$3353.. .1 EM...» . .12 u. . 3.1... «3qu 1": v . . "mums“... . . . . . . , _ . J. Umu... . My}... 13 .hycm—Mfiday. . . ran... an“... gunman , . , I: ..... 9. ad.” “.1 1...... aw... u» 1 x. :35? M.........1...........1.1...s . rhu a” "43:35 . It. .2. . , {an . 5.711): sflfivlv L} o . K .a . «1...: I 31. ”Ly . ahfiarnflfl , .. I. .. an... ; .1... 31.1.5. £5113 N ‘1 f {i 31$? . mu: 1m»: 4m; 53.... a 33.31% m...gawgfiam..w...uw..ma..wufl§.fliwf .. . ..yv»,l.!.. .. . L l fill: .4" r... nukfi...“ . . ..»........vM ‘33 STATE UNIVERSITY UBRAR ES "if!!!WWI/NIH!!![fill/IllWWI/"WI! ,L ll NH) 1' 3 293 01028 9225 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty \ * R t\ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC TEACHER PREPARATION FOR MAINSTREAMING: A SURVEY OF MUSIC EDUCATION TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF THE UNITED STATES presented by LISA HELLER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH'D degreein MUSIC 9 p Major professor Date Octoben 19, I994 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 PLACENREI'URN aoxmmwommummm TOAVOIDFINEBMunonorbdonddoduo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU lawman-mu OMIW Wt UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC TEACHER PREPARATION FOR MAINSTREAMING: A SURVEY OF MUSIC EDUCATION TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF THE UNITED STATES By Lisa Heller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Music 1994 ABSTRACT UNDERGRADUATE MUSIC TEACHER PREPARATION FOR MAINSTREAMING: A SURVEY OF MUSIC EDUCATION TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF THE UNITED STATES By Lisa Heller The problem studied through this research was fourfold: (1) to ascertain the training and experiences that current music education methods’ instructors received in their respective rmdergraduate programs which addressed mainstreamed/special needs students; (2) to determine how university music education programs are preparing their students to work with mainstreamedlspecial needs learners; (3) to discover whether the current music teacher training faculty plan to implement program changes in the future; and (4) to recommend areas for future research directed toward curricula for prospective music educators. A descriptive research design was used in conducting this study. An eight-page questionnaire was prepared, piloted, and approved for the purpose of gathering data from the prospective participants. The population for this study was a selected sample of full-time music education methods’ instructors at National Association of Schools of Music affiliated colleges and universities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A total of 103 schools in these six states met the criteria for selection. Seventy-eight colleges and universities (75.7%) were represented by at least one completed questionnaire. Questionnaires were sent to 333 music education methods’ instructors at these institutions. One-hundred and ninety-two (57.7%) were returned and 179 (53.8%) contained usable data for analysis. Lisa Heller Responses were treated by computing descriptive statistics using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSPC+). The results indicated that those professors who had prior experiences with mainstreamed students were much more likely to include mainstreaming topics in their classes, while those without experience were much less likely to include these topics. In addition, nearly 63 % of the respondents reported that they included mainstreaming topics in their courses. While some respondents indicated that field-based observations and/or experiences with special needs students were included, only 15.5 % required their students to have field-based experiences with mainstreamed learners. Although the respondents reported that over 70% of their music education students were involved with mainstreamed students in their pre-service field-based classroom and student teaching experiences, only 40.8% of the college/university music education programs have internal requirements for preparing their students to work with special learners. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to several individuals for their constant support and encouragement during the many phases of my doctoral program and throughout the writing of this dissertation. My appreciation is expressed to Dr. Robert Erbes, committee chairperson, and Dr. Dale Bartlett for their support and guidance as members of my doctoral committee. To committee members Dr. Rosalie Schellhous, Mr. Roger Smeltekop, Mr. Robert Unkefer, and Dr. Ted Johnson, I am appreciative of your many contributions during the completion of my program. Special thanks is due to Mr. Randy Fotiu of the Michigan State University Computing Center and Mr. Jim Yeornans for their technical assistance in analyzing the data, Dr. loan Stepp for sharing her editorial skills, and Ms. Nancy Witucki for her constant encouragement. Finally, a very special thank you goes to Ms. Mary Dalia, Principal at Immaculate Heart of Mary-St. Casimir School in Lansing, Michigan for her interest and support of this endeavor. She and her staff made it possible for me to complete my program. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix LIST OF APPENDICES x CHAPTER I. Introduction ............................................ 1 Background for the Study .................................. 1 Statement of the Problem .................................. 9 Need for the Study ...................................... 10 Purpose of the Study ..................................... 11 Limitations of the Study .................................. 12 Definitions ........................................... 13 Overview ............................................ 13 II. Review of the Literature .................................. 14 Introduction ........................................... 14 Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming .................... 16 Teacher Preparation Programs .............................. l8 lnservice Education ...................................... 21 Music Education/Music Therapy Research ...................... 22 Summary ............................................ 28 Ill. Procedures for the Study .................................. 29 Introduction ........................................... 29 Description of Population ................................. 29 Development of the Survey Instrument ........................ 29 Protection of Human Rights ................................ 32 Administration Procedures ................................. 33 Data Analysis Procedures ................................. 35 IV. Presentation of Data ..................................... 