His writings
27
endorse the concept of the school site/university partnership, particularly through
cooperation between clinical faculty in the public schools and the education faculty of the
university. Goodlad did not specify that education faculty needed to be dedicated solely
to the administration of field experiences, but did assert that there should be a “clearly
identifiable” group of faculty members whose sole responsibility lies in the training of
teachers (1994, p. 32). The current study endeavors to examine the amount and type of
contact between the school site, the college or university and the preservice teacher in
programs served by the respondents, and to compare the responses to Goodlad’s model of
collaboration.
The Nature of Early Field Experiences
The term “early field experience” describes opportunities for education majors at
the undergraduate level to work in the schools as part of their teacher education
curriculum. Early field experiences are also called “internships,” “apprenticeships,” and
“clinical experiences.” Early field experience occurs prior to the student teaching term,
and introduces the student to actual teaching experiences outside the methods classroom.
Early field experiences vary considerably in format, aims, goals, and objectives.
Some are held in laboratory schools, which serve as a part of the college or university
campus environment. Other programs are held in conjunction with the local public
schools, placing pre-service teachers in public school classrooms for varying numbers of
hours per week or semester. Early field experiences can be part of the methods course
curriculum, or can be a freestanding course.
28
Supervision of the early field experience varies between campuses and programs
as well. In courses where the field experience is imbedded in a class, such as a methods
course, the instructor of record visits the field experience classroom and confers with the
classroom teacher and the pre-service teacher, often observing lessons and providing
feedback. Other programs involve faculty members whose sole responsibility lies in the
coordination and observation of pre-service teachers in their field placements.
In many programs, there is a site-based coordinator in the public school. The
coordinator provides an introduction to the school setting and often meets with all pre-
service teachers placed in that school periodically to discuss the experiences in that
setting. Early field experience participants usually attend seminars on their home campus
to discuss and evaluate their experiences and to provide mutual support for the
experience.
Theoretical Proposals
In 1998 the Association of Teacher Educators issued a preliminary report of draft
standards for field experiences in teacher education. The National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards set forth a voluntary certification program in 2001 based on teaching
standards specific to the particular subject matter and disciplines, including “descriptions
of the knowledge, skills and professional judgments of accomplished music teachers”
(Holcomb 2003). These initiatives are in agreement with Goodlad’s call for careful
screening of applicants, accountability on the part of the college or university for constant
assessment and evaluation of programs, and the need for frequent contact between
participating entities during the teacher education process.
29
Goodlad presented in Postulate 9 the need for preservice teacher to transcend their
self-oriented view held during coursework and make the transition to a thoughtful,
inquiry-based, “other-oriented” perspective on classroom activities and procedures.
Lindley (2003) categorized the development of effective teacher behaviors in terms of
Elliott’s four areas of knowledge: formal, derived from textbooks or scholarly works;
informal, which is the ability to utilize formal knowledge in making decisions on a daily
basis; impressionistic, the use of informed intuition in making choices; and supervisory,
which includes classroom management skills. These four areas of knowledge are
developed in the early field experience, most often incrementally, moving in
developmental stages from the formal to the supervisory. Emmanuel (2002) stated that
“well structured immersion field experiences and guidance of an informed instructor who
would guide reflection” are necessary to the success of the early field experience. This
“apprenticeship of observation” was reported by Coleman (1999) to be an even more
effective influence on the development of teaching skills and behaviors than the music
methods courses which precede it.
Conflicting data was reported by Morrissey (2003), who found that although in
recent research field experience is considered an essential component of the music
teacher education program, there was no concrete evidence that early field experience
had either a positive or negative effect upon later teaching success. According to
Morrissey, in the variety of studies completed in the 25 years preceding the 2003 study,
results “have been ambivalent or inconclusive” as to the efficacy of the pre-student
teaching field experience:
The content and structure of field experiences have often grown up haphazardly
over a number of years instead of as the result of a well-conceptualized, unified
30
plan. . . . In recent years music education researchers have called for more and
better research on teacher education and early field experiences so that teacher
training institutions can use the results in designing and evaluating the
effectiveness of their programs for teaching and learning...An impetus for
program evaluation of early field experience on a national level appears
imminent, making the need for studies such as the present one all the more
imperative (p. 124).
Morrissey posed two essential questions in the determination of the purpose, use
and value of early field experience:
1. What experiences should be included in the early field experience?
2. How should colleges and universities best organize the early field
experience for their music education students? (p. 136)
In addition to the two questions listed above, Morrissey presented the goal of
early field experience as “illumination and understanding.” Borrowing from journalism
terms, early field experience needs to answer who, what, when, where, why and how in
order to meet its aims and goals.
Goodlad’s Postulates made clear his view that coursework preceding the field
experience needed to include the research, content knowledge and classroom conditions
necessary to the discipline. Adderley (1996) stated: “It is not clear, however, whether
colleges and universities are providing students with the curricula and experiences that
will lead to implementation of the National Standards,” a topic of particular concern to
music educators, given the wide promotion and usage of the National Standards by
MENC and subsequently by many states and local systems. Adderley found that the
National Association of Schools of Music requires all of the National Standards in
teacher preparation curricula, although the standards themselves are not always stated
verbatim. The 1987 report by MENC’s Task Force on Music Teacher Education for the
1990s states that “a more effective program of study for the preparation of future music
31
educators must be designed to prepare prospective teachers for the classroom of
tomorrow.” Program development and evaluation should include input from elementary
and secondary music educators as well as college and university music faculty members
in order to ensure that both sides of the equation are addressed. This would then result in
a comprehensive approach to the development of a curriculum that is inclusive, relevant
and appropriate to the needs of both the university and the school site as outlined by
Goodlad in the Twenty Postulates.
Socialization in the role of teacher is an important aspect of the pre-service
experience, and a facet that can be enhanced by the field experience. Teacher role
socialization was addressed by Goodlad in Postulates 9 and 10. Broyles (1997) and L’roy
(1983) found that prior to entrance into the formal teacher education program, music
students identified themselves as performers, not teachers, concentrating the bulk of their
studies on the applied studio and on music-academic tasks: the study of music theory,
music history and related topics. In the early phase of teaching, there was little to no
concern for pupil learning; rather, the pre-service teacher focused inward on personal
tasks: planning, constructing instructional materials, and other tasks centered on the
physical aspects of the lesson, similar to Goodlad’s “self oriented” description of the
preservice teacher. For many music education students in L’Roy’s study, the student
teaching semester was the first opportunity to experience an “authentic teacher role,”
practicing their craft and applying methods course content to actual school students. Field
experiences to this point, when present, tended to be scattered and brief, with close
supervision by the cooperating teacher, and somewhat limited in student contact and
scope. Role development as the primary goal of teacher education can and should begin
32
in the early field experience, to the extent that time and resources allow, in order to
socialize the pre-service teacher into his or her role as a professional educator, according
to Wolfgang (1990).
Wolfgang found various programs that resembled Goodlad’s model without
specifically mentioning whether the resemblances were intentional or circumstantial.
Types of early field experience as reported by Wolfgang included a formal internship
program, work with a university-sponsored college preparatory program such as the
community music school, dedicated laboratory classes within the university, working
with community children’s choirs in the area, and involvement in mentorship programs,
either as a mentee to a public school teacher or serving as a mentor to a younger student,
usually of public school age. Although such experiences were not part of the formal early
field experience in the university setting, they enhanced the comfort level and skill
acquisition of pre-service teachers, and should be considered in the total music teacher
preparation program of study as supplemental activities. The only commonality among
early field experience programs was the requirement of some type of field experiences.
There appears to be a marked lack of consensus among the education community
regarding the importance and significance of field experiences. Some respondents in
Wolfgang’s study indicated that the field experience perpetuated the status quo in the
music classroom, while others felt that the early field experience provided a practical and
realistic viewpoint, serving as a frame of reference for the pre-service teacher before
beginning the intensive student teaching experience. This view supplants the long held
opinion that all coursework and activities are merely preparation for the student teaching
experience. The early field experience may then be viewed as a separate, supplemental
33
activity, rather than merely being considered a pre-student teaching experience. The early
field experience can assist in guiding teachers in their development, from novice, to
advanced beginner, to competent, to proficient, to expert status.
The early field experience should address what Fant (1996) labeled the “hierarchy
of knowledge.” The first type of knowledge for the developing teacher is the “relevant
basic science,” the area in which most music teacher preparation research occurs.
“Relevant applied science” expands upon the knowledge base provided by relevant basic
science, and it is in this area that connections between the university setting and the
school setting are made; consequently, this is the area that demands more research, more
inquiry and a deeper level of understanding. “Practicum” is the third step on the
hierarchy, and involves daily knowledge that is directly applied in the classroom. This is
the area in which pre-service teachers need the most instruction, guidance and reflection
as they acclimate their previous training and skills to the typical setting of the classroom.
These skills are learned by functioning in the classroom, and are unattainable in the
methods class, due to the necessary interaction with students in the school climate. Fant
recommended an approach to coaching pre-service teachers in early field experience that
is modeled on the teaching techniques found in the applied music studio, where
modeling, suggestions and constant and immediate feedback is used, tailored to the needs
and the performance of the individual student, in this case the pre-service teacher.
Merely leaping from the methods classroom and field observations to the student
teaching experience is becoming an unrealistic practice, as induction becomes the norm
in many teacher education programs. According to Fant, “Clinical experiences often
mark the beginning point for the accumulation of this teaching experience.” This
34
statement speaks directly to Goodlad’s clinical model of established centers of pedadogy,
where students engage in teaching tasks on a constant basis throughout their training
program.
Fant identified the quality of feedback as the single most important factor leading
to student teacher effectiveness, an issue that would be addressed frequently in Goodlad’s
center of pedagogy, where the school site supervising teacher, the university faculty
member and the preservice teacher would be in daily contact throughout the field
experience. Mere participation in field experience is insufficient to guide the pre-service
teacher in shaping opinions, knowledge and skills in making judgments. In relating the
early field experience to later successes in student teaching, Fant found that diverse early
field experiences with plentiful feedback and microteaching opportunities within the
methods class were positively related to the successful student teaching performance of
the pre-service music teacher. Goodlad asserted in Postulate 15 that the college or
university should ensure that a wide and diverse selection of field experience sites is
available to the preservice teacher, allowing for plentiful contact with different student
groups and supervisors, with constant guidance and feedback from both the supervising
classroom teacher and the university supervisor. Early field experience with little to no
feedback, conversely, was reported by Fant to have had a detrimental effect on the
student teaching success of the undergraduate music education student: “Mere teaching
practice is apparently not enough. The need for critical reflection upon one’s own
performance is also necessary to become a master teacher.” Microteaching experiences
were found to be best conducted in a methods or conducting laboratory setting, with a
dedicated group assembled for the lab experience, since conducting and literature classes
35
are often small and instrumentation or voicing can be somewhat scattered. A dedicated
ensemble or class for this purpose serves as the best training group for the pre-service
teacher, rather than embedding the microteaching experience into an existing class, where
microteaching and conducting may receive only a small portion of the entire class time
allotted for the course. The teacher education programs that Fant studied were usually a
hybrid of several programs: the conservatory, the liberal arts and sciences college, and
the teachers’ college of the past. Goodlad’s model presents such a hybrid, with a
dedicated and collaborative approach to teacher training.
The benefits of the early field experience as reported by Fant are many, in
agreement with Goodlad’s clinical model. Early field experience promotes the
establishment of a sense of professional identity for the participants, an area of particular
interest to recent researchers in the field of music teacher education and addressed by
Goodlad in Postulates 9 and 10. The early field experience as described by Fant fosters a
sense of purpose in pre-service teachers, allows them to develop a concept of good
teaching practices and fosters the motivation of participants not only to teach, but to
recognize and employ proven best practices in their teaching. Through limited and
supervised teaching experiences, the early field experience develops a sense of
confidence in the young teacher. Given careful planning and distribution of experiences
and settings, the early field experience can also give music education majors exposure to
various levels and school sites, therefore allowing for informed decisions regarding
placement in student teaching and interests in specialization in particular subjects and age
groupings. In this statement, Fant agreed with Goodlad’s Postulate 15, which exhorts
36
teacher training programs to ensure a “wide array” of laboratory settings for the field
experience.
In comparing the early field experience to Carter and Anders’ Five Orientations to
Teacher Education, Fant found that assimilation of teaching skills and attitudes is served
well by these experiences. The initial orientation involves practical and craft issues,
building upon a theoretical foundation constructed in the methods classrooms.
Technological orientation occurs through microteaching, observations, peer teaching
instances and simulation of teaching episodes.
As the field experience participants move into the school classroom, there is an
extended period of personal orientation, the level at which many pre-service teachers
experience the highest levels of concern, as they consider their own place in the
classroom, their preparedness to teach, the act of planning for instruction, and student
reactions to their presence. This description by Fant parallels Goodlad’s concept of the
preservice teacher moving toward a more inquiry-based, other-oriented approach to
teaching activities.
In the academic orientation, the pre-service teacher begins an apprenticeship
model, as described above, using observation, actual teaching of small and large groups,
and assessment and evaluation by the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in
order to reflect upon the early teaching experiences. At the critical and social orientation
level, the young teacher gains a sense of empowerment from engaging in the planning,
execution and assessment of teaching experiences. The use of reflective practice in
developing necessary skills and behaviors resulted in the lowering of concern levels, a
lessening of anxiety and fright in pre-service teachers, an augmentation of confidence
37
levels and an increase in analytical ability among the respondents in Fant’s study (1999).
The reflection skills increased exponentially when constant dialogue with the field
supervisor was present, and students ranked the early field experience equally high in
importance to the methods course, where basic skills for teaching were first presented.
The National Association of Schools of Music recommended in a 1997 report that
music should represent 50 percent of the curriculum, with general studies constituting
30–35 percent of the curriculum and professional education—including school of
education required courses, music education courses and field experiences including
student teaching—making up the remaining 15–20 percent of the total hours in the
undergraduate degree program in music education. Wollenzien (1999) found a common
expectation that students should have laboratory experiences in individual instruction,
small group teaching and large ensemble conducting prior to the student teaching
experience, in agreement with Goodlad’s Postulate 15. Observation and teaching were
also recommended before and during the music teacher education program. A new plan
to institute a five-year program in music education was found in several colleges and
universities, commonly culminating in dual degrees in music and education, allowing for
more time to concentrate on specific issues in each of the areas. Wollenzien referred to
the 1987 MENC report Partnership and Process as a guide for field experience program
evaluation and construction, with MENC recommending an integrative learning approach
to music teacher education. MENC recommended that early lab experiences were a
necessary introduction to teaching experiences, to be followed closely by observation in
the field and microteaching experiences outside the university classroom or laboratory.
