LET’S SING HELLO TOGETHER, AND THEN WHAT? UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF TEACHER PLANNING IN AN EARLY CHILDHOOD MUSIC CLASS By Carin McEvoy A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC Music Education 2011 ABSTRACT LET’S SING HELLO TOGETHER, AND THEN WHAT? UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF TEACHER PLANNING IN AN EARLY CHILDHOOD MUSIC CLASS By Carin McEvoy The purpose of this study was to examine the physical and mental planning practices of teachers in an early childhood music program, how their plans were implemented in the classroom, and how classroom events influenced future planning. Two teachers (N=2) participated in think-aloud planning sessions, classroom observations, and reflective interviews. Unique contextual influences of the early childhood music classroom included the presence of parents/caregivers in class, the opportunity for sharing within the local teaching community, and the emphasis of reflection on theory when planning and teaching. Despite different levels of experience and different approaches to planning and teaching, both teachers shared some similarities in their song selections, routines and pacing. Both teachers also engaged in varying degrees of improvisatory teaching. The results of this study have implications for both preservice and inservice teachers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I offer my most sincerest and heartfelt thanks to Dr. Cynthia Taggart who has been a mentor and advisor throughout my years of teaching as well as during this amazing study. Thank you also to Dr. Mitchell Robinson and Dr. Sandra Snow whose knowledge and experience provided additional guidance throughout the research process. I am so grateful to Julie and Steve for allowing me to sit in on the intimate process of preparing for teaching as well as letting me observe their teaching in action. Without their candor and flexibility this study would not have been so insightful and meaningful. Thank you also to the Michigan State University Community Music School for opening your doors and allowing me to work with such wonderful teachers and their classes. I am indebted to my friends and family for their constant support and childcare assistance throughout the research process. Finally to my daughters, and my husband, Jim, I cannot thank you enough for the love and encouragement that you have provided me. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................3 Defining Teacher Planning.........................................................................3 Planning Models ..........................................................................................5 The Effects of Experience on Planning .....................................................7 The Effects of Context on Planning ..........................................................9 Understanding Music Development ......................................................12 Early Music Learning Environments .........................................................14 Summary .....................................................................................................16 Statement of Purpose and Problems .....................................................17 CHAPTER TWO: RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................................18 Sardo-Brown Study ....................................................................................19 McCutcheon Study ...................................................................................23 Richards & Killen Study..............................................................................27 Schleuter Study ..........................................................................................29 Schmidt Study ............................................................................................30 Snow Study .................................................................................................31 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................36 Researcher Lens ........................................................................................36 Design..........................................................................................................37 Setting .........................................................................................................38 Participants .................................................................................................39 Data Collection .........................................................................................40 Limitations ...................................................................................................42 Data Analysis ..............................................................................................43 Trustworthiness............................................................................................43 CHAPTER FOUR: PARTICIPANTS & SETTINGS .......................................................45 Getting To Know Steve and His Planning Process ................................45 Getting To Know Julie and Her Planning Process .................................51 Researcher Contributions .........................................................................58 Participant Relationships ..........................................................................59 CHAPTER FIVE: HOW CONTEXT AFFECTED PLANNING .....................................61 Having Parents/Caregivers in Class ........................................................61 iv Scheduling ..................................................................................................65 Age & Developmental Levels .................................................................67 Other Influences ........................................................................................69 Summary .....................................................................................................70 CHAPTER SIX: EMERGENT THEMES .......................................................................71 Sharing Within the Community ................................................................71 Reflection on Theory .................................................................................72 Song Selection ...........................................................................................74 Routine and Pacing ..................................................................................76 Summary .....................................................................................................79 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS ...............................................81 Planning: Two Approaches, One Model ...............................................81 Improvisatory Teaching ............................................................................84 Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................86 Limitations of this study .............................................................................89 Implications ................................................................................................90 Conclusion ..................................................................................................93 APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................95 Appendix A – Julie’s written plans ..........................................................96 Appendix B – Julie’s lesson order ......................................................... 101 Appendix C – Steve’s written plans ..................................................... 104 Appendix D – Steve’s lesson order ...................................................... 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 110 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Data collection schedule for Steve ..................................................40 Table 2 – Data collection schedule for Julie ....................................................41 Table A1 – Julie’s planning menu ......................................................................96 Table A2 – Julie’s planning checklist .................................................................99 Table B1 – Julie’s observation 1 ....................................................................... 101 Table B2 – Julie’s observation2 ........................................................................ 102 Table B3 – Julie’s observation 3 ....................................................................... 103 Table D1 – Steve’s observation 1 .................................................................... 107 Table D2 – Steve’s observation 2 .................................................................... 108 Table D3 – Steve’s observation 3 .................................................................... 109 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Idea flow in planning .........................................................................82 Figure C1 – Steve’s lesson plan 1 .................................................................... 104 Figure C2 – Steve’s lesson plan 2 .................................................................... 105 Figure C3 – Steve’s lesson plan 3 .................................................................... 106 vii INTRODUCTION For almost a decade I have been teaching music classes to children ages birth through five years old. In the years that I have been teaching, I have noticed many changes in how I prepare for my classes and in what I think about while I am teaching. My first year of teaching was as an assistant to an experienced teacher who shared with me her method of planning. Though her written plans were no more than lists of songs with a few materials written in the margins, she had put considerable thought into what she was doing with the children and why. Based on her suggestions and using the theories I had learned in my teacher training, in my first year of independent teaching, I wrote extensive, formal plans that included songs, materials, and step-by-step activity instructions. Nearly a decade later, my written plans are merely suggested song lists, yet I feel much more confident in my ability to explain what I am doing with students and why. As confident as I have become in my own teaching, I regularly reflect on what I am doing and how to improve upon it. I recently realized that my teaching format had become overly routinized. I was using the same set of songs and chants in the same pattern (alternating songs/chants equally), and with the same general progression of activities. I immediately began to write new songs and chants and mix up the order of activities and, as I did, I noticed a new set of responses from 1 students. I began to wonder how my peers prepare to teach and how the connection between my planning and teaching now compares to what it was when I first started. As I began the preparatory literature review for this study I realized how little research actually exists in the field of teacher planning in music. This is fascinating to me, given that music education is more open-ended and self-guided when it comes to the question of what and how to teach (Schleuter, 1991). It is my hope that this study will contribute to the small body of research in this field and perhaps spark the interest of others to carry it further. 2 CHAPTER ONE LITERATURE REVIEW Planning is an important part of the teaching process. It is also one of the least visible elements of teaching. To plan is to create a “framework for future action” (Yinger, 1990, p. 88). Planning can refer to anything a teacher does to prepare for interaction with students and can include both physical and mental activities (Clark & Peterson, 1984). Teachers plan on many different levels, both formally and informally, and are influenced by many different things in their planning. Some teachers keep written plans simple, like a grocery list (McCutcheon, 1980), while some forgo written plans altogether (Schmidt, 2005). Established teachers view planning as essential for classroom management and student growth (Hill, Yinger, & Robins, 1983), yet the process of planning, teaching, and reflecting is not as obvious a sequence to new teachers as it is to experienced teachers (Schmidt, 2005). Understanding what influences this process is important for teacher education programs that are trying to give new teachers the best tools for success. Even in-service teachers can benefit from understanding the many factors that influence planning for the sake of professional development and personal growth. Defining Teacher Planning One of the problems with planning research prior to the 1980s was the lack of a clear definition of teacher planning. Several studies reveal 3 that there are many ways of describing teacher planning. Teachers often plan in a “nested” pattern, separately considering yearly, semester, weekly, and daily divisions of time, as well as the two non-temporal distinctions: unit and activity/lesson planning (Sardo-Brown, 1988). Thus, the scope of the planning determines in large part the way in which the teacher plans. Teachers are less likely to write down specifically detailed plans at the yearly and semester levels than they are at the weekly and daily levels (Sardo-Brown, 1988). Written plans for unit and lesson instruction often resemble to-do lists as opposed to detailed instructions (McCutcheon, 1980; Sardo-Brown, 1988). Frequently, however, planning is more a mental process than a physical one, with ideas for future teaching and reflections on past teaching constantly popping in and out of the teacher’s mind at spontaneous moments. This mental dialog is based on predictions and memories of previous experiences (McCutcheon, 1980). As familiarity with a certain subject and/or group of students increases, the more the informal, internal planning process takes over (Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978). Teacher planning can be defined by its range of time or by the planner’s means of action. A third description of planning examines its content. The two components of planning are the subject-specific activities and the lesson structure and routines (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Yinger, 1980). Activity planning can be formal or informal, written or in 4 thought, and serves the most important function of planning: identifying how to teach what. Routine planning is often implied within activity planning and answers the question of how to facilitate learning through activities, transitions and other repetitive classroom functions. The instructional methods teachers use for implementing activities and the behavioral expectations of the students during those activities are established through routines (Yinger, 1980). Much of this structural planning is informed by a teacher’s knowledge and experience, rather than by conscious preparation (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). All of these definitions and facets of teacher planning are interrelated and often function simultaneously. Planning Models The first model of teacher planning to be widely accepted and applied in planning instruction was Tyler’s objectives-based model. Published in 1950, his writing on curriculum and instruction was based on existing principles from the business world (Tyler, 1950). The model proposed that teachers first establish objectives, taking into consideration the needs of the students, the demands of the subject, the philosophy of the community, and appropriate developmental psychology. Next, teachers were advised to design educational opportunities for students to meet the objectives. Finally, teachers were taught to organize the activities for effectiveness and provide for evaluation of whether the 5 objectives were met through the activities. This model was the basis for planning instruction in teacher preparation programs for decades. Research beginning in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that while this was the prevailing model for preservice teacher instruction, it was not an accurate representation of how teachers actually plan to teach. These studies examined teachers throughout the planning process. Using observations, interviews, and questionnaires, results suggested that teachers use an activity-based approach to planning (Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978; Taylor, 1970; Zahorik; 1975). In 1980, Yinger modified the activity-based model. Based on a case study of one elementary teacher, he proposed that planning resembled a spiral design representing the cyclical nature of an individual’s planning as it influences and is influenced by teaching experience. While teachers typically plan only one activity at a time, they are constantly integrating information from previous experiences into their current plans. As teachers implement those plans, they are storing new information to contribute to future plans. The result is a three-step model: a problem-finding stage for developing ideas for activities and opportunities for instruction; a problem-solution stage for designing activities and creating a concrete plan; and an evaluation stage, which includes the implementation and personal evaluation of the plan’s success (Yinger, 1980). This design more accurately represents the activity-based model by incorporating the 6 reflective planning process that “involves a complex, simultaneous juggling of much information about children, subject matter, school practices, and policies” (McCutcheon, 1980, p. 20). The Effects of Experience on Planning The factors that most influence the planning process can be divided into two categories: experience (Hill, Yinger, & Robins, 1983; Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Richards & Killen, 1996) and context (Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1984; Elliott, 1992). Experience affects how teachers think about planning (Brittin, 2005; Yinger, 1980) as well as how they perform during classroom instruction (Berliner, 1986; Klein & Hoffman, 1993; Allen & Casbergue, 1997; Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003;). Schulman (1987) lists the types of knowledge that it is believed teachers must possess for successful classroom instruction: content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, general subject knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and context. As teachers gain experience, they can draw on this knowledge, as well as an extensive catalog of memories that can guide their decision-making (Berliner, 1986). This vast repertoire of memories gives experienced teachers the flexibility to spend less time on formal planning, because many routines are already in place mentally and/or physically and allow them to focus more of their planning on student needs and outcomes (Yinger, 1980). Novices, by contrast, tend to 7 create lengthier, more detailed plans (Brittin, 2005) and, without experience to draw from, are more likely to focus those plans on content than on students (Allen & Casbergue, 1997; Berliner, 1986; Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990; Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003). In the classroom, novice teachers may have only a literal view of activities, whereas experienced teachers are able to make inferences from what they see (Berliner, 1986; Klein & Hoffman, 1993). Allen & Casbergue (1997) suggest that novice teachers are more focused on their own actions and at times are unaware of outstanding student responses, bad or good. This could mean that inexperienced teachers are less likely to deviate from plans and less likely to meet student needs than are their experienced coworkers, who may be more able to adapt to individual and unique student responses. Preservice teachers resemble novice teachers in that both are required regularly to create formal, written plans for evaluation by their instructors and mentors (Richards & Killen, 1996). The logic behind this requirement may be lost on them, however (Berliner, 1986). While most established teachers view planning as essential for classroom management and student growth, few engage in writing detailed, formal plans save for when they are required for substitutes or administrative purposes (Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990; Clark & Peterson, 1984). Student teachers cannot see the often extensive mental preparation of 8 their cooperating teachers. The result may lead inexperienced teachers to overlook important planning considerations and may cause some to shortcut the planning process before they have developed appropriate mental routines of their own (Berliner, 1986). The Effects of Context on Planning Planning also is affected by the specific context of instruction. Context can refer to the age level of the students or the subject matter being taught. One noteworthy difference in the effect of context is the use of textbooks in planning and instruction. Secondary level teachers have been described as “curriculum implementers and not curriculum planners” (Sardo-Brown, 1988, p. 79), implying a greater reliance on textbooks. Elementary teachers have been found to rely more heavily on textbooks for subjects like reading and math than for subjects like science and social studies (McCutcheon, 1980). A study of textbook use by music teachers suggests that they are more likely to use textbooks as a tool for brainstorming individual activities than as a curricular guide (McClellan, 1997). According to Hill, Yinger, & Robins (1983), planning for a preschool classroom differs from planning for other grade levels in at least a couple of ways. In primary and secondary education, teacher planning rarely is a group activity (McCutcheon, 1980). In a laboratory preschool setting, Hill, Yinger, & Robins (1983) found that planning was a collaborative effort 9 for several reasons. First, teachers taught collaboratively, usually in a group of three to four teachers per class. Second, within the classroom, multiple activities were offered simultaneously. Finally, teacher turnover rates were high, requiring frequent new teacher training and orientation. Collaborative planning was viewed as beneficial to the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction. Teachers preparing for preschool instruction may consider materials first before designing activities (Hill, Yinger, & Robins, 1983), whereas teachers of older students typically consider subject matter and specific activities first (Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978; Zahorik, 1975). Hill, Yinger, & Robins (1983) suggest that this may be the result of the laboratory preschool’s “’constructivist’ view of learning [which] states that individuals construct their ideas about the world through direct interaction with objects and people” (p. 185). Context and experience together result in a unique planning problem within music education because the teaching environment may be very different from a general education classroom (Schleuter, 1991). Schmidt (2005) discovered that novice music teachers struggle with planning because they do not know where to start. This could be because, in music, there is no universally agreed upon methodology or curriculum. Although the National Standards for Arts Education were published in 1994, they did little to standardize music education, nor was 10 that their goal. The generic objectives of the Standards and broad target ages within music education leave a great deal of room for interpretation and individual adaptation of the Standards by each district and even school. This “lack of accepted hierarchy of educational outcomes” (Standley & Madsen, 1991) may leave novice teachers with an overwhelming number of planning decisions to make on their own. Another unique challenge of planning in music education is the interaction of pedagogical and subject matter knowledge. “Knowing how to teach music is not the same as knowing music” (Snow, 1998, pp. 46-47). Snow observed that preservice teachers in a laboratory choral rehearsal setting appeared to teach from a “laundry list” of plans with little to no regard for the sounds and responses they were hearing from the choir. She also observed that student teaching actions showed no relation to musicianship demonstrated elsewhere in the students’ music and education studies. If interactive decision-making is a critical component of student success (Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990), then planning for music instruction must be able to allow for teachers to apply their musicianship during the act of teaching. It is clear from the body of research that there are different planning needs in different teaching environments. Teacher experience influences planning in both subtle and overt ways, from the perceptions of novices to the experiential catalog of established and expert teachers. 11 Given the unique needs of teachers planning for preschool instruction or music education, it seems that preparing to teach an early childhood music class would have many distinctive traits. Yet no research addresses this question. It is therefore the intent of this study to explore planning within the context of a preschool music program, considering different amounts of teaching experience. Understanding Music Development To understand planning in early childhood music class, one must understand the design and intent of the learning environment. According to the research and theories of Gordon (1997), all children are born with a natural potential for music learning, called music aptitude. From birth to the age of about nine years, aptitude fluctuates with environmental influence. In the developmental aptitude stages, children are at the beginning point of learning to think musically, which is called audiation. They are beginning to explore music through listening and babbling. Just as in language development with language syntax, what transforms babbling into meaningful sound is an understanding of musical syntax. Understanding how pitches function within a certain tonality or how durations function within a given meter allows one to give meaning to music. As children begin to recognize and comprehend musical syntax, they are beginning to audiate. This time of preparatory audiation can be 12 divided into seven stages grouped by three types: acculturation, imitation, and assimilation of preparatory audiation (Gordon, 1997). Beginning at birth (and probably before), acculturation, the first type of preparatory audiation, lasts, ideally, until sometime between ages two and four. Infants begin by absorbing the musical sounds of their environment. As they grow they begin to make random responses to music in the form of music babble. By the time they are toddlers, they ideally have begun to respond purposefully to music by creating their own related or unrelated sounds. As young children imitate the singing and chanting of teachers, parents, and caregivers, which is the second type of preparatory audiation, they begin to realize that the sounds they are producing are not the same as those around them. At this point, they have entered the fourth stage of preparatory audition: shedding egocentricity. They may ‘shut down’ for a period of time, but, as they break the code, they begin to echo patterns modeled for them with some accuracy. Children who do not receive appropriate early guidance in music may not emerge from this stage of preparatory audiation. Sometimes they compensate for this by becoming expert imitators, with the ability to follow a musical leader correctly but an inability to produce accurate music independently. 13 To become autonomous audiators, children must begin to recognize for themselves their inaccuracies in relation to a tonal and rhythm context, a development that occurs during the third type of preparatory audition, assimilation. The final step between imitation and audiation demands that children begin to relate the musical sounds they are making with the musical context around them. This introspection will sometimes cause them to ‘shut down’ again as they begin to coordinate their breathing and movement with their singing and chanting, ultimately making sense of their own musical performance within the given tonal or rhythm context. When they can do this with accuracy, they have emerged from preparatory audiation and understand tonal and rhythm syntax. At this point children are ready to begin formal music instruction. Early Music Learning Environments Until they are able to audiate, children ideally should receive only informal guidance, with no expectations toward correctness. An early childhood music class should be designed to help children progress through these developmental stages of preparatory audiation by providing both structured and unstructured informal musical activities and guidance. Lesson plans should be designed to provide children with a rich vocabulary of listening, moving, and singing experiences (Gordon, 1997). Teachers, parents and caregivers should model a cappella singing 14 without words and free-flowing movement through a variety of musical play opportunities. Children learn best through play, and therefore it should be the center of all learning activities in an early childhood music classroom (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Gordon, 1997; Moorhead & Pond, 1978; Piaget, 1962; Taggart, 2003; Valerio, et. al., 1998). Teachers should engage play through a wide variety of activities that incorporate singing, chanting, movement, and manipulatives that encourage children to explore their personal sounds and space. Children are especially drawn to musical differences that contrast the familiar against the unfamiliar. It is often the contrast between two songs or activities that elicits responses from children (Valerio, et. al., 1998). To create the opportunity for contrast, teachers should perform songs and chants in a variety of tonalities, meters, timbres, and styles (Gordon, 1997). Through music play, children not only increase their listening vocabularies but also begin to experiment with making their own sounds and movements. Much like infants and toddlers practice language through babble, they also practice music through similar sound experimentation (Gordon, 1997). It is important for teachers, parents, and caregivers to immediately participate in spontaneous, improvisational play as soon as children begin to respond to the musical environment (Taggart, 2003). Creating an environment in which play and teacher 15 improvisation are continually entwined fosters a sense of community that is essential for successful interaction with students both individually and as a class (Hornbach, 2005). Teachers can engage children through movement or in musical conversation through the use of short tonal and rhythmic patterns that children can “play with” through echoing games, ostinatos, etc. (Valerio, 1997). Purposeful silence strategically placed throughout instruction allows children the opportunity to initiate interactive music play (Hornbach, 2005). Throughout musical play, teacher initiatives and child responses should remain fluid and improvisatory (Hornbach, 2005). Summary Teacher planning at its most basic is the means by which a teacher prepares for instruction. This is defined by teacher actions, intent, and scope. While there is no universal model for planning, content, activities, and student needs typically are the primary considerations of teachers when planning, regardless of the context. Context and experience influence the processes of both mental and physical preparation. Unfortunately more than half a century since researchers began studying the process of teacher planning, the bulk of the research lies within the contexts of science, math, and language arts instruction in primary and secondary schools. Very little published research has been conducted in music classrooms and preschool settings. Literature on 16 preschool music instruction suggests that classes should include a variety of singing, chanting, and movement activities. At the same time, “by over-structuring early childhood music environments with activity-focused lesson plans which are filled with teacher-initiated activities, educators do not provide children with the time or the opportunity to play with and to explore music” (Taggart, 2003, p. 18). Understanding how teachers prepare for instruction while still maintaining the flexibility to engage in improvisational play with children is the goal of this study. Statement of Purpose and Problems The purpose of this study is to examine the process and implementation of lesson planning in an early childhood music program. Specifically, this study will attempt to answer the following questions: (a) What are the physical and mental planning processes of teachers preparing for an early childhood music class? (b) How do the behaviors of the teachers during instruction reflect their planning process? (c) How do teacher reflections after instruction influence future planning? 17 CHAPTER TWO RELATED RESEARCH There is limited research into the process of planning for instruction in the music classroom (Brittin, 2005; McClellan, 1997; Richards & Killen 1996; Schleuter, 1991; Schmidt, 2005; Snow, 1998). Therefore studies in the general education curriculum are included in this review of related research, because they also inform the methodology of the present study. In her study of middle school teachers, Sardo-Brown (1988) examined not only the factors influencing planning decisions but also the structure of decision making – specifically the nested style of planning for different divisions of time. Her findings raise questions about what levels of planning exist for early childhood music instruction and how they vary. McCutcheon’s (1980) study of elementary teachers offers insight into the mental planning process in which teachers are constantly engaging. Given this information in a general education setting, how influential is the mental planning process for early childhood music teachers? Additionally, McCutcheon’s relationship with the study participants is rather like that of co-researchers, which provided her with greater understanding of the data collected. Similar relationships may result from the present study as well. Of the planning research conducted within music education, two studies were excluded from this chapter based on the nature of their 18 work. Brittin’s research (2005) used a hypothetical scenario as opposed to real, in-action planning and teaching; therefore it had little to contribute to the design of the present study. McClellan’s study (1997) also was omitted because it focused on teacher textbook use more than teacher planning. Of the remaining studies, Richards & Killen (1996), Schleuter (1991), and Schmidt (2005) each conducted observations and interviews of preservice music teachers in various settings to understand better their thought processes while engaged in planning. The fact that each was conducted in a music education setting provides obvious insight for the present study, as do some of the methodologies and resulting data. Snow’s dissertation (1998) provides additional guidance for the present study, as she focused her research on the marriage of musicianship and educatorship in preservice music teachers, a delicate balance that must be struck for early childhood music teachers as well. Sardo-Brown Study Prior to Sardo-Brown’s study, few had conducted research at the secondary level, and most research concerning planning in general had been based on simulated decisions as opposed to in-action choices. The goal of Sardo-Brown’s study, therefore, was to look at the thought processes involved in planning as it was happening in a middle school setting (Sardo-Brown, 1988). Middle school teachers are subject specialists, like music teachers, rather than general elementary teachers, 19 who plan for and teach all subjects. Previous research revealed that teachers plan in a nested pattern (Yinger, 1980). Based on this finding, Sardo-Brown chose to study each of four nested levels of planning: yearly, unit, weekly, and daily. While some early childhood music teachers may not have the opportunity to plan on a yearly level, there may be a need for unit/semester or weekly planning, as well as for daily activities. For these reasons, Sardo-Brown’s research was of particular interest for the present study. The study examined the cases of 12 teachers in a single school district. The teachers all worked with seventh and eighth grade students in a variety of subjects, including language arts, math, science, and social studies. The teachers ranged in experience from 6 to 21 years, with an average of 15 years experience. The researcher collected many different types