38 Innoduction ........................................... 38 Survey Return and Data Treatment ........................... 38 General Demographic Information ........................... 39 Type of Institution and Location ........................ 39 Enrollment Information .............................. 40 General Information from Individual Respondents ................. 41 Present Title Held .................................. 41 Gender ......................................... 41 Years of Employment as an Instructor in Higher Education ..... 41 Elementary and Secondary Teaching Experience ............. 42 Data Related to Research Questions .......................... 47 Research Question 1 ................................ 47 Research Question 2 ................................ 48 Research Question 3 ................................ 50 Research Question 4 ................................ 50 Research Question 5 ................................ 53 Research Question 6 ................................ 60 Research Question 7 ................................ 63 Research Question 8 ................................ 66 Research Question 9 ................................ 66 Research Question 10 ............................... 67 Research Question 11 ............................... 70 Research Question 12 ............................... 72 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................... 73 Summary ............................................ 73 Findings ............................................. 77 Individual Respondents .............................. 77 College/University Program Information .................. 79 Conclusions ........................................... 80 Recommendations for Future Research ........................ 84 Appendices ................................................. 85 List of References .......................................... . 100 vi Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Page States Represented in the Study ............................. 40 Past Settings of Elementary and/or Secondary Teaching Experience ............................. 44 Grade Levels Taught ..................................... 45 Areas of Music Taught ................................... 46 Respondents’ Recollections of Students with Special Needs in Classrooms ............................ 47 Categories of Mainstreamed Students Reported in the Classrooms of Former Public and/or Private Music Teachers ....... 49 Categories of Undergraduate Training ......................... 52 Respondents’ Inclusion of Mainstreaming Topics In Methods Courses ..................................... 53 Respondents’ Incorporation of Mainstreaming Topics in Undergraduate Music Methods’ Classes ........................ 62 Types of Mainstreamed Students Present in Pre-Service and Student Teaching Classrooms ............................ 65 Mainstreaming Requirements in the Music Education Programs of the Colleges and Universities Represented in the Study ........... 69 Plans to Implement Additional Requirements for Preparing Pre-Service Music Teachers to Work with Mainstreamed Students ...... 70 vii LIST OF FIGURES Percentage of respondents with past public school experience teaching mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents with past public school experience who did not teach mainstreamed students ................................... Percentage of respondents with past private school experience teaching mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents with past private school experience who did not teach mainstreamed students ................................... Percentage of respondents with post baccalaureate training/experience with mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents who have no post baccalaureate training/experience ...... Percentage of respondents with past undergraduate and/or graduate level exposure to mainstreaming topics who currently include mainstreaming topics in college/university music methods courses ............... viii Page ..55 ..56 ..57 ..59 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Data from Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress. . . .............. 85 Pilot Test Cover Letter. .................................... 87 C. Approval of the Dissertation Proposal by the Guidance Committee ................................... 88 D. Approval of the Dissertation Proposal by the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects .......................... 89 E. Initial Mailing Cover Letter. ............................... 90 F. Survey Instrument ....................................... 91 G. Follow-up Mailing Cover Letter ............................. 99 CHAPTER I Introduction W In the past several decades, great strides have been made in the education of children with disabilities. Stainback and Stainback (1989), well-larown authorities in the field of education, explain ”historical trends indicate that increasing numbers of people are adopting an attitude that people with disabilities should have the same rights as others, and should be accepted into the mainstream of school and community life” (p. 49). Boardrnan (1992), a past chairperson of the Music Educators National Conference affiliate, The Society for Music Teacher Education, writes that the classrooms of the future will include students from many backgrounds who have diverse learning styles and abilities. The passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, has had a profound impact on the public school system. Simply stated, the law’s purpose is to assure that all handicapped children have free access to an appropriate public education. The single portion of this law that affects music educators is the guarantee of ”least restrictive environment" for the handicapped: The State has established . . . (B) procedures to assure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only 2 when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. . . [Sec. 614(a)(5)] For many students with disabilities, the ”least restrictive environment” has been interpreted as mainstreaming into regular education classes where appropriate. Wang (1989) explains that exceptional children are entitled to a free, appropriate public education which is equal in quality to the education available to other students; therefore, special education services for exceptional children should be carried out in regular classrooms to the maximum extent possible (p. 33). In the first few years following the passage of PL 94-142, most government publications referred to it as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act Beginning in the early 1980s, the passage of a series of amendments to the law extended many of the rights and safeguards of PL. 