......u....._..n_.h...............s .. ..3.3.... ...... ...... - ...... .3... .233. . . ... . . . .... u . .0. . $.11... 2. .0... 9.... . 154... .. 7.071... .. :0. t ...Jv.”.00.0 .0..... a.. 00.. 00 .3......0 .0.0.. 0'. 0 0.... . . .... O. .... . - .. g: c. n-halnu4m0 Q" ...-0% . ...o...nv.”}000.o .000... .00. 4 0...... . P . . ...... . ....) .... : ... . .... 3........2¢.uuu...ah~ .Onohllj.t.:.tfl. . . 0. .0. . 0000 . p . .r . .... . . D. 6.. . ‘00»...00... ”0.0..“3‘ u . C i ‘- '. 8 : D .‘O 3 .. - .0 ...-7. . ...I. . . 0.. .3Ili...~ z... ...... t I . .~\t ..thruo... .19.... .. 3.0.0. ..0. .... ...0... .. 1 . hr. no.2; . . ... .flfl.§.§luu«:i:.: ”$40.3”... .... 0... t..1....n..... u.“...h.....n.n...n . . .. x .. . ...-0!...3... .0: . .u in“ 0. .N00. . . .. x .. . u. Lro‘R"N.’0B0.O.‘ E0000“; . . .33 ‘30- .“.3 3L- 10.00.009.002...” . ...}.. .u n 00.. 0..’0.u0¢0¢...‘0.- . . .0.-- 00". 0.0.0.0.]. 0.0 «0.0. . . p . v . . 0%..“ ..ifil ...; n. (.044 . ..- ... .3...-.10.. .. 903.0 I 0.. 0... . ......It 0.. 0 0.0“ 0 . L3 .. . .... 9+ .3.... 3...... .... .. ..3... . .3...... :3 “mi... ..3... av... . ... .. ...... . ......3. ...... . 3.3.... 0 ..b . . 0 .0 00 ..0. 1‘: . . . a 00 . . . . .. ...v. .. . “sum-‘CU0 .00"an 0m . . . 0 0.. 0.5:.“ Jnuu. :00 .0 0w .....3..0.0..v¢ . .. 0... .3 ...-3.0..\ ... n": 0....000. . ti...0..Ul.... .0.) .n. . - “JUAN x... . 0m — a 00s . . . .0- . 3 0.... 00 . . ...-...0 1000002000-}: 0.... .00 . u 00. . 0 . 0... ..05 . I1..- . 0 . 0 _ 0 L0...” 0. p... 00. .a?‘. vfidtah .. .ho‘tu“. .0. 03.2.0. ..3..? ....0...I0......!8.... 02.0.31... ..3..........$.~. .0! ....0.....Ioo.....0.. ... . "Gruntunu . _ . .... 0.... .. .- ... . . 1’00. 0. 9.0.0\ 0.0.0.1003. .Jt...‘00 00 ....- .00.‘..! 0.0. . I. An 9......0.‘ .00. .... .'.01v..0...... ..0. . . . . . 2 . .... 0 0 . .0... . .0! 3...-2.0.1. . . . 0...:nonioo. ......Q0‘.0....£.. .0. . 07......- .. . .00... 0.1. .0. 0.1.3.0..........o.>.0.0u.0. . .00....0: 0. .01 . . . . . . . .53 “00...“; ..Q 0‘. ....V 0.... ...»...00000: 3.10““) .0 ... '30-‘- l.l.0...‘...00.0. «000. ..0. . .l...‘0. 0.1.0.0- . . . .... ...... 1.. ... . ...}?Ior-l . . . 2.00. .... . J 0.. n 0.0.. .0! :.’0i 0 .000. 0v0~ . 0 . o 0' .0 .O.‘ 0.00000." 00....000’ . . .. .000. ... I.‘ 30.30.! tit... 00... 0 .0... ..00 00.0.0. ‘33.. 00. 0 _. . ..‘00 u 0. O k.- .. .. ... .000. 0 0a.". .. .0.0..%.............03.I 0i; ... 10.0...‘5... It}... ‘05:-..‘030 . o 00. .3... . v 3...! .303... ... . .‘ .300091115. 3 . 7 u. . £8. ...30...‘ . . 0:..0. 3.0.. 0.0.0.. .00.. 00.0.... ....0... o o .. 2.0.0307. 30‘: .70.. .. ... 03'... .... ..3. . . ... .1.......ol§..0.. 3... .. 1 5.1.4... .3 . . 3.0.. .51... .. . .. 0 . .-.. ‘0! ...-00.2%.. 0.... .. . . ... $.04-.. -. ... ..-3... 830...... ......o-............. .03 0.0 _ .. L...» .1 ... .0...” (N .... . 0 . .0000 . :0.- .. .. 0.0. 0 Oezoép.‘ to. 0 0.0 000.. 00.00.00. .‘3: 00.0 4. 4 . 0.0.? 0. .. ........0. ...-0.0.3:... .00....[00000’ ...—..a1 .10.}. . . .0 .. o .000”. EP- . .0..¥‘K.fiv...0.r 0 C. 0.. ......I........._0.0.l_0...0. 0 .00.... ...-.10. o ...IL.0.0.0.00. 0.0. . . -3230!- 01313! .10.. . . ...-.... . . .0. O 3‘ . .30. ... .. . ...... i..N...J.00.-.l0$3...308.3 .... ...I. :0. ... ....1“.u40...l00..k... _ ...-xv... ....t...01. .3 0. .1... 0 ......é: . . ...... .3...-.... A... .. .1939 32.1.. . . .... . ... 300...: .9... . u .00 040 .000.- ..I. 000...! *0... 00’00 0.00. a. .10. 0.00.00.00QQ‘... 03.0...‘0. :“00.bl...000 0.0.0.0000 . o0 .‘OA". n0 0.... {-..-.... . 0.‘ 00030-. . .0. .0... v 0 .90.. 00 EC .0. .0 i .350... diacémqa... 1.0.3.0. I. 100- 0...0....0...<. ... ....1.‘20.J§:.... 8.00 0. ‘31.}.uh ..l'... .... 8000.0 2:03.000... 0.0.310.“ . 33... . v. .. .... .20. . 0. ....M. . a 1%00...F.. . . .0 .... mas-0 . 0 00.. .0.- 0.l.0.0o00.. .... .....I. ....Do'... 00000000....0040. 00000. 00.20... 00.... J ...-0.0. ...->210..- .00 00.0.1301. . I... . .0 i. .00........00. .030... . 21.... .3...... ... .. 0. .... 0. 0. . . ..v . ...-...... .40 ..0 .03 0. .n ‘0- .0‘5 I. 0 0.0. .... 0.0.5.9.}...- 130- 0030.... 0.01.30. 8:280’0. !§'.00.0. .0.‘..0..0....00|.000v0.00....0l..0 ... 0.0.0d3: 00.......0.0..0. .3'3....... . .. ..00 o .‘ .0.I. -.-... . 0...: .. .. . . .... 3 . u . .. . . 7.01... ’ ...u.&“0uo‘ 00... 0. ‘00,, 0.0,,I'orn‘sl”...’ .0... 0 "0‘. .0 .2 ..3..-93’ - 000-‘0 03.0.00. 0... ... ...!0 0. . .... .00 ‘00....‘0. ....0300 .0 ...... . .- ...D.‘$.I.l. ...00000n0.0 .0. .. . ..-..3 .. I... . t: .9 ......104. 7.00.0. ...0l ”.0 . . . .00.. . . . 1.0:... 210...... 0.0.0 :2!» 10. ...00. 0.00.... ...-0.0.03.0; p; ...—0...: ....”0.'..0. 0,. 8 ... 0.0.. I . 8.0.0.038 0. 0.9-..00...ao0.... .26... ....I..0.l...0..0!...ov0.. ...: .3...-0.331.......-.0130... ..3... 0.... .... .0... ... .3; .3....-0 .3. . 8 . . 0....1‘ . . v .. 300 ... t.‘ .. . 05,0. . v.0 ‘0” n 0 . 0000,. 4.. 000. Silt-0.00;...0 805‘... 00.00.00—0‘ ... ’0 ‘0 00. .10.. 3000...... ... ...0. ....0 0.. 01.0.0.0: ’500 I...‘ 0.. a 00 .. 1 .u.00 00.0 .01’0. 00.0.0.0.-. 0.0. .‘ ... .01.. . ..H-...0.0H40. .0 . . . 0.0.0.0... ~00 . o r 0H0. 0. o. .. 0.. .00 fl... .0 3.0.4....10.!0w000.....100nuu“0. .‘00000 . . . . ...00000.‘0..0!I0 0.0.0.3043: duo-I.“ 0.3.1.0.... 3.0.0.. .. n ..I ... 4.3.0.3920. 0.0....1. .330. 0.0. 4.0.0. 0.... I .0 . .. ...-#1 ....0 .... .12“ . .. . n . 163...... .. 0. . I». ~...... u .. l....0...’... ..0: . ...! .... 3 30...! .... 0...\..~...30.3D.0..0.0.. ..1'... . . . ... {20.11}-.. I ...r......0...0..:..€... . 0.. ......o... ..3..-$14.... 159...... n\. . . . . . ..." . t _ fl 00.n0’00-I ..P 0“ ‘0.’ ’8-a..‘.000.).80 .' 0001‘ O. 3.0.3.0000-0-p.’ .0 00‘ ....- "‘ . . . ......0‘0000‘... ‘._‘."t.r.'..mln.0 ..0 00.00.... .0... .00- . . 00;... . .. l.- l I .0000. -. ‘0 . . . . . . ... . 00‘... ‘~ 4 .2. ..lliuh0.3....¢..!.~¢1.3i $2.03!...n31. (.0.V3...’.7 .0... ...-00:050....L300z .. 1......‘..u.......... 3:32.12... ......x..0. 50.3.... .3...! ......n. . . . .....0 .... v. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . V 3.2.0.2000... .. ‘ M 00.0. ... ‘0‘: .....pgnodonfl. . ....d....Q0.. .I. 272......- _ ...-.0 0.....(.... £313.30. . _ . . . . . .0 03. . . 31...}... . flaw”... p0: ‘3.)12....0..... .0... ... .3...—u“: .. kit--..... 1.30....) ...-...}! a... . . . . on .r. ....A'uuzié. ....§31$0¥.33213.fi.1€4‘40 .3...... .... 2.0.01 ... .03.... {333...}. ... ugs.t........_...:....v.. onwa- . .. ..0. . $8.331... . 0... .... ...)... ...“! . ......o...:... 3.11.10198... .. . .20....- S. 3... 0.0.....’0 . .14).}.0. .... .. 0i. .«0 J'IQ.‘ .. . . I300; 0.302.83l9..;0..0.. 0 ..--:00. 000......- 0...‘ 0.62... .... . ... 0...1!0‘-u..00.0.00... . 0.3.02.2... 3.1-5.3: .0 . .. £3. . 3.. 4 . ... . . 30.0“” .000.’r.. T v». ...-0.)... h. 0.....r ...-1’.- 010! I... 2.5.. .. ...... tit-.0303... .839... .. . ..X......0.!....l..2..1.. . .. ..0‘. .0...0. ..0.‘ .... I... , .. n. u: ... .. . i. _.0. 2 .0" 31.7.1... .... . 4...... 3.1:... ...-.3...... 0.1.... 1.7.... ... .-.. ...1....¢......... v.1... .. . “...... ... . ... . . .... «J “0.0- 10k... 00.00. .1009‘030 00.0.0. 0. 0. 9.0... 30.. . .. .0039 ..0' 00 . “nun".ofcu’b‘ . . ...".000” h... . 7‘07‘0 | 1’ . II. b .0... 0p. . 0. a 0. . ..."..0u ' 200‘... . .00.. 0:00 .0 ...-0. 0 . . ..3..-00.... .. .. ..~ 7...... ...-0 0 1 .0000 9. J... .....I...’ 3.2.10. . .‘ 0 . 00D 0 .. .10. Z 0 0 0. ..iflorflh 0 .' 1040300000.. v... Maur‘: huh-@303 ....N 00* . 3 I trio’s... 01 . ~.... 4. 0. .0. 13.3.0... ... .. . . F. u. 1...... .....0 . .... 3.3.3.. .3 16.33... . u . .. 33...]..4.’ I”... ..v .... .133... . M. . .000. (3.0.0. 0... 0.0.101. .- n 0.. ..Idu0.1..000!...0 5. .. .0... 1.... .0. .0 13,358.23... ..}.0-0.01‘0.0..I. .....l...0...00.0ol..9...l . ...1 . . n . 0. 33”.... 3.0.0 . d 31.35.20.000. .. .0‘ 30.0.0.0..9 .1100... 3:03:0503". 20.0...0..v-0.$I. .... .9..."... ti!!! 5.0;...330. ......II...0..0:.«.. ... 6.180.082.2320... 3. .0. u .901. .3...... .. .3..."! 3......‘00.5-...I0......o .00....00...u0...0.0.0 0.‘.3...¢.1‘0."...' 0.03.0000?! 30...... o ..0 .0 .... .3...??0 ..0.0.0.‘....00..00¢0. 0.. 5.03.0. v... $2.031?!) 1.100.. . 3.00.... .... .. .....p... .S§0.3300n09....000.0"u2.00,. D . .3...... . ..J..'.0.9.z.0..0..l000..00.0|‘..l?.a§00...!l9- 0.0.1....(0000..- .3....0...‘ 2.0.0... -0...... 0.. .... 0.- . . . in... ‘00 0.0... 005004;“. #0 0.0“. (0000.050:- .0. .03.“...200'lél’0 ...-.10.- ...-20.... 00.20....1...‘ 10 3.0.1.0.... .. .0...0.0...0...0!... .. . .100‘ .0... . .053...- .0.01 .5 :2“?! 0 .0“. .-.-2.0. 00‘... .00. .‘9. . 002’: .00....0.......l..!1. 170.0 -0030..- 0.9.0.0....0 0!}.- ..0......0 |. 0.0-... 0 l.000‘0.. .0. , . . 07......L.L.z I Ill....0.0.0... .1 ......0. .. 0.0.. .0 1:74.30... . .‘0 . ... 0 S0.........00.O.0.0...I .3...-350.2030... 0.. ..3... l0 .....l..1.. 1.0 v.... ... . o..«l"...o.... bu.”lu"€.0...0..3...30.....1§00I. ....‘3..!.0..!.$$..2...0.0y...0 .....I..!.v...._00.!..o.c.. ...-0.5.0.0....0v003i. . ...... .... 110.0 :0...- ..'0a. .....90 ...-...... I3... ..., ...0. .. .‘ ... 2.07.0.0. 0...... . l3..l...3l.o-:.4fdlj Y..‘0.0l0”0.>.000..l0.3 000.00.... .5...- .0." 1".)3ia0flo'00. ...-01.0.0.0...30 30.0010... 0.... .ID‘....3.. 0.1. . . . 9.239.... u....:l......:..0.o.... .. .9... .. ... ..............I:.... . .3.... . . . i. .1... . ..3..-...... ...!!.......-. 5.1.03.5. ...) :8... ...: .. ..3..-...? , 13:33:... 02.03.“...K I}... . .‘c. «.04.. . ...!‘g...0...."0l 0‘ .... 3.390.... .0.....9.0‘..‘0....0 .0335... . . 0.0230... ...0...0.... . .0 0.0.. 0002.00.00.70 ....0...:..0. ... ’0. ..4. 1.3.. ...}: . ... “3.0.000. ..0. .40... . ... ...: A 3.0001 00... ...-00 ..0... ‘0: 00.3-00.0)...O’00. 3.00.303 .. .‘0...’$Io. . - .00.).0’343.‘ ..-.0 00.0.. . 0:" .0........00v- . 30.3..r‘31zl l’n‘..V.¢.. .. .. x . 0 a ......0‘... . \ 0...’...I.00..000 ....i’i.»«r3..30~ 0.0.“33...0000....'0000. .0. ...! .00....0331 "ll..100 ... 05...: ...-2.0... 0. .900: . . .0......-l;.0..s. 1......I0. {0&2}... - .. ... . n. 3...-.00..-. v..‘.«..€‘. 03“....‘5 ... . . .0 .1‘....J.00...01...00"f:h. . 20.. 0001‘. 00 2.0033 0.300003053... ...!3003’0. 0.....3‘00 .‘.00.0.....0.. . , . 00 .20....9......00....\ q. . .0. 0.. . 00.. ‘1‘}. 73 ‘04.. «L z. 0.223.333.33.» ...! . 3 V. 0".%..~l.0.....0.. 0.... 60.09.... . . -. 3.0.1.3....- ......o.a... ...... £00.32}... . 1...... I c . . . .. «...! 3.13.. 6.13.; {-sz I. ...... 3 . 7. .0. o . .. ~ “.3. . 0201.300 ’0. ... ......- to ..... .3 1.00.1": 0!..ggupnxi‘04 ..Im 0.0. 0. .....0 . 0.003.490}... .33....3 ..0.0...0.... .t . a .. . . . . .60... 0 00. .........’..0 ...: 1.1.112‘ . _ 3 H 8J0."0n.00.30“..~..?'0. t». fin..)..fi- ... ...?81!“A.10.2a.llz.0. . 3.9.30.1l00...pfi..700.0.3 . . ..3.....0.60.000.302.30. ... .0. 3.1.... ... .... . . . .... ..3....15‘03 ...-...... ,I . ... .... .00.... 0 0. .3.... 0. 00.9.}: 3.0.00.0}: 23.01.35.0- '31.‘.‘ 0:0... .0"... 30.009.00.021 .... 52.0.0.3..001 . . . . . .00...‘.J.. .J.0......J\0.n0 . .0..0..0I..0I..0...0l 040.03... ’3. .. 00.10 .qu..u0¢..t0 0.0.. 10 . 0‘... ........00 0.1.. a. .0... ...0. ..3..-‘00.}?! .....l. 2‘23190... . . . . .. . .. . . .....J...’ 10.0. ...: .. fikfi. . .‘. 4..$..C...0.00....l..19 1.2.0.0 1?...04’0: ... N 6:01.. .1. ..‘o!.¥3.0....00..dl o 60.... 500.000.I000. .09. .... 02.03.092.73. Q‘s-1.0 .0. 0... ... . . . . . . . . . 20.2.... ..3...‘ ..kdifiuntfit. . ..0000 .....toilfil... 9‘335. 9.239....0.’I0..A00000...0.0.0.10. :03 .0 'p-.0..000....0l.0.§..8 0.0. X 00:... 513.300.. 20.. .030 0. .\ .300.......l.. .0 . . . . . . . . . . 0.. 0. ....“ . .... .... .‘0 ....fi,0..v.»...0.0..0‘ 40.3.7320. 0."..330..-.i l!...s..v 3.24.05.03.00. cg... ...Ii0u. ..0 ......2. 00.0 . .. 0.0.. . t 1.0. u a-.. .0. . 0.2.. .. .0. 0.! S 00 ...-‘038003'... ‘0 .0 .0’..0 .09. ..3’0.‘ -jil0. .0’..’0.0. {.0001 O». 030. 000 ...0000. 0 ".0.04000’0.0.". 0......"001....0.000900.00.0 0.9.3.00 3000.000 0.. 000. .. 000.0 310...... .... 070...: 1...... 0., l..’.0 1.0.40. .00.... .0. 30.00..l'3 ..I.l.l.600...n.0i.0 . 000.."3: {004006. 1"...023 0.. $0.30... ..--0...... 00.0.0. .... 3.0.0.3100 0.0.0... l..l!..........0.0. . . o. ..~0.0. Y3 .ruI.0 11.1.2.3... .0332‘1l1 . 0.3 1.00.00.30.30-01. .0001 . ~00. 34;..00400 .K.“II00.?¥.I.I..I07 . . .0.....0?...!0c......1330.313,... ...: ......I . .93.... ..00..v...1. .4. .... 4 ....I -§.I".I.S00»'.000....C....JC.‘000.1I..01.. 00,030.. “30.0.0060'2: .334’00’30 0.2-1.100... 3‘0. . 0.. ..'0.0...0.0. 00...!8I... I. . ......991......t .10..0....K..7.. . . ......1! . “$3.015!!! 1.0.1...0.‘0...... 0050.03.13.05. l.....00.....0’000..nu.0.0 330.000.... ~.0..‘.0:31.33313778 0.... ...-0 7 I.-. ...!Ov 10.0.. n 6 2... I .... 3...: ..3..? .033... . 5.....1051... ..3. 3 m ltl!‘ -..-...; 3......Iu......vt..0‘.0.00. ..00‘003 331...... .... 100.. ....0.‘. 0"!no0533ri‘. 3| . .... 0.0 305......00... . . ...... .0. 0.0. . .10....30. . . . . _ . . . . ..5‘.....vv... ...-0 3.0.0.. ... . .‘c'! ‘31..) (...-.3...}... . .... $.01“... .3..1000000.2.Z.0......100..0.0.0.¢.0000...0l.“0.1i000.12...) 0.0.30 00...! ..0. 0. . . . . . . . . . ...-F.0n...,-0 4.03 ..i ...... . ... 50.0.32... 0. «60".... 2-3.3..13’331 lu...)....... 0. ...... ...... .... ...... ...f.2.33.0.1...l.’30.0..5a..000...|........00. ..0. ..-... . . 1.0.0.633... I . . . $0... ... £3.21... 3.117%..0‘. ... 2...... ...... 31.1.5350. 1.....‘.'..0....0 0.0. 41:0. .21321.d..3!.2.6’ . ...0'...‘0...0....o...00.....3 ‘19:... ‘3 . . ‘32....321. 11...... ._ 93.22133 . 3...: 5.000... .13.)...0353 V... 3.0.0.0...N...-...0=0.S‘.. .’0.i0l4..0i§000.0v000u0.0a.. 0...... .00. lu..00.......000,..0 1...”..1000 0......- . . . .....I .....00..0.000. ...-I... ....C ..0 '0‘: 2‘0. 21.07700... ‘330 2.03.3.0.- I... 8:0..90v0: 30.0.00 .‘33...‘3C§1J\...00l.0.2. .01... $0.03... ......3".....!0“I. . 9.. 32:01:20.2... . I 0.... 00.32... .0"!!... 0 . 4.0.5.0... .00)....\ 3...... .l 3103.. . . . .Ifl.0t.$. '5... 171.33. .0: .- ..."... it..€.0...!..5.\.3.83..i. ... . . .3...-Jain“ . . . . . ,. . . . . .0.......U...... .qfi . .3 .A .n. . . .. .0‘..10 Q . 0. 3000.! , . t..... 0. Q 0...: 0." 0.0..000‘. 200000- 0.: a . i . . . . . . . . .. u. . 0.0 .r 000 . 0 . 30 10.00.30.- ...0 .00M0-‘000rn.".0l 00 00,0. .00. “0"..0.m0h..0,0 o ..3..... 00.1.0.0... .06.... Iii-0.0 3.003.020 0 . . . .. . . , . . . . I v. 0. .90 ...-0".”0003- “nu—ML? ..Q—i’mthzolwahd ..u0h0. 5&0... 015.... .0‘gkv’“ _ '3;- .fl.0...01.£.0.00¢...0.. 0.3%....51. 310.33.... .. . . 3.0.0 3...... .-3..! . . . . . .. . . .. .3.... ...LJ.... ......v0..0...s..0.......0... .m: . v £050.». ‘0. .. Idorl 30.00!.!.0.C.u00.. 0...?! ‘3‘: ......0 ... . . , . 30.031.33.33. 3.0.0.. . .. . .. . . . . . . ......J..~...0n......o..f.................t50.!......,.30.. SIU'.00$. 0. a! .. I . ' . . . . 90-0:- .....00.0.0 00.. ... a .. . . . . . . i. 310...- .. . ....Jo\.. .000..........0.,$ ..0...)0.0 0.0 ‘q... .05},00,0.0u.0. .3‘00: 3.4;. .0 D0 : " a...‘-00..Oo§ 1.00.00... . . .o .)..0... ... .... .0 56.10....‘0: 0. .0030.“ .'0‘00....A. 133.000.1500 "0‘0 ’ . ' .00... . 3130.....3. .. i... v. . 2.311.}...5uk0531103 8...... . . .0. .. .cx . ... 4:8...) :0 .....30... .0.0.0...«.Quu.0.190... ...... ..r it ... ”A. ‘01. . . r. .z:.-. .30.. .000) o. . a v t. 0., . _ . I Z . 1.. . ...-...i ..0... .15vfl.r0“‘0«q‘ ..qu‘ in $- '73:. -..}.is 2.0.0 .00. 0.0..u‘.000.0.00.0. 00"... 30.00 00... 0...... ...-0030.050 0.. 000000000 0-,. ...: 0.3.0.00- i‘lh. .0". - . ..v .000". 00!... . . . 0... ‘00,'!. 00.00001 .00 0000 . a0 0‘0.‘0‘v.0fl.000. . 0.. 0 0.. 00.00.00 ....‘0. . .0. .0...0!..0\0.0.0. .1‘..‘0~.0‘0. .. .... -... ..3..-O00 ...00 .00 .0.- . .0 . . . .... ... ....0... .. ..0.’.00.).0... ‘v. v. 41.00... . .0 . . .. ..'..TII‘...0‘ 10.0.00. . 0.3’00’0 . c. .- .... 1 3.00.0.2... ... 0030.3... ...0.....\.001 ..383‘0'..I. . ... >0.......'...4¢A.........00.M..\o. ....0 3.0.3....IIJ ......‘.!.¢.c3l". 1.0.... ......I...... 0.0. . 00’ 0.0. .fi'.’l.03‘l. ......‘fi’c.0i000....00...0.{0000.003; 00'. ‘30?! 5.9.1. 0 5:00.00». 1 .1. c 1 4 0 ...‘..J .vxl.,uod’....0 0 .0'!‘ til .‘5. ......00..'00000w.0.g§ 9’._.000..000.0.”0.'9‘l.0.00.0.. .2.’..0000’.l00..-.$00000..fl.0, )9 ... _. ..0 . .0. p... ...... 1...»...4... ..3..... I. ;3(.It..au......3.0. .. $.13... 0.. ..l....‘.............n. ...}... .. 3.12.... VJ... 2430.30.30 . . . . . . . . .01l0.\'.. 0.0.200. ...... 3 ... n . 00.13.41,..10 ..00"l-00 ’10. . . . . . 0. ...!"A.. 00010.0 0.‘ ...‘0 10......3'0 00!..1 . ..0 0.0 .5. 0A 00!. . . ”ys‘.‘ba '0 . 00v 0....00.00. ....3‘ a . 3'00 ~10. .3000... . . ..0000...t.... ....0...1...-.0.0 . . . . .. ...-0.0.0 .0. o. ..000. .’ . . . '0... .... 20....0100. 1.0.3....0 .0'0'0 ..3....300903.O.0'!.0..- I39 ...... ...0. 99....-.000 . .23... .0 o. .0. . . . 0.. In“! ... .. .... '0 ... ..00‘400...‘...00:0.o0.3...00.....000..0.00.....2v If? 6...... 0 1.001....0 0 ...... .0... .. . .. 00007.0... .0 0.: .0.I.I. I100 0.0.000 10700000. ..0.:00000.0.0 9..0..0.0.0.0... 00. .ov’,’o..."-0.’v..o.¢ . . ...0000'...’ .34.:- . 3... . . 0 I. .... . .0’. .....~. ...0 0.‘..'.. 0... ‘30. . ... . .. 5.0.31.9... .0. . .00.‘r.vh0.0.'0.0luc0.l00.«0.90. £003.... . . .0140...“O00!0?0..~..00.0...000..00. 0.0.0.... 01.].- 0||001203l Q . ...-1"; 0200 {'0 0.20.0..0000001’00. . 10.0 00....‘. 0010.0! .’0.. .....0... ...-02.0.0. .‘0. ..s‘ .....0 ......2‘... .10.0..1030.3.. ...20.‘3.¢.1£ CI}3100....I0.... 0.1.0.1.. 3.0-s. v 0.. 0. ‘3‘3047. ‘00-‘20. 31?..."40 ’10....002 ... . 01.0.0.2... .....3. O ....009. J...0013|0.....00. . 4. ..3.....0..0o....0..0.0.1.... . ... .t.‘ . .. 0...! ... 001.333,", ..3....34. ‘.._..... ......O. ...: . . ..£,0...Iu....00.01u_. 00.00.02.330 00. 000 000.000.. .0vv.....00.000.0.0.10.'.0 0000 . . .000'0035 0......“ v0 0 \r .0 . ... .... .... .. .30. . . 0 . ...00. ..‘0.0..-l00..... ... . ...-.... ......cs..0...9|...1... ....ixviz 0.5..10071...i0. .0... ....380400‘..300.0....0.0|\ ... 0 70.0. . ‘10.. 00 ’90 90.0011zo0-0I. ...00....0.0..00....0 010le0. O!‘ .0. . .2559... 3.0.03.0...030 :0 V I. ...-{3&0 383‘....20...!..!... 0.0....1 O. ..00_ '4 .‘00: . I 3.0.3.0000: .... ...0... .... 0. .. . . . . 30.0.00 0 .0 . . . . . . 0...: o... . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u . 2‘ 110.5; . . {3:9 0 ... . 0 .J..0.\.0....$. 0.... ‘30. . .. .. . . . .. "ham-....»«u ”.0. u... ....I’II...’ ..3..-a)... . u D ..3..-3.1.0.. . 0 0.0.0. .‘.00\J§0.30.. , ,- .Q 00.\0...4..... I“ ‘000- . 00...? . a.... .0...- S I 0 3 i 3 E {a 5 1 a 0 . s .- ‘ Q '3 t 0 ‘ 0.‘ ....1..IF.....QJ. ... l..‘.c...’3~00. .30... 2.1 ..3.....10». E... 0 0 0..-. ..0 ..00. 3.. ...-l 9 3.....‘0aqig‘ .. ... . . . . . 1.3.... ”1..>0\vu.u0. . .00....00.._‘. 9. 3.3.0.2.. .. .lwn'.0...h.fi“‘.13n0rl ..0.’ .. . . a . . . a I . . .... . ...... 351$.‘J. . 3...-...... .v ... h....nfln§!t{0..r.9 . .. 00 000.0...0. .. . . .’. . ... 0.. c- . 30...... . ..0.0.0.I00' .90 .. 0.1.0. I 0 .000 0.. ...J 0. ‘0’01... .4 .3......0. . ..0.’ . .?,.. ... ... .‘ .0. :00 0 p . u 00%.. .0000... 3030.. . ... ....I .. “3196 00 .... 00. J. . .31. 0...0 00 . ... .0 .. ’. .. . .. . . . .. . .. ... ..Io. . ......u 0 ..f. .. ... 3.30.0, . .....0.. I‘.....0.0..01$.0.00J’\. :10 la... 0 a... .... 2. .‘ ... . .0 0w.‘.'.0000‘..001. . .0033’.’0-'..00.00.1 . ... ..00).0..0.2.0.. .00..!.07.00 00. .... .0. .‘ I 0.0.. 0.0.0..) . 0.1 ..0.~00. .. .. .. .... ~....‘.0..1w ..0 .o’...fi.....0‘0 ‘00....0:'.., 0.0.0.1.... £00.... .. ‘1‘.I..0 9. .0 00.0. .13.... . . 1.0.0....wl. «.000. . 0.3%....00 .0. .9. .. .0. :0 3 03n..0"..10 ... . l....0 ..0. 0:90:10 00.... .019... ..0 ._ . .001". 0.. 000-003... .. o. 00. ...?! .... 0.00. .10. .... o . 30.» ......0590 0a . v .. 0:4 ‘...0..0.0 P . 1 ‘00. 0. ..‘00 .. .0! 0 :0 on... . ... .....00. .0" 0000. ...-000.10. .00 00....-. .... .... “ . 0. ... ..000 .. . 0.00:0000 . .75 2.0.0003.- .F.‘ . . o 0 .. . . . 01.... 0'... . u 0 . . 2. .. .... .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .Ilh..0|0.0.0 . . “1‘. 00...... 0.... 0. . o...l‘.0=.0000-. .00.. 0 1.50 n . 30.: 3.... ....l u.\.'6§ ..0... . . .. 9.0 0.6 .0. .- . .4 . .... . . . v. .0 . .... . a 0.... )0. Q... 0.0 .. ......V .o. £.00000'000...0. i. .. ...-Vt... 500.500.10.000... ‘ -... ’0‘,‘ .. ..-..JC. .... . 0.. ..V ...? ...: . .... .1 . ... ..x. . ..000.0.0 v.0. ... fl’........0. .. . 0 o. l ... . . 1.00.09... ... . . ... ... .. 90‘. .. .000 . . 0 ..‘0 13...... . . .0 0 \ ...0.“ Q. 0 0‘... . Q‘}... . .. 0.....0: $9v..0n...“.. 000.00. ... ‘h. ..3... ..0 .. ... ..00 0' . 2’30 )0...» . ..Vtv . . . 0.0 ..00. I0....|...0......'... -0 .01.... . . . ... ...: . . . 0.00.0200... 0.. 000 . O... . 0. .. ..r. .O .0 0.0... ...O . ...-....101'0'la3 .v. ....0... 0...... . ...ll‘. 10.0.. . .. .. ... 0 0. . .l... ...:“‘0’. 0.10.. .\90...‘.a’3!..‘..t0‘20“§). 3.0.... 00.2.... ‘10.. f!!! . ... ~ {..3..-030020....2. 000000.... .0005\ . .0000... . . 0002.0: .0. [glifl 0. .1. 300.000.0-0 0 . MI ...!» 000...: ....1?) f.?0~z. ... 1.3. 0 O 9’... ... .0 ... .. ... .0.00.. . ..0... . J . . ... ......) 0...... .... .. . . ...--.....00‘ —0 I 1 . ... . 3...-)1 -25...- ... . ....00...‘: .00.) .0! ... . .00040‘ ...... . .. . ...0 .. . a... ...... .A 0 ... a . . .... . ..00 . ...0 ......O‘ .. ..0.‘0 ...0. sou-3‘. '..I, 0. . ..0 . .....0.’ . .. .1....Q|.....9...2_....0.. .. . ... .... o. . 0.-. . ..‘0....000 ... . .0“...0...‘0.0..... 0a.. ”0. ... 1. . . .. . . ....o 00. . .12... ..I I.0 . . s .0 u... 09 ..w . 0.1.0... ..v. 0.. . .. ..0.....c. .1........¢v.0..0 a. 0. ...... . ..Y A. ..F‘ .0 v0 .. .... 0r .0 . .. .. 00.. .0. .0. ... 0 ...... ...v . . ..0'.’o .00 ..0.....-00 ...... 0.00.. . 0.. It. 0‘.-.- ‘. .. 0.10 . 0.0.... . .0 0 .... .. . ... . .... . . . I00 ..00. . . . . A . ......0. 3.0... l....0. ...-3.1.0.10 . . .. _ .. .. ... .. ... ‘. l..00 I. .00 ...05. ...... 000.00... .11. . ... I... . 0 .00.. . ‘50 .. A. o _ I . ..... ...0... ... .. .. ... . '0 ..0 . 090 . 0 . . .... A . O... 500 0.. | n .. . .000... ... . .. ... .0. . . 0 .X0. .... .a 4 .0'. ...... . '. . . .0. . ... . ... 00.... .0 . . 100060.... . . . .... .. ... . ...... ‘0 .0 .... ...r. L... .0 .. .1 n . - . .... . ... . . . .' . . . Z . ..‘. .0... ..0. o .0... . . . . . 0 r C . 0).. . .0 II |. 00 . . .... ...... i c. . . _ 21.3.... .. A. . . I. - - ...: .... . . . : .. .04. . u . 0....0-’.~I¢‘4.o...‘0.§; . :09 O... 0.00 - . .. . . . . . . ... . . SM. “9:2..- 0.. .0... 0.5.4.2.; .. 20...... ......‘01-.... .... .... 1. 31... .0. ...- V . .. . ... I. .9 0.0%.... -90).... 0...! 0.” r.:.....0l.0w..........0...... ...: ..0. 1...... . .70.. ...: .I..0..P...4. . 3.0.. 1.33.2121... ...: n u . : .. o 0. C . ..{o .550... . ...: Am“ .52.... .....lv. .... . .... .13.. .....03.... .... 0.03.002... . ..u.. i._.. . ....J. ...u ..---. .95.}.1. . . .. ... .....J x. . . . 00'. z 0. .... . .0 ...... 0 J. 0.. . . .... . Q . . .. ...: ...J.v..é.‘.( .000 .9 40.0.0.0... .. H310. I. 00010.00. fis‘.’ .‘O0 ....0409. 0. 0.0000. ..0... 9.0.0 ..0 . . . . . . .0 . .n 0 . . o 0 . . o . . ... . ... . . _ .....A ...-0. ‘ .0... 00.0.31... 10.0 0 0 00.. 0 0i: ..MTI'..... b .80... .... .ui.l..n.“...n_. ...I... ... . .0... .. 0. I . . .... 0 A...» .0 . . 0 0 _ . .... . I v . . - . . .. . ....a... ... ......z....l..00..!. 2021......7... 5.100;... .1....... 2 .0. .10.... . .0111... :2. .....1 .ucaf .1 u .0.. . . . .. .0. I... . . . .. . .0 : .... . . . . . . . . ‘\0 05.1.0.0... .3030730 ......0 0.... ‘30:...0 00...: «1‘1. 0‘. ... . \ .00.. “0.0.. I.L.‘»fl.‘.‘h_l.oz0u.0 .31)....- ..LQIunusuh . ... . u. . ... ». ... .. (. ~9- 37... .71.... . .. . . o . .. .-.. . . . .I . .......90u....0 "L..0..}. ... ...s. a . .Hnunuuow ..w ......Iw...0u0...... .0 ...V.’5i....u. ..70.’ 0.0:”... . L0.......I..I.. .0n0...0:.1.... 10.“.3033th0fl93qmuflhuu 0...“..“. on. .. 0‘ .... .I..-..“..H_. no: . . .. . 00... 0. . .. 0 .00.... .. ..§. ...0.0 .....- .... 0 ..000'. . .I . v w .I . ... l. . . . .... . . . .. ..10.'.- . ..l. ‘. ‘1'! . .. . . v0 0. A i 000 000.0 ...-.1000“ .00... 0. . .... . .113...0.‘.0\ a. . A. .....o 0‘ JG '0. I I Lug LIBP ARY Mlcmgan State University ‘0 \ O This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PERFORMANCE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR EXPERIENCES AND THEIR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSITY SETTING presented by STACY JENNIFER VATNE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Educafion MOut/ Major Professor’s Signature 8/l8iio Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ._ ...._.. _..___..____, ‘, *— PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5108 K./Proj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd A STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PERFORMANCE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR EXPERIENCES AND THEIR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSITY SETTING By Stacy Jennifer Vatne A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 2010 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC PERFORMANCE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR EXPERIENCES AND THEIR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSITY SETTING By Stacy Jennifer Vatne The purpose of my study was to understand undergraduate music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors and to assess music student positionality. Music student positionality, music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting, involves music majors’ perceptions of their relationships to the larger campus and their perceptions of how non-music students, administrators and faculty (outsiders) view them, their programs of study/lives as music majors, and their college. My study finds its justification from multiple avenues, including the following: greater numbers of visual and performing arts students, the worth of music in society, some support in the literature for a relationship between retention and student positionality (social integration, sense of belonging, institutional fit, value sharing), and research Showing positionality is germane for music education students (Roberts, 1991). I conducted individual interviews with 16 music performance majors at Michigan State University. Students created metaphors/similes for being a music performance major and performing. For both of these areas, I clustered metaphors/similes separately, creating a factor for each cluster. I also completed an additional anaylsis (Foss, 1996) on all the clusters. Areas covered on music students’ perceptions of their experiences include declaring the major, choosing the university, choosing music performance, the psychological experience, musical involvement, mechanics, and music student modes. I created 5 clusters for participants’ metaphors regarding being a performance major with these factors: psychological struggle, struggle for musical success, rerun/echo, variety, and experiencing music in relation to others. I created 6 clusters for participants’ metaphors for performing with these factors: excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. Music student positionality was mixed for my participants. Students had varying levels of connection, comfort, and belonging with the university outside the College of Music. Some music students spoke of the difficulty/adaptation required in interacting with/connecting to outsiders. Some Spoke of College of Music/music student reclusion. Students felt that outsiders understood and did not understand them and their programs/lives as music majors, and they believed outsiders viewed them and their programs/lives positively and negatively. There were mixed views on whether outsiders valued the College of Music. Student views were also mixed regarding whether they cared about what outsiders may think about their musical programs of study. With no participants planning to depart MSU prior to graduation, I could make no assertions about any connection between participants’ attrition and their positionality. For the participants, retention is likely dependent on their experiences within the College of Music, not at the university at large, as their connections in the College of Music are strong. I found some patterns in student responses across some of my interview questions. In conclusion, I presented suggestions for better serving, understanding and respecting music students and offered ideas for further research. Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Marianne Hauge Vatne, who has given so much to me. As I grew, she was a pillar I could count on, and she filled my world with so much that was good and with God. In these later years, she has had to suffer much. Hats off to you, mom, for all you have done and all you have endured. Love, Stacy iv Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Kristen A. Renn, who chaired my dissertation, for her excellent direction. I thank also my committee members, Dr. Marilyn J. Amey, Dr. MaryLee Davis, and Dr. Cynthia L. Taggart. Thank you to Mr. Curtis Olson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies at the MSU College of Music, and to Ms. Kathleen Adams, Communications Manager at the MSU College of Music. Thank you to all the music students at Michigan State University who participated in interviews for my study. Thanks, also, to my family for their love and support. To fiiends who have encouraged me, I thank you. To those who made it possible for me to play and experience music, I say thank you. To my fellow players from years gone by, I will always remember om days together. Finally, to God, who walks this journey with me, thank you. Thank you for all the times with music I’ve been able to experience. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................. AIM OF THE STUDY Rationale for the Study .................................................................. Rising Number of Arts Students ............................................... Music Students’ Graduation and Retention Rates ........................... Conceptual Framework: Student Positionality .............................. Music School and Student Climate/Positionality ........................... Importance of Music in Society and Universities and Colleges .......... Summary ......................................................................... Purpose of the Study, Participants, and Research Questions ...................... Theoretical Framework: Tinto’s Model of Student Departure .................... Tinto’s Model of Student Departure Briefly Described ................... Social Integration and Persistence ............................................ Community Positionality and Persistence ................................... Possible Benefits of the Study ........................................................ Conclusion .............................................................................. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. Student Positionality and Retention/Intent to Persist ............................... Relationships Between Student Social Integration and Persistence/Intent to Persist .................................................... Relationships Between Students’ Sense of Belonging and Retention/ Intent to Persist .................................................................. Relationships Between Institutional Fit and Retention/Intent to Persist .............................................................................. Relationships Between Sharing of Values and Retention/Intent to Persist ............................................................................. Research on Music Students’ Perceptions of Their Experiences .................. Music Student Concerns ....................................................... Program, Curricular, and Instructional Aspects of Music Student Life ................................................................................ Relational and Campus Aspects of Music Student Life .................... Playing and Performing Music ................................................ Conclusion .................................................................................. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... Research Questions ...................................................... _ ............... vi 28 33 35 37 40 40 45 54 57 60 62 62 Theoretical Framework ................................................................... Qualitative Approach ............................................................. Social Constructivism ............................................................ Positioned Subject Approach .................................................... Researcher Positioning ........................................................... Data Analysis .............................................................................. Study Setting ...................................................................... Participants ........................................................................ Interview Questions ............................................................... Metaphor ............................................................................. Data Analysis ...................................................................... Conclusion ................................................................................. CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS: GENERAL ANALYSIS OF MUSIC STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF EXPERIENCES .......................................................................... Starting as Music Performance Majors ................................................ Declaring the Major ............................................................... Choosing MSU .................................................................... Choosing Music Performance ................................................... Being a Music Performance Major ..................................................... The Psychological Experience .................................................. Musical Involvement ............................................................. Mechanics .......................................................................... Music Student Modes ............................................................ Beyond the College of Music ................................................... Summary ................................................................................... CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS: METAPHOR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................. Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major: Presentation and Cluster Analysis .................................................................................... The Metaphors .................................................................... Metaphor Analysis: Clusters .................................................... The Clusters ....................................................................... Metaphors for Performing: Presentation and Cluster Analysis. . The Metaphors ..................................................................... Metaphor Analysis: Clusters .................................................... The Clusters ....................................................................... Summary .................................................................................. 62 62 63 63 66 68 72 76 78 85 86 87 87 88 88 95 101 103 109 111 112 112 112 118 119 125 125 130 131 137 flu: Metaphor Analysis: F oss’s Questions ................................................ 138 The Four Questions ............................................................ 139 Summary ........................................................................ 144 Conclusion ............................................................................... 145 CHAPTER SD( FINDINGS: MUSIC STUDENT POSITIONALITY ................................. 146 Analysis: Part One: Music Students’ Perceptions of Their Place in the University Setting ....................................................................... 146 Music Student Connection, Comfort, and Belonging to the College of Music and MSU ................................................................ 147 Music Students’ Relationships With Music and Non-music Peers ...... 152 Music Students’/College of Music’s Reclusion From the University at Large ........................................................................... 156 Music Students’ Perceptions of Outsiders’ Views ........................ 158 Whether Music Students Care About Outsiders’ Views Regarding Their Musical Programs of Study ........................................... 181 What Music Students Would Like Outsiders to Understand About Their Lives as Music Majors ................................................. 184 Conclusion ....................................................................... 187 Analysis: Part Two: Looking for Patterns in Responses Across Interview Questions Concerning Music Student Positionality ................................ 187 Analysis of the Matrix ......................................................... 188 Connecting Student Metaphors and the Four Questions About Perceptions of Outsiders’ Views ............................................. 194 Analysis: Part Three: Music Students’ Perceptions of Their Place in the University Setting and Their Intentions to Persist to Graduation ................ 196 Conclusion ............................................................................... 198 CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 199 Summary of Results ................................................................... 199 Purpose of the Study ........................................................... 199 Methodology .................................................................... 200 Findings .......................................................................... 201 Summary ........................................................................ 216 Discussion of Results .................................................................. 216 Music Student Perceptions of Experiences ................................. 217 Music Student Positionality ................................................... 221 MSU Music Performance Students’ Retention and Implications ...... 224 Summary ........................................................................ 226 Suggestions for Better Serving, Understanding, and Respecting Music Students .................................................................................. 227 Understanding MSU’s Musical Culture .................................... 227 viii Increasing Understanding and Respect of Music Students by Outsiders ............... 229 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research .................. 233 F inal Thoughts .......................................................................... 235 APPENDIX ................................................................................. 238 REFERENCES .............................................................................. 245 ix TABLE 1: TABLE 2: TABLE 3: TABLE 4: TABLE 5: TABLE 6: TABLE 7: TABLE 8: LIST OF TABLES Study Participants - Pseudonyms, Class Levels, and Performance Areas ............................................................................ Image Conveyed by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Maj or ................................................... Image Conveyed by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing ..................................................................... Worldview of Participant Suggested by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Maj or ....................... Worldview of Participant Suggested by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing ................................................... Attitudes and Values Undergirding Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major ........................ Attitudes and Values Undergirding Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing ................................................... Participants’ Levels of Belonging with MSU, Levels of Connection to MSU Outside the College of Music, Levels of Comfort With MSU Outside the College of Music, and Participants’ Perceptions of Outsiders’ Views Regarding Themselves, Their Programs, and the MSU College of Music ...................................................... 71 141 I41 142 142 144 144 193 CHAPTER ONE: AIM OF THE STUDY In this chapter, I discuss rationale, purpose, participants, research questions, theoretical framework, and possible benefits of my study. Rationale for the Study More and more American college and university students are majoring in the visual and performing arts. Statistics raise concerns about music students’ retention. There is some support in the literature for a relationship between student positionality and retention/intent to persist. Positionality, or perceptions of place in the university setting, is germane for music schools and students. Combining these assertions with the points of view that music is important for society and that music study in American higher education is important, it is clear that music student experiences and pésitionality deserve to be studied. Rising Number of Arts Students At postsecondary institutions across the nation, the number of visual and performing arts students is rising. In the United States, 85,186 visual and performing arts students completed bachelor’s degrees in 2006-2007. One can compare these data with those of earlier years: In 1996-1997, 50,083 visual and performing arts students received bachelor’s degrees. (Planty et al., 2009, p. 237); In 2001-2002, 66,773 visual and performing arts students completed bachelor’s degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 2007). Percent change from 1996-1997 to 2006-2007 is 70.1 . Percent change in all bachelor’s degrees earned fi'om 1996-1997 to 2006-2007 is 29.9 (Planty et al., p. 237). Music Students ’ Graduation and Retention Rates National data for music majors’ retention/graduation rates are not available, but institutional statistics online show that retention and graduation rates for undergraduate university music students vary fi'om school to school. Below I present university students’ and music majors’ graduation and two-year retention rates from a variety of institutional types. Statistics for music majors who change majors but remain at the university are not included, as my focus is on whether or not music students stay as music students to graduation. With different kinds of data from the various institutions, it is difficult to make cross-school comparisons regarding graduation rates. My presentation shows that in some cases music student retention is not strong. I present music graduation and two-year retention rates along with companion university rates for the sake of context. In most cases, music students’ graduation rates are weak. For example, at Southeastern Louisiana University, this was the situation, when statistics for two music programs were combined concerning students starting in music in the 1999 Fall cohort. Of the F all 1999 cohort, 14 students began in the bachelor of music program, and 9 began in the bachelor of music education program, totaling 23 students for both programs. Of the 23, one student, or 4.3%, graduated within 6 years in his/her starting major. Of the 14 students starting in the bachelor of music program, none (0.0%) graduated within 6 years in this program. Of the 9 students starting in the bachelor of music education program, one graduated in this program within 6 years (11.1%). Of all university students who did not change their starting majors, 9.4% graduated (within 6 years for bachelor’s degrees and within three years for associate degrees). The within six-year university graduation rate was 26.0% (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2006). Similarly, music students’ graduation rates at California Polytechnic State University were weak. The within six-year music program graduation rate for music majors in the Fall 1999 freshman cohort (includes those music majors who did not start in the major) was 35.3%, and their rate for the averaged cohort years of 1995-1999 was 46.7%. Across the university, the within six-year graduation rate for the Fall 1999 cohort was 68.9%. The university rate for the averaged cohort years of 1995-1999 was 66.7% (Goodman, Dalton, & Henricks, 2006, pp. 1, 2, 3, and two pages without usefirl numbers). At James Madison University, the four-year graduation rate for music students in the F all 1992 freshman cohort who declared a music major (only major declared) and stayed with that major until graduation was 34% (no double majors included in this statistic). Of the university Fall 1992 freshman cohort who chose just one major and stayed in it until 1995-1996, or who had no major in Fall 1992 and later chose one major and stayed with it, 75% graduated after 4 years (Office of Institutional Research, 1997). The four-year graduation rate for the 1992 entering class was 62% (Office of Institutional Research, n.d.). Music students’ graduation rates were also poor at Butler University. For the freshman classes of 1998-2000 put together, 50% of students whose “original” major was music graduated with this major. Across the university, 34% of students who had chosen original majors as fi'eshmen graduated in their original majors. For both of these statistics, the number of years for graduation was not given (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2006). At Longwood University, two-year retention for music majors in the Fall 1998 cohort was 50.0%. Across the university, 42.6% of students stayed in their majors from Fall 1998 to Fall 2000 (Ofl’ice of Assessment and Institutional Research, n.d.). At Virginia Tech, of the 2001 cohort pursuing music majors as freshmen, 56.5% graduated in music within 6 years. Of the 2002 music cohort, 46.2% graduated within 6 years. Of the 2003 music cohort, 13.3% graduated within 6 years. Of the 2001 cohort for the whole university, 77.5% graduated within 6 years. Of the 2002 university cohort, 78.5% graduated within 6 years, and of the 2003 cohort, 79.9% graduated within six years. Two-year retention rates in music were weak. Of the 2005 cohort of freshmen music majors, 61.5% remained music majors into their third year. Across the university, 87.6% of the 2005 cohort returned to the university for their third year (Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, 2007). At Ohio University Athens campus, music majors’ graduation rate was also wanting. The six-year graduation rate for students in the 2001 cohort who were last enrolled as music majors was 65%. For the 2001 cohort across the university, the six- year graduation rate was 71% (Office of Institutional Research, n.d.). Results were brighter at the University of California Santa Cruz. The within six-year graduation rate in music was 81.1% for students majoring in music during the fall of their third year who had begun at the university as fi'eshman 2 years prior, for third-year cohorts fiom 1993-1997 put together. The within six-year graduation rate for the tmiversity, for the same years, for students with majors in the fall of their third year, who had started at the university 2 years prior, and stayed with these majors was 78.2%. If students who changed majors are included, the university graduation rate was 89.8%. The previously mentioned music student rate was lower at 81.1% (Planning and Budget Institutional Research and Policy Studies, 2002, pp. 2, 3, 6). Music student graduation rates at the schools listed above can not be easily compared, given the different kinds of data used by each institution. Retention data, however, can be compared. Two-year music major retention at Virginia Tech was 61.5% (Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, 2007); at Longwood it was 50.0% (Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, n.d.). Given that my study concerns Michigan State University (MSU) undergraduate music students, it is fitting to look at music student retention at MSU as well as other Big Ten universities. I was able to obtain relevant data fiom the MSU College of Music as well as schools of music at the University of Iowa, Pennsylvania State University, and Northwestern University. I begin by presenting the retention/graduation data I was able to obtain fi'om three other Big Ten universities. According to B. Coelho, Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies at the University of Iowa School of Music, about 80 students have come into the programs each year for the last 3 years. He continued, “In the past 3 years, we have had an average of 47 students graduating each year” (personal communication, May 18, 2009). At the University of Iowa, the six-year graduate rate in Fall 2007 was 65.9% (Board of Regents State of Iowa, 2008, p. 3). The School of Music does not fare well here in graduating its students. At Penn State, music students’ graduation rates were not strong. According to S. Hang, Director of the School of Music at Penn State, for the Fall 2002 music cohort, 48% graduated in music. For the Fall 2003 cohort, 55% graduated in music, and for the Fall 2004 cohort, 45% graduated in music (personal communication, April 1, 2009). This pales in comparison to the six-year graduation rate for all university students in the Fall 2002 cohort, which was 84.6% (Penn State University Budget Office, n.d.). At Northwestern University, music performance student graduation rates were lower than that of music majors. From data provided (personal communication, August 11, 2009 and October 19, 2009, J. Merkley of the Office of Student Affairs at the Henry and Leigh Bienen School of Music at Northwestern), I was able to calculate that, for the Fall 2001 cohort, 81.3% graduated in music. For the Fall 2002 cohort, 75.2% graduated in music. For the Fall 2003 cohort, 81% graduated in music. Data were also available regarding those entering as performance majors. I was able to calculate what percentage of these students graduated with a performance degree (including double majors — one not in performance). For the Fall 2001 cohort, the percentage was 66. For the Fall 2002 cohort, the percentage was 61.4. For the F all 2003 cohort, the percentage was 71. Across the university, the Six-year graduation rate for the Fall 2002 cohort was 93.45%. For the F all 2001 cohort, it was 93% (Northwestern University Office of the Registrar, 2009). Retention at MSU and the MSU College of Music is strong. At MSU, the one-year retention rate for the Fall 2005 freshmen cohort was 90% (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets, n.d.). According to B. Ebener, Director of Admissions at the MSU College of Music, in the MSU College of Music, the one-year retention rate (Fall 2005-Fall 2006) for undergraduates was 91.8%. For performance majors it was 90.6%. All fieshmen who completed their first year were still in the College in the Fall 2006. “A small number” of freshmen did not complete their first year. “The highest percent of loss between [Fall] 2005 and [Fall] 2006 was at the junior and senior years,” wrote Mr. Ebener (personal communication, October 22 and 23, 2009). Although this sample is not a statistically representative sample of music students’ persistence at American colleges and universities, it does Show that, in a number of cases, fi'om available data, music student persistence is not strong, and it makes one wonder about music student retention nationwide. Given the rising numbers of visual and performing students in America today, many music students may not be persisting in their majors. Having shown that more and more American college students are graduating in the visual and performing arts and having shown instances of poor music student retention, I now consider yet a third reason supporting my claim that music student positionality deserves to be studied: A number of studies show a relationship between student positionality and retention/intent to persist. Conceptual Framework: Student Positionality Student positionality, students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting, is an important topic for study as it has been shown to be related to student retention and intent to persist. I define student positionality through social integration, sense of belonging, institutional fit, and value sharing with the university. Study results are evenly mixed regarding a relationship between social integration and retention/intent to persist. Almost all study results show a clear relation of institutional fit to retention/intent to persist. Results are evenly mixed for sense of belonging’s relationship to persistence/intent. Results are also mixed for value Sharing’s relationship to persistence/intent, not favoring a relationship. Although results are mixed regarding student positionality’s relationship to persistence/ intent to persist, the fact that some support has been found is cause for further research and for considering student positionality in different contexts, such as retention of undergraduate university music performance students. Social integration is “membership” in a college’s social system (Tinto, 1993, p. 107). Tinto wrote that “[whether or not students become integrated] depends on the character of...interactions [at the institution] and the manner in which the individual comes to perceive them as rewarding or unrewarding” (p. 136). He continued, ”Thus the term ‘membership’ may be taken as connoting the perception on the part of the individual of having become a competent member of an academic or social community within the college” (p. 136). Sense of belonging concerns whether students “feel a sense of belonging” (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990, p. 485; Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007, pp. 812; 808, 813; Walter, 2000, p. 83), whether students “feel [they] belong at this institution” (Nora & Cabrera, 1993, p. 248) as well as whether or not students feel “part” of the school and “happy” about being at the school (Hausmann et al., p. 812). Alienation is the opposite of sense of belonging. Cabrera and Nora (1994) might concur, since they assessed alienation1 in a study with two items, one of which was “I feel I belong at this institution”(p. 392). (The other item was “Being a student at this institution is a pleasant experience”) (p. 392). Simmons (1981) would also approve of my assertion, as she saw sense of belonging and ’Cabrera and Nora (1994) wrote, “The literature suggests that maladjustment to college on the part of minorities is primarily manifested by feelings of not belonging at the institution coupled with feelings that regard the experience of being a student at the institution as unpleasant,” and they cite references (p. 392). Although it appears the researchers chose to view alienation fi'om the perspective of minorities, I still think it worthwhile to note their connecting belonging and alienation. alienation as converses (pp. 120, 122, 137). Next, I discuss institutional fit. Tinto (1993) mentioned fit in discussing student retention. He stated that “incongruence refers to. . .lack of fit between the needs, interests, and preferences of the individual and those of the institution” (p. 50). Tinto continued: [Incongruence] springs fiom individual perceptions of not fitting into and/or of being at odds with the social and intellectual fabric of institutional life. In such situations, individuals leave not so much from the absence of integration as from the judgment of the undesirability of integration. (p. 50) It would appear that Bean (1985) equated the sense of belonging and institutional fit, as he wrote “. . .a feeling of belonging or fitting in at the institution. . .” (p. 55). By “fitting in at the institution” Bean meant institutional fit (p. 55). For two studies I discuss in which institutional fit is measured (Bean, 1985; Forbes, 1988), both measures included a belonging item (One measure also has a second belonging-related item, “feel out of place” (Forbes, p. 88)).2 Another study measured institutional quality and fit as one entity, with a belonging item as well as three other items (Cabrera et al., 1992, p. 161).3 Institutional fit connected to belonging in Nora and Cabrera’s (1993) study. In this study, the researchers took measures of certainty of choice, institutional quality/prestige, belonging, practical value, loyalty, and affinity of values and through analysis found out what constituted institutional commitment. Nora and Cabrera determined that there were two parts to the construct of institutional commitment (p. 257). One part was Aflinity of 2These studies (Bean, 1985, and Forbes, 1988) included an item about certainty of institution choice that is part of institutional fit. (Bean’s study had one additional item in the institutional fit construct). The three items: 1) It is very important for me to graduate from this university as opposed to some other , school (this item identified as loyalty in Nora & Cabrera, 1993); 2) My education at this university will help me secure future employment (practical value, p. 150), and 3) My close fi'iends rate this university as a quality institution (Cabrera et al., 1992, p. 161). Values and the other part was Institutional Commitment. This second part, Institutional Commitment, included certainty of choice, institutional quality/prestige, and institutional fit, comprised of sense of belonging, practical value, and loyalty to the institution (pp. 252, 254-258). Belonging or institutional fit could be affected by whether or not students feel that others on campus share their values. Value sharing is my final component of student positionality. I propose that sharing of values has two components: 1) students’ feeling that others at the institution share their values and 2) students’ sense that others at the institution appreciate their values. Feeling that others at the institution do not share/appreciate their values could be described as students meeting a difficult campus climate. Tinto’s (1993) understanding of college communities is relevant here. Writing of communities in the “center” and “periphery” on campus, Tinto believed that people on the periphery may have different “values” and “beliefs” than people in the center (p. 50). Persistence requires being a part of a local community, but being a part of this community is not enough (p. 123). “Persistence also depends on the centrality of that community in the system of the college” (p. 123). Tinto wrote of social incongruence at college, especially with peers. He stated, “[Here, incongruence] mirrors a perceived mismatch between the social values, preferences, and/or behavioral styles of the person and those which characterize other members of the institution, expressed individually or collectively” (p. 53). In this comment, lack of shared values was noted. A connection between social integration and value sharing is also evident in an item created by researchers to measure the peer-group interaction part of social integration: One item among others measuring peer-group interaction’s part of social integration offered by 10 Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) was “Most students at this university have values and attitudes different from my own” (pp. 66; 62-63). Perceived campus climate has been shown to be relevant for music education students in Roberts’ (1991) study. One wonders if music students’ retention is related to whether these students feel that others on campus value musical pursuits and activities. Chapter Two contains a thorough presentation of literature concerning student positionality and retention/intent to persist. To summarize here, I found that half of the study results (Allen, 1986, Allen & Nelson, 1987; Bean, 1980, Berger & Braxton, 1998; Braxton, Vesper, & Hossler, 1995; Bray, Braxton, & Sullivan, 1999; Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Eimers & Pike, 1997; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983) show that social integration positively affects student persistence/ intent to persist. Regarding sense of belonging’s relationship to retention/intent to persist, half of the study results Show a positive relationship: Gaertner and Dovidio (2000), Nora and Cabrera (1996), Walter (2000), Thomas and Andes (1987). Almost all study results (Bean, 1985; Cabrera, Castaneda, et al., 1992; Forbes, 1998; Nora & Cabrera, 1993) Show a positive relationship between institutional fit and retention/intent to persist. Most study results did not Show a positive relationship between value sharing and persistence/intent to persist. Studies by Eimers and Pike (1997), Morris, Beck, and Mattis (2007), and Pervin and Rubin (1967) did show a positive relationship. Just as a number of studies show a positive relationship between persistence/intent to persist and student positionality so it may be that music students’ retention might be related to their student positionality. 