38
Practical experiences with children in the field should lead to the full time teaching
experience at the end of the degree program.
Given time constraints and mandates from state and national agencies, and
accrediting institutions and institutional limits on course loads and hours, pre-service
music teacher programs are challenged by several factors, including the place of music in
the core curriculum in their universities as well as in the school system, the push to
realign and redefine their purposes according to the National Standards, and overall
developments in internationalism and technology as related to music teaching. Goodlad
addressed the responsibilities of the college or university in this area in Postulate 18,
where he counted the institution’s responsibility to satisfy regulatory and licensing
mandates concurrently with the goals set forth by the 17 preceding postulates.
Changes in music education, including world and popular music, non-traditional
instruments, computers and other music technology, and new methods of scheduling
currently in use in the schools must be addressed by the teacher education program.
Addressing these concerns in the field experience can then lead to a broader perspective
with more examples of different systems than can be experienced in one student teaching
experience. Methods courses assist in teacher preparation, but they cannot build the
bridge to the day-to-day inner workings of the music classroom. Postulate 15 affords the
preservice teacher a variety of field experiences to address an array of student
populations and curricular needs as demanded by current practice. Goodlad’s emphasis
on research in the teacher preparation program compels preservice teachers to engage
actively in exploring current trends and practices in the classroom.
39
Willis (1989) found experiences in the choral methods classroom which provided
valuable conducting experience at the basic level but failed to provide authentic teaching
opportunities due to the personnel involved, the limited podium time afforded to student
conductors, and the number of participants in the class. Willis recommended the
institution of a reading chorus for training beginning conductors and involvement in
community and church choirs in a conducting capacity to foster and develop leadership
skills in as authentic a setting as possible prior to the field experience. Cannon (2002)
concluded that student teaching as well as early field experience is far less predictable
than the preceding education curriculum, where a defined course of study and a
prescribed syllabus guide activities. More exposure to the classroom setting can only help
pre-service teachers in applying principle to practice. According to Cannon (2002),
specific issues in pre-service teacher training have been addressed by recent research, but
studies have fallen short of giving a comprehensive view of the status of field
experiences, both prior to and during the student teaching experience. The use of
Goodlad’s model would integrate the field experience in the center of pedagogy into the
music teacher education program, making authentic teaching experiences part of the
curriculum from the preservice teacher’s entrance into the program.
Collaboration is a key element of the field experience for pre-service music
teachers. The grouping of pre-service teacher, school-based cooperating teacher and
university supervisor is commonly known as the teaching triad, and many studies have
examined the workings of that team. Bailey (2000) cites the 1987 MENC report Music
Teacher Education: Partnership and Process as one of the first to identify collaborative
efforts in music teacher training. Liebhaber (2003) found that collaboration is most
40
effective when each participant in the triad approaches the collaborative process with the
belief that he or she has something to learn from the experience. Building trust, bonding
and setting mutual goals should be at the forefront of the collaborative process, in an
atmosphere of mutual respect for all members or the group. Liebhaber also found that the
collaboration can benefit the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in the sharing
of current trends and issues in their respective environments: the cooperating teacher may
solicit advice for school site-related issues, and the university supervisor can be made
aware of the day-to-day workings of the classroom, a view that may not otherwise be
available to him/her. Collaboration also opens avenues of communication between the
school site and the university, bridging a gap in information found by Abbott (1996) in
Illinois, where state-level education reports were minimally disseminated to colleges and
universities. These issues would thrive in the clinical model propsed by Goodlad, where
all members of the teaching triad are involved in the center of pedagogy, enjoying daily
contact and constant collaboration.
Glass (1997) studied the influence of the university supervisor on the field
experience participant, finding that communication among the members of the teaching
triad as well as the supervisory style of the supervisor were the most important aspects of
the field experience in terms of student confidence and skill development. Field
experience should serve as the bridge from theory as taught in methods courses to the
practice of teaching in the field. Historically, music teacher education has followed
models from general education, with an accompanying shift from a liberal to an
authoritarian view of the teacher role. According to Glass, “Appropriate conditions of
pre-service programs and supervision can help students clarify and put into perspective
41
their preconceived attitudes and beliefs.” Problems in the field experience triad of pre-
service teacher, school site cooperating teacher and university supervisor included
communication between the school site and university supervisors; disagreement among
the individual members of the teaching triad as to the scope, sequence and purpose of the
field experience; and conflicting views of the cooperating teacher and the university
supervisor on the part of the pre-service teacher. As the pre-service teacher bonds with
the cooperating teacher, the college supervisor is often seen as the “outsider” in the triad,
and input from this source is seen as interference. This would not be the case in the
Goodlad center of pedagogy, where the constant contact between the classroom teacher,
university supervisor and field experience participant would ensure frequent
communication, plentiful feedback, and a shared vision for the goals and aims of the
experience.
Holmquist (2002) examined the attitudes of student teachers regarding evaluation
by their supervisors, with direct implications for the early field experience. In particular,
those students with prior experience in having their lessons and teaching methods
evaluated were more receptive to evaluation, tending not to personalize any constructive
criticism given by either the cooperating teacher in the field or the university supervisor.
The student teachers in the Holmquist study became more receptive with improved
attitudes toward evaluation throughout the semester, leading to the conclusion that
evaluation at an earlier level can introduce the novice teacher to the expectations of the
teacher education program, allowing him or her to become comfortable with evaluation
methods and preparing him or her for the student teaching semester with a firm concept
of policies and practice used to assess and evaluate progress. A positive and open
42
relationship with the cooperating teacher was found by Holmquist to be essential in the
development of a receptive attitude towards evaluation and criticism. The same holds true
for the university evaluator, whose expertise and guidance, as well as the ability to guide
the career of the novice teacher, is an integral part of the music teacher education
program. In Goodlad’s model, evaluation would be an ongoing process rather than an
isolated event, with the preservice teacher not only receiving evaluation and constructive
criticism from both supervisors but participating in the process as well, using self
evaluation to add another dimension to the process.
In an era during which the number of music teachers available to fill existing
teaching positions is on the decline (Burton 2003), it is imperative that music teacher
preparation programs examine closely their recruiting, training and mentoring practices.
Lindley (2003) identified effective teacher behaviors in order to develop an
evaluative/assessment tool for secondary choral teachers. In doing this, the competency-
based teacher education movement was examined closely in terms of the two possible
systems used for assessment and evaluation: accountability-based and growth-oriented.
Accountability-based evaluation systems tended to focus on overt and observable teacher
behaviors and actions, a view that is ill-suited to the music classroom, where aesthetics
are difficult to judge within general education criteria. Growth-oriented systems focus
more keenly on the teacher and his or her use of reflection and inquiry, two facets that are
emphasized in Goodlad’s work. Additionally, Goodlad included the necessity for colleges
and schools to maintain contact with graduates at the inception of their careers, a time
that historically has been a critical time in terms of teacher burnout and turnover.
43
Cannon (2002) described the student teaching experience in terms that easily
translate to the early field experience. Students showed a high regard for the student
teaching practicum, with cooperating teachers reporting a lower degree of satisfaction
with the experience, especially in terms of university-school communication and
planning. Recommendations included providing adequate rehearsal time for the student
teacher, defining expectations in a clear and concise manner to all parties involved, and
extending the length of the student teaching practicum. Goodlad’s model would provide
not only more frequent contact in the classroom setting, but also a collaborative approach
to communication and planning between the university and the school site.
At the heart of the early field experience is a debate not about whether early field
experiences should be offered, but instead about the development of a conceptual
curricular framework for early field experiences, which would then guide the decisions of
frequency, what behaviors should be practiced, and which courses should incorporate the
early field experience in the curriculum. Goodlad’s Postulates provide a clear framework
for the establishment of policies and practices governing the field experience.
Practical Applications
Regarding early field experiences, Conant (1963) proposed a “clinical
professorship” in colleges of education. In a format similar to that found in schools of
medicine, the faculty of the clinical professorship would serve as dedicated supervisors
and administrators of the early field experiences for pre-service teachers. The students
would enter an internship comparable to the medical internship, with teaching
experiences being monitored and evaluated by their supervisors. As the experiences
44
continued, the pre-service teachers would require and receive less involvement by their
faculty mentors, eventually leading to completely independent planning and teaching.
Another important aspect of the clinical professorship model is the collaboration of
faculty. Rather than having several different viewpoints from several different faculty
members and courses, the faculty in a clinical professorship works in concert in terms of
evaluation and administration of the experience. This is perhaps the most difficult aspect
of the model to negotiate, as various departments and entities consider their particular
focus to be of the greatest import to the process. At the center of the model is the question
of who makes the decisions: accrediting/licensing agencies, or the academic institution?
At the core of Conant’s model is a call for specific guidelines in early field
experience programs, a concurrence of goals and objectives of the particular program,
and a collaborative effort by all stakeholders in the process. This does not mean that
every early field experience program in the country should have the same guidelines.
Each college or university should set its own guidelines, with considerable input from the
local school system. Morris, Price, and Armstrong (1997) used this model of the clinical
faculty as a point of reference for their development of a new program. Collaboration in
planning the program involved public school faculty and administration, human service
professionals, and faculty from the university. This group, known as the leadership team,
met frequently to address the concerns of preparing the pre-service teacher to serve both
the academic and personal needs of the student population. Their “inter-professional
faculty” consisted of a team with membership from the school site administration and
faculty, university faculty in education and academic disciplines, members of agencies in
social work, juvenile justice and health care; and graduate students in education.
45
Additionally, a site-based coordination team was charged with overseeing the
operations of the field experience program in terms of budgeting, scheduling and
administrative tasks. The site-based coordination team, like the larger inter-professional
faculty, included members from all groups: the university, the school site, and local social
service agencies. The authors found that this type of collaboration was beneficial in many
ways: a more thorough and comprehensive experience was available to pre-service
teachers, and both students and faculty members were able to engage in collaborative,
action research in a dynamic and supportive setting. This is a similar model to that
proposed by Goodlad, with the exception of membership from government agencies
outside the school. An additional difference from the Goodlad model involved the focus
on the school site; Goodlad’s model focuses on the school or department of education as
the originator and home base of the model.
According to Morrissey (2003), there has been a “national rapid increase in early
field experience activities and research which began in the 1970s” (p. 4). The University
of Illinois established the Music Learning Center in 1978; and in 1979, the state of
Illinois instituted a teacher certification requirement of 100 hours in early field
experience for education majors in all disciplines. In the early 1990s, the University of
Illinois reorganized and restructured their early field experience program to refine the
initial observation process. In 1992, the Introduction to Music Education curriculum was
revised to include 16 clock hours in public school early field experience, where before,
the early field experience component had been satisfied by peer teaching to non-music
majors. In the fall of 1992, the 16-hour requirement was evenly divided between the
guided viewing and resulting discussion of videotaped lessons taught by master teachers
46
and live observations of classrooms at all levels and in all areas of music education. This
development was occurring at the same time that Goodlad’s Center for Educational
Renewal was being established at the University of Washington; the Center for
Educational Renewal took the field experience further, in imbedding the field experience
in every step of the preservice teacher’s training program.
According to Coleman (1999), both Conant and Goodlad have written extensively
in the area of early field experience. Conant envisioned the music education faculty
member’s role in the field experience program as that of a clinical professor, much like
the supervisors of medical students in teaching hospitals. In 1990, Goodlad advocated the
creation of the center of pedagogy, administered by the school of education working in
concert with the public school system. The Center of Pedagogy employs a participatory
process, allowing the individual teacher to participate fully in setting goals, assessing
progress toward those goals, and developing plans to meet the identified insufficiencies.
Keeping communication channels open is a goal of the field experience
collaboration, but universities must do more to foster the ongoing exchange of ideas. The
Professional Development School model as presented by the Holmes Group (1990)
enumerated procedures for encouraging collaboration, with programs existing in
Rochester, New York; Muncie, Indiana; and Lincoln, Nebraska, involving universities
and public school systems. College professors can benefit from collaborative programs
by keeping current in trends and issues directly affecting the administration of the school
music program. Suggestions of professors regarding keeping in touch with the schools
included conducting research, serving as clinicians in honor groups and presenting at
state and national conventions. The views of public school teachers regarding the means
47
by which college professors could keep current in present trends differed greatly, with
suggestions including guest teaching in the public schools, serving on committees in the
school system and teaching in the public schools for extended periods of time. Ideas on
improvement of communication between universities and school systems proved to be
plentiful, while the actual testing of these ideas and suggestions tended to be sparse, if at
all available. Experimental studies in music teacher education tend to be prohibitive in
terms of the lack of ability to establish strict controls in experiments and costs involved,
thus most of the research base in the field has a tendency toward correlation and
qualitative study methodologies. The lack of coordinated and longitudinal research has
left a gap in the research base as well, and the members of the Holmes Group stressed a
need for research emphasizing a systematic gathering of data over a period of many years
in order to give both a broad and deep view of the current trends and issues in this field.
Problems to be addressed in the Goodlad Center of Pedagogy included the lack of
carefully planned and coordinated curricula for field experiences and the present state of
poor articulation between campus and field program components and members. The wide
variation in the quality of teacher mentoring and supervision present in the current field
experience practices and the role of the various participating agencies as “marginal
entities” would be ameliorated by more time spent in the schools by the pre-service
teacher and the proximity of the supervisors, both from the university and in the field
itself, to each other and to the pre-service teacher. By centralizing the experience, issues
of contact and communication would be dramatically reduced, if not eliminated
altogether. Music education students would complete a five-year baccalaureate program
with the entire fifth year dedicated to the full-time student teaching experience. The
48
apprenticeship model of teacher training would be replaced by a thoughtful and reflective
inquiry-oriented approach, supported by the various members of the center. The student
teacher would also take a more active role in the student teaching experience, functioning
as a staff member for the duration of the student teaching internship year. This program
would assist in the widely held belief that “no defined structure of student teaching has
been posited to be most effective in navigation the student teacher on the road to
becoming an expert teacher” (Coleman 1999). Additional areas for investigation include
making connections between the university methods classroom and the culture and
society of the public school classroom, determining and addressing the stages of concern
in the pre-service teacher’s field work and the nurturing of explicit thinking behaviors in
the pre-service teacher, allowing time for reflection and inquiry.