94-142 to children younger than age five. The three amendments to the original law are PL. 98-199 (1983), PL. 99- 457 (1986), and PL. 101-476, (1990). Following the passage of PL. 98-199, authors began to refer to PL. 94-142 as the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). In 1990, PL. 101-476 amended EHA and renamed it the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA retained the original intent of PL. 94-142 and most of the revisions were in terminology. For example, one of the changes was the substitution of the term "disabilities” for handicapped (Gearheart et al., 1992, pp. 24-27). Statistical evidence supports the fact that an increasing number of students with disabilities are receiving their educational and related services in regular school settings. Greer (1990) expresses a concern that the numbers of handicapped students will continue to increase because of the large number of pregnant women using 3 alcohol and/or drugs. Many specialists, including Greer, believe that a great proportion of these children are likely to have significant learning and behavioral disabilities which may require specialized school services. Section 618(t)(1) of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly the Education of the Handicapped Act, requires the Secretary of the United States Department of Education to submit to Congress an annual report describing the progress being made in implementing the act. The most recent national report to Congress by the US. Department of Education (1991) showed that in the 1988-89 school year, the overwhelming majority (93.1%) of students with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 received their educational and related services in regular school settings with students who were not disabled. Specifically, 31.3 % of these students were served in regular classes, 37.3% in resource rooms, and 24.4% in separate classes. An analysis was conducted to determine if there was an increase in the proportion of regular class placements for students with disabilities between the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years; the results showed an increase of 1.6% from 29.7% to 31.3%, while the proportion of resource room placements decreased by 0.9% from 38.2% to 37.3% (pp. 21-22). WW (1991) also provided data on the types of disabled students and the settings in which they were educated. Disability categories consisted of the following classifications: 1. Specific learning disabilities 2. Speech or language impairments 3. Mental retardation 4. Serious emotional disturbance 5. Hearing impairments 6. Multiple disabilities 7. Orthopedic impairments 8. Other health impairments 9. Visual impairments 10. Deaf-blindness Data compiled for the 1988-89 school year by the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs showed the percentage of students age 6-21 served in different educational environments by disability category. Analysis of these data revealed that the extent to which students were mainstreamed varied with their handicapping disability. For example, 95.1% of students with speech or language impairments were placed in regular classes or resource room settings; whereas, only 28.3 % of students with mental retardation and 44.1% of those with serious emotional disturbances were placed in regular classes or resource room settings. As expected, the higher percentages of those students placed in separate classrooms (46.2%) or separate schools (25.9%) were among students with multiple disabilities. For the complete data on each of the disability categories, see Appendix A. Data were not available on the proportion of regular class placements for the 1989- 1990 school year in the latest published report, but the following enrollment totals were presented: During the 1989-90 school year, 4,687,620 children and youth with disabilities from birth through age 21 were served Imder the Part B and Chapter 1 programs. This is an increase of 100,250 (2.2 percent) over the 1988-89 school year which is the largest percentage change in number since the 1980-81 5 school year. The numbers of students served have increased, at heightened rates each year, since 1985-86. WWW, pp. 2-3) The report also provided the percentages of students grouped by ages (3-5, 6-11, 12-17, and 18—21) who received services in the six educational environments during the 1988-89 school year: (a) regular class, (b) resource room, (c) separate class, (d) separate school, (e) residential facility, and (t) homebound/hospital. The largest percentages of regular classroom placements for exceptional students were in the 3-5 category (42.2%) and the 6-11 category (41%). Regular classroom placements significantly decreased once the student reached age twelve. In the 12-17 category, 19.3% received services in the regular classroom. The percentage continued to decline in the 18-21 category (14.2%) (see Appendix A). The large percentage of regular classroom placements reported for younger children was explained in the following statements: Although regular classes and resource rooms are, generally, the primary educational environments in which States serve students with disabilities, placement patterns vary substantially by age group. In general, preschool (age 3-5) and elementary school (age 6-11) students are more likely to be placed in less restrictive environments than students in the older age groups (12-17 and 18-21 year olds). . . . The relatively large proportion of regular class placements for 3-5 year olds may be due, in part, to the availability of this placement option for 5 year olds. (p. 24) In the immediate years following the passage and implementation of PL. 94- 142, a large body of research addressing the inclusion of handicapped children in the regular classroom began to appear in the literature. An analysis of current studies 6 shows that less discussion is taking place on the pros and cons of PL. 94-142. Instead, interest has shifted to finding ways of designing a unified, comprehensive regular education system capable of meeting the Imique needs of all students who are placed in public education settings (Stainback & Stainback, 1989). A major movement that is currently affecting the school system is the Regular Education Initiative (REI). REI refers to restructuring educational services in such a way as to provide for the diversity of students’ needs within the general education classroom. It came into focus within the leadership of the special education field following an article written by Madeleine Will (1986), who was, at the time, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the United States Department of Education. She strongly recommended that programs "be allowed to establish a partnership with