11 Music School and Student Climate/Positionality The climate/positionality of university music students can be considered. Below I discuss the concept of campus climate, (or of value sharing, as mentioned above), and then discuss Roberts’ (1991) study, which concerns positionality (social integration/sense of belonging/climate) of music education students. Next I present Pitts’ (2003) comments on the plight of music schools, which can relate to climate. Campus Climate Campus climate is an important issue in college student affairs today. Bauer (1998) wrote, “As a concept separate from culture, climate examines the current perceptions, attitudes, and expectations that define the institution and its members” (p. 2). Bauer cited Peterson and Spencer (1990), noting that these authors believe climate has three main facets: “(1) It examines common participant attitudes, perceptions, or observations that can be compared among groups or over time; (2) it focuses on current patterns of beliefs and behaviors; and (3) it is malleable in character” (pp. 2-3). Spiller (1997) wrote, “The campus climate is. . .a powerful attribute of the campus environment that determines feelings of acceptance and inclusion of its students” (p. 1). The question can be asked, “Are music students accepted and valued on college campuses today?” Green’s (1989) comments on campus climate are also relevant: Campus climate embraces the culture, habits, decisions, practices, and policies that make up campus life. It is the sum total of the daily environment, and central to the “comfort factor” that minority students, faculty, staff, and administrators experience on campus. (p. 113) 12 Green also wrote, “Minority students often feel marginal, conspicuous, and isolated fiom the mainstream of the institution” (p. 114). Although the focus of Green is minority groups, her perspective can be applied to other groups. In the quotation above, Green referred to the “comfort factor” of people of color on campus. One can inquire about the “comfort factor” of other campus populations, such as music students. Nora and Cabrera (1996) used a measure of campus climate that “[was] a composite of four items assessing the extent the student: (a) witnessed the use of discriminatory gestures or words directed toward minorities; (b) felt there was a general atmosphere of prejudice on campus, (c) encountered racism while attending the institution, and (d) heard negative words toward people of his/her own race” (p. 126). A similar look at campus climate for music students would be one in which attitudes toward music students, their pursuits, and the College of Music were examined. I attempt to learn about how music students feel they, their programs, and their College are viewed by others through my interview questions for music students. C Iimate/Positionality for Music Students Findings in Roberts’ (1991) study address music student climate/positionality. Roberts, who studied music education students at Canadian universities, found music education students were separated from the larger campus: Music students appear to develop a strong sense of isolation from the rest of the campus and most seem to focus their social action within the music school. . ..They often refer to others who pass through the music school or drop into their cafeteria as “outsiders.” (p. 21) 13 According to Roberts (1991), some music education students feel “that they don’t belong to the university as a whole at all, but merely to the music school” (p. 36). Roberts’ research showed that university community members and people outside the university are seen by music education students as believing “the study of music is somehow fiivolous and easy” (p. 45). Roberts also found that music education students think that people see “the music community as weird, different or otherwise deviant” (p. 45). Such findings raise questions about campus climate for music students. Given these findings, it is important to think about music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting. One wonders if further research would also Show that music students feel apart from the campus at large and perceive that others view them as deviant or engaged in frivolous pursuits. Do music students really see themselves as isolated, as belonging to the music school but not the larger university, and as looked at in a negative way by others? Possibly, their perceptions may affect them in negative ways. Could poor music student positionality vis-a-vis the larger campus affect retention (as some studies have shown a link between student positionality and retention)? Although Roberts’ (1991) findings come from Canada and thus can not be directly applied here in the United States, they do represent experience in the musical culture of a country bordering the USA, with some similarity to the USA, and they do make one curious about what might be the climate for music students in American colleges and universities. Climate for Music Schools Pitts’ (2003) comments show a perception of a difficult climate for music schools. Pitts, of the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom (UK) (p. 281), Shared her 14 point of view concerning the music department’s political place in the university environment: Music has always had a tenuous foothold in the school curriculum, and often seems in danger of being similarly marginalized or invisible within universities. Music departments are generally quite small in student numbers, and occupy a vulnerable position amongst science departments that can attract greater research funding, engineering departments with more obvious vocational value, and other arts departments which avoid the apparent fiivolity of a performing element. This lack of political power in the university can lead music departments to become somewhat isolationist, a stance that is then reinforced within the department, where students and staff work closely together and so generate a sense of community. (pp. 281-282) Although Pitts works in the UK (pp. 281, 292), her comments seem relevant to consider in light of Roberts’ (1991) study and given the nature of my inquiry in my study. Importance of Music to Society and Universities and Colleges Finally, my study of music student experiences and positionality is warranted because of the importance of music to society and the importance of music study in American colleges and universities. Importance of Music to Society Authors of Arts Plan New Jersey: Harnessing the Power of the Arts (n.d.) recognized the “public value” of the arts. They wrote, “The arts create and sustain public value in a wide range of important ways both intrinsically and instrumentally, for individual and community advancement” (p. 8). Some of the claims they made about the arts are as follows: “The arts foster beauty, creativity, originality and vitality. They 15 inspire, soothe, provoke and engage us, and connect us as people, cultures, and communities. . ..The arts are a powerful and dynamic economic force, supporting key businesses and the tourism industry” (p. 8). The arts encourage sensitivity and empathy. Another claim made by the authors of Arts Plan New Jersey (n.d.) is that “[the arts] teach us empathy” (p. 8). Yoel Levi, Music Director of the Atlanta Symphony (The Gifts of Music, 1994) wrote, “The study of music teaches the need for patience and care, for sensitivity and devotion; these priceless values will serve young people well in their future” (p. 100). Nussbaum (2006) asserted that the teaching of literature and arts, including music, brings about “sympathy” (pages not numbered, from first page). She believed that education in democracies should include that which “refines the capacity for sympathy” (second page). According to Weaver (1970), “Humanity includes emotionality” (p. 204). Music, then, is relevant, in that it allows people to communicate emotions. Victoria Bond, composer and music director of the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra (The Gifts of Music, 1994), wrote, “I believe that music offers all people a language with which to express their innermost feelings” (p. 24). According to Wilson (1981), “Music is the finest means of expressing the deepest emotions. The whole range of human experience. . .can be conveyed through music in a way that is not possible in verbal description or visual representation” (p. 66). Clearly, music is valuable to society. Importance of Music Stuay in Colleges and Universities Cost. Given the importance of the arts in society, it is essential that the arts be offered as majors in colleges and universities. Although music conservatory educations offer much, 16 college and university music programs offer a few unique benefits. (Here I exclude conservatories that are part of universities and colleges in my understanding of conservatory.) First, with few exceptions (Tuition is free at The Curtis Institute of Music (Admissions, 2008), and tuition, housing, and food are free at The Colburn School’s Conservatory of Music (n.d.).) many college and university educations cost less than conservatory programs. For example, at Michigan State University, in-state tuition, fees, and taxes for a freshman beginning in Fall 2008 taking 15 credits in the fall was $5, 131.75 and, after the offset, spring is the same amount (MSU Controller’s Office, 2007), for a yearly total of $10, 263.50. Tuition for the 2009-2010 academic year at the Manhattan School of Music (2003-2008) was $31,400; with fees of $475 added and music cost of $1,000 added, the total is $32,875. One can contrast this with tuition and fees for 2009-2010 at SUNY Potsdam (2008) for New Yorkstate residents: $6, 135 plus an added $550 for music students, totaling $6, 685. Programs of study. Second, undergraduate majors in music education and music therapy4 are offered at colleges and universities. Degrees offered by a number of conservatories Show a lack of undergraduate music education and music therapy programs. An exception in music education is the Bachelor of Science in Music Education degree offered by the Cleveland Institute of Music together with Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland Institute of Music, 2007-2008, pp. 19, 39). In summary, costs and specific programs of study are reasons that colleges and universities should offer degrees for music majors. Studying Music Students ’ Perceptions of Their Experiences as Music Performance Majors 17 Cognizant of the rising number of music majors, instances of poor music student retention, and music’s usefulness to society and its place in the college/university setting, people may desire to support music education and music students. I believe that one way to do this is through studying music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors. Greater knowledge of music students’ experiences may be beneficial for those positioned to affect the students’ lives. Students’ viewpoints also provide a fitting backdrop to my study of positionality. Not only do they help non- musician readers of the results of my study to understand better what life is like for music students, but also they are a stepping stone for non-musicians as these readers venture into the more esoteric topic of positionality. Without an introduction to music students’ lives, non-musicians may be less able or interested in relating to the positionality theme. Summary Thinking about the many arts students in colleges and universities today, being concerned about music student persistence, understanding the relationship between ’According to the American Music Therapy Association (1998-2009) website, baccalaureate degrees approved by them are found at the following American colleges and universities, current to September 22, 2009: University of Alabama, Arizona State University, Cal State Northridge, University of the Pacific (Conservatory of Music), Colorado State University, Howard University, Florida State University, University of Miami, Georgia College & State University, University of Georgia, Illinois State University, Western Illinois University, Indiana University — Purdue University - Indianapolis, Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne, St. Mary of the Woods College (Conservatory), University of Evansville, University of Iowa, Wartburg College, University of Kansas, University of Louisville, Loyola University, Anna Maria College, Berldee College of Music, Lesley University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, Augsburg College, University of Minnesota, Mississippi University for Women, William Carey University, Drury University, Maryville University, University of Missom'i-KC (Conservatory of Music), Montclair State University, Molloy College, Nazareth College, New York University, SUNY — Fredonia, SUNY — New Paltz, Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, Queens University of Charlotte, University of North Dakota, Baldwin Wallace College, Cleveland State University, Ohio University, The College of Wooster, University of Dayton, SW Oklahoma State University, Marylhurst University, Drexel University, Duquesne University, Elizabethtown College, Immaculata University, Marywood University, Seton Hill University, Slippery Rock University, Temple University, Charleston Southern University, Converse College, Sam Houston State University, Southern Methodist University, Texas Woman’s University, University of the Incarnate Word, West Texas A & M University, Utah State University, Radford University, Shenandoah University, Seattle Pacific University, and Alva College. 18 positionality and retention as evidenced in a variety of studies, considering Pitts’ (2003) comments on music school climate and Roberts’ (1991) findings regarding music education student positionality, and believing that music is worthwhile in society and that music study in colleges and universities is important, I believe a study on music student experiences and positionality is justified. Purpose of the Study, Participants, and Research Questions The purpose of my study was to understand music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences and to assess music student positionality. To gauge music student positionality, I investigated undergraduate university students’ perceptions of their relationships to the campus at large. Are music students isolated from other students? If so, are they comfortable as such? How do music students think others on campus view them? Two main research questions fueled this study: 1) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors? and 2) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting? A third research question played a secondary role: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? I interviewed Michigan State University College of Music undergraduate performance majors. I began by asking university students initial questions and then questions about their perceptions of their experiences as music students and musicians. Then I moved to interview questions that concerned music student positionality. Theoretical Framework: Tinto’s Model of Student Departure 19 Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure from college, specifically, its connection of social integration and retention, is a starting point for my study. Below, I discuss social integration and community positionality in Tinto’s model. I drew from Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure in my study. It served as a springboard to defining student positionality and to my presentation of research that has been done concerning student positionality and retention/intent to persist. In the following sections, I describe social integration’s and community positioning’s connections to student departure in Tinto’s model. T into ’s Model of Student Departure Briefly Described Tinto’s (1993) model “describes and explains the longitudinal process by which individuals come to leave institutions of higher education” (T into, 1993, p. 112). In the model, interactions at the institution are key (p. 113). Tinto wrote, “The model seeks to explain how interactions among different individuals within the academic and social systems of the institution and the communities which comprise them lead individuals of different characteristics to withdraw fi‘om that institution prior to degree completion” (p. 113) Social Integration and Persistence From Tinto’s (1993) model of student departure, I look at the connection between social integration and student departure. Since I am interested in how music students see themselves in relation to the larger campus, it makes sense to examine social integration’s relationship to retention in Tinto’s model. According to Tinto (1993), colleges have academic and social systems (p. 106). The social system. . .centers about the daily life and personal needs of the various 20 members of the institution, especially the students. It is made up of those recurring sets of interactions among students, faculty, and staff that take place largely outside the formal academic domain of the college. (p. 106) Tinto’s model of student departure concerns students’ “interactions” with other people at the institution (p. 113). “The individual’s experiences in [the academic and social] systems, as indicated by his/her intellectual (academic) and social (personal) integration, continually modifies his or her intentions and commitments” (Tinto, pp. 113-114). Citing Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992), Tinto wrote that, if students have experiences that are “integrative,” they become more determined to gain a degree, and they become more pledged to their prospective institutions; therefore, students tend to remain at their institutions (p. 115). Students who have “negative or malintegrative experiences” are more prone to depart since these kinds of experiences lead to the lessening of intentions and commitments, notably institutional commitment (Tinto, p. 115). A student may choose to leave college through encountering “social incongruence or social isolation.” (p. 118). For Tinto, commitment to the institution to which a student is admitted is institutional commitment, and goal commitment concerns the level of drive one has to reach goals of specific amounts and kinds of education and occupation (p. 115) Tinto (1993) also wrote about membership in college communities (p. 121). Colleges have “a cluster of social and academic communities” (p. 121). Persistence occurs when students become socially and intellectually enmeshed into their institutions, resulting in “competent” community membership (p. 121). 21 According to Tinto, (1993) some integration is necessary to prevent departure. Tinto wrote that “some form of integration — that is, some type of social and/or intellectual membership in at least one college community — is a minimum condition for continued persistence” (p. 121). “It is conceivable that persistence can occur when only one [kind of integration - social or intellectual] is present” (p. 137). But having both social and intellectual integration may be advantageous: “Evidence suggests that persistence is greatly enhanced when both forms of personal integration occur” (p. 137). According to Tinto, it is reasonable to assume that students who have more memberships at an institution are less prone to depart (p. 122). This assertion could be salient for music students. Music students could be less likely to remain at their institutions if these students are isolated in their musical culture, not participating in other campus communities. One can consider a students’ music culture integration juxtaposed against his/her campus integration. Taking a brief look away from Tinto for a moment, perhaps music students’ retention is encouraged when these students have their own music building, or since they have their own departments and colleges on campus. According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), “Ethnic-racial student organizations, groups, or theme houses. . .appear to have statistically significant and positive (although weak) net effects on the... persistence of students of color [nine citations given] “ (p. 420). Community Positionality and Persistence Returning to Tinto, I next consider the connection between community positionality and departure in Tinto’s (1993) model. Tinto compared colleges to solar systems: Similar to solar systems, colleges have communities or “subcultures which, like planets, 22 revolve about the center of institutional life” (p. 123). Also, these communities have “their own satellite system of affiliated groups and individuals” (p. 123). At some colleges, one community is the sole core that is “dominant” (p. 123). At other colleges, various groups comprise the core of the institution’s existence (p. 123). A person is connected to “the life of the college” (Tinto, 1993, p. 123) in two ways: He/she is connected to a specific community, as a moon is yoked to a planet (p. 123), and he/ she is connected “via the networks of affiliations inherent in the community to the center of college life as a planet is tied to the center (sun) of the solar system” (p. 123). How these two kinds of connection affect departure is contingent on how close a community member is to the heart of his/her “local community” (p. 123) and how near this subculture is to the core of the institution (p. 123). Persistence requires being a part of a local community, but being a part of this community is not enough (p. 123). “Persistence also depends on the centrality of that community in the system of the college” (p. 123 ). If a person’s community is closer to the “mainstream of institutional life,” persistence is more probable, “other things being equal” (p. 124). On the other hand, a person may be robustly connected to a “marginal community” but is connected to the core of the institution’s vitality in a “weak, tangential” way (p. 123). A person could be swayed “from the system generally” by a major outside pressure (p. 123). Through connection to a subculture, a person may stay in college, if there are no disruptive pressures (pp. 123-124). An application of Tinto’s ideas can be made to music students. If the university musical subculture on any given campus is more marginal among the campus communities, music students’ persistence could be threatened. 23 Tinto (1993) wrote that some campuses may not have a “dominant culture” but various subcultures (p. 61). With no core culture a situation could be created in which colleges are “loosely coupled” (p. 61) and do not have power to solder people to them; this may decrease persistence (p. 61). On the other hand, some institutions “are culturally pluralistic and inclusive. . .in their view of what constitutes ‘normative’ behaviors and beliefs. . ..In such settings all community membership, regardless of its rootedness, is valuable” (p. 61). These institutions may retain students “through multiple patterns of community membership,” (p. 61), as these colleges do not recognize better communities or core/rim cultures (p. 61). So a music student’s persistence could be related to whether or not the student is on a campus where there is no dominant culture, or where music student culture, along with many other subcultures, is seen positively. Possible Benefits of the Study The findings of this study may lead to a better understanding of music students by both music and non-musician administrators and faculty. Minimally, these administrators and faculty may increase their knowledge of music students and thus show they value them. Perhaps, armed with their new knowledge, faculty and administrators may take action to better serve students. I am not alone in my optimism for such action: Li (2001), who studied Taiwanese piano education via understanding what piano playing meant to college senior piano students, wrote, “It is crucial to examine piano education fiom students’ perspectives. By understanding their perspectives about piano playing, piano educators can obtain better insight into improving piano education in Taiwan” (p. 10). It is my hope that my study will add to the understanding of people in the university community and perhaps even encourage change for the better. 24 Conclusion In this chapter, I established the justification for a study of music student experiences and positionality: First, numerous arts students today are studying at American colleges and universities. Second, music student retention may be lacking. Third, there is some support for a relationship between student positionality and retention/intent to persist. Fourth, music school and student climate/positionality are germane in Pitts’ (2003) comments and Roberts’ (1991) findings. F ifih, society is aided by music, and sixth, the study of music in colleges and universities is important. Therefore, the study of music student experiences and positionality is justified. The purpose of my study is to understand music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors and to assess music student positionality with the following two main research questions: 1) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors? and 2) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting? A third and secondary research question was: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? I interviewed Michigan State University College of Music undergraduate music performance majors. I began the interview with initial questions and then asked students about their perceptions of their experiences as music students and musicians. Then I investigated music student positionality. Very little has been written about music school/student positionality within the larger campus. Mentioned above are Pitts’ (2003) comments on music school climate and Roberts’ (1991) study showing music education student positionality. Reflecting on 25 Roberts’ findings, yet mindful that the findings come from Canada, not the United States, one is curious if further research will also show that music students feel apart from the campus at large and perceive that others view them as deviant or engaged in fiivolous par-suits. In the next chapter, I review the literature in two parts: First, I review studies on student positionality and retention/intent to persist at four-year institutions. Then I review the literature about music students’ perceptions of their experiences. In the third chapter, I discuss the theoretical framework, interview process, and data analysis. In the fourth and fifth chapters, I discuss my findings concerning music students’ perceptions of their experiences. I detail my findings concerning music student positionality in the sixth chapter. 26 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review consists of two parts.5 First, I discuss the literature concerning student positionality and retention/intent to persist at four-year institutions. I define student positionality through social integration, sense of belonging, institutional fit, and value sharing with the university. First, I present research regarding social integration’s connection to retention/intent to persist, focusing on social integration’s relationship to institutional commitment and institutional commitment’s relationship to persistence/intent to persist. Second, I look at research relating students’ sense of belonging to the university and persistence/intent. Third, I review the research concerning institutional fit’s relationship to persistence/intent. Finally, I consider research regarding value sharing’s relationship to persistence/intent. This research is relevant because, if student positionality relates to retention/intent to persist amOng general students, the same could hold true for music students, as they relate to their campuses at large, outside of music. The potential connection between social integration and music student retention was discussed in my theoretical fiamework section. In the second part of the literature review, I summarize the literature about music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music students and musicians. This part of the review has four parts: music student concerns; program, curricular, and instructional 5 In my literature review, I did not include study results regarding student positionality’s relationship to retention/intent to persist when findings were presented for samples comprised of all minority students. Comparisons can not easily be made between minority students’ persistence and possible parallels for music students’ persistence. If a study included minority students and majority students, and the minority students’ results were not separated from nonminorities’ results in the researcher’s presentation of results and if the number of minority students did not exceed that of nonminority students, I did not exclude the study. 27 aspects of music student lives; relational and campus aspects of music student lives; and, finally, perceptions of playing and performing music. Student Positionality and Retention/Intent to Persist Relationships Between Student Social Integration and Persistence/Intent to Persist In the research that I examine, my focus is on the relationship between social integration and institutional commitment, and institutional commitment and persistence/intent to persist. I also include a study on student social networks’ relationships with retention. The literature is not uniform in the measures used to assess social integration. In some studies, faculty contact/interaction items are included in the measure of social integration. There is value in the inclusion of the faculty items within a larger measure of social integration. First, how connected and comfortable students feel with an institution could in part be due to faculty interactions as well as peer interactions. Second, if I omitted the studies in which the peer and faculty items together comprised social integration, whatever role the peer component played in the results of these studies would be lost. Third, overall, my concept of student positionality asSesses students’ relationship to the campus at large, and this includes more than simply peers. In addition, my other components of student positionality — sense of belonging, institutional fit, and value sharing — are not limited to experiences with peers. If a study I examined had a measure of social integration that was separate from a measure of faculty-student interaction not considered part of social integration, I only report results concerning social integration. Doing so keeps the social integration 28 terminology in the fore, respects the researchers’ use of it, and it helps make the evaluation of social integration holistic for faculty and peer interaction assessments when both are measured. It also helps keep the focus on social integration in my work. Social Integration ’s Direct Eflects on Persistence/Intent to Persist Looking for direct relationships between social integration and persistence/intent is only meaningful if institutional commitment is included in the modeling, so that one can know that social integration truly affects persistence/intent to persist directly and would not default to an indirect effect via institutional commitment if the variable had been included. Only studies including institutional commitment variables are included here. The point is to catch any direct relationships between social integration and persistence/intent that would be missed if one only looked at social integration’s indirect effect on persistence/intent through institutional commitment. So, only studies in which social integration had no indirect relationship to persistence/intent through institutional commitment are eligible for inclusion here. Social integration negatively affected students’ persistence in path models with and without intent to persist included as a variable (Pascarella et al., 1983, pp. 95, 96). 6 Social Integration ’s Relationship to Persistence/Intent Via Institutional Commitment Next I move to my focus: the relationship between social integration and institutional commitment, and institutional commitment and persistence/intent to persist. Half of the study results show an indirect positive effect of social integration on 6 This result was not added into my “no positive relationshi ” tally because it would constitute double dipping. I already tallied the two results from this study (in which social integration did not influence institutional commitment in two models) as not showing a relationship between social integration and persistence/ intent to persist. 29 persistence/intent to persist via institutional commitment. I begin by listing the studies in which the end variable was intent to persist. In the following studies, social integration indirectly affected intent to persist via institutional commitment: Bray et al. (1999, pp. 651, 654), Braxton et al. (1995, pp. 604, 605), and Eimers and Pike (1997, pp. 89, 91). Berger and Braxton (1998) found that the peer relations portion of social integration indirectly affected intent to persist (p. 113). In some studies, actual student persistence was examined. Some study results (Allen & Nelson, 1987, pp. 15-16, 36-377; Nora & Cabrera, 1996, pp. 136, 137; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, p. 98; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983, p. 2218) Show that social ' integration indirectly affected persistence via institutional commitment. Results from Bean’s (1980) study show that number of memberships in campus organizations indirectly affected women’s persistence through institutional commitment (pp. 160, 172, 173, 174, 180, 184). In Allen’s (1986) study social integration indirectly affected persistence through institutional commitment when intent to persist was not in the equation (pp. 17, 20). In some cases, intent to persist was involved in the relationship between social integration and persistence. Cabrera, Castaneda, et al. (1992, p. 153, 154, 156), Cabrera et al. (1993, p. 134), and Cabrera, Nora, et al. (1992, pp. 585, 586) found that social integration affected institutional commitment, which affected intent to persist, 7Only women were studied. Allen and Nelson (1987) stated, “The fact that goal commitment had a weaker effect on persistence than did institutional commitment may suggest that the model in this study is explaining transfer rather than permanent dropout” (p. 21). The researchers wrote “weaker” here but pages earlier in their document they wrote that, for both of their samples, goal commitment did not affect persistence directly or indirectly (p. 16). (I only presented results from one sample, the four-year institution, as the other sample was at a two-year institution.) aPascarella and Terenzini (1983) wrote, “The fact that institutional commitment had a stronger direct effect on persistence than did goal commitment may in fact suggest that the model in this study is explaining transfer rather than permanent dropout behavior” (p. 225). 30 which affected persistence. Lack of Relationships Between Social Integration and Institutional Commitment Some study results (Braxton, Duster, & Pascarella, 1988, pp. 268, 269; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, p. 98; Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson, 1983, pp. 95, 96; Terenzini, Pascarella, Theophilides, & Lorang, 1985, pp. 332, 333) do not show a relationship of social integration to institutional commitment. Hausmann et al. (2007) did not find a relationship between social integration and institutional commitment’s decrease across time (p. 825). Braxton and Brier (1989) found that “social integration has little or no influence on subsequent institutional commitment” (pp. 54, 57). Looking at standardized effects the researchers present, one can see that social integration’s effect on institutional commitment was not significant at p < .10 (p. 56). In Bean’s (1980) study, for women and men, integration (“close fiiends”) did not affect institutional commitment (pp. 159; 174, 176). Also the number of memberships in campus organizations did not affect institutional commitment for men (pp. 160, 175). Student Social Networks Thomas (2000) found that four of five student social networks affected persistence, one negatively. He looked at how these networks affected items in Tinto’s Student Integration Model (pp. 598, 599). In the study, students were “to list the names of those students with whom they frequently spoke and the dimensions on which they related to these other students” (p. 598). One social network variable was outdegree, “the number of acquaintances named by each student” (p. 603). Having 8-16 acquaintances had an effect on persistence in the fall of the sophomore year (pp. 598, 606). Another network variable was indegree, the number of freshmen who listed the student under question as 31 an acquaintance (p. 603). Indegree had an effect on social integration, institutional commitment, and intent to persist (p. 606); also, indegree indirectly affected persistence, “operating through enhanced social integration, institutional commitment, and intention” (pp. 607). Negatively affecting social integration was “the percentage of self-reported ties that fall within a student’s peer group” (pp. 606; 607, 608). “This measure can be viewed as the extent to which a student is bound to her or his peer group to the exclusion of connections to those in other peer groups” (p. 606). This variable indirectly negatively affected persistence (pp. 607, 608), with persistence being “slightly less likely. . .even after controlling for all other variables in the model” (p. 608). Persistence was positively affected by “the degree to which a student is connected to other connected students” (p. 607). A fifth network variable, how many of one’s acquaintances were fi'eshmen, did not affect any of Tinto’s items (pp. 604, 607). Social integration had no “significant paths” (p. 605), but Thomas thought this probably was an artifact effect from the social network variables (p. 605). The negative effect on persistence of more ties inside one’s peer group, as mentioned above, seems especially relevant to music student positionality. Thomas (2000) wrote, “Those students with a greater proportion of ties outside of their peer group. . .are more likely to persist” (p. 609). One wonders if music students with more fiiends outside the music school might have a better chance of persisting than those with fewer outside fiiends. Thomas’s results are not included in my tallies of results in which social integration affects/does not affect persistence/ intent to persist. Some of Thomas’s results do not easily fit as they focus on the nature of one’s social integration that takes place as opposed to a general look at social integration. The results for outdegree and 32 indegree could be included in the tallies, as they concern numbers of acquaintances If included, the tallies lean slightly toward more study results showing a relationship between social integration and persistence/ intent to persist. Summary Half of study results show that social integration affects persistence/intent to persist. Next, I discuss the relationships between the remaining components of student positionality - sense of belonging, institutional fit and value sharing - with retention/intent to persist. Relationships Between Students ’ Sense of Belonging and Retention/Intent to Persist Results are evenly mixed concerning student sense of belonging’s relationship to persistence/intent. Studies showing relationships are Nora and Cabrera (1996), Gaertner and Dovidio (2000), Thomas and Andes (1987), and Walter (2000). Nora and Cabrera (1996) found that institutional commitment affected persistence for nonminorities (p. 137). Institutional commitment was measured with two measures, one of which “asses[ed] a student’s degree of belonging at the institution” (p. 128). Walter (2000) found a relationship between persistence and a factor including belonging. One factor in her study was “social satisfaction, or satisfaction with campus climate” (p. 115). Walter found that “students who were one standard deviation more socially satisfied than their peers were 50% more likely to persist” (p. 115). The four items in this factor were 1) It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 2) Students are made to feel welcome on this campus. 3) Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 4) I feel a sense of pride about my campus (p. 83). Notice that one of the items concerns a sense of belonging. Since sense of belonging was only one of four items in a variable, it 33 is not possible to argue for a direct link between sense of belonging and persistence. Still, the study merits inclusion here, especially since the four items in the variable, when taken collectively, suggest connection to the campus. According to Walter, “Students’ responses to the [items for the individual-level satisfaction variables] indicate their sense of fit with their institutional environment” (p. 75). Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) “reanalyzed data” from Snider and Dovidio’s (1996) study at Indiana State University (pp. 140; 201). For white college students, “feeling part of the [university] community significantly predicted intention to complete the degree [at the students’ institution]” (pp. 142; 141). Sense of belonging was a part of the concept of affiliation in a study by Thomas and Andes (1987). The researchers looked at affiliation’s connection to persistence. Students were persisters, stopouts, dropouts, or leavers (p. 333). According to Thomas and Andes, “Affiliation was defined as the act of associating oneself with the university; a feeling of comfort with and belonging at the institution” (p. 333).9 Results in this study both supported and did not support a relationship between sense of belonging and persistence. Differences were found between persisters and nonpersisters on scales of 1) personal/social affiliation (difference between persisters and dropouts) and 2) perception of affiliation with the university (differences between persisters/dropouts, persisters/leavers, persisters/stopouts) (p. 335). No differences were found between persisters and nonpersisters on the scale for perceptions of affiliation with university 9No scale for the questionnaire students took was provided, so I do not know if the items had terminology including feelings about belonging. Thomas and Andes (1987) referred to one of the sections, perception of afliliation with university personnel, as students’ level of comfort with the personnel (p. 338), so perhaps this section as well as the sections, personal/social affiliation and general perception of afliliation with the university, had items with “comfort” terminology. Assuming that feelings of belonging are included too in the items’ terminology, the study is relevant here 34 personnel (pp. 335, 337). When each of the three relevant sections is broken down examining persisters versus dropouts, persisters versus stopouts, and persisters versus leavers, the tally runs four to five, against a relationship. If stopouts are not included (as they return), the tally runs three to three. Relationships between sense of belonging/alienation and persistence/intent to persist were not found in Hausmann et al.’s (2007) study and Johnson’s (1994) studies. Hausmann et al. found that “sense of belonging“). . .was unrelated to changes over time in [intentions to persist, as well as institutional commitment]” (p. 831).ll At a Canadian university (p. 341 ), Johnson (1994) found that “students who withdrew were not significantly more likely than students in the continuing comparison group to report feeling alienated while attending university” (p. 347). Summary For the relationship of sense of belonging to retention/ intent to persist, results were evenly mixed. I next examine the relationship between the third component of student positionality, institutional fit, and retention/intent to persist. Relationships Between Institutional Fit and Retention/Intent to Persist Most study results (Bean, 1985; Cabrera, Castafieda, et al., 1992; Forbes, 1998; and 10The items Hausmann et al. (2007) asked their participants were 1) I feel a sense of belonging to , 2) I am happy to be at , and 3) I see myself as part of the community (italics mine) (pp. 808, 812). Hausmann et al. stated that they employed a subscale, sense of belonging, from Bollen and Hoyle (1990, p. 813). Looking at Bollen and Hoyle’s scale, I noticed that Hausmann et al. took two items from the sense of belonging subscale and one item from the feelings of morale subscale in Bollen and Hoyle’s perceived cohesion scale. The sense of belonging subscale item they did not appropriate was “I feel that I am a member of the community” (Bollen & Hoyle, p. 485). "Noting that institutional commitment related to intent to persist at the beginning of the school year and that sense of belonging related to intent to persist at the beginning of the year, Hausmann et al. (2007) wrote, “This suggests that relationships among these variables may be present when students enter college or develop very rapidly at the beginning of the school year” (p. 832). 35 Nora & Cabrera, 1993) show that institutional fit affected retention/intent to persist. Bean (1985) found that, for white freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, institutional fit affected12 dropout syndrome for freshmen and sophomores, but not juniors (pp. 37, 40, 41 , 47, 49).13 Dropout syndrome combined intent to leave, discussing leaving, and persistence into one variable. At a large group of colleges that belonged to the Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) (currently Council for Christian Colleges and Universities), Forbes found that institutional fit affected intent to stay (pp. 7, 99, 113). 14 In Cabrera, Castaneda, et al.’s (1992) study. institutional fit and quality affected intent to persist, which affected persistence. In their (1993) study, Nora and Cabrera determined that there were two parts to the construct of institutional commitment (p. 25 7). The second part, Institutional Commitment, included certainty of choice, institutional quality/prestige, and institutional fit, comprised of sense of belonging, practical value, and loyalty to the institution. (pp. 252, 254-258). Institutional Commitment (which included institutional fit) affected intent to persist and persistence (pp. 254, 257, 258). In summary, most study results showed a relationship between retention/intent to persist and institutional fit. l2Bean (1985) wrote, “Although path models are useful to making explicit one’s causal assumptions, causality can never be proved, and can only be weakly addressed using cross-sectional data. The estimation of this model, then was on an ‘as if’ basis; for example, if this model described a true set of relationships, the estimates would identify the relative influence of each independent variable on each dependent variable” (p. 60). ‘3 There was an effect for juniors “when colinearity was reduced by the removal of variables that did not approach statistical significance” (Bean, 1985, p. 61). The researcher chose not to reduce colinearity because this action “would render the t tests for the comparison of b weights useless” (p. 61). l”The correlation coefficient between institutional fit and intent to stay was .585 (highest in the study). (Forbes, 1998, p. 104). Forbes wrote, “Because of high correlations, some relationships might not be statistically significant” (p. 105). 36 Relationships Between Sharing of Values and Retention/Intent to Persist Finally, I discuss research regarding value sharing’s relationship to retention/intent to persist. Value sharing is the fourth and final component of student positionality. For studies assessing perceptions of shared values’ relationship to persistence/intent to persist, results are mixed, but do not favor a relationship. Studies with results not showing a relationship are Forbes (1998), Nora and Cabrera (1993 ), Pervin and Rubin (1967), and Wyatt (1987). In Nora and Cabrera (l 993)’s study, Afi'inity of Values did not affect intent to persist or persistence (p. 258). Afiinity of Values meant “the degree of congruency between [students’] values and attitudes and those of members of their institution” (p. 249).15 In Forbes’ (1998) study of freshmen at CCCU institutions mentioned above, at first, analysis showed that religious fit negatively affected intent to stay (pp. 7, 61, 113). Then two variables, institutional fit and loyalty, were removed from the regression equation, and then religious fit had a positive, but not significant effect on intent to stay (pp. 115,116,121). In another study, Wyatt (1987) found that, at a Southern Baptist college (p. 45), . I6 . . . scores on a values congruence Item were not different for persrsters and non-persrsters. Although non- persisters had lower scores, significance was not reached (p. 107). '7 Contrastingly, in some studies (Eimers & Pike, 1997; Morris et al., 2007; and Pervin lSThe two items were “Most students at this institution have values and attitudes similar to my own” and “Most faculty, academic advisors, and college administrators at this institution have values and attitudes similar to my own” (Nora & Cabrera, 1993, p. 249). 1(The item, fiom Pascarella and Terenzini’s Institutional Integration Survey, is “Most students at this college have values and attitudes different from my own” (Wyatt, 1987, pp. 49, 83). l7Wyatt (1987) found fault with her use of the values congruence item (p. 112). She stated, “The use of standardized measures may be less accurate than other methods of analysing congruence” (p. 112). Wyatt also found that “an additional anaylsis utilizing chi square reveals no significant difference in the levels of persistence for the two groups” (pp. 107-108). 37 & Rubin, 1967), values have been shown to relate to persistence. In Eimers and Pike’s (1997) study, for nonminorities, affinity of values affected institutional commitment, which affected intent to persist (p 89). Morris et al. (2007) surveyed students at a Christian university, using a measure of worldview that they felt probed “values similarity on campus” further than the one values similarity question on the two social integration subscales of Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1980) Institutional Integration Scales (pp. 77; 79, 80). On the worldview fit measure, students indicated if they felt they had different views on politics, religion, and morality than most of their professors or most of their classmates; students also indicated if they often felt “isolat ” since faculty and classmates’ “values and convictions” were not in concord with theirs (p. 82). Morris et al. found that there was “greater worldview fit” for students who persisted to the sophomore year than for those who did not persist (p. 83). But they cautioned, “Due to the correlational nature of the study, it is difliculty to determine if worldview fit, or the lack thereof, causes nonpersistence” (p. 86). Finally, Pervin and Rubin (1967) surveyed 50 upperclassmen at an Ivy League institution. Results were mixed regarding discrepancies between students’ own personality characteristics and characteristics they ascribed to their institution/parts of the institution and a relationship to odds of withdrawing from their institution (pp. 286, 288). From the data, discrepancy scores were derived fiom the following sets: Self-College, Self-Students, College-Ideal College (p. 287). Correlations were noted for probability of dropping out (pp. 287, 288, 289). Of the three concepts, College-Ideal College had the most relationships to the dropout variables of dropout, nonacademic dropout, and academic dropout (p. 288). Of the three scores each for Self-College, Self-Students, and 38 College-Ideal College (total of nine), seven of the nine had relationships to nonacademic dropout. In the case of academic dropout, only one of the nine scores had a relationship, and in the case of dropout, only two of the nine scores had a relationship (p. 288). Lack of concord in one area only, such as value sharing, for example, may not cause a student to leave an institution. Consider Bean’s (1990) words: [Students] may not fit in socially or academically or religiously or economically or for some other reasons, and they leave because the school is not a good match for their needs. Fitting in is not an all-or-nothing issue, but occurs by degrees. A student’s poor match in one area can be counterbalanced by a good match in another (p. 149). Applying Bean’s point of view, a “poor match” in, let us say, sharing of values may be “counterbalanced” by fit in some other area. So, turning to this study’s focus, music students, perhaps music students who feel their musical values are not shared by others at their institutions remain at their schools due to other areas in which they feel that they do fit. On the other hand, not fitting in from a musical standpoint could combine with other areas of poor fit to compel departure. Summary In conclusion, study results are mixed regarding a relationship between sharing of values and retention/intent to persist, with more study results not showing a relationship. But the fact that some relationships were found urges one on toward investigating value sharing and retention further. This concludes the first part of my literature review, and the second part follows below. From my review of literature concerning student positionality and retention/intent 39 to persist, I have found evidence of connections between retention/intent to persist and student positionality. Part of the rationale for examining music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting comes from this connection between student positionality and student retention/intent to persist. Research on Music Students’ Perceptions of Their Experiences I now proceed to the second part of the literature review. This section is comprised of music student concerns; program, curricular, and instructional aspects of music student life; relational and campus aspects of music student life; and perceptions of playing and performing music. Music students experience stress and performance anxiety. Music students view their programs positively and have mixed feelings about music department climate. For most music students, their self-esteem relates to their performance. Music students commented on competitiveness. Most have positive feelings about their teachers. Their views on ensembles are mixed, and they feel positively and negatively about practicing, playing, and performance. Music Student Concerns General Concerns Music students deal with a number of stressful issues. Dews and Williams (1989) surveyed students from Southwest Texas State University, the University of Miami, and the Manhattan School of Music about issues of “concern” to them. Of 22 issues, students were most concerned about the following: stress, pre-performance nervousness, progress impatience, burnout with musical progress, job insecurity, music versus personal life, inadequate practice facilities, depression, stage fright, and concentration (p. 39). Performance Anxiety 40 Many students experience performance anxiety. Wesner, Noyes, and Davis (1990) surveyed music students and faculty members at the University of Iowa School of Music regarding their experiences and views concerning performance anxiety. The researchers measured “distress” as minimal, moderate, and marked. Slightly over 21% of the respondents claimed marked distress fi'orn performance anxiety, and nearly 40% endured moderate distress. (p. 178). McCoy (1999) studied performance anxiety in undergraduate and graduate music students at Northern Illinois University (p. 128), finding that “almost half of the participants. . .tended to ‘put themselves down’ for their anxiety or consider it a shameful, abnormal condition” (p. 142). Tamborrino (2001), who conducted research on college music majors and solo performance anxiety, reported that 97.1% of students stated that they had felt anxious prior to a performance and 86.5% stated they had felt anxious while performing (p. 78). About 69% of the students had some amount of fear of an audience (p. 83). Nearly 53% of students stated that they “perspire and tremble just before performing” (p. 84). Close to 51% do not “feel relaxed and comfortable while performing” (p. 83). Tartalone (1992) looked at anxiety in brass music majors at Michigan State University prior to jury recitals (pp. 7, 22). Participants were 37 undergraduates and 2 graduate students (p. 66). Participants’ experience of anxiety was measured with the state anxiety section of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (p. 8). Students were “to indicate how they were ‘feeling right now, at this moment, about the upcoming jury” (p. 70). In the weeks before the jury, participants took the STAI before their weekly lesson (p. 74). Tartalone found, “The subjects reported their anxiety levels to be higher during 41 the second week than during the first, while the third assessment showed the lowest self- reported anxiety of the study” (p. 113). Tartalone continued: The assessment before the dress rehearsal [lesson the week preceding jury, (p. 75)] was higher than the levels during the first three weeks of the study. The students assessed their anxiety to be the highest on the morning of the jury, followed by a decline immediately before the performance. (p. 113)18 Tartalone identified fi'eshmen and sophomore participants as “inexperienced” and junior, senior, and graduate participants as “experienced” (p. 8). He found that “the inexperienced subjects reported considerably higher levels of anxiety throughout the study” (p. 117).19 Highest anxiety came for the inexperienced group in the morning of the jury; highest anxiety came for the experienced group was right before the jury (p. 118). “The self-reported anxiety patterns (not the levels) of both groups were nearly identical,” except for the measurement the morning of the jury (p. 180). The inexperienced group had more females than the experienced group, making it possible that male scores affected the STAI scores (p. 132). Tartalone cites four studies in which it was “found that males generally reported lower levels of cognitive anxiety than did females” (p. 132). Many students believe that their performance is harmed by performance anxiety. In “According to Tartalone (1992), “The repeated-measures analysis confirmed that the STAI data showed significant changes over time” (p. 113). “The paired samples t-tests for the STAI. . .showed significance differences between the scores from week 3 and the dress rehearsal, between all measures and the AM [morning (p. 81)] score, and between all measures except the AM score with the jury” (pp. 113-114). Later on in his manuscript, Tartalone presented another interpretation about these t-tests; he wrote, “Significant changes from week to week were found between week 2 and week 3, week 3 and the dress rehearsal, and the dress rehearsal and the “AM” score” (p. 176). '9 “[T-tests showed] that there were significant differences between the two samples [inexperienced and experienced] on all measures” (Tartalone, 1992, p. 117). There were significant changes across time for both the inexperienced and experienced groups (pp. 121, 122). With the inexperienced group, “the paired samples t-tests show significant differences most consistently with the AM score” (p. 121). With the experienced group, “statistically significant differences on the paired t-tests. . .are congregated mainly with the dress rehearsal, AM, and jury scores” (p. 122). 