Neirman, Zeickner and Hobbel (2002) examined current trends in music
education curricula in colleges and universities, finding that the four-year program was
the most common, followed by the five-year, integrated education and music degree.
Course groupings included general education, a specialization in a major and minor field,
the social and psychological foundations of education, both general and specific teaching
methods and supervised field experience leading to the culminating student teaching
experience. A recent development that is gaining popularity among teacher education
programs is the fifth year add-on certificate, with the final year consisting of field
experience and professional education. In the current trend of alternative teacher
certification, these add-on programs bear particular scrutiny to ensure that those certified
to teach are being afforded ample opportunity for guided practice in the field prior to
accepting the full responsibility for a classroom.
49
According to Nierman et al., teacher preparation in music is often located outside
the school of education, though communication between the schools of education and
music does exist. Requirements for minimum hours completed prior to the granting of the
baccalaureate degree have added additional coursework in recent years, with the
exception of the state of Florida. With various programs requiring either four or five
years to complete the music education program, the number of hours required and the
number of years in the program can have a dramatic effect on the content of the
curriculum. The Universities of Kansas, Miami, Oregon and Oregon State have instituted
a fifth year add-on program, and in Kansas, the degree is granted after the fourth year,
with certification attained after the fifth year of additional graduate courses. This fifth
year allows more time for the intensive field-based experience that was reported by
Nierman, et al., as being the most desirable in music teacher preparation.
Drafall (1991) advocated a “developmental clinical supervision” based on models
from the medical field, similar to Conant’s clinical model and later, Goodlad’s center of
pedagogy. Videotapes were used for structured viewing of teaching examples by master
educators followed by discussion and analysis. When the pre-service teacher’s lessons
were taped, the recordings were viewed and discussed by the pre-service teacher,
cooperating teacher and the university supervisor at the same time, with opportunities for
dialogue and critique of teaching methods. Broyles (1997) also investigated the effects of
videotaping lessons on the reflective nature of the pre-service teacher. Using Fuller’s
three-phase model of teaching concerns and Carper’s categories of occupational identity,
Broyles found that viewing videotaped examples of their teaching was found by all the
students to be a helpful procedure in their learning to teach, though the extent to which
50
the viewing was helpful was not quantified. Cooperating teachers and university
supervisors supported the activity as well, citing among the benefits the strengthened
sense of teacher identity, an increased commitment to refining teaching tasks and skills,
and enhanced concern and evaluation of student learning. Recommendations for further
research included varying the videotaping regimen, varying the types of observation
instruments used, and examining the use of videotaping in pre-student teaching
experiences. It should be noted that many school districts limit the use of videotaping
their students, ranging from permission slips or releases needing to be filed to mandating
that any students must be shown from a rear view on order to avoid showing their faces.
If equipment and permission are available, the videotaped lesson can indeed serve as a
valuable assessment tool for the supervisor, cooperating teacher and as the pre-service
teacher develops an inquiry-centered approach to self-evaluation.
The National Association of Schools of Music has identified threshold standards
for music schools: “to maintain professional leadership in music study and training and to
develop a national context for the professional growth of the individual musicians as
artists, scholars, teachers and participants in music and music-related enterprises.” It is
apparent that establishing and maintaining standards for the certification of music
teachers is a topic of national interest. The Connecticut Discipline Based Professional
Standards for Teachers of Music draws upon the work of Yarborough and others to
proscribe a detailed course of study and competencies for the certification of music
teachers in that state (Holcomb 2003). Connecticut drafted two documents to define the
standards set forth for teacher certification: the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching
and the Connecticut Competency Instrument.
51
In comparing the requirements in several schools of music teacher education, the
amount of time mandated in the field experience ranged from a few hours or weeks to
300 hours spread over several years of the baccalaureate program. In order to determine
the use, value and nature of the early field experience, there exists a need for many in-
depth historical studies of early field experience programs in colleges and universities.
These studies can be compared to assess best practices in early field experience and
provide a basis for program review, refinement, and future development.
In the years between 1986 and 1995, the Holmes Group published their landmark
trilogy: Tomorrow’s Teachers (1986), Tomorrow’s Schools: Principles for the Design of
Professional Development Schools (1990), and Tomorrow‘s Schools of Education (1995).
In these volumes, the Holmes Group proposed a model for the Professional Development
School (PDS), in which the university faculty work engage in a collaborative effort with
the public school to establish and maintain centers for teacher training. The Holmes
Group provided a broad definition of the PDS:
A school for the development of novice professionals, for continuing the
development of experienced professionals, and for the research and development
of the teaching profession (1990, p. 1).
This PDS model served as a response to the perceived disconnect between the
university and the public school system, both of which were serving the teacher education
program, but often with a lack of articulation in terms of goals, formats and expectations.
Similar programs exist under different titles: Key School (Goodlad, 1990); Clinical
School (Carnegie Foundation on Education and the Economy, 1986); Induction School
(Wise, 1987); Partner School (Goodlad, 1990); Preservice Mentoring Site (Hopkins and
Moss, 1993).
52
The PDS and these other entities share the common goal of encouraging
collaboration in the planning and administration of field-based experiences for teacher
education students, allowing for the sharing of information and the input from all facets
of the program in terms of program goals and expectations. At the same time, the public
schools engage in reflective practice designed for the renewal of the school mission. The
Holmes Group (1990) cited both Conant and Goodlad’s theories of teacher training in
their articulation of the six guiding principles of the Professional Development School:
1. Committing to teaching for understanding
2. Organizing classrooms and schools as learning communities
3. Setting ambitious goals for all children
4. Establishing an environment that supports continuous learning for all
5. Making reflection and inquiry central to the school
6. Developing a new type of organization to adhere to these principles (Hopkins et
al., 1997)
Goodlad expanded the clinical professorship idea in his 1994 book Educational
Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools. In the place of university education
departments, Goodlad called for the creation of the Center of Pedagogy, staffed by
university faculty and school-site personnel. A component within the Center of Pedagogy
would be the partner school, in which the laboratory school concept of the 1970s would
be expanded to address not only teacher education, but education reform within the
school setting. The partner school staff would divide their time between classroom
teaching and the supervision of pre-service teachers. The collaboration and shared
experiences of the school-site staff and the clinical university faculty would then provide
for greater and more frequent communication opportunities as well as keeping both
groups current with trends and practices in public schools and higher education, to the
ultimate benefit of the pre-service teachers in the program
53
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURES
Summary of Procedures
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates in
relation to current school-university collaborations in teacher education; and (b) to
determine to what extent Goodlad’s model is currently being used in music teacher
education programs in colleges and universities in the United States.
Research questions were as follows:
1. Is the music teacher education program viewed by colleges and universities as a
major responsibility to society? [Postulates 1, 2]
2. Do music teacher educators perceive their programs to be adequately supported
and promoted by the institution’s top leadership? [Postulates 1, 2]
3. To what extent do university faculty and school site supervising teachers
engage in collaborative planning for pre-student teaching field experiences in music?
[Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10]
4. What formats are used for collaborative planning between school site teachers
and university faculty? [Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16]
5. Prior to initial early field experiences, do music teacher educators address non-
teaching issues (conflicts between current practice and other options, teacher role
socialization, and school/interest group tension)? [Postulates 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16]
6. Are early field experiences more commonly offered as a component of
coursework or as a separate course? [Postulates 10, 15]
54
7. What criteria are most often used in selecting school sites for early field
experiences? [Postulates 10, 15]
8. Do pre-service teachers utilize research in preparation for work in the
classroom? [Postulates 11, 14, 16]
9. Do music education faculty maintain contact with recent graduates for the
purpose of easing their transition into teaching and for program evaluation and reform?
[Postulates 17, 18, 19, 20]
Permission to send the survey was granted by the Institutional Review Board
upon examination of the survey document and the accompanying cover letter. The Office
of Research Services at the University of Georgia assisted with the preparation of the
survey and oversaw the distribution and collection of the results. Two weeks after the
initial distribution of the survey, a reminder email was sent to all survey participants. An
additional two weeks later, the phone numbers for all participants were compiled and
phone calls were made to each potential respondent, reiterating the offer to send a paper
copy of the survey and the offer to send the survey results upon request.
Subjects
A total of 107 college and university schools or departments of music were
selected as potential survey participants. These institutions consisted of the flagship
public university in each state and the next largest institution in the state that meets the
following criteria:
55
• accreditation by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM);
• accreditation by the National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education
(NCATE).
• the presence of a bachelor’s degree program (Bachelor of Music Education or
equivalent) leading to initial teacher certification in the public schools of the state
in which the institution is located.
Survey Design and Distribution
A database was constructed, listing the name, state, school affiliation and email
address of each potential respondent, using information found on college and university
websites. The cover letter (Appendix B) and survey (Appendix C) were distributed
electronically by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center to the chair of the
music education department in each institution and results were offered to the participants
upon request.
A pilot study (Appendix A) was conducted with 15 respondents to seek advice on
layout and usability. Subjects for the pilot study (N=15) included members of the
University of Georgia music education faculty who were not members of the dissertation
committee as well as recent University of Georgia doctoral graduates currently serving on
college or university faculties in music education. Corrections and suggestions were
incorporated in formulating the final survey. The reported average time for completing
the survey was 30 minutes.
56
Prior to the inception of the study, the final survey was submitted to the
University of Georgia Institute for Behavioral Research. This review satisfies an
institutional requirement to ensure that activities involving human subjects fully comply
with regulations and guidelines defined by the Department of Health and Human Services
and the Office for Human Research Protections, and to verify compliance with the basic
ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report (1978).
The final survey was constructed for the purpose of determining the impact of
Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates on school and teacher education reform. The Postulates
serve as general statements, and respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed. Questions related to each postulate provided additional and/or more specific
information (Appendix C).The survey addressed both logistical and philosophical issues
including scheduling, the selection of locations for early field experience, collaborative
planning and assessment between university faculty and public school teachers, non-
teaching issues related to the performance of the music teacher’s duties and their place in
the undergraduate curriculum, program review and reform and contact with graduates
regarding program evaluation and the entrance of graduates into the field.
The initial survey mailout included 107 potential participants identified in the
listing compiled according to the criteria listed above. Of these addresses, 13 surveys
were returned due to incorrect addresses. Another potential respondent from the same
institution was identified and surveys were mailed to these faculty members. Two weeks
after the initial mailing, a reminder email was sent to all list members, asking for
completion of the survey if the list member had not yet done so, and thanking them for
their participation if they had already completed the document. Each mailing offered to
57
send the survey in another format if the potential respondent requested, and there were no
requests for a different format. Two weeks after the reminder email, phone calls were
made to the offices of all potential respondents who had not yet completed the survey. An
additional two weeks later, the data was compiled.
Treatment of Data
Responses to both the Likert-type survey items and the open ended questions
were recorded by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center. Emails sent from
respondents regarding the survey items were collected at this site, as well. An Excel
spreadsheet was constructed to compare and record the more quantitative data items, with
all data being downloaded via the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2006
edition) and the descriptive items, e.g., respondent comments, were compiled for
assessment by researcher narrative. Responses were then organized by the frequency of
responses, including any comments or answers to the more open-ended items contained
in the survey.
58
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine Goodlad’s Twenty
Postulates in relation to current school-university collaborations in teacher education; and
(b) to determine to what extent Goodlad’s model is currently being used in music teacher
education programs in colleges and universities in the United States. A survey was
constructed by the researcher using the original Twenty Postulates of John I. Goodlad, to
which were added subquestions to verify the answers given. To accommodate the Likert-
type items treating the postulates and the various formats used in the subquestions, a
multifaceted analysis of data was employed. Results of the analysis were largely
descriptive, due to the open-ended nature of the majority of survey items. Quantitative
data were compiled and reported by means of tables and researcher narrative.
Survey Response Rate
Potential respondents were identified by chairmanship of the music education area
in the flagship university of each state as well as the next largest institution of that state.
All institutions chosen for invitation to participate were accredited members of the
National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) during the 2005-2006 academic year. All
institutions offered the Bachelor of Music Education or an equivalent degree at the
undergraduate level during the current academic year. In several cases, information was
59
found that either the flagship institution or the next largest school was similar enough in
size to another institution in the state as to be almost identical. In these seven states, a
third institution was chosen for inclusion in the study. This inclusion did not weight the
number of potential responses in favor of a particular region or size of school.
The original mailing of the survey included 107 individuals at the schools
identified above (N=107). Thirteen of the original 107 envelopes were returned as
undeliverable or refused. Another faculty member at the same institution was then
identified and a survey sent to that individual. Forty-four individuals responded to the
survey in the course of the study, yielding a response rate of 42.7%.
Response rates and nonresponse rates are becoming more and more important
issues in current survey research. According to Weisberg, Krosnick and Bowen (1989), in
the 1950s it was not unusual for survey researchers to obtain response rates of 90%. In
the past, researchers have focused on only one or two aspects of survey design, such as
response rate; current practice involves examining not only the number but also the type
of respondent to ensure that the responses are representative of the sample being
surveyed. Currently, potential respondents are not as trusting of interviewers, and
response rates are much lower—typically 70% or less. According to Jim Bason, director
of the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia:
In my experience in conducting over 100 web based surveys with varying degrees
of follow-up, response rates average between 20% and 30% with moderate level
of follow-up, and rarely do they exceed 50%.
In comparison to other types of surveys:
Telephone surveys usually experience somewhat lower response rates than face to
face surveys, with refusal being the dominant reason for nonresponse. Telephone
surveys are also subject to 'break-off' interviews, in which the respondent stops
the interview before it is completed. Response rates in mail surveys are extremely
60
varied, ranging from as low as 10% to over 90%. This variation depends in part
on the efforts made with follow-ups, and on the subject of the survey and its
relevance to the survey population. (Kalton, 1983, p. 126)
Mertens (2004) reported similar findings in survey research:
In a survey of university faculty, an electronic mail survey which used no paper or
stamps, but did use individually addressed emails, achieved a 45% response rate.