regular education to cooperatively assess the educational needs of students with learning problems and to cooperatively develop effective educational strategies for meeting those needs” (p. 415). Proponents of REI believe that the current special education delivery system is not adequate and recommend that the general education system assume primary responsibility for all students who are enrolled in the public school system. Included in their recommendation are students who have identifiable disabilities as well as those who have special needs (Davis, 1989). The Regular Education Initiative has led to considerable debate within the field of special education. Differing interpretations and applications of Madeleine Will’s recommendations have stimulated the debate with its focus being on the questionable readiness of regular educators to assume new responsibilities in the classroom (Gearheart et al., 1992, p. 19). Both PL. 94-142 and the Regular Education Initiative have opened music classes to students who traditionally have been denied access because of their 7 disability. Although neither of these sources specifies in which classes the Special students will be involved, both imply the inclusion of these students in music education classes if their needs can be met through music. Salend (1990) explains that in those instances when special students are mainstreamed into regular classrooms on a part-time basis, they most often ”are integrated with their nonhandicapped peers for clasSes in art, music, industrial arts, and physical education” (pp. 6-7). The Task Force on Music Teacher Education was formed in 1984 at the request of Paul Lehman, who was president of the Music Educators National Conference (MEN C) at the time. As a result of their discussions, a new model in music teacher education was proposed, one that would serve to ”revitalize the means through which music teachers are prepared for the future” WW, 1987, p. 13). One recommendation was that ”education and music education courses should be staffed by teacher educators who have experience in the classroom and continue to work with students in a field-based setting” (p. 38). The publication also addressed the education of ”unique” learners in the following statements: Prospective music teachers should elect courses that consider students with impairments, disabilities, or handicaps including visual impairments, hearing impairments, emotional impairments or behavioral disorders, developmental disabilities or mental retardation, physical disabilities involving the central nervous system, learning disabilities, language disorders involving the central nervous system, and multiple handicaps. These courses should include observation, fieldwork, and case studies. In the absence of available field experience, videotape programs, classes, and selected individuals should be used to provide exposure to a variety of unique learners. ( 1) Courses should increase awareness by the prospective teacher of 8 students with multiple impairments, handicaps, or disabilities. (2) Courses should provide for awareness of varying musical abilities within a group of ”exception ” students. (3) Courses should provide opportunities for planning sample strategies for teaching students with a variety of musical and nonmusical individual differences. (p. 39) A new movement, America 2000, addresses education reform and the establishment of a national curriculum. Initially, the arts were excluded from the discussion (Glenn, 1992); but recently an ”America 2000 Arts Partnership" was added to the reform plan, and a grant has been authorized to help create national standards in arts education (Sforzando, Fall 1991). The grant will ”fund the development of new standards describing what American students should know and be able to do in music, dance, theatre, and the visual arts.” (Sormdpost, 1992, p. 1) MENC is involved currently in the reform process with the development of the School Music Program Evaluation and is working toward defining national standards in music education. Seven music education goals have been formulated which serve to reflect the priorities listed in America 2000. Among these, three goals have particular implications for special learners who are placed in a regular education setting. Their stated purposes are: 1. To ensure that music is an integral part of every preschool, kindergarten, day-care, and early intervention program. 2. To develop appropriate responses to the seva major societal problems that are affecting America’s youth. 3. To identify learning outcomes for music education and develop and disseminate appropriate models for student assessment and program evaluation (Soundpost, 1992, pp. 6-7). 9 Unfortunately, these music education goals do not adrhess the specific needs of Special learners who, undoubtedly, will be mainstreamed into regular music classes. WW Discussion is limited in the literature concerning implementation of the music education goals as formulated by MENC. Music educators and prospective music educators need to be informed about these new educational goals and the needs of Special learners in order to plan and to structure music classes around them. Classes in which future music teachers are trained, therefore, must be taught by informed music educators if music is to continue as a vital component of mainstreaming within the educational system. An examination of the literature also indicated no studies which focused specifically on the preparation of prospective music teachers to teach mainstreamed learners. In the first years following the passage of PL. 94-142, the majority of the literature in the fields of regular education, special education, and music education cited the lack of adequate preparation in the prospective teachers’ university training programs, the lack of adequate administrative support, and the lack of input in placement decisions of special students. Current research expresses similar concerns, although it has been over 15 years since PL 94-142 was passed. The problem, therefore, studied through this research was fourfold: (1) to ascertain the training and experiences that current music education methods’ instructors received in their respective undergraduate programs which addressed mainstreamed/special needs students; (2) to determine how Imiversity music education programs are preparing their students to work with mainstreamed/special needs learners; (3) to discover whether the current music teacher training faculty plan to implement program changes in the 1 0 future; and (4) to recommend areas for future research directed toward curricula for prospective music educators. Wily Although the education of special learners in regular classes has affected