of data. First, the teachers completed multiple-choice background questionnaires. To describe yearly planning, the teachers participated in retrospective interviews that examined decisions that they had already made. They completed written questionnaires regarding upcoming unit planning decisions (materials, methods, time, and content). The researcher conducted interviews to discuss the unit planning, and also administered Likert-scale-style questionnaires to explore influences on the unit planning process. After this, the researcher gathered information through 20 interviews regarding decisions to be made for the upcoming week. Finally teachers participated in think-aloud sessions while preparing a single day’s plans. Following the think-alouds, the researcher conducted final interviews. The teachers submitted copies of unit, weekly, and daily plans as available, as well as notebooks and planning materials from the previous year. The researcher gave each teacher a written description of his or her planning processes and asked each to read and verify that the descriptions were accurate. The few changes suggested by the teachers were added to the overall descriptions. For analysis, the researcher trained two independent coders to transcribe and code the data from all recordings and questionnaires. These coders learned to recognize goals, sources, and forms of planning as described by Yinger, 1980, as well as any influence that teachers mentioned that they considered while making plans (Sardo-Brown, p. 73). Coders tallied teacher decisions and influences on planning throughout all data sources. The overall interrater reliability, including all levels (yearly, unit, weekly, daily) and forms (interviews, questionnaires, think-alouds) of planning, was .87. Sardo-Brown concluded that different levels of planning and subject-matter context warranted different planning goals, sources of consult, and forms (written in detail, list-style, or mental). Planning at the yearly and unit levels was more likely to be concerned with curricular 21 objectives, relied more heavily on independent resources like textbooks, and was most often recorded in rough outline form. All but one of the teachers in this study cataloged yearly and unit plans in notebooks that became reference tools for planning not only throughout the year, but for future years. The existence of these unit notebooks indicated that teachers relied heavily on past experience, an assertion made previously by Yinger (1980) based on findings from his study of a single elementary teacher. Weekly and daily planning was more activity-driven, was influenced by student and class dynamics, and revolved more around scheduling, flow, and student achievement. Though the researcher found other influences in some form or another at all levels of planning, activity flow was cited as a planning concern only at the weekly and daily levels. All 12 teachers identified availability of materials and scheduling conflicts as influences on their weekly and unit plans. Also, all teachers mentioned concern about student interest, individual and class disposition, and progress and performance in the previous day or weeks’ plans as other important factors in weekly and unit planning. Another finding of this study was that teachers do address the elements of Tyler’s rationale model, but not necessarily in the order in which they were originally presented. Sardo-Brown proposed that the rationale model is “geared toward the development of new plans” (p. 79), which is not what most teachers aim to do when planning. This is 22 evidenced by teachers’ heavy reliance on old unit notebooks. SardoBrown suggested that objectives rarely are original to the teacher, but instead typically are mandated by school, district, and state standards. Sardo-Brown found many parallels and a few differences between how middle school teachers plan and how elementary teachers plan. The most notable difference was that elementary teachers often relied on textbooks to take care of unit planning (McCutcheon, 1980), whereas middle school teachers used textbooks and other sources (curriculum guides, old unit files) to develop their own unit sequencing and planning. Weekly and unit planning appeared to be relatively the same between the elementary and middle school teachers. All of these results indicate the necessity for considering multiple levels of nested planning when studying how teachers plan. Based on Sardo-Brown’s (1988) comparisons with the work of McCutcheon (1980), it appears that nested planning may be labeled more generally as longterm and short-term planning. Given that early childhood music programs may or may not be designed to resemble primary and secondary school schedules, this general division of planning levels may provide a more appropriate means for studying nested planning in early childhood music. McCutcheon Study McCutcheon (1980) examined how elementary teachers plan lessons, focusing on the process of planning, the effects of planning, and 23 the influences on lesson planning. The focus of this study was primarily on individual lesson/activity planning rather than on long-term planning. For this study, a team of four researchers worked in collaboration with twelve teachers and their administrators in six schools across three districts. While McCutcheon did not note the experience levels of the teachers, she did include that they taught in grades one through six. The researchers collected data through observations, informal interviews, meetings with teachers and administrators, planbooks, textbook guides, administrative memos, and samples of children’s daily work. The process became a collaborative one as teachers and administrators participated in interviews and meetings and became increasingly reflective about their own planning, raising questions that were valuable to the research. The focus of this study may guide the present study, for early childhood music classes may be more lesson/activity-based due to short semesters and inconsistent enrollment. It is also hoped that the present study will be as collaborative as McCutcheon’s, for it is through reflective thinking that the present study was conceived initially by the researcher and reflective thinking will permeate the data collection process. McCutcheon found that written, daily lesson plans most often resembled grocery lists – checklists of activities with occasional specifics like page numbers, student names, etc. to act as reminders of mentally prepared activities. Teachers in this study revealed that the bulk of their 24 planning was done mentally. The thought process of preparing for instruction included making predictions based on current knowledge and recalling memories of previous, similar experiences. McCutcheon pointed out that there is an opportunity throughout this constant reflection on teaching and planning for teachers to relate theoretical knowledge of how children learn to the individual children and activities in their classes. Unfortunately, at least according to the results of this study, it appears that this opportunity goes almost entirely unrealized. This study identified several factors that influenced planning, though most had a negative influence. Teachers complained that there were not enough education opportunities for planning. They felt that preservice education focused only on lesson planning, overlooking the importance of mental planning. They also expressed concern that, while inservice training does allow for some access to new ideas, it does not provide time for collaboration, which the teachers in this study felt was important. McCutcheon cited complaints from teachers that they felt isolated when planning. Another influence on planning revealed in this study was the strong influence of the quality of teaching materials (or lack thereof) and their availability. The textbooks used by teachers in this study all were heavily regulated. As such, most teachers felt little or no need to participate in any long-range planning, as they felt that the prescribed textbook and curriculum did this for them. However, the heavy reliance 25 on textbooks often led to continuity issues within instruction, as well as a greater need for teachers to think on their feet when encountering textbook errors. Finally, the teachers in this study viewed administrative issues as a strongly negative influence on their planning. Problems such as scheduling and unseen interruptions affected not only how teachers planned but also how effective those plans could be. Within the study there was at least one district in which teachers were not permitted to use any supplemental materials to the textbooks when teaching. This had a significant impact on teacher planning in that district and may account for some of the findings of this study. McCutcheon addresses this by suggesting that teachers should be allowed a more participatory role in curriculum development so that they have a better understanding of what they are required to teach and why. The collaborative nature of this study revealed that simply engaging teachers in a dialog about planning can have a positive impact and inspire teachers to try new things in their instruction. “Clearly, we can help teachers wonder why they plan what they do and thus add a dimension to their natural planning” (McCutcheon, 1980, p. 22). The influence that a study itself may have on its participants is important to consider when analyzing any results. In the present study, think-aloud planning sessions may provide the most opportunity for the researcher and participants to develop collaborative relationships. When reporting results, however, it 26 will be essential to clarify how any collaborative work may affect the findings. McCutcheon‘s study also highlighted how teachers placed negative and positive values on the things that influenced planning. By using a similarly informal interview format, I hope that I also will discover how teachers feel about various planning influences. Richards & Killen Study The study conducted by Richards & Killen (1996) examined influences on the planning practices of preservice music teachers in an Australian university. It is one of only a few studies about planning in music. Participants created lesson plans for a “junior secondary class that had limited music reading skills” (p. 33) and were interviewed about their decisions while preparing the lessons. The researchers were unclear in the results about the structure of the lesson plans or how they were used but were quite clear about the interview questions and responses. Eight questions were asked of each participant with each lesson plan: “1. Why are you teaching this lesson?” “2. Why did you choose these objectives?” “3. Why did you choose this content?” “4. What factors besides content and procedure did you consider when planning this lesson?” “5. What problems did you anticipate in the lesson?” “6. What do you think the positive features of this lesson will be?” “7. What will make this lesson a success for you?” “8. How will you know if you have achieved what you 27 wanted to achieve?” (Richards & Killen, 1996, pp. 36-43) The researchers reported several emergent themes resulting from analysis of the interviews. In responses to questions 2 and 3, Richards & Killen found that teachers chose objectives primarily with a focus on student learning and, to a lesser extent, based on school/syllabus requirements. They chose specific lesson content also with student needs and abilities in mind, although the researchers were unclear as to whether this referred to individual student needs or the needs and abilities of the class as a whole. How would these responses compare to those of an early childhood music classroom, in which curriculum content may not be as clearly defined? In interview questions 5 through 8, the researchers ask participants to make predictions about their teaching, which was discussed at length in a dissertation by Snow (1998). Is this a natural planning action? How might these questions themselves influence future planning by the participants? Unfortunately, the researchers’ lack of clarity about how the plans were used in classrooms casts some doubt about the results of the study as a whole. The first interview question focused on why the lesson was being taught. The resounding response was “to meet university requirements,” as the students had no contextual knowledge about the class that they would be teaching, which limited their intrinsic motivation to plan. Also, without understanding how the lessons were taught, there is 28 no context for understanding the decision-making process of the preservice teachers. Were these lessons taught consecutively? Were they isolated experiences? The sixth lesson plan was implemented in a different setting than the previous ones. How did this affect decisionmaking? Certainly the questions Richards & Killen pose in this study may be useful in formulating interview questions for the present study, but they also raise many additional questions for consideration. Schleuter Study Schleuter’s (1991) study is unique in that it looks at curricular thinking in an elementary general music setting. The study questions focused on the decisions that student teachers made regarding “aims/goals/objectives/scope/sequence, content/concept, activities, nature of the learner, evaluation of pupils, and self-evaluation” (p. 58) and how those decisions changed as a result of the student teaching experience. None of the three teachers in this multi-case study had expressed interest in becoming elementary general music teachers, choosing high school choral instead as their preferred teaching setting. The researcher collected data through participant observation, daily journals, lesson planning logs, conferences, and interviews throughout the duration of the 10-week student-teaching assignments. Though there were several interesting findings from the study, one is of particular note because of its implications for the current study. Schleuter 29 (1991) found that “each subject treated activities as concepts in action” (p. 54), meaning that, within a lesson plan, a subject may have articulated what the students were expected to do – the activity – but left the actual content taught by the activity implicit. Is this a common thing to do in planning? In the present study, it will be important to direct interview questions and/or guide think-aloud sessions to seek out the specific content of activities in the early childhood music class, as tonal, rhythmic, and movement content may be less explicit within an activity. Schmidt Study As part of a larger longitudinal study, Schmidt (2005) spent a year studying 10 preservice teachers in a program for elementary string students. The research questions explored planning preconceptions, practices, and learned technique applications. Ten students in their first or second year of teacher training were profiled while teaching private lessons and, in some cases, team-teaching small classes. The researcher collected data through observations, interviews, and written lesson plans, with methods class assignments and program faculty meetings serving as supplemental data. Five themes emerged through data analysis: “(a) concerns about knowing how to begin to plan, (b) difficulty identifying what the children needed to learn, (c) the prominence of decisions made "on the fly," (d) comparisons of their thinking about teaching and planning 30 with actual written plans, and (e) limited transfer of in-class experiences to their teaching in the Project” (p. 11). Of particular interest to the current study is the amount of emphasis preservice teachers placed on improvisatory teaching over planning. Schmidt hypothesizes that this was related to the power of the “experience of observation”; preservice teachers witness a great deal of improvisatory teaching without seeing the preparation and planning that informs that teaching. In early childhood music education, where learning should be play-based (Gordon, 1997; Taggart, 2003; Valerio, et. al., 1998), it is important for teachers to be flexible in the structure of activities. Elliott (1992) points out, “teaching is much closer to improvising over ‘changes’ than rendering an accurate reading of a score (a ‘lesson plan’)” (p. 12). As the preservice teachers in Schmidt’s study progressed through the year and engaged in more reflective thinking about their teaching, they began to demonstrate a greater ability to plan goals and sequence instruction than they had at the beginning of the study. How might a similar emphasis on reflective thinking affect teacher planning for early childhood music instruction? Snow Study Reflective thinking and lesson planning in music education were fundamental to Snow’s (1998) dissertation. This dissertation describes a qualitative study of preservice teachers’ planning for a choral ensemble 31 rehearsal. Specifically, the study examined the effect of imagining (brainstorming or thought mapping) on choral teacher preparation in regards to rehearsal planning. Snow assumed the role of teacher/researcher, so the study was, in part, action research. She conducted a pilot study first to determine the precise means of planning documentation she wished to study. Twelve students in a 15-week choral conducting course worked in collaboration with the teacher/researcher to develop a model for teacher planning that included “a brainstorming inventory of student thought in relationship to upcoming teaching” (Snow, 1998, p. 5) and emphasized the application of individual musicianship (understanding a score) to teaching strategies. The result was a teaching plan that resembled a “bubble map,” in which rehearsal points were circled and branches of possible teaching strategies stemmed from the main points. With a planning strategy in place, the teacher/researcher embarked on a study of six students in a 15-week choral conducting course who used the “bubble map” throughout the semester. The teacher/researcher collected data from students’ score analyses, rehearsal plans, written assignments, self and peer reflections, and teacher/researcher field notes. Effects of using the bubble model for planning varied by student but suggested that bubble maps might serve as a viable alternative to the 32 objectives-based model that is most often taught and employed in preservice teacher education. Results suggested that imagining and