If the assumption holds that respondents and nonrespondents are similar, a
response rate of less than 50% is valid. (p.165)
Muijs agreed, claiming that if the respondent group is fully representative of the
entire sample being surveyed, then the response rate can be considered valid:
The number of nonresponse and unreturned questionnaires can be as low as 50%
or less, with virtually none receiving a 100% return rate. This non-response rate
will not be a problem if we are sure that the respondents represent a valid sample
of the population surveyed (2004, p.87).
This view was supported by Kumar (2005), Rea (2005) and Punch (2003):
Questionnaires are notorious for their low response rates. You should consider
yourself extremely lucky to obtain a 50% response rate, and in some cases, the
response rate will be as low as 20% (Kumar, p. 42).
A response rate lower than 50% can be considered satisfactory for analysis and
reporting of findings as long as the researcher is confident of the
representativeness of the respondents (Rea, p. 67).
As a general rule, the descriptive status survey is more likely to be concerned with
responses to individual items. The relationships-between-variables- survey is
more likely to help increase response rates. Preliminary work for developing the
questionnaire may involve the use of qualitative techniques—such as open-ended
interviews and focus-group (Punch, p. 113).
Additionally, Schafer and Dillman (1998) found that electronically distributed
surveys yielded better-quality data in terms of survey completion and response to open-
ended questions.
61
Data Analysis
It is important to note that some survey participants chose to leave selected items
blank, or provided multiple answers to questions as appropriate to their individual
situations. This accounts for percentages totaling either less than or more than 100% for
those survey items. In none of these cases did blank responses or multiple responses have
a significant effect upon the results. The survey items and responses are listed below.
(The “Carnegie Classification” for colleges and universities is adapted from the Carnegie
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 ed.)
Demographic Background
1. What is the total student population of your college or university?
1. Fewer than 5,000 students—2 of 44 responses; 4.55%
2. 5,000-10,000 students—2 of 44 responses; 4.55%
3. 10,000-15,000 students—5 of 44 responses; 11.36%
4. 15,000-20,000 students—6 of 44 responses; 13.64%
5. 20,000-25,000 students—7 of 44 responses; 15.91%
6. More than 25,000 students—12 of 44 responses; 27.27%
No response—10; 22.73%
2. What is the Carnegie Classification of your college or university?
1. Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: These institutions typically
offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate
education through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded 50 or more
doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines.
Sixteen responses; 36.36%
62
2. Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: These institutions typically offer
a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education
through the doctorate. During the period studied, they awarded at least 10 doctoral
degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year
overall.
Eight responses; 18.18%
3. Master's Colleges and Universities I: These institutions typically offer a wide
range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through
the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master’s degrees
per year across three or more disciplines.
Five responses; 11.36%
4. Master's Colleges and Universities II: These institutions typically offer a wide
range of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through
the master's degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more master’s degrees
per year.
No respondents indicated membership in this group.
5. Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts: These institutions are primarily
undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period
studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.
Two responses; 4.55%
63
6. Baccalaureate Colleges—General: These institutions are primarily
undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period
studied, they awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.
No respondents indicated membership in this group.
7. Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges: These institutions are undergraduate
colleges where the majority of conferrals are below the baccalaureate level (associate's
degrees and certificates). During the period studied, bachelor's degrees accounted for at
least 10% of undergraduate awards.
No respondents indicated membership in this group.
No response—13; 29.55%
Philosophical Support
3. The music teacher education program is viewed by the institution as a major
responsibility to society and is adequately supported and promoted by the institution’s top
leadership.
5—Strongly agree; 1 response—2.27%
4—Agree; 5 responses—11.36%
3—Neutral; 6 responses—13.64%
2—Disagree; 11 responses—25.00%
1—Strongly disagree; 8 responses—18.18%
0—Not applicable; no responses
No response—13; 29.55%
Based on the above responses, 13.64% of the respondents indicated agreement that
the music teacher education program is viewed as a major responsibility to society, with
64
concurrent support and promotion by the administration of their institutions. Totaling the
“disagree” and “strongly disagree” responses, 43.18% of participants indicated that this
was not their view of the institution. Goodlad placed this statement at the fore of his
postulates, emphasizing the need for the teacher education program to be at the center of
the institution’s mission. Given the large number of participants indicating that their
institutions are in Carnegie classifications 1, 2 and 3, it is notable that many music teacher
education programs in major universities are not seen by their stakeholders to be a priority
for the institution at large.
3A. Do cooperating teachers in the school site classroom receive remuneration for
their supervision of field experience participants?
1. Yes—20 responses; 45.45%
2. No—11 responses; 25.00%
No response—13; 29.55%
3B. If remuneration is given to cooperating teachers, from whom is it received?
1. School/Department of Education at the university—16 responses; 36.36%
2. School/Department of Music at the university—5 responses; 11.36%
3. State funds—1 response; 2.27%
No response—22; 50.00%
Since the cooperating teacher in the field experience classroom is serving as a de
facto member of the music education faculty, it would stand to reason that there should be
compensation for the supervision of field experience participants. Offering compensation
to the cooperating teacher would also elevate the status of the cooperating teacher to that of
adjunct faculty and could make the experience more attractive to the classroom teacher,
65
since the presence of the field experience participant adds another dimension to the
cooperating teacher’s duties.
3C. What is the most commonly used format for collaborative planning between
university faculty and school site supervisors at your institution?
1. General group orientation for school site cooperating teachers—2 responses;
4.55%
2. Group planning between university faculty and cooperating teachers—no
responses
3. Monthly planning meetings between university faculty and cooperating
teachers—1 response; 2.27%
4. Quarter/semester meetings between university faculty and cooperating
teachers—1 response; 2.27%
5. Conferences between individual faculty and cooperating teachers during the field
experience—22 responses; 50.00%
6. Other [please elaborate] —4 responses; 9.09%
No response—14; 31.82%
The respondents choosing “Other” indicated that a combination of formats for
collaborative planning was utilized at their institutions. Comments included:
“Both general orientation and conferences,”
“We have both a group orientation at the beginning of the internship period and
frequent individual conferences during the internship period,” and
“All of our co-ops are workshoped (sic) individually before they are considered for
use with our program.”
66
The responses indicated that collaborative planning is taking place between
university faculty members and cooperating teachers, though the format and frequency
varies between institutions.
3D. Who is responsible for the authorship of early field experience
guidelines/syllabi/goals and aims?
1. University faculty—23 responses; 52.27%
2. Cooperating teachers—no responses
3. Both—6 responses; 13.64%
No response—15; 34.09%
Though collaboration was reported as taking place between the institution and the
field experience placement location, The university faculty was indicated as having the
sole responsibility for the authorship of goals and aims in the field experience. According
to Goodlad, university faculty and field experience supervisors in the public schools should
work together to identify common goals and aims, and, in doing so, establish guidelines for
the experience that will address the needs of both locations.
3E. Who is responsible for the evaluation of early field experience participants?
1. University faculty—15 responses; 34.09%
2. Cooperating teachers—5 responses; 11.36%
3. Both—20 responses; 45.45%
No response—4; 9.09%
In comparing the authorship of the goals and aims of the field experience with the
reported evaluation practices, the evaluation is more collaborative in nature than the setting
of guidelines. In a true collaboration, the responsibility for evaluation as well as
67
establishing guidelines would be equally shared by the field supervisor and the university
faculty. According to the results of this survey, both cooperating teachers and university
faculty are most likely evaluating participants, based on criteria set by the university
faculty.
4. There exists a clearly identifiable group of academic faculty members for whom teacher
education is their primary assignment.
5. Strongly agree—1 response; 2.27%
4. Agree—2 responses; 4.55%
3. Neutral—no responses
2. Disagree—7 responses; 15.91%
1. Strongly disagree—29 responses; 65.91%
0. Not applicable—no responses
No response—5; 11.36%
4A.What is the number of full-time music education faculty at your institution?
1. 1-5—24 responses; 54.55%
2. 6-10—13 responses; 29.55%
3. 11-15—2responses; 4.55%
4. More than 15—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—3; 6.82%
4B.What is the number of music education faculty whose assignment includes
supervising pre-student teaching field experience?
1. 1-5—34 responses; 77.27%
2. 6-10—2 responses; 4.55%
68
3. 11-15—1 response; 2.27%
4. More than 15—no responses
No response—7; 15.91%
The responses to questions 4, 4A and 4B, when compared to the demographic data
collected at the beginning of the survey indicate that, though the majority of the
respondents indicated that they work in large institutions, the number of full-time music
education faculty does not correspond to the populations of the universities. Additionally,
the data also show that supervisors of field experiences are not engaged in those activities
as their primary assignment. Goodlad emphasized the need for a “clearly identifiable”
group of faculty members for whom teacher education is their primary assignment.
Logistical Concerns
5. The music teacher education program assures for each candidate the availability of a
wide array of laboratory settings for simulation, observation and hands-on experiences in
exemplary schools.
5. Strongly agree—19 responses; 43.18%
4. Agree—16 responses; 36.36%
3. Neutral—no responses
2. Disagree—3 responses; 6.82%
1. Strongly disagree—2 responses; 4.55%
0. Not applicable—no responses
No response—4; 9.09%
69
5A.What are the total clock hour requirements for early field experience in the
undergraduate music education curriculum?
1. 1-5—no responses
2. 6-10—2 responses; 4.55%
3. 11-15—no responses
4. More than 15—40 responses; 90.91%
No response—2; 4.55%
5B.What are the titles of courses that currently involve a field experience
component and the year that they are taken?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Learning Theories in Music freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Techniques of Classroom Instruments freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
70
Instrumental Techniques sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Teaching General Music sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Exploring Individual Differences sophomore
Elementary General Music Methods sophomore
Foundations of Elementary Instrumental Instruction sophomore
Conducting I and II sophomore
Human Growth and Development sophomore
Students with Disabilities sophomore
Vocal Techniques for Instrumentalists sophomore
Foundations of Instrumental Music junior
Marching Band Techniques junior
Marching Band Internship junior
Music in the Elementary Grades junior
Elementary Music Methods junior
Early Childhood Music junior
Instrumental Music in the Elementary School junior
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
71
General Methods I junior
General Music in the Middle/High School junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Choral/Instrumental Organization and Administration junior
Teaching Choral/Instrumental/General Music junior
Music Education Methods I and II junior
Teaching Music in the Middle School junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
General Methods II junior
Approaches to Teaching Music junior
Elementary Methods and Materials junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Teaching Choral Music junior
Middle School/Junior High Music Methods junior
Instrumental Techniques junior
Woodwind/Brass/Percussion/String Methods junior
Advanced Methods in Secondary Instrumental Music junior
Educational Psychology I and II junior
Beginning Instruments Lab I and II junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Jazz and Marching Band Pedagogy junior
Vocal and Choral Methods senior
72
Beginning Band Methods senior
Music Education Methods I and II senior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Elementary School Music Methods senior
Elementary/Middle School Instrumental Methods senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
Music Education Conducting Practicum senior
Foundations of Secondary Instrumental Instruction senior
Teaching Composition in Schools senior
5C. What is the most commonly used criterion for the selection of school sites?
1. Proximity to university campus—10 responses; 22.73%
2. Reputation of cooperating teacher—32 responses; 72.73%
3. Membership in a formalized collaboration with the university, i.e., lab school,
partner school, etc.—no responses
4. Other—2 responses with comments; 4.22%
“varied depending on course criteria,” “MUED identifies schools and assigns
students.”
No response—none
73
The preceding questions reveal that field experiences were reported to be used
widely in the teacher education programs represented by the respondents to the survey. The
majority of respondents indicated that more than 15 clock hours were required in field
experiences for participants. Also interesting to note is the fact that at the freshman and
sophomore levels, there were more multiple responses regarding the courses which include
field experiences as a requirement. In the junior and senior years, there was a wider
diversity of courses including early field experiences.
The majority of respondents indicated familiarity with the reputation of the
cooperating teacher to the extent that the cooperating teacher’s reputation served as the
criterion for selection of the school site. Proximity to campus, while an important logistical
concern, is not mentioned by Goodlad, though it is used by many respondents. The formal
collaboration proposed by Goodlad and by those who have referenced his writings in
establishing their own theories of collaborative practice were not present in the data
collected in this study.
6. The music teacher education program admits no more students to their programs than
can be assured quality field experiences.
5. Strongly agree—15 responses; 34.09%
4. Agree—11 responses; 25.00%
3. Neutral—5 responses; 11.36%
2. Disagree—7 responses; 15.91%
1. Strongly disagree—2 responses; 4.55%
0. Not applicable—no responses
No response—4; 9.09%
74
6A.What is the number of undergraduate music education majors at your
institution?
1. 1-49—5 responses; 2.27%
2. 50-99—5 responses; 2.27%
3. 100-149—25 responses; 56.8%
4. 150-199—3 responses; 6.82%
5. 200+—1 response; 2.27%
No response—5; 2.27%
6B.What is the approximate number of undergraduate music education majors
participating in early field experience in a typical semester?
1. 1-4—2 responses; 4.55%
2. 5-9—4 responses; 9.09%
3. 10-14—3 responses; 6.82%
4. 15+—35 responses; 79.55%
7. What is the approximate number of school sites utilized during a typical semester?
1. 1-4—4 responses; 9.09%
2. 5-9—11 responses; 25.00%
3. 10-14—10 responses; 22.73%
4. 15+—15 responses; 34.09%
No response—4; 9.09%
The preceding responses indicated that in most of the programs participating in the
study, large numbers of students were participants in early field experiences, and the
75
respondents expressed agreement with their programs’ ability to provide a wide selection
of field experience sites in quality programs.
Music Teacher Candidate Preparation for Early Field Experience
8. The music teacher education program screens applicants thoroughly in regard to their
commitment to teaching, requiring evidence that the applicant displays the moral and
ethical responsibilities necessary to enter the field.
1. Strongly agree—20 responses; 45.45%
2. Agree—20 responses; 45.45%
3. Neutral—3 responses; 6.82%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—no responses
6. Not applicable—no responses
9. The music teacher education program is characterized by the conditions for learning that
future teachers are to establish in their own schools and classrooms, serving as a model for
candidates.