teachers, administrators, and students in the public schools, the practice of mainstreaming has also affected teacher preparation programs at the university level. A number of regional studies have been conducted on the beliefs and attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers toward mainstreaming. Research conducted during the past five years shows that many teachers share the same concerns as those who were surveyed in the late 19705 and early 19805. While most teachers indicate they have mainstreamed learners in class and recognize the merits of the process, they cite a lack of preparation in working with these students. Overall, only a small percentage of the research in the field of education has explored methods used by teacher training programs in preparing their students to work with mainstreamed learners. No music education research was found that specifically addressed this topic. The mainstreaming of special learners into music classes is common today and will receive even greater emphasis in future curricula as the numbers of handicapped students increase. A particular concern is the large percentage of younger, mainstreamed students who are being placed in regular classrooms at the elementary school level. Prospective music teachers, therefore, need to have adequate training in order to work effectively with these special students. Richard Graham, a well-known and widely published authority in the field of music education, has contributed many writings on the topic of teaching exceptional children. In W; 51111211911, II, Graham (1991) writes: 1 1 The exceptional child, like other members of society, must be provided an opportunity to develop fully his or her abilities. This philosophy requires that music education programs in public, tax-supported schools of the nation adjust or modify curricula, including teaching, and other offerings so as to meet a variety of needs. (p. 227) W The main purpose of this study was to discover how music teacher training institutions are currently preparing their students to work with mainstreamed learners in elementary and/or secondary school systems. Data were provided by a selected sample group (n= 179) of college/university music education methods teachers from the Great Lakes Region of the United States, responding to a questionnaire. Data collected and analyzed answered the following questions: 1. Do music education professors have personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level before their college/university employment? 2. If music education professors have had previous personal experiences with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, which kinds of mainstreamed students were present in their classrooms? 3. If the music education professor has had previous personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, does it vary between the public and private school system? 4. What undergraduate curricula and programs trained prospective music I ' educators to work with mainstreamed students? 5. To what extent do music education professors’ prior personal experiences with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level affect teacher preparation methods for mainstreaming in their courses? 1 2 6. In what manner are pre-service music educators currently being prepared to work with mainstreamed students? 7. Are music education students involved with mainstearned students during pre-service field-based experiences and/or student teaching? 8. Do undergraduate music teacher training programs presently have internal requirements for preparing pre-service music teachers for working with mainstreamed students? 9. Do music teacher training programs require students to enroll in courses provided outside the music department that focus on mainstreamed learners and/or special needs students? 10. Do the undergraduate curricula for preparing pre-service music educators to work with mainstreamed students vary according to the enrollment of different colleges/universities? 11. Are changes being planned in undergraduate music teacher training programs to improve the preparation of pre-service teachers to work with mainstreamed students? 12. Is there a higher incidence of mainstreaming requirements in the music education program at the colleges and universities that also have a music therapy program? I . . . E l S I This study was limited to members of the National Association of Schools of Music affiliated with the colleges and universities in the Great Lakes region of the United States which offer courses of study leading to a baccalaureate degree in music education. 1 3 D E . . Individualized Education Program (IEP) - a written plan that describes the educational program of a student based on his/her special needs. Mainstreamed - The placement of students who have special needs into regular education classes for one period of the school day, for several periods of the school day, or for the entire school day on an ongoing basis. Special needs student - Any child who is receiving special education and related services as a result of a disability and/or handicapping condition. Qrtcrzis)! The remainder of this study comprises four chapters, the references and appendices. Chapter 11 contains a review of literature in the fields of regular and special education, music education, and music therapy. Chapter 111 includes a detailed description of the procedures. Chapter IV consists of the analysis, discussion and interpretation of data; and Chapter V, the conclusions and recommendations for future curricula and research. Documents pertinent to the study are placed in the appendices. CHAPTER II Review of the Literature W The intent of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and its subsequent amendments is to assure handicapped children the right to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Public Law 94-142 was passed in an attempt to correct a number of lmown problems in educational programs for children with disabilities. As explained in the previous chapter, the law was amended by PL. 98-199 (1983) and PL. 99-457 (1986). In 1990, PL. 101-476 was passed with the name of the law changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Although PL. 94-142 has undergone a number of revisions, the basic intent of the law has remained intact. One result of this legislation has been the placement of individuals with special needs in regular classrooms. This process, commonly called mainstreaming, can be defined as ”placing exceptional students in nonhandicapped classes for one period, for part of a day, or for their entire schooling” (Atterbury, 1990, p. xiii). The implementation of the law and its amendments has affected elementary and secondary