42 Wesner et al.’s (1990) study, performance anxiety caused 16.5% of respondents “marked impairment of performance” (p. 178), and moderate impairment characterized nearly 30% (p. 178). In another study, D’Onofiio (1981) interviewed 3 classical guitar majors who were fiiends of hers at California State University, Hayward to study performance anxiety and solo performance. D’Onofiio knew that the participants experienced performance anxiety fi'om solo performance before she conducted her study (pp. 67-68). Regarding her results, she wrote, “The data indicates that for the musicians in this study, this anxiety can indeed be debilitating and a barrier to successful and satisfying performance” (p. 66). For 60% of the participants in McCoy’s (1999) study, “the experience of anxiety symptoms was a more negative than positive experience that detracted from, rather than enhanced, their performances” (p. 135). Music students saw “[perforrnance] anxiety as a negative object, entity, or commodity” in Senyshyn and O’Neill’s (2001) study (p. 44). The researchers conducted interviews with 7 undergraduate music students before and after recitals occurring in their final year as students. (p. 43). In evaluating the interviews, the researchers “used an emergent approach involving discursive analysis to investigate ‘interpretative repertoires’ and reflexive analysis to clarify assumptions made in relation to the findings” (p. 43). The researchers explained that “interpretative repertoires refer to the linguistic resources. . .that individuals use when constructing their accounts” (p. 43). Interestingly, one example of such a form identified by the researchers is metaphor (p. 43). Regarding the students’ perspectives, the researchers wrote, “The conceptualization of anxiety as a negative object, entity, or commodity was the main interpretative repertoire or unified 43 theme to emerge” (p. 44). They noted a “battle” metaphor present in the students’ words. (One student actually used the word battle.) The researchers believed that the “battle” metaphor serves to emphasize the musicians’ experience of negative anxiety by imbuing it with the connotations and implications of its related concepts (control, power, tension, and conflict). In particular, anxiety was presented as a separate entity which had “control over” the individual or which the individual was “struggling under.” (p. 45) Senyshyn and O’Neill (2001) took the position that “the tension arising from a belief in a fixed, fictional self in the present or projected into the future is precisely that which makes it very difficult for a positive anxiety associated in a possible ‘other’ self to emerge” (p. 49). They continued, describing a securing attempt on the part of people to keep from accepting a self that would appear during a performance: “It is as though one unconsciously denies, suppresses, or evades the possibility or actuality of an ‘other’ positive, successful performing self that could take over during an actual performance” (p. 49). According to the researchers, people want to hold on to a fixed self: What one ‘wants’ in one’s negative anxiety is to cling to a fixed self without the benefit of another self taking over. If one were to accept this other projected self during a performance in the future one would not fear its manifestation in actuality at the particular time of the performance. (p. 50) The researchers recommended envisioning another self that is “competent” and “creative” (p. 50). In finishing their remarks, Senyshyn and O’Neill (2001) advocated having an unfixed idea of oneself and offered a different understanding of anxiety: Our analysis suggests that individuals may benefit from the notion of a flexible or “unfixed” sense of self, subject positionings [sic], and the world through their anxiety. Anxiety in this sense would not be relegated merely to the notion of anxiety as worry, angst, fear, or any other negative thoughts as such: rather, it would encompass the emotional spectrum in anxiety’s vicissitudes of positive and negative feelings, moods, and emotions that occur in relation to possibility and any context of time in the past, present, or future. (p. 52) According to Senyshyn and O’Neill, a performer who is not open to the “flow” of the change during a performance to “the emergent ‘concert’ self” from the “ ‘fixed’ self which no longer exists” will experience “turmoil, fear, panic, and ultimately an indefinable anxiety” (pp. 52-53). Summary Clearly, music students have a wide variety of concerns. I now move on to examine music students’ perceptions of their experiences in a number of specific areas. Program, Curricular, and Instructional Aspects of Music Student Life Areas covered in this section of the review of the literature on music students’ perceptions of their experiences include perceptions of programs, curriculum, instruction, and experiences with faculty/mentors. Music students view their programs positively. Their views on ensembles are mixed, and most have positive feelings about their teachers. They feel positively and negatively about practicing. Perception of Programs In this section, I discuss several studies. Arroe’s (1996) and SimpsonScarborough’s (2008b) studies showed that music students were “satisfied” with their programs. 45 Arroe (1996) surveyed music students fi'om two mid-westem music departments and two mid-westem conservatories regarding music program satisfaction (pp. 22, 27). On a scale of l to 5, with 5 meaning “strongly agree” and 4 meaning “agree,” Arroe found that music department students scored 3.97 and conservatory students scored 4.02 on the item, “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the music program” (pp. 72, 74; 30). These scores suggest that music students in Arroe’s study were satisfied with their programs. Michigan State University College of Music undergraduate music majors were also satisfied with their programs. Undergraduate majors were asked, “How satisfied are you with your experience at the College of Music at Michigan State University?” (SimpsonScarborough [sic], 2008b, p. 3). Of 14 students, 3 were “extremely satisfied”; 7 were “very satisfied”; 3 were “somewhat satisfied”; and 1 was “satisfied” (SirnpsonScarborough, 2008a, pp.10; 4). Perceptions of Curriculum Broadly understood. Most students in Arroe’s (1996) study felt challenged by the music curriculum. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 meaning “strongly agree,” Arroe (1996) found that the average score of students from the music departments was 4.02, and the average score of the students from the conservatories was 4.00 regarding whether students felt challenged by the music curriculum (pp. 72; 28, 73). Ensemble experiences. 46 Student views on ensembles leaned positive in Casey’s (1970) study. Recalling his undergraduate education in music, a graduate student spoke about the benefit of ensembles (Holoman, 1971). Undergraduate music majors at Northwestern University offered somewhat positive views on ensemble experiences. On a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning “very much so,” the average score for finding one’s university ensemble experiences “personally rewarding” was 6.17 (Casey, 1970, p. 132). Regarding suitable challenge for their ensemble experiences, the students’ average was 6.22 (p. 132). Recalling his undergraduate education in music, a graduate student in music (Holoman, 1971) expounded on the benefit of ensembles. He felt that, through involvement in “serious performing groups,” one could get to know “music and musicians through firsthand experience” (p. 25). This, for him was a “very special opportunit[y]” (p. 25). He wrote, “One learned in orchestras, early music groups, and chamber ensembles about musical instruments, genres, styles, composers, and the technique of preparing a live public performance. An attentive student emerged with a considerable and well-learned repertoire” (Holoman, p. 25). Small ensembles. Regarding small ensembles, Plasket (1992) noted that 12 out of 85 students she interviewed found their chamber music involvement “a highlight of their NEC experience” (p. 169). Thirty students experienced “frustration,” with chamber music. This was exacerbated since chamber music was close to the heart of these students (p. 169). Reviewing his undergraduate education in music, a graduate music student recalled that there had been no chamber ensemble program at his institution. He considered this 47 “an unfortunate omission. . .as it relates to my graduate training as well as to my current teaching position” (Probasco, 1971, p. 40).20 Flow experiences in ensemble. In another ensemble study, Kraus (2003) looked at flow, as described by Csikszentrnihalyi, among selected undergraduate and graduate students in a university wind ensemble in the southern United States (pp. 10, 47, 49, 51). Kraus considered “how students describe their experience in a series of wind band rehearsals that lead to a concert and how they identify elements of the environmental context that promote or inhibit flow” (p. 10). Kraus neither mentioned the word flow in student interviews nor discussed it in order to “prompt participants” (p. 57). He found all nine of Csikszentrnihalyi’s “dimensions of flow” manifested among the students in the wind ensemble (p. 138). Csikszentrnihalyi’s nine aspects of flow are 1) skills commensurate with the exigency, 2) goals, 3) feedback, 4) feeling competent, 5) firll attention to task, 6) “action” and “awareness” combining, meaning “fluency” and no fear of nonsuccess, 7) lack of self-awareness facilitating greater attentiveness to task, 8) experience of time’s more rapid movement, 9) one’s capabilities in “[shaping] enjoyable challenges out of potentially unenjoyable experiences” (Kraus, pp. 8, 9; 6, 7). AcCording to Kraus (2003), “Several flow dimensions such as the challenge/skill balance, feedback, sense of control, and focused concentration seem to have more weight EThe citation for this material is listed in my References as Holoman, D. K., Earnest, J. D., Miller, R, Nierenberg, W., Probasco, R.C., Saylor, B., et al. (1971). Undergraduate preparation for graduate study in music. College Music symposium: Journal of the College Music Society, I I, 23-43. The reason that I did not cite the material as Holoman et al. is that the article was not written jointly by all the authors. Each author has his or her own section in the article. All the authors were current graduate students in music writing about their undergraduate education in music. 48 within student perspectives in this study”. (p. 138). Results “indicate that participants preferred to be on-task during the rehearsal, while time spent in non-performance activity seemed to inhibit the continuity of the flow experience” (p. 144). Yet another finding was that it was in the later rehearsals that the “participants’ experience. . .more closely resembled flow experiences” (p. 91). Feelings about practicing. Music students feel positively and negatively about practicing. In Kong’s (2001) study, undergraduate and graduate piano majors at the University of Oklahoma completed questionnaires (pp. 5, 37). Kong found that 37.5% of students indicated that they “like to practice” (p. 94). “Yes mostly” garnered 62.5% of replies. “No” and “No mostly” were not selected by any participants (p. 94). A somewhat less positive attitude regarding practice was seen in Li’s (2001) study. From a study of college senior piano majors in Taiwan, Li noted, “More than half [of the students] were either ambivalent or did not like practicing” (p. 88). Those participants who liked practicing felt “a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment”; those who did not like practicing did not feel thus (p. 88). From most of the students came “both positive and negative statements about practicing” (p. 88). Negatives expressed regarding practicing “were frustration, annoyance, boredom, physically [sic] discomfort, being lazy, and not being able to concentrate” (p. 88). “The positive feelings included a sense of fulfillment or accomplishment, fun, enjoyment and excitement” (p. 88). The drive to practice came fi'om “both external pressures or requirements and internal needs and values” (p. 89). After explaining what constitutes the external factors and the internal aspects, Li noted a difference between those students who liked to practice and those who 49 did not like to practice or had mixed feelings about it (p. 89). Among the former group, the impetus to practice came mostly through “internal needs or values”; among the latter group, a call to practice came mostly fi'om “external pressures or requirements” (p. 89). Students also commented negatively on practicing in Roberts’ (1991) study of music education students at five Canadian universities. According to Roberts, “Most students reported that the practice required to achieve an acceptable level of performance was of little or no interest to them. The usual response was that they ‘hated’ to practice” (p. 119). One student said, “Performing is the ultimate, practising gets everybody down. Performing is such a thrill. You get that appreciation from other people and that’s something that everybody looks for no matter what you’re in, appreciation from other people” (p. 120). A total of 134 undergraduate and graduate music majors at research universities, conservatories, and state and junior colleges shared their feelings about practicing in a study by Kostka (2002, p. 147). Students responded to a question about practicing: “Please circle the letter which BEST describes how you, personally, feel about practicing: a. Tedious but necessary b. Relaxing c. Challenging d. Fulfilling” (p. 148). T edious but necessary was selected by 18% of students; Relaxing by 6% of students; Challenging by 38% of students; and Fulfilling by 22% of students. Other/No response accounted for the remaining 16% (p. 151). Practice accessibility. Many students want greater access to practice rooms. On a scale of l to 9, with 9 meaning “very much so,” undergraduate music majors at Northwestern University 50 expressed their feelings about practice room availability. The average score of satisfaction was 3.78 (Casey, 1970, p. 134). Perceptions of Instruction Most students are positive about their applied music lessons. Undergraduate music majors at Northwestern University offered views Showing their views on perceptions of instruction. On a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning “very much so,” the students’ ratings averaged 7.93 regarding “[how much their] applied music study [has] been well taught?” (Casey, 1970, p. 131). The music majors also averaged 7.72 regarding “[how much their] applied music study [has] been appropriately challenging?” (p. 131). For finding one’s applied music study “personally rewarding,” the average score was 7.89 (p. 132). Interestingly, these assessments of instruction do not seem to differ much fi'om those of Astin (1993), Levine and Cureton (1998), and Boyer (1984). After 4 years of study, participants in Astin’s study reported how satisfied they were with various aspects of their time at college. Astin found that 74% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with “overall quality of instruction” (p. 275). In a 1993 survey, Levine and Cureton found that 81% of students affirmed that they were “satisfied with the teaching at [their] college[s]” (p. 130). Students surveyed by Boyer were less glowing on the same topic: 71% reported that they were “satisfied with the teaching [they] have received” (p. 146). Positive Experiences With Faculty In this section, I discuss literature regarding students’ positive feelings about their teachers. Music students speak well of their teachers. They believe that they receive ample attention. On a scale assessing satisfaction, of 1 to 5, with 5 meaning “strongly agree,” music students fiom two mid-westem music departments averaged a score of 4.39 51 for “the amount of attention they received fi'om the studio teachers” (Arroe, 1996, pp. 29, 72; 22 ). Music students fi'om two mid-westem conservatories averaged a score of 4.06 (Arroe, p. 28). Kingsbury (1988) noted the positive feelings students had for their principal teachers. Having conducted an ethnography at an unidentified conservatory in the US, which he called the Eastern Metropolitan Conservatory of Music, he reported, “Numerous students expressed irritation about what they saw as a highly unsatisfactory institution (from unsatisfying courses and seemingly inappropriate course requirements to run-ins with particular administrative offices) and yet were devoted to or admiring of their own principal teacher” (p. 39). Similar warm feelings for teachers arose in Presland’s (2005) study in which she interviewed undergraduate and graduate piano students fi'om a conservatory in the UK (p. 238). Regarding music lessons, she noted that all of the students were very contented (p. 239), finding their piano professors “inspiring, motivating and a catalyst to learning” (p. 239). Many identified these professors as mentor, guide and consultant (p. 239). Presland also noted that “all students spoke about the unique and special relationship they enjoyed with their professors. . .and the tutor’s undivided attention to their playing during lessons” (p. 242). One reason that students felt so contented with their lessons may be due to the fact that close attention is given to the initial pairing of students with professors (p. 246). “Factors such as technical proficiency, musical maturity, personal independence, age, nationality, command of language and general personality are all considered carefully” (p. 246). 52 For nearly all students interviewed in a study at the New England Conservatory of Music with interest in the undergraduate level only, Plasket (1992) found that studiozl was vital: “N inety-five percent of the students said the studio is the most important aspect of their conservatory experience” (p. 82). Also, “ninety percent of the students interviewed said. . .that they felt they could go to [their studio teachers] with problems or questions about anything” (p. 127). Fewer general students report such relationships with faculty. In Boyer’s (1984) study, only 39% of undergraduates concurred with the statement, “There are professors at my college whom I feel free to turn to for advice on personal matters” (p.146). Statistics were a bit brighter as measured by Levine and Cureton (1998). According to these researchers, over 50% of undergraduate students “report having studied with professors. . .to whom they have felt free to turn for advice on personal matters” (pp. 130- 131). Levine and Cureton claimed that students in their study frequently talked about how “faculty had reached out to them personally” (p. 131). In Boyer’s study, 59% of the students felt that professors “[took] a personal interest in [their] academic progress” (p. 146) To conclude this foray into general students’ close relationships with faculty, I turn 2'A brief discussion of the meanings of studio is in order here. Plasket (1992) explained that “studio, for undergraduates, is a weekly, hour-long private lesson with a teacher on an instrument or voice or in composition and the student’s daily practice which supports the lesson” (p. 81). Studio as descnhed here by Plasket (1992) refers to teacher and student, but the term can also have a larger meaning. Kingsbury (1988) wrote, “The word studio is frequently used to refer to a group consisting of a teacher and the private students of that teacher” (p. 42). Plasket described studio class thus: In the studio class, “students of a particular teacher meet together as a class to perform for and then usually critique one another” (p. 161). Here is Shaddy’s (2003) description of studio class: He wrote, “Many students participate in ‘studio class’ with their mentors and their mentor’s other students. Studio class is an occasion where students come together to perform for one another and to critique one another’s performance” (p. 67). Plasket (1992) reported that “almost every student talked about the importance of having a good, trusting relationship with the studio teacher for educational, professional, and personal reasons” (p. 126). 53 to Gaff (1973). According to Gaff, who reported on survey information collected by colleagues (p. 607), 77% (1 127) of seniors filling out a survey listed the name of a faculty member “who had contributed the most to his educational and/or personal development” (p. 616). Gaff wrote, “A total of 81 percent of the students said that the faculty members named had stimulated them intellectually, and 66 percent said that the faculty members had interested them .in their fields” (p. 617). Summary In this review of the literature of program, curricular, and instructional aspects of music student life, students had positive perceptions of their programs (Arroe, 1996; SimpsonScarborough, 2008a, 2008b); students had positive perceptions of curriculum (Arroe, 1996) and of applied music lessons (Casey, 1970); student views on ensembles were positive (Casey, 1970) and mixed (Plasket, 1992); music students felt positively and negatively about practicing (Kong, 2001; Kostka, 2002; Li, 2001). Music students had positive feelings about their teachers (Arroe, 1996; Kingsbury, 1988; Plasket, 1992; Presland, 2005). Relational and Campus Aspects of Music Student Life In this section on social relations, I discuss musical climate, esteem, peer competitiveness and support, and perceptions of the campus environment. Climate of music departments and programs is mixed. For most music students, their self-esteem relates to their performance. Music students comment on competitiveness. Musical Climate Various studies reveal the climate of music departments and programs. Climate was found to be mixed. In Arroe’s (1996) study of music student satisfaction, students in two 54 mid-westem music departments and two mid-westem conservatories expressed their feelings about their satisfaction with the music department (pp. 22, 27). On a scale of l to 5, with 5 meaning “strongly agree,” music department students scored on average 4.04 for satisfaction with “their ability to fit into the music department” (pp. 29; 72). Conservatory students scored 3.84 (p. 28). The average score for satisfaction with “music department atmosphere” was 3 .63 for music department students and 3.72 for conservatory students (p. 28). From surveys of 11 third-year students studying music at the University of Sheffield in the UK, Pitts (2003) found that, concerning the music department, “friendliness, diversity of curriculum choice, and approachable lecturers were mentioned by nearly all respondents” (p. 286). Seven students mentioned the “friendliness of the department” (p. 286). Six students found the department “cliquey” (p. 286). Kempton (2002) found a theme of family in his study of the meaning (and what affected these meanings) that students involved in choir found in their “choral experience” at Ricks College, a two-year institution at the time of the study, which has since changed into Brigham Young University — Idaho, a four-year institution (pp. 5; 6, 270). Kempton wrote, “The ‘choir as family’ theme is so strong in the experience of the Ricks College choirs that I never had to go looking for it” (p. 205). Esteem Esteem and status are issues for music students. Dews and Williams (1989) found that students’ self-esteem was related to their musical presentation. Regarding survey results, they wrote, “When asked if a considerable amount of their self-esteem is directly related to how they perform, it is disturbing to see that 79 percent of those responding to 55 the survey answered ‘yes”’ (p. 45). In addition to self-esteem, social status may be linked to performance success. Consider the following comment of Kingsbury (1988): He noted in reference to music students getting ready for a performance “the extent to which practising the piano does indeed constitute preparation for the musical negotiation of social esteem” (p. 70). Finally, a quotation from a student interviewed by Roberts (1993), who studied music education students at Canadian universities, is relevant here: Yoqueputation is on the line. Everything you do. A lot of it is. It’s whether you’re practising, performing, or recitals. Most people go to recitals--- A lot of people go to listen, and a lot of people go to criticize. You always have the critics there. (p. 109) Peer Competitiveness and Support Music students must also deal with competitiveness. Seventy percent of the participants in McCoy’s (1999) study of performance anxiety in undergraduate and graduate music students at Northern Illinois University (p. 128) made statements “indicating that they felt that competition is too much a part of music education and performance in gene ” (p. 207). Roberts (1993) stated that music education students see “the social world in the music school as one which is very ‘competitive”’ (p. 154). The role of peers also was featured in Presland’s (2005) study, in which she interviewed undergraduate and graduate piano students from a conservatory in the UK (p. 238). Presland found that students mentioned having “discussion with other pianists on issues such as nerves, practice, concert performances and so on as a healthy forum for articulating their own views and ideas in an unthreatening environment” (p. 244). 56 Perceptions of Campus Environment Arroe’s (1996) study showed music students content with the campus environment. On a scale of l to 5, with 5 meaning “strongly agree” 4 meaning “agree,” and 3 meaning “neither disagree nor agree,” Arroe (1996) found that music department students scored 4.03 and conservatory students scored 3.88 on the item, “I am satisfied with the campus environment” (pp. 72, 73; 30). These scores suggest that music students in Arroe’s study were satisfied with the campus environment, though exactly what that entails is not explained. Summary This section on social relations in music student life was comprised of discussions on musical climate, esteem, peer competitiveness and support, and perceptions of the campus environment. One interesting finding was that students’ self-esteem was related to their musical performance (Dews & Williams, 1989). Playing and Performing Music Areas covered in this part of the review of the literature include playing and performance. Most students feel positively and negatively about playing and performance. Playing A variety of feelings would seem to characterize the piano playing experience. Regarding feelings concerning piano playing among the piano majors in his/her study, Li (2001) wrote, “The participants’ positive feelings — fun, enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment — were accompanied by the negative feelings — fi'ustration, difficulty, isolation, dissatisfaction, pressure and boredom” (p. 84). According to Li, “The majority 57 of the participants felt a sense of enjoyment, satisfaction and responsibility about piano playing” (p. 84). As mentioned above, Li (2001) found isolation a facet of piano playing (I do not know how many of the participants felt this) (p. 84). Interestingly, another student population, graduate students, have also been found to experience isolation. In a study of graduate students, Nyquist et al.(1999), wrote, “We were surprised how strongly so many of our participants spoke of battling the isolation that threatens to engulf them as they progress through their graduate programs” (p. 25). A student in Arostegui’s (2004) study of the Music Education degree at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign shared feelings about playing the flute during an interview. She said: Every time I get angry, I play the flute. Every time I’m happy, I play the flute. . ..If I have to go several days without playing, I get very antsy. I get nervous. I get fi'ustrated, and I want to go play. . ..It’s definitely an emotional outlet for me. (pp. 164-165) Performance Awaiting performance can be stressful, and the actual performing can elicit different feelings among students. Regarding senior and master’s recitals at an American conservatory he studied, Kingsbury (1988) noted that “these recitals are anticipated by many of the students with great trepidation” (p. 111). Referring to recitals, Kingsbury wrote: Western culture has few occasions in which the self, the ego, or the ‘face’ are more directly threatened and endangered, and yet at the same time few occasions in which it is offered a more immediate source of potential gratification and firlfillment. (p. 58 123) Roberts (1991), who studied music education students at five Canadian universities through student interviews and through participant observation noted the prominence of performance in his analysis. He wrote, “By far the most universal criterion included in the definition of musician by the music students was performance” (p. 121). He explained how music education students conceive of performance: One might suppose that performance was viewed by students as some sort of aesthetic expression or emotive opportunity where they might really “make” music. However, music students view performance almost exclusively in terms of technique. They negotiate their role as a musician by demonstrating that they are playing ever more difficult pieces technically, simply stated - more notes! (p. 125) In studying college senior piano majors in Taiwan, Li (2001) found that performing was “liked” by less than 50% of the seniors (p. 86). Regarding performing, Li wrote, “Most of the participants either did not like performing or had an ambivalent attitude about it. The majority had experienced negative feelings in performing. They felt nervous, unprepared, stressed, scared, frustrated, blank, or panicky when performing” (p. 86). In addition, students shared other grounds for not relishing performing: “not being well-prepared, disliking being judged, and not having a suitable personality for performing” (p. 86). Li also found that “the participants who liked performing mostly had negative feelings about performing at the same time” (p. 86). Students who “liked performing” were brought “enjoyment and happiness” while doing this activity (p. 86). “Showing off and feeling a sense of accomplishment or happiness were strong motivations for the participants who enjoyed performing” (p. 86). 59 Numerous feelings during solo performance were experienced by music majors in Tamborrino’s (2001) study. Music majors in this study came up with five words each that captured their feelings from their “best [solo] performance” and their “most recent [solo] performance” (pp. 92; 8, 161, 162), In addition, they wrote about what had elicited these feelings (p. 103). They also noted how “pleasant” the feeling was (p. 92). “A majority of respondents described their ‘most recent performance’ feelings as a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant feelings” (p. 93). For most, their “best performance” was “pleasant,” with “little or no unpleasant feelings” (p. 93). The following are some of the words the participants applied regarding their best and most recent performances: horrible, sad, nervous, fiightened, confident, thankful, detached, excited, elated, bored (pp. 105, 106, 107,109,110,111,112,115,118). Summary In this section of the literature review, areas covered included playing and performance Music students felt positively and negatively about playing (Li, 2001), and performance (Li, 2001; Tamborrino, 2001). The second part of the literature review consisted of literature on students’ perceptions of their experiences. I examined music student concerns; program, curricular, instructional, relational, and campus aspects of music student life; and perceptions of playing and performing. Conclusion Literature reviewed in this chapter concerned 1) student positionality and retention/intent to persist and 2) music students’ perceptions of their experiences. In the 60 next chapter, I specify my research questions, theoretical framework, interview process, and data analysis. 61 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This chapter is comprised of my study design and methodology. I discuss my research questions, theoretical fiamework, study setting, participants, interview questions, use of metaphor, and data analysis. Research Questions As stated earlier, my two main research questions were: 1) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors? and 2) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting? My secondary research question was: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? Theoretical Framework Qualitative Approach My goal was to understand music students’ experiences from the students’ vantage. Using interviews, I sought to understand students’ perspectives regarding their experiences. My research is focused on individuals’ experiences, so employing a qualitative approach is appropriate. According to Denzin and Lincoln (2000), “Qualitative researchers. . .are committed to an emic, idiographic, care-based position, which directs their attention to the specifics of particular cases” (p. 10). Janesick (2000) wrote, “In the qualitative arena. . .the individual is the backbone of the study” (p. 394). In addition to a focus on the individual, my research is holistic. Rudestam and Newton (2001) asserted that “qualitative methods seek to understand phenomena in their entirety in order to develop a complete understanding of a person, program, or situation” (p. 37). 62 According to Janesick (2000), qualitative research is “holistic” (p. 385). “It looks at the larger picture, the whole picture, and begins with a search for understanding of the whole” (p. 385). My interview questions cover the area of music student positionality well. Through them, the “larger picture” will be seen. My music-related interview questions may help non-musician readers of my study increase their understanding of what life is like for music students, adding to the “larger picture.” Social Constructivism The theoretical fiamework for my method is social constructivism. In social constructivism, “the goal of research. . .is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied” (Creswell, 2003, p. 8). According to Creswell, “The researcher’s intent. . .is to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings others have about the world” (p. 9). In social constructivism, “inquirers generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning” (Creswell, p. 9). This fiamework is well suited to my study, as I am interested in music students’ own perceptions of their experiences. Positioned Subject Approach My research project takes a positioned subject approach. This approach was utilized by Conrad, Haworth, and Millar (2001), who studied master’s education. Regarding their study, the researchers wrote: We chose a positioned subject approach to inquiry, one that assumes that people, as positioned subjects (where subjects refers to people with particular needs, perceptions, and capabilities for action, and position refers to the environment in which they are located), actively interpret and make sense of their everyday worlds. (p. 203) 63 The researchers felt that taking this tack gave them a “strategy for research and analysis” (p. 203). This strategy was that “[they] would focus on how people understood and interpreted master’s experiences within programs -- including how they made sense of them and what they valued in them — always from their own standpoints, or perspectives” (p. 203). Like the researchers here, my desire is to study students’ perspectives fi-om their own standpoints or perspectives. The researchers also saw themselves and their readers as positioned subjects (p. 204). Given this foundation, they used writing strategies with effects on their readers (p. 211). Through my use of metaphor, I focus on and honor my readers, so there is a connection between my work and that of Conrad et al. Finally, Conrad et al. wanted their readers to see them as positioned subjects (p. 211). They wrote, “We strongly believe that readers will be better able to respond to our work if, as in face-to-face conversation, they have enough information to position us in terms of our backgrounds and experiences” (pp. 211-212). “Personal sketches” of Conrad, Haworth, and Millar, as well as a research associate, were included in their text (p. 212). I offer personal material to my readers below, mentioning my feelings regarding and experiences with music. Researcher Positioning Music touched my life early on. One of my earliest memories is my mother singing two Christian songs with me. I had wonderfirl experiences in my youth with classical music. I was a pianist and violinist, and I enjoyed the various opportunities I had to play in orchestras. My youth was a time for me before life’s thorns began to prick. I look back at my youth in its brightness, and music is there. Although, for the most part, I remember music happily, I do have some unpleasant memories. Having experienced both musical happiness and stress, I was comfortable hearing different perspectives from my interviewees. With a musical background, yet never having majored in music (though I did take piano fall semester of my freshman year as an alternative to orchestra since a medical event had rendered playing violin painful), I was well-positioned to conduct this study as an insider and outsider. I had enough context from which to draw as I undertook everything from the interviews to the literature review to the data analysis. Since I was not a member of the MSU music community, students may have felt more comfortable opening up, and I had no prior perceptions to possibly cloud my analysis. Because my musical “heyday” occurred as a teenager, I could relate well to the participants who were near to that stage. Relating to participants was also aided by my familiarity with MSU and substantial prior student interaction. I received one of my master’s degrees from MSU (in Student Affairs Administration) and have been pursuing my doctorate from MSU (in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education). My comfort with the student age population has been sustained through repeated involvement with that age group: I was an intern in an Oral Communication class at Hampton University while working on my first master’s degree at Regent University in Virginia. I was a graduate resident advisor at an undergraduate hall at MSU during the second year of my master’s degree; afier graduation, I was a resident hall director in Illinois. Next, I taught speech at the community college level in Indiana. Moreover, almost all of my time as a student at MSU, I lived in two residence balls at MSU, affording contact with young people. As a researcher, my proclivities affected the crafting of the research project and the analysis of the data. Imagine a pond of water lilies. A botanist and an artist sketch the 65 same scene. The botanist’s scene is less fancifirl with less liberty taken in color. Both the botanist and the artist take care to portray what the water lilies offer to their observers (granted fewer observers may experience the artist’s rhapsody in a society awash in science and materialism). I am not trying to compare my specific approach in my research to the botanist or artist; I am merely using them as an example of how different perspectives affect outcomes. In my research on music performance students, my perspective offers much, yet it lacks other perspectives that additional investigators would bring. Data Analysis I interviewed 16 undergraduate music performance majors at Michigan State University. In the following pages, I discuss study setting, participants, interview questions, use of metaphor, and data analysis. Study Setting Michigan State University Michigan State University, a land grant institution, was founded in 1855. Its mission statement claims that the university is “known for [its] traditionally strong academic disciplines and professional programs, and our liberal arts foundation” (Office of the President, 2009). MSU has over 200 programs of study and 17 degree-granting colleges. Fall 2008 enrollment was 46,648 (36,337 undergraduates and 10,311 graduate and professional students). Students come from each state in the USA and about 130 countries. For 2007-2008, sponsored research was close to $376 million dollars. (MSU Board of Trustees, 2009). The Michigan State University College of Music 66 The MSU School of Music became the College of Music in February, 2007 (Harbison, 2007). In Fall 2008, 360 undergraduates were enrolled in the College of Music. Of the 360 undergraduates enrolled in the College of Music, 134 (3 7%) were Music Performance majors; 140 (39%) were Music Education majors; 11 (3%) were music (BA) majors; 3 (1%) were composition majors; 6 (2%) were composition and music theory majors and music theory majors; 20 (6%) were music therapy majors, and 46 (13%) were jazz studies majors. The total number of graduate students in the College of Music for Fall 2008 was 272. In addition, 2 graduate students were music education majors in Arts and Letters. (Michigan State University Office of the Registrar, MSU Board of Trustees, 2008). Adding the undergraduate and graduate figures for the College of Music, the total size of the College of Music in Fall 2008 was 632 students. The MSU College of Music has 8 choirs, 4 orchestras, 7 bands, 18 jazz ensembles, a new music ensemble, and opera theatre. Each year there are more than 300 College of Music events. Its undergraduate degree programs are music composition, jazz studies, music education, and music performance (percussion, piano, strings, voice, winds) (Michigan State University College of Music, 2009). According to the College’s website, “More than 80 college faculty members have been noted for devotion to teaching; excellence in performance; creation of innovative, challenging, and imaginative curricula; the production of creative works; and significant research in many areas of music” (Michigan State University College of Music, 2009). Examples of MSU College of Music faculty accomplishments include the following: John Kratus, professor of music education, was an educational consultant for the United States Department of Defense (Music Notes, 2006-2007, p. 29); Richard Sherman, 67 professor of flute, led master classes at the Eastman School of Music (p. 35); Jere Hutcheson, professor of composition, wrote three pieces for tuba and piano; the work had its world premier with the Korean Society for New Music in Seoul, Korea (p. 28). Molly Fillmore, assistant professor of voice, was a soloist at Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center (p. 27). Philip Sinder, professor of tuba and euphonium, is on Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp’s board of trustees (p. 36); Caroline Hartig, assistant professor of clarinet, gave a world premier of a clarinet piece at the 2005 International ClarinetF est in Tama (Tokyo) Japan (p. 28). In addition to MSU, among Big Ten institutions, Indiana University, Northwestern University, and the University of Wisconsin have separate colleges/schools of music. Purdue University does not offer a music major, but it does offer a minor in music theory and history (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2008; Northwestern University, 2007; The Ohio State University, 2009; The Pennsylvania State University, 2006; Purdue University Division of Music, n.d.; The Regents of the University of Michigan, 2006; Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2005; The Trustees of Indiana University, 2009; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: College of Fine and Applied Arts, n.d.; and The University of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 2008). Participants For my study, I conducted one-to-one interviews with 16 MSU College of Music undergraduate performance majors. Students in my study had to be performance majors only. My sample of music students was purposefitl. Creswell (2003) wrote, “The idea behind qualitative research is to purposefully select participants. . .that will best help the 68 researcher understand the problem and the research question” (p. 185). I interviewed 16 students, including sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Originally, my thinking was that, since the interviews were to take place in the fall semester, freshmen students would not have had much time at the university, so these students should not participate in my research. It turned out that my interviews began in late fall semester and went through the spring semester. To find students to interview, I asked MSU College of Music Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Curtis Olson, if he would be willing to identify and contact 30 MSU undergraduate music performance majors, inviting them to reply to me regarding study participation. Once my project has been approved by MSU’S institutional review, Mr. Olson was to contact the 30 students. I asked Mr. Olson to include both less and more successful students, as well as both males and females, students playing different instruments/voice, in different class years (sophomores, juniors, seniors, may include fifth-year seniors, but no freshmen), and, if possible, ethnic minority and international students. My plan was to interview 10-15 of the 30 students. Within this group, I was going to aim for a diverse sample, using maximum variation sampling. According to Patton (2002), “This strategy for purposeful sampling aims at capturing and describing the central themes that cut across a great deal of variation” (pp. 234-235). To maximize variation with a small sample, “one begins by identifying diverse characteristics or criteria for constructing the sample” (Patton, p. 23 5). My plan was to choose to interview students playing different instruments/voice, in different years in school, of different genders, and, if given the opportunity, of different ethnicities and countries. These were to be the diverse components of my sample. Patton wrote that from diverse little samples, the following is one result fiom the data collection and analysis: 69 “important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance ficm having emerged out of heterogeneity” (p. 235). I did not have the opportunity to select participants in order to create a diverse sample. Because of the difficulty in attracting participants in the study, I needed to take participants as they indicated interest. It was a rolling process. Mr. Olson sent out his first email to the 30 students in mid November 2008. By mid January, I had interviewed three students with hopes for a fourth, but this student became ineligible for participation. Mr. Olson sent out a second email in mid January 2009, this time to 99 sophomore through senior music performance majors. He repeated this email in early March. By mid March, through snowballing and Mr. Olson’s efforts, I had interviewed nine students. In order to tap more, I sent out emails to students who were listed as giving recitals at the College of Music. I looked up their email addresses using their names as listed for the recitals and would email them if, given their student information, there was a chance they would be eligible to participate. I grouped them by diversity I was seeking and emailed them out in order of diversity priority. Two participants were secured through this approach. In April, I decided to try sitting with a poster at the College of Music to attract participants. I sat in the lobbies of both the music building and the music practice building, but it was in the music practice building where I was able to get five more participants. After the fifth offered to participate, I ended my search for participants, and my final count was 16 participants. The last interview was conducted in May 2009. As it turned out, I had a somewhat diverse sample. See Table 1. Both males and females participated in equal numbers; sophomores, juniors, and seniors were represented (though sophomores were double the juniors and seniors: 8, 4, 4); and different areas 70 were represented: voice (5), piano (1), flute (2), tuba (l), percussion (2), clarinet (3), and bassoon (2). Unfortunately, no strings were represented. At the MSU College of Music, undergraduate string performance majors are few. (The pilot interview I did was with a violinist double majoring in performance and education. I pilot tested my initial set of interview questions; further questions were added to my protocol at my dissertation proposal defense.) The participants (pseudonyms) and their class levels/instruments were Caleb, sophomore, tenor; Callie, senior, bassoon; Cory, sophomore, tenor; Dalton, junior, tuba; Emma, sophomore, flute; F lavia, sophomore, piano; Heather, junior, bassoon; Jacob, junior, percussion; Jane, junior, clarinet; Kyle, sophomore, percussion; Pierre, sophomore, clarinet; Sophie, sophomore, mezzo soprano leaning toward contralto; Stephen, senior, bass baritone; Toby, sophomore, flute; Trina, senior, soprano; and Zinnia, senior, clarinet. Table 1 Study Participants — Pseudonyms, Class Levels, and Performance Areas PSEUDONYM CLASS LEVEL PERFORMANCE AREA Caleb Sophomore Voice (Tenor) Callie Senior Bassoon Cory Sophomore Voice (Tenor) Dalton Junior Tuba Emma Sophomore Flute Flavia Sophomore Piano Heather Junior Bassoon Jacob Junior Percussion Jane Junior Clarinet Kyle Sophomore Percussion Pierre Sophomore Clarinet Sophie Sophomore Voice (Mezzo soprano leaning contralto) Stephen Senior Voice (Bass baritone) Toby Sophomore Flute Trina Senior Voice (Soprano) Zinnia Senior Clarinet 71 Interview Questions The interview questions were of three types. I began by asking some initial questions. Next, I inquired about students’ perceptions of their experiences as music students and musicians. Finally, I posed questions to understand music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting. Initial Questions 1. What is your instrument or vocal area? 2. What is your class level? DJ Do you live on or off campus? 4. Why did you choose to live where you currently reside? 5. When did you declare your major? 6. Why did you choose to come to MSU? 7. Why did you choose to major in music performance? 8. In which, if any, activities other than music are you involved? Questions Concerning Experiences as Music Students and Musicians 9. Tell me about the experience of being a music performance major. 10. Can you think of a metaphor22 or sirnile to describe what it is like to be a music performance major? After sharing your metaphor or simile, please elaborate. IfIn Senyshyn and O’Neill’s (2001) study, mentioned above, Imdergraduate music students were interviewed (p. 43). The researchers were interested in noting student metaphors: They wrote, “We used an emergent approach involving discursive analysis to investigate ‘interpretative repertoires.’ (p. 43). They explained, “Interpretative repertoires refer to the linguistic resources (i.e. grammatical structures, metaphors, linguistic devices) that individuals use when constructing their accoun ”; they cite Potter et al. (1990) (pp. 43; 53). They continued, “They operate at a broad, semantic level and consist of patterns of explanations, evaluations, and descriptions that are used to sustain social practices through conventionality and conformity to established cultural norms and values. These ‘versions’ of the world become established as ‘real’ and independent of the individual both in the immediacy of experience and over the longer-term as part of a particular ideology” (p. 43). 72 (I provided two examples each of a metaphor and a simile for students.) 11. Please create a metaphor or simile to describe what it is like to perform. 12. What role does music play in your life? 13. What is it like to be in an ensemble here at MSU, if you are in an ensemble? 14. What is a typical week like for you? 15. What has been most rewarding musically for you during your time at MSU? Questions Concerning Positionality 16. Describe the level of connection you feel with MSU, outside of the College of Music. How do you feel about this level of connection? 17. Describe the level of comfort you feel with MSU, outside of the College of Music. How do you feel about this level of comfort? 18. To what degree, if any, do you feel that you belong23 to both MSU and the MSU College of Music, to either one, or to neither? 19. What percentage of your best fiiends on campus are music majors?24 20. How do you think that MSU students, faculty, and administrators outside the College of Music view your musical program of study?25 23As mentioned previously, students in Walter’s (2000) study responded to the statement, “Most students feel a sense of belonging here” (p. 83). This statement is found in the Student Satisfaction Inquiry of Schreiner and Juillerat, 1994 (pp. 67, 70). In Nora and Cabrera’s (1993) study, students responded to the statement, “I feel I belong at this institution” (p. 248). According to Nora and Cabrera, “This item was adapted from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979)” (p. 248). In Bean’s (1985) study, not mentioned previously, one item students responded to was “To what extent do you feel you belong at this university?” (p. 44). This item was one of three items in a variable called institutional fit (p. 44). 2‘As mentioned previously, Thomas (2000) measured “the percentage of self-reported ties that fall within a student’s peer group” (p. 606). He wrote, “This measure can be viewed as the extent to which a Student is bound to her or his peer group to the exclusion of connections to those in other peer groups” (p. 606). My question seeks to gauge how much of music students’ social contact is within the Music College. 73 21. Do you care what non-music students, faculty, and administrators may think about your musical program of study? 22. How do you think non-music MSU students, faculty, and administrators view music majors? 23. Do you feel that non-musician students, faculty, and administrators at MSU have an appreciation for and understanding of your life as a music major? Please explain. 24. Do you feel that non-music students, faculty, and administrators at MSU value the College of Music? Please explain. 25. What would you like MSU students, administrators and faculty outside the College of Music to understand about your life as a music major? 26 Do you intend to remain a student at MSU? If not, why do you plan to leave? 27. What else would you like to tell me? Roberts (1991) and Pitts (2003) (pages 13-15, Chapter One) inform my third group of interview questions. Also, some questions asked in two studies not previously discussed (Hamer, 2000, and Harles, 1995) inform some of my interview questions. Hamer looked at how Afiican—American students viewed the campus climate at the University of Arkansas, F ayetteville. Below are some Likert type statements students encountered in Hamer’s survey which translate into questions for music students in my UAF ’s campus climate supports a diverse culture 0 94). 2’ Most students in the study heard the following preface before I read Question 20 to them: “In the next set of questions, I will be referring to MSU students, faculty and administrators outside the College of Music. If you feel there are differences between these three groups, please discuss the groups separately. You will see what I mean when I begin the questions.” 74 The campus culture is supportive of my background and values @. 94). At times, because of my background, I feel isolated within the UAF campus community m 94). Other students are respecfiul of my racial/ethnic background m 94 ). My UAF professors incorporate into their classes materials that acknowledge the contributions of people fiom a variety of racial/ethnic groups and gender m 95). These statements translate into questions about the value placed on music students by non-musicians in the university community, about how music students are viewed, and about how much music students feel they belong to the university. Harles (1995) conducted another campus climate study. She studied the viewpoints of American Indian students about the campus racial climate at the University of North Dakota at Grand Forks (p. 86). Some of the Likert style statements in the survey translate to music student questions. These survey statements are as follows: UND environment does not encourage a sense of belonging for its Indian students (Harles, 1995, p. 157). Overall, UND faculty treat me as if I belong here (p. 155). UND administrators are knowledgeable about racial and ethnic dijfErences and similarities (p. 157). UND faculty/stafl are knowledgeable about racial and ethnic difikrences and similarities (p. 158). UND administrators, faculty, and stafir take time to listen to concerns of American Indian students (p. 158). UND administrators, faculty, and staff are supportive of A merican Indian needs and 75 concerns (p. 158). Racial concerns are given high priority at UND (p. 156). Also relevant is Hamer’s (2000) question to her participants: “If you have expressed concerns about diversity, have you found that others have been responsive, particularly fellow students, faculty, and/or administrative staff? (Please elaborate):” (p. 95). These statements and this question, which concern belonging, valuing students, and having knowledge of student identities, translated into questions I asked music students. Metaphor In the interviews for my study, two of the questions required students to think metaphorically: Students created similes/metaphors. I find five benefits to the inclusion of metaphor. First, my presentation of students’ metaphors should help make students’ experiences vibrant for readers of my dissertation. Figurative language, metaphor, and images operate in a “vivid manner” (Erasmus, 1976, 1514, pp. 44;45; Ortony, 1975, p. 53; Wilkinson, 1919, p. 85). Second, utilizing metaphor esteems the emotionality of both the students and the readers of my research. “Humanity includes emotionality” (Weaver, 1970, p. 204), and people want to be “emotional” (Brown, 1965, p. 88). Since figurative language commrmicates emotions26 (Brown, 1965, p. 88; Wilkinson, 1919, p. 85), students’ j"Fainsilber and Ortony (1987) claimed that “the literature on the linguistic expression of emotions suggests a relatively high incidence of figurative language use” (p. 241). As an illustration Fainsilber and Ortony cited a finding from Davitz’s 1969 study. Interestingly, Davitz “informally noted” that when people detailed “emotional states,” they often used “metaphorical” language (p. 241). In their own study, Fainsilber and Ortony found “the predominance of metaphorical language during descriptions of feeling states as opposed to actions” (p. 247). 76 emotionality is esteemed when students communicate their emotions through metaphors. Readers’ emotionality can be honored, too, as readers encounter emotion in student metaphors. Weaver wrote, “To appeal to [man’s] feeling. . .is not necessarily an insult; it can be a way to honor him, by recognizing him in the fiIllness of his being” (p. 224). A third reason to ask music students to create metaphors is to increase the understanding of readers of my research. Since metaphor aids understanding (Brown, 1965, pp. 82, 84; Ortony, 1975, pp. 51, 52), readers may better understand students’ experience as shared through metaphors. Fourth, students may find that metaphor facilitates communication of some of their thoughts. F ainsilber and Ortony (1987) wrote, “Metaphors may allow one to express that which would be difficult or impossible to express if one were restricted to literal uses of language” (p. 240). 27 From an experiment, F ainsilber and Ortony concluded that “results. . .suggest that metaphors may help people capture that which is difficult or impossible to convey” (p. 247). Finally, metaphor can be useful in shedding light on how students think about their experiences. Morgan (1996) wrote that “metaphors. . .give us specific frames for viewing the world,” (p. 228), and Bowman (1996-1997) asserted, “The metaphors we use determine how we interpret reality and experience” (first page, not numbered). Trimmer (1994) commented on Black’s interaction View”: “In the interaction view metaphor hides 27An example given by F ainsilber and Ortony (1987) is useful here. They wrote, “Consider the metaphor ‘Ihe thought slipped my mind like a squirrel behind a tree.’ The characteristics of squirrels slipping behind trees that one would want to predicate of thoughts (e.g., swifiness, suddenness, ungraspableness) are difficult to express using literal language alone. These characteristics seem to be applicable to thoughts only metaphorically - so that attempts to translate the metaphorical sentence into literal language results in the speaker still having to resort to metaphorical explication (e.g., ‘ The thought went away’ and ‘ The thought evaded me’)” (p. 240). 77 some elements and highlights others, placing both the principal and subsidiary subjects in a new context” (p. 10). “This new, expanded view transforms metaphor. . .it becomes a method of organizing our visions, our personal versions of reality” (Trimmer, p. 10). My study is not the first in which researchers have sought out college student metaphors. Jorgensen-Earp and Staton (1993) wanted “to describe student perceptions of what it means to be a new college/university student” (p. 128). In their study, the researchers looked at metaphors created by fi'eshmen students. The questionnaire contained these questions: “What does it mean to you to be a University freshman?” “Being a University freshman is like _” (Jorgensen-Earp & Staton, p. 128). In another study (Goss, 2001), adult learners (past and present) with learning disabilities created metaphors about their learning disabilities (p. 8). 6055’s research “explored the perceptions of adults with learning disabilities regarding the impact of their disabilities on their lives” (p. 8). In Bozik’s (2002) study, two groups of students, four times each, fashioned “a metaphor for themselves as learners” (Bozik, p.144; 143). Bozik wrote, “When students are asked to reflect on themselves as learners by comparing themselves to something that is, on the surface, not like them, the resulting image can provide insight into students’ academic self concept” (p. 142). Data Analysis The student interviews ranged fiom 16 to 90 minutes, with a total of 10 hours and 4 minutes. There were three parts to my data analysis. 1 coded and analyzed the non- i”In Black’s (1962) interaction view of metaphor, “a metaphorical statement has two distinct subjects—a ‘principal’ subject and a ‘subsidiary’ one” (p. 44). “The metaphor works by applying to the principal subject a system of ‘associated implications’ characteristic of the subsidiary subject” (Black, p. 44). “The metaphor selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features of the principal subject by implying statements about it that normally apply to the subsidiary subject” (Black, pp. 44-45). 