1. Strongly agree—21 responses; 47.73%
2. Agree—13 responses; 29.55%
3. Neutral—5 responses; 11.36%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—no responses
6. Not applicable—no responses
76
10. The music teacher education program is infused with the commitment of teachers to
ensure equitable access to the best possible K-12 education for all children and youths.
1. Strongly agree—27 responses; 61.36%
2. Agree—8 responses; 18.18%
3. Neutral—5 responses; 11.36%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—no responses
6. Not applicable—1 response; 2.27%
No response—3; 6.82%
The preceding three questions and the responses provided to them indicated that the
participants in the survey agreed that their programs were committed to screening teacher
education applicants, establishing model field situations and providing the best possible
opportunities for both their students and those populations served by them.
11. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in the issues of tension
between the rights and interests of individual parents and interest groups and the role of
schools.
1. Strongly agree—5 responses; 11.36%
2. Agree—24 responses; 54.55%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—6; 13.64%
77
Additional comments included: “They are sprinkled throughout courses,” “I’m not
sure what issues you’re talking about,” “All music ed courses and field experiences,” and
“See courses listed above.” The majority of respondents agreed that this Postulate was
being satisfied by their programs.
11A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Instrumental Techniques sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Teaching General Music sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
78
Exploring Individual Differences sophomore
Students with Disabilities sophomore
Early Childhood Music junior
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
General Methods I junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Choral/Instrumental Organization and Administration junior
Teaching Choral/Instrumental/General Music junior
Music Education Methods I and II junior
Teaching Music in the Middle School junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
General Methods II junior
Approaches to Teaching Music junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Teaching Choral Music junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Music Education Methods I and II senior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
79
Internship I senior
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
Again, the titles of courses satisfying this Postulate diverge after the sophomore
year. The majority of respondents indicated that the issues of individual and parent
interests as contrasted with the goals of the school were addressed in their teacher
education programs.
12. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in understanding
alternatives to the current school model, the assumptions underlying alternatives, and how
to effect needed changes in school organization.
1. Strongly agree—5 responses; 11.36%
2. Agree—29 responses; 65.91%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
12A.In what classes are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
80
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Learning Theories in Music freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Teaching General Music sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Foundations of Elementary Instrumental Instruction sophomore
Human Growth and Development sophomore
Students with Disabilities sophomore
Early Childhood Music junior
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
General Methods I junior
General Music in the Middle/High School junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
81
Choral/Instrumental Organization and Administration junior
Teaching Choral/Instrumental/General Music junior
Music Education Methods I and II junior
Teaching Music in the Middle School junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
General Methods II junior
Approaches to Teaching Music junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Teaching Choral Music junior
Educational Psychology I and II junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Music Education Methods I and II senior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
13. The music teacher education program engages future teachers in the study of conflicts
between daily classroom practice and the research and theory supporting other options.
1. Strongly agree—5 responses; 11.36%
2. Agree—24 responses; 54.55%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
82
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—6; 13.64%
13A.In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Learning Theories in Music freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Techniques of Classroom Instruments freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Teaching General Music sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
83
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Exploring Individual Differences sophomore
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
General Methods I junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Choral/Instrumental Organization and Administration junior
Music Education Methods I and II junior
Teaching Music in the Middle School junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
General Methods II junior
Approaches to Teaching Music junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Teaching Choral Music junior
Middle School/Junior High Music Methods junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Music Education Methods I and II senior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
84
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
Many of the courses that present alternatives to the current school model are the
same courses reported to involve field experiences and address issues of conflict between
entities. A majority of the courses were also reported to occur during the freshman and
sophomore years.
14. The music teacher education program is conducted in such a way that teachers inquire
into the nature of teaching and schooling by way of research and assume that they will do
so as a natural aspect of their careers.
1. Strongly agree—3 responses; 6.82%
2. Agree—7 responses; 15.91%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
4. Disagree—6 responses; 13.64%
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—19; 43.18%
14A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
85
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Learning Theories in Music freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Techniques of Classroom Instruments freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Instrumental Techniques sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Teaching General Music sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Exploring Individual Differences sophomore
Elementary General Music Methods sophomore
Foundations of Elementary Instrumental Instruction sophomore
Human Growth and Development sophomore
Students with Disabilities sophomore
Foundations of Instrumental Music junior
Music in the Elementary Grades junior
Elementary Music Methods junior
Early Childhood Music junior
86
Instrumental Music in the Elementary School junior
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
General Methods I junior
General Music in the Middle/High School junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Teaching Choral/Instrumental/General Music junior
Music Education Methods I and II junior
Teaching Music in the Middle School junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
General Methods II junior
Approaches to Teaching Music junior
Elementary Methods and Materials junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Teaching Choral Music junior
Middle School/Junior High Music Methods junior
Advanced Methods in Secondary Instrumental Music junior
Educational Psychology I and II junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Vocal and Choral Methods senior
Beginning Band Methods senior
87
Music Education Methods I and II senior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Elementary School Music Methods senior
Elementary/Middle School Instrumental Methods senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
Additional comments included:
“Inquiry is a part of all education courses.”
“Hopefully, all.”
“All courses at the junior and senior levels.”
“All music ed courses.”
While inquiry may seem to some to be an inherent part of all courses in education
and music education, Goodlad asserted that there must be a concerted effort to address
inquiry as a specific topic in coursework and to interweave it with the training of teachers.
Evaluation of Candidates
15. The music teacher education program ensures that all music teacher candidates possess
or acquire the literacy and critical-thinking abilities associated with the concept of an
educated person.
1. Strongly agree—23 responses; 52.27%
2. Agree—10 responses; 22.73%
88
3. Neutral—1 response; 2.27%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—no responses
No response—9; 20.45%
16. The music teacher education program encourages candidates to move beyond being
students of concepts and methods to become teachers who inquire into the nature of
teaching.
1. Strongly agree—22 responses; 50.00%
2. Agree—20 responses; 45.45%
3. Neutral—1 response; 2.27%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—no responses
16A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
Introduction to Teaching freshman
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Learning Theories in Music freshman
89
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Education in American Society sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
New Horizons sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Exploring Individual Differences sophomore
Marching Band Internship junior
Music in the Elementary Grades junior
Early Childhood Music junior
Field Experience junior
General Music in the Middle/High School junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Choral Music in Schools junior
Teaching in American Schools junior
Foundations of American Education junior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
90
Additional comments included:
“All courses in the junior and senior years.”
“All music ed courses.”
“All methods courses.”
Goodlad presented the movement from methods courses to practitioners concerned
with nature of learning as a central concept in his writings. Most of the respondents
indicated that this was being accomplished in their programs.
17. The music teacher education program is characterized by a socialization process
through which candidates move from their student identity to a collaborative, inquiry-
oriented approach to teaching.
1. Strongly agree—5 responses; 11.36%
2. Agree—25 responses; 56.82%
3. Neutral—3 responses; 6.82%
4. Disagree—8 responses; 18.18%
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—no responses
No response—2; 4.55%
17A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
Pre-Professional Experiences I and II freshman
Orientation to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Music Teacher as Communicator freshman
Introduction to Music Teaching freshman
91
Introduction to Teaching freshman
Music Education Orientation (multiple responses) freshman
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) freshman
Pre-Professional Experiences II sophomore
Introduction to Music Education (multiple responses) sophomore
Practicum (multiple responses) sophomore
Field Experience (multiple responses) sophomore
Exploring Teaching sophomore
Principles of Music Education sophomore
Marching Band Internship junior
Field Experience junior
Secondary Music Methods junior
“various disciplinary methods courses” junior
Planning and Managing Learning in Music Education junior
The Teaching of Music Curriculum junior
Choral/Instrumental Organization and Administration junior
Seminar in Music Education senior
Elementary School Music Methods senior
Practicum in Music Education senior
Administration of Music Programs senior
Internship I senior
Secondary Methods senior
Marching Techniques and Band Organization senior
92
Music Education Conducting Practicum senior
Foundations of Secondary Instrumental Instruction senior
Socialization as an aspect of the teacher training program was espoused by Goodlad
and by others. The practice of teacher socialization was reported to be used in a wide array
of courses by the respondents.
Program Evaluation
18. The music teacher education faculty is responsible and accountable for continuously
evaluating and improving programs.
1. Strongly agree—3 responses; 6.82%
2. Agree—15 responses; 34.09%
3. Neutral—4 responses; 9.09%
4. Disagree—15 responses; 34.09%
5. Strongly disagree—2 responses; 4.55%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—3; 6.82%
19. School site classroom teachers are included in program evaluation and improvement.
1. Strongly agree—8 responses; 18.18%
2. Agree—25 responses; 56.82%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
No response—2; 4.55%
93
20. The teacher education program rewards efforts to continuously improve and tolerates
no shortcuts intended to ensure a supply of teachers.
1. Strongly agree—11 responses; 25.00%
2. Agree—18 responses; 40.91%
3. Neutral—8 responses; 18.18%
4. Disagree—no responses
5. Strongly disagree—5 responses; 11.36%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
Respondents were almost evenly divided on the topic of accountability and
evaluation of their programs. Goodlad’s Postulates hold continuous evaluation and
accountability as a primary responsibility of the teacher education program, as well as for
public school programs. One respondent indicated that school site cooperating teachers
were not included in the process; with Goodlad’s model including cooperating teachers as
essential members of the teacher education program, their input is necessary to program
evaluation and improvement. Further research should examine the extent to which the
cooperating teacher is included in program assessment and evaluation.
Contact with Graduates
21. The music education faculty is responsible and accountable for facilitating the entry of
graduates into teaching careers.
1. Strongly agree—25 responses; 56.8%
2. Agree—10 responses; 22.73%
3. Neutral—6 responses; 13.64%
4. Disagree—no responses
94
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—2 responses; 4.55%
22. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose
of program evaluation and revision.
1. Strongly agree—20 responses; 45.45%
2. Agree—14 responses; 31.82%
3. Neutral—5 responses; 11.36%
4. Disagree—2 responses; 4.55%
5. Strongly disagree—1 response; 2.27%
6. Not applicable—no responses
23. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose
of easing the critical early years of transition into teaching.
1. Strongly agree—10 responses; 22.73%
2. Agree—22 responses; 50.00%
3. Neutral—2 responses; 4.55%
4. Disagree—4 responses; 9.09%
5. Strongly disagree—no responses
6. Not applicable—no responses
No response—6; 13.64%
24. The institution continually assesses individual and collaborative roles of participants in
supporting lifelong teaching careers characterized by professional growth, service, and
satisfaction.
95
1. Strongly agree—7 responses; 15.91%
2. Agree—13 responses; 29.55%
3. Neutral—7 responses; 15.91%
4. Disagree—7 responses; 15.91%
5. Strongly disagree—2 responses; 4.55%
6. Not applicable—no responses
No response—8; 18.18%
As well as including classroom teachers in program development and assessment,
Goodlad stressed the need for the participation of program graduates in assessment,
evaluation, and revision. Participants indicated satisfaction at the departmental level, yet
positive responses were lower when referring to the institution at large, a theme which
pervaded the study.
In examining all of the responses to survey items, a pattern emerged, including
satisfaction with departmental programs, with a lower degree of satisfaction at the level of
top administration, as evidenced by a lower percentage of positive responses and a higher
percentage of neutral or negative responses.
Adapted from: Goodlad, John I., Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), pp. 72-93.
96
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine Goodlad’s Twenty Postulates in
relation to current school-university collaborations in teacher education; and (b) to
determine to what extent Goodlad’s model is currently being used in music teacher
education programs in colleges and universities in the United States.
Research questions were as follows:
1. Is the music teacher education program viewed by colleges and universities as a
major responsibility to society? [Postulates 1, 2]
2. Do music teacher educators perceive their programs to be adequately supported
and promoted by the institution’s top leadership? [Postulates 1, 2]
3. To what extent do university faculty and school site supervising teachers
engage in collaborative planning for pre-student teaching field experiences in music?
[Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10]
4. What formats are used for collaborative planning between school site teachers
and university faculty? [Postulates 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16]
5. Prior to initial early field experiences, do music teacher educators address non-
teaching issues (conflicts between current practice and other options, teacher role
socialization, and school/interest group tension)? [Postulates 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16]
6. Are early field experiences more commonly offered as a component of
coursework or as a separate course? [Postulates 10, 15]
97
7. What criteria are most often used in selecting school sites for early field
experiences? [Postulates 10, 15]
8. Do pre-service teachers utilize research in preparation for work in the
classroom? [Postulates 11, 14, 16]
9. Do music education faculty maintain contact with recent graduates for the
purpose of easing their transition into teaching and for program evaluation and reform?
[Postulates 17, 18, 19, 20]
The responses indicated that although most respondents felt that their music
teacher preparation programs were adhering to the Postulates, there was a pattern of
disagreement with the view of the teacher education program and its concurrent support
and promotion by the administration of the college or university at large as a major
responsibility of the institution. Possible issues involved in the support and promotion of
the teacher education program included compensation for cooperating teachers; the
number of faculty for whom teacher education was the primary assignment; and the
number of full time music education faculty as compared to the number of music
education majors in the program; the number of students engaged in early field
experiences, and the number of early field experience sites utilized during a typical
semester.
The respondents comprised a representation of all sizes and classifications of
institutions, though the largest number of respondents indicated that their schools served
15,000 or more students. This majority was expected in the design of the study, given that
the choice of schools included the flagship institution of each state, the next largest
institution meeting the criteria set forth in the study design, and an additional school in
98
the states in which there were two schools with almost equal student populations in
addition to the other criteria for selection for the study, (i.e., membership in NASM and
NCATE and offering Bachelor of Music Education or comparable degree programs at the
baccalaureate level). Over half of the institutions were reported to be in Carnegie
Classifications I and II, offering degree programs through the doctorate. All institutions
participating in the study offered a wide range of programs at the baccalaureate level,
with over half of the degrees conferred being in the field of liberal arts by the schools
which reported having no graduate programs.