brainstorming for teaching expanded thinking about instruction in a myriad of ways. Perhaps one of the most important outcomes was that it reinforced the “expert-like” mindset as described by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1993). As students became more comfortable with the thought-mapping process, their plans developed greater breadth, resulting in a list of a variety of musical points to address (rhythm, dynamics, etc.), and generated more ideas for how to address the items on that list. This allowed them to “respond when the needs of the students are in obvious conflict with the lesson’s objectives” (Snow, 1998, p. 34). Imagining as preparation for teaching also appeared to help students mentally marry content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (“teachership” and musicianship). All students showed a growth in depth (connections between musical expectations and teaching strategies) in their planning, though some emphasized teaching decisions, while others emphasized teaching strategies, and still others balanced the two more equally. Fluency was affected inconclusively by thought mapping. Some students were able to sequence activities loosely to create cohesive plans of action for instruction, while others seemed less able to do so. The teacher/researcher concluded that this might be the one strength of the 33 objectives-based model for planning, in that sequencing is more overt. Snow also found that the bubble model of planning worked with both linear and spiral thinkers and that it broadened students’ views of the teacher/conductor role in the ensemble. Students in this study may have changed their ideas about balance of musically interpretive power, because the teacher/researcher emphasized the balanced use of student and teacher-centered instructional strategies. Though action research is not immediately generalizable, the results of this study may have applications to planning in other musical environments, such as early childhood music classrooms. Snow (1998) states that the “the critical step for novice conductor/teachers… becomes the integration of one’s artistry with the ability to react to the musical sounding as it occurs through the lens of teaching” (p. 58). This is especially necessary in the early childhood music classroom, where the teacher must be able to engage in musical interactions with students individually or as a class based on the vocal or physical responses of the students. Since early childhood music teachers likely have not been trained in this brainstorming method of planning, it will be important in the present study to look for evidence of this thought mapping process through think-aloud planning sessions. Additionally, the “bubble map” results in student-centered instruction, because it provides the teacher, through extensive preparation, the ability to improvise more effectively 34 while teaching (Snow, 1998). The need for such improvisatory teaching in early childhood music education may lead teachers to develop a similar model of planning in order to cultivate their own rich repertoires of songs and activities to reinforce the basic needs of children in the developmental aptitude stages. 35 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Researcher Lens In the fall of 2001, I had every intention of completing classwork to become a band director. Then I enrolled in an early childhood music methods course and everything changed. I realized that I connected well with younger children and felt more comfortable working with them. I found my true passion in working with young children and abandoned instrumental music teaching in favor of elementary and early childhood music education. I have been teaching children from birth through age five in early childhood music classes at Michigan State University’s Community Music School for almost ten years now. I spent a year as an assistant before beginning teaching on my own. I have taught a couple of semesters of musicianship classes for children ages 5 to 7 years old that, while involving more formal instruction than the early childhood classes, have included some similar informal guidance and instruction. I also have 4 years of experience teaching elementary general music and integrated arts in a rural school district in mid-Michigan. In addition to my teaching experiences, I have continued to study current research and teaching methods in early childhood music. I have spent a great deal of time learning about the work of Edwin Gordon, whose Music Learning Theory is the philosophical foundation of the early 36 childhood music program examined in this study. In addition to coursework at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I have attended four certification workshops in Music Learning Theory over the last 10 years. Finally, I am the proud mother of two beautiful daughters, ages 3 years and 1 year, who have both been enrolled in the early childhood music program since birth. In a phenomenological study, the researcher’s personal experiences become “part of the equation of meaningful construction and participation” (Brady, 2005, p. 1007n17). My immersion in the early childhood music program is critical to the understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon of teacher planning in early childhood music education (Bresler, 1995; Creswell, 2007). The research questions have developed out of my own reflective thinking about the way that I plan to teach my classes. My unusual perspective of being a teacher and also a participating parent has allowed me to observe other teachers and how their activities and interactions flow. I want to understand better how and why these teachers are making their planning decisions in order to inform and improve upon my own planning process, and this research is my attempt to do that. Design This is a qualitative phenomenological multiple-case study of two teachers who teach in the Community Music School Early Childhood 37 Music Program at Michigan State University. Creswell (2007) states that this type of study is best for understanding a single experience, in this case teacher planning, shared by a group (p. 62). Data were collected through interviews, observations, and think-aloud planning sessions and were used to describe the process through which these teachers plan, including how and why they make their planning decisions as well as the similarities and differences between and among the two teachers. While qualitative research cannot be generalized to the greater population, such comparison provides for a richer analysis of the present data. Setting The curriculum of the early childhood music program in this study is based on Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. At its foundation is the idea that children learn music via processes that are similar to those used when learning a language. Classes are designed to provide children with a variety of listening, moving, and interacting experiences. Teachers perform songs and chants in a variety of tonalities and meters. Since language is already familiar to children, they are less likely to pay attention to musical characteristics when music has lyrics; therefore most songs and chants are performed without words, using instead syllables that are easiest for young children to reproduce like “ba” and “da.” Recorded music is used only occasionally. Manipulatives, such as scarves 38 or beanbags, are used to engage children and to reinforce musical or movement concepts. The classroom is a large, empty room with two windows that face a parking lot and a wall of storage cupboards that are usually locked. Children are accompanied by at least one parent/caregiver. Parents/caregivers are encouraged to allow the children to move freely about the room. Sometimes this means the room is quiet and still, because children are staying centered close to their parent/caregiver. Other times the room is a cacophony of interactive sounds, as the children wander and interact with others in the room. In addition to the teacher, each class also has at least one assistant teacher, who helps with administrative duties as well as instruction and interaction. Participants Much of the research on teacher planning identifies experience as one of the primary influences on how teachers plan (Hill, Yinger, & Robins, 1983; Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Richards & Killen, 1996). Though the results of a qualitative study cannot be generalized, by carefully selecting participants for this study that represented contrasting levels of experience the resultant data provided a richer context for understanding how these teachers planned for their programs. Two participants (N=2), with different levels of experience, were chosen for the study based on recommendations by the program 39 director and on my own personal knowledge of the teachers. By sampling the “maximum variation” in teacher experience, data provides “diverse variations and identifies important common patterns” (Creswell, 2007, p. 127). Data Collection This study took place throughout the planning and instruction process for three consecutive regular early childhood music classes during the 5-week summer semester of the Community Music School (CMS) Early Childhood Music Program at Michigan State University. Each teacher participated in think-aloud planning sessions, classroom observations, and post-instructional interviews. The process was different for each teacher, based on each teacher’s approach to planning and individual scheduling needs. Table 1 - Data collection schedule for Steve June 18, 2011 Think-aloud planning session June 21, 2011 Classroom observation June 27, 2011 Post-instructional reflective interview and think-aloud planning session June 28, 2011 Classroom observation July 2, 2011 Post-instructional interview and think-aloud planning session July 5, 2011 Classroom observation 40 Table 1 continued July 7, 2011 Post-instructional reflective interview Table 2 - Data collection for Julie June 18, 2011 Think-aloud planning session June 30, 2011 (one hour before class) Reflective think-aloud session June 30, 2011 Classroom observation July 7, 2011 (one hour before class) Post-instructional reflective interview July 7, 2011 Classroom observation July 14, 2011 (one hour before class) Post-instructional reflective interview July 14, 2011 Classroom observation July 18, 2011 Post-instructional reflective interview Teachers were asked to provide copies of any written plans for analysis and use in data triangulation. All data were collected during three consecutive classes. Field notes were gathered during observations. Post-instructional interviews focused on how the lesson plan was applied in the classroom and how the classroom experience might guide future planning. Think-aloud sessions and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for further analysis. Observations were videotaped for review during the post-instructional interviews; teachers were asked to view the videotapes in order to confirm observations made by the researcher and build on the reflective process. 41 Limitations Throughout the class observations I acted as a participant/observer. While my personal teaching and involvement as a parent in my daughters’ class provide valuable insight for this study, having my daughters with me while taking field notes would have caused considerable distraction to me as a researcher/observer. I therefore only observed classes in which I was acting neither as a teacher nor parent. Even so, the role of participant/observer created limitations to the research, as I was a new person in the classes that I was observing. For some children, a new person is not a concern, because they are outgoing enough to welcome someone into the setting or disengaged enough to ignore his or her presence. For other children, a new person in the room may change the way that they normally interact with the teacher, which would, in turn, require the teacher to alter lesson plans to meet their different needs. This is addressed in the reporting of the data. Research was conducted during the summer mini-sessions. These sessions were only 5 weeks long, whereas the fall and winter semesters are 10 weeks long. As the semester was half its typical length, this affected how the teachers planned, as well as how teachers built relationships with their students in the shorter semesters. These findings also are discussed in the following chapter(s). 42 Finally, I was teaching as well as attending classes with my daughters concurrent with my research. This can be seen both as a limitation and strength of the study. Decisions that I made while planning for my own teaching may have influenced conversations that I had with the study subjects, and ideas from the study subjects influenced my planning as well. I believe that these additional opportunities for thinking about planning provided a richer context for understanding the planning process in the context of this study. Data Analysis Transcripts from think-aloud sessions and interviews, as well as observation notes were coded and grouped according to common themes. These, in combination with a detailed description of the broader themes that emerge from the coded data, are the essential elements of qualitative data analysis (Creswell, 2007). Observation notes, field notes and think-aloud transcriptions were compared for triangulation. Trustworthiness A phenomenological study looks at the essence of a single phenomenon within a specific context (Bresler, 1995). The results of this study therefore cannot be generalized. Creswell (2007) suggests the importance of employing multiple “validation strategies” in order to ensure the accuracy of interpretations of data collected (p. 207). In this study, transcripts were compared with field notes when coding. Post- 43 instructional interviews served as member checks, allowing participants time not only to reflect on their planning and instructional processes, but to review video footage and provide feedback on researcher interpretations (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, to insure accurate analysis, collected data and resulting emergent themes were peer reviewed by a colleague who is a doctoral candidate in music education, is an experienced qualitative researcher, and also has experience teaching early childhood music classes. 44 CHAPTER FOUR PARTICIPANTS & SETTINGS Getting To Know Steve and His Planning Process Steve is a young, tall, slender male with a tenor voice. In thinkalouds and interviews he was a nervous talker who did not leave much space in conversation (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). In class, his body was full of unrestrained energy, always moving, and his voice was strong while singing or giving frequent verbal instructions. His face was full of expression, and he frequently connected with children through eye contact or a quick touch on a toe or knee. He often allowed short silences, a couple seconds long, to encourage child responses. He engaged with children through short tonal or rhythmic patterns or by echoing and mirroring their verbal and physical responses, with lots of energy and expression (Steve, field notes, June 21, 2011). He first assisted in an early childhood music class as part of an undergraduate methods course. In total, he said he has taught classes at the Michigan State University Community Music School (CMS) for about 3 years. Last summer, after graduating with his bachelor’s degree in music education, he taught at CMS for both summer semesters and then took an elementary general music teaching position for a suburban school district in Michigan. The semester of this study was his first teaching early 45 childhood music since beginning his public school teaching job (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). During the semester in which this study occurred, Steve had prepared to teach classes for two different age levels, but his preschool class was cancelled due to low enrollment (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Therefore Steve’s lesson planning for this study was for a class of children ages birth through 3 years. The class met on Tuesday mornings from 10:00-10:45 a.m. and had eight children enrolled. With the exception of one child on the day of the last observation, all of the children attended music class with their mothers. Attendance throughout the semester was relatively consistent, but one of the two infants-in-arms was absent for two of the three observed classes. The rest of the children were between the ages of 1 and 2 years old (Steve, field notes, June 21, 2011). The children had a range of personalities. One little girl was especially shy and clung close to her mother (Steve, field notes, June 21, 2011). Throughout his planning, Steve made careful considerations for how to meet this little girl’s needs, both socially and musically, as he explained in one of our think-aloud sessions. Steve: When she knows I’m not watching her, that’s when she comes out. Like, [my assistant] said that she had 46 observed [the little girl] was actually making sounds on the tonic and the dominant a couple times. Carin: Cool. S: Which I never got to see because anytime I get close to her, she shuts off with her mom. C: Uh huh. S: So I think I might try a puppet this week and see if maybe I can get a response out of her that way. (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011) Most of the toddlers were content to stay close to their parents but would occasionally venture away to retrieve a prop, check a window, or greet the teacher. A couple of little boys were independent and spent lots of time exploring the room. Neither was afraid to seek out Steve’s lap (Steve, field notes, June 21, 2011), the laps of other mothers (Steve, field notes, June 28, 2011), or the researcher sitting quietly in the corner (Steve, field notes, June 28, 2011). Overall, my presence appeared to have little impact on the flow of the class. The children who chose to stay close to their mothers showed me no notice, while the two outgoing boys were content to leave me alone when prompted by their parents (Steve, field notes, June 28, 2011). As Steve observed in his reflective interviews, most of the children interacted in the class through musical, movement, or language responses throughout the semester, if not on a weekly basis 47 (Steve, personal interview, July 7, 2011). The mothers of