78 metaphor/simile data (student experiences and positionality). I analyzed the metaphors/similes that students created about being music performance majors and performing. I also created matrices (eventually compressing everything into one matrix) that made it possible for me to determine if students’ responses to three interview questions related to their responses in four others. I took student responses to the interview questions concerning connection, comfort, and belonging and checked to see if these responses related to the four questions about students’ beliefs about non-musicians’ views. Doing an additional matrix analysis, I looked for relationships between students’ metaphors involving strain/no strain and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. Nonmetaphor, Nonmatrix Analysis I drew from Tesch (1990) in analyzing all but my nonmetaphor data. Some of my codes were interview questions, and some codes sprang fi'om the data. I did not use all of my codes in writing of the results. Tesch (1990) offered “Steps for Developing an Organizing System for Unstructured Qualitative Data” (pp. 142-145) as a possible avenue for organizing data (p. 142). I followed some of her suggestions in my nonmetaphor/nonmatrix analysis. I named topics in the data and wrote these topics in the margins, for a small number of data sets. In a new listing, I separated major topics from “unique topics” that appear salient, though few. I shortened my topics to codes and coded the data already scrutinized (Tesch, pp. 143; 142). Two of the aims of one’s search of the data are “commonalities in content” and “uniquenesses in content” (p. 145), and I tried not to forget about the latter while 79 summarizing data in my writing. If there is a need, Tesch advises one to recode all data (p. 145). I did have to do some recoding. In this discussion of steps that Tesch (1990) presented, only data collected create the organizing system: Tesch wrote, “In the following we will assume that the data are the only source” (p. 142). As it turned out for me, some of my codes were interview questions, and some codes sprang fiom the data. Tesch also mentioned other origins of early organizing in interpretational analysis, saying that one fountainhead for “the beginnings of an organizing system” was one’s research instrument (p. 141). She said that interview questions “often provide handy categories” (p. 142). And in my case, they so functioned. Also, there are certain questions on my instrument, the responses to which were variables that I compared. Miles and Huberman (1994) might approve of my using the responses to certain questions to organize my data and the fact that some of my codes were interview questions. They wrote: Our method of creating codes — the one we prefer - is that of creating a provisional “start list” of codes prior to fieldwork. That list comes from the conceptual framework, list of research questions, hypotheses, problem areas, and/or key variables that the researcher brings to the study. (p. 58) Metaphor Analysis I analyzed the metaphors created by the students in the interviews. I utilized some of F oss’s (1990) methodology for metaphor analysis as well as clustering and factoring, mentioned by Miles and Huberman (1994). 80 Twice during the interviews, I asked students for metaphors/similes. From 16 interviews with students in which each participant creates two metaphors, the total number of metaphors/similes requested was 32. One student created three metaphors. I analyzed the metaphors/similes asked for in two groups, one for each of the two interview questions. Although Foss (1996) described metaphorical analysis from the perspective of rhetorical criticism, some parts of her methodology are useful for my project’s analysis. Foss wrote, “The metaphors are sorted or grouped either according to vehicle or tenor”, depending on the research question” (p. 363). “Patterns in metaphor use” are sought (Foss, p. 363). According to Foss, “If the critic is studying the rhetor’s use of metaphor around one topic, then the metaphors may be grouped around similar vehicles” (p. 363). In my analysis, I planned to sort the metaphors by vehicle, utilizing clustering and factoring. Clustering and factoring are two “tactics” that Miles and Huberman (1994) saw as viable “for drawing meaning from a particular configuration of data in a display” (p. 245). My metaphor data would not be in a display, but I planned to utilize clustering and factoring. Clustering is a tactic that can be applied at many levels in qualitative data: at the level of events or acts, of individual actors, of processes, of settings/locales, of sites or cases as wholes. In all instances, we’re trying to understand a phenomenon better by grouping and then conceptualizing objects that have similar patterns or i”The tenor is “the underlying idea or principal subject which the vehicle or figure means” (Richards, 1964, p. 97). 81 characteristics. (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 249) Miles and Huberman wrote further on, “Where lower level, less complex things are being sorted (events, actors, etc.), the clustering tactic typically relies on aggregation and comparison (‘What things are like each other/unlike each other?’)” (p. 249). My plan was to look for ways to put each set of metaphors into clusters, comparing them and looking for ways they were alike. Then with each cluster, I would utilize factoring (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 256-257). Miles and Huberman gave an example of data from a study, showing how they produced a factor for the list of data (p. 257). They wrote that they “derived a general characteristic” (p. 25 7). I intended to try to do this for each cluster of metaphors. As I reflect on the process I used, I recall that the first set of metaphor analyses followed my method less strictly than the second. But what was generated in both cases, I think, was very fi'uitful. Later, one factor was changed. Finally, I addressed four questions from a list offered by Foss (1996), doing an “anaylsis of metaphors” (p. 304). According to Foss, “In [analysis], the groups of metaphors — either metaphors around various tenors or various vehicles around the same tenor - are analyzed to reveal the system of metaphorical concepts in the artifact” (p. 364). Regarding the list of questions she offered, she wrote, “Depending on the critic’s interest, only one or two of these may be asked, or other questions may be developed to get at the critic’s particular concerns” (p. 364). Of her questions, she wrote that “[they] were suggested by [various people whom she names]” (p. 367). The four questions I used: 1. What ideas are highlighted and what ideas are masked as a result of the metaphors used? 82 2. What image do the metaphors convey of the tenor. . .of the artifact? 3. What do the metaphors suggest about the worldview of the rhetor? 4. What attitudes and values undergird the metaphors? (p. 364) Matrix Analysis I used some of my interview questions as codes to look for some relationships in the data. To look for patterns in comparisons between certain student responses, I created matrices. One purpose Richards (2005) listed for qualitative coding is “to find patterns in attitudes on this subject” (p. 87). I looked for patterns across specific interview question areas, to see if a student’s response in one related to his/her response in four others, as I surmised that I might find patterns. This I did for responses to the interview question concerning connection with MSU and the four questions about students’ beliefs about non-musicians’ views. Second, I looked for patterns in responses to the question concerning comfort with MSU and the four questions about students’ beliefs about non- musicians’ views. Finally, I looked for similarities in responses to the question concerning belonging to MSU and the four questions concerning students’ beliefs about non-musicians’ views. In each of these three scenarios, I compared responses to one question with responses to four other questions, for all participants. To make such comparisons, I created three matrices, which were later combined into one matrix. I also did an additional matrix analysis, looking for relationships between students’ metaphors involving strain/no strain and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. According to Richards, “Matrix work is. . .a task of systematic comparison in order to arrive at a pattern. It also provides a new way of seeing sharply 83 whether and where a pattern dominates” (p. 174). “In manual methods, matrices are often used as a means to display a suspected or discovered pattern, or outcome of a project” (Richards, p. 175). Miles and Huberman (1994) also discussed data displays and matrices. They wrote, “Valid analysis requires, and is driven by, displays that are focused enough to permit a viewing of a full data set in the same location, and are arranged systematically to answer the research questions at hand” (pp. 91 -92). The data comes from all facets being researched and is “condensed” in the display (p. 92). The “[data] display is arranged coherently to permit careful comparisons, detection of differences, noting of patterns and themes, seeing trends, and so on” (p. 92). A matrix is one kind of display (p. 93). “A matrix is essentially the ‘crossing’ of two lists, set up as rows and columns” (Miles and Huberman, p. 93). One kind of matrix discussed by Miles and Huberman is a conceptually clustered matrix. I created this kind of matrix. According to Miles and Huberman, “A conceptually clustered matrix has its rows and columns arranged to bring together items that ‘belong together’ ” (p. 127). One avenue for this to take place is a conceptual approach; in this, “the analyst may have some a priori ideas about items that derive from the same theory or relate to the same overarching theme” (p. 127). l was able to work from the matrices in my quest for patterns, as I determined if there were relations between variables in the matrices I drew. In presenting a matrix example, Miles and Huberman wrote, “Reading across the rows [sic] gives the analyst a thumbnail profile of each informant and provides an initial test of the relationship between responses to the different questions (tactic: noting relations between variables)” (p. 129, bold type in 84 original). A little further on they wrote, “Looking across rows, we can use the tactic of noting relations between variables” (p. 129, bold type in original). Conclusion In this chapter I restated my research questions and identified my theoretical framework, social constructivism, explaining my qualitative approach, positioned subject approach and researcher positioning. I discussed study setting, participants, interview questions, use of metaphor and data analysis. 85 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS: GENERAL ANALYSIS OF MUSIC STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF EXPERIENCES It is a cool autumn day at the College of Music at Michigan State University. Percussionist Jacob is thinking about the lack of money to repair parts for the marimba. Vocalist Trina is working at one of her three part time jobs. Crunching leaves under her feet, vocalist Sophie heads to recital hour, where she will sing. Bassoonist Callie is making reeds. Pianist Flavia can’t find a practice room. Clarinetist Pierre is looking forward to attending an upcoming faculty recital. Flutist Toby is taking in the fall colors on his way to chamber music class. Flutist Emma is enjoying practicing. Clarinetist Jane is on her fifth hour of clarinet playing for the day (She plays 5 or 6 hours a day.) Tuba player Dalton is recalling the conductor’s directions from last week. Vocalist Caleb is reflecting on the universality of music. Vocalist Cory is rehearsing with his pianist. Clarinetist Zinnia is taking a coffee break with a friend and thinking about how chilly it will be when she finishes practicing at midnight. Vocalist Stephen tells his fiiend that he can not meet because he has rehearsal. Bassoonist Heather is preparing for a concert on the weekend. Percussionist Kyle is composing music, straining to see the first snowflake of fall. In this chapter, I analyze the first part of the data concerning music students’ perceptions of their experiences. In this first part, the general analysis, I describe music students’ perceptions of their experiences as evinced from interview questions not requesting a student metaphor. In the next chapter, I analyze the second part of the data concerning music students’ perceptions of their experiences, the metaphors/similes students created when I asked them for a metaphor/simile in each of two areas: being a 86 music performance major and performing. This two-part analysis should help non- musician readers to better understand what life is like for music students. The general analysis covers a number of aspects of music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors at Michigan State University. Addressed are students’ beginnings as performance majors, the psychological experience, musical involvement, mechanics, music student modes, family of origin, and non-music activities. Starting as Music Performance Majors Declaring the Major Almost all participants were music majors as fieshmen. Callie decided at age 10 to become a professional musician. Cory double majored in music performance and music education during his freshman year, dropping music education in the middle of his sophomore year. Flavia began majoring in both piano performance and music therapy but dropped music therapy early on. Having first been interested in arts management, Sophie decided on opera a month into her fieshman year. One student’s story stands out from the rest. His plan was to become a stone mason. He liked working outside, and his stepfather builds log homes. He made the choice, however, to attend college to see if he might find something there that he enjoyed studying. Attending Lansing Community College (LCC), he was bored and unhappy but then began studying music at the College, and it was a pleasant experience for him. (He had sung in choirs in high school and been in a musical.) Changing teachers at LCC, he was able to begin study with a man who had sung at the Metropolitan Opera more than one hundred times. His teacher left LCC for Michigan State, and so when his credits allowed, he entered MSU. A music performance 87 major at LCC, he entered MSU as a music education major, but eventually the faculty allowed him to change to music performance, which he did. Choosing MSU For 11 participants, one of the factors or the only factor in choosing to attend MSU was the participant’s private teacher at MSU. Some students spoke of programs or unspecified teachers: Kyle cited his program, the percussion program at MSU, but did not specify a teacher. He believed that his career would be helped through participation in MSU’s percussion program. F lavia cited the music therapy program. Sophie cited the music program and voice teachers, but did not specify one. Jane liked the size of the music program, as did Trina, and Trina also appreciated the many undergraduate performance opportunities. So each student had at least one music-related reason for choosing MSU. Non-musical reasons were also given by a number of students. One student’s father is an employee at MSU, so her tuition is halved. Interestingly, one participant mentioned that his teacher and the others in the music building “were encouraging and kind of recruiting than some of the other schools I was thinking about. . .and they called me a lot.” Choosing Music Performance Participants expressed a variety of thoughts regarding their decision to major in music performance. A number of participants focused on emotions they or others experienced. Caleb said, “It brings me joy and also I’ve seen the joy that it brings other people when I perform. . .the ability that I could brighten a person’s day or make them feel something is. . .something that I’d like to achieve and work on.” He also said he selected his major because he “was passionate about” it. For Emma, music was by and 88 large her “life force” and “pretty much everything that makes sense to me.” She desired to “share that and communicate with everyone how I feel and that’s the only way I really know how.” She found music “something I love to do.” Heather also used emotional language, choosing music performance “because I love bassoon and music.” Cory “loved” performing in high school and said “there’s nothing else that I love to do more.” Kyle felt that “performing is one of the things that makes me happiest in life.” Trina said, “Music is always what I’ve really, really loved.” For Zinnia, “Growing up,. . .music was. . . the only thing. . .outside of my family that I really truly loved.” Other reasons for choosing music performance were also given. Two participants mentioned types of activity. Jacob stated, “I just like to play with my hands.” Flavia felt that music is “way more hands on.” What she does as a music major she said is “unconventional, which is fun for me because all of my schooling up until college has been. . .read a book, take a test.” Jane, Stephen and Trina did not want later in life to be sorry about not pursuing music. Pierre said that having a performance major was better for his goals. Emma adores playing music and said, “I always thought, wow, it would be good to have a job that you love every minute of.” Toby, who has been asked by many others why he is not majoring in music education, wanted to spare others his poor choices. He stated: I’ve had too many band directors who got an education degree for something to fall back on and then got a job and ended up not wanting to teach and that just ended up ruining a lot of people’s time in band. . .or choir as a result of that, so I don’t want to do that to anybody, I wanna. . .try my hand at performing first. 89 Being a Music Performance Major In this section, I discuss the following aspects of students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors: the psychological experience, mechanics, music student modes, family of origin, and non-music activities. The Psychological Experience Toil and Delight Participants in this study characterized being a music performance major in different ways. For six students, being a music performance major was “a lot of work.” Heather stated that she did not sleep a lot and it was customary for her to get sick during breaks; she stated, “You learn to make a schedule, and you learn how to get through it.” Eleven of the participants experienced the performance major as difficult. Heather and F lavia both used the word rigorous; Caleb and Zinnia used the word strenuous. Four students found the major “fun,” and for two it was fim sometimes. One found it “enjoyable,” and another “great.” Zinnia and Stephen found it “exciting.” Dalton and Jane soared high and dipped low. Dalton stated, “There’s a lot of internal time to practice and go crazy and hate your major and then find out you still like it at the end of the day, emotional rollercoaster.” Jane commented that some days she adores playing her instrument 5 or 6 hours a day, senses that she is “being really artistic” and is pleased to be in music but on some days, she feels her effort is not leading to anything. This negativity was tempered when she said this “ends up not being true, I think the truth is somewhere in between. . .but it definitely has its ups and downs.” Six students reported that being a music performance major was stressful. Dalton felt there was a “really unique strain” on the mind with the tension of having academic 9O demands but also getting ready for a competition that can enhance one’s resume and bring in cash; Dalton explained, “All you wanna do is spend your time practicing and prepare and give the best that you have, but you’re still a student, so it’s kind of hard to draw the line.” Stephen stated that flourishing as a music student is over 50% psychological. He explained that one can not fiet about others’ views on one’s performing or one’s own views about his/her performing. Continuing, he said, “You have to get over the fear of just falling outright, going up in front of people.” A seventh student, Pierre, found performing in ensembles “stressful.” Playing in Front of Other Musicians Some students spoke about playing/singing in fiont of other musicians. Stephen, F lavia, and Callie spoke of the stress associated with this. Talking about playing in ensembles, Callie explained, “When you’re a younger student, it’s mostly terrifying because you’re very afi'aid of making mistakes when you’re playing with older students.” Flavia said that in many of her classes, she has to learn a piece within a week and play it for the class, “which is stressful.” Stephen spoke about a weekly gathering in which students sing for all the voice students and voice faculty. Most of the songs that are sung the people there have heard before, and they are familiar with the words and notes. They know that the singer will make mistakes; they know how the singer is behaving vocally and if that behavior is “incorrect.” So, said Stephen, “that’s very stressful.” Trina also commented on performing in front of others. She asserted that the “failures” of music majors “are more public” as opposed to other majors. She drew a contrast between music and accounting, saying that if an accounting major fails a class, he or she simply retakes it. Contrastingly, she continued, flour a student’s conducting 91 done in conducting class, “everyone in the class knows how good of a conductor you are.” Further, “in recital hour, you get up and sing in. . .front of the entire voice area including the students, so if you’re not good technically people will hear you sing and know that your technique [is poor], so our failures are more public.” Performance Anxiety Some students spoke of worry and anxiety related to performance in response to the question I asked in which I sought student metaphors/similes for being a music major and performing. It seems fitting to address these comments here. When one has finished a performance, said Zirmia, “[one need not] worry about the performance anymore.” Kyle said, “When you walk on stage. . .even if you’re someone with very little performance anxiety, there’s some stress that, automatically, as soon as you see the audience, you’re like, this many people are watching me.” Also, he said, one’s aim is “to look controlled” and to do what is required. Heather said that “[a music performance major is] always worried about. . .making a mistake.” Jane said that in performance one’s job is combating anxiety, and she claimed that all performers are anxious. Finally, prior to performing, Emma becomes “really nervous. . .and [she is] anxious to get out there.” Perception of Time Five students said they were busy. Sophie felt she lacked time to practice; for Emma, time for socializing was scarce. Flavia and Jacob felt their majors took a lot of time. Kyle believed that his major “is something that you really have to choose as a priority in your life, put it ahead of a lot of other things.” Stephen stated, “The one thing that we have. . .that is most valuable is time.” Caleb reported that needing to practice, 92 constantly learning music, and readying himself for upcoming auditions and lessons means his experience is “fast-paced.” Role of Music in One ’3 Life Music pervaded the participants’ lives. Heather said that “music is almost my life,” and Callie and Stephen said that their lives were music. For Toby, “Music is the most important thing” at this time. Music was in a hub position for Flavia, Trina, and Dalton. F lavia stated it was “central to my life;” Trina asserted that “it’s what I’ve built my life aroun ” and Dalton called it “a centerpiece.” In addition to claiming music as a centerpiece, Dalton called it “an exploration, because I’m learning new things every day and maturing in the practice room.” Cory’s view was that “music plays a lot of roles in my life.” Sighing, he said, “Sometimes. . .being a music major, it can become more of, like more of a job. . .more something that I just do all the time because I have to;” however, he also utilizes music “to. . .express the mood I’m in.” Also, his mood is transformed by music. Jane seemed to desire an identity not entirely characterized by music: Jane said that “music. . .defines my life,” but followed this by saying, “I hate to say that I’m defined by music as a person because I don’t think I am.” Then she detailed her music filled college life, following with this declaration: “I think there’s a lot more to me; I hope there’s a lot more to me than music, but in my day to day activities it’s kind of hard to see that.” Student Growth In the interviews for this study, students were asked what has been most rewarding musically for them during their time at MSU. In some cases, more than one item was shared by students in response to the question. For what was most rewarding musically, 93 six students spoke of their musical growth. For example, Callie cited “being able to see your personal growth as a musician.” F lavia believed that all her classes “integrate” and they “[were] really forwarding my musicianship.” In response to another interview question, Stephen spoke about the thrill of watching other music students “grow on a daily basis or a weekly basis” and then mentioned that noticing his growth through listening to recordings of himself made at different times is “exciting.” Finally, in response to another interview question, Dalton stated that “all the struggle” is “definitely maturing me.” Competition Competition was an area that some students addressed in the interviews. Stephen, Sophie, and Heather experienced music as quite competitive. Jane and Sophie contrasted competition at MSU with conservatories. Jane thought that MSU music was “not as competition oriented as a lot of. . .smaller conservatory schools would be.” Sophie said that, whereas MSU music is quite competitive, this does not take place “in a way that belittles people or. . .degrades them.” This struck Sophie as remarkable, particularly when she contrasted it to a number of conservatories. Jane seemed to appreciate competition when she said that she had an affinity for the MSU music program’s size “because it’s big enough that you can be competitive.” Summary In this section on the psychological experience of being a music major, I reviewed a number of aspects: toil and delight, playing in front of other musicians, performance anxiety, perception of time, role of music in one’s life, growth, and competition. 94 Musical Involvement Having examined the psychological experience for music performance majors, I next look at students’ musical involvement. In this section, I consider practicing, ensembles, music faculty, and mechanics. Practicing In this section, practice time, positive and negative feelings about practice, approaches to practice, and lack of practice room availability are discussed. Some students mentioned how much they practice every day. At the top end was Jacob, who practiced 6 to 8 hours a day. Of the remaining instrumentalists who shared their practice amounts, Dalton practiced the least, at less than 2 hours a day. He felt that he ought to practice more than 2 hours a day, stating that he could apprehend why others practiced that amount. Jacob explained that he was not “always efficient” in his practicing due to socializing with fiiends whom he sees at the music building. According to Sophie, when a vocalist overpractices, his/her voice can be hurt. She said that actual excellent opera singers “will only practice maybe an hour at a time maybe five times a week.” Vocalist Trina also stated that excessive practice can hurt singers. Emma and Dalton shared their feelings about practicing. Practicing was a felicitous activity for Emma. She stated, “Whenever I’m upset or whenever I’m really happy I practice” and “I love practicing.” Dalton experienced a “mental battle” resulting fiom not being able to “see the product of my practicing.” He continued, “It’s a fi'ustrating long term investment because I don’t. . .see what my practicing does.” Practicing for him could be a little cheerless : If I have an audition in 3 weeks, I’m just slave driving over excerpts in a box of 95 a room for a couple hours a day and it’s just like. . .I wanna do somethin’ fun, I mean, given, sometimes playing the tuba is fim but the days it’s not firn, it’s really pullin’ teeth and just, I have to do this because tomorrow I’m gonna regret if I don’t practice and it’s constantly developing the discipline. But he also spoke of practicing in a more positive way: While working on a difficult piece of music in practice, he felt that he was also performing it; he stated, “So it’s kind of like I get to perform every day. . .so that’s a cool aspect of it or rewarding aspect of it that redeems it from just sitting in a box working on something alone.” He even spoke of how one could reframe: “ If you change your mindsetting it actually is pretty cool, unique and pleasant.” Approach to practicing was addressed by Jane. She stated that only the person practicing is cognizant of “how thorough” and “how focused” it was. If one’s practice is not so characterized, according to her, “then it was a waste of time.” Finally, two students commented on the availability of practice rooms. Sophie stated that there were not a sufficient number of practice rooms. Flavia said that piano students can sign up for 2 hours per day for specific rooms, but the other rooms are first come, first served. She stated, “I thought that. . .being a piano performance major the competition would be like who’s a better musician, but it’s kind of like who gets to practice sometimes, which is stressful.” Ensembles All participants offered enthusiasm regarding ensembles. Six students praised conductors/choral directors, but one spoke unflatteringly of one conductor. Vocalist Stephen lamented the many rehearsals required but found participation in his ensemble 96 very fulfilling. Although she commended the ensemble experience, Heather noted that competitiveness is a drawback to ensembles, stating that “if you get knocked down to a lower seat than someone else. . .you might feel discouraged at your abilities and talents.” Some students expressed different points of view regarding working with their peers in ensembles. Zinnia said one is “excited to get closer to the music and make music with your fellow students.” Callie mentioned that as a younger student playing with older students, one fears making errors, but then it kind of gets to be old hat and some people don’t take it as seriously. . .so it’s really challenging for me because I want to take it seriously and not everyone else does, so you have to engage your colleagues and bring them in to creating a good musical experience for everyone. Some students also spoke about small ensembles. Most had only harmonious things to say. Inside jokes and fun characterized Jacob’s small ensembles. Jane was thrilled with her trio experience. Chamber music appealed to her since no conductor controls musical interpretation; she stated that [the three trio members] have to iron it out and you all have to agree and you really make the music, you shape it, you decide what your interpretation should be, you play it, you communicate together, it’s such a bonding experience, and it’s so rewarding. Toby was in a woodwind quintet. Rehearsals were “so much fun,” he claimed, “because everyone’s practiced the music, everyone cares about playing in tune.” Dalton’s quintet experience was perhaps less idyllic than the others’. His first years at MSU, quintet was “a very big learning experience” since predominantly only the quintet members directed 97 the rehearsals. With five students giving one another musical advice, the result was “a lot of stepping on toes on accident or purposely stepping on toes. . .to motivate ‘em.” His first 2 years were filled with “[steering through] murky waters because between biting your tongue for the sake of letting them [other quintet members] hopefully work it out. . .or saying something and making somebody angry for a week or two, it’s very interesting to learn how to work with people.” Small ensembles/ a small ensemble performance were cited by three students, Jane (trio), Zinnia (woodwind quintet) and Toby (woodwind quintet) as what was most rewarding musically for them at MSU. Vocalists had different comments regarding choir ensembles. For Caleb, choir balanced and complemented opera. Cory commented on the wide array of music performed and extolled MSU conductors. Sophie said all her MSU choral directors have been “amazing teachers.” Sophie and Stephen’s comments show the perils of choir, something that may surprise those whose musical knowledge is purely instrumental: Sophie explained, “It’s a different kind of technique in choir that you sing with, so it kind of messes up your voice a little bit.” Stephen also said that in choir people try to match their voices to others’ “so you have to sacrifice technique.” One wants to make sure that one’s voice isn’t harmed too much, although the voice is an “organic instrument so it grows back.” Stephen was complimentary of his directors “even though they. . .have us sing in a way that is uncomfortable. . .for most of us. . .there’s minimal damage done.” Trina noted that her conductor faces the task of merging voices in her ensemble. Since she believes the voices in her ensemble are incapable of fusing, she sings soloistically in her ensemble. Trina said, “I always want to sing like a soloist. . .because it feels good, I’m 98 not hurting myself.” Cory spoke of vocalists having to sing one way in choir and then five minutes later in a private lesson sing another way. Finally, two students spoke about how they have been encouraged to excel through ensembles. Kyle said that through participating in an ensemble, one is spurred “to succeed in music because there are other people counting on you.” Regarding his ensembles, Dalton stated that other students’ playing well is “motivation. . .if you’re slacking, pick up the pace,” and then Dalton wonders if he can reach the others’ level or “help them sound good.” MSU Music F aculrjy There were many more positive student comments about MSU music faculty than negative comments. At least one of the reasons that most students chose MSU was their private teachers. Apart from mentioning their teachers in their choice of MSU, a number of students spoke of their private teachers during the interviews. Nothing negative was said about MSU private teachers (Stephen was critical of one teacher he had had at another institution). Concerning his current teacher, one student said that all who studied with his teacher and really applied themselves gained ground vocally. This participant continued, “And you can’t say that about a lot of voice teachers. It’s very difficult to teach voice.” For two participants, what was most rewarding for them musically at MSU came from the faculty. One found her lessons the most rewarding. The benefits she participant received fiom her private teacher went beyond mere music: She stated, “You don’t just learn about how to play [her instrument] in your lessons; you learn work ethic; you learn determination and everything like that.” Two aspects of his experience were most rewarding for a different participant: lessons with his teacher and attending some of 99 the recitals of the faculty. For him, being able to listen to “them play a lot [was] really good ‘cause they’re all experts.” A couple of students made comments that cast a shadow over MSU faculty. Concerning conductors/directors, only one student found fault with a conductor’s personality. What another student had to say about faculty was disturbing. Given the nature of her comments, it is best not even to use her pseudonym: I have had to deal with a lot of politics in the College of Music as. . .there are always politics in music, but there are a lot with singers because we’re such divas, and. . .it’s just, a lot of the professors have grudges against each other, they have grudges against students, there have been times that I’ve been denied a role in the opera because of my age,. . .which isn’t like. . .an unheard of thing, it’s like, are you gonna give it to the fifth-year senior or the fi'eshman,. . .but still not what they... project as how they’re making decisions. This same student also said that all of the MSU choral directors she had experienced were “really amazing teachers,” and she called the opera director “fantastic.” Specific Musical Area Some students’ comments related specifically to a certain instrument or to singing. F lavia, who was the sole pianist in the study and had been in choir at MSU, said, “Piano is such a solo instrument, you hardly ever play with other people, so it was really fun to work in a group setting.” Since he is a percussionist, Jacob said he was always tapping. Kyle said that in percussion “sometimes you just get a few notes, so you got to do those few notes perfectly” Part of Heather and Callie’s lives as bassoonists is reedmaking. 100 Vocalist Stephen contrasted the teaching of voice with the teaching of instruments, saying he felt that teaching instruments was not as diffith as‘teaching voice because one can put the instrument before a student, but “[one] can’t show a student how to move, manipulate the muscles inside the throat”; one uses metaphors and similes, such as having an orange in one’s throat. Mechanics Music Class Credits The topic of class credits was salient for music students, fiom credit distribution to credit levels of courses. Sophie noted that only 3 of 15 credits each semester concern the quality of her singing and was irritated that the quality of her singing is not evident in her grade point. According to her, this means that she does not get scholarships, and she struggles with this. Toby explained that with a lot of classes carrying only one credit, performance majors at times must take twice the number of classes taken by “a normal person.” Dalton stated that he receives 1 credit hour for an ensemble in which he rehearses 6 hours a week. Callie mentioned that “when we take 16 or 18 credits, we’re taking 10 or 12 classes.” Heather’s impression was that most MSU students take 4 or 5 classes per semester, and she claimed that music majors ordinarily take 8 to 10 classes. Caleb stated that music performance majors “[take many] classes, sometimes more classes than the average student.” Non-music Courses Two students found fault with non music classes; one sometimes did not invest in them, and two others sought them out. Jacob said that performance majors find non- lOl music academic classes, such as integrated classes, “pointless.” He explained “We don’t really get anything out of those classes ‘cause we’re doing other stuff;. . .we just do whatever we can to pass those classes.” Due to practicing his instrument and taking music classes, Jacob has made no effort for the academic classes. He commented that he thought it “stupid” to be required to take a science class, maintaining that a science class would not pertain to his pursuits and that he would study it down the road if he so desired. Callie also expressed frustration about MSU’s required integrated courses. Giving the example of integrated geology, she declared, “I don’t need to need to know about rocks. I’m a music major.” She asserted that high school is where one becomes “well-rounded,” and the university is for pursuing one’s area of interest, but then allowed that students who did not yet have majors could benefit from all sorts of classes till they made up their minds. “But,” she concluded, “when you’re as focused as music majors are, you don’t need to do that.” Also, music majors’ choices of integrated classes, she said, are reduced because of ensemble rehearsal clashes, “and the classes are awful.” Kyle sometimes did not invest in non-music classes. Kyle explained that for classes that intrigue him he makes a strong effort, and if a class is draining his attention from music or the class does not intrigue him, he takes care to get a passing grade. Pierre and Jane sought out non-music classes. Pierre specially selected non-music classes, and Jane recently acquired an art history minor. In an email (Feburary 19, 2009) a couple of months after her interview, however, Jane stated that she planned to part with the art history minor at the semester’s end “so that it won’t interfere with my graduate school auditions next year.” Career Prospects 102 Some student comments addressed arduous musical career prospects. F lavia said that music is “not the most secure sort of field;” Jane mentioned experiencing strain “because of what the job situation is like in the music world.” Dalton stated that there was competition for jobs in music performance, and Kyle said that a musician had to be excellent in order to find employment. Kyle’s goal is to be a percussionist in an orchestra, and achieving this, he explained, “is like a one in a million chance basically. . .there’s a couple spots that open up per year.” Toby used the world elusive to describe what he would face in the marketplace: His major will not lead him to “a job sitting behind a desk at a corporation or something. . .it’s a lot more elusive, I have to go and I have to take auditions.” Place of Residence Ten participants lived on campus; six lived off campus. . Ten participants cited nearness to the College of Music as the reason or one of their reasons for living where they do. Emma, who lives in a residence hall across from the College of Music, stated that she can practice whenever she wants to, something she finds appealing, since practice rooms are not present in most residence halls. Music Student Modes The modes I identified among the study participants are emotions and music, care for others, comparisons of music to medicine/science/math, and philosophical thoughts on music. Emotions and Music All but one participant in the study used emotional language in relation to music, their majors, or musical activities, and some spoke about music and emotion. Callie said 103 that as a younger student, one fears making errors among older students, so playing in ensemble is “mostly terrifying.” F lavia found her major “exciting.” Jacob described a performance moment as “awesome.” He was playing a piece in which the percussion section were directed by the composer “to just rock out at the end, and we did; it was awesome.” Sophie was “astounded” in “seeing [her] own progress.” Heather said that getting pushed to a lower chair in ensemble could make someone “feel discouraged at [their] abilities and talents.” Dalton experienced mixed feelings about his major, using the term, “emotional rollercoaster.” Jane said that music “has its ups and downs.” Some days she “[was] so glad to be in music”; other days she said, “I just feel like all this work is going towards nothing.” (She believed reality was “somewhere in between.) Trina “had like the biggest role” in an opera, The Marriage of Figaro, and she stated that she “went out of every single rehearsal happy. . .even if it was like a long Saturday rehearsal where we had like 8 hours of rehearsal.” Stephen felt that without music, he would be “very sad.” When asked why he chose to major in music performance, Kyle said that “performing. . .is one of the things that makes me happiest in life.” Some students felt passion, love, and joy about music and musical activity. Cory at one time was double majoring in vocal performance and music education, with education as “more of a backup plan.” He took the appropriate classes his freshman year, but he said, “I never really felt into it at all, like I. . .was still more passionate about. . .vocal performance. I knew in my heart that’s really what I wanted to do.” Part of why Zinnia chose to major in music performance was that music was “ the only thing like outside of my family that I really truly loved.” She also said that “[music students] tend to like pour our heart and soul into it.” Caleb became a music performance major, in part, because it 104 gives him “joy.” One participant used the word love in reference to both ensemble rehearsals and studying with her professor. Toby also used the word love about one of his ensembles and also about being a music major. The one student who did not use emotional language about music was Pierre, but he did state that it was “very stressful performing in. . . ensembles,” and one could argue that “stressful” has an emotional hue. Some students related music and emotion. Sophie was fond of opera because an aria has one constant mood, and this appealed to her since one emotion can be transmitted “to ,9 a sea of people. Cory explained that he employs music “to. . .express the mood [he’s] in.” He also asserted that music influences his emotions, such as ferrying joy to him. Emma believed that music was an emotion. Kyle took the position that the audience can feel “exactly” what the player of the music is feeling. He gave two examples: A performer ill at ease will mean an audience ill at ease. Further, say that a piece concerns mourning. If the performer is “just pouring [his] heart out,” the performer will not have to announce that; “People will just feel the sadness of the piece coming out.” Care for Others Translucent through the comments of 10 participants was their concern for others, both related to music and unrelated. Flavia was part of an honors society that volunteers for a center for people with disabilities; Emma helped children through volunteering and frmdraising as a part of UNICEF. Sophie volunteered as well, but she did not provide details. Some other students’ care for others was in musical contexts. Caleb chose to major in music performance “because it brings me joy and also I’ve seen the joy that it brings other people. . .when I perform.” He wanted to be able to “brighten a person’s day or 105 make them feel something.” Like Caleb, Jacob and Heather were interested in listeners’ felicity. Jacob said that one attempts to “enjoy the music” while performing since the performer’s enjoyment means the audience will also enjoy the music. Heather felt that one of the most rewarding musical aspects from her time at MSU was “[perforrning] for people, you know they’re there to hear you, and you know that it’s making them happy, they’re enjoying themselves, and I really like making people happy. . .and sharing music with them.” Stephen’s most rewarding musical experience at MSU involved people across the ocean. His premier experience was a trip to China. He was one of seven students selected to go from MSU, “the highest vocal honor at MSU.” Together with seven Chinese students, the MSU students gave a concert to Stephen’s recollection of two to three thousand in the audience. The majority of the Chinese people in the area that they were visiting had not witnessed opera. Stephen felt that he was “giving a gift of music to people that have never had it before.” He commented that after his lengthy study in music, it was “very rewarding” to “give back in such a way to somebody else, to really be. . .productive with it. . .in a very wholesome way.” Jacob and Dalton wanted to add to the lives of their fellow musicians. Jacob relished offering constructive feedback to his musician fiiends. In band and orchestra, when his peers play well, if he is being sluggish, Dalton is prompted to “pick up the pace because they sound great.” He then wonders, “Can I sound like that or can I help them sound good?” Comparisons to Medicine/Science/Math One curious aspect of the data was music students’ juxtaposition of music and medicine/science/math. Some students made comparisons between the two. Dalton 106 contrasted getting a perfect score on a medical exam or any exam against “seeing the depth. . .and knowing a ridiculously quality music performance”; he also felt that time someone spent studying medicine compared to time spent practicing his instrument. Dalton also could not tell if he had more strain “than other students in, let’s say going into premed or becoming. . .a doctor,” but if he was in their shoes he thought he could determine if he or they had more to do and if he or they experienced more strain. Though Caleb said he could cite no specific instance, he was certain some people think that students not bright enough for math or medicine study music; he disputed this viewpoint saying many music students are “very intelligent” and offered himself as an example. Immediately following, Caleb stated that he selected a music major because he was “passionate. . . just as other people choose biophysics because they’re passionate about it.” It was interesting that of all options for comparison, he chose what many would consider a difficult major, biophysics. Sophie elevated her major of music performance above premed. She asserted that her major was copious work, adding that at times she desired “an easy major like premed or something like that.” Heather believed that non-music students attending concerts do not observe music majors doing math and chemistry problems like science majors, leading them to not “see music as real work.” F lavia said that, since her major is fine arts, students believe “it’s not as hard as like premed or, I guess premed’s not a major, but that arena of academia.” Even if one attributes the premed comparison to the students and not to Flavia, a comparison to music was made, so I believe the premed reference merits inclusion here. Finally, F lavia stated that her classical music pursuit is “like studying science and studying art all at once.” Such a number of comparisons between music and 107 medicine/science/math makes one wonder if some study participants considered the two areas to be equivalent to some degree. Caleb desired status for music on par with medicine and science. He said that “to a degree” all music programs at MSU “that people are passionate about. . .have applications that. ..are important. . .just as...important as. ..medical fiends and scientific fields.” He also desired that non-music students, faculty, and administrators at MSU “ranked. . .our work. . .as important as. . . science programs or math programs.” Pierre initially isolated science and math study fiom music but then narrowed the gap: Pierre felt that physics, science, and math majors he knew were involved in “stuff that I can’t even begin to comprehend,” but then he stated, “music’s hard in its own way.” Reflections on Music Some participants shared philosophical thoughts on music. Their comments made music seem grand - with great value, scope, breadth and force. Sophie believed that art and music are facets of “a great civilization.” This struck me as showing music’s value. On his trip to China, Caleb was glad to see that “[music] transcends cultural boundaries; there are people in every culture [who]. . .love and appreciate music.” That music was not “American excess” made him feel fulfilled. Caleb’s words showed music’s scope. Flavia said that “music majors devote their whole life to. . .usually classical music” or music with “classical foundations.” She explained her dedication, saying that pop music is not as “interesting and is “simplified.” The music of her and her colleagues is “real music;. . .it’s significant, and it’s intellectual.” In addition, “It’s like studying science and studying art all at once, and it’s really complex.” She wished that others grasped music’s significance. Flavia’s comments showed the breadth of classical music. 108 Emma and Zinnia spoke of music’s role in relationships between people. Emma felt that music aids in pulling “people in [a] conflict together.” She also shared her view later in the interview that “classical music, especially, conveys emotions and helps connect people with each [other].” For Zinnia, in the College of Music: Music is what forms. . .our close bonds with each other. . .between faculty, between other students. . .between. . .the administrators. . .and the employees... like that’s what’s absent in other schools, that we have, is music and playing. . . with someone, playing for someone, it just. . .creates this new tie that. . .like I said is absent in other. . .Colleges, so I think that. . .it shows the power of music and. . . what music is capable of that not everybody understands. So fiorn Emma’s and Zinnia’s points of view, music joins people. Zinnia’s comments show her belief that music’s power and capabilities are evident through its creation of bonds. My reflection on this is that music has the force to weld people together. To summarize, students’ philosophical comments on music mentioned above displayed the grandness of music — its value, scope, breadth, and force. Summary From this examination of music student modes, I shift to the last category within this section on music students’ perceptions of their experiences: that which is past the College of Music’s reach, specifically, the family of origin and non-music activities. Beyond the College of Music Family of Origin Five students’ comments show their families’ relation/nonrelation to their musical lives, and some disconnect was evident in most of the comments, maybe even in all. The 109 comment in question is Zinnia’s. Zinnia declared, “I think my family supports me whereas like music leads me. . .to be where I am, to do what I am doing.” One can surmise that in this comment her family seems to stand apart. Trina’s parents, who were not musicians, “don’t quite understand why I would want something so unstable as music,” and since they can not give her guidance as they could if her major were “normal,” they “feel at a loss.” When she informed them of her desire to go into opera and audition at the School of Music, they were surprised that this career option was available. Kyle stated: I didn’t really know what I was getting into being a music major ‘cause no one in my family has ever played an instrument, so I kinda just came in and l auditioned and I actually made it into wind symphony. The picture emerges here of a young man who faced the entry into his new world alone. Jane’s parents also were outside of her experience. At one point in the interviews, Jane wished that people could “know that music isn’t as romantic a discipline as everyone thinks it is.” She continued, “I have that same problem with even my parents.” Her presentation of her parents’ perspective was indeed rather dreamy: “Oh, don’t you just feel the music coming up inside of you and then play such wonderful, beautiful.” Jane’s unsentimental reply was “No, I practice.” But family member reaction was even worse for Caleb. When hearing Caleb describe his musical demands, Caleb’s sister, a veterinary student, will “be like. . .that’s not big deal.” Non-music Activities Exactly what constitutes a non-music activity is debatable. I am choosing not to include such activities students participated in as being in the MSU Honors College, 110 socializing with fiiends or working. Some students who did not mention socializing or working may have not considered that an activity, so my results may fail to be accurate if I included these items. There were a number of outside activities a number of students did. Seven students stated that they participate in physical activities such as running, basketball, karate and water polo. Four participants volunteered. Some other interesting activities included Bible study, student alumni foundation, Honors College recruitment team, visual art and writing. Excluding Honors College, friends, and working, a quarter of the participants had no non-music activities. Time demands affected some students: Time pressures forced Emma out of participation in dance. Jane felt that having non-music activities was “almost impossible for a performance major just because of the time commitment to practicing and to our school.” Music and homework have left little spare time for Sophie. Zinnia commented, “Music and work take up most of my life.” Trina stated, “I don’t really have time for extracurriculars because I’m paying for my own school so I actually have three part time jobs.” Summary In summary, I discussed music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors. I delineated students’ beginnings as performance majors, the psychological experience, musical involvement, mechanics, music student modes, family of origin, and non-music activities. In the next chapter, I present student metaphors and analyze them. 111 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS: METAPHOR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS In this second chapter of findings, I present the metaphors/similes that participants created in the interviews. I analyze the metaphors through fashioning clusters and factors, and I address four of Foss’s metaphor questions relative to the clusters and some of the metaphors. In this chapter, I refer to all comparisons created by participants as metaphors, regardless of whether students spoke in similes or metaphors. Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major: Presentation and Cluster Analysis I begin by presenting the metaphors that students created in response to one question in the interviews. In the interviews, I asked the students to create a metaphor or simile to describe what it is like to be a music performance major, requesting that they elaborate after sharing the metaphor and simile. At this point, in relaying the students’ creations, I am not attempting to cluster responses, but merely to present them. I share the students’ creations in alphabetical order of their pseudonyms. I then analyze the metaphors utilizing clustering. The Metaphors Caleb, Vocalist Majoring in music performance, for Caleb, “is like. . .the old. . .myth of Sisyphus who was. . .cursed by the gods to continually roll a bolder up a hill for eternity.” Locating the significance in his pursuit of music means endless wrestling for him. In the end, though, he is able to achieve this. Caleb feels that perhaps he ought to be devoting himself to world hunger and curing diseases instead of delighting in creating lovely 112 music, a pursuit that strikes him as “almost silly.” He does assert, however, that his musical activities fulfill him and others. Callie, Bassoonist Callie reported that, when his performance majors are feeling anxious, her professor says the following: “Being a performance major is like being an Olympic athlete.” Performance majors, she said, “train” like Olympic athletes. For performance majors, one prepares each day, constantly, and the preparation is “incredibly intense.” Olympic athletes who prepare properly receive gold medals, and performance majors who prepare in the right way get jobs. C ory, Vocalist Cory’s metaphor is a chameleon. There are a number of various components required in performance majors’ activities, particularly since the environment is a university, not a conservatory. For vocalists, having to take lessons and choir concurrently may be challenging since quite a span exists between one’s manner of singing in choir and soloistically. One must “learn how to blend in. . .choir.” Five minutes after a choir rehearsal, a student may be rendering a solo aria. Vocalists also must learn to sing in English, French, German, and Italian, and learn music theory, ear training, and music history. “I think,” said Cory, “we really have to be versatile and have a lot of strength.” Dalton, Tuba Player From Dalton’s perspective, a music performance major who applies himself toward a career is like a particular species of panda. First, pandas are an endangered species. Second, the comparison is to a particular species of panda - “a special species that 113 require[s] a special. . .diet and such.” Peers and other pandas do not apprehend the diet of music performance major, a diet in which the majors “need to adapt their schedules and prepare professionally.” The peers and other pandas lack an appreciation of time required and the focus expended in the cultivation and readying of music, making the music performance majors a special species of panda. Performance majors are also a special species of panda if lack of funding means that smaller orchestras have to disband. If these orchestras fold, Dalton may not get an orchestra] job. Since not many non-music performance majors “really understand/can relate,” music performance majors are an endangered species. The endangered pandas “relate and understand each other,” but among the regular pandas, they stand apart. Emma, Flutist Emma’s simile is “climbing up a mountain.” One spends so much time climbing toward the apex, and one’s desire is to get there and take in the lovely scene. Emma equates the lovely scene with “being out on stage and being able to. . .scream out to everyone like how [I] feel, that’s like every time I go up on stage, I. . .always think of it as a communication.” Emma has never climbed a mountain but she imagines that there are numerous obstructions and that the climber needs numerous competencies. She commented, “This journey has definitely been very hard for me, just learning to know my instrument more so that I can portray what I. . .really want,. . .but I know when I get there it’s gonna be amazing.” Flavia, Pianist For F lavia, the numerous varied aspects of a music performance major’s education mean that being a music student compares to “a gem or stone with every facet.” Two 114 classes require reading and tests; another facet is improving “more kinesthetically” and on your own while practicing; another facet is working together with other musicians. Flavia used the word “versatile” to described being a music student. Heather, Bassoonist In music, people will notice an error, said Heather, and this puts “pressure” on musicians at times. Artists using a brush can disguise their errors; however, with music, “people can hear your mistakes.” Therefore, being a “music performance major is kind of like being a dog that’s in a. . .yard, and there’s an invisible fence, and every time he tries to get out of that fence [he] gets zapped.” A musician continually fears erring, similar to the dog’s awareness that erring will result in a shock. This appears “cruel,” but Heather feels for musicians, “it’s not like. . .that,. . .you just feel like. . .you’re striving for... perfection.” Jacob, Percussionist Being a music major compares to being an animal whose days are alike, with some variation. Perhaps, he said, the animal is an ant; ants have repetitive days. Jacob’s days are alike, but some facets are distinctive: “practicing different music, different things, different spots, different rehearsals. . .everything changes, but it’s the same type of thing every day.” Jane, Clarinetist According to Jane, being a music performance major is similar to being married.30 One loves his spouse and is glad to be married but much of the time, being married is not 36Jane first offered the marriage simile prior to the point in the interview at which the metaphor/simile questions were asked 115 pleasant. Jane said that being a music performance major is “a lot of work, and you really have to commit to it.” Regarding the performance major, Jane said, “The positives outweigh the negatives by far, but. . .you have to work for it, and not a day goes by that you don’t earn it.” She “wouldn’t trade it for anything.” Kyle, Percussionist Meaning this in “the most positive of terms,” Kyle said that “being a music major is like being a worker bee in which you work and work and work at the same goal your entire life and then pretty much can do that until you die.” It is pleasing to Kyle that people in their 803 continue to perform and they continue to be esteemed worldwide. People enjoy attending their performances and benefiting from their knowledge. Kyle is looking forward to being a musician for his whole life. After securing a place in an orchestra, he will play in the orchestra and perform until he makes the decision to cease playing, although he said, “there never really is any stopping doing music.” One retires from orchestra, “but after I retire from an orchestra, I know I’ll never even stop picking up my instrument, I’ll just still be so interested in doing it.” Pierre, C larinetist Being a music performance major is like mowing a lawn to Pierre. In mowing a lawn, a person makes a circle “doing the same thing over and over again for a long time.” In music, there is “repetition.” One does much practicing, memorizes music and plays scales, “playing the same thing over and over again.” Sophie, Vocalist Sophie said that “being a music major is like hitting your head against multiple layers of a wall. Very often you will break through the wall but only to find another wall 116 in front of you, that’s just ‘cause it’s a very fi'ustrating major.” For Sophie, one never can have made enough progress to claim that one is “a good musician.” Any improvement vocally for her is accompanied by her diagnosis of “another problem that’s just as dire and needs to be dealt with immediately.” One does improve, but further improvement can be made “almost seemingly endlessly, and so sometimes, it gets a little much.” Stephen, Vocalist Stephen said, “I am a warrior fighting an endless battle against myself and my enemies around me.” As a singer, Stephen is his own “worst enemy.” A tape plays in his head saying, “You can’t do this; you’re going to fail;. . .you should be afiaid of this; you should back away.” In trying to push away that tape, Stephen is in a perpetual struggle with himself. In addition to this, Stephen contends with “distractions” such as money, stress, and a desire to socialize. Finally, the enemies Stephen spoke of in his metaphor are “the world of music performance outside of school,” since “people will do anything to get ahead over you.” Stephen said he did not want to label his “fellow colleagues” “necessarily” as his enemies. He spoke about his peers at the College of Music disparaging other students to professors, in a few instances, successfully. Toby, F lutist ' Toby likened being a music major on to the condition of working full time and being a student carrying a complete load of credits, with a family to sustain. His explanation was that the music majors take classes like other people with regular homework levels, but beyond that music majors “have. . .rehearsals and things that don’t count for credit that aren’t a part of our coursework that we still are required to do in order to really grow 117 as a performance major.” The additional aspects compare to working full time in addition to a regular load of classes. Trina, Vocalist Trina stated, “At least in the beginning being. . .a voice performance major is kind of like having. . .ADD a little bit.” First, one must be a student but also perform; moreover, students are often supposed to interact with patrons and engage in publicity. Frequently, students can not decide where their concentration should be. “Multitasking” is a skill that is necessary. One spends a half hour at one task, a half hour on something else as opposed to 2 hours, for example, in a science class. This way of life works for people who have ADD. Trina concluded by saying, “The lifestyle that you’re expected to have as a music major is a little bit like having ADD.” Zinnia, Clarinetist To Zinnia, music performance majors are like bees. Like bees that continually strive for advancement and development, Zinnia believes that the students in the College of Music “work as a community to better [themselves] and better [their] community” and that the music students continually try to enhance the College of Music. Metaphor Anaylsis: Clusters Student metaphors conceming being a music performance major were sorted, utilizing clustering. I designated a factor for each cluster of metaphors. I created clusters and factors (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 249, 256-257) of metaphors offered by students regarding being a music performance majors. I sorted the metaphors by vehicle (Foss, 1996, p. 363). I created five clusters, detailed below, for participants’ metaphors 118 regarding being a music performance major. Two students’ metaphors are featured in two different clusters. The Clusters Cluster One: Psychological Struggle. Five metaphors are in the first cluster. The factor for this cluster is psychological struggle. Within this cluster are two subsections. In the first subsection is one metaphor, and its subfactor is existential struggle. The sole metaphor in the first subsection is Caleb’s comparison of being a music performance major to the myth of Sisyphus who had to, according to Caleb, “roll a holder up a hill for eternity.” Caleb explained, “I struggle with the idea that while I’m. . .enjoying myself making beautiful music, I’m not physically out there. . .trying to cure diseases and. . .feed hungry people and. . .things that will help the world.” For him, “it’s a continual struggle to. . .try to find meaning in what I do, but eventually I do justify that what I do matters.” So Caleb experiences a psychological struggle (even using the very word struggle) and more specifically, an existential struggle. The second subfactor in the factor of psychological struggle is struggle of endurance. The four metaphors for being music performance majors in this area belong to Jane, Sophie, Stephen, and Toby. Jane’s metaphor was being married. In her comments regarding performance, she said, “The positives outweigh the negatives by far, but. . .you have to work for it, and not a day goes by that you don’t earn it.” A struggle of endurance is evident here. Sophie’s metaphor was “hitting your head against multiple layers of a wall.” Her major is “fi'ustrating.” She said that after solving one vocal issue, she discovers another serious issue that cannot wait. One improves, “but there’s always 119 places to go. . .almost seemingly endlessly and so sometimes, it gets a little much.” A struggle of endurance is evident here. Stephen’s metaphor was “a warrior fighting an endless battle against myself and my enemies around me.” Stephen’s greatest enemy is himself; he must repeatedly contend with the voice in his mind saying he is incapable and “should be afiaid.” He also fights “distractions” such as money and stress. One kind of distraction he has is “social.” He wrestles “against the temptation to want to go out and do things and have fun,” and his “weapons” are to be assiduous and “to persevere.” With his “endless battle,” Stephen clearly is in a struggle of endurance. Finally, Toby’s metaphor was having a full credit load as a student, working full-time, and supporting a family — which I think can be termed an overloaded student. Though Toby does not describe a struggle, having classes like other students as well as rehearsals and extra activities probably involves some strain. In summary, five metaphors comprise the cluster for which the factor is psychological struggle. The cluster is divided into two subsections, with subfactors of existential struggle and struggle of endurance. The five metaphors in the full cluster are the mythological story of Sisyphus, being married, hitting one’s head, fighting warrior, and overloaded student. Cluster T wo: Struggle for Musical Success. The second cluster contains three metaphors. Its factor is struggle for musical success. The first metaphor in this cluster is from Emma, “climbing a mountain.” At the top of the mountain, in performing, one can share with others how one feels. Emma thinks that on the way up the mountain, there are many obstructions. On this “journey” of hers, it’s been very difficult for her “learning to know [her] instrument more so that [she] 120 can portray what [she]. . .really want[s].” She thinks it will be wondrous when she accomplishes this. Clearly, Emma’s struggle is for musical success. The second metaphor in the cluster, fiom Heather, is being a dog in a yard with an invisible fence. The dog is aware that stepping over the line means a sting. A music performance major fears mistakes and is “striving for perfection.” This striving for perfection matches the factor, struggle for musical success. Finally, Callie’s metaphor of an Olympic athlete completes the cluster. Actually, the metaphor is not original with Callie. She said her professor mentions it often “whenever his performance majors get really stressed out and can’t 9’ handle life anymore. Performance majors’ conditioning is constant and very “intense.” Olympic athletes who “train correctly” receive a gold medal, and performance majors who do the same, “win a job.” This end result of a musical job together with “intense” conditioning, coupled with the exigency of stress that prompts the professor’s offering of the metaphor merits the metaphor’s inclusion in the cluster struggle for musical success. In summary, the second cluster is comprised of three metaphors — mountain climb, dog in yard with invisible fence, and Olympic athlete, and the factor is struggle for musical success. Cluster Three: Rerun/echo The third cluster is comprised of three metaphors, and its factor is rerun, or to use a musical term, echo. Jacob’s metaphor is being an animal, perhaps an ant, whose days are similar, with some variation. Jacob’s days are alike, but with some variation: “practicing different music, different things, different spots, different rehearsals. . .everything changes, but it’s the same type of thing every day.” With the duplication of his days, Jacob’s metaphor falls in the factor echo. The second metaphor in this cluster is Pierre’s 121 lawn mowing. In mowing a lawn, one circles “doing the same thing over and over again for a long time”. Music is characterized by “repetition.” One practices, memorizes much music and play scales, “playing the same thing over and over again.” Clearly, the redundancy here matches the factor echo. Finally, Kyle’s metaphor belongs in this cluster. Kyle said that “being a music major is like being a worker bee in which you work and work and work at the same goal your entire life and then pretty much can do that until you die.” Kyle eagerly anticipates a lifetime of music. He said, “There never really is any stopping doing music.” Never-ending music fits well with a factor entitled echo. In conclusion, three metaphors make up the third cluster with a factor called echo. The metaphors are ants, mowing lawns, and worker bees. Cluster Four: Variety. Whereas the previous cluster was about that which recurred, this cluster’s factor is variety. The cluster holds three metaphors. The first is Cory’s chameleon. Being a music performance major is like being a chameleon since the students have many varied tasks. Cory spoke of what is required of vocalists and reflected, “I think we really have to be versatile and have a lot of strength.” The second metaphor in this cluster is Flavia’s. For Flavia, due to the plentifirl varied aspects of a music performance major’s education, being a music performance major is similar to “a gem or stone with every facet.” Like Cory, Flavia used the word “versatile.” Clearly Cory’s and Flavia’s metaphors belong in this cluster with the factor of variety. A third metaphor in this cluster is Trina’s. Trina said that “at least in the beginning being. . .a voice performance major is kind of like having. . .ADD a little bit.” Students must be both students and performers and frequently must interact with patrons and participate in publicity. Often students can not decide 122 where to put their “focus.” A necessary skill is “multitasking.” One spends half an hour at one task, a half an hour on something else. I would assert that the constant switching makes one’s experience more varied. This metaphor then fits into the cluster with the factor of variety. Cluster Five: Experiencing Music in Relation to Others. Cluster five is the final cluster of metaphors concerning being a music performance major. This cluster contains four metaphors, and the factor is experiencing music in relation to others, or for short, the relationship factor. The first metaphor, Zinnia’ s, is that performance majors are like bees. Similar to bees that continually endeavor to “improve and grow,” Zinnia said that the students in the College of Music “work as a community to better ourselves and better our community” and “we’re always looking on improving the College of Music.” Zinnia thinks collectively here. Music students “work as a community,” and they seek to see the community advance. The orientation of a music student is not inward. One is joined with others and devoted to the larger group’s success. A second metaphor in the cluster is Heather’s. Others notice one’s musical errors, sometimes putting “pressure” on musicians. With music, “people can hear your mistakes.” Therefore, “being a music performance major is kind of like being a dog that’s in a. . .yard, and there’s an invisible fence, and every time he tries to get out of that fence [he] gets zapped.” A musician continually fears errors, similar to the dog’s awareness that erring will result in a shock. Heather’s statements point to the presence of others in catching one’s musical errors and stressing the performer. One’s musical experience if affected by others. Thus, this metaphor belongs in the cluster with the relationship factor. 123 The third metaphor in the relationship factor is Stephen’s: “I am a warrior fighting an endless battle against myself and my enemies around me.” In the musical sphere outside of MSU, Stephen stated that “people will do anything to get ahead over you.” They are his enemies. (Also, he is his own “worst enemy.”) He did not want to label his “fellow colleagues” as “necessarily” his enemies, but he did mention that students at the College of Music have endeavored to discredit their peers to professors, and there have been times when they succeeded. Stephen also spoke of distractions as enemies. One kind of distraction is “social.” He faces a tough fight “against the temptation to want to go out and do things and have fim.” His “weapons” are assiduity and persistence. Stephen believes that “[students] who go out more often are less successful in the music school.” With a view to other musicians as unscrupulous competitors or impediments, Stephen’s reflections are well suited for this cluster with the relationship factor. The last metaphor in the cluster marked with the relationship factor is Dalton’s. Dalton’s metaphor grounds his experience in relation to those outside his major. For Dalton, a music performance major who applies himself toward a career is like a particular species of panda. First, pandas are an endangered species. Second, the comparison is to a specific species of panda, “a special species that require[s] a special. . .diet and such.” Non-music performance peers are not familiar with music performance majors’ diet, a diet in which the majors “need to adapt their schedules and prepare professionally.” The non-music performance peers do not have an appreciation of time required and the focus expended in the cultivation and readying of music, making the music performance majors a special species of panda. Since hardly any non-music performance majors “really understand/can relate,” performance majors are an 124 endangered species. The endangered pandas “relate and understand each other” but among the regular pandas, “it’s just, you’re different.” In his description, Dalton focuses on the lack of comprehension of performance majors’ activities by those outside the major. Because Dalton focuses on the experience of music in relation to others his metaphor belongs in the relationship cluster. In summary, the metaphors in the relationship cluster are bees, dog in a yard with invisible fence, warrior, and certain species of panda. Summary. I created five clusters for the metaphors concerning being a music performance majors, and I constructed five factors: psychological struggle, struggle for musical success, rerun/echo, variety, and experiencing music in relation to others. Metaphors for Performing: Presentation and Cluster Analysis Next I present the metaphors that students created describing what it is like to perform. First I present student responses. Then I then analyze the metaphors utilizing clustering. The Metaphors Caleb, Vocalist Caleb believed that at times performing is similar to knitting a blanket or quilt or weaving. He made this comparison “because some of the beauty comes in. . .the precision that you have to achieve.” In some instances, the handiwork does not look as “aesthetically pleasing” if one makes a mistake. The colors and the shapes, however, contribute to the artistry, “so even if it’s not a perfect weave or it’s not the same weave every time, it’s still a work of art in and of itself.” Caleb strives for accuracy musically 125 “and [tries] to make it at least to a degree mathematical. . .because it requires that.” Nonetheless, if his performance “lacks certain form or structure, it’s still. . .beautifirl as it is.” Callie, Bassoonist When everyone in the ensemble plays well and concentrates on the performance, Callie finds performance is “like a time warp.” Time is suspended. The performer loses touch with his/her location and the activity taking place; he/she simply plays. At the end of the performance, the performer once again is in “reality.” He/she comprehends his performance. A successful performance compares to “an out of body experience.” Cory, Vocalist One who performs “has a second identity” since one must shed his own persona in performance. Cory gave the example of his enactment of Gaston, from Beauty and the Beast. He explained that the audience wants to see Gaston; they do not want to watch him enact Gaston. A performer must overcome his “inhibitions” and be immersed into either a musical character “or the music that [one is] trying to express and. . .let [oneself] become that new identity.” Dalton, Tuba Player A performer “[paints] a picture for people’s minds.” He or she can fashion music in any way. A performer is transformed under the gaze of the audience. At issue is the manner in which, as a performer, “you. . . portray yourself in your music.” In performance, you decide “who you want to be or what values you choose to keep in. . .hide or show.” In performance, “you can make yourself to be whatever you want to be.” One can be, for example, a superstar, fool, comedian, or entertainer. 126 Emma, F lutist For Emma, performing is “like letting out some kind of big emotion, either like crying or laughing or something, something that you can’t keep in anymore.” Emma is anxious prior to performing and anxious to get the performance started. “Going out on stage,” she said, “you just let everything go.” “Sometimes,” she said, “you just don’t even think about it; you just do it, and alterwards you feel better.” Flavia, Pianist For Flavia, performing is like a race. In some cases, performing is “mentally difficult.” There is a “psychological” aspect to it, and one must “endure through it.” In performance one must surmount “a mind challenge,” due to all the concentration, whereas in a race, one must surmount “a physical challenge.” Heather, Bassoonist According to Heather, “Performing is like an energy drink.” When a player through performance creates felicity for himself/herself and for others, he or she experiences “an adrenaline rush.” The rush continues for the duration of the night and the performer is thrilled regarding the concert, aware that people were delighted. Jacob, Percussionist Performing on the marimba, Jacob said, can be compared to “being two different people.” Simultaneously, one sings/thinks and one plays. One’s mind is at work, and so are one’s muscles. “You have to kind of sing it along with yourself and then imagine yourself hitting the notes before you actually hit them so. . .you don’t miss. . .but your muscles have to be used to doing it.” A performer should use his mind in addition to letting his muscles carry the music, because then “ [the] head knows where to go next” in 127 the event that the muscles fail. The muscles play the music but the mind is “tweaking it,” directing emphases and directing the muscles to “do different things.” Jane, Clarinetist From Jane’s vantage, “performing is a lot like doing yoga because. . .it’s like the ultimate exercise in mindfulness.” A performer must combat anxiety and “distractions” and “[must] find the music.” As soon as the performer is “in it, it’s like you’re wearing blinders or something. . .all the distractions go away” and one is “with the music” and “it’s all focused.” In yoga, there is “a really intense focus and a mindfulness.” One’s practicing is where these entities originate, and they are present in one’s performance. Jane said, “If you can really focus in your practice room by yourself, then you can do it anywhere, no matter what the situation.” ' Kyle, Percussionist Kyle said, “To perform is like walking through the creepiest house that you’ve ever been to that you suspect is haunted.” With performance, the audience is similar to the dark walls of a haunted house “that. . .affect your psyche.” In the case that a performer does quite poorly and obtains unaffirming applause from the audience, this corresponds to a “scary” event in the haunted house. On the other hand, a successful performance with “a triumphant moment” is similar to coming out alive from the haunted house. Pierre, Clarinetist For Pierre, cooking relates to performing. Consider someone cooking some food for a group of people. The people eat it; “they kind of take it in.” This is similar to people hearing music and determining the quality of the performance and drawing a conclusion about the performer from the performance. 128 Sophie, Vocalist Sophie said that “performing is like dancing on a cloud of energy; it’s a lot better.” She continued, “It’s amazing to feel so in your own element when you’re on stage.” Stephen, Vocalist Stephen said, “Performing for a live audience is like jumping out of a plane with a parachute, pretty sure it’s going to open, but there’s a possibility that it won’t.” Stephen considers that the parachute has opened if during the song not many significant errors occur. Singing and descending are “mostly exciting” but also “terrifying.” One tends to feels a thrill as one makes his descent, and, a singer feels a thrill singing for a live audience, “getting the energy from the audience, giving it back, that’s great,. . .it’s really exhilarating.” Toby, F lutist A couple of hours after Toby has performed, he feels as though he is “watching [his] very first fireworks.” Toby experiences a “big explosion of energy, and it’s. . .very intense, and it’s a very good feeling.” Trina, Vocalist From Trina’s point of view, parallels exist between a wedding and performing as a soloist. Brides and solo performers are “the center of attention.” Much is required for a wedding to be a success. Examples include flowers and a wedding dress. Much is also required for a soloist with a main role in an opera. Such a soloist must have the following: language knowledge, technical knowledge, musical knowledge (for the piece to be sung), and acting knowledge, life knowledge, and dancing adeptness, if dancing is required. People will notice if the singer fails in one of these areas. For example, one 129 might say, “Her voice was really pretty, but she looks so awkward on stage.” Trina said that “by now I’m so used to performing that I have like a checklist of things that I know to do before I perform.” In this way, Trina acts like a wedding planner, “like I know what needs to happen and then I“ go and do it.” Younger performers, commented Trina, do not know all “that they need yet.” Zinnia, Clarinetist When a person is waiting in line to go on a rollercoaster, one’s impression is that what will unfold is unknown and this “creates this feeling of uncertainty and excitement.” Zinnia experiences this before she performs. During the performance, she experiences a “complete whirlwind.” This is comparable to the rollercoaster ride. On the ride, one feels “excitement” and one’s sense is that riding the rollercoaster is the only thing that matters. The rollercoaster jaunt is the only thing firing in one’s brain,and in performing, the sole cognition is the piece being played. Post performance is “love-hate” for a performer. At the conclusion of the performance, the performer no longer must feel anxious; when the rollercoaster ride has concluded, there is no further need to be anxious about the ride. The rollercoaster rider is glad to have experienced the thrill, and he or she desires to “do it again; you always wanna do it again.” Metaphor Anaylsis: Clusters I created six clusters for participants’ metaphors for performing. Two students’ metaphors are featured in two different clusters. (Trina created two metaphors both concerning weddings; one metaphor appears in the second cluster; the other is in the fourth cluster.) 130 The Clusters Cluster One: Excitement. Five metaphors form this cluster. The factor for the cluster is excitement. Stephen’s is the first metaphor in the set. According to Stephen, “Performing for a live audience is like jumping out of a plane with a parachute, pretty sure it’s going to open, but there’s a possibility that it won’t.” The downward trip for the parachutist is “mostly exciting” but also “terrifying,” and this is the singer’s experience also. A singer tends to feels a thrill singing for a live audience, “getting the energy from the audience, giving it back, that’s great,. . .it’s really exhilarating.” With Stephen’s descriptors “exciting” and “exhilarating,” his metaphor belongs in the excitement cluster. The second metaphor in the cluster is Heather’s, an energy drink. When a player through performance makes himself and others glad, he or she receives “an adrenaline rush.” The rush extends throughout the night and the performer is “really excited” regarding the concert and is aware that people were delighted. Like Stephen, Heather used the word “excitement.” The adrenaline rush connotes excitement as well. The metaphor obviously belongs in the cluster. Third in the cluster is Sophie’s metaphor. For Sophie, performing supersedes “dancing on a cloud of energy.” She stated, “It’s amazing to feel so in your own element when you’re on stage.” Movement and energy fiom the metaphor suggest something electric, something exciting, befitting the excitement cluster. The fourth metaphor in the cluster is Zinnia’s rollercoaster experience. While waiting for a performance, Zinnia’s perceives “uncertainty and excitement,” which is what one experiences prior to going on a rollercoaster. Zinnia’s performance experience is a “complete whirlwind, “ like a rollercoaster ride. The roller coaster ride gives one 131 “excitement,” and at the ride’s cessation, the rider is glad to have experienced the thrill. Clearly, this metaphor should be in the excitement cluster. Finally, Toby’s metaphor rounds out the group. A couple of hours after performing, it’s as if Toby is having his inaugural experience of fireworks. Toby experiences a “big explosion of energy, and it’s. . .very intense, and it’s a very good feeling.” With the energy release here and the positive feeling, it is clear that excitement is at hand. This fifth metaphor is the last in the excitement cluster. In summary, the five metaphors in the cluster with the factor excitement are parachute jump, energy drink, cloud dance, rollercoaster ride, and first- time fireworks. Cluster Two: Audience Evaluation Three metaphors comprise the factor of audience evaluation for the second cluster. Pierre compared cooking to performing. Someone cooks for a group of people, and the people eat the food. This is similar to people hearing and assessing the quality of a musical performance and forming an opinion about the performer fi'om the performance. The element of audience assessment here places this metaphor in the audience evaluation cluster. Kyle’s metaphor is the next in this cluster. Kyle equated performing with going through a house one thinks might be haunted. For him, in performance, the audience is similar to the dark walls of a haunted house “that. . .affect your psyche.” A really poor showing by a performer with unappreciative applause from the audience corresponds to a “scary” event in the haunted house. Kyle’s reference to the unaffirming audience applause places this metaphor into the audience evaluation cluster. The final metaphor in this cluster is Trina’s comparison between a wedding and performing as a soloist. Much is required for a wedding’s success, and for a soloist with a 132 main role in an opera: language, technical, acting, and life knowledge, musical knowledge of the piece, and adeptness if dancing are required. Ifa failure in one of these areas occurs, an observer of the performance will remark, “‘Oh, her voice is really pretty, but her language is terrible,’ or ‘Her voice was really pretty, but she looks so awkward on stage.”’ Here again, audience evaluation is evident in the participants’ description. Three metaphors, then, comprise the audience evaluation cluster — cooking, house one thinks may be haunted, and wedding. Cluster Three: Transformation. Three metaphors form the third cluster with a factor of transformation. In the first two metaphors, the change is from one thing into another. In the third, there is a change within a being - a release of something fi'om within that being. I begin with the first two metaphors, the two more wholly transformational. The first metaphor is Cory’s, “a second identity.” According to Cory, one must relinquish who he is in a performance Audiences do not, for example, want to see Cory as Gaston from Beauty and the Beast; on the contrary, it is Gaston whom they want to watch. Concerning a performer, Cory said that it is necessary to “give yourself over to the character that you’re portraying or the music that you’re trying to express and. . .really just. . .let yourself become that new identity.” Undeniably, this metaphor delineates transformation. The second metaphor is Dalton’s. Dalton believed that performance compares to “painting a picture for people’s minds, that. . .you could do anything with any piece of music. . .you change in. . . people’s eyes when the watch you.” In performing, “you can make yourself to be whatever you want to be.” Dalton said that in performing, one can be a superstar, comedian, fool, or entertainer. Clearly, transformation is the core of this metaphor. 133 The final metaphor in the cluster is not as wholly transformational as the first two. In it, the change is not complete, but only partial and occurs through a release. The metaphor here is Emma’s. Performing for Emma compares to “letting out some kind of big emotion, either like crying or laughing, or something, something that you can’t keep in anymore.” Emma said, “Going out on stage, you just let everything go.” Once the performance has ended, “you feel better.” The process here is not a complete transformation, but Emma releases something burning inside her, so she changes somewhat during the performance. In summary, three metaphors - second identity, artist, and emotional release — comprise the cluster crowned by the factor, transformation. Cluster Four: Mechanics. This cluster’s factor is mechanics. In the metaphors in this cluster, participants’ descriptions involve the mechanics of musicmaking. Jacob said that performing on the marimba can be compared to “being two different people.” Concurrently, one sings/thinks and plays. The mind is at work as well as the muscles. Jacob explained, “You have to kind of sing it along with yourself and then imagine yourself hitting the notes before you actually hit them so. . .you don’t miss. . .but your muscles have to be used to doing it.” The mind offers direction if the muscles fail, so there is a need for the mind component. The muscles play the music but the mind is “tweaking it, “ directing emphases and directing sundry activities of the muscles. This is clearly a description of the mechanics of performing. Next in the mechanics cluster is Caleb’s metaphor. According to Caleb, performing is at times similar to knitting a blanket or quilt or weaving. This is so “because some of the beauty comes in. . .the precision that you have to achieve.” In some instances 134 mistakes mean that “[the handiwork is] not as aesthetically pleasing.” The colors and the shapes, however, are a factor in the artistry, “so even if it’s not a perfect weave or it’s not the same weave every time, it’s still a work of art in and of itself.” Caleb’s aim is to be accurate musically and “to make it at least to a degree mathematical. . .because it requires that.” Nevertheless, the performance is “still beautiful” even without “certain form or structure.” The mechanical components here are Caleb’s mention of precision in performance and mathematical performing (how he performs) as well as consideration of musical form’s place in a successful performance (component of performance). The final metaphor in the mechanical cluster is Trina’s metaphor of performing as a wedding planner. So accustomed to performing has Trina become that she has a roster of what she must accomplish prior to performing. In this way, Trina acts like a wedding planner; First aware of what ought to transpire, she next executes. With Trina’s focus on procedure, this metaphor fits in the mechanics cluster. In summary, three metaphors build the mechanics cluster — being two people, knitting/weaving, and wedding planner. Cluster Five: Lack of A wareness I have placed two metaphors in the fifth cluster, with a factor entitled lack of awareness. The first metaphor is Callie’s. With excellent performers who are intently concentrating, performing is “like a time warp.” Callie explained, “Time stops for awhile, and you don’t really know where you are and what’s going on. . .and then when it’s all over you come back to reality and realize what you just did.” She concluded by comparing an outstanding performance to close to “an out of body experience.” Callie’s description indicates a loss of a sense of location and activity during performance. This corresponds to Kraus’s (2003) depiction of an element of flow, “loss of self- 135 consciousness” (p. 8) as described by Csikszentrnihalyi. Kraus wrote, “As with other flow dimensions, loss of self-consciousness is highly dependent upon the individual’s skill, level of concentration, and engagement in a structured activity that includes goals and feedback” (p. 8). Another element of Csikszentrnihalyi’s flow is feeling that time is moving faster. One does not sense that time is passing (Kraus, p. 9). Callie felt that “time stops” when performers intently concentrate on performance. Emma’s is the other metaphor in the lack of awareness cluster. For Emma, performing is “like letting out some kind of big emotion, either like crying or laughing, or something, something that you can’t keep in anymore.” Emma said, “Going out on stage, you just let everything go and you don’t really think about anything, you just do it. . .sometimes. . .you just don’t even think about it, you just do it and afterwards you feel better.” Emma’s comment that “you don’t really think about anything” shows lack of awareness. In summary, two metaphors, time warp and emotional release comprise the cluster with the lack of awareness factor. Cluster Six: Concentration. Two metaphors comprise the final cluster. The factor for this cluster is concentration. Jane compared performing to yoga “because. . .it’s like the ultimate exercise in mindfulness.” A performer must battle anxiety and “find the music.” As soon as one is “in it, it’s like you’re wearing blinders or something. . .all the distractions go away.” At this point, “it’s all focused.” In yoga, there is “a really intense focus and a mindfulness.” One’s practicing is where these entities originate, and they are present in one’s performance. Jane said, “If you can really focus in your practice room by yourself, then you can do it anywhere, no matter what the situation. The “intense focus” and 136 “mindfulness” in performance place this metaphor into the concentration cluster. As I mentioned, Jane remarked that “distractions” fade, and “it’s all focused.” This seems similar to one of Csikszentmihalyi’s elements of flow as presented by Kraus (2003): One element of flow involves “the ability to focus complete concentration on the present activity, leaving no excess attention for distraction” (p. 8). If one feels inadequate, his or her qualms will probably interfere with concentrating (Kraus, p. 8). “When skills are sufficient to meet the challenge, one may be more apt to experience full concentration, as no excess thought is diverted to the fear of failure” (Kraus, p. 8). Finally, Kraus said, “the task must be sufficiently challenging to engage the individual fully” (p. 8). The remaining metaphor in this cluster belongs to F lavia, who compared performing to a race. For Flavia, in some cases, performing is “mentally difficult.” There is a “psychological” aspect to it, and one must “endure through it.” A performer must surmount “a mind challenge,” due to all the concentration involved in performing, whereas in a race, one must surmount “a physical challenge.” Clearly, with concentration a facet of performance as identified by Flavia, this metaphor belongs in the concentration cluster. In summary, the two metaphors in this cluster are yoga and a race. Summary. I created six clusters for participants’ metaphors regarding being a music performance major. The factors for the clusters are excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. Summary The metaphors created by the music students in my study came in all shapes and sizes. Having completed the clustering analysis, I move on to my next mode of analysis. 137 Metaphor Anaylsis: Foss’s Questions In the second portion of metaphor analysis, I address four questions from a list offered by Foss (1996), doing an “analysis of metaphors” (p. 304) on all clusters and some metaphors. According to Foss, “In [analysis], the groups of metaphors — either metaphors around various tenors or various vehicles around the same tenor - are analyzed to reveal the system of metaphorical concepts in the artifact” (p. 364). I analyze all of the factors I created for the metaphors as well as some of the metaphors themselves. In most cases, the metaphors are analyzed simply from face value, not from the explanations students attach to them. Foss’s (1996) questions applied in my study invite greater focus on meaning. In presenting student metaphors and creating factors, I shed light on metaphor meaning, but with the rhetorical Foss questions, factor/metaphor meaning becomes more visible. This is core meaning for music students, and by extension, for those with whom these students associate. This meaning includes that which is more readily acknowledged and that which is more unconscious. The questions concern various meanings of the factors/metaphors: What is emphasized, and what is hidden? What image is communicated? What is the worldview? What are the attitudes and values? Fundamental student perceptions are illuminated. The following assertions remind one of perceptual constructions that people make and speak to music student perceptions, as created through metaphor and further illuminated through Foss’s (1996) questions. As Morgan (1996) wrote, “Metaphors. .. give us specific frames for viewing the world” (p. 228), and Bowman claimed, “The metaphors we use determine how we interpret reality and experience” (first page, not 138 numbered). Trimmer (1994) said of Black’s interaction view that “metaphor hides some elements and highlights others” (p. 10). “This new, expanded view transforms metaphor. . .it becomes a method of organizing our visions, our personal versions of reality” (Trimmer, p. 10). The Four Questions I. What ideas are highlighted and what ideas are masked as a result of the metaphors used? The five factors for the metaphors concerning being a music performance major are psychological struggle, struggle for musical success, rerun/echo, variety, and experiencing music in relation to others. With two of the five factors involving struggle, this aspect of being a music performance major takes center stage, but any possible less stressful aspects are not illuminated. The factor experiencing music in relation to others emphasizes the social nature of being a performance major, but any possible aspects of music outside a social setting are not revealed. In the factor rerun/echo redundancy is emphasized, but any possible variety is hidden. The reverse is the case for the factor variety. Next, I examine the second cluster of metaphors. The six factors for the metaphors concerning performing are excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. The factor excitement illuminates the emotions of performing but not the mechanics. The factor mechanics emphasizes the workings of performance but not the emotions. The factor audience evaluation gives the audience a prominent role in the performance experience; it accentuates audience as critic as opposed to audience as passive. With the factor transformation, what changes about a 139 performer is underscored, but what may remain fixed is veiled. The factor lack of awareness brings attention to a perforrner’s psychological experience, but cloaks relational and physical aspects of performance. Similarly, the factor concentration focuses on the inner experience but eschews the relational and physical aspects of performance. Before moving on, I would like to consider a couple of the student metaphors individually, not considering the students’ explanations but looking merely at what emanates from the choices of metaphors. Callie’s metaphor was an Olympic athlete. Emphasized here is glory and austerity. Not illuminated are any possible restful moments. Sophie’s metaphor was hitting one’s head against many layers of a wall. Emphasized here are insanity and pain, as opposed to any possible normality and euphoria. 2. What image do the metaphors convey of the tenor... of the artifact? To analyze this question, I have created Table 2 and Table 3. Analyzing a couple of student metaphors as I did for the first question, I address the second question, “What image do the metaphors convey of the tenor. . .of the artifact?” Here I do not delve into student explanations, but merely consider the words of their chosen metaphors. Caleb compared performing to knitting a blanket or quilt or weaving. The reference to handiwork brings an image of perfonning as personal and something that is crafted. Sophie said that “performing is like dancing on a cloud of energy.” The image this connotes is one of electricity, motion, and effortlessness. 140 Table 2 Image Conveyed by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major CLUSTERS IMAGE CONVEYED Psychological struggle Music performance major is a strain Struggle for musical success Music performance majors focus on musical success Rerun/echo Repetition is a facet of music performance majors’ experience. Variety Variety is a facet of music performance mg'ors’ experience. Experiencing music in relation to others Others factor in the music performance major experience. Table 3 Image Conveyed by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing CLUSTERS IMAGE CONVEYED Excitement Performing is a heart-stirring experience. Audience evaluation Performing invites audience feedback. Transformation To perform is to change. Mechanics Components build a performance. Lack of Awareness Performance can entail lack of awareness. Concentration The mind is active in performance. 3. What do the metaphors suggest about the worldview of the rhetor? To analyze this question, I have created Table 4 and Table 5. Again, I analyze a few metaphors, addressing the third question, “What do the metaphors suggest about the worldview of the rhetor?” In Stephen’s case, I consider only the participants’ choice of metaphor; in the second and third cases (Kyle’s and Emma’s), I also look at the student’s elaboration. Stephen said, “Performing for a live audience is like jumping out of a plane with a parachute, pretty sure it’s going to open, but there’s a possibility that it won’t.” Jumping out of a plane with a parachute is no small event; apparently performing for 141 Stephen is a larger than life experience. Next, I consider some of Kyle’s words concerning his metaphor for being a music performance major. Meaning this in “the most positive of terms,” Kyle said that “being a music major is like being a worker bee in which you work and work and work at the same goal your entire life and then pretty much can do that until you die.” Clearly, work is at the center of Kyle’s understanding of living. Finally, Emma said that being a music performance major was “climbing up a mountain.” At the apex one takes in the lovely scene. Emma equates the lovely scene with “being out on stage and being able to. . .screarn out to everyone like how [I] feel.” Clearly, Emma believes that feelings have value. Table 4 Worldview of Participant Suggested by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major CLUSTERS WORLDVIEW OF PARTICIPAN T Psychological struggle Life is serious business. People should be helped/Life is struggle. Struggle for musical success One ought to seek the highest level of musical skill. Rerun/echo Musical repetition is a part of life. Variety Music performance majors are “versatile.” Experiencianusic in relation to others Music is experienced in relation to others. Table 5 Worldview of Participant Suggested by Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing CLUSTERS WORLDVIEW OF PARTICIPANT Excitement Performing involves emotions. Audience evaluation Performing means audience feedback. Transformation Metamorphosis during performance is normal. Mechanics The procedures and components of performance are important. Lack of awareness Lack of awareness is an acceptable posture. Concentration The mind is at work in performance. 142 4. What attitudes and values undergird the metaphors? To analyze this question, I have created Table 6 and Table 7. Also, I analyze a few metaphors, addressing the fourth question, “What attitudes and values undergird the metaphors?” Zinnia said that performance majors are like bees. She said of the music students, “We work as a community to better ourselves and better our community and like. . .we’re always looking on improving the College of Music.” In speaking thus, Zinnia appears to value group efforts and contributing to the group. Trina’s selection of metaphors of wedding and wedding planner and Jane’s selection of a metaphor of marriage suggest that romantic relationships are valued or at least on the minds of Trina and Jane. 143 Table 6 Attitudes and Values Undergirding Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Being a Music Performance Major CLUSTERS ATTITUDES AND VALUES UNDERGIRDING CLUSTERS Psychological struggle Struggle is a part of life. Subfactors: existential struggle, A career ought to be meaningful. struggle for endurance Struggle is par for the course. LSEggle for musical success Musical quest Rerun/echo Repetition is a part of music. Variety Music requires proteanism. Experiencing music in relation to others Collectivism/Interpersonal coping - Table 7 Attitudes and Values Undergirding Clusters of Participant Metaphors for Performing CLUSTERS ATTITUDES AND VALUES UNDERGIRDING CLUSTERS Excitement Emotionality Audience evaluation Evaluation is expected. Transformation Self-modification can be managed. Mechanics Method is important. Lack of awareness Lack of awareness is not damaging. Concentration The mind should take the reigns in performance. I have one final observation on the student metaphors. Cory, Dalton, Heather, Jacob, Kyle, and Zinnia compared being a music performance major to the following animals: chameleon, panda, dog, ant, worker bee, and bee. One wonders if the humanity of the music performance majors is lost a little in the pursuit of the music performance degree. Summary Using four of Foss’s (1996) questions, I analyzed the 11 clusters I created from the student metaphors. I also analyzed some of the metaphors. . 144 Conclusion In this section, I presented participant metaphors and created clusters and factors for each group of metaphors — first for the music performance major metaphors and then for the metaphors regarding performing. The factors I created for the first group are psychological struggle, struggle for musical success, rerun/echo, variety, and experiencing music in relation to others. The factors I created for the second group are excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. Common to both groups is the involvement of others in one’s music through these two factors: experiencing music in relation to others and audience evaluation. Finally, in this section, I analyzed the metaphor clusters as well as some metaphors with four questions fiom Foss (1996). In the next chapter, I present the findings of my study concerning music student positionality. 145 CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS: MUSIC STUDENT POSITIONALITY In this chapter, I address the findings for my second and third research questions. My second research question was “What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting?” My third and secondary research question was, “How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation?” This chapter is divided into three parts. In the first part, I analyze the student interviews to address the second research question. Next, I compare student responses across specific interview question areas, to see if a student’s response in one relates to his/her response in four others. I also look for relationships between type of student metaphor and student responses to four interview questions. In the third part of the chapter, I address the secondary research question. Analysis: Part One: Music Students’ Perceptions of Their Place in the University Setting Music students’ perceptions of their place in the university at large can be understood through examining 1) music student connection, comfort and belonging with MSU, outside of the College of Music; 2) music students’ relationships with their music and non-music peers; 3) music students’/College of Music’s reclusion fi'om the university at large; 4) music students’ views regarding how they, their programs, and their College are viewed by outsiders; 5) whether music students care how outsiders view their musical programs of study; and 6) what music students would like outsiders to know about their 146 lives as music majors. Through my analysis I found music student positionality to be mixed. Sometimes, individual participants held contrasting views. Music Student Connection, Comfort, and Belonging to the College of Music and MS U In this section, I discuss music students’ connection and comfort with MSU and their belonging to the College of Music and MSU. Music students had varying levels of connection to MSU. All but one student experienced medium or high comfort with MSU, and most felt they belonged more to the College of Music than to MSU. First, I discuss music students’ connection to MSU. Connection to MSU, Outside of the College of Music Music students varied in their levels of connection to MSU, outside of the College of Music. Three students had no connection; four had low connection; six had medium connection, and three had high connection. Callie, who lacked connection with MSU, said, “I think that you could take the College of Music and put it anywhere else and I would fit right back in.” At the other end was Kyle, who has “the highest level of pride” for MSU. Emma remarked that “as performance majors, especially, we don’t really have that connection with the rest of the campus.” She contrasted this with music education majors, who have classes in teacher education, giving them a connection. F lavia had little connection with non-music majors. All her fiiends were music majors, and her only contact with non-music majors was through her honors society meetings, but at these meetings, she said, “I feel kind of out of place ‘cause I feel like what I do is so different from what they do; they’re all like premed or nursing or engineering or no pref.” In contrast to F lavia, connection with non-music majors was robust for Heather. Heather’s three best fiiends were not music majors. She found that 147 her socializing with music majors is cut short by their need to practice, but her non-music major friends are willing to socialize. Heather was also in a karate club. She said, “I connect to those people a lot better than I do to other musicians,. . .I think just because... music people are always together;. . .it’s kind of nice to get away fi'om the [College] of Music.” Interestingly, some students referenced watching sports when responding to the question about connection to MSU. Several comments suggest that some students equated watching sports with being connected to MSU. Trina seemed to link attending a lot of basketball and football games with being connected to MSU. In responding to the connection question, Pierre said, “I’m not very school spirit, like I’ve never been to a football game; I watch them.” In explaining her level of connection, Zinnia said that she hopes teams from Michigan State win their games. Callie tied her lack of connection to MSU to having different “interests” from non-music majors, “like, I’m not into sports, I don’t get into football and basketball and hockey, and so that is a big dividing point, ‘cause mostly everyone in the university is kind of in to that.” Watching sports has connected Dalton, Kyle, and Jane to MSU. Dalton’s connection with MSU was watching football, basketball, and hockey. For Kyle, watching sports before coming to MSU formed MSU “school spirit.” Jane was “connected to the ideals” of MSU, such as hoping that the MSU football team wins if she watches football. Some students communicated their feelings about their levels of connection to MSU. Stephen, whose connection was low, found it troubling that he did not know many peers beyond the College of Music (not counting his MSU Akido Club) and was not socializing with them but he understood his time constraints. He did meet with non-musician fiiends 148 now and then, however, as he mentioned that he tends to not meet with non-music friends for 6 weeks at a time. Five students indicated they felt positively about their levels of connection, although one of these five, Emma, whose connection was low, desired “a little bit more connection with the outside world.” Comfort with MSU, outside of the College of Music Most students experienced either medium or high comfort with MSU, outside of the College of Music. Only one student, Zinnia, had low comfort; seven had medium comfort, and eight had high comfort. Zinnia experienced less comfort at MSU apart from the College of Music. Away from the College of Music, people do not know who she is, but around the music building, she knows each person. In addition, she was taking a biology class that was “uncomfortable” for her; she said, “I don’t know what’s going on in class.” Kyle’s comfort was high. Having moved often, hehas few spots to consider “home.” Upon returning to MSU from a trip, he feels he is “home” and that “this is my comfort, right here.” MSU is “the first place” where this has happened for him. Some students referred to people outside the College of Music in responding to the interview question concerning comfort with MSU, with remarks both positive and negative. Cory, who had a high level of comfort, expressed regard for the people at MSU, saying that they were “really friendly.” Emma, who had a high level of comfort, mentioned that students she became acquainted with in her general education classes were “great.” Trina’s comfort with the university was high; she felt like MSU was her home, but she felt that, with some non-music students outside the College of Music, it would be difficult “relating to them, because they just seem so different from me; just, they have different priorities.” Sophie said that she lacked comfort in large classes in 149 which people are not acquainted with one another and are “really awkward.” In these large classes, she has found that “it’s very daunting to be around people who are so determined to not talk to each other.” When she strolls the campus, however, her sense is that “people are comfortable and friendly.” Through managing her interactions with non-music majors, Callie could feel comfortable outside the College of Music at MSU. Callie stated: I guess I’m pretty comfortable because the thing that we learn over time as music majors is that not everyone has the same interests as you, so when I’m in an environment where I’m not with people who are music majors, I know, turn off the music major in my head, and l have to socialize a little differently because you can’t talk about musical things because they won’t understand, so it’s just a matter of adjusting who you’re talking to, to fit in with other people. Belonging to MS U/College of Music Students’ experiences of belonging in their environment varied. One student belonged to his private teacher. Ten students belonged more to the College of Music; four belonged to both MSU and the College of Music; one belonged more to MSU. Jacob and Sophie each were the sole occupants of their categories. Jacob was the student who belonged not to the College of Music or to MSU, but to his private teacher. He said, “I consider myself taking classes and. . .a student of [his private teacher],” stating her first name. Sophie claimed greater “loyalties to the university” as opposed to the College of Music because of copious “politics” she has had to face in the College of Music. 