schools across the nation and is impacting the ways in which institutions of higher learning undertake the professional preparation of teachers. A continuing interest in mainstreaming issues can be discerned in the amount of literature dating from the early 19705 (prior to the passage of PL. 94-142) to the 14 1 5 present. An analysis of the literature reveals a consistency in the concerns of educators who are impacted by. the inclusion of handicapped children in their classrooms. The same issues that troubled educators in 1975 have continued as major topics of discussion through present times. Teachers who are involved with mainstreamed students describe a perceived lack of preparation in preservice training programs, a lack of practicum and student teaching experiences, and a lack of support service and inservice training opportunities. Evidence of the importance of mainstreaming and of the interest outside the academic community was recently shown in a special section of USAleay, (April 21, 1993) devoted to ”Education Into the Mainstream” (Section D). The reports were written by staff members after interviewing teachers, principals and education professors. The majority of articles in this section focused on the positive aspects of the mainstreaming movement Many teachers who support the inclusion of children with special needs into regular classes maintained that behavior problems, as well as learning problems, also occur among regular students. The teachers who opposed inclusion expressed a common concern that they lacked adequate training to work with special needs students. In one article, a principal concluded that ”everyone belongs in a regular school . . . but we need to figure out how to teach them” (Kelly, p. 7). A major step in understanding the concerns of regular classroom teachers involved with mainstreaming is to explore their attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion at both the preservice and inservice levels. It is also important to consider their perceptions of how well the university training programs have prepared them to work with these students. Although the vast majority of research addressing mainstreaming issues has appeared in regular and special education literature, a number of studies have expressed similar concerns in the fields of music education and music therapy. 1 6 This review of literature is organized into four areas: (1) Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming; (2) Teacher Preparation Programs; (3) lnservice Education; and (4) Music Education/Music Therapy Research. E l' E I E . l I I I I . . In the early years surrormding the formulation, passage, and implementation of P. L. 94-142, a number of studies focused on the beliefs and attitudes held by teachers regarding the placement of exceptional students in regular education classes. Results from many of these studies showed that the success or failure of mainstreaming appeared to be largely dependent on the attitude of the teacher toward handicapped students (Baker & Gottlieb, 1980; Harasymiw & Home, 1976; Hudson, Graham & Warner, 1979; Larrivee, 1981; Martin, 1984; Mitchell, 1976; Parish, Nunn & Hattrup, 1982). In a survey of the attitudes of Pennsylvania teachers, Williams and Algozzine (1979) found that those who were supportive of mainstreaming previously had been involved in successful experiences with children who had special needs. Those teachers who were unwilling to include the handicapped in their classes ”felt that the children took too much from other students and . . . [They] lacked the technical ability to teach handicapped children” (p. 66). Not all mainstreaming practices were met with positive attitudes. In an article addressing mainstreaming issues during the early 19805, Dodd (1980) explained that ”mainstreaming has not been eagerly accepted by English teachers--or by most secondary teachers” (p. 51). The author explained that the majority of secondary teachers considered mainstreamed students an unnecessary burden to the teacher, and their presence in the classroom resulted in a disadvantage to brighter students. 1 7 Other studies conducted before and after the passage of P. L. 94-142 found that teachers were not particularly supportive of the mainstreaming philosophy (Alexander & Strain, 1978; Gickling & Theobald, 1975; Hudson, Graham & Warner, 1979; Jordan & Proctor, 1969; Moore & Fine, 1978). Two studies found that the attitudes of regular classroom teachers toward mainstreaming became less positive at the higher level (Larrivee & Cook, 1979; Stephens and Braun, 1980). Rajchel (1989) replicated a previous investigation of the attitudes of regular education teachers toward mainstreaming and discovered a significant decrease in the positive attitudes of experienced teachers toward the practice when compared with positive attitudes from the initial study six years earlier. In a recent survey which addressed the attitudes and beliefs regarding the inclusion of all students in a school commrmity, Pearman, Huang, Barnhardt, and Mellblom ( 1992) reported that 49% of the respondents felt that inclusion was not the best way to meet the needs of all students and that the issue of inclusion had created tensions within their buildings. As a result of their findings, the researchers recommended that the school districts begin a dialogue with university instructional staff to discuss teaching methods and the training they will need in order to be successful in the classroom. Although the literature suggests that many teachers cite a lack of training in working with handicapped children as a major concern, several studies emphasize the equal importance of evaluating teachers’ attitudes, needs, and levels of knowledge prior to restructuring existing programs and redesigning inservice and/or preservice level curricula if changes are to be effective (Blankenship & Lilly, 1977; Boyle & Sleeter, 1981; Buttery, 1981). 