the children were fairly attentive to Steve’s songs/activities. They reinforced movement through mirroring, a few would sometimes sing along, and all encouraged their children to participate in activities with them (Steve, field notes, June 21, 2011). When Steve and I got together for his first think-aloud planning session he had already seen this class one time. I met with Steve once a week for three consecutive weeks through the middle of the semester. Each think-aloud planning session took place a day or two prior to the next class. For two of these meetings we met at his house, a rental in the densely student populated neighborhoods just north of the Michigan State University campus. There were three large dogs that he isolated during our planning sessions, mainly for my benefit. When planning, Steve had a spiral notebook in which he would write his plans, a small three-ring binder full of old plans and activities, a small songbook, and a pencil (Steve, field notes, June 18, 2011). The one time we met elsewhere was for our third meeting, when we met at a local coffee shop. Steve brought the same planning materials with him and, beyond the occasional visual distraction, the planning session was much the same as the others (Steve, field notes, July 2, 2011). We met for our think-aloud planning sessions at various times but Steve said that, when left to his own devices, he typically lesson plans at home the night before each class (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 48 2011). Each planning session took about thirty minutes and resulted in a short-term, in other words, single-class lesson plan. The plan on paper was a handwritten list of activity names with occasional song/chant titles or prop suggestions as cues to jog Steve’s memory for the more extensive plan details he kept in his head. Periodically while planning and again after sketching out each complete list, Steve would run though a mental checklist of tonalities, meters, and movement, making sure he had included an appropriate variety of each in his plans (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Steve did not write out any written long-term plans, though he did verbally express long-term goals both for himself, such as how he wanted to teach and interact with the students, as well as what kinds of student behaviors and responses he hoped to elicit (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). When writing his lesson plans, Steve kept a basic framework in mind that helped guide his planning. His opening routine used the same three activities, in order, to start the class each week. He always used recorded music for dancing with scarves as a midpoint in his plan, and always concluded the plan with a goodbye song (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). When teaching, he adhered to his opening and closing routines, though the midpoint routine, the scarf dance, was not necessarily precisely in the middle of class (Steve, field notes, July 5, 2011). For selecting the material to be used in his lesson plans, he would review 49 what he had already planned for the current week, and then select something from the previous week’s plan, placing it in a new order, keeping in mind the meter and tonality of the music and the movement and prop requirements of the corresponding activity. When he felt the need to introduce new material to his lesson plan, Steve would refer to old plan lists, his own compositions, published songbooks, and his list of favorite activities looking for something to inspire him (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Steve wrote out his plans sequentially, infrequently writing down an idea to be used later in his lesson plan. Similarly, when Steve taught, he followed his plan in sequence, never skipping around or adding in new material and only omitting activities as time demanded (Steve, field notes, July 2, 2011). From week to week he used the same song or chant with each activity, excepting one specific activity, in which he would intentionally choose a new song in a different tonality each week. His finished plan was a list of 15 song or activity titles, though he never used them all in a class period. He made no written evaluation of each plan, but made mental notes of student responses and interactions to reflect back on when planning for the next class (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). Overall, Steve’s planning process was quick and straightforward. In 30 minutes each week he was able to create a list of songs/activities with 50 few details but sufficient memory triggers to allow for direct implementation into his teaching. He interacted with individual students spontaneously as appropriate but he followed his lesson plans exactly. Through his planning he created routines and pacing that stayed consistent within each class and from week to week. Though his personality was full of energy, his planning and teaching styles were simple and direct. Getting To Know Julie and Her Planning Process Julie is a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University. She has been teaching early childhood music classes for about seven years, the last four of them at CMS. She chose the graduate program at Michigan State University because of its affiliation with the early childhood music program at CMS. She is a tall, slender woman with a soprano voice. She was very contemplative during think-alouds and interviews, often allowing silence to stretch for a minute or more while she processed her thoughts and made decisions (Julie, field notes, June 18, 2011). Her face and eyes were very expressive and she laughed easily. Her voice was confident but gentle. When teaching, her movements held a subdued energy and when she made physical contact with a child it was with a slow and gentle touch on the toe. She allowed for long pauses between repetitions of an activity, keeping her body still and her voice quiet (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). She was just returning from a semester-long break from 51 early childhood music teaching when she agreed to be a part of this study. I first met with Julie on a Saturday morning before the summer semester started. Julie’s approach to planning involved creating a master plan of 20 to 25 songs/activities that could be used as a sort of weekly menu from which she could pick and choose as student needs dictated or she desired. When not involved in this study, Julie said that she typically writes her master plan at home the week before the class starts, though not necessarily all in one sitting (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). However for this study she chose to complete the process in one planning session for the sake of time and convenience. We met in the music education graduate office in the music building on the campus of Michigan State University. The planning session lasted about an hour and a half. The music education graduate office is a large closet-like room with no windows, three desks filled with computers, books, and papers, and a wall of shelving filled with music education-related literature. While Julie worked, we were able to hear voices from a workshop taking place down the hall but were otherwise undistracted (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). To create her master plan, Julie used her computer, filling in a template that she had created to help guide her planning. The template was a table consisting of several rows split into columns for title (of the 52 song/chant), tonality (if applicable), meter, objectives, and props. She left room along the right margin of the page to write the first measure of the song or chant as a means of jogging her memory, if need be. In addition to the master plan template, Julie also kept on her computer screen a checklist of all the tonalities, meters, and developmental objectives she wanted to include in her master plan. Periodically as she typed, she would reference the checklist either to mark things that she had already included or to look for the things that she had yet to include. As she worked, Julie also expressed a personal goal to include two new songs in her master plan in order to help broaden her own repertoire. When selecting songs or activities, Julie would often consider multiple songs or activities that could accomplish the same goal then narrow down her choice based on tonality, meter, and her own intuition of what would fit best. She frequently sang through multiple songs before selecting one to write down (Julie, field notes, June 18, 2011). Though the master plan was not intended to be taught sequentially, Julie still consciously arranged activities to create an overall flow to the plan, allowing her to more easily and quickly select appropriate activities while actively teaching. When an idea came to her, Julie was likely to place the song or activity where it fit the plan best, rather than in the next available spot (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Likewise, when teaching, she jumped up and down her master list as she felt appropriate 53 for the flow and pacing of the class (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). She placed the calmer, seated activities in the beginning and towards the end of the master plan while the gross motor and loco motor movement activities were clustered together in the middle. She made mental notes of the “posts, the markers of the class” (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011) and would skip around on the master list to incorporate those, such as always placing a free-flowing dance with scarves to recorded music 20 minutes into the class period. From her plans she typically taught 15 to 17 songs and activities each class period, though she said she occasionally would also add new material to the class that was not originally included in her master plan (Julie, personal interview, July 7,2011). Julie created her plan with both an infant/toddler class and a preschool class in mind. As she wrote down activity ideas, she would include variations to accommodate the different age groups appropriately (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). It was not until after her master plan had already been created that she learned that her preschool class was cancelled. Her infant/toddler class had 11 students enrolled, though only ten attended. There were four infants-in-arms, several crawlers, a couple of walkers, and one very outgoing almost-twoyear-old. The group formed a large, seated circle on the floor around the room (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). With so many people in the room, 54 no one appeared to notice me sitting quietly observing/recording from the corner. Every week there were three to five children who attended with a dad or grandmother in addition to his/her mother, which meant the classroom was always full, though it never started that way. In the three weeks of observation, Julie’s class never began with more than five or six children. The rest would come in late over the first 5 to 10 minutes of class (Julie, field notes, July 14, 2011). Many of the children were too young to venture away from their parents (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). Of those who did, a couple of the crawlers often were pulled back by their mothers (Julie, field notes, July 7, 2011). A couple of children were outgoing enough to approach Julie when she was singing. Several more were drawn to her when she pulled out a stuffed teddy bear for a rock and bounce activity (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). For those who could not bring themself to her because they were too young for locomotor movement, Julie would move to the center of the circle or visit each child individually to ensure that everyone was engaged (Julie, field notes, July 7, 2011). When Julie used large or locomotor activities, most of the children were held by an adult, with only a few children participating on their own (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). The particularly outgoing and active toddler was enough of a standout in class that, in the third week of observation when he was having an “off” day, Julie stayed 55 “cognizant of him and his needs” (Julie, personal interview, July 18, 2011) and selected songs/activities specifically to try to accommodate him. What the children lacked in mobility they made up for through vocal responses. Julie typically performed songs and chants on a neutral syllable like “ba” or “da” but frequently changed her sound to acknowledge and incorporate sounds produced by the children (Julie, field notes, July 7, 2011). With so many couples and relatives attending class together, the adults in the group were very chatty. Conversation filled most transitional times (Julie, field notes, June 30, 2011). Yet they also were vocally supportive, with many voices singing and chanting along with Julie and her assistant (Julie, field notes, July 7, 2011). With latecomers, ringing phones, extra visitors, crawlers, toddlers, talking, and babbling, the room was, at times, chaotic. Yet Julie always seemed able to identify and respond to children who were engaging with the music, even those privately responding while shying from the center of the room (Julie, field notes, July 14, 2011). At our next meeting, just prior to the first observation, after seeing the number of small babies in her class, Julie felt it necessary to rewrite a couple of movement activities to accommodate an infant-in-arms more easily. She also made changes to her intended list of props, removing items that she deemed inappropriate for such small children (Julie, personal interview, June 30, 2011). From this point on, Julie and I never 56 met for any additional formal think-aloud planning sessions. However, we did meet weekly, an hour before each of the remaining class observations to talk about what, if any, additional planning Julie believed was necessary. In the following weeks, Julie stopped tweaking individual activities and started focusing on daily and personal goals. The daily planning notes typically included songs and or props that Julie intended to use that day, keeping in mind what she had and had not done in previous weeks. She also made decisions about what recording to use for movement during class and how to incorporate her teaching assistant into the flow of the day’s activities. These planning decisions were not written down but were simple mental notes that Julie made as she reviewed her menu plan and prepared for each day’s instruction (Julie, personal interview, July 7, 2011). Julie spent an hour and a half creating a detailed master plan to be used as a menu while teaching yet still spent time informally planning each week. She made in-action decisions about the sequencing of songs/activities to accommodate individual student needs as well as to control the pacing of each class. She made mental notes of certain time/activity markers to help establish routine from week to week. Though her personality was thoughtful and deliberate, her planning and teaching styles were fluid and improvisatory. 57 Researcher Contributions While this study was not intended to be action research, in retrospect, I wish I had been recording my own thought processes while planning my summer early childhood music class, because it was impossible for my own experiences not to play a part in the questions I asked or how I interpreted the data. Therefore it is important that I provide a brief description of my own planning processes to provide a context for the analysis in this study. In the semester in which the study occurred, I taught an infant/toddler class with only three students enrolled, all around a year old. Throughout the data analysis and writing of this study I continue to teach both preschool and infant/toddler classes. I typically only handwrite one plan for all age levels, adjusting activities to meet the different developmental needs of each group. I write my plans weekly, like Steve, though I create a master list from which to select my activities throughout the semester, like Julie. Of the 30 songs and chants on the list, I select 15 to include in each daily plan, though of those I typically only use 11 to 13 in my actual teaching. Writing my daily plans takes approximately an hour each week, usually, like Steve, the night before class. Like Julie, my plans come together non-sequentially, though the completed plans always incorporate the same elements of routine that both Steve and Julie mentioned as their pace markers: a greeting song at the beginning, a free-flowing dance with scarves in the 58 middle, and a goodbye song at the end. When I teach, I tend to follow my plan sequentially, though I frequently skip activities or interject new ones as I feel necessary based on the needs of the children at that moment in time. As I plan and also as I teach, I keep a mental checklist of tonalities, meters, and movement content, making sure to meet the appropriate learning objectives for the children in my class. I keep written records of each student’s vocal and movement responses to help me provide insight for and feedback to parents. I also converse with my assistant teacher frequently immediately following each class, deconstructing what transpired, reflecting on my plans, and beginning to make decisions about the next class. Participant Relationships Also essential to understanding the interpretive lens through which the data is analyzed is full disclosure of relationships between all of the participants in this study. Julie, Steve, and I all were taught to teach early childhood music by the music education faculty at Michigan State University. Any similarities between the three of us may be attributed to this. While this further emphasizes the lack of generalizability of this study, it may provide additional usefulness for this particular teacher education program or transferability to similar programs. Julie and I are both graduate students at Michigan State University and have attended some of the same classes. Steve recently completed 59 his undergraduate degree and did a semester of assistant teaching with Julie in a previous semester of early childhood music. He and I have not worked or studied together before. How these relationships affect the various aspects of planning and reflective thinking will be discussed further in the chapters that follow. 