150 Some students who belonged more to the College of Music explained this with musical reasons. Due to his use of time, Toby felt greater belonging to the College of Music versus MSU. Cory’s link to the College of Music was stronger than to MSU “because of all the things we go through and all the work I’ve done.” Part of what linked Kyle to the College of Music more than MSU was his lack of “exposure” to MSU. Others have told him that students in most majors other than music “take all their basic classes and get to explore the university for their first year or two, and then they get to declare their major, but with music, you don’t get to explore the university; you’re into the world.” Kyle also felt linked to the music building since one creates a sort of “family away from home” through spending 4 years alongside the same individuals. Zinnia also used the word “home” to describe the College of Music, explaining that she is there the majority of her time and her “close fiiends” are there and she “[has] the tie of music,” her most powerful tie. She identified the College of Music as “a community inside of the community of Michigan State because we do form a close bond with each other.” Two of the four students belonging both to the College of MSU and MSU also spoke of the College of Music as “home” in their discussions of belonging. Jane said that the College of Music was “like a second home, I’m there so much.” Whenever Emma sets foot in the College of Music, she has a sense of “home.” During the interview but not in response to the belonging question, Callie described the College of Music as “a big family.” She said that music students are at the College all the time. She used the word together saying, “We’re together all the time for like. . .4 or 5 years, and you get to know everyone really well and so we’re all tied up in each other’s lives.” 151 Overall, in the interviews, more students spoke of the College of Music as home/family than of MSU as such. The word family was never applied to MSU, only to the College of Music. Stephen, who belonged more to the College of Music than MSU, had a relationship with the College of Music that went beyond belonging. Laughing in the interview, he offered the viewpoint that “the College of Music owns my life,” explaining, “It’s ‘cause there’s so much that we have to do as music students that they pretty much call the shots. . .I don’t really get the opportunity to say no ever.” Summary Music students tended to have greater comfort with than connection to MSU outside of the College of Music. Most felt that they belonged more to the College of Music than to MSU. From the varied student responses to the questions about connection, comfort, and belonging, one can see that music student positionality, music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting, vis-a-vis the College of Music and the larger university is mixed. Music Students ’ Relationships with Music and Non-music Peers In this section, I examine music students’ relationships with their College of Music peers and also with non-music peers at MSU. In general, the College of Music proved to be a more positive place for close relationships than the larger community for the students in my study. The relation of music students to the larger community was sometimes characterized by a social gulf. Music Peers 152 For 14 of the 16 participants, the majority of their best fiiends on campus were music majors. A number of students spoke of friends at the College of Music, and one spoke of fi'iends acquired via music. Cory said that almost all of his friends are in the College of Music. Trina had many fiiends in the College of Music and called them “the best.” She felt that students at the College of Music were “very closely knit.” Emma said that she “made a lot of close knit fiiends within the music building, but not so much outside,” and she felt positively about everyone in the College of Music. At the College of Music, Zinnia had “close friends.” One participant and his three best fiiends all take lessons from the same professor. Jacob said, “We make a lot of fiiends at the music building.” The friends Jacob has met at MSU have all come via music (i.e., roommate of a music friend). Although Heather’s best fiiends were not music majors, she did have a group of music major fiiends. All of F lavia’s fiiends were music majors. Kyle felt that through spending 4 years alongside the same individuals, one creates a sort of “family away fiom home.” Callie described the College of Music as “a big family.” Sophie said that she thought she had fewer music major fiiends on campus than the majority of music majors did. She elaborated, “I tend to branch out because I need to get away from that building for a while.” Of course, all was not roses with College of Music peers. As mentioned previously Stephen spoke of students maligning others to professors; Heather was not fond of the competitiveness in ensembles; she said that dropping chairs behind another person may make one take a dim view of his/her skills and gifts, or one may feel his/her playing is superior to that of the other. Moreover, it was Heather’s experience that music majors’ 153 need to practice got in the way of her socializing with them. Stephen, Flavia, and Callie spoke of the strain of playing/singing in front of other musicians. Non-music Peers: A Social Gulf Several music students spoke of their lack of contact with non-music students, and some spoke of the difficulty/adaptation required in interacting/connecting with outsiders, both indications of a social gulf between music students and outsiders. Several explained that they did not meet many non-music students. Trina said that since music students spend so much time at the College of Music, getting acquainted with non-music students was quite hard. She also said that without living in the residence halls one does not easily meet others. She remarked, “I hope someday I don’t only know music people.” Jane’s non-music major acquaintances numbered only two — they lived across fi'om her her freshman year. Jane explained, “I just have no way of meeting [non-music majors] even if I wanted to.” Dalton said that he tends not to be acquainted with students or be much acquainted with students who do not live near him or are not in the College of Music. Several music students spoke of the difficulty in interacting with/connecting to outsiders revealing a social gulf. Trina felt that “relating” to some non-music students would be hard as “they have different priorities.” Trina thought that at this time she was “more career driven” than many people who were the same age. Acquainted with many outsiders, Toby stated that “it’s very hard for me to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t know anything about music.” At her meetings for her honors society meetings, Flavia is a little uncomfortable since her pursuits seem dissimilar fiorn those of the others at the meetings. The others, she said, have majors such as premed, nursing, 154 engineering, or no preference. Flavia finds that, with people not majoring in music, “it’s hard to relate.” Callie commented on the adapting she does when talking with non-music majors. When she is with non-music majors, she “[must] socialize a little differently, because you can’t talk about musical things because they won’t understand.” Dalton also addressed the problem of music-related dialogue with non-music students. He stated that if a music student speaks about his major or classes with non-music majors, “You’ll lose them , really fast or they’ll just be like, ‘What are you talking about! ”’ He also believed that, for the majority of non-music students, their ken “doesn’t include much of a depth of music, so that socially separates you from them for that reason.” Dalton found it hard that outsiders did not understand some parts of his major. He queried, “To an extent besides the [College] of Music, how much community do you really have?” Before closing this section, I would like to mention Jacob’s comment about how music performance majors view non-music majors, as it is rather arresting. Though it involves perception of non-music majors and not relationships with them, I think it merits inclusion. Jacob said that music performance majors view non-music majors as “jokes” since these non-music majors have abundant time for studying but many are not succeeding academically. Summary Music students tended to have closer relationships with their College of Music peers than with those in the MSU community at large, signaling weak positionality. Still, for two participants, the majority of their best friends on campus were not music majors. So positionality is mixed here. Several music students had difficulty interacting with or 155 connecting to outsiders, and several spoke of lack of contact with non-music students, but some did not mention these things, so here positionality is also mixed. Music Students ’/College of Music ’s Reclusionfi'om the University at Large Six students addressed music students’ and the College of Music’s division from outsiders. Two pointed out the College of Music’s segregation from outsiders, and four remarked on music students’ distance from outsiders. Two students saw the College of Music as set apart. Stephen remarked, “The College of Music. . .in one way is kind of. . .disconnected just because we’re our own little unit.” Flavia felt there was a choice of segregation. Flavia stated, “I think that. . .even the College of Music kind of separates itself.” Four students spoke of music students’ spacing from outsiders. Heather commented, “I think most music majors are kind of sec-it’s kind of secluded; it’s different from the rest of the campus.” Because of outsider perceptions of the major of music (lack of esteem, unaware of major, do not know level of toil), Heather thought that music majors were “in a separate area.” According to Callie, music majors seek to shut themselves away from the larger university: She used the words, “We try to bar ourselves fi'om the rest of the university.” Callie said this was done deliberately and could be due to non- music students’ lack of care about their activities, “so we just stay within our community of people who are interested, who all have like interests.” Callie’s choice of the word “bar” to describe what music students do stuck me with its forcefulness, harshness, and totality. Callie’s assertion that non-music students’ lack of care may lead to the “bar”ing suggests self-protection at work. Trina’s comments also concern a barrier between music students and outsiders. Trina explained that music students’ skills are on display for other 156 music students so their flaws are laid bare. This situation creates a “shell” for music students, “a little bit.” Trina continued by stating that if people do not esteem music students’ activities, music students’ response is 1) esteem for their musical activities, current and firture, and 2) belief that these people will someday be glad of music students’ choices to pursue music. Reflecting on Trina’s words, perhaps the strain of having one’s flaws on display in music adds to the pressure, leading to a needed “shell” that protects one from outsider appraisals and reinforces one’s musical choices. Finally, Caleb addressed music students’ division from outsiders. He noted that outsiders are pursuing their activities in their area of the campus, and music students are so busy that they do not “sometimes... make the effort to go out and do something else other than music.” He continued: The reasons for us. . .to be excluded are both internal. . .and external. It’s not really anybody’s fault in general. It’s sort of. . .a combination of. . .everyone else . . . assuming things about us and us not putting in the time to. . .disprove them. Interestingly, Dalton remarked that “it’s good that I like myself because. . .usually I’m in the minority anywhere I go besides the music building.” That he described himself with the term minority suggests he sees himself as different from other students. Summary Two participants expressed their conception of the College of Music as set apart, and four spoke of music students’ reclusion from outsiders. These participants’ perspectives do not support a strong student positionality for music students with their campus at large. On the other hand, many students did not speak of music 157 student/College of Music reclusion. Music student positionality appears to be mixed for music students in this domain. Music Students ’ Perceptions of Outsiders ’ Views In this section, I consider how music students felt that non-music members of the MSU community view themselves, their musical programs of study, their lives as music majors, and the College of Music. In some cases, students distinguished between non- music students’, faculty’s, and administrators’ views. In other cases, they did not. Students’ feelings about outsiders’ views can be influenced in different ways. Personality type may affect one’s perspective. Personal experiences may help one form opinions. Several bad or good experiences with outsiders may carry considerable weight. Roberts (1991), who studied music education students, wrote, “Accounts of the perception of deviance within the music community attributed to outsiders by music students . . . further strengthen the sense of isolation” (p. 46). If music students’ experience is that outsiders see them as deviants, then, they may feel even more distant from them. Might this create a vicious circle? Personality and experiences, then, help explain the very mixed perceptions of participants regarding outsiders’ views. One should also keep in mind that people are unique and that their individual mix of personality, background, experiences, and choices meant that each participant in my study would present uniquely individual interpretations. My analysis here is in two parts. First, I group participant viewpoints topically. I present student comments showing viewpoints, specifying which groups on campus — non-music students, faculty, or administrators, or all three - were considered to have a specific perspective. Second, I determine which group - non-music students, faculty, or 158 administrators — had the greatest number of students cite them as having the viewpoints in question. Here, the focus is on distinguishing between the views of the different groups. Even if an individual student mentions only some members of a group as having a certain view, I include that in the tabulation. In my discussion, I address several areas of positionality. First, I analyze how music students think outsiders view their lives as music majors/their programs of study and themselves. I place student comments regarding how others view their programs of study and comments regarding how others view their lives as music majors into one category, as a number of the comments apply to both areas. Student comments about how outsiders view music majors are discussed separately. After discussing how students feel that they and their programs are viewed, I address whether or not they feel that outsiders value the College of Music. When I refer to outsiders below in making summative statements about a number of students’ views, I mean that in the case of each student, at least one or more groups from the three groups of students, faculty, and administrators outside the College of Music (or at least some members of one of these groups) had the view so described. In other words, when I make assertions about a group of students’ conception of others’ views, it means that for each participant involved in the assertion, at least one of the three groups of outsiders (or some of these members fi'om a group) were perceived to hold that view. Finally, describing an individual student’s view, my use of the term outsider is inclusive of all three groups. How Music Students Think MS U Non-music Community Members View Their Programs of Study/Lives 159 Music students felt that outsiders understood and did not understand their majors/lives as music majors. In addition, they were of the opinion that outsiders viewed their programs/lives negatively and positively. Students’ feelings about outsiders’ views can be influenced in different ways. Personality type may affect one’s perspective. Personal eXperiences may help one form opinions. Several bad or good experiences with outsiders may carry considerable weight. Roberts (1991), who studied music education students, wrote, “Accounts of the perception of deviance within the music community attributed to outsiders by music students . . . further strengthen the sense of isolation” (p. 46). If music students’ experience is that outsiders see them as deviants, then, they may feel even more distant from them. Might this create a vicious circle? Personality and experiences, then, help explain the very mixed perceptions of outsiders’ views. One should also keep in mind that people are unique and that their individual mix of personality, background, experiences, and choices meant that each participant in my study would present uniquely individual interpretations. Lack of understanding. All participants stated that outsiders lacked understanding of their program of study, lives as music majors, or aspect of their lives. Three students believed that some outsiders did not know that music/music performance were majors. Heather felt that sometimes outsiders were not aware that music is a major, and Trina believed that often outsiders were not aware about her major. Emma believed that many non-music students were unaware that music is a major and that non-music administrators and faculty without musical knowledge likely were also unaware of music as a major. 160 From two students’ perspectives, what awaits music majors who have graduated was also not understood by outsiders. According to Zinnia, the function of a major in music performance beyond graduation was not grasped by outsiders: Zinnia said that “[faculty and administrators] don’t really understand what. . .purpose it’s going to have later, after you graduate.” Emma believed that many non-music students were not aware that jobs exist for music majors. Several student comments suggest a general lack of comprehension by outsiders regarding music majors’ pursuits. From F lavia’s vantage, non-music students and faculty were not aware of “what is behind the title of a performance major.” Trina said, “A lot of people just don’t realize what we study and how we study it, so they assume it’s really easy.” Caleb said of outsiders, “They probably don’t understand what we’re driving at.” Regarding music majors’ activities, Callie said that students outside the College of Music hold many misperceptions. All participants held the view that outsiders did not know how difficult their programs of study/their lives as music majors were or the work/time/attention required. Two students made connections to scientific fields in describing outsiders’ views they felt were lacking understanding. F lavia said that since her major is in the fine arts area, non- music students are of the opinion that her major lacks the difficulty of premed kinds of courses. She felt that some of these students did not comprehend how much toil was involved with her major. Claiming that the College of Music had many bright students, Caleb felt that some outsiders saw music as a major for those who lacked the facility for math or for medicine. Regarding the major of music, Caleb said that outsiders do not apprehend the toil required. He added, “It’s not just hangin’ out and singing campfire 161 songs; it’s actually a significant study that you continually hone and you never really are a master at.” Other comments show further lack of awareness about time and difficulty/attention imputed by participants to outsiders. Heather felt that non-music majors tended to consider music not “the hardest major to have here. . .when it really is hard work.” Cory believed that students outside the College of Music were not knowledgeable about the amount of time music majors are in class and rehearsal. For Zinnia, outsiders were unable to apprehend how much “dedication” she must have to pursue music. Jane said, “You have to be serious, and I feel like students outside the College of Music just have no grasp on that level of seriousness.” Flavia and Dalton felt that non-music students were deficient in their grasp on music students’ cognitive activity. Two aspects he mentioned were “focus” and “mental” challenges. F lavia believed that non-music students were unaware of the degree of “fine tuning” and “mental exercise” involved in music majors’ musical activities. Dalton’s position was that non-music students do not perceive how much time and “mental discipline” are involved in the readying of music. Also mentioning the readying of music, Stephen said that students, faculty, and administrators outside the College of Music did not comprehend the effort and rehearsal time required for a performance of forty minutes worth of music. F lavia said that that she wanted outsiders to “appreciate how much work goes into producing even a few minutes of music.” Some participants’ comments concern views about classes and homework. According to Heather, many non-music students were not aware of “actual lectured 162 classes” for music majors, such as music history and music theory. Pierre said that it was likely that non-music students felt music majors had “no real homework.” It was Pierre’s impression that students outside the College of Music view music students as playing music all day, not having any very difficult classes. Pierre acknowledged that their view on the classes was “sort of true,” when contrasted against what acquaintances of his in science and math were doing. Still, said Pierre, “Music’s hard in its own way.” Jacob also thought that students outside the College of Music saw his program of study as “a joke” since there were no difficult classes. Like Pierre, Jacob ceded that that there was some veracity to the charge of no difficult classes but then he mentioned two courses that offered a challenge, saying, “It’s not all easy.” F lavia said that students outside the College of Music did not comprehend that listening is part of her homework. Two participants spoke to lack of understanding about specific music student activities by outsiders. Toby believed that some non-music faculty did not “understand the demands that are put on us or such things as having to. . .miss a class for a dress rehearsal or something.” Flavia said that at times non-music students can not fathom her profuse practicing. Flavia also spoke about another kind of nescience of outsiders - regarding music’s relation to her person: F lavia’s experience has been that sometimes non-music students do not know the extent to which her program of study is “integrated. . .with [her] person.” Lack of understanding by outsiders group. Viewpoints on outsiders’ lack of understanding regarding music students’ programs of study/lives can also be analyzed by outsider group. Thirteen students cited all outsider groups as lacking understanding. Of the three remaining students, two cited non-music 163 students as lacking understanding; two mentioned non-music faculty’s lack of understanding. So, for perceived lack of understanding of programs of study/lives, more participants voiced that non-music students and faculty had a shortage of understanding as compared to administrators. Understanding. Ten music students in the study took the view that outsiders understood their programs of study/lives as music majors or an aspect of their lives. Some comments concerned general understanding. Because non-music faculty were sympathetic when he had to miss several classes for music performances, Kyle’s view was that non-music faculty and administrators understand music majors’ lives. Caleb said that some students, faculty and administrators outside the College of Music “tmderstand to some degree. . .what we do.” But later in the interview, he singledout faculty: He asserted that some non-music faculty were likely to understand the lives of music majors, due to the faculty’s connection to music students; he stated that music students’ divergence from other students may be perceived by faculty. At times music students can be identified because they have a lot going on and “have to be really organized.” Caleb did allow that non-music students could be organized, too. More able to observe how music students and others diverge, the faculty, said Caleb, “[might] start to understand ...what we do and. . .the level of difficulty.” Just as Caleb spoke to a specific area of non-music faculty understanding regarding music majors, difficulty, other participants also specified certain ways that they felt outsiders understood their programs/lives. Toby said that there is an effort made by outsiders “to be understanding to the amount of work that a music student has to do.” In a 164 comment that hinted that fi'eshmen might be wanting, Caleb stated that most non- freshmen students he has met comprehend the additional demands of being a music major, since they have had personal contact with a music major. Stephen said that outsiders find music majors busy, and, according to him, this is so. Dalton mentioned that students outside the College of Music who had spent significant time playing instruments may equate a music major’s practicing with his/her own studying. Callie had a unique perspective afforded through her job in the College of Music. In response to my question about how she thought students, faculty, and administrators outside the College of Music viewed her musical program of study, Callie said, “Faculty and administrators are pretty understanding because I think that the university does a good job of creating interdepartmental knowledge, so like the other departments know what the College of Music is up to; everyone has the event brochures.” Callie went on to say that since she works in the main office of the music building, she is always taking phone calls from professors who want to know about musical events. Understanding by outsider group. As with the preceding look at lack of understanding, students’ views of outsiders’ understanding of their programs/lives can also be evaluated by outsider group. Ten of the participants believed that outsiders understood their program/lives as music majors. This was six less than the number of students who felt their programs/lives were not understood. Seven students cited all outsider groups as understanding, six less than the number of students who cited all outsider groups as not understanding. The remaining three of the 10 mentioned that non-music faculty and administrators understood. So, more 165 participants felt that non-music faculty and administrators understood than students understood. Negative view. All participants felt that outsiders viewed their programs/lives in a way that I categorized as negative, which I deemed to include such attitudes as uninterested or perspectives that were unflattering. Students perceived that some outsiders saw their majors/lives as easy, their pursuits/coming careers as fruitless, and their majors as “jokes” and lacked enthusiasm for their musical pursuits. First, half of the participants thought that outsiders viewed their maj ors/lives as easy. According to Callie, outsiders who are not acquainted with any music majors think music is a “blow off major.” Kyle said that some non-music students have taken the position that his major is not difficult, as he merely must “hit a drum all day” while they must engage with “really academic” subjects. Cory said that most non-music students think that his major is “kind of like an easy way to go.” From his perspective, these students “feel like they’re working harder and getting. . .a true education.” Cory felt that outsiders did not view music majors as expending a great deal of effort in their musical pursuit. He claimed, “They probably feel like the football team probably spends more time practicing and works harder than like a college music student.” F lavia said that non-music “students sometimes think [her musical program of study is] more easy than it is. . .or else they don’t recognize how much work it entails.” According to her, non-music students believe that her major lacks the difficulty of premed courses since it is fine arts. Trina stated that outsiders suppose that being a music major is “easy,” and Heather stated that “the 166 average student. . . probably doesn’t think [music is] the hardest major to have here. . .when it really is hard work.” Two participants spoke of their view that outsiders did not think music majors apply themselves vigorously to their pursuit. Zinnia said that some outsiders were of the opinion that music majors “sit and party all the time.” From Trina’s vantage, many non- music students were unaware that “[music majors] actually do work hard.” Second, some students thought that outsiders viewed what they were doing/career choice was something without fruit. Perceptions of outsiders’ views regarding wasting of time and the real world were voiced by different participants. Callie’s view was that outsiders without music major acquaintances believed that music majors were “essentially wasting... time in the university and just getting a useless degree.” Cory also thought that most non-music students felt they, were positioning themselves “to succeed... in the real world’ but viewed music majors as “kind of wasting our time.” Noting that he was “speculating,” Pierre submitted that science and math faculty holding the view that majoring in music was “a waste of time” would not be something astonishing to him. Caleb said, “Some people would probably categorize music as just sort of a fiivolity — it’s not really something that will make an impact. . .when applied to the real worl .” Stephen commented that a number of students and faculty believe that music majors “aren’t going to be successfirl in their major. . .in the real world.” Trina experienced a devaluing of her major fi'om some faculty members who are “ivory tower faculty members.” She termed them thus and described them as lacking “real life experience” and not discerning linkages “in the world.” She has experienced “a feeling. . .coming from them like, ‘Oh, that’s kind of a worthless profession [music].”’ 167 But, she clarified, this attitude is “not a general feeling that I get fi'om MSU.” She specifically mentioned her accounting professor, who did not value her career choice. Further perceived disrespect can be seen in two students’ characterizations of outsiders’ views of their major as a “joke.” Heather at times has perceived that “people don’t feel that our major is really that important; they kind of feel like it’s a joke: “Oh, well, you’re just a music major; it’s not. . .like you’re doing chemistry.” Heather said, “If [non-music students] would just come for one day and try and live in the life of a music major, they probably wouldn’t take it as lightly as they do.” Jacob also felt his program of study was considered “kind of a joke” by non-music students. Dalton commented on respect for his major in relation to non-music administrators. He believed that the “administration respects it. . .to an extent,” but he said that “where money gets placed, it doesn’t feel like it’s properly respected. . .or they don’t back up their words;. . .they don’t put their money where their mouth is.” Stephen also shared his thoughts relative to non-music administrators, specifically in financial aid outside the College of Music. For Stephen, securing loans and funds to buy music, a tuxedo, et cetera “was a battle at first.” The administrators did not understand that Stephen needed such items. Stephen commented, “There’s not an interest, so there’s assumption given about music, and mostly, it’s negative.” Finally, some participants felt that non-music students lacked enthusiasm for their activities. Trina thought this the case for students her own age. Callie said that by and large, non-music “students aren’t interested in what we do.” F lavia stated that non-music students find her major “interesting, and then they don’t really care.” According to 168 Stephen, non-music students find his major “interesting,” but are reluctant to attend a performance. Negative view by outsider group. All participants in the study believed that outsiders viewed their majors/lives in ways I consider negative. Nine participants felt that all three outsider groups had such views. Of the seven remaining participants, six cited non-music students; two cited non- music faculty (one acknowledged he was “speculating,”), and two cited non-music administrators. So, more participants voiced that non-music students viewed music students’ programs/lives negatively than non-music faculty and administrators. Positive view. All but two participants believed that outsiders viewed their majors/lives in ways I consider to be positive. Some participants spoke of general acceptance outsiders had for their majors, and some spoke of something deeper - respect and appreciation. Some participants expressed views of outsider acceptance. Music students’ pursuits were “cool.” Heather believed that the majority of non-music students “think it’s cool that we do music.” Stephen believed that non-music majors saw his major as “cool.” Zinnia stated that upon learning one is a music performance major, non-music students respond, “Oh, cool ...that’s really neat.” Cory believed that outsiders thought music majors’ abilities were “cool.” Toby believed the same about nearly all nonfieshmen non- music students’ perspective. Most students believed outsiders had respect and/or appreciation for their majors/lives. Cory believed “[outsiders] appreciate what we do.” Sharing her view of outsiders’ perceptions, Zinnia said that “[some outsiders] appreciate what [music majors] 169 do and how hard we work.” Kyle relayed the perspective of a student in his astronomy class who was struck by the time and involvement music majors have to invest. Toby said that nearly all non-music nonfi'eshmen students he has interacted with have been “very respectful of. . .being a music major.” Toby noted that nearly all of the non-music students he had interactions with had come across a music student (except for fi'eshmen), so they knew about music majors’ “extra work.” Sophie stated that outsiders considered music majors “really dedica .” A number of students remarked on what they deemed respectful faculty perspectives on their maj ors/lives to be. Dalton said that non-music faculty who learn of his major respond favorably, and through their manner of speaking, Dalton can tell “they really like, admire that. . .whether they love music or just know that there’s a lot of good that can come from it.” Sophie took the position that the non-music faculty at MSU “really respect it as a real major, which is different than some schools.” Stephen stated that non- music faculty “[who] have had a lot of music students respect how hard we work.” One of Trina’s non-music professors, who taught an English class, “had appreciation for [Trina’s musical activities.]” Cory’s opinion was that most non-music faculty and administrators “respect. . .the effort we put into our studies.” Kyle said that non-music administrators continually pay for activities music majors must do. Their travel to perform at conventions is covered, and travel for the percussion ensemble is paid for. Thus, claimed Kyle, via monetary assistance, “[administrators] show support and understanding for what we have to do.” Positive view by outsider group. 170 All but two participants believed that outsiders perceived their majors/lives in ways I deemed positive. Ten participants cited all outsider groups as seeing their majors/lives positively. Of the remaining six participants two did not mention any groups as having positive views; three mentioned non-music students, two mentioned non-music faculty; and one mentioned non-music administrators. Summary. Participants in my study felt that non-music students, faculty, and administrators understood and did not understand their majors/lives as music majors. They also felt that these outsiders viewed their majors/lives negatively and positively. With these mixed perceptions, music student positionality was both affirmed and disconfirmed in this section. In the next section, I discuss how music students think that outsiders view them. How Music Students Think MSU Non-music Community Members View Music Majors Music students believed they were seen in the following ways by outsiders: understood, not understood, positively, negatively, as ordinary, separate, extroverted, liberal, theatrical, and eccentric. Lack of understanding. Five participants believed music majors were not understood/known by outsiders. Two of the five, Zinnia and Caleb felt music majors were not understood by all three outsider groups, and Emma, and F lavia felt music majors were not understood by non- music students. Caleb believed that outsiders do not understand “how important [music] is to [music majors].” From Flavia’s vantage, non-music students were not aware of the level of fusion between herself and her musical work. Zinnia believed that some outsiders 171 did not understand music majors. Zinnia said that outsiders lack knowledge about music majors, and Emma said the same, though in reference to non-music students. Understanding. Four participants believed that music majors were understood/known by outsiders. Caleb and Zinnia thought that all outsider groups understood music majors, and Heather and Trina felt that non-music faculty and administrators understood music majors. According to Caleb, some outsiders apprehended to some extent what propels music majors to engage in their pursuits. Zinnia believed that some outsiders understood music majors. Regarding music majors, Heather held that “administrators and faculty. . .know we’re talented and that. . .we’re there for a reason.” According to Trina, “Older people are willing to recognize the passion that [music majors] have for what we do and know that that will kind of carry us through life.” Lack of understanding and understanding by outsider group. Five participants believed that outsiders did not understand music students. Two ascribed this to all outsider groups. The remaining three ascribed this to non-music students. Four participants felt that outsiders understood music majors. Two ascribed this to all outsider groups. The remaining two ascribed this to non-music faculty and administrators. In reviewing the tallies for the categories of understanding and lack of understanding, one difference is evident. Among the three outsider groups, non-music faculty and administrators had the edge in understanding, and non-music students in lack of understanding. I Negative. 172 Seven students believed that music majors were viewed by outsiders in ways I consider negative. The perceptions were general negativity about music majors, music majors’ social marginality, their paucity of skills and intellect, and their sluggishness. Three participants, Caleb, Zinnia, and Sophie, felt that outsiders viewed them negatively, in a broad sense. From Caleb’s vantage, non-music students did not esteem music majors very highly. Zinnia said that some outsiders did not esteem music majors. Sophie’s conviction was that the university administration “hates us.” Two participants, Dalton and Emma believed that non-music students saw music majors in what I consider outside the social mainstream. Two stereotypes that Dalton believed non-music students had for music majors were “less athletic or nerdy.” He felt that music students may be nerdy, given the profuse “devotion” demanded for music students. Still, he asserted, “our major demands it.” Dalton believed that the stereotypes were held by people with whom he was not well acquainted. Emma also thought that non-music students considered music majors “weird.” She remarked that non-music students think of music majors as being in the “dungeon” and being “weird.” She continued: It’d be nice to expel that stereotype, but. . .it’s kind of true in a way; we’re always in that building, and we rarely ever come out, but I wouldn’t say it’s because we don’t want to be social; we do; it’s just we don’t have the time. Emma also stated that she felt non-music students saw music majors as not desiring to converse with others and not often going outside the music building. Believing that others see music majors as cloistered away from and not talking with non-musicians suggests a perception of social marginalization. 173 Two participants thought that outsiders ascribed intellectual and skill weaknesses to music majors. One participant, Caleb, believed that some outsiders held the view that students choose to major in music because of intellectual deficiencies: Caleb was certain that some people hold the viewpoint that students choose to major in music because they were intellectually incapable of handling math or becoming a physician. Cory’s impression was that non-music students viewed music majors as lacking “meaningful skills. ..[for] the real world.” Finally, Jacob’s comments show a view by non-music students of music majors as sluggish. In Jacob’s opinion, music majors were regarded “as a joke” by non-music students since music majors merely play their instruments. Jacob granted that they did “just play,” yet he contended that much time is spent so doing which meant that “school” was difficult since little time was given to it. Jacob also believed that non-music students considered music majors kind of “slackers.” Negative view by outsider group. A total of seven participants believed that outsiders regarded music majors negatively. Two ascribed that posture to all three outsider groups. Four participants cited non-music students only; one participant cited university administration only. Non-music students, then, were seen by more participants as viewing music majors negatively than faculty and administrators were. Positive. Seven participants believed that outsiders viewed music majors positively. The perception was that outsiders esteemed music majors and considered them talented and fortunate. Two students cited general esteem. Zinnia said that some outsiders 174 “appreciate” music majors. According to Cory, most non-music faculty and administrators “have a respect for. . .music students.” Caleb held that some outsiders esteemed music majors. Several participants held the View that non-music faculty and administrators found music majors talented. Cory noted that most non-music faculty and administrators “have a. . .kind of respect for [music students]’ talent. Callie said that, through the Year of Arts and Culture that took place the previous year and the collage concerts that have taken place for 2 years, non-music faculty and administrators have learned that the College of Music is “talented.” Heather’s impression was that non-music administrators and faculty were aware that music majors are “talented.” One participant believed that non-music students considered music students fortunate. Jacob believed that non-music students considered music majors “maybe as kind of lucky.” This results from non-music students viewing music majors as “slackers” and perhaps non-music students having a desire to major in music but not so doing because they feel they are not “good enough.” Finally, Trina stated, “Older people are willing to recognize the passion that we have for what we do and know that that will kind of carry us through life.” Positive view by outsider group. Of the seven participants who believed that outsiders viewed music majors positively, two believed that all three outsider groups did; one felt that non-music students did; and four held that non-music faculty and administrators did. So more participants believed that non-music faculty and administrators viewed music majors positively than non-music students did. In contrasting this tally with that of the previous 175 category of perceptions of negative views of music majors, more participants cited non- music students’ negative views than non-music students’ positive views. More participants cited non-music faculty and administrators’ positive views than negative views. Other views. Some participants also shared perceptions that do not fit in the understanding/lack of understanding/negative/positive categories. These were perceptions of ordinariness, separateness, extroversion, liberalism, theatricality, and eccentricity. Caleb and Toby described views of outsiders regarding music majors that can be regarded as ordinary. According to Caleb, outsiders’ view of music majors was likely that music majors are a “another sect of people” engaged in studying what they, the outsiders, do not understand “so they just sort of. . .dismiss us as. . .a separate entity, not necessarily as a bad or. . .unintelligent entity, just a different one than their own department.” Here the view is that music majors are one of many groups of people that know subject matter that outsiders do not, with no diminishment assigned. Toby’s perspective was that outsiders perceive music majors as they perceive any other person at MSU, a condition he declared “good.” So in these reflections, music majors are thought to be considered ordinary. Outsiders were also seen by a few participants to regard music majors as separate. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Caleb believed that outsiders viewed music majors as “a separate entity.” This very phrase was also offered by F lavia as she described outsiders’ views of music majors. Zinnia also used the word separate in discussing outsiders’ perceptions of music majors. She offered this opinion: “I think that 176 [outsiders] view music majors as being in their own little world completely separate from the rest of campus.” Some of Cory’s perceptions of outsiders’ views can be described as extroversion. From Cory’s vantage, non-music students view music majors as “probably. . .pretty outspoken. . .outgoing, comfortable with ourselves.” He believed that non-music faculty and administrators likely saw music majors as “more comfortable with ourselves and with presenting ourselves in front of others, like probably better at public speaking or communicating, just more outgoing.” Cory also thought that non-music students likely view music majors as “pretty liberal with our ideas and our actions, points of view on things, more so than the common person.” His assessment of non—music faculty and administration views included a view of music majors as “having. . .good alternate views to like the average non-music student.” He did not elaborate, but possibly he meant liberal views. Dalton believed that older people see music majors more as liberal. Although Dalton said that many music majors were liberal, he claimed that “doesn’t mean they all are, and. . .if you have one left wing idea, it does not mean that you endorse or support everything else that a leftist may follow.” Concluding this section on outsiders’ perceptions of music majors are the two perceptions of theatricality and eccentricity. Flavia’s perspective was that outsiders regarded music majors as “a little bit dramatic.” Illustrating, she remarked that non-music students at times speak of music majors’ continual lament that they lack time and will not be financially successful yet are driven by “love” to continue their musicmaking. She also felt that non-music students regarded music majors a tad “quirky, ‘cause we’re 177 artsy. . .and they just kind of let us be.” This “letting us be” suggests that non-music students allow music students to be separate, which ties in with the separateness theme above. Summary. In this section, I presented participants’ perceptions of outsiders’ views of music majors. Viewpoints that music majors felt outsiders had for them included understanding, not understanding, positive views, and negative views. With this patchwork of views, music student positionality here is mixed. Also, some music majors believed they were regarded as ordinary, separate, extroverted, liberal, theatrical, and eccentric. Whether Music Students Think MS U Non-music Community Members Value the College of Music Some music students believed that outsiders valued the College of Music, and some thought that outsiders did not value it or spoke of a diminished value. Valuing. Fourteen students stated that outsiders valued the College of Music, and nine students believed that outsiders did not value it or spoke of a diminished value. (Some students took both sides here.) Several student comments regarding outsiders’ valuing the College of Music show a connection between the College of Music’s status and outsiders’ valuing of it. First, Emma felt that with its rise in “position within the university,” non-music faculty and administrators esteemed the College of Music, but she ‘ added that she was “not really sure.” Sophie declared that since “[the College of Music does] very well for [itself],” non-music students have admiration for it. (Later in the interview, however, Sophie stated that “some of the [non-music] students [value the 178 College of Music] but not I think the majority,” so this tempers her other comment somewhat.) One reason Heather offered explaining outsiders’ valuing of the College of Music was that the College’s quality “makes MSU look good.” Two other comments show a connection between valuing the College of Music and what the College of Music has to offer. Outsiders valued the College of Music, claimed Heather, partly “because we provide. . .a source of entertainment and. . . [outsiders] like to go hear concerts.” Toby said that since the College of Music creates more diversity on campus, the majority of outsiders valued it. Another comment about outsiders’ valuing the College of Music was also interesting. Callie offered as evidence that outsiders valued the College of Music the fact that groups from the College of Music are engaged to play for functions of other departments at MSU. Not valuing. Nine students did not believe that outsiders valued the College of Music or they spoke of a diminished value. Several students’ comments show non-music adnrinistrators’ parsimony in relation to the College of Music. First, Stephen commented that most of the administrators with whom he has interacted have little concern for the College of Music. “That’s just a general feeling I get,” he said, “[particularly] when it comes to appropriation of funds; we’re always gettin’ cut.” Stephen also commented on the School of Music’s break from the College of Arts and Letters as it became its own College. According to him, the College of Arts and Letters had withheld money from the School of Music. Any money from performances or contributions went to the College of Arts and Letters, which then made decisions about that money. Stephen asserted, “A lot 179 of times, we didn’t get the full amount of money that we were supposed to get; they decided it should go someplace else and spread the wealth around.” Since sufficient affluent donors to the School of Music enhanced the image of the College of Arts and Letters, the College of Arts and Letters “wanted us aroun ,” said Stephen, “but the College of Arts and Letters really [was not] that supportive of the School of Music.” Like Stephen, Sophie remarked on non-music administrators’ penuriousness. Sophie felt that university administrators did not “respect” the College of Music. These administrators, asserted Sophie, did not give liberally monetarily to the College of Music. Acknowledging her lack of knowledge about politics at MSU, Sophie claimed that last year the College of Music was first in line to receive a new building but “suddenly we’re not even on the list anymore. . .which is really unfortunate because we really need new spaces.” She also stated that more practice rooms and pianos are needed. Sophie also cited the university’s lack of fimding as the reason for the ending of the music therapy program, stating, “so 1.. .guess we’re. . .all a little bitter about the administration. . .at the university because that’s. . .an entire program.” Third, while affirming that likely the majority of outsiders valued the College of Music, Pierre wondered at administrators’ funding priorities. He stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if the way high up people in charge of funding cut music more than. . .maybe the Law College.” He also surmised that agriculture, veterinary sciences, and similar areas tended to sustain less cuts than music. Like Pierre, Caleb took the position that outsiders chose other programs above the College of Music: Caleb believed that outsiders likely esteemed science and math programs above the College of Music. 180 Two student comments show lack of perceived outsider support. Cory believed that the College of Music did not receive “a lot of campus support,” explaining that the College of Music’s productions and concerts are not heavily attended. He stated that no non-music students attend the College of Music’s opera. Outsiders, from his point of view, did not value the College of Music through “support.” Dalton stated, “I think to really feel the appreciation of other people it demands a little more than a few words, ‘cause it’s free concerts [for students], and there’s a lot of fine performances out there on all the ensembles.” Dalton finds it “frustrating to see crowd of. . .40 to 70 people at a concert.” Valuing and not valuing by outsider group. Fourteen participants stated that outsiders valued the College of Music. Of these 14, 10 believed all outsider groups valued the College of Music. Of the remaining participants who cited at least one outsider group, 3 participants cited non-music faculty, 2 cited non-music administrators and 2 cited non-music students. Nine participants believed that outsiders did not value the College of Music or spoke of a diminished value. Of these nine, eight cited all outsider groups. The remaining one cited non-music administrators. On balance, more participants cited outsiders as valuing than not valuing the College of Music. Once again, music student positionality was mixed. Whether Music Students Care About Outsiders ’ Views Regarding Their Musical Programs of Study Music students were divided in response to my question about whether they cared what non-music students, faculty, and administrators may think about their musical programs of study. Thirteen answered no, and seven said yes. These tallies include the 181 students (about a fourth) who answered both no and yes. Some students elaborated beyond the simple yes and no. Elaborations on the “yes” responses included comments that showed pragmatism, pride, and vulnerability. Pragmatism was evidenced in Sophie’s and Emma’s comments. Emma cared about how outsiders involved with her program who may be making choices regarding it, saw the program. Her hope was that non-music administrators would “like our program, so that they don’t do anything too drastic to it.” For Sophie, outsiders’ care related to the well being of her program: She stated, “If the students and the faculty couldn’t respect music as a. ..legitimate form of study,. . .I think it would really bother me, and it would. . .mean that the program would suffer because of it.” The desire for recognition can also be seen here, as Sophie would be upset if her major were not respected. Pride/desire for recognition was also present in Caleb’s comments. Caleb wanted outsiders to value musical “work” with math and science programs, but he doubted this can happen. He wanted, in my opinion, a great deal from non-music administrators, beginning by desiring them to grasp music students’ activities and the reason that they ought to “continue.” He also hoped that administrators would be aware of how musical work was “important both to us and to the people that. . .we will eventually, hopefully... touch. . .and change and. . .influence.” Here his hopes for administrators seemed to blossom into not only a desire for honor, but even something more majestic and sublime. In addition, he was concerned that administrators not view music majors as a “sort of cultish group that doesn’t need any. . .permission or. . .support.” This indicates a desire to remain anchored to the university and not float off alone. 182 A shard of vulnerability was also seen in a Dalton’s “yes” comment. He did care, liking others’ approbation and “the occasional hurrah or cheer.” But this vulnerability shrank when he explained that he would not be wounded if outsiders were not heartening, as his toughness has been hewn over his lifetime. He considered himself less “sensitive” than his music peers, but felt that for many music students, “respect” from outsiders is salient. In the “no” responses, vulnerability was evident in a couple of comments. Stephen said that He did not care about outsiders’ view of his program since it would make him “depressed” and since he is aware that outsiders “don’t really understand.” He commented that the “majority of people that I’ve met in general aren’t as interested in our major, and if I cared about that it would be pretty depressing.” His desire to reach out to outsiders, however, was shown when he stated that he cared if outsiders were “interested.” Zinnia said that how outsiders react to her major “doesn’t bother me at all,” yet to one reaction she gets, she stated, “it’s stopped bothering me.” So although she is inured now, earlier on she must have been troubled by others’ views. Summary Music students were divided in their care about outsiders’ views of their programs of study. Some did not care, and that indicates a lack of relation to outsiders. Others did care, suggesting a valuing of relating to outsiders/having their esteem (One only cared. about administrators’ views because of what could happen to her program.) Music student positionality here included both relation and lack of relation to outsiders and was mixed. 183 What Music Students Would Like Outsiders to Understand About Their Lives as Music Majors Some music students wanted outsiders to know about their pursuits, their feelings about their pursuits, music study’s distinctiveness, and music’s merit. Four participants’ comments concerned engaging with outsiders. Some students wanted outsiders to know that their pursuits were “hard,” and some wanted outsiders to know they toiled much. Some mentioned the time music takes. Dalton wanted outsiders to have more information about music students’ activities that would enable them to determine if they should esteem these activities, if they feel music is “a harder major,. . .a harder lifestyle,. . .if that gives them more reason to see a concert, if that gives them more reason to not see a concert.” Dalton also stated that non-music students did not need to be made aware of “that much about [his] life as a musician” as he and non-music peers are both students, with requisite time demands, and all students have a reason for being at MSU. Kyle, Emma, Cory, and Flavia were interested in outsiders’ knowing about their feelings/motivations concerning their musical pursuits. Kyle’s desire was that outsiders would comprehend that music majors are glad to invest so much and practice so much. He also wanted outsiders to apprehend “that we chose this path, just as they chose their own.” Emma longed for outsiders to grasp “that music is really serious to us, that it’s not just a hobby.” Cory wanted non-music students to know that music majors “care a lot about something enough to practice as much as we do and. . .that we. . .are workin’ at something that we care about a lot.” F lavia desired outsiders to comprehend why music majors “devote our lives to [classical music or music with classical rootedness].” When 184 prompted in the interview about what she would tell outsiders about her choice to devote her life to classical music, she spoke of it being more “interesting” than pop music; she claimed music majors’ classical pursuits were “real,” “significant,” “intellectual,” yet an “art,” and “complex.” She also stated, “It’s like studying science and studying art all at once,” an intriguing comment. Music study’s distinctness came through in some student comments. Trina wanted outsiders to comprehend that “[music majors] don’t lead normal lives.” According to Stephen, to thrive in his program of study, “it has to be my life.” Some majors, he felt require this, but other majors do not. Jacob desired outsiders to grasp “how different [being a music major] is than being a real college student.” According to him, music majors who desire to excel expend more effort than many other non-music students. He stated, “I think we [music majors] lose a normal college life” but he was not upset about that. Jacob was not interested in telling outsiders about his life, miless the outsiders asserted that “our major is easy and. . .lazy.” He wanted to debate that. Flavia and Caleb’s comments show a desire that others know music’s merit. Caleb wanted outsiders to know “that music has a lot of applications and implications in the real world that. . .are just as valuable as. . .other areas of study.” F lavia’s preference was that outsiders had a better grasp on “the importance of the music that we actually do.” Four participants’ comments concerned engaging with/concem for outsiders. In one case, outsider help was sought. Caleb wanted non-music faculty and administrators to be aware that “we need their support.” He desired they realize that music is “not a little club that we can. . .run on our own by selling lemonade and muffins” mixed with fun at the music building. 