Almost half of the respondents indicated “disagree” or “strongly disagree” when
presented with the statement that the teacher education program is viewed by their
institution as a major role in society and that the program is adequately supported and
promoted by the institution’s leadership. Additionally, 25% of the respondents stated that
field experience cooperating teachers are not compensated for their supervision of music
teacher education students. Further studies can and should examine the reasons for this
perception, particularly in terms of the percentage of the university population served by
the teacher education program. An important question to be answered would be the
existence of parity with other pre-professional programs and if that parity did not exist,
what steps could be taken to establish and maintain that essential balance. Examination of
funding, means of program promotion, staffing and other issues of institutional support
would yield a greater understanding of the perception of the administrative view of the
teacher education program as a major factor in the institutional mission of the university.
Collaborative planning was reported by the respondents as an integral part of the
early field experience. The most common formats used for planning between university
99
faculty and cooperating teachers in the field were group orientation meetings, workshops
for cooperating teachers, and frequent meetings between university faculty and
cooperating teachers during the field experience quarter or semester. Though
collaborative planning took place, the responsibility for authorship of the goals, aims,
objectives and assessment criteria resided chiefly with the university faculty. Both
university faculty members and cooperating teachers evaluated field experience
participants, using criteria set by the university faculty. Many of the respondents reported
that their institutions solicited feedback from the classroom cooperating teacher in order
to examine and refine the field experience. In Goodlad’s view, the university faculty and
the cooperating teachers would collaborate at every level of teacher training, from the
design of courses, setting of goals, aims, objectives and assessment criteria to evaluation
of students and programs. By including all supervisors equally, a true collaboration
would result, with the responsibility for program design and evaluation being shared by
the university-school site collaborative team.
Field experiences were reported to be both separate courses and embedded
activities in methods courses. In most of the responses, an array of field experiences
existed for the music education major, at all levels of schooling and in both education and
music education courses. The reputation of the cooperating teacher was the most often
utilized criterion for the selection of the field experience placement site, followed by the
proximity to the university campus. None of the respondents indicated membership in a
partner school, key school, demonstration school, or other entity where a formal
collaboration served as the determining factor for field experience placement choices. In
Goodlad’s Postulates, specific sites for partnership would need to be identified and
100
chosen. The partnership would be formalized, with the school site serving as a laboratory
school in which field experience participants would work in conjunction with their
methods coursework. This arrangement currently exists in many forms, including the
Professional Development School, the key school, the partner school and the laboratory
school, all of which use intensive collaborative planning between the university faculty
and the school site classroom teachers. This planning extends beyond the current trend of
visits by the university supervisor to a true partnership where all supervisors identify
needs, goals and evaluation criteria and methods.
Prior to the field experience, most of the respondents indicated that preparation
included careful screening of the applicants in regard to literacy skills, personal attributes
and commitment to teaching. Further studies would examine more deeply the amount and
type of activities included in this screening process. The literature yields descriptions of
teacher candidate interviews as being a widely popular mode of applicant screening, but
no one format of candidate evaluation has emerged as the central mode of determination
for a potential teacher’s success in the teacher education program.
Issues of conflict within the school system and educational alternatives to the
current school model were reported to be addressed in a combination or courses, both at
the inception of the teacher education program and throughout the sequence of courses.
The manner in which these issues are addressed was reported to be different at each
institution. Further studies should examine the place that conflict between the school’s
mission and the interests of individual entities and groups occupies in the curriculum, and
whether the curriculum afford these issues a place in the coursework, especially
considering the responses that such issues are “sprinkled throughout courses.”
101
Alternatives to the current school model should be studied as well, especially as such
alternatives become more widely known, particularly in the areas of home schooling,
charter schools and dedicated magnet schools.
Research is often included in course materials, from the early, introductory
courses through the internship and field experience stand-alone courses and into the
student teaching semester. The amount and type of research activities should be
examined in further studies, as well as the methods for incorporating research into the
undergraduate curriculum. The current study did not elaborate upon the function of
research in the undergraduate teacher training program. According to Goodlad, research
should play an integral part in the teacher education program, in order to supplement the
learning in the university classroom and to enhance the field experience activities.
Contact with graduates was frequently cited as a source of information for the
purposes of program assessment, evaluation and planning. This contact was reported to
serve dual purposes: for the good of the music teacher education program in collecting
feedback and suggestions, and to assist graduates as they make the transition from student
to colleague.
Additional research would yield insight into the nature and frequency of alumni
contact, from the possible use of exit surveys given in many institutions to an ongoing
effort to solicit alumni feedback in evaluating and refining existing programs, as well as
offering new experiences of benefit to all participants in the program.
102
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on survey responses, the institutions participating in the study adhered to
Goodlad’s Postulates in the areas of field experience preparation, variety of experiences
and collaborative planning. Coursework supported the issues raised in the Postulates in
terms of program assessment, preparation for school reform and alternatives, and contact
with graduates.
An issue of disagreement with Postulate 1 concerned the respondents’ view of the
teacher education program as a major responsibility to society and the promotion and
advancement of the program by the top leadership of their institution. This is expressed in
Goodlad’s Postulate 2 in terms of faculty rewards, and in Postulate 3 in terms of
autonomy, budget and staffing considerations, and the authority to make clear and
immediate decisions regarding their programs. Goodlad’s Postulate 4 enumerates the
need for a group of faculty members for whom teacher education is their top priority.
According to the present study, many of the field experience supervising faculty
members in responding institutions are not full time music education faculty. Further
studies should examine faculty loads in terms of music education duties as compared to
other assignments within the department. Another topic for study would be inquiry
regarding a cohesive system of screening students for entry into the program, monitoring
their progress through the program or maintaining contact with graduates as they move
into the field as full time teachers. The roles of school in society are reported to be
103
addressed in the curriculum in a variety of courses and formats. Postulate 5 calls for a
more systematic method of instruction by faculty members to acquaint the future teacher
to the comprehensive role of schools in society and the possible conflicts that may arise
as the needs of the school are compared to the belief systems of its constituents.
Postulate 7 calls for the assessment of literacy and critical thinking skills
possessed by its graduates and, if needed, taking steps to ensure that the skills are in place
prior to graduation from the program. Most of the respondents agreed that this was taking
place, though the study did not address exactly how and when this assessment is made.
Postulate 8 espouses the need for teacher education programs to encourage and support
teacher education candidates as they move beyond the methods course into an inquiry-
oriented approach to the nature of teaching and learning. This was reported to be the case
in the majority of responding institutions, raising the question of exactly how and when
this transition occurs.
The shift in identity from the self-oriented student to the other-oriented concept
essential to teaching is the focus of Postulate 9. Corresponding survey items indicated
that most of the respondents saw their programs as meeting this need, though the specific
activities fostering the development of this self view were outside the focus of the study.
Modeling standards in classroom environment, as described in Postulates 10 and
Eleven, were present in the programs participating in the study. Also present were the
topics of educational reform, alternatives to the current educational models, and
conflicting viewpoints as contained in Postulates 12 and 13. These topics are addressed in
the diverse settings offered to teacher education candidates as enumerated in Postulates
15 and 16.
104
The mission of the teacher education program continues beyond graduation from
the institution, to issues of certification, licensing and the involvement of all participants
in the program in an ongoing effort to continuously evaluate and improve programs, as
Goodlad espouses in Postulates 17, 18, 19, and 20. Through participation of all members
of the education community, the institution may then take the leadership role in
establishing and maintaining the program which will in turn educate, support and nurture
teachers at every stage of their professional lives, from their entrance into the program to
possible service as a cooperating teacher for the next generation of music teacher
candidates.
Areas in need of further examination included the ongoing collaboration with
cooperating teachers as well as the placement of the teacher education program at the
forefront of the institutional mission of the college or university. Since Goodlad’s
Postulates are numerous and address so many aspects of the teacher education program,
the responses to this study should be used as a point of reference for deeper inquiry into
the specific issues raised by Goodlad.
Despite the overall positive responses regarding departmental mission, there was
a recurring pattern of responses indicating neutral or negative views of institutional
promotion and support of the teacher education program. Further studies should gather
data comparing the number of students in the teacher education program to the
percentage of students in other areas of study in order to determine whether allotments of
resources, promotion and support are comparably distributed among the areas. Individual
institutions can and should take steps to ensure that the top administration of the
institution recognizes and understands the many activities and purposes of the teacher
105
education program. By increasing its visibility to the institution at large, the teacher
education program can ensure its place at the forefront of the institution’s purpose.
Collaboration between the university and the school site, while currently present
in many forms, can and should be expanded and deepened. Goodlad’s recommendation
establishes formalized partnerships with school sites, with cooperating teachers serving
as adjunct faculty members at the university. This collaboration would ensure an ongoing
relationship between the entities, with benefits for all: the cooperating teacher would
receive remuneration and status commensurate with his or her role as well as access to
new research and teaching methods. The university would benefit from the frequent
contact with daily school activities, allowing both students and faculty to put methods
and theories into regular practice.
The extent to which the Postulates are being employed by the participants in the
study is two-fold: on a departmental level, the Postulates are being satisfied in the areas
of coursework, providing many and varied opportunities for experience and in exploring
current educational issues, and in program assessment, evaluation and reform; on an
institutional level, there is progress to be made in the areas of visibility to the
administration of the college or university and in the resources and personnel allotted to
the teacher education program.
With the Postulates being so numerous and addressing so many facets of the
teacher education program, this study presented an overview of the extent to which
Goodlad’s Postulates are being utilized by the participating music teacher education
departments. With this wide view of the programs being established, the next step in the
process would be to examine the individual sections in the study for a deeper
106
understanding of each facet of the music teacher education program. Future studies
would explore institutional support for the music teacher education program, logistical
concerns of the field experience, the placement of field experience in the curriculum,
music teacher candidate preparation for early field experience, evaluation of candidates
both prior to and during the early field experience, program evaluation, and contact with
graduates for the purpose of program evaluation and reform.
107
REFERENCES
Abbott, L. A. (1996). Reform initiative in the state of Illinois: Relative to assessment of
learning outcome statement in music as perceived by practitioners and professors.
Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAI97-08735)
Adderley, C. L. (1996). Music teacher preparation in South Carolina colleges and
universities relative to the National Standards: Goals 2000. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57 4680. (UMI No. AAI97-00655)
Adler, S. A. (1984). A historical analysis of early field experiences. Paper presented at
the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Allen-Haynes, L. M. (1993). A case study of the accelerated’ schools school-university
partnership model as a change strategy for a college of education’s teacher and
administrator training programs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of New
Orleans, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 9431695).
Babbie, E. R.(1990). Survey Research Methods, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990.
Bason, J. (2006). Personal communication. April 7, 2006.Bailey, R. M. (2000). Visiting
the music classroom through the use of the case method in the preparation of
senior-level music teacher education students: A study of reflective judgment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
108
Beall, L. L. (1963). Evaluation and implementation of The Conant Report on education in
the junior high school years. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT
6305044).
Becher, R. M. & Ade, W. E. (1982). The relationship of field placement characteristics
and students’ potential field performance abilities to clinical experience
performance ratings. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 24-30.
Bennett, B. L. (1982). Differential effects of initial early field experience on the concerns
of pre-service music teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas, Austin.
Better Teachers, Better Schools: Brochure of The Center for Educational Renewal
(1985). University of Washington.
Bissett, W. M. (1993). The apprenticeship approach to teacher training: a case study in
music education. Master’s Abstracts International, 32-02, 0406. (UMI No.
AAGMM 83100).
Boardman, E. (1990). Music teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education (pp. 730-745). New York: MacMillan.
Broyles, J. W. (1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role development of student
teachers in music (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International 58(03A), 823.
Burton, S.L. (2003). Improving music methods instruction for pre-service elementary
educators: An investigation of selected factors. Dissertation Abstracts
International-A, 64, (08), 2819. (UMI No. 3100394)
109
Byo, S. J. (2000). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to
implement the National Standards. Arts Education and Policy Review 101(5), 30-
35.
Byra, M., & Marks, M. (1991). Pre-service teachers’ planning and teaching behaviors in
a clinical research setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cannon, R. M. (2002). Music student teaching in Texas: A Delphi study of issues in the
new millennium. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3076235)
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986). Teachers for the 21st century:
The report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, May 1986.
Washington, D.C: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force
on Teaching as a Profession.
Carpenter, W. A. (1992). A history of the introductory course in education at selected
colleges and universities in Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State
University College of Education, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International
(UMI No. AAT 9228131).
Casey, D. E. (1992). Descriptive research: Techniques and procedures. In R. Colwell
(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 115-123).
Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Clark, R. W. (2002). Addressing moral and ethical issues in teacher preparation: The
National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) and the moral dimensions of
the agenda for education in a democracy. American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education.
110
Clark, R. W., & Goodlad, J. I. (1991). What school leaders can do to help change teacher
education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education.
Coleman, T. R. (1999). The music student teaching experience: Making connections.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1999.) Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9961813).
Colwell, R., ed. (1992). Handbook of research on music teaching and learning. Reston,
VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Colwell, R. (1985). Program evaluation in music teacher education. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 19(4), 453-459.
Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (2002). The new handbook of research on music teaching
and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Colwell, R. & Wing, L. (2004). An orientation to music education: Structural knowledge
for teaching music. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Conant, J. B. (1964). The certification of teachers: the restricted state-approved program
approach. Fifth Charles W. Hunt Lecture, delivered to the Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, Chicago.
Conant, J. B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conant, J. B. (1961). Trial and error in the improvement of education. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill.
111
Conkling, S. W., & Henry, W. (1999). Professional development partnerships: A new
model for music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(4): 19-
23.
Dell, R. C., Jr. (1993). Teacher education programs in Western Pennsylvania: An
identification and analysis of current practice. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 9421460).
Denzin, N. (2004). Handbook of qualitiative research. SAGE.
Duling, V. P. (2003). Experiences of clinical faculty teachers in professional
development school settings: A qualitative study of the impact of mentoring pre-
service interns on experienced teachers' practice, their students, and their schools.
(Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 3079336).
Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Else, D. (2000). A dialogue on teacher education reform. Institute for Educational
Leadership, University of Northern Iowa.
Emmanuel, D. T. (2002).A music education immersion internship: Pre-service teachers’
beliefs concerning teaching music in a culturally diverse setting. Dissertation
Abstracts International (UMI No. 3064224)
Fant, G. R. (1996). An investigation of the relationships between undergraduate music
education students' early field experience and student teaching performance.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1996); Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAI97-13421).
112
Farrace, B. (2002). Renewing the teaching profession: A conversation with John
Goodlad. Principal Leadership, 3(1), pp. 31-34.