1 8 WW An important issue in the successful integration of special learners is systematic teacher preparation at the preservice and inservice levels. Alberto, Castricone, and Cohen (1978) explain that ”the key to successful mainstreaming programs relies upon the combined efforts of regular class teachers, special educators, and auxiliary personnel, both within the school setting and within the pre- and post-service university setting” (p. 90). Mayer ( 1982), in his handbook for school administrators, writes that colleges and universities should provide students with opportunities to gain practical experience in local school systems. Among the recommended activities he suggests are ”observation, early experiences with pupils, student teaching, clinical assignments (for testing, therapy, etc.), and graduate field placement” (p. 264). Another study recommends that faculty members become involved in school programs where mainstreaming is occurring (Haisley and Gilberts, 1978). The attitude of teachers toward handicapped children has been discussed as a significant factor in the mainstreaming process. Naor and Milgram (1980) found that a one-semester preservice training program for prospective teachers increased knowledge about exceptional children and improved the general attitude of the participants toward them. Stone and Brown (1987) measured the effects of a preservice mainstreaming course on attitudes toward mainstreaming and sense of teaching efficacy among teacher education candidates. Findings showed that the participants in the mainstreamed class had more positive perceptions of classroom management skills and demonstrated a greater ability to develop the academic capabilities of children with 1 9 special needs. Although these positive perceptions toward mainstreaming issues were significant, the researchers expressed the following concerns: Although students [teacher education candidates] may profess a positive, accepting attitude toward an exceptional child, they may not believe they have the knowledge or skill to be able to teach the child effectively. If mainstreaming efforts are to be successful, the regular teacher must have the skills to provide educational intervention for the special child. Teacher training institutions must accept the reality of mainstreaming and design training programs that prepare graduating teachers for the mainstreamed classroom. (p. 10) In research conducted by Sargent (1988), although 93% of the professors involved in teacher preparation programs (n- 150) in three midwestern universities demonstrated a positive attitude toward the concept of mainstreaming, no correlations were found between attitudes and actions. When compared with attitudes, significantly fewer actions were being taken in order to convey the concept of mainstreaming to future teachers. A number of studies have claimed that a common core of competencies is required by regular and special education teachers for successful mainstreaming of special students in the classroom (Crisci, 1981; Haisley & Gilberts, 1978; Stamm, 1980). Regular and special education student teachers rated their competence following the completion of their classroom experiences in the following areas of acceptance by children with disabilities: goal setting, classroom management, communication, instruction, knowledge, evaluation, and assessment (Leyser & Abrams, 1986). The results showed that the two groups perceived similar training needs in several competency areas. Both groups felt the most competent in developing 2 o acceptance and goal setting while the need for further training was indicated in the areas of communication with parents, colleagues, and community; behavior and management of the mildly handicapped; evaluation of students’ academic progress; and knowledge of the conceptual/theoretical base of PL. 94-142. One of the recommendations of the study was that ”this input, together with data reported in other studies, should be used in the planning and revision of teacher training programs in the area of mainstreaming” (p. 179). Students enrolled in special education teacher preparation classes, as well as inservice special education teachers, consistently rated themselves as more knowledgeable about the provisions and implications of P. L. 94- 142 than those individuals who specialized in health education, fine arts education, vocational education, and general education. Over 75 % of the respondents in these four areas perceived themselves as having inadequate to no knowledge of the constructs and mandates of PL. 94-142 (Connard & Dill, 1984). Hoover (1984) surveyed 102 schools granting a baccalaureate degree in elementary education and found that most accredited programs either had requirements or were planning to implement requirements for training their students to work with the handicapped The results showed that a variety of special education courses and a combination of requirements were used to prepare their students. Survey courses and classes addressing mainstreaming topics were the most widely used to satisfy requirements. Only a small number of schools required field experiences with exceptional children. Although most of the schools acknowledged that their teacher trainees had contact with special students, less than 25 % required completion of a project with the handicapped and less than 33% required special education experience during the course of their field work. 2 1 In a recent study by Kearney and Durand (1992), chairpersons of 58 postsecondary schools of education in New York were asked about their programs’ accreditation, coursework, and field experience requirements relevant to mainstreaming practices. The researchers concluded that the results ”clearly do not support the contention that postsecondary schools of education provide sufficient coursework and field experience to prepare general education students for integrated or mainstreamed classroom settings” (p. 8). As a result of their findings, the authors offered the following suggestions: Postsecondary schools of education require more coursework and engage in strict supervision of field-based practicum settings relevant to mainstreamed classrooms. The provision of courses designed to educate teachers in the rationale, instructional methods, and goals of mamstreamrn' ' g will likely improve attitudes and flexibility toward integration. Requiring substantial field-based experiences in mainstreamed classroom settings will ensure the quality and generalization of these teaching skills as well. (pp. 8-10) I . E I . A limited number of studies specifically addressed the current status of inservice programs. Most of the articles explored current teachers’ perspectives on their preservice education and evaluation of their preparation to work with mainstreamed students. In these studies, most teachers were supportive of the need for inservice training but were reluctant to commit the time and energy necessary to participate in these programs. The reasons given for their reluctance included lack of release time during the working day and family and educational responsibilities after school (V andivier & Vandivier, 1979). 