60 CHAPTER FIVE HOW CONTEXT AFFECTED PLANNING As discussed previously in the literature review, both experience and context affect how teachers plan (Borko, Livingston, & Shavelson, 1990; Elliott, 1992; Hill, Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven, 2003; Richards & Killen, 1996). The two participants in this study had contrasting levels of experience. However too many variables were at play to be able to isolate the effects of experience only on the teacher planning processes. Instead, experience will be considered within the various unique contextual influences of planning for an early childhood music class. Having Parents/Caregivers in Class The most unique feature of the early childhood music class that affected planning was the presence of parents/caregivers in the classroom. Unlike K-12 school classrooms, the early childhood music program at CMS requests that an adult attend with each child. Parental/caregiver presence affected both the lesson plan as well as the active teaching of Steve and Julie, and its influence may vary based on teacher experience and the age of the children. Both teachers voiced a concern that the parents need to feel comfortable participating in the activities and engaging with their children through music and movement (Julie, personal interview, June 30, 2011; Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). The parent information 61 sheet provided by CMS encourages parents/caregivers to “sing the songs or perform the chants that we do during class” and to “create as rich a musical environment as possible for your child at home” (Community Music School Flyer, n.d.). When creating an activity, both Steve and Julie made note of the activity’s accessibility to parents: for example, whether the words or imagery made it easy to remember, or whether the movement was comfortable while carrying a child. Julie discussed the parents as the primary consideration when planning a rhythm activity with egg shakers. Julie: I am going to do Humpty Dumpty and Uh Oh. Carin: Okay. J: Because I, like I said, it’s important to me that the parents have something to hold on to. C: Okay. J: And it is important to me that they do stuff at home. So I am planning for them as well as for the kids. So my goals with that one are continuous flow, student input, well, I guess that one’s not student input. Patterns. C: Patterns? J: And my rationale, my goal is parents do it at home! (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011) 62 Steve often reflected on the musicianship and willingness of the parents in his class to participate in the activities when deciding which activities to keep or drop from his plans each week. Steve believed, “If the parents can pick up more they’re going to be more influential” (personal interview, June 18, 2011) to the child’s musical development than the teacher, who only sees the child five times in one summer. Julie adds that, while parental response to an activity, or lack thereof, might not sway her to remove an activity from her master plan, positive parental response, such as increased vocal or physical engagement with the children and the activity, would certainly lead her to repeat the activity another day. How each teacher weighed parental needs when planning and teaching was influenced by the experience each teacher had in working with the parents/caregivers in an early childhood music setting. Julie shared how her ability to communicate with parents had changed over time. “I’ve learned that it’s my responsibility to set the tone and the atmosphere of the class” (Julie, personal interview, July 6, 2011). Through experience she learned that adults were less likely to participate fully if she expected too much movement from them. She accommodated for this in her master plan and her active teaching by clustering multiple gross and locomotor movement activities together, rather than asking the adults to repeatedly stand up and sit down (Julie, personal interview, June 63 18, 2011). Steve reflected on how a lack of experience had affected his confidence about working with parents/caregivers in his early teaching. As a new teacher he felt that he had focused more on making sure the parents/caregivers viewed the class as fun for the children rather than on musical objectives or the children’s developmental needs. He felt that, with more experience, he was now more focused on student needs and responses (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). The importance of accommodating parents/caregivers when planning was also influenced by the ages of the children. When she created her master plan, Julie was unaware of the ages of the students in her class. Her activities were geared toward children who would be able to engage in the class independently. After meeting several infants-inarms, Julie expressed concern with her plan and its ability to meet the needs of the parents of those infants. She, therefore, made changes to the movement and prop choices of several activities on her master plan. With such small children, “the activities are really more for the parents to feel comfortable” (Julie, personal interview, June 30, 2011). Conversely in Steve’s class, most of the children were old enough to be able to engage in the activities on their own. Thus, when an activity using balloon imagery was successful for the parents but did not engage the students, Steve felt comfortable removing the imagery in order to focus more on the children, 64 since the parents were already engaged (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011). Scheduling The Community Music School offers early childhood music classes in two semester lengths. Ten-week courses are offered in the fall and winter semesters, and 5-week courses are offered in the spring and summer. This study was conducted during a 5-week semester, though each teacher had previous experience teaching during the 10-week sessions as well. Throughout the interviews, both teachers made frequent comparisons between semester lengths and how they plan as well as how they implement those plans in the classroom. Steve and Julie each claimed that their plans look the same, regardless of semester length, but that the content of the plans differs. Julie felt that she should give her students the time they needed to become immersed in certain tonalities and meters, even in the shorter session length, which meant she occasionally had to leave out some higher level learning objectives when writing her master plan and let a few songs/activities go unused when implementing her plan in active teaching (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Steve took a different approach. In a 5-week semester, he felt that he needed to use lots of activities that were easy for children to engage with immediately, not only because there was not enough time to develop deep understanding for 65 the students but also because in “the 5-week [session] I feel like I’m almost on an audition for the parents. If you like this well enough, come back for the 10 week” (personal interview, July 9, 2011). These beliefs were reflected in their plans and their teaching. Despite their different thoughts about planning in a 5-week context, each teacher introduced about the same number of songs/activities over the 3-week period. Their different approaches to planning for a 5-week course were reflected in their planning choices. Julie emphasized repetition throughout the 3-week observation period, repeating nine songs/activities all 3 weeks, and another five activities at least 2 of the 3 weeks. She emphasized that, in her final week of teaching, she would not be introducing any new material, but repeating things she had done in previous weeks. Steve, on the other hand, introduced ten songs/activities that were only taught for 1 week and only kept seven songs/activities the same all 3 weeks. He intended to introduce at least a couple of new songs/activities in the final week of class “just to see if I can get some different responses from the kids” (Steve, personal interview, July 7, 2011). Both teachers each had two activities that remained consistent throughout the 3 weeks of observation, though the musical accompaniment changed. In Julie’s case, she attributed inconsistencies to her brain going on “autopilot” (Julie, personal interview, June 30, 2011), defaulting to similar, and more familiar songs. Neither was an active 66 teaching decision. Steve, however, made both changes consciously while writing his plans. One change was made to add musical context to a transitional activity that had occurred spontaneously during teaching in order to provide continuity, but with a musical purpose. The other change was to replace a chant that relied heavily on imagery with one that had no words and imagery. Steve made each change consciously while writing his plans to provide more opportunities for students to become acculturated in a variety of tonalities and meters, as well as more chances for children to engage with the music and movement. (To further compare Julie’s weekly plans and performance orders, see appendices A and B. To further compare Steve’s plans and performance orders, see appendix C and D). Age and Developmental Levels Student ages and developmental levels (musical, social, and physical) may seem to be obvious influences on planning, but both teachers discussed challenges unique to planning for an early childhood music class involving parents, props, and patterns. As discussed earlier, because parents/caregivers attend the classes with their children, teachers must consider how to make them, as well as their children, feel comfortable and willing to engage in the music and movement activities. Infants are less likely or able to physically engage with the songs/activities, and teachers must therefore be sure to include options and opportunities 67 for parents to do so instead. On the other hand, toddlers or preschooler children are more capable of interacting on their own. Teachers can compensate for this by planning activities that encourage adults and children to work and play together. For example, Julie recognized this by modifying an activity so that parents and children could face each other while moving to a beat (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Both Julie and Steve frequently identified age or developmental appropriateness as a reason for or against using certain props in their plans and their classes. Julie expressed concern about babies putting toys in their mouths and accordingly chose props based on the ease with which they could be cleaned after class (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Steve voiced that a class of high energy toddlers was likely to use something like a beanbag as a projectile and therefore considered the pace and flow of his class when making planning and teaching decisions about using a song/activity with props (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011). He also believed that “puppets bring out so many more responses” (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011) from children, so during the third week of observation he chose a puppet specifically to try to engage a particularly shy child. The responsiveness of the children had an impact on the pacing of the class, and their engagement was dependent on their developmental readiness. Steve’s class had more toddlers than babies, children who 68 were developmentally ready to purposefully respond to a musical environment, so he intentionally planned for more opportunities in his class to have musical exchanges with children through activities that utilized props like a puppet or a ball. Julie’s class had a greater number of small babies, children more likely to be randomly than purposefully responding. She therefore did not include planned individual response time in her master plan, allowing instead that she would make in-action adjustments to her activities when the children engaged her. Perhaps the age and developmental differences between the two classes might contribute to explaining why Steve used between 11 and 14 songs/activities per class during the 3-week observational period, and Julie used as many as 16 or 17 songs/activities per class. Other Influences The early childhood music program at CMS supplies each teacher with at least one teaching assistant. Since the assistants are typically someone learning how to be an early childhood music instructor and need experience teaching, teachers usually allow for the assistants to teach one or two songs/activities per class period. Neither Steve nor Julie seemed too concerned about what their assistant would teach when they were preparing their plans, though they were both cognizant of the need to incorporate their songs/activities into their classes. Both teachers 69 arranged the additional songs/activities into the day’s plan with their assistant before the start of each class. For Julie, familiarity with the students also was a consideration that influenced her planning choices. Julie had been teaching at CMS for 4 years and occasionally had students return to her classes for multiple semesters in a row. She said, “If I know some of the kids then I’ll know which activities they like and, I also don’t want to have too many that are the same for them” (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Summary The complex interrelations of contextual influences on planning, as well as the many variables of personality and setting, made it difficult to isolate the influence of teaching experience on planning decisions. Teachers often considered the needs of parents/caregivers as well as students, but varied the weight of consideration based on student ages/developmental levels. The selection and pacing of songs/activities was affected by semester length. Student age and developmental levels influenced planning and in-action decisions about music, movement, and prop choices. These many unique features of the early childhood music class influenced teacher planning decisions in a number of ways. 70 CHAPTER SIX EMERGENT THEMES Through the analysis, a few themes emerged that directly addressed the purpose of this study. These themes related to the decision-making process and how each teacher made choices about the content of his or her lesson plan(s). The nature of the relationships among the teachers in the MSU CMS early childhood music program were such that they formed a sort of sharing community. The professional environment, as well as the frequent application of theoretical knowledge about early music development, affected how the teachers selected songs and chants for their plans. How songs and chants were sequenced was influenced by routine and affected the pacing of each class. Sharing Within the Community The fact that these teachers worked in a program in which there were other early childhood teachers created a learning community that affected their planning. The results of this study suggest that, for these teachers, idea sharing occurred both overtly and naturally as a result of being part of this community. Both Steve and Julie identified activities or songs that they had adopted from other teachers. Steve borrowed activity ideas from former cooperating/mentor teachers. Julie adopted songs/chants she learned from both her peers and the program director, who was also her dissertation advisor. These appropriated activities were 71 sometimes modified to fit individual teacher or planning needs. Steve used an activity that he learned from a former mentor teacher but adjusted it to meet the age appropriateness of his students. “For some of the older ones then I’ll do high fives but for the younger infants [I’ll] touch a knee, toe, and all that” (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Sometimes “borrowed” activities were copied to the best approximation of the teacher’s memory. Julie added to her plan a nursery rhyme and chant that demonstrated the organic nature of oral tradition. Of a coworker, Julie said, “I got [this activity] from her but I don’t know if it’s hers. Well she didn’t write either of the songs but I love how she puts it together” (personal interview, June 18, 2011). Admittedly, both teachers in this study influenced my planning by exposing me to new songs and activities that I incorporated into my plans. Reflection on Theory In a study on planning at the elementary level, McCutcheon (1980) found that the constant ongoing reflective processes that teachers engage in while planning allows for a chance to apply theoretical knowledge of how children learn to the development of new plans upon which elementary teachers do not capitalize. The teachers in this study revealed different findings than those of McCutcheon (1980). As discussed earlier, both teachers’ planning decisions were influenced by the age and developmental contexts of their classes. While in the 72 problem-finding stages of planning, both of the teachers in this study often cited the developmental needs of their students as the reason for making certain decisions. Julie and Steve both demonstrated their knowledge of the developmental music stages for infants and small children while planning. Julie recognized that, in the earliest stage of developmental aptitude, “the babies are just going to sit there and absorb everything” (personal interview, June 30, 2011). This, along with the understanding that richer listening experiences enhance developmental aptitude, is what motivated both Julie and Steve to incorporate a variety of tonalities and meters into their respective plans. Steve also identified within his class children in different stages of preparatory audiation. Identifying the different needs of his students led him to develop one of his overall goals for the semester. “When I did the individual patterns, I could tell that about half of them [the children] were in the kind of purposeful response stage and about half of them were more kind of just in the babble, you know, taking it in and responding out loud by screaming. So, we’ll see how that goes next couple weeks, if we can kind of move everyone into purposeful response.” (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011) 73 He used specific activities like echoing and special props to help focus the children’s attentions in the hopes of encouraging them to make purposeful musical interactions. Steve: So I think getting more purposeful responses out is the big thing. ‘Cuz now I’ve