185 Zinnia’s comments also concern engaging with others. Her desire is that outsiders “just share. . .the music with us” at College of Music concerts. She would like to “share” what the music students’ efforts have achieved with outsiders. Trina showed consideration for outsiders in her words to those not majoring in music with whom she could not socialize. Wanting outsiders to be aware that music majors’ lives are not “normal,” she added, “So if we, I can’t do something, don’t take it personally. I would love to hang out with you, and I’ll do it when I can, but my schedule is very rigid.” If Callie’s hopes were realized, the distance between musician and outsider could be shortened. Callie’s longing was for “more exposure” of music students to MSU, so students were aware of College of Music concerts; from Callie’s vantage, many non- music students lack knowledge of musical activities. If the non-music students attended concerts, she believed, they would comprehend more about the lives of music majors. Other students also expressed a desire for connection with outsiders, though not in response to the interview question about what outsiders should know about the lives of music majors. It seems appropriate to share those perspectives here, in order to group the comments on this topic. Heather wanted music majors to be “more involved with campus.” Through this greater engagement, said Heather, a larger number of outsiders may become aware that students can major in music. Beyond the College of Music, Emma desired “a little bit more connection.” Stephen was troubled that he has not become acquainted with many non-music majors (outside of his Akido club). He is troubled that he can not socialize with non-music majors, but he understands that it is not feasible for him. (He did say that he gets together with non-music major fiiends about 186 every 6 weeks.) Jacob, who lacked connection, said, “I wish we got to get out and perform more. . .at school or just in East Lansing in general.” Summary Music students had much to tell outsiders about their lives as music majors. Some wanted their inner feelings and motivations to be known by outsiders — a desire for connection. Three saw themselves as distinct — creating distance between themselves and the community at large. Two desired respect - reaching out for others’ recognition. Some wanted engagement/had concern with/for outsiders. So, in regard to music student positionality, or perceptions of place in the university setting, the creation of distance and reaching out were both evident, and positionality can be characterized as mixed. Conclusion In this section, I examined five areas that reveal music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting: 1) music student connection, comfort and belonging with MSU, outside of the College of Music, 2) music students’ relationships with their music and non-music peers, 3) music students’lCollege of Music’s reclusion fiom the university at large, 4) music students’ views regarding how they, their programs, and their College were viewed by outsiders, 5) whether students cared how outsiders viewed their musical programs of study, and 6) what music students wanted outsiders to know about their lives as music majors. Music student positionality was shown to be mixed. Analysis: Part Two: Looking for Patterns in Responses Across Interview Questions Concerning Music Student Positionality 187 In Part Two of this chapter, I present a matrix (Table 8) I created to compare student responses across specific interview question areas, to see if a student’s response in one relates to his/her response in four others. This analysis is the focus in this chapter, but I also present the findings of an additional analysis I completed involving a matrix. In this case, I discuss my findings but do not include the matrix. Analysis of the Matrix Differences in levels of connection, comfort and belonging matched in some instances with students’ perceptions of outsiders’ views. Before listing these instances, I want to mention that, as is clear in my matrix, sometimes individual participants believed that they and their programs were both understood by outsiders and not understood, were both viewed negatively and positively, and that their College of Music was both valued and not valued. These contrasting views stand in the matrix side by side. Also, I want to mention that in the matrix, an entry means that a participant felt that at least one outsider group or some members of that group had the view in question. Before presenting the matrix, I discuss the scenarios in which greater student connection, comfort and belonging to MSU were linked with students’ beliefs about favorable views from outsiders. These scenarios can also be described conversely, as less student connection, comfort and belonging being linked to students’ beliefs about unfavorable views from outsiders. My expectations at the start of this project were that such linkages may occur. I did not include the second part of Questions 16 and 17 (How do you feel about this level of connection and comfort?) in this analysis. I found that some differences in connection, comfort and belonging matched with some student perspectives on outsiders’ views. The first, second, third, fourth and eighth 188 findings listed below were the sort of findings I suspected may appear prior to conducting my study. The fifth, sixth, and seventh findings were contrary to my initial surmising. Results may be dubious because individual students often expressed competing views of outsiders’ perceptions (i.e., both value and not valuing; positive and negative; understanding and lack of understanding). First, a higher level of connection to MSU outside the College of Music was paired with the belief that outsiders understood music majors. None of the students with no connection to MSU stated that outsiders understood music majors. None of the students with a low connection to MSU stated that music majors were understood. Of the students with a medium connection to MSU, 33% (two students) felt music majors were understood. Of the students with a high connection to MSU, 33% (one student) felt that music majors were understood. Thus, medium and high connections were paired with believing that outsiders understood, but no or low connection was not so paired. Second, a higher level of connection to MSU outside the College of Music was paired with believing that outsiders valued the MSU College of Music. Of the students with no connection to MSU, 33% (one student) believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. One hundred percent (four students) of participants with a low connection to MSU stated that outsiders valued the College of Music. One hundred percent (six students) of those with a medium connection to MSU believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. One hundred percent (three students) of those with a high connection to MSU believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. Third, a lower level of comfort with MSU was linked to the belief that outsiders lacked understanding of music majors. The one student (100%) with low comfort with 189 MSU felt that outsiders did not understand music majors. Of the students having medium comfort with MSU, two (29%) felt that outsiders did not understand music majors. Of the students with high comfort with MSU, two (29%) felt that outsiders did not understand music majors. Fourth, lower comfort with MSU outside the College of Music was associated with the belief that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. The one student (100%) with low comfort with MSU felt that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Of the students having medium comfort with MSU, 43% (three students) felt that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Of the students having high comfort with MSU, 38% (three students) felt that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. F ifth, and contrary to my initial speculation, lower comfort with MSU outside the College of Music was also associated with the belief that outsiders viewed music majors positively. The one student (100%) with low comfort with MSU felt that outsiders viewed music majors positively. Of the students having medium comfort with MSU, 43% (three students) felt that outsiders viewed music majors positively. Of the students having high comfort with MSU, 38% (three students) felt that outsiders viewed music majors positively. Sixth, and contrary to my initial postulation, higher belonging to MSU was linked with students’ belief that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. I believe that the level of belonging of the one student who belonged only to his private teacher can be subsumed by the level of belonging of those who belong more to the College of Music. So, placing the private teacher category into the category of belonging more to the College of Music, I found that, of the students who belonged more to the College of 190 Music than to MSU, 36% (four students) believed that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Of the students who belonged to both the College of Music and MSU, 50% (two students) believed that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. The one student (100%) who belonged more to MSU believed that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Seventh, and contrary to my initial surmising, a lower level of belonging to MSU was linked to students’ belief that outsiders understood music majors’ programs/lives. I found that, of the 11 students who belonged more to the College of Music than to MSU, 73% (8) felt that outsiders understood music majors’ programs/lives. Two of the four students (50%) who said they belonged both to the College of Music and MSU felt that outsiders understood music majors’ programs/lives. The one student who belonged more to MSU did not state that outsiders understood music majors’ programs/lives. Finally, belonging more to MSU was connected to the belief that outsiders valued the College of Music. Of the students who belonged more to the College of Music than MSU, 82% (nine students) believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. Of the students who belonged both to the College of Music and MSU, 100% (four students) believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. The one student (100%) who belonged more to MSU than the College of Music believed that outsiders valued the College of Music. In the matrix below, the key is as follows: =lack of understanding U=understanding N=negatively (includes not interested, program viewed as easy) P=positively 191 Dash= no answer given, answer not applicable, or don’t know; dash included only when no answer at all is given for a question; i.e., If a participants answers “yes” and “don’t know” both, only the “yes” is shown. a=a little more to the College of Music, “almost equal” b=Jane felt the College of Music is MSU 192 Table 8 Participants ’ Levels of Belonging with MSU, Levels of Connection to MSU Outside the College of Music, Levels of Comfort with MSU Outside the College of Music, and Participants’ Perceptions of Outsiders ’ Views Regarding Themselves, Their Programs, and the MSU College of Music Music Q. 18 Q. 16 Q. 17 Q. 20 22 24 Performance To what Describe Describe How do you think How do you Do you feel Major degree, if the level the level that MSU students, think non- that non-music Pseudonym any, do of of faculty, and music students, you feel connection comfort administrators students, faculty, and that you you feel you feel outside the College faculty, and administrators belong to with with of Music view yom' administrators at MSU value both MSU MSU, MSU, musical program of view music the College of and the outside of outside study? majors? Please Music? Please MSU the of the Q. 23 Do you feel explain. explain. College of College of College that non-musician Music, to Music. of students, faculty, either one, Music. and administrators at or to MSU have an neither? appreciation for and understanding of your life as a music major? Jacob PrTchr None Medium L N L N P No Callie MoreMus None Medium L U N P P Yes Cory MoreMus Low High L N P N P Yes No Dalton MoreMus Low High— L U N P N Yes No Flavia MoreMus None High L N P L - K 1e MoreMus l-Irgll High L U N P - Yes No Pierre MoreMus Medium Medium L U N P - Yes No Stephen MoreMus Low Medium L U N P - Yes No Toby MoreMus Medium High L U N P - Yes Trina MoreMus Medium High L U N P U P Yes No Zinnia MoreMus Medium Low L U N P L U N P Yes Caleb Both Medium Medium L U N P L U N P Yes No Emma Both Low High L N P L N Yes Heather Botha High High L U N P U P Yes Jane Bothb Medium Medium L N - Yes Sophie MoreMSU High Medium L N P N Yes No 193 Connecting Student Metaphors and the Four Questions About Perceptions of Outsiders ’ Views Through an additional matrix analysis, I found relationships between students’ metaphors and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. Eleven metaphors for being a music performance major involved strain, as did 11 metaphors for performing. Five metaphors for being a music performance major did not involve strain, as was the case for six performing metaphors. (Two metaphors in the count here belong to one participant.) I begin with the student metaphors for being a music performance major. I found a connection between metaphors involving strain about being a music performance major and perceiving outsiders’ understanding, positivity, and esteem. A greater percentage of students who created the metaphors involving strain about being a music performance major felt that outsiders understood their programs/lives and viewed these positively as opposed to the students whose metaphors did not involve strain. Also, a greater percentage of students who created metaphors involving strain about being a music performance major felt that outsiders understood music majors and saw them positively and negatively than the music students whose metaphors did not involve strain. Finally, a greater percentage of students with the strain metaphors about being a performance major felt that outsiders valued the College of Music than the students with non-strain metaphors. Overall, these percentages show a connection between metaphors involving strain about being a music performance major and perceptions of outsiders’ understanding, positivity, and esteem. (The one finding linking strain metaphors and perceptions of negative outsider views about music majors goes against the trend.) 194 Turning now to the students with the non-strain metaphors about being a music performance major, a higher percentage of them felt that outsiders did not understand music majors as opposed to the students who created the strain metaphors. Also, a greater percentage of the non-strain metaphor creators believed that outsiders did not value the College of Music than the strain metaphor creators did. The opposite pattern occurred when I examined the connection between metaphors about performance and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. A greater percentage of those who created metaphors involving strain31 felt that outsiders did not understand music majors, viewed them negatively, and did not value the College of Music than those who created metaphors not involving strain. So there is a connection between performance metaphors involving strain and perceived lack of understanding, negative views, and lack of esteem. Moreover, a higher percentage of those whose metaphors did not involve strain believed that outsiders understood music students’ programs/lives, saw these positively, understood music majors, viewed music majors positively, and felt that outsiders valued the College of Music. These percentages show a connection between performance metaphors not involving strain and perceiving outsider views of understanding, positivity, and esteem. I do not know why opposite patterns occurred with the connections described for the metaphors for being a music major and for performing. Through results from future studies, researchers may be able to enlarge understanding here. 3 IIncluded in the “strain” category are those performing metaphors that did not involve strain, but mention of strain prefaced the metaphors in the student comments. 195 Analysis: Part Three: Music Students’ Perceptions of the Their Place in the University Setting and Their Intentions to Persist to Graduation Finally, I address the third research question of my study: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? I found no link between students’ intent to persist and their positionality. Fifteen participants in the study were either graduating or certain that they would remain a student at MSU. The remaining participant had heard that her professor might be departing from MSU. If he did leave, she did not think he would get another position as a professor; he would go back to singing. She said that she might learn from him “secretly” now and then but remain at MSU since the music program here is excellent and while it is competitive here, people are treated with dignity. So, she concluded, “I think I would stay here; I only have a couple more years anyway, so why leave now?” With no students planning to leave before graduation, no link could be detected between students’ attrition and their perceptions of their place in the university setting. Some participants offered reasons why they intended to remain a student at MSU (for their undergraduate degrees). Heather planned to remain as she felt positively about “the learning environment” through which she is being readied for “real situations.” One participant was staying at MSU because of her professor and all the other faculty she has had. Another participant was going to remain because working with his professor was “definitely worth staying all 4 years for.” Trina was graduating, but she said “I would 196 never leave here as an undergraduate because. . .I’ve had lots of opportunities; I love the faculty; I love the people. . .that I’ve been a student with.” Stephen mentioned that he was under the impression that in the College of Music, there was 75% attrition for performance majors from freshman to senior year. C. Olson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies at the MSU College of Music disputed this in an email. He wrote, “I don’t think the 75% drop rate is correct however. In talking to several people in the college, our best guess (and a wild one at that) would be an attrition rate of around 10-12%” (personal communication, October 14, 2009). At MSU, the one- year retention rate for the Fall 2005 freshmen cohort was 90% (MSU Office of Planning and Budgets, n.d.). As I mentioned in Chapter One, according to B. Ebener, Director of Admissions at the MSU College of Music, in the MSU College of Music, the one-year retention rate (Fall 2005-F all 2006) for undergraduates was 91.8%. For performance majors it was 90.6%. All freshmen who completed their first year were still in the College in the Fall 2006. “A small number” of freshmen did not complete their first year. “The highest percent of loss between [Fall] 2005 and [Fall] 2006 was at the junior and senior years,” wrote Mr. Ebener (personal communication, October 22 and 23, 2009). I now return to Stephen’s comments. Unprompted, he stated that he felt that stress (musical self-assessment, others’ assessment, fear of stumbling in performance before knowledgeable others), difficulty, and worry over securing a job brought about the attrition rate he mentioned. Later in the interview, he said that one of the leading reasons that music performance majors “drop out. . .is that. . .there’s so many outside costs and things, that unless your parents are really supportive. . .or you have financial aid, it’s impossible.” One comment Stephen made relative to attrition did involve outsiders’ 197 attitudes. He remarked: “Maybe if people [he also used the word ‘society’]. . .didn’t make it so difficult [attaining the career of performer], more of us would be successful and not as many of us would drop out.” Conclusion In this chapter, I presented the findings for my second and third research questions. My second research question was, “What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting?” I found music student positionality, music students’ perception of their place in the university setting, to be mixed. My third research question was, “How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation?” I found no evidence that music students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting affected their intent to persist. In the next chapter, I summarize my findings and relate some of them to my literatrne review. I also address study limitations, offer suggestions for better serving, understanding, and respecting music students, present suggestions for further research, and offer some final thoughts. 198 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION In this chapter, I summarize and discuss my results. I also consider study limitations, provide suggestions for better serving, understanding, and respecting music students, offer suggestions for further research, and share some final thoughts. Summary of Results Below I summarize the findings of my study. A proper preface to that is a restating of the purpose of my study and short description of my methodology. Purpose of the Study The purpose of my study was to understand music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences and to examine music student positionality, leaming about undergraduate university students’ perceptions of their relationships to the campus at large. My primary research questions were: 1) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors? and 2) What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting? A secondary research question was: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? I conducted my research with undergraduate music performance majors at Michigan State University. Music students’ positionality merits study for a number of reasons. More and more American college and university students are majoring in the visual and performing arts. At a variety of American institutions of higher education, music students’ retention is not strong. Some studies show a relationship between student positionality and retention/intent to persist. Music is important to society, and music majors need to be 199 offered in colleges and universities, as conservatories do not tend to offer music education and music therapy programs, and costs can be high. Finally, Roberts’ (1991) study showed that music education student positionality was salient. Studying music education students at Canadian universities, Roberts found that these students “appear to develop a strong sense of isolation fiom the rest of the campus” (p. 21). Some students, he said, feel “that they don’t belong to the university as a whole at all, but merely to the music school” (p. 36). Roberts’ research showed that university community members and those outside the university are seen by music education students as believing “the study of music is somehow fiivolous and easy” (p. 45). In addition, Roberts learned that students consider that others see “the music community as weird, different or otherwise deviant” (p. 45). Although these results come from research done in Canada, they make one wonder about music student positionality across the globe. Do music students other places feel apart from the campus at large? Are they satisfied as such? How do they think that other campus community members view them? Could poor music student positionality vis-a-vis the larger campus affect retention (as some studies have shown a link between student positionality and retention)? In addition to investigating music student positionality in my study, I also sought to understand music students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors. Of worth on their own, such perceptions are also a fitting exordium to my positionality analysis. Methodology My approach in this study was qualitative, and my theoretical fiamework was social constructivism. I interviewed 16 undergraduate music performance majors at Michigan 200 State University. Getting participants was a long, arduous process. Those who agreed to participate formed a diverse group - sophomores, juniors, and seniors; males and females; and a cross section of areas: voice, bassoon, flute, percussion, tuba, clarinet, and piano. There were three parts to my data analysis. I coded and analyzed the non- metaphor/simile data. Second, I analyzed the metaphors/similes that students created about being a music performance major and performing. Third, I created matrices (eventually compressed into one matrix) that made it possible for me to determine if students’ responses to three interview questions related to their responses in four others. I took student responses to the interview questions concerning connection, comfort, and belonging and checked to see if these responses related to the four questions about students’ beliefs about non-musicians’ views. Also, through an additional matrix analysis, I looked for relationships between students’ metaphors involving strain/no strain and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. Findings My findings comprise four areas. First, I analyzed music students’ perceptions of their experiences, looking at both the metaphor and non-metaphor data. Second, I looked at music students’ positionality vis-a-vis the larger campus. Third, I looked for links between student responses to some of my interview questions. Finally, I looked for a relationship between music student positionality and retention. Music Students ’ Perceptions of Their Experiences (Non-metaphor) Being a music performance major. 201 Six students found being a music performance major “a lot of work.” Six also found it stressful. Eleven experienced the major as difficult. Six found it firn, and two found it exciting. One found it “enjoyable,” and another experienced it as “great.” Five students said they were busy. Three students spoke of the stress of playing/singing in front of other musicians. Six students identified their musical growth as what had been most rewarding musically for them during their time at MSU. All spoke positively of ensembles. Six students praised conductors/choral directors, but one was critical of a conductor. Some students commented on career precariousness. Five students’ comments show their families’ relation/nonrelation to their musical lives, and in most comments, a disconnect was present. Practicing. A number of students made comments relative to practicing. Some told me how much they practice each day. Jacob led the group, with 6 to 8 hours a day. Of the remaining instrumentalists who shared their practice amounts, Dalton practiced the least, under 2 hours per day. He believed that he should practice more than 2 hours a day. Emma adored practicing, but Dalton had mixed feelings about it. MSU music faculty. There were many more positive student comments about MSU music faculty than negative comments. At least one of the reasons that most students chose MSU was their private teachers. No students spoke negatively of MSU private teachers. For 11 participants, one of the factors or the only factor in choosing to attend MSU was the participant’s private teacher at MSU. 202 Music student modes. I found some interesting aspects of the music students’ experiences, which I term music student modes. The modes are emotions and music, care for others, comparisons of music to medicine/science/math, and philosophical thoughts on music. All but one participant in the study used emotional language relative to music or their major. Some participants experienced passion, love, and joy concerning music and musical activity. Some students addressed music and emotion. Through the comments of 10 participants, music students’ concern for others was illuminated. Some students made comparisons between music and medicine/science/math. Perhaps they considered them equivalent to some extent. Finally, some students expressed philosophical thoughts on music. Their statements ascribed a magnificence to music- with strong value, scope, breadth and force. Music Students ’ Perceptions of Their Experiences (Metaphors) In the interviews, I asked the participants to create a metaphor or simile to describe what it is like to be a music performance major and what it is like to perform. 1 clustered metaphors/similes regarding being a music performance major and performing separately. 1 created a factor for each cluster. I also addressed four questions from a list offered by Foss (1996), doing an “analysis of metaphors” (p. 304) on all the clusters and some of the metaphors. My use of the term metaphor below is inclusive of both student metaphors and similes. Clusters for metaphors for being a music performance major. I created five clusters for participants’ metaphors regarding being a music performance major. The factors for each of the five clusters are psychological struggle, musical success, rerun/echo, variety, and experiencing music in relation to others. I 203 crafted six clusters for participants’ metaphors for performing. The factors for each of the five clusters are excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. Analysis of clusters using four questions from Foss (I 996). In this section, I share some of my observations about the metaphor factors in relation to F oss’s (1996) four questions The first question from Foss is, “What ideas are highlighted and what ideas are masked as a result of the metaphors used?” (p. 364). As two of the five factors for the metaphors concerning being a music performance major involve struggle, this aspect is emphasized but any possible less stressful aspects are not. In the factor rerun/echo, redundancy is accentuated, but any possible variety is cloaked. Looking now at the factors for the metaphor clusters for performing, I present two of my reflections: The factor excitement draws attention to the emotions of performing but not the mechanics; the factor audience evaluation makes the audience eminent in the performance experience; it underscores the audience’s role as critic, as opposed to a more passive posture. The second question from Foss (1996) is, “What image do the metaphors convey of the tenor. . .of the artifact?” (p. 364) The image conveyed by the performance major factor psychological struggle is that the music performance major is a strain. From the performance major factor experiencing music in relation to others, the image conveyed is others factor in the music performance major experience. The image conveyed by the performing factor excitement is that performing is a heart-stirring experience. The image conveyed by the performing factor transformation is that performing means changing. 204 So, performance majors involve strain and other people, and performing means change and exhilaration. The third question from Foss (1996) is, “What do the metaphors suggest about the worldview of the rhetor?” (p. 364) For the music performance major factor rerun/echo, the worldview of the participant is that musical repetition is a part of life. The music performance major struggle for musical success factor shows that the worldview of the participant is that one ought to seek the highest level of musical skill. For the performing factor lack of awareness, the worldview of the participant is that this mode is an acceptable posture. For the performing factor mechanics, the worldview of the participant is that the procedures and components of performance are important. The fourth question from Foss (1996) is “What attitudes and values undergird the metaphors?” (p. 364) The attitude/value behind the factor for being a music performance major, struggle for musical success, is musical quest. The attitude/value behind the factor for being a music performance major, experiencing music in relation to others, is collectivism/interpersonal coping. The attitude/value behind the factor for performing, concentration, is that the mind should take the reigns in performance. That method is important is the attitude/value behind the performing factor mechanics. F oss’s (1996) questions built on the meaning shown through my presentation of. student metaphors and my creation of factors. With Foss’s questions, factor/metaphor meanings became more visible. This was core meaning for music students, and through association, also meaning for those with whom these students interact. This meaning includes that which is more readily acknowledged and that which is more unconscious. The questions concerned various meanings of the factors/metaphors: What was 205 emphasized, and what was hidden? What images were communicated? What were the worldviews? What were the attitudes and values? Fundamental student perceptions were illuminated. The following assertions remind one of perceptual constructions that people make and speak to music student perceptions, as created through metaphor and finther illuminated through Foss’s (1996) questions. As Morgan (1996) wrote, “Metaphors... give us specific frames for viewing the world” (p. 228), and Bowman claimed, “The metaphors we use determine how we interpret reality and experience” (first page, not numbered). Trimmer (1994) said of Black’s interaction view that “metaphor hides some elements and highlights others” (p. 10). “This new, expanded view transforms metaphor. . .it becomes a method of organizing our visions, our personal versions of reality” (Trimmer, p. 10). Music Student Positionality My next set of findings concern music student positionality. My second research question was, “What are music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting?” These findings address this question. Music student positionality in relation to the larger university community can be understood in different ways. It is . about music students’ connection to the larger campus. Do they have connection, and do they desire it? Do they feel others know and value them? Six dimensions comprise my understanding of music students’ perceptions of their place in the university at large, or positionality. I found that, for each of the six dimensions, music student positionality was mixed. Also, sometimes, individual students held contrasting viewpoints. The first dimension concerning music student positionality 206 was music student connection, comfort and belonging with MSU, outside of the College of Music. With students having varying levels of these entities, positionality was mixed. The second dimension was music students ’ relationships with their music and non-music peers. Music students tended to have closer relationships with their College of Music peers than with those in the MSU community at large, denoting weak positionality. Still, for two participants, the majority of their best fiiends on campus were not music majors. So positionality was mixed here. Some music students spoke of the difficulty/adaptation required in interacting with or connecting to outsiders, but some did not mention this, so here positionality was also mixed. The third dimension was music students/College of Music ’s reclusionfiom the university at large. Some students spoke of this reclusion, but others did not. Positionality is mixed here. The fourth dimension was music students’ views regarding how they, their programs/lives, and their College are viewed by outsiders. Music students felt that outsiders understood and did not understand their prograrns/lives/themselves and also had negative and positive views. Music students believed that outsiders valued and did not value the College of Music. Sometimes, participants held contrasting views. With the variety of views, positionality is mixed here. Different factors may affect students’ perspectives about outsiders’ views. Personality type may play a role. Personal experiences may help a student form opinions. A few bad or good experiences with outsiders may carry considerable weight. Roberts (1991), who studied music education students, wrote, “Accounts of the perception of deviance within the music community attributed to outsiders by music students . . . further strengthen the sense of isolation” (p. 46). If music students’ experience is that outsiders view them as deviants, they may feel 207 even more distant from outsiders. This could create a vicious circle. So, personality and experiences may help account for the very mixed perceptions of participants regarding outsiders’ views. I would also like to add that participants’ individual mixes of personality, background, experiences, and choices meant that each participant in my study offered uniquely individual interpretations in the interviews. The fifth dimension was whether music students care how outsiders view their music programs of study. Some music students did not care, and that suggests a lack of relation to outsiders. Others did care, suggesting a valuing of relating to outsiders/having their esteem. Again, music student positionality was mixed. Finally, the sixth dimension was what music students would like outsiders to know about their lives as music majors. Some desired that outsiders be aware of their inner feelings and motivations, which I see as a desire for connection. Several considered themselves distinct, which could be viewed as creating distance between themselves and the larger community. Two wanted others’ respect, which strikes me as a reaching out for recognition from others. Finally, some wanted engagement/had concern with/for outsiders. With the creation of distance and reaching out both on display here, positionality was mixed. Overall, then, on the six dimensions, music positionality was mixed. Next, I elaborate on the findings for each dimension. When I refer to outsiders below in making summative statements about a number of students’ views, I mean that in the case of each student, at least one or more groups fiom the three groups of non-music students, faculty, and administrators outside the College of Music (or at least some members of one of these groups) had the view so described. In other words, when I make assertions about a group of students’ conception of others’ views, it means that for each 208 participant involved in the assertion, at least one of the three groups of outsiders (or some of these members fi'om a group) were perceived to hold that view. Music student connection, comfort, and belonging to MSU, outside the College of music. Music students'varied regarding their degree of connection to MSU, outside of the College of Music. Three students had no connection; four had low connection, six had medium connection, and three had high connection. Most participants felt either medium or high comfort with MSU, outside the College of Music. Only one student had low comfort; seven had medium comfort, and eight had high comfort. Students had different levels of belonging to MSU and the College of Music. One student belonged only to his private teacher. Ten students belonged more to the College of Music; four belonged to both MSU and the College of Music; one belonged more to MSU. With the varied student responses to the interview questions concerning connection, comfort, and belonging, music student positionality vis-a-vis the College of Music and the larger community is mixed. Music students’ relationships with music and non-music peers. For 14 participants in the study, most of their best fiiends on campus were music majors. In some cases, music students’ relation to non-music students could be described as a social gulf. Several music students commented on their lack of contact with non- music students. Several spoke of the difficulty in interacting with/connecting to outsiders. Music student positionality in relation to the larger campus is mixed. Music students ’/ColIege of Music ’s reclusionfi'om the university at large. 209 Two participants in the study felt that the College of Music was set apart. Four commented on music students’ distance from outsiders. Such perspectives point toward weak music student positionality. Still, numerous participants did not speak of music student/College of Music reclusion. Music student positionality here can be construed as mixed. How music students think MSU non-music community members view their programs of study/lives. All participants believed that outsiders lacked understanding of their programs of study or their lives as music majors. All participants also felt that outsiders were unaware of the difficulty of their programs of study/lives as music majors or the work/time/attention required. Thirteen students named all outsider groups as not understanding. Of the three remaining students, two cited non-music students as lacking understanding, and two spoke of non-music faculty’s lack of understanding. Thus, in this area, more students mentioned non-music student and faculty lack of understanding than non-music administrator lack of understanding. Ten participants believed that outsiders understood their programs of study/lives as music majors. This can be contrasted with the number of students who felt that outsiders did not understand their programs/lives: 16 (all participants). (Some participants held both views.) So, more participants found outsiders lacking understanding than possessing understanding. Seven students felt all three outsider groups understood their programs of study/lives. In contrast, 13 students found all outsider groups lacking in understanding. Ten participants believed that outsiders understood their programs/lives. Seven of the 10 210 considered all outsider groups as understanding. Three participants mentioned that non- music faculty and administrators understood. So, more participants voiced that non-music faculty and administrators understood than non-music students understood. All participants believed that outsiders saw their programs/lives in ways that I characterize as negative. Half of the participants felt outsiders considered their majors/lives to be easy. Some held the view that outsiders considered their pursuits/coming careers as fi'uitless. Several believed that non-music students lacked ardor for their activities. As I stated, all participants felt outsiders saw their majors/lives negatively. Nine participants imputed this view to all three outsider groups. Of the residual participants, six cited non-music students; two cited non-music faculty (one said he was “speculating”), and two cited non-music administrators. So, a greater number of participants saw non-music students viewing them negatively than non-music faculty and administrators. Fourteen participants felt that outsiders viewed their majors/lives in ways I consider positive. Most mentioned general acceptance granted by outsiders for their majors, and some spoke of respect and appreciation outsiders had for their maj ors/ lives. Ten participants cited all outsider groups as seeing their majors/lives positively. In summary, participants felt that outsiders understood and did not understand their majors/lives. In addition, they believed that outsiders saw their majors/lives negatively and positively. Music student positionality, then, is mixed here. How music students think MSU non—music community members view music majors. Five participants believed that music majors were not understood/known by outsiders. Two ascribed this to all three outsider groups. The remaining three attributed 211 this to non-music students. So, more participants felt that non-music students did not understand than non-music faculty and administrators. Four participants believed that music majors were understood/known by outsiders. Of these four, two ascribed this view to all outsider groups, and two ascribed this view to to non-music faculty and administrators. Here more participants believed that non-music faculty and administrators understood than non-music students. Seven participants believed that music majors were viewed negatively by outsiders. Two felt this was the view of all three outsider groups. Four participants ascribed this to non-music students only; one participant cited university administrators only. So, more participants thought that non-music students saw music majors negatively than non-music faculty and administrators. Seven participants felt that outsiders viewed music majors positively. Two of these seven believed that all three outsider groups saw music majors positively; one believed that non-music students did; four thought that non-music faculty and administrators did. So, more participants believed that non-music faculty and administrators viewed music majors positively than non-music students. In summary, music students felt that outsiders understood them and did not understand them and viewed them positively and negatively. With this blend of views, music student positionality is again mixed. Whether music students think MSU non-music community members value the College of Music. The perspective of 14 participants was that outsiders valued the College of Music. Ten of these 14 felt that all outsider groups valued the College of Music. Of the 212 remaining four who cited at least one outsider group, three cited non-music faculty, two cited non-music administrators, and two cited non-music students. The view of nine participants was that outsiders did not value the College of Music or bestowed lesser value on it. (Some students took both sides.) Of these nine, eight cited all three outsider groups. The remaining one cited non-music administrators. So, more participants remarked that outsiders valued than not valued the College of Music. Again, music student positionality appears mixed. Whether music students care about outsiders ’ views regarding their musical program of study. Thirteen students did not care about outsiders’ views regarding their musical program of study, and seven did care. These tallies include the students (about a fourth) who answered both yes and no. That some did not care signals a lack of relation to outsiders. Others did care, showing a valuing of relating to outsiders. (One only cared about administrators’ views because of what could happen to her program.) Here music student positionality is mixed, with both relation and lack of relation to outsiders present. What music students would like outsiders to understand about their lives as music majors. Some music students wanted outsiders to know about their pursuits and their feelings about their pursuits. Several students made comments that revealed a belief in music study’s distinctiveness. Two students’ comments show a desire that others be aware of music’s merit. Four participants wanted engagement/had concern with/for outsiders. I submit that some students’ desire to have their inner feelings and motivations known by outsiders discloses a keenness for connection. Those participants who saw 213 themselves as distinct, I believe, exemplify the creation of distance between music majors and the campus community at large. Those students whose comments showed a desire for respect for music could be thought of as reaching out for others’ recognition. Others wanted engagement/had concern with/for outsiders. On this dimension, the creation of distance and reaching out were both apparent, making music student positionality mixed. Looking for Patterns in Responses Across Interview Questions Concerning Music Student Positionality In some cases, differences in levels of connection, comfort, and belonging to MSU matched with students’ perceptions of outsiders’ views. My expectation at the start of my research was that greater student connection, comfort and belonging to MSU may be linked with students’ perceptions of favorable outsiders’ views. The converse would also apply. It turned out that some differences in connection, comfort and belonging did match with some student perspectives on outsiders’ views. Some findings were commensurate with what I had anticipated; others ran contrary to my expectations. My results here may be doubtful as individual students often put forth contrasting views of outsiders’ perceptions (i.e., both value and not valuing; positive and negative; understanding and lack of understanding). The findings in concord with my initial notions are as follows: First, a higher level of connection to MSU outside the College of Music was paired with the belief that outsiders understood music majors. Second, a higher level of connection to MSU outside the College of Music was paired with believing that outsiders valued the College of Music. Third, a lower level of comfort with MSU was linked to the belief that outsiders lacked understanding of music majors. Fourth, lower comfort with MSU outside the 214 College of Music was associated with the belief that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Fifth, belonging more to MSU was connected to the belief that outsiders valued the College of Music. Several findings proved to be contrary to my expectations. First, lower comfort with MSU outside the College of Music was also associated with the belief that outsiders viewed music majors positively. Second, higher belonging to MSU was linked with students’ belief that outsiders viewed music majors negatively. Third, a lower level of belonging to MSU was linked to students’ belief that outsiders understood music majors’ programs/lives. Through an additional analysis, I found relationships between students’ metaphors involving strain/no strain and the four interview questions conceming perceptions of outsiders’ views. There was a connection between metaphors involving strain about being a music performance major and perceiving outsiders’ understanding, positivity, and esteem. (The one finding linking strain metaphors and perceptions of negative outsider views about music majors goes against the trend.) I also found a connection between metaphors not involving strain about being a music performance major and perceived lack of understanding and esteem. The converse occurred when I looked at the connection between metaphors about performance and the four interview questions concerning perceptions of outsiders’ views. I found a connection between performance metaphors not involving strain and perceiving outsider views of understanding, positivity, and esteem. I also found a connection between performance metaphors involving strain and perceived lack of understanding, negative views, and lack of esteem. 215 Music Students ’ Perceptions of Their Place in the University Setting and Their Intentions to Persist to Graduation Finally, I take up the secondary research question of my study: How do music performance students’ perceptions of their place in the university setting influence their intentions to persist to graduation? As no participants were planning to depart MSU prior to their graduation, I could make no assertions about any relationship or non-relationship between participants’ attrition and participants’ perceptions of the place in the university setting. Some participants spoke of their reasons for remaining at MSU (for their undergraduate degrees). One felt positively about “the learning environment,” which is readying her for “real situations.” Another cited her professor and all the other faculty she has had. A third planned to remain since working with his professor was “definitely worth staying all 4 years for.” A fomth was graduating but said, “I would never leave here as an undergraduate because. . .I’ve had lots of opportunities; I love the faculty; I love the people. . .that I’ve been a student with.” Summary In this section, I reviewed the purpose, methodology, and findings of my study. Next, I compare some of my findings with literature previously discussed and reflect on the community at the College of Music’s regarding retention and related implications. Discussion of Results Some comparisons between the literature previously cited and my findings can be made. The two areasin which I make these comparisons are music student perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors and music student positionality. From the former, I consider performance anxiety, ensemble experiences, private teachers, 216 performance, and views on music education students. From the latter, I review music student separation, music student belonging, the theme of family/home, perceptions of ease and fiivolity, perceptions of deviance, and retention. Music Student Perceptions of Experiences I did not ask students about performance anxiety, but five of them spoke of worry and anxiety related to performance. Three commented on the stress associated with playing/singing in front of other musicians. Performance anxiety was also an issue for students surveyed by Wesner, Noyes, and Davis (1990). About 61% of the students in their study claimed performance anxiety “distress” as “marked” or “moderate” (p. 178). Tamborrino found that nearly 51% of his student participants did not “feel relaxed and comfortable while performing” and that nearly 53% said they “perspire and tremble just before performing” (p. 83). All participants expressed enthusiasm regarding ensembles. Undergraduate music majors at Northwestern University offered somewhat positive views on ensemble experiences. On a scale of 1 to 9, with nine meaning “very much so,” the average score for finding one’s university ensemble experiences “personally rewarding” was 6.17 (Casey, 1970, p. 132). Most of the students in my study who talked about small ensembles had only glowing things to say about them (Dalton’s experience was a bit bumpier.) Three students cited small ensembles/a small ensemble performance as what was most rewarding musically for them at MSU. This can be compared with Plasket’s findings. She stated that 12 out of 85 students she interviewed found their chamber music involvement “a highlight of their NEC [New England Conservatory of Music] experience” (p. 169). According to Plasket, 30 students experienced “frustration” with 217 chamber music (p. 169). This was exacerbated since chamber music was close to the heart of these students (p. 169). Kingsbury (1988), who conducted an ethnography at an American conservatory, found that most students “were devoted to or admiring of their own principal teacher” (p. 39). In my interviews with students, nothing negative was said about MSU private teachers. One student gained more than musical knowledge from her private teacher. She claimed, “You don’t just learn about how to play [her instrument] in your lessons; you learn work ethic; you learn determination and everything like that.” Performance was experienced by the participants in my study in various ways. The factors I identified for the performing metaphors were excitement, audience evaluation, transformation, mechanics, lack of awareness, and concentration. Some performance members experienced performance anxiety. Most of my participants’ experiences of performance as described to me through metaphor were either primarily neutral or positive. Positivity bursts forth from the excitement factor, with student metaphors of performance as follows: parachute jump, energy drink, cloud dance, rollercoaster ride, and watching first-time fireworks (2 hours afterwards). Performance as involving agency can be seen in the transformation cluster, as performers author metarnorphoses in performance. In only 6 out of 16 metaphors for performance created by my study participants, students mentioned stress or anxiety (including pre-performance). This smallness of negativity can be contrasted to Li’s (2001) findings in her study of senior piano majors in Taiwan. According to Li, less than 50% “liked” performing. The majority had one of two perspectives: an unfavorable view of performing or “an ambivalent attitude about it. The majority had experienced negative 218 feelings in performing” (p. 86). Li also found that “the participants who liked performing mostly had negative feelings about performing at the same time” (p. 86). My findings can also be contrasted with findings from Tamborrino’s (2001) study. Tamborrino found that “a majority of respondents described their ‘most recent performance’ feelings as a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant feelings” (p. 93). For most, their “best performance” was “pleasant,” with “little or no unpleasant feelings” (p. 93). But this pleasantness was for a best performance, not a routine performance. Although most of the performing metaphors of students in my study were primarily neutral or positive, I do need to mention that three students spoke at other times in the interviews of the stress associated with playing/singing in front of other musicians. Had I asked participants directly about performance, rather than asking them to create a metaphor, perhaps they would have shared more negative feelings. In creating their metaphors, they were choosing to flame their experience in one way. This may not have left a space for discussion of negative feelings. Morgan (1996) wrote that “metaphors. . .give us specific frames for viewing the world” (p. 228). Trimmer commented on Black’s interaction view (mentioned earlier): “In the interaction view metaphor hides some elements and highlights others” (p. 10). In choosing their metaphors, the students perhaps ended up passing over some aspects of performance. In his (1991) study of Canadian music education majors, Roberts shared thoughts on how music education students conceive of performance: One might suppose that performance was viewed by students as some sort of aesthetic expression or emotive opportunity where they might really “make” music. However, music students view performance almost exclusively in terms of 219 technique. They negotiate their role as a musician by demonstrating that they are playing ever more difficult pieces technically, simply stated - more notes! (p. 125) Results from my study can be contrasted with Roberts’ (1991) findings here. Most students in my study did not speak of technical achievement in discussing performance. Although Caleb spoke of technique, his comments show that he was not obsessed with technique. He sought to be accurate musically and somewhat “mathematical.” Still, he said, if his performance “lacks certain form or structure, it’s still. . .beautiful as it is.” He saw performing as “weaving or knitting a blanket or quilt. . .because some of the beauty comes in the. . .precision that you have to achieve.” At times, making a mistake may detract from the beauty. Still, he said, “part of the aesthetic is drawn from the colors and. . .the shapes that are in it, so even if it’s not a perfect weave. . .it’s still a work of art.” Comments some of my participants made show a perception of performing as an emotive or aesthetic pursuit. As mentioned above, Caleb considered performance “a work of art.” For Emma, performing is “like letting out some kind of big emotion. . .something that you can’t keep in anymore.” Kyle believed that the audience can feel “exactly” what the player of the music feels. Sophie appreciated the fact that there is only one mood in an aria in opera. She continued, “I like that because you can convey one single emotion to a sea of people.” Dalton took the perspective that a performer “[paints] a picture for people’s minds.” As mentioned previously, Roberts (1991) studied music education students at five Canadian universities. Roberts asserted that the music education students he studied “identify the treatment of their group as stigmatized [sic]” (p. 94). In all 16 interviews with music performance majors, not once did a participant say anything disparaging 220 about music education majors. In fact, there was some recognition of the toil that pursuit extracted: Stephen was cognizant of the “wor ” required of music education majors. Trina held that, if one is “serious” regarding the music performance major, this major is “one of the hardest majors.” But she then said her fellow seniors who are double majors in music education and performance “work even harder.” Music Student Positionality In his study of Canadian music education students, Roberts (1991) wrote, “Music students appear to develop a strong sense of isolation from the rest of the campus and most seem to focus their social action within the music school” (p. 21 In my study, I found that, for 14 of 16 participants, most of their best fiiends on campus were music majors. The students had varying levels of connection to MSU. Some students referenced the difficulty/adaptation in interacting with/connecting to outsiders, and several spoke of their lack of contact with non-music students. Two students saw the College of Music as set apart. One of them commented, “I think that. . .even the College of Music kind of separates itself.” Four commented on music students’ distance from outsiders. One student asserted, “We try to bar ourselves from the rest of the university.” Caleb stated: The reasons for us. . .to be excluded are both internal. . .and external. It’s not really anybody’s fault in general. It’s sort of. . .a combination of. . .everyone else... assuming things about us and us not putting in the time to. . .disprove them. Finally, a few participants in my study felt that outsiders regarded music majors as “separate.” Roberts (1991) claimed that some Canadian music education students feel “that they don’t belong to the university as a whole at all, but merely to the music school” (p. 36). 