Fowler, C., ed. (1988). The Crane Symposium: Toward an understanding of the teaching
and learning of music performance. Potsdam, NY: Potsdam College of the State
University of New York.
Fowler, F. Jr. (2001). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fowler, F. Jr. (1993). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Freiberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. C. (1990). Changing teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 617-635). New York: MacMillan.
Frey, J. M. (1993). An assessment of productivity among professors and schools of
education in four selected fields of education from 1971-1990. (Doctoral
dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9311888).
Galluzzo, G. R. (1986). Teacher education program evaluation: Organizing or agonizing?
In J. D. Raths and L. G. Katz (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 2, pp.
221-237). Norwood: Ablex.
Galluzzo, G. R. & Craig, J. R.(1990). Evaluation of pre-service teacher education
programs. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education
(pp. 599-616). New York: MacMillan.
Ganser, T. & Wham, M. A. (1998). Voices of cooperating teachers: Professional
contributions and personal satisfaction. Teacher Education Quarterly 25(2), 43-
52.
113
Gardner, W. E., Scannell, D. P. & Wisniewski, R. (1996). The curious case of NCATE
redesign. Phi Delta Kappan 77, 622-629.
Giebel, C. R. & Bowman, C. L. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? The
Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 246-254.
Glass, S. B. (1997).The role of the university supervisor and its influence on the
development of the music student teacher: Two case studies (Doctoral
dissertation, Columbia University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58
(05A), 1631.
Gohlke, L. J. (1994). The music methods class: Acquisition of pedagogical content
knowledge by preservice music teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Goldberg, M. F. (2001). Leadership for change: An interview with John Goodlad. Phi
Delta Kappan, September 2000.
Goodlad, J. I. (2004). Romances with schools: A life of education. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (2003). A nation in wait. Education Week 22(32), 36, 24, 25.
Goodlad, J. I. (2003). Teaching what we hold sacred. Educational Leadership 61(4), 18-
21.
Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Teacher education research: The outside and the inside. Journal of
Teacher Education 53(3), 216-221.
Goodlad, J. I. (2000). Educational renewal and the arts. Education Policy Review 101(4),
11-14.
114
Goodlad, J. I. (1999). Rediscovering teacher education: School renewal and educating
educators. Change 31(5), 28-33.
Goodlad, J. I. (1997). In praise of education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1996). Sustaining and extending educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan
78, 228-234.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). What schools are for. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Goodlad, J. I. (1993). School-university partnership and partner schools. Educational
Policy, 7(pp.24-39).
Goodlad, J. I. (1992). Why excellence in teacher education?: Conversations with
policymakers and education leaders. Washington, DC: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Studying the education of educators: From conception to findings.
Phi Delta Kappan, May 1990, pp. 699, 701.
Goodlad, J. I. ( 1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale
and concepts. In Sirotnik, K. A. & Goodlad, J. I. (Eds.) School-university
partnerships in action: Concepts, cases and concerns. New York: Teachers
College Press.
115
Goodlad, J. I. (1986). Linking school and universities: Symbiotic partnerships. Center for
Educational Renewal Occasional Paper No. 1, College of Education, University
of Washington, Seattle.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (1983). Teaching: An endangered profession. Teachers College Record
84(3), 575-578.
Goodlad, J. et al. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Goodlad, J. (1977). What goes on in our schools? Educational Researcher, 6(3), 3-6.
Goodlad, J. I. (1975). The dynamics of educational change: Toward responsive schools.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (1970). The reconstruction of teacher education. Teachers College Record
72(1), 61-72.
Goodlad, J. (1966). The changing school curriculum. New York: Fund for the
Advancement of Education.
Goodlad, J. I. (1966). The changing American school. Chicago: National Society for the
Study of Education.
Goodlad, J. & Keating, P. (1994). Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our
nation’s schools. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). Places where teachers are taught. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1974). Looking behind the classroom door. Worthington,
OH: C.A. Jones.
116
Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1970). Behind the classroom door. Worthington, OH:
C.A. Jones.
Goodlad, J. I., & McMannon, T. J., (Eds.). (2004). The teaching career. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gregory, M. K. (1995). Collaboration for music teacher education between higher
education institutions and K-12 schools. Journal of Research in Music Education,
43, 47-59.
Griffin, G.A..(1986). Issues in student teaching: A review. In J. D. Raths and L. G. Katz
(Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 2, pp.239-273). Norwood: Ablex.
Haberman, M., & Backus, J. M. (Eds.), (1987). Advances in teacher education.
Norwood: Ablex.
Hayes, M. T. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program:
Implications for practice. Education 122(3), 581-586.
Holcomb, A. D. (2003). An investigation of the concurrent validity of the Discipline-
Based Professional Teaching Standards of Teachers of Music in Connecticut.
Dissertation Abstracts International - A, 64 (05), 1575. (UMI No. 3089449).
Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University College of Education.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing: Michigan State University College of
Education.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
117
Holmquist, M. E. (2001). The attitude of student teachers toward evaluation. Dissertation
Abstracts International (UMI No. AAI97-11655)
Honaker, R. W. (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of teacher education program goals and
requirements in Utah. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah).
Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 9531340).
Hopkins, W. S., Hoffman, S. Q., & Moss, V. D. (1997). Professional development
schools and pre-service teacher stress. Action in Teacher Education, 18 (pp.36-
46).
Houston, W. R. (Ed.). (1990). Handbook of research on teacher education. New York:
MacMillan.
Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1993). Patterns in prospective teachers: Guides for
designing pre-service programs. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kerchner, J. L. (1998). A model for educational partnerships. Journal of Teacher
Education, 8(1), 7-14.
Kinach, B. M. (1992). Re-conceptualizing the teacher education curriculum: Changing
views of subject-matter knowledge and preparation in teacher education reform.
(Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9228400).
Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
L’Roy, D. (1983). The development of occupational identity in undergraduate music
education majors (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, 1983).
Dissertation Abstracts International 44, 2401A.
118
Leglar, M. A., & Collay, M. (2002). Research by teachers on teacher education. In r.
Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (Eds.). (1996). Making professional development schools
work: Politics, practice and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Liebhaber, B. G. (2003). Mentoring in music education: The collaborative relationship
among the student teacher, cooperating teacher and college supervisor: A
qualitative action research study. Dissertation Abstracts International -A, 64 (02),
437.
Lindley, R. K. (2003). Effective secondary choral teacher behaviors: A survey of
Oklahoma secondary choral directors. Dissertation Abstracts International -A,
64(06), 2018.
Lucas, C. J. (1997). Teacher education in America: Reform agendas for the twenty-first
century. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mark, M. L. (1996). Contemporary music education. Belmont, CA: Schirmer.
McCormick, A.C. (Ed.) (2005). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher
Education, 2000 Edition. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 2001.
McIntosh, R. (1996). The Brigham Young University/public school partnership.
(Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University). Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9620779).
119
McIntyre, C. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In
J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (2nd ed., pp. 722-744). New York: MacMillan.
Mertens, D. (2004). Research and evaluation in psychology and education. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Michaelis, D. G. (2001). The professional development school: A descriptive case study
of its history and development. (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University).
Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 3014220).
Morris, M., Price, M. A., & Armstrong, D. G. (1997). Teacher educators for today’s
diverse learners: A model for the preparation of inter-professional clinical faculty.
Action in Teacher Education, 19 (pp.55-63).
Morrissey, J. D. (2003). A history of early field experience in the Music Education
Division of the School of Music of the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 1968-1998. Dissertation Abstracts International -A, 64 (08), 2820.
(UMI No. 3101929).
Morten, H. E. (1975). A suggested field-based teacher education program: Construction
of modules for music education, their implementation and evaluation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, Vermillion.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Murphy, N. J. (1983). An examination of the curricular propositions of John I. Goodlad
and Joseph J. Schwab: Implications for program development. (Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International
(UMI No. AAT 8311554).
120
Music Educators National Conference (MENC). (1987). Music teacher education:
Partnership and process. Washington: Author.
Music Educators National Conference (MENC). (1972). Teacher education in music:
Final report. Washington: Author.
Myers, E., Jr. (1996). Early field experience: A question of effectiveness. The Teacher
Educator, 31 (pp.226-237).
National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). (2004). 2004-2005 Handbook.
Reston: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C: National Commission on
Excellence in Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters
most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, Teachers College.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. New York: National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future, Teachers College.
Nelli, E., & Nutter, N. (1984). A model for evaluating teacher education programs.
Washington: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Nierman, G. E., Zeichner, K., & Hobbel, N. (2002). Changing concepts of teacher
education. In Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (Eds.), The new handbook of
research on music teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
121
Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (2003). Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Osguthorpe, R. (Ed.).(1995). Partner schools: Centers for educational renewal. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parkay, F.W., & Stanford, B. H. (2000). Becoming a teacher. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Parker, C. A. (1982). A model with four training components for pre-internship teacher
education in music. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle.
Peltier, G. L., & Nonnan, D. W. (2003). Influential publications in education 1950-2002.
The Clearing House 76(4), 215-216.
Pembrook, R., & Craig, C. (2002). Teaching as a profession: Two variations on a theme.
In Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Preskill, S. L. (1984). Raking from the rubbish: Charles W. Eliot, James B. Conant and
the public schools (Harvard, Massachusetts). Dissertation Abstracts International
(UMI No. AAT 8502274).
Punch, K. (2003). Introduction to research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Raths, J. (2002). Introduction: Fuzzy teacher education. In Colwell, R. & Richardson, C.
(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Raths, J. D., & Katz. L. G. (Eds.). (1986). Advances in teacher education. Norwood:
Ablex.
122
Rea. L. M. (2005). Desigining and conducting survey research. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Richardson, M. H. (1997). Renewing institutions: An investigation of the influence of the
professional development school partnership on teacher education programs.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina). Dissertation Abstracts
International, (UMI No. AAT 9815536).
Riehm, K. J. (1995). Supervision and student teaching within the context of school
reform: Perspectives, perceptions and role expectations. (Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Connecticut.) Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.
AAT 9543978).
Rozmajzl, M. (1992). Preparatory field experiences for elementary music education
majors. Update: Applications of Research to Teaching, 11(1), 19-24.
Runfola, M., & Rutkowski, J. (1992). General music curriculum. In R. Colwell (Ed.),
Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 697-709). Reston,
VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Sellars, E. L. (1994). An historical and comparative analysis of the ideology of selected
educational reformers of the 1950s and 1980s. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT
9506185).
Shen, J. (2002). Student teaching in the context of a school-university partnership: A case
study of a student teacher. Education, 122(3), 564-580.
123
Shires, L., Jr. (1990). Teacher preparation needs of music education graduates from
Northern Arizona University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (05A),
1543. (UMI No. AAG902).
Sikula, J. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). New
York: MacMillan.
Sirotnik, K., & Goodlad, J. (1988). School-university partnerships in action. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sofu, S. (2003). Development of preservice teachers' value orientations and beliefs
during a secondary methods course and early field experience. Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Alabama. (UMI No. AAT 3128182)
Soltis, J. F., ed. (1987). Reforming teacher education: The impact of the Holmes Group
Report. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stevens, O. Z., Jr. (1965). The Conant recommendations: Their acceptance,
implementation, and effectiveness in selected Tennessee high schools. (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Tennessee, 1965).Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 6605364).
Stiles, L. J. (1964). Dr. Conant and his critics. Teachers College Record 65(8), pp. 712-
718.
Teicher, B. J. (1977). James Bryant Conant and ‘The American High School Today.’
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1977). Dissertation
Abstracts International (UMI No. 7719129).
124
Tellez, K. (2003a). Three themes on standards in teacher education: Legislative
expediency, the role of internal review, and test bias in the assessment of
pedagogical knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2003 (pp. 9-18).
Tellez, K. (2003b). In response to increasing state and national control over the teacher
education profession. Teacher Education Quarterly 30(1), 9-72.
Thiessen, D., & Barrett, J. (2002). Reform minded music teachers: A more
comprehensive image of teaching for music teacher education. In Colwell, R., and
Richardson, C. (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and
Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, A. M., & Loadman, W. E. (2001). Evaluating teacher education programs using
a national survey. The Journal of Educational Research 94(4), 196-206.
Turner, J. (2001). The Nineteen Postulates and Montessori teacher education. Montessori
Life 13(1), 12-19.
Verrastro, R., & Leglar, M. A. (1992). Music teacher education. In R. Colwell (Ed.),
Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 676-698). Reston,
VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Warren, D. (1998). From there to where: the social foundations of education in transit
again. Educational Studies 29, (2), 117-130.
Waxman, H. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Effects of early field experiences. In J. D.
Raths & L. G. Katz. (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 165-184).
Norwood: Ablex.
125
Weaver, R. M. C. (1990). A paradigm for reform in teacher education. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9107723).
Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (2003). Foundations of American education (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson - Prentice Hall.
Weber, D. D. (1962). A comparison of the educational ideas of James Bryant Conant and
Robert Maynard Hutchins. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, 1962). Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 6302650).
Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J., and Bowen, B.(1989). Introduction to survey research. Scott-
Foresman.
Weltman, B. (2002). Praxis imperfect: John Goodlad and the social reconstructionist
tradition. Educational Studies 33(1), 61-83.
Weltman, B. D. (1995). Debating Dewey: The social ideas of American educators since
World War II, an examination of Arthur Bestor, Jerome Bruner, Paul Goodman,
John Goodlad, and Mortimer Adler. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey–New Brunswick, 1995).Dissertation Abstracts
International (UMI No. AAT 9602032).
Wetherill, K., Burton, G., & Calhoun, D. (2002). Redefining professional career
development in the twenty-first century: A systemic approach. The High School
Journal 83(2), 54-66.
Wilcox, S. & Upitis, R.. (2002). Strengthening the teaching of music educators in higher
education. In Colwell, R. & Richardson, C. (Eds.), The new handbook of research
on music teaching and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
126
Williams, M. D. (1999). The effects of professional development school relationships on
the school and teacher in the urban setting. (Doctoral dissertation, The University
of Connecticut). Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. AAT 9949132).
Willis, D. O. (1989). The nature and value of pre-professional experience in the
development of choral conductors. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No.
AAI90-06015)
Wing, L. B. (1992). Curriculum and its study. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research
on music teaching and learning (pp. 196-217). Reston, VA: Music Educators
National Conference.