gotten, it’s been three weeks, I’ve gotten tons of, you know, vocal responses. They do vocalize along with Firecracker and with that Rocketship activity and all that. Now if I can harness them into having a connection with the activity that they’re doing the response in, that’s gonna be my goal this week. Carin: Okay. Steve: So I’ll see, maybe I can get a puppet to do that. (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011) Song Selection One thing that both teachers kept talking about was the criteria for and process of selecting a song for an activity or to accomplish an objective. There were times when each teacher cited intuition as the strongest influence on their song choices. After writing a few routine activities into her master plan, and even incorporating a new song and activity, Julie hit a wall with what to do next. She starting looking through songbooks and old lesson plans, explaining that “I don’t know what exactly I’m looking for. I just know that I’m looking for, um, I don’t know. I’ll 74 know it when I find it. Sometimes that’s just how it goes” (personal interview, June 18, 2011). Yet when inspiration struck, there was an implicit explanation for why it worked, beyond that it just felt right. There were traits of certain songs or chants that each teacher would seek out to meet specific activity needs. Each teacher tried to use a variety of tonalities and meters in their plans, so obviously those were important to consider when choosing songs. Early in our first think-aloud planning session, Steve realized, “I might rethink then a song choice in a little bit because that’s three minor songs already” (personal interview, June 18, 2011). He later did adjust his plan, choosing instead songs in Lydian and Phrygian because he loved how those tonalities sounded. The teachers had their favorite tonalities and, for Julie, that meant she had to be careful about choosing songs. “Dorian’s my favorite. So because that one’s in Dorian, I almost don’t want to use it because I know I have several other Dorian ones in the back of my head” (personal interview, June 18, 2011). When planning his “bum” ball activity, where, while performing a song, Steve would pause to throw a ball in the air and catch it while singing the resting tone, he looked for songs with predictable phrasing, “something with a lot of space and tonal movement and somewhere where you can actually hear… the resting tone is supposed to be there” (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). Julie liked to use songs in 75 unusual meter when moving with continuous flow and also looked for songs with more melodic rhythm because it’s “something that I can be expressive with” (Steve, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Sometimes songs/chants were chosen because they were long or because they were short, because they had words that made them easy to remember or because they were familiar folk tunes. Sometimes they were chosen because they were new and a challenge for the teacher, or because they were old “standbys… that when you’re like, what am I going to do? I’m going to do that one” (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Routine and Pacing Though Leinhardt & Greeno (1986) stated that routines often are implied within a teacher’s plans, both teachers in this study made conscious decisions about where to place songs/activities in sequence in order to preserve their personal routines. Though the songs/activities were different, Julie and Steve each used the same teaching sequence to initiate routine, beginning the class by consistently teaching the same three activities in a row, marking the midpoint of the plan and class with activities using scarves, and ending with a goodbye song that acknowledged each student in turn. Julie’s opening teaching sequence was: 1. A hello song in mixolydian/duple* to greet each student. 76 ∗ The first week of observation she mistakenly sang a different hello song in major/duple. 2. A song in dorian/triple to allow for individual time with each student and emphasis on V-I. 3. A song in major/duple using beanbags to move with continuous flow, emphasize V-I, and provide opportunity for tonal pattern play. Julie varied this routine only once, the third week of observation, when she allowed her assistant to lead an activity before the beanbags were introduced. Julie explained she had success in the past teaching the same activity early in the class and that, since no manipulatives had yet been introduced that day, “you can get away with doing one or two activities at the beginning with no props and have it still be fine” (Julie, personal interview, July 18, 2011). Steve’s opening teaching sequence was similar to Julie’s both in activities and objectives. 1. A hello song in major/duple to greet each student. 2. A song in major*/mixed meter to allow for individual time with each student. ∗ The third week of observation he intentionally changed the tonality to minor in order to “boost their audiation a little” (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011). 3. A song in a different tonality each week using a ball to emphasize the resting tone. 77 Each teacher believed that “if [the children] have a routine that they can at least grab on to, they’ll be a little bit more willing to participate” (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011). Julie added, “you’re building a rapport and trust and a relationship and that’s gonna encourage responses down the road” (Julie, personal interview, July 14, 2011). Children reacted to the routine by increasing their interaction with the opening activities as the semester progressed (Julie, personal interview, July 18, 2011). To mark the middle of each class, both teachers used scarves to play a peek-a-boo game and then to dance with continuous flow to recorded music. Both teachers adjusted the length of their activities, whether consciously or not, to arrive at the midpoint of their plan at approximately the midpoint of the class time. Each teacher had a different style of pacing both through the length of time spent on each activity and the movement content therein. Julie considered the pacing of movement activities as they interacted with the flow of the class as a whole. “I have a larger framework in mind where we sit for several minutes at the beginning, 10-15 minutes at the beginning, and then I do several standing movement activities or more vigorous movement, I kind of ramp it up a bit energy-wise… Then I bring it back down after scarves.” (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011) 78 Steve, on the other hand, considered movement as it affected the flow from one activity to the next, aiming to keep the energy level high at all times. “If we were just up and moving, probably [I’ll do] sitting down stuff. If we’ve been sitting down for a while, probably [I’ll get] up and moving” (Steve, personal interview, June 27, 2011). In the 3 weeks of observation, Steve’s longest activities typically were following his opening sequence and his midpoint sequence, suggesting that his built-in routines helped refocus student attentions, allowing him more time for the activities that immediately followed. However, Julie’s longest activities were mainly at the beginning of the class. Typically as time passed, the length of time she spent on each activity decreased. This could be because, as the class progressed, children had a harder time staying focused on an activity and her pacing quickened to meet their attention spans. Summary In addition to the influences of context on planning there were a few emergent themes regarding how each teacher created his/her plans. Both teachers maintained relationships within the greater teaching community that allowed an opportunity for collaboration and idea sharing. Planning decisions were affected by each teacher’s theoretical knowledge about early music development as it applied to each student in his or her class. Julie and Steve each built routine into plans through 79 deliberate song/activity selection and both conscious and subconscious timing and pacing. While context and experience may have affected each teacher’s planning process differently, these themes demonstrate some of the similarities in the planning choices of these two teachers. 80 CHAPTER SEVEN DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Planning: Two Approaches, One Model Perhaps the best way to look at the how these two teachers approached their planning is to compare and contrast them through the lens of Yinger’s three-step spiral model (1980). Julie and Steve each approached the problem-finding stage in similar ways, incorporating movement, songs and chants, manipulatives (implied within “movement”), personal or developmental music objectives, and time constraints. Ideas flowed in several directions for each teacher such that, to complete a problem-solution, starting at any point could inspire the remaining elements to fall into place in any order. Several researchers have tried to define planning by which element a teacher first considers. Hill, Yinger, & Robins, (1983) found that laboratory preschool teachers were most likely to consider materials first when planning. Peterson, Marx, & Clark, (1978) and Zahorik (1975) found that teachers designed their plans initially from ideas about content/activities. This study confirms both to hold true. As Figure 1 shows, sometimes, the need to meet an objective would inspire an activity that would lend itself to a particular song. Other times, a favorite song might suggest a certain activity that could then be structured to meet a specific objective. 81 Figure 1 – Idea flow in planning Movement/ manipulative Song/ Objective chant Often songs and activities were linked together in the teachers’ minds because, as Julie said, “I always tend to do it [that way]” (Julie, personal interview, July 14, 2011). Yet new solutions also were created as a means of filling a specific need within the plan, such as including an underrepresented tonality or meeting a personal teaching goal. In the act of creating their plans, or as Yinger defines it, recording the problem-solutions, Steve and Julie were considerably different. Steve created a new plan each week. The plans were written and executed sequentially but contained little detailed information. Julie created a single master plan to be used as a menu throughout the semester. She created her plan circuitously rather than in a linear fashion, writing in solutions where they best fit the flow of the overall plan as she thought of 82 them. She drew from the master plan as she was teaching based upon what was happening in the classroom at the moment, so her plan was implemented differently each week as Julie picked and chose the activities that best fit the flow of the class each day. The evaluation stage of Yinger’s (1980) planning model includes both the acts of teaching and reflection on that teaching. Julie implemented her plan in a way that required considerable in-action decision making. In addition to continually making choices about pacing and interaction with students, Julie constantly had to select which activity to teach next. Her reflections on each previous class helped her prepare for the decisions she would make in each next class. If planning “pull[s] away from thought-in-action” and “preparation draw[s] toward it” (Yinger, 1990, p. 89), Julie prepared for teaching by planning her master list and reflectively thinking about how previous experiences would affect her in-action decisions. Steve, on the other hand, followed his lesson plan sequentially while teaching and made few in-action decisions about activity choices. When he reflected on previous experiences, he was preparing for his next planning session rather than his active teaching. While he still made the same kinds of decisions about pacing and interaction with students that Julie made, his lesson plan and reflective thinking played a different role in the classroom. 83 Improvisatory Teaching An early childhood music class should be fluid and improvisatory, providing rich and varied sound and movement experiences, and incorporating the vocal and physical responses of the children (Gordon, 1997; Hornbach, 2005; Taggart, 2003; Valerio, 1997). The teachers in this study both were improvisatory in their teaching but differed in the degree of flexibility that they built into their plans. As discussed earlier, Steve followed his lesson plan sequentially and somewhat exactly. Some activities were designed to allow for interactions with individual children, and he often capitalized on unexpected child responses through echoing or mirroring. Julie had an added level of flexibility in her planning. By creating her master plan, she not only was able to respond as needed to a child’s individual movements or vocalizations but was able to choose activities that could immediately respond to the flow and pacing of the class as a whole. My planning for early childhood music classes provides a third, different perspective and adds another level to the discussion of improvisatory teaching. My written plans, in appearance, more resemble Steve’s. I plan weekly and provide little detail. However, I create solutions discursively like Julie, filling things in where they best fit the overall flow of the plan. In active teaching I am likely to skip planned activities or add 84 activities not originally in my plans to enhance the flow of the class. I also occasionally improvise new songs/chants based on student vocalizations. All three of us incorporate similar elements of routine into our plans. We all use certain songs/activities as markers within our plan to help guide pacing. Additionally, I sometimes mix and match the three elements of an activity (song/chant, movement/prop, and objective) as feels appropriate based on student and parent/caregiver responses. Steve and Julie each kept these elements linked in each activity throughout the course of the semester. This may have been beneficial for children/adults, who needed such routine to build comfort and confidence in class. Or, it may mean that children were not “asking” for anything different. Snow’s (1998) bubble map focused on teaching a single, predetermined piece of music; therefore it may not be directly applicable to early childhood planning. As discussed earlier, the process involved in selecting songs/chants for a particular movement activity or objective is multifaceted. Yet the process of thought mapping (Snow, 1998) was clearly at work to varying degrees in each teacher’s planning. As shown in Figure 1, Julie and Steve each had a repertoire of songs/chants, movement/props, and objectives, some even already in list form (Julie, personal interview, June 18, 2011). Steve used brainstorming and predicting through reflection on past experience to create a single problem solution or lesson plan (personal interview, June 18, 2011). Julie 85 did the same, but created instead a list of activity ideas to be used as a guide for creating multiple unique problem-solutions from the same plan (personal interview, June 18, 2011). Suggestions for Future Research The two teachers in this study were selected because of their different levels of experience teaching early childhood music. Many of the differences in their approaches to planning may be attributed to their personal experiences, though the nature of a case study does not allow for generalizations. Perhaps future research can shed more light on which planning decisions are most affected by personal experience. The results of this study also seem to suggest that shared experience, as opposed to personal experience, may affect planning and teaching decisions. Shared experiences such as teacher training, collaborative brainstorming, and observing oral tradition might be looked at for how they limit or enrich the planning process. Conducting a similar study through other early childhood music programs may help provide more understanding of the effects of shared experience on planning and teaching. Each teacher, including myself, allowed through their planning for some improvisatory teaching, yet each did so to a different degree. To what extent were these decisions driven by personality versus experience and training? With Steve having the fewest years experience teaching early childhood music among us, and I the most, what then do our three 86 different approaches to planning suggest about how experience affects planning? How could the balance of planning versus preparation best be represented as influenced by experience? It is possible, given that Julie and I, as the more experienced teachers, are less likely to write and teach a plan sequentially, and, considering the cyclical nature of idea formations demonstrated by Figure 1, that the success yielded by employing the bubble map method of brainstorming for instruction in a choral planning environment as presented by Snow (1998) could have a similarly successful application in planning for an early childhood music class. This would be an area for valuable additional research. Both of the teachers in this study, and I as well, received early childhood teacher education through the same program with the same professor, who stressed, in her classes, planning with an awareness of developmental differences. A study by McCutcheon (1980) found that the act of reflecting on teaching provides an opportunity for applying theoretical knowledge to plans that is rarely capitalized on in an elementary setting. It is possible that the emphasis on applying theoretical knowledge to planning and teaching decisions in this study is a result of the preservice training we teachers received. It may also be that, to teach such young children, incapable of expressing their own needs, teachers must have a better understanding of those needs and be able to identify and meet them. Comparing the reflective thinking process of 87 teachers in the early childhood music program at CMS to early childhood music teachers in other programs might further explain this. McCutcheon’s (1980) study of teacher planning at the elementary level revealed that the act alone of asking questions about planning can influence a teacher’s reflective thinking and planning process. During post-instructional reflective interviews, each teacher and I watched a videotape of his or her most recent class. As we watched the video recordings, Steve’s reflective thinking was focused on missed