221 In my study, students’ belonging varied. One student belonged to his private teacher. Ten students belonged more to the College of Music; four belonged to both MSU and the College of Music; one belonged more to MSU. Kempton (2002) found a theme of family in his study of the meaning (and what affected these meaning) that students involved in choir found in their “choral experience” at Ricks College, a two-year institution at the time of the study, now Brigham Young University-Idaho, a four-year institution (pp. 5; 6, 270). Family was also mentioned by two participants in my study. Callie described the College of Music as “a big family.” Kyle felt linked to the music building since one creates a sort of “family away fi'om home” through spending 4 years alongside the same individuals. Zinnia, Jane, and Emma spoke of the College of Music as “home.” Kyle and Trina spoke of MSU as “home.” According to Roberts’ (1991) research, music education students take the perspective that university community members and people outside the university believe “the study of music is somehow frivolous and easy” (p. 45). Half of my participants thought that outsiders viewed their programs of study/lives as music majors as easy. Caleb said, “Some people would probably categorize music as just sort of a fiivolity — it’s not really something that will make an impact. . .when applied to the real world.” Two other students felt that outsiders saw their pursuits/coming careers as fi'uitless, and two felt outsiders viewed their majors as a “joke.” One has sensed that some faculty members consider her career choice “kind of a worthless profession.” But also, in my study, 14 of 16 participants felt that outsiders viewed their programs of study/lives as music majors positively. Some felt outsiders accepted their majors, and some felt outsiders had respect and/or appreciation for their programs of study/lives as music majors. 222 Finally, Roberts’ (1991) research showed that music education students believe that people see “the music community as weird, different or otherwise deviant” (p. 45). Two participants, Dalton, and Emma, in my study felt that non-music students considered music majors in what I term outside the social mainstream. Two stereotypes for music majors that Dalton felt were held by non-music students with whom he was not well acquainted were “less athletic or nerdy.” Emma’s view was that non-music students think of music majors as being in the “dungeon” and being “weird.” She also thought that non- music students saw music maj ors as not desiring to converse with others and not often going outside the music building. Perceived music student eccentricity can be detected in Flavia’s comments. She felt that non-music students find music majors a tad “quirky, ‘cause we’re artsy.” On the other hand, two students felt outsiders viewed music majors in ways that point toward their ordinariness. For example, Toby felt that outsiders see music majors as they perceive any other person at MSU. Although Dalton’s perception involves ordinariness and program of study, not music majors, it seems relevant here. His view was that, to non-music faculty, music is simply “another major.” Finally, I address a finding of Thomas (2000) in this discussion of social integration and music student retention. Thomas’s study involved all freshmen at a liberal arts college (p. 597). Thomas found that “the percentage of self-reported ties that fall within a student’s peer group” indirectly negatively affected persistence (pp. 606; 607, 608). According to him, “This measure can be viewed as the extent to which a student is bound to her or his peer group to the exclusion of connections to those in other peer groups” (p. 606). Thomas wrote, “Those students with a greater proportion of ties outside of their 223 peer group. . .are more likely to persist” (p. 609). In the case of music students, one could argue that exclusive socializing with music peers could hamper persistence. But at a College of Music as large as MSU’s, one could have a central peer group in the College as well as other acquaintances there, thus encouraging one’s persistence. MSU Music Performance Students ’ Retention and Implications None of the participants in my study were planning to leave MSU before graduation, so I could not assess a connection between music student positionality and retention. One comment Stephen made relative to attrition did involve outsiders’ attitudes. He remarked: “Maybe if people [he also used the word ‘society’]. . .didn’t make it so difficult [attaining the career of performer], more of us would be successful, and not as many of us would drop out.” In my literature review, I discussed Tinto’s (1993) idea of social integration in his model of student departure. Tinto wrote, “Some form of integration — that is, some type of social and/or intellectual membership in at least one college community — is a minimum condition for continued persistence” (p. 121). According to Tinto, it is reasonable to assume that students who have more memberships at an institution are less prone to depart (p. 122). Although Tinto said that “evidence suggests” that having both social and intellectual integration leads to greater persistence, he did say that having either type could possibly bring about persistence (p. 137). So, maybe one does not have to have very many memberships to stay in school. I believe that this is the case for music performance majors in the College of Music. It is likely that, for them, musical and social integration play defining and nearly solitary roles in persistence. 224 Tinto also commented that a person could be sturdily connected to a “marginal community” but be connected to the core of the institution’s vitality in a “weak, tangential” way (p.123). According to Tinto, a person could be swayed “from the system generally” by a major outside pressure (p. 123). From participants’ comments in my study, I would say that music students experience themselves in a somewhat marginal community. Still, I doubt that my participants could be pushed out of the College of Music easily. Despite its marginality, the College of Music may provide such uniting experiences (connection through music and social interaction) within that its marginality fades as a factor in attrition for music performance students. Its strong retention rates trumpet its role in holding its students. For music performance students at the College of Music, retention is likely dependent on their experiences within the College of Music, not outside, in the university at large, as their connections in the College of Music are strong. Zinnia described music’s uniting properties: Music is what forms. . .our close bonds with each other. . .between faculty, between other students. . .between. . .the administrators...and the employees... like that’s what’s absent in other schools, that we have, is music and playing. .. with someone, playing for someone, it just. . .creates this new tie that. . .like I said is absent in other. . .Colleges, so I think that. . .it shows the power of music and... what music is capable of that not everybody understands. Zinnia also saw the College of Music as “a community inside of the community of Michigan State because we do form a close bond with each other.” For 14 of the 16 participants in my study, the majority of their best fiiends on campus were music majors. This signifies hearty social integration at work in the College of Music. Also, more 225 participants spoke of the College of Music as home/family than of MSU as such. The word family was never applied to MSU, only to the College of Music. Callie described the College of Music as “a big family.” She said, “We’re together all the time for like. . .4 or 5 years, and you get to know everyone really well and so we’re all tied up in each other’s lives.” Kyle felt linked to the music building, since one creates a sort of “family away from home” through spending 4 years alongside the same individuals. Social integration at the College of Music flames brightly here. This description of the College of Music brings to mind the community found in residential colleges. Reflecting on the strong community of the College of Music within a larger campus, university administrators across the country may be encouraged to take steps toward deepening connections for students, with a goal of improving retention. Working from the knowledge that some study results show that student positionality (social integration, sense of belonging, institutional fit, and value sharing) is related to retention/intent to persist, administrators should look for ways to increase student connection. Through strengthening student connections, especially in students’ first years, such as through residential colleges, living-learning options, or fi'eshmen major admits, retention at large institutions may be increased. When students are more connected and better retained, they are more enthusiastic alumni, encouraging others to embark on a journey similar to the one they knew and more eagerly embracing their roles as alumni. Summary Above I compared some of my study findings to some of the literature I presented earlier in my dissertation, and I discussed community and retention in the College of 226 Music, with implications. In the next section, I offer suggestions for better serving, understanding, and respecting music students. Suggestions for Better Serving, Understanding, and Respecting Music Students Non-musician faculty, administrators, staff, and students may want to be supportive of music students, and College of Music faculty and administrators/staff certainly do. Below I discuss ways in which this can be accomplished. Understanding MS U ’s Musical Culture Suggestions for Prospective/New Music Students Some of the results of this study could be shared by College of Music faculty and administrators with prospective/new music students in order to give them a better idea of MSU’s musical culture, in order to 1) help them decide if they would like to join the culture and 2) help them understand the culture upon entry. A number of my findings are relevant for prospective/new music students. First, the positionality of MSU music performance students is mixed. Participant levels of connection, comfort, and belonging with MSU varied. The College of Music is a place for conviviality but can also be less inviting. Five participants saw the College of Music as home/family, and friendships inside the College of Music were strong, as 14 participants stated that the majority of their best friends on campus were music majors. On the other hand, for two students, the majority of their best friends on campus were not music majors; one student spoke of students maligning others to professors; another was not fond of competitiveness in ensembles; and three spoke of the strain of playing/singing in fiont of other musicians. Several participants spoke of their lack of contact with non-music students, and some spoke of the difficulty/adaptation required in interacting/connecting with outsiders. Some 227 students noted the College of Music’s/music students’ distance from the university at large. Students’ views about others’ perceptions of their programs of study/lives as music majors, themselves, and their College were mixed. Some cared what outsiders might think about their musical programs of study, and some did not. So, music performance students’ positionality, or their perceptions of their relationships to the university at large as well as their perceptions of outsiders’ views, is mixed. Prospective/new students may also be interested in knowing that my findings showed that all but one participant used emotional language relative to music, musical activity, or their major, and some spoke of music and emotion. Students at the College of Music tend to care about others, as evidence by the fact that ten participants’ comments showed their care for others. Musical growth is valued in the College of Music, as six participants spoke of their musical growth when asked in the interviews what has been most rewarding musically for them during their time at MSU. Students at the College of Music value ensembles, as all participants were positive about them. Music faculty are esteemed, as most participant comments about them were positive. Majoring in music performance is challenging: Most participants experienced the performance major as difficult. Finally, participant metaphors and metaphor factors may be instructive for prospective/new students. The two struggle factors warn newcomers of the possible challenges awaiting them. Through learning about the variety factor, students grasp the versatility (a word used by two participants) required. That half of performing metaphors involved excitement or transformation suggests to newcomers that performance is viewed at the College of Music as dynamic. Knowing that most of my participants’ experiences 228 of performance communicated through metaphor were either primarily neutral or positive may also be useful information. New Faculty and Administrative Hires at the College of Music In order to better understand MSU music students and MSU’s musical culture so that they can better support music students, new faculty and administrators/ staff at the College of Music should learn about both MSU’s musical culture, including music student positionality. A number of my findings that I recommended be shared with new students are also relevant for new College of Music hires. New hires should know about music student experiences, especially emotions and music/musical activity/music performance major, neutral and positive performance experiences (metaphors), and psychological struggles (metaphor factor). Concerning positionality, new hires should be acquainted with findings concerning the College of Music as family/home, College of Music/music student reclusion from the university at large, social relations with non- music peers, the varying levels of connection, comfort, and belonging that music students have with the university, and the mixed perceptions that music students had regarding outsiders’ views. Increasing Understanding and Respect of Music Students by Outsiders The participants in my study reported mixed feelings about outsiders’ perceptions of them, their programs/lives, and their College. A fair amount of lack of understanding/negativity was attributed to outsiders. Given this lack of understanding and negativity music students felt that outsiders had for their programs of study/lives as music majors and music majors themselves, and given the lack of value perceived for the College of Music, an effort ought to be made to right the situation. 229 Non-music MSU F acuity/Administrators Non-music MSU faculty and administrators/staff (especially those with student contact) ought to be informed about the lack of understanding and negativity music students feel that outsiders have for their programs/ lives, themselves, and their College. Then these faculty and administrators/staff members should be encouraged to show interest in and respect for the pursuits of music students with whom they interact. In addition, I think it would be helpful to tell the faculty and administrators/staff members what music students in my study wanted outsiders to understand about their lives as music majors. Bringing Music Students and the Non-music MSU Community Together If there were a way to bring music students and outsiders together, so that outsiders could learn about music students’ lives and develop a respect for them, it should be tried. Dalton, a participant in my study, wanted outsiders to have more information about music students’ activities that would enable them to determine if they should esteem these activities, if they feel music is “a harder major,. . .a harder lifestyle,. . .if that gives them more reason to see a concert, if that gives them more reason to not see a concert.” Heather, also a participant in my study, said, “If [non-music students] would just come for one day and try and live in the life of a music major, they probably wouldn’t take it as lightly as they do.” Surely more knowledge about music students would increase outsiders’ esteem. Esteeming others in a university setting is certainly to be encouraged. Downey (2000) described the heart of commtmity in universities: “It is the spirit of concern and caring, of regard and respect, of cooperation and sharing which is the 230 communal bonding agent. This is the essence which harmonizes divergent interests and creates cohesion” (p. 309). So, with greater esteem of each other, community grows. In my study, 13 students did not care about outsiders’ views regarding their musical program of study, and seven did care. That some did care is a justification for aiming to increase understanding and respect of music students by university community members. And, even if no music students cared, it would still be the right thing to do in order to honor the students who feel that outsiders do not view their programs of study well. To bring music students and outsiders together, several actions could be taken. First, two Colleges on campus could agree to increase understanding by participating in an exchange. Professors, administrators/staff, and students from one would attend presentations at the other one day, designed for outsiders, and vice versa. Students fi'om one would be paired with students from the other, and the two would meet for lunch and learn about each others’ lives. I think the best strategy would be to pair the College of Music and one more high status College, but one could also match the College of Music and another somewhat marginalized College. University administrators could also attend the presentations at the two Colleges. A special session that day for university administrators and students only would facilitate communication and understanding between these groups. Perhaps university administrators could volunteer to occasionally visit during ensemble rehearsals (large and small ensembles) at the College of Music. Another possibility for increasing respect and knowledge among majors is for students of different majors to work together on a project. Two students could be paired. In a general education class, students could be required, in doing a project, to incorporate something from both students’ majors into their project. This would encourage dialogue 231 about each student’s major among the student pairs. Or, in two classes, fiom different Colleges, students could be paired for a project. They would be required to merge both students’ majors into the presentation. Recently (2007) at Calvin College, an hour’s drive from MSU, two classes from different areas together created an activity on campus. A “sonnet walk” was held at Calvin on April 23, Shakespeare’s birthday. A class studying Shakespeare collaborated with a performance studies class in the endeavor. In addition to “researching the literary background of the sonnets,” the Shakespeare class advised the performance studies students on presenting the sonnets (“Students honor,” 2007, p. 14). Surely music could be easily incorporated into any group project. Perhaps subject matter could be presented in music. Consider, for example, physics professor Walter Smith’s merging of music and physics. Smith, of Haverford College, has written songs about physics. Diarnent (2005) noted that “Mr. Smith says the songs make him more approachable to students who are intimidated by the subject matter” (p. A6). Smith also feels “they refocus attention when performed in the middle of class” (Diament, p. A6). A former student from the class, Katie Baratz, spoke of the difficulty of physics and referred to a physics song in one’s brain, saying, “It just makes things so much easier because you internalize. I think the beauty of them is that you don’t realize you’re learning” (Diament, p. A6). In incorporating music into their paired presentations, one method may be presenting subject material musically. Perhaps what I have proposed could be useful beyond the MSU campus. What I have proposed could be implemented not only at MSU, but on campuses across the country. 232 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research This study had several limitations. First, data were collected at one university only, a research university in Michigan. Further studies should involve colleges and universities in different parts of the country, different institution types (such as baccalaureate colleges, master’s colleges and universities, doctorate-granting universities, commuter institutions, Christian colleges), and different sizes. A broad study could be done surveying a wide range of colleges and universities, and also studies focusing on specific college types could be done. Study foci could vary. One approach would be to limit the study to students’ perceptions of their experiences as music performance majors, perhaps including metaphor analysis and F oss’s (1996) four questions. In larger studies involving various colleges/universities, comparisons across institutions could be made. Perhaps one area of musical experience could be studied, such as performing. Another approach would be to exclusively study music student positionality. Positionality could be examined by instrument/voice, year of study, or gender. One limitation of my study was that positionality of vocal students was not assessed separately from instrumentalists’. In future studies, this could be done. One could also survey non-music students, administrators/ staff and faculty to learn how they perceive music students, their programs/lives, and the College of Music. Another idea would be to conduct my study with fi'eshmen, graduate students, international students, or minority students. How the positionality of music faculty, parents, and older siblings may affect music students could also be studied. In my study, 16 participants were interviewed, but no string players were represented. It would have been wonderful had I been able to secure a string player for 233 my study. As it was such a challenge to recruit participants, it was a wonder that I had as great a range of instruments/voice as I did. Perhaps in future studies done at single institutions, researchers will be able to include students representing a wider range of instruments. I would also recommend that research be done to determine if music students’ positionality vis-a-vis their own music departments, schools, and colleges can be linked with retention therein. The college/school/department becomes the focus here, as opposed to retention to the institution. As I discussed in the literature review, some study results show student positionality (social integration, sense of belonging, institutional fit, and value sharing) to be related to retention/intent to persist (social integration: Allen, 1986, Allen & Nelson, 1987; Bean, 1980, Berger & Braxton, 1998; Braxton et al., 1995; Bray ‘ et al., 1999; Cabrera, Castafieda, et al., 1992; Cabrera, et al., 1992; Cabrera, et al., 1993; Eimers & Pike, 1997; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983); (sense of belonging: Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Thomas & Andes, 1987; Walter, 2000); (institutional fit: Bean, 1985; Cabrera, Castafleda, et a1, 1992; Forbes, 1998; Nora & Cabrera, 1993); (value sharing: Eimers & Pike, 1997; Morris et al., 2007; and Pervin & Rubin, 1967). In addition, a worldwide study on positionality could be done, with participating institutions lending a hand in data collection. I think this would be warranted, especially given the differences between my findings and Roberts (1991), who studied Canadian music education students. Roberts found that music education students felt that university community members and people outside the university believe “the study of music is somehow fiivolous and easy” (p. 45). In my study, half of participants thought that 234 outsiders viewed their programs of study/lives as easy. Fourteen participants felt that outsiders viewed their programs of study/lives positively. Finally, Roberts found that music education students believe that people see “the music community as weird, different or otherwise deviant” (p. 45). Only two participants in my study felt that non- music students considered music majors in what 1 term outside the social mainstream. Contrastingly, two participants felt that outsiders viewed music majors in ways that point toward their ordinariness. Given the contrast in results between countries here, it would be interesting to expand a study to a greater number of countries. Two approaches to selecting countries could be taken. First, diversity in countries (location, wealth, ethnicity) could be sought. Second, a group of countries in one region could be selected, say, for example, a Southeast Asia study, a Scandinavian study, or a South American study. Companion studies could be done at each institution of higher education selected in each country in which the non-music students, faculty and administrators/ staff would be surveyed in order to find out how they view music students and their programs. Finally, a most fascinating study would be a worldwide study inviting music student metaphors, as metaphors could be contrasted by country, with factors created and Foss’s (1996) four questions applied. Final Thoughts My journey through this project has been varied. What stands out as I walk the final round of the journey is the memory of the students I interviewed. They gave me a generous look into their lives. They were thoughtful, determined people with years ahead of all sorts of musical opportunities. I was struck by some of their other-focused comments in relation to music. Part of why Caleb chose to major in music performance 235 was that he noticed that his performances created “joy” for others. He said he wanted to be able to “brighten a person’s day or make them feel something.” Heather liked creating gladness for others through her performances. When Stephen sang at a concert for a multitude of people in China who had never witnessed opera, he felt that he was “giving a gift of music to people that have never had it before.” He commented that after his lengthy study in music, it was “very rewarding” to “give back in such a way to somebody else, to really be. . . productive with it. . .in a very wholesome way.” The giving hearts of these students, in a day in which me-centeredness pervades our society, is warming. It is my hope that these students and others will take music not only to the concert halls and churches of our world, but also to those who can not come to traditional venues for music. When these students perform live in the living room of a ninety-year-old shut-in, at the homeless shelter and the prison, they will be partners in the blooming of joy in desert lands. Stephen spoke of the “gift of music,” but musical performance also can be the gift of oneself. Many, many years ago, my Grandpa Hauge summarized a newspaper clipping for me. I came across it long after he had sent it to me, and it is now very precious to me. It spoke of the gifts one can give others year round. All were gifts of oneself. These kinds of gifts are rare today. But through music, giving of oneself can thrive. 236 APPENDIX 237 Additional Literature The following review of additional literature may be useful to readers of this dissertation. Difi‘iculties in the Music T eacher-Student Relationship This section includes a discussion of observed teacher behaviors (Persson, 1995) as well as philosophical perspectives on teacher power mentioned by Plasket (1992) and Kogan (1987). Difficulties can arise in the music teacher-student setting. In a study of faculty and students at a British higher music institution, Persson (1995) found that teachers were having their students play in styles that would please examining juries (p. 8). Persson (1995) wrote that all but one of the teachers in his study taught students that there were “right” ways to play music, but he added the following caveat: It must be pointed out, however, that I visited the participating teachers in times of final examinations. In the interest of helping their students obtain a good mark, teachers pushed their students toward a certain way of playing, which they knew would be accepted by the examining jury. (p. 8) According to Persson, “Individual musicianship and the development of an artistic flair were issues almost entirely. . .ignored in the music department” (p. 8). One student said of her voice teacher: “She is never interested in what I think — my understanding of a song. She is interested in what she thinks of a song” (p. 8). Persson wrote that “[product- orientation] does seem to [stress students] if pursued at the expense of person-oriented teaching” (p. 8). 238 Another possible stressor Persson (1995) found was “the handling and pacing of information flow” (p. 8). He asserted that six of the seven teachers in the study did not adjust their teaching to their students’ skills (p. 8). He went on to note, “A majority of the participating teachers rather confused their students by giving too many instructions in too short a period of time or by providing paradoxical statements” (p. 9). One student commented, “Always when I sing, I’m waiting for her to stop me. And when she doesn’t stop me I can’t help but drink why she didn’t stop me. Often she says so many things at once which I need to think about and consider” (p. 9). Additionally, in his study, Persson found that not seeing the value in mentorship could possibly impinge on students’ transformations into musicians (p. 12). He wrote, “Most important. . .is a supportive and personal relationship with the performance teacher” (p. 10). Plasket (1992) viewed private teacher-student relationships as “endemically unbalanced” (p. 130). She continued, “The teacher is in a power position which requires a kind of submission by the student” (p. 130). This was illustrated in a vivid account by Kogan (1987), who shared stories of students of The Juilliard School. The stories in Kogan’s book are detailed, but from the way they are presented, it is difficult to know how much the students told her and how much embellishment she added. Below is a short excerpt that vividly brings home what can transpire in a student-teacher relationship. Twenty-three—year old student Simon is at his piano lesson playing the Rachmaninoff Second Piano Concerto: “But don’t you think,” Simon asked, “it might go this way?” He turned to the keyboard and demonstrated three seconds’ worth of his interpretation. His teacher was livid. His back went stiff. “Who are you to say this to me?” he 239 asked, fire in his eyes. (p. 87) Kogan wrote regarding The J uilliard School, “The student never forgets that he is the apprentice at the feet of the master” (p. 86). Of the teacher, she wrote, “The student is his puppet, his lump of clay to mold” (p. 86). She felt that some teachers act like army generals and asserted, “They treat their students as soldiers and other classes as enemy camps. . .. The student who dares to defect to another camp risks vindictiveness” (p. 56). Finally, Arroe (1996), who conducted a study on satisfaction of students at two mid- westem conservatories and two mid-westem music departments (pp. 22, 27), found that “students who were unhappy with their studio instructor were found to have low satisfaction in general” (p. 55). Musical Culture Arostegui (2004) studied the Music Education degree at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. He observed and spoke with three undergraduate students during a semester (pp. 127-128). Arostegui found: The music education Bachelor degree in bands and orchestra at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Charnpaign was devoted to reproduction of the Western classical tradition, at least during the junior Spring semester observed in this case study. This reproduction was mostly focused on music performance. Music theory and music education courses were less prominent than playing an instrument. (p. 194) Social Class and Ethnic Diversity The above discussion of class differences prompts one to think about social class and ethnic diversity among music students. According to Dibben, (2006), “Music in [higher education] has a problematic record in terms of social inclusion” (p. 91). She 240 offered this example: In a review of teaching at the University of Sheffield, UK, mention was made that lower socio-economic students are not being drawn to the undergraduate music programs (p. 91). Dibben went on to consider the country-wide situation: “Nationally, expansions in student numbers in music have not been matched by widening participation across socio-economic groups” (pp. 91-92). Arostegui (2004), who studied the Music Education degree at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign (UIU C), commented on the ethnic make-up of students at the university’s music school. The paucity of ethnic minority students astonished him as he conducted his research (p. 135). Obtaining data on student ethnicities, he asserted that the data “confirmed the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the School of Music” (p. 135). For example, Hispanic students make up 5.8% of the student population at UIUC, but only 3.2% of the School of Music is Hispanic. African American students make up 6.9% of UIUC students but comprise only 2.8% of students in the School of Music (p. 135). Auditions Kogan (1987) wrote about entrance auditions at The Juilliard School. She described the auditioning process in a narrative style, at one point writing, “He [an auditioning student] feels a mixture of excitement and dread, as if he were going to the gallows and the gates of heaven” (p. 16). Roberts (1991), who studied music education students in Canada, shared student recollections of audition experiences. He commented: Students who consider themselves musicians often complained that during the audition, they felt threatened as a musician in a way that might deny them the right to consider themselves as such. . ..Students report that they are shown the power of 241 the faculty who often show total lack of interest in them as applicants. (p. 149) Music Education Students ’ Status Roberts (1991, 1993), who studied music education students at five Canadian universities through student interviews and through participant observation, was interested in “the social construction of reality by music education students” (1991, p. 32). According to Roberts, “students see the accumulation of status points as a way to generate the authority to claim a social status in the community” (1991 , p. 59). He identified “eight major status gaining affiliations which appear to be employed by students” (1991, p. 59). He also looked at the lower status of music education students in music schools. In the music schools, the majors of music education and performance are the two “[main] academic subgroups” (1991, p. 93). According to Roberts, “The music education students themselves identify the treatment of their group as stigrnatised” (1991, p. 94). Students feel they are looked down on by not only students but also faculty (1991, pp. 94-95). Roberts (1993) asserted that “the quest for the status of ‘musician’ drives the music school. It is the ultimate and almost exclusive quest among the members of the music school” (p. 59). The desire of music education students is “to be labeled a musician” (p. 211). These students “depend upon a positive societal reaction to validate their on-going claim” (p. 211). Music education students’ “identity construction depends substantially more on the conferring by others than on a self claim” (p. 210). Students ’ Views Regarding Robust Teaching Students at a conservatory in the UK commented on “the ingredients of instrumental 242 [and vocal (p. 78)] teaching that are effective for [them]” (Mills, 2002, p. 79). Mills found: Students want to feel that they have made good progress with their technique, musicality, practising skills and confidence; they want inspiring teachers who love teaching, show interest in students’ musical and personal development, are firm when necessary, and who present detailed criticism constructively. They want their lessons to take place regularly, and to feel planned and purposeful. They appreciate the conservatoire’s policy of only employing teachers who are, or were, at the top of their profession as performers. (p. 79) 243 REFERENCES 244 REFERENCES Allen, D. F. (1986). Attrition at a commuter institution: A path analytic validation of T into ’s theoretical model of college withdrawal. Paper presented at the meeting of the American College Personnel Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274929) Allen, D. F., & Nelson, J. M. (1987). T into ’s model of college withdrawal applied to women in two institutions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259686). American Music Therapy Association, Inc. (1998-2009). AMT A school directory. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://wwwmusictherapyorg Arostegui, J. L. (2004). Much more than music: Music education instruction at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In J. L. Arostegui (Ed.), The social context of music education (pp. 127-210). Champaign, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation. Arroe, C. (1996). Music conservatory and music department students ’ satisfaction regarding their selected programs of study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, Vermillion. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bauer, K.W. (1998). Editor’s Notes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 25 (2), l- 5. Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187. Bean, .1. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome [Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 35- 64). Bean, J. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler, D., J. P. Bean, & Associates, The strategic management of college enrollments (pp. 147-169). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational attributes in the persistence process [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 39, 103-119. 245 Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2008). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison: Schools and colleges. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http:// www.wisc.edu/agademics/schoolsAndCollegesphp Board of Regents State of Iowa. (2008). Annual report on student retention and graduation rates. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://wwwreggrtsiowagov/ Meetings/DocketMemos/O8Memosfieb08/0208_ITEM29.Ddf Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 69, 479-504. The Boston Conservatory. (n.d.). Tuition & fee schedule. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from 1m://www.bostoncon_servatory.edu/admissions/Tuition F ees.pdf Bowman, M. A. (1996-1997). Metaphors we teach by: Understanding ourselves as teachers and learners. Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 8(3), no page numbers. Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. Bozik, M. (2002). The college student as learner: Insight gained through metaphor analysis [Electronic version]. College Student Journal, 36, 142-151. Braxton, J. M, & Brier, E. M. (1989). Melding organizational and interactional theories of student attrition: A path analytic study. The Review of Higher Education, 13, 47- 61. Braxton, J. M., Duster, M., & Pascarella, E. T. (1988). Causal modeling and path analysis: An introduction and an illustration in student attrition research. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 263-272. Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 3 6, 595-612. Bray, N. J ., Braxton, J. M. & Sullivan, A. S. (1999). The influence of stress-related coping strategies on college student departure decision. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 645-657. Brown, S. J. (1965). The world of imagery: Metaphor and kindred imagery. New York, NY: Haskell House: Publishers of Scholarly Books. Butler University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2006, October 18). 246 Table 1.12: Graduation rate by major: Freshman classes of 1 998-2000 combined. Retrieved April 16, 2008, fiom htth/wwwbutler.edu/oir/webanap/docfiuments/ igstitutiorralData/ l .21 GraduationRaterMaiorFreshmenClasses1 998- 2000Combined.pdf Cabrera, A. F., Castafleda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 143-164. Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. The Review ofEducation/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, I 6, 387-409. Cabrera, A. F ., Nora, A., & Castafieda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33, 571-593. Cabrera, A. F ., Nora, A., & Castafieda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 123-139. Casey, D. E. (1970). A profile of the undergraduate music majors at Northwestern University in terms of attitude, demographics, self concept, and personal orientation (attrition, specialization, achievement, prediction). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (05), 1642A. (UMI No. 8610911) Cleveland Institute of Music (2007-2008). Catalog. Retrieved May 1, 2008, fi'om http://www.cim.edu/download/colAdmisCatangOO7-20084flf The Colburn School Conservatory of Music. (n.d.). Tuition, fees, expenses. Retrieved May 1, 2008, fiom http://www.colburn_school.edu/ Conrad, C., Haworth, J. G., & Millar, S. B. (2001). A positioned subject approach to inquiry. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds), Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Expanding Perspectives (2“d ed.) ASHE Reader Series (pp. 203-216). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (2008). Home. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.cccu.org Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. The Curtis Institute of Music Admissions. (2008). Merit-basedfull-tuition scholarships. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://www.curtis.edu/html/30500.shtrnl Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of 247 qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2“‘1 ed.) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dews, C. L. B., & Williams, M. S. (1989). Student musicians’ personality styles, stresses, and coping patterns. Psychology of Music, 1 7, 37-47. Diament, M. (2005, March 11). A physicist follows his muse. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A6. Dibben, N. (2006). The socio-cultural and learning experiences of music students in a British university [Electronic version]. British Journal of Music Education, 23, 91 - 116. D’Onofrio, M. J. (1981). A qualitative study of anxiety in solo performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Hayward. Downey, J. (2000). Balancing corporation, collegium, and community. In M. C. Brown 11 (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education, ASHE Reader Series (5th ed.) (pp. 305-312). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Eimers, M. T., & Pike, G. R. (1997). Minority and nonminority adjustment to college: Differences or similarities? Research in Higher Education, 38, 77-97. Erasmus, D. (1976). The correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 298 to 445, 1514 to 1516, (Vol. 3). (R. A. B. Mynors & D. F. S. Thomson, Trans; Annotated by J. K. McConica). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Fainsilber, L, & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 239-250. Faculty News. (2006-2007). Music Notes, 21, 25-39. Forbes, G. D. (1998). The concept of religious fit and student retention at Christian colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International 60 (02), p. 356A. (UMI No. 9918363) Foss, S. K. (1996). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (2”‘1 ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. The gifis of music. (1994). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Goodman, B.S., Dalton, L.C., & Henricks, J .W. (2006). Cal Poly first-time freshman graduation, retention, and attrition analysis. Retrieved April 16, 2008, fiom California Polytechnic State University, Institutional Planning and Analysis Web 248 site: httLI/www.calpolv.edu/~irlststdv/ret_gr_ad_/persistence.pdf Goss, D. (2001). Chasing the rabbit: Metaphors used by adult learners to describe their learning disabilities [Electronic version]. Adult Learning, 12(2), 8-9. Green, M. F. (Ed.). (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hamer, J. (2000). University of Arkansas’ African American undergraduate students’ perceptions of the campus climate. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (09), 3485A. Harbison, S. (2007, February 26). Musical independence: College of Music becomes 16‘h degree-granting, self-governing college. The State News. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://www.st2_1tenews.com/Drint.ph_tml?pkr=4000l Harles, N. D. (1995). The campus climate as perceived by American Indian students attending the University of North Dakota. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (0 7), 2574A. Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among Afiican American and white first-year college students [Electronic version]. Research in Higher Education, 48, 803-839. Holoman, D. K., Earnest, J. D., Miller, R., Nierenberg, W., Probasco, R. C., Saylor, B., & Wilkinson, C. (1971). Undergraduate preparation for graduate study in music College Music Symposium: Journal of the College Music Society, I I, 23-43. James Madison University Office of Institutional Research. (n.d.). Table 2-25: Graduation rates for entering class students Fall 1983-84 through Fall 1 996-9 7. Retrieved April 26. 2008, fi'om http://www.imu.edu/instresrch/stat_s_u_m/2000 01/2- 25.htm James Madison University Office of Institutional Research. (1997, September). Fall 1992 first-time fieshmen: Majors, graduates and retention. Research Notes, 12(2). Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://wwwjmu.edu/in_stresrch/notes/vol12n02.hy_n J anesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook onuaIitative Research (2“I ed.) (pp. 379-3 99). thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, G. M. (1994). Undergraduate student attrition: A comparison of the characteristics of students who withdraw and students who persist. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 337-353. 249 Jorgensen-Earp, C. R., & Staton, A. Q. (1993). Student metaphors for the college fieshman experience. Communication Education, 42, 123-141. Kempton, R. S. (2002). Music, family, mission and meaning: A qualitative study of the Ricks College choral experience. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 ( l 1), 3784A. Kingsbury, H. (1988). Music, talent, and performance: A conservatory cultural system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kogan, J. (1987). Nothing but the best: The struggle for perfection at The Juilliard School. New York: Random House. Kong, N. (2001). University students’ views on piano practicing: A survey of piano majors at the University of Oklahoma. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (02), p. 382A. (UMI No. 3004878). Kostka, M. J. (2002). Practice expectations and attitudes: A survey of college-level music teachers and students [Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 145-154. Kraus, B. N. (2003). Musicians in Flow: Optimal experience in the wind ensemble rehearsal. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (03), p. 839A. (U M1 No. 3084646) Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today ’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Li, C. (2001). The effect of Taiwanese piano education from the perspectives of college senior piano majors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (11), 4320A. (U M1 No. 9994078) Longwood University Office of Assessment and Institutional Research. (n.d.). Retention rates by major. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://wwwlongwoodedu/ assessment/Assessment/Majors/persist_rates_byim_aior.htm Manhattan School of Music. (2003-2008). Financial aid: Cost of attendance. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.m_s_mnvc.edu/fa/cost/ McCoy, L. H. (1999). Musical performance anxiety among college students: An integrative approach. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (04), 1059A. Michigan State University Board of Trustees. (2009). Michigan State University: MS U facts. Retrieved March 1, 2009, fiom http://www.msu.edu/thisismsu/facts.html 250 Michigan State University Controller’s Office. (2007). Michigan State University Controller ’s Ofi’ice: Student accounts. Retrieved March 1, 2009, fiorn http://ctlr.m_su.edu/COStudentAccounts/ Michigan State University College of Music. (2009). Fast facts. Retrieved March 2, 2009 and October 17, 2009 from ht_tp://music.msu.edu/common/factsmhn?home_facts Michigan State University Office of Planning and Budgets (n.d.). Enrollment and persistence. Retrieved November 12, 2009, fiom http:l/oflweb.opb.msu.edu/docs/CommonDataSet/2006/PageB.htrnl Michigan State University Office of the Registrar, MSU Board of Trustees. (2008). Enrollment and term end reports. Retrieved December 6, 2008, fi'om http://www.reg.msu.edu/RoInfo/EanermEndRpts.a_sp Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2"d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mills, J. (2002). Conservatoire students’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective instrumental and vocal tuition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 153/154, 78-82. Morgan, G. (1996). An afterword: Is there anything more to be said about metaphor? In D. Grant, & C. Oswick (Eds), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 227-240). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Morris, J ., Beck, R., & Mattis, C. (2007). Examining worldview fit and first-year retention at a private, religiously affiliated institution. [Electronic version]. Journal of The F irst-Year Experience & Students in Transition, [9, 75-88. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007, May). Table 261. Bachelor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by discipline division: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2005-06. In Digest of education statistics: 200 7. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://nces.ed,gov/prcmsLdigest/d07/tables/dt07 261 .a_sp?referrer=renort Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1993). The construct validity of institutional commitment: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher Education, 34, 243-262. Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 6 7, 1 19-148. Northwestern University. (2007). Northwestern University: Academics. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.northwe§tern.edu/ac_ademics/indexhm 251 Northwestern University Office of the Registrar. (2009). Academic records: Graduation rates. Retrieved November 8, 2009, fi'om http://wwwregistrarnorthwestemedu/ academic records/enroll-grad_statistics/graduation_rates.html Nussbaum, M. (2006, August 21). Teaching humanity; In our globalized world, an arts education is more crucial than ever as a way to cultivate sympathy for others. Newsweek International. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from ht_t;p://find.galeg[oup.com Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E. Sprague, J ., Fraser, P. K. et al. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: The graduate student experience. Change, 31 (3), 18-27. Office of the President: Lou Anna K. Simon.(2009). MSU mission statement. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://president.msu.edu/mission.php The Ohio State University. (2009). The Ohio State University: Colleges and schools. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.osu.edu/acaderrrics/a-z.php Ohio University Office of Institutional Research. (n.d.). Ohio University Athens campus: Graduation rates by last major enrolled: 2001 first-year student cohort afier 6 years. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.ohiou.edu/instres/student/ grammecollOl .htrnl Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53. Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D.W. (1983). A multiinstitutional, path analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal [Electronic version]. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 87-102. Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A text and reconceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting [Electronic version]. Sociology of Education, 56, 88-100. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting fieshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman year persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic validation of Tinto’s model [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 215-226. Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, PT. (2005). How college aflects students: Volume 2 A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 252 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Penn State University Budget Office (n.d.). 2008-2009 common data set: Penn State University Park. Retrieved November 12, 2009, fiom http://www.b1figet.psu.edu/CDS/Enrollment.asp?Location=UP&AY=20082009 The Pennsylvania State University. (2006). Penn State: Campuses and Colleges. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://wwwmsuedu/ur/cmpcollhtml Persson, R S. (1995). Psychosocial stressors among student musicians: A naturalistic study of the teacher-student relationship. International Journal of Arts Medicine, 4 (2), 7-13. Pervin, L., A., & Rubin, D. B. (1967). Student dissatisfaction with college and the college dropout: A transactional approach. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 285- 295. Pitts, S. E. (2003). What do students learn when we teach music: An investigation of the “hidden” curriculum in a university music department. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 2, 281-292. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J ., et al. (2009). The condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. US. Department of Education. Plasket, D. J. (1992). Training musicians and developing people: Can a music conservatory do it all? Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (02), 43 7A. (UMI No. 9219111) Presland, C. (2005). Conservatoire student and instrumental professor: The student perspective on a complex relationship [Electronic version]. British Journal of Music Education, 22, 23 7-248. The public value of the arts: A context for planning. (n.d.). In Arts plan New Jersey: Harnessing the power of the arts. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www. artsMannieom/imagesap/theplanpdf Purdue University Division of Music. (n.d.). Purdue music division: Welcome to the Purdue music division. Retrieved June 8, 2008, fiom http://wwwilapurdueedu/ ypa/music/ The Regents of the University of Michigan. (2006). University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre, & Dance. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://wwwmusicumich. m 253 Regents of the University of Minnesota. (2008). University of Minnesota: College of Liberal Arts: Directory. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://dev.cla.umn.edu/sites/cla/about/directoryphp Richard, I. A. (1964). The philosophy of rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications. Roberts, B. A. (1991). A place to play: The social world of university schools of music. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Publication Committee, Faculty of Education. Roberts, B. A. (1993). I, musician: Towards a model of identity construction and maintenance by music education students as musicians. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, RR. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (2'ml ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Senyshyn, Y., & O’Neill, S. A. (2001). Subjective experience of anxiety and musical performance: A relational perspective. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 9 (1), 42-53. Shaddy, J. J. (2003). Mentoring and musicians: How mentors and proteges in a conservatory of music experience and make meaning of their mentoring relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (05), p. 1561A. (UMI No. 3091291) Simmons, S. B. (1981). The retention and attrition of special service program students at the University of Oregon, 1975-1980. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (11), p. 4741A. (UMI N. 8209678) SimpsonScarborough: Intelligent Marketing for Higher Education. (2008a, May). Michigan State University College of Music Brand Image and Reputation Research Final Presentation and Full Findings. SimpsonScarborough: Intelligent Marketing for Higher Education. (2008b, March 16). MS U College of Music F G Moderator Guide Current Undergraduate & Graduate Students. Southeastern Louisiana University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2006, August). Graduation rates by major I 999 cohort. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from ht_tp://www.selu.edu/admin/ir/rpg[gr_ag rate by major/99 cohort.pgf Spiller, K. W. (1997). The effects of campus climate on students majoring in speech- 254 language pathology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (09), p. 3443A. (UMI No. 9809912) The State University of New York at Potsdam. (2008). Cost of attendance. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.potsdm.edu/admissions/firrtanciaflsostcfin Students honor classic literature: Shakespeare, Milton celebrated on campus. (2007, Fall). The Calvin Spark, 53(3), 14. Tamborrino, R. A. (2001). An examination of performance anxiety associated with solo performance of college-level music majors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (05), p. 1636A. (U MI No. 3013689) Tartalone, P. M. (1992). Patterns of performance anxiety among university musicians preparing for brass area jury recitals: Physiological arousal and perceived state anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (01), p. 24A. (UMI No. 9314759) Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., Theophilides, C., & Lorang, W. G. (1985). A replication of a path analytic validation of Tinto’s theory of college student attrition. The Review of Higher Education, 8, 319-340. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press. Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student integration and persistence [Electronic version]. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 591-615. Thomas, J. H., In, & Andes, J. (1987). Affiliation and retention in higher education. College and University, 62, 332- 340. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2"d ed.). The University of Chicago Press. Trimmer, J. K. (1994). Self-perceptions of the technical communicator ’s role: A metaphor analysis of interview data. Unpublished master’s thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. The Trustees of Indiana University. (2009). Indiana University Bloomington: Academics: Academic schools, departments, and divisions. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.iub.edu/ag_ademic/schools.shtrnl University of California Santa Cruz Planning and Budget Institutional Research and Policy Studies. (2002, July). Graduation rates and time-to-degree by major. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from hm;://planning.ucsc.edu/irps/ENROLLMT/ julyOZthe/GradRatesTTDpdf 255 University of Illinois at Urbana-Charnpaign College of Fine and Applied Arts (n.d.). College of Fine and Applied Arts: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: FAA units. Retrieved June 8, 2008, fi'om http://www.faa.uiuc.edu/Academics The University of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. (2008). College of Liberal Arts and Sciences: Departments: Majors and academic programs. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from httg//www.clasuiowa.edu/depa;rtments/ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. (2007, November 28). Students: Retention and graduation Retrieved April 12, 2008, and November 12, 2009, from http://www.irpivtedu/V T Stats/retentionfmntentshtm Walter, K. L. (2000). Staying or leaving: A multilevel approach to explaining variation in persistence rates among Christian college undergraduates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (05), 1766A. (UMI No. 9972120) Weaver, R. M. (1970). Language is sermonic: Richard M Weaver on the nature of rhetoric (R. L. Johannesen, R. Strickland, & R. T. Eubanks, Eds). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Wesner, R. B., Noyes, R. N., Jr., & Davis, T. L. (1990). The occurrence of performance anxiety among musicians. Journal of Ajfective Disorders, 1 8, 177-185. Wilkinson, M. (1919). New voices: An introduction to contemporary poetry. New York: The Macmillan Company. Wilson, J. (1981). One of the richest gifis: An introductory study of the arts fiom a Christian world-view. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Handsel Press Ltd. Wyatt, S. K. (1987). The effect of values congruence with peers on institutional integration and peer-group interaction among college freshmen. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 (10), p. 2556A. (UMI No. 8722550) 256