Wolfgang, R. (1990). Early field experience in music education: A study of teacher role
socialization. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1990).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(01), 0137A.
Wollenzien, T. J. (1999). An analysis of undergraduate music education curriculum
content in colleges and universities of the north central United States. Dissertation
Abstracts International (UMI No. AAI99-45017)
Woody, R. H., III. (1998). Music teacher education and the Holmes Group. Contributions
to Music Education 25 (2), 27-37.
Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school
partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-13.
Zeichner, K. M. (1987). The ecology of field experience: Toward and understanding of
the role of field experiences in teacher development. In M. Haberman and J. M.
Backus (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 118-150). Norwood:
Ablex.
127
APPENDIX A
Pilot Study
Demographic Background
1. Total student population of university:
__ Less than 5000 students __ 5000-10000 students __10000-15000 students
__ 15000-20000 students __ 20000-25000 students __ more than 25000 students
2. Classification of college/university:
__ Research university __ Regional university __ State university
__ State college
Philosophical Support
3. The music teacher education program is viewed by the institution as a major responsibility to
society and is adequately supported and promoted by the institution’s top leadership.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
3A. Do cooperating teachers in the school site classroom receive remuneration for their
supervision of field experience participants?
___ yes
___ no
3B. If remuneration is given to cooperating teachers, from whom is it received?
___ School/Department of Education at the university
___ School/Department of Music at the university
___ State funds
128
3C. Collaborative planning between university faculty and school site
supervisors [check all that apply]:
__General group orientation for school site cooperating teachers
__ Group planning between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Monthly planning meetings between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Quarter/semester meetings between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Conferences between individual faculty and cooperating teachers during the field experience
__ Other [please elaborate]:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3D. Responsibility for authorship of early field experience guidelines/syllabi/goals and aims:
__ University faculty
__ Cooperating teachers
__ Both
3E. Responsibility for evaluation of early field experience participants:
__ University faculty
__ Cooperating teachers
__ Both
129
4. There exists a clearly identifiable group of academic faculty members for whom teacher
education is their primary assignment.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
4A. Number of music education faculty:
__ 1-5 __ 5-10 __ 10-15 __ more than 15
4B. Number of music education faculty whose assignment includes supervising pre-student
teaching field experience:
__ 1-5 __ 5-10 __ 10-15 __ more than 15
Logistical Concerns
5. The music teacher education program assures for each candidate the availability of a wide
array of laboratory settings for simulation, observation and hands-on experiences in exemplary
schools.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
5A. Total clock hour requirements for early field experience in the undergraduate music
education curriculum:
__ 1-5 __ 6-10 __ 11-15 __ more than 15
5B. Titles of courses that currently involve a field experience component and the year that they
are taken:
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
130
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
5C. Selection of school sites - rank in order from highest priority to lowest:
__ Proximity to university campus
__ Reputation of cooperating teacher
__ Membership in a formalized collaboration with the university, I.e. lab school, partner school,
etc.
__ Other [please elaborate]:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
6. The music teacher education program admits no more students to their programs than can be
assured quality field experiences.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
6A. Number of undergraduate music education majors:
__ 1-50 __ 50-100 __ 100-150 __ 150-200 __ more than 200
131
6B.Approximate number of undergraduate music education majors participating in early field
experience per semester:
__ 1-5 __ 5-10 __ 10-15 __ more than 15
7. Approximate number of school sites utilized during a typical semester:
__ 1-5 __ 5-10 __ 10-15 __ more than 15
Music Teacher Candidate Preparation for Early Field Experience
8. The music teacher education screens applicants thoroughly in regard to their commitment to
teaching, requiring evidence that the applicant displays the moral and ethical responsibilities
necessary to enter the field.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
9. The music teacher education program is characterized by the conditions for learning that
future teachers are to establish in their own schools and classrooms, serving as a model for
candidates.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
10. The music teacher education program is infused with the commitment of teachers to ensure
equitable access to the best possible K-12 education for all children and youths.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
132
11. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in the issues of tension
between the rights and interests of individual parents and interest groups and the role of schools.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
11A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
12. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in understanding alternatives
to the current school model, the assumptions underlying alternatives, and how to effect needed
changes in school organization.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
12A. In what classes are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
133
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
13. The music teacher education program engages future teachers in the study of conflicts
between daily classroom practice and the research and theory supporting other options.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
13A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
134
14. The music teacher education program is conducted in such a way that teachers inquire into
the nature of teaching and schooling by way of research and assume that they will do so as a
natural aspect of their careers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
14A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
Evaluation of Candidates
15. The music teacher education program ensures that all music teacher candidates possess or
acquire the literacy and critical-thinking abilities associated with the concept of an educated
person.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
135
16. The music teacher education program encourages candidates to move beyond being students
of concepts and methods to become teachers who inquire into the nature of teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
16A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
17. The music teacher education program is characterized by a socialization process through
which candidates move from their student identity to a collaborative, inquiry-oriented approach
to teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
17A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
136
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
Program Evaluation
18. The music teacher education faculty is responsible and accountable for continuously
evaluating and improving programs.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
19. School site classroom teachers are included in program evaluation and improvement.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
20. The teacher education program rewards efforts to continuously improve and tolerates no
shortcuts intended to ensure a supply of teachers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
Contact with Graduates
21. The music education faculty is responsible and accountable for facilitating the entry of
graduates into teaching careers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
137
22. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose of
program evaluation and revision.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
23. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose of
easing the critical early years of transition into teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
24. The institution continually assesses individual and collaborative roles of participants in
supporting lifelong teaching careers characterized by professional growth, service, and
satisfaction.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
Adapted from: Goodlad, John I., Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), pp. 72-93.
138
APPENDIX B
Cover Letter for Study
Dear Colleague:
You are invited to participate in a research study titled “The Relationship Between John
Goodlad’s Twenty-One Postulates and Early Field Experiences in Music Teacher
Education ” conducted by Lauren Ringwall, Hugh Hodgson School of Music, University
of Georgia, 706.340.5809 under the direction of Dr. Mary Leglar, Hugh Hodgson School
of Music, University of Georgia, 250 River Road, Athens, Georgia 30602.
The purpose of this research study is to determine whether John Goodlad’s Postulates are
being used directly or indriectly in the design and administration of music teacher
education programs in the United States and, if they are, whether there are identifiable
trends and demographic or situational correlates to this spread.
If you should choose to participate in this study, your participation will involve the
following:
• Completing an online survey that includes basic demographic questions and that
asks whether you might use certain terms in different situations. Please note that
you may consider some of these terms offensive and may, therefore, wish to
choose not to participate in this research.
Completion of the survey is expected to take a maximum of 20 minutes. Please note that
Internet communications are insecure and there is a limit to the confidentiality that can be
guaranteed due to the technology itself. However, once I receive the completed surveys, I
will store them in a locked cabinet in my office and will destroy them and any names and
contact information that I have by June, 2006. Any information that is obtained in
connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential
except as required by law. If you are not comfortable with the level of confidentiality
provided by the Internet, please feel free to print out a copy of the survey, fill it out by
hand, and mail it to me at the address given below, with no return address on the
envelope.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may withdraw at any time
without penalty, or skip any questions you feel uncomfortable answering. Closing the
survey window will erase your answers without submitting them. Additionally, you will
be given a choice of submitting or discarding your responses at the end of the survey.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask now or at a later date. You may contact
Lauren Ringwall at 706.340.5809 or [email protected].
Thank you for the invaluable help that you are providing by participating in this research
study.
139
Sincerely,
Lauren Ringwall
c/o Mary Leglar
Hugh Hodgson School of Music
University of Georgia
250 River Road
Athens, Georgia 30602
706.340.5809
Additional questions or problems regarding your rights as a research participant should be addressed to The
Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, University of Georgia, 612 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens,
Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone (706) 542-3199; E-Mail Address [email protected].
By completing the survey you are agreeing to participate in the research.
Please begin the survey now by clicking on the "Go to survey" button below.
140
APPENDIX C
Survey
Demographic Background
1. What is the total student population of your college or university?
__ Less than 5000 students __ 5000-10000 students __10000-15000 students
__ 15000-20000 students __ 20000-25000 students __ more than 25000 students
2. What is the Carnegie Classification of your college or university?
__ Doctoral/Research Universities—Extensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range
of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate.
During the period studied, they awarded 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15
disciplines.
__ Doctoral/Research Universities—Intensive: These institutions typically offer a wide range
of baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the doctorate.
During the period studied, they awarded at least 10 doctoral degrees per year across three or
more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year overall.
__ Master's Colleges and Universities I: These institutions typically offer a wide range of
baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's
degree. During the period studied, they awarded 40 or more master’s degrees per year across
three or more disciplines.
__Master's Colleges and Universities II: These institutions typically offer a wide range of
baccalaureate programs, and they are committed to graduate education through the master's
degree. During the period studied, they awarded 20 or more master's degrees per year.
141
__ Baccalaureate Colleges—Liberal Arts: These institutions are primarily
undergraduate colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the
period studied, they awarded at least half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts
fields.
__Baccalaureate Colleges—General: These institutions are primarily undergraduate
colleges with major emphasis on baccalaureate programs. During the period studied, they
awarded less than half of their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts fields.
__ Baccalaureate/Associate's Colleges: These institutions are undergraduate colleges
where the majority of conferrals are below the baccalaureate level (associate's degrees
and certificates). During the period studied, bachelor's degrees accounted for at least ten
percent of undergraduate awards.
[Adapted from The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 Edition]
Philosophical Support
3. The music teacher education program is viewed by the institution as a major responsibility to
society and is adequately supported and promoted by the institution’s top leadership.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
3A. Do cooperating teachers in the school site classroom receive remuneration for their
supervision of field experience participants?
___ yes
___ no
142
3B. If remuneration is given to cooperating teachers, from whom is it received?
___ School/Department of Education at the university
___ School/Department of Music at the university
___ State funds
3C. What is the most commonly used format for collaborative planning between
university faculty and school site supervisors at your institution?
__General group orientation for school site cooperating teachers
__ Group planning between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Monthly planning meetings between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Quarter/semester meetings between university faculty and cooperating teachers
__ Conferences between individual faculty and cooperating teachers during the field experience
__ Other [please elaborate]:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3D. Who is responsible for the authorship of early field experience
guidelines/syllabi/goals and aims?
__ University faculty
__ Cooperating teachers
__ Both
143
3E. Who is responsible for the evaluation of early field experience participants?
__ University faculty
__ Cooperating teachers
__ Both
4. There exists a clearly identifiable group of academic faculty members for whom teacher
education is their primary assignment .
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
4A. What is the number of full time music education faculty at your institution? _____
4B. What is the number of music education faculty whose assignment includes
supervising pre-student teaching field experience? _____
Logistical Concerns
5. The music teacher education program assures for each candidate the availability of a wide
array of laboratory settings for simulation, observation and hands-on experiences in exemplary
schools.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
5A. What are the total clock hour requirements for early field experience in the
undergraduate music education curriculum? _____
5B. What are the titles of courses that currently involve a field experience component and
the year that they are taken?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
144
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
5C. What is the most commonly used criterium for the selection of school sites?
__ Proximity to university campus
__ Reputation of cooperating teacher
__ Membership in a formalized collaboration with the university, I.e. lab school, partner school,
etc.
__ Other [please elaborate]:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
6. The music teacher education program admits no more students to their programs than can be
assured quality field experiences.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
6A. What is the number of undergraduate music education majors at your institution?
__ 1-49 __ 50-99 __ 100-149 __ 150-199 __ 200+
145
6B.What is the approximate number of undergraduate music education majors
participating in early field experience in a typical semester?
__ 1-4 __ 5-9 __ 10-14 __ 15+
7. What is the approximate number of school sites utilized during a typical semester?
__ 1-4 __ 5-9 __ 10-14 __ 15+
Music Teacher Candidate Preparation for Early Field Experience
8. The music teacher education screens applicants thoroughly in regard to their commitment to
teaching, requiring evidence that the applicant displays the moral and ethical responsibilities
necessary to enter the field.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
9. The music teacher education program is characterized by the conditions for learning that
future teachers are to establish in their own schools and classrooms, serving as a model for
candidates.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
10. The music teacher education program is infused with the commitment of teachers to ensure
equitable access to the best possible K-12 education for all children and youths.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
146
11. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in the issues of tension
between the rights and interests of individual parents and interest groups and the role of schools.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
11A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
12. The music teacher education program involves future teachers in understanding alternatives
to the current school model, the assumptions underlying alternatives, and how to effect needed
changes in school organization.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
12A. In what classes are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
147
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
13. The music teacher education program engages future teachers in the study of conflicts
between daily classroom practice and the research and theory supporting other options.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
13A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
14. The music teacher education program is conducted in such a way that teachers inquire into
the nature of teaching and schooling by way of research and assume that they will do so as a
natural aspect of their careers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
148
14A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
Evaluation of Candidates
15. The music teacher education program ensures that all music teacher candidates possess or
acquire the literacy and critical-thinking abilities associated with the concept of an educated
person.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
16. The music teacher education program encourages candidates to move beyond being students
of concepts and methods to become teachers who inquire into the nature of teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
16A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
149
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
17. The music teacher education program is characterized by a socialization process through
which candidates move from their student identity to a collaborative, inquiry-oriented approach
to teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
17A. In what courses are these issues addressed?
Course Title Year Traditionally Taken
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
________________________________ freshman sophomore junior senior
Program Evaluation
18. The music teacher education faculty is responsible and accountable for continuously
evaluating and improving programs.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
150
19. School site classroom teachers are included in program evaluation and improvement.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
20. The teacher education program rewards efforts to continuously improve and tolerates no
shortcuts intended to ensure a supply of teachers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
Contact with Graduates
21. The music education faculty is responsible and accountable for facilitating the entry of
graduates into teaching careers.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
22. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose of
program evaluation and revision.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
23. The music teacher education program maintains contact with graduates for the purpose of
easing the critical early years of transition into teaching.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
151
24. The institution continually assesses individual and collaborative roles of participants in
supporting lifelong teaching careers characterized by professional growth, service, and
satisfaction.
5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3-neutral 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree
0 - not applicable
Adapted from: Goodlad, John I., Educational Renewal: Better Teachers, Better Schools
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994), pp. 72-93.