opportunities to interact with students. For example, he said, “I’m noticing that I try to do flow with that ball, but I could be doing even more, more movement from child to child around the room” (Steve, personal interview, July 2, 2011). For Steve, the emphasis of this study on reflective thinking caused him to engage in self-evaluation. Would he have made similar selfreflections without the prompts that this study provided? If Julie engaged in the same self examination, she did not voice it. Was she self-evaluating on her own without the visual emphasis of the video recordings? Teachers with more experience are likely to be more student-centered in their reflective thinking, whereas teachers with less experience tend to be more self-centered (Allen & Casbergue, 1997). With this in mind, it is likely that Steve and Julie’s different levels of teaching experience may have played a role in how they responded to the reflective thinking prompts of this study. While self-evaluation was not the intended focus of this study, 88 the questions raised from Julie and Steve’s responses to the study invite future researchers to look more closely at these themes. Limitations of this study I set out to conduct this study in the hopes of informing and improving my own teaching and planning processes. I assumed that my personal motivations for conducting the study meant that I should stay removed from it. Yet in hindsight, including action research in the study, interviewing my self for the sake of recording my own planning and reflective thinking processes would have only provided a richer set of data for discussion. As it was, my method of planning informed the initial design of the study. I plan weekly; therefore I intended to have weekly think-aloud planning sessions. Julie’s different approach changed the think-aloud/interview process because she only had one formal planning session. In the rest of my meetings with her she focused on reflective thinking and preparation for teaching, instead of formal planning. The design stayed in its originally intended form with Steve, who planned weekly, as I do. My understanding of early childhood music teaching guided my questions throughout the interviews, at times enriching the interview experience and at times, distracting me from the purpose of my study. After reviewing my transcripts, I felt as many inexperienced researchers do, that “asking appropriate questions and relying on 89 participants to discuss the meaning of their experiences require[s] patience and skill” (Creswell, 2007, p. 140) that I am still developing. To my knowledge, neither Julie nor Steve had planned with someone else before. My presence during the think-alouds presented an opportunity for idea sharing when Julie was creating her master plan. When looking through songbooks for inspiration, Julie asked me to perform a song/chant new to her but with which I was familiar. I also shared with her the activity that I had performed with it. The same opportunity for sharing never arose during the think-aloud planning sessions with Steve. This could be because my relationship with Steve was different than my relationship with Julie. It could be because, by planning only one week at a time, Steve had less difficulty planning songs/activities that inspired him. Steve’s fewer years of experience teaching and planning for early childhood music could have made him less likely to seek new songs/activities. Julie’s positive response to collaborative planning, and both teachers’ use of borrowed/shared material, suggest an opportunity for additional research to understand the extent of idea sharing, both through observation of oral tradition and through direct collaboration. Implications for Practice Though this case study is an isolated example of teacher planning in early childhood music, there are several implications for practice that can be drawn from the results of this study. These ideas have application for 90 both preservice and in-service teachers and may help teachers develop their own efficient and effective planning practices. Teachers should be provided regular opportunities for collaboration. McCutcheon (1980) found that a common complaint of elementary teachers was a lack of access to idea sharing and professional development, and others have found that providing teachers with enrichment opportunities through workshops is beneficial (Hill, Yinger, & Robins, 1983; McCutcheon, 1980). The teachers in this study pulled from the work of the larger educational community in their planning and demonstrated that even casual discussions with me while planning were useful. Providing teachers with formal, structured opportunities for collaboration would help them develop richer repertoires of songs and activities as well as cultivate new ideas for how to communicate with parents/caregivers, how to accommodate for special needs, and how to address many other planning problems. Also, preservice training should focus on developing a rich theoretical understanding of musical development. The teachers in this study demonstrated the application of theoretical knowledge in their reflective thinking and planning, contradicting the findings of McCutcheon (1980). However, both teachers were trained in a program that emphasized the integration of this knowledge into planning and teaching. Understanding musical growth allows teachers to develop 91 richer plans that directly address the developmental needs of each student (Gordon, 1997). Emphasizing theories of music development in preservice training can help teachers to continually reflect upon and apply theoretical knowledge as a framework when planning. Teachers should follow a rubric of the essential components of an appropriate music learning environment when planning for early childhood music teaching. Without proper planning routines, teachers are likely to overlook important decisions about their plans (Berliner, 1986). For example, in this study, wanting parents/caregivers to feel comfortable, to participate, or to learn something, were all cited as reasons for choosing a certain song or activity. Teachers in this study also tried to provide exposure for their students to a wide variety of tonalities and meters and to activities with specific, developmentally appropriate instructional goals. Both of these could be incorporated into a planning rubric. Following such a guide may help teachers be more aware of what influences their planning decisions and, more importantly, may help them create well-balanced and effective plans that are developmentally appropriate. Finally, teachers should include some teaching routines in their planning but should also be prepared for some in-action decisions as necessary to meet the needs of the class. Though most routine and pacing decisions are made through mental thought processes and are 92 often unconscious, (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), research shows that by deliberately focusing planning decisions on multiple teaching solutions for a single class or child response, teachers can develop a more improvisatory teaching style that better addresses the needs of the students (Snow, 1998). The teachers in this study demonstrated that both song/activity choice and pacing are influenced by the responses of the students. While some teaching routines may be helpful for establishing continuity from week to week, teachers should be prepared to switch tonalities, improvise a chant, or repeat an activity anywhere from two to twenty times depending on the responses of the children. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to understand the process of planning better for early childhood music classes, how planning influences teaching and how reflective thinking influences both planning and teaching. The results suggest that the early childhood music class presents many unique challenges for teachers when planning for instruction. Both teachers’ planning processes followed the same three-step model (Yinger, 1980), but within each step, their approaches varied. Each teacher in this study balanced the acts of planning and preparation in the way that best suited their personal needs as well as the contextual needs of their respective classes. Each teacher was aware of similar 93 contextual needs specific to the early childhood music class, but each met these needs in their own way. Even with only a surface comparison of my own practices to the participants of this study, I found some similarities in how and why planning and teaching choices were made as well as some decisions that were unique to me. While many questions still remain regarding the effects of personal experience on planning, and while this study highlights only two cases in the greater body of early childhood music education, the results open the door for better understanding the planning, teaching, and reflective thinking processes of early childhood music teachers. I know my own future decisions will be better informed as a result of this study. 94 APPENDICES 95 APPENDIX A - Julie’s written plans Table A1 – Julie’s planning menu 96 APPENDIX A - Julie’s written plans (continued) Table A1 – Julie’s planning menu (continued) 97 APPENDIX A - Julie’s written plans (continued) Table A1 – Julie’s planning menu (continued) 98 APPENDIX A - Julie’s written plans (continued) Table A2 – Julie’s planning checklist 99 APPENDIX A - Julie’s written plans (continued) Table A2 – Julie’s planning checklist (continued) 100 Appendix B – Julie’s lesson order Table B1 – Julie’s observation 1 1. Hello Song in major, not mixolydian 30s 2. Dorian Lilt w/ activity for Tiptoe Waltz 3m 3. Dr. Kate 5m 4. Little Yellow Cub w/ bear instead of sticks 4m 5. Caterpillar/Chicka Chicka 6. Assistant Teacher 7. Peek-a-boo 3m 8. Rocketship 1.5m 9. Recorded music 2m 3m 10. Duck Song 1.5m 11. Swingin’ in the Rain 3m 12. Humpty Dumpty/Uh Oh 2m 13. Dorian Song 1.5m 14. City Line Ave. 2m 15. Sally-Go-Round 1.5m 16. Stretch & Bounce 1.5m 17. Let’s Sing Goodbye 30s 101 Appendix B – Julie’s lesson order (continued) Table B2 – Julie’s observation 2 1. Hello, Hello, Hello 1.5m 2. . Tiptoe Waltz 3.5m 3. Dr. Kate 4.5m 4. Weeble Wobble w/ bear 4.5m 5. Train Song 3m 6. Assistant Teacher 7. Peek-a-boo 3.5m 8. Rocketship 1.5m 9. Recorded Music 2m 10. Bubblegum 2m 11. Humpty Dumpty/Uh Oh 3m 12. Swingin’ in the Rain 2m 13. City Line Ave. 2m 14. Caterpillar/Chicka Chicka 1.5m 15. Sally-Go-Round 1.5m 16. Stretch & Bounce 2m 17. Scrubba Dubba 1.5m 18. Goodbye Song 1m 102 Appendix B – Julie’s lesson order (continued) Table B3 – Julie’s observation 3 1. Hello, Hello, Hello 1m 2. Tiptoe Waltz 3m 3. Assistant Teacher 4. Dr. Kate 3m 5. Hungarian Folk Song w/ sticks instead of butterflies 2m 6. We’re Gonna Go 2m 7. Train Song 2.5m 8. Peek-a-boo 2.5m 9. Rocketship 1.5m 10. Recorded Music 2.5m 11. Swingin’ in the Rain 2m 12. Humpty Dumpty/Uh Oh 3m 13. Weeble Wobble w/ bear 2m 14. City Line Ave. 2m 15. Caterpillar/Chicka Chicka 1.5m 16. Bubblegum 1m 17. Goodbye 1m 103 APPENDIX C – Steve’s written plans Figure C1 – Steve’s lesson plan 1 104 APPENDIX C – Steve’s written plans (continued) Figure C2 – Steve’s lesson plan 2 105 APPENDIX C – Steve’s written plans (continued) Figure C3 – Steve’s lesson plan 3 106 APPENDIX D - Steve’s lesson order Table D1 – Steve’s observation 1 1. Hello Song 1.5m 2. Finger Play 2m 3. “Bum” Ball 3.5m 4. Balloon 4m 5. Fingerpaint 3m 6. Scrubba 3m 7. Nap/Wake 1.5m 8. Assistant Teacher 9. Peeking w/ Scarves – no song 1m 10. Scarf Dance 2m 11. Firecracker 4m 12. Magic Drumsticks 4m 13. Cars: race car, fire truck, dump truck, race car 4.5m 14. Boat 3.5m 15. Goodbye 1.5m 107 APPENDIX D - Steve’s lesson order (continued) Table D2 – Steve’s observation 2 1. Hello Song 1.75m 2. Finger Play 2.75m 3. “Bum” Ball w/ new song 2.5m 4. Balloons 4m 5. Beanbags 5m 6. Act Animals: bears, cats, frogs, tigers, elephants 4m 7. Assistant Teacher 8. Peeking w/ Scarves – no song 1m 9. Scarf Dance 2.5m 10. Assistant Teacher 11. Magic Drumsticks 4.5m 12. Cars : race car, dump truck, fire truck 5m 13. Rock-a-Rock 3m 14. Goodbye Song 1.5m 108 APPENDIX D - Steve’s lesson order (continued) Table D3 – Steve’s Observation 3 1. Hello Song 1.75m 2. Finger Play w/ same song, new tonality 2.5 3. “Bum” Ball w/ new song 4m 4. 5. Growing Ba-Bas w/ same movement as balloons Act Like Animals : bears, mice, dogs, monkeys, elephants 3.5m 4m 6. Bubblegum 4.5m 7. Assistant Teacher 8. Scarves Hide w/ peeking w/ scarves activity 2.5m 9. Scarf Dance 2.5m 10. Assistant Teacher 11. Cars : race car, fire truck, dump truck, race car 5m 12. Chef Meatball 9m 13. Goodbye Song 1.5m 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, R. M., & Casbergue, R. M. (1997). Evolution of novice through expert teachers’ recall: Implications for effective reflection on practice. [Electronic version] Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 741755. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Berliner D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. [Electronic version] Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13. Borko, H., Livingston, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990) Teachers ‘ thinking about instruction. [Electronic version] Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 40-49. Brady, I. (2005). Poetics for a planet: Discourse on some problems of being-in-place. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 979-1026). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Bresler L. (1995). Ethnography, phenomenology, and action research in music education. [Electronic version] The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 4-16. Brittin, R. V. (2005). Preservice and experienced teachers’ lesson plans for beginning instrumentalists. [Electronic version] Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 26-39. Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1984). Teachers’ thought processes. In Merlin C. Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan. Community Music School Flyer (n.d.). College of Music: Michigan State University [Flyer]. East Lansing, MI. Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S., Eds. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 111 Elliott D. J. (1992). Rethinking music teacher education. [Electronic version] Journal of Music Teacher Education, 2(6), 6-15. Gordon, E. E. (1997). A music learning theory for newborn and young children. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications, Inc. Hill, J., Yinger, R., & Robins, D. (1983).Instructional planning in a laboratory preschool. [Electronic version] The Elementary School Journal, 83(3), 182-193. Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven III, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: interences from research of expert and novice teachers. [Electronic version] Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247. Hornbach, C. M. (2005). Ah-eee-ah-eee-yah-eee, bum, and pop, pop, pop: Teacher initiatives, teacher silence and children’s vocal responses in early childhood music classes. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI: 3189669. Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (1993). Seeing the invisible: Perceptualcognitive aspects of expertise. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 203-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching.[Electronic version] Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95. McClellan, N. (1997). Music teachers’ opinions of the use and effectiveness of elementary music series books. [Electronic version] Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 12-22. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. [Electronic version] The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4-23. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1978). Music of young children: Pillsbury Foundation Studies. Santa Barbara: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. [Electronic version] American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417-432. 112 Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Richards, C. & Killen, R. (1996). Preservice music teachers: influences on lesson planning. [Electronic version] British Journal of Music Education, 13(1), 31-47. Sardo-Brown, D. (1988).Twelve Middle-School Teachers’ Planning [Electronic version] The Elementary School Journal, 89(1), 69-87. Schleuter, L. (1991).Student teachers’ preactive and postactive curricular thinking.[Electronic version] Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 46-63. Schmidt, M. (2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: an exploratory study. [Electronic version] Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 6-25. Schulman L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. [Electronic version] Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Snow, S.L. (1998). Rehearsing in the choral context: a qualitative examination of undergraduate conductor/teacher planning processes and relationships to emergent pedagogical knowledge evidenced in teaching. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI: 9922376. Standley, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1991). An observation procedure to differentiate teaching experience and expertise in music education. [Electronic version] Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 5-11. Taggart, C. (2003). Child-centered play in music: Developmentally appropriate practice. [Electronic version] Early Childhood Connections, 9(2), 15-23. Taylor, P. H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. Slough, Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Tyler, R. W. (1950).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago:: University of Chicago Press. Valerio, W. H. (1997) Surprise! Music development means music play for adults as well as children. [Electronic version] Early Childhood Connections, 7-14. 113 Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (1998). Music Play. Chicago: GIA Publications. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. [Electronic version] The Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107-127. Yinger, R. J. (1990). A conversation of practice. In Clift, R. T., Houston, W. R., & Pugach, M. C. (Eds), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs (p. 73-94). New York: Teacher’s College Press. Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers’ planning models. Educational Leadership, 33(2), 134-139. 114