22 Hohn and Brownlee (1981) found that both teachers and building principals ermressed a need for greater amounts of field experience during teacher training. Recommended experiences included participation in IEP conferences, individual work with exceptional children, and attendance at instructional planning sessions. In addition, exposure to exceptional students was found to increase their perceived comfort level in working with special education students. The researchers discovered that a discrepancy existed as they perceived teaching skills between secondary and elementary teachers. Secondary teachers rated themselves lower than elementary teachers in their perceptions of their skills in teaching exceptional children, especially in instructional management and professional communication. A common method of inservice education is the completion of additional college coursework (Mayer, 1982). Stephens and Braun (1980) found that the willingness of regular teachers to integrate exceptional students increased as the number of special education courses taken increased. In a survey of classroom teachers’ perceptions of preservice education related to teaching the handicapped, Blair (1983) concluded that a greater effort needs to be invested in providing preservice teachers with information about handicapped learners in the regular classroom. In this study the majority of teachers felt the greatest need for additional information was in the areas of developing teaching activities and selecting teaching materials for handicapped learners. Although the number of research studies specifically focusing on mainstreaming practices in music education/music therapy is substantially less than the extant literature in regular and special education, it is evident that the different disciplines share many of the same concerns. Prior to the passage of PL 94-142, the 2 3 music education profession was aware of mainstreaming implications as evidenced in the April, 1972 issue of the mm which was dedicated to this concern. In the same year, the MENC National Commission on Instruction sponsored a session on Music in Special Education and an ensuing publication, mm; W was based on papers from contributors at the conference (Graham, 1975). Two additional issues of the WW (April, 1982 and April, 1990) have been devoted entirely to mainstreaming issues in the music classroom. The Music Educators National Conference (MEN C) has published several resources that are designed to help music educators work with children who have special needs. In the TIPS series, Schaberg (1988) has written a handbook entitled WWW which provides an excellent resource in condensed form for working with special populations. In another MENC publication, the Voices of Experience Audiocassette Series, Graham (1985) discusses the types of special students who are found in music classes. On the cassette, WWW ' -. , Graham offers practical suggestions on how to adapt the classroom environment, as well as the instructional goals, to meet their needs. Graham and Beer (1980) published a handbook for mainstreaming entitled W. This source provides assistance and practical instruction in the planning and writing of music education goals and objectives for special learners. Another valuable resource that is currently out of print is Wham (Noccra, 1979)- After a brief introduction on the role of music in the education of special learners, this text offers practical advice and actual examples in designing music activities for special populations. 24 Atterbury (1990) has published the most recent resource that focuses on the topic of mainstreaming special learners in music classes. It is significant to the literature because it emphasizes that music educators must recognize and understand the individual differences and, therefore, needs of exceptional students. With such understanding music educators can adapt their instruction to those differences. The publication presents individual chapters on each disability with suggestions of ways to adapt instruction; it is intended as a college textbook The topic of music education for all students has received international attention as well. A seminar was held by The International Society for Music Education Commission on Music Therapy and Music in Special Education in Provo, Utah in April, 1987. Among the issues raised was that ”music educators should be given sufficient training for dealing with handicapped students in schools” (Pratt & Hesser, 1989, p. 175). Following the passage and implementation of PL. 94-142, many schools used the music class as the setting in which the inclusion of special education students with their nonhandicapped peers initially occurred (Atterbury, 1989; Dykrnan, 1979; Graham, 1988; Jellison et al., 1984; Krout, 1986). Atterbury (1990) explained that ”many self-contained classes of exceptional children are placed in nonhandicapped music classes under the guise of obeying the ’language of the law [PL 94-142]” (p. 7)- One of the earliest studies that focused on mainstreaming issues in the music classroom was published in 1981. Gilbert and Asmus conducted a nationwide survey of 789 general, instrumental, and vocal music educators at the elementary and secondary level. They found that 63% of the respondents had been professionally involved with teaching disabled students, significantly greater numbers occurring at the 25 elementary level. Other findings showed that the respondents felt the need for information about (a) formulating IEP goals, (b) developing music programs for handicapped students, and (c) assessing their progress. They expressed concerns about meeting ”students’ individual needs, working with too large a number of handicapped students, and avoiding psychological harm to these students” (p. 31). Atterbury (1986) surveyed a random sample of elementary music educators in the southern United States and concluded that ”mainstreaming decisions and placements in elementary music are presently not supported by appropriate administrative assistance” (p. 206). Although PL. 94-142 mandates IEPs for each exceptional child placed in the public school system, the researcher found that 84% of the respondents had not been included in the IEP development. In addition, a majority of teachers indicated that their music classes contained too many mainstreamed students. One recommendation of the study was that ”all elementary music specialists should be involved in the planning and placement decisions regarding the mainstreaming of exceptional children” (p. 206). A limited study (n=27) explored the current status of music education in programs for students with handicaps in Vermont (Hock, Hasazi, & Patten, 1990). The survey results revealed that although 92% of the music educators indicated that their classes included special education students in integrated settings, only 37% of those interviewed had received sufficient training to work with these students. The respondents cited a need for more and better training, greater participation in placement decisions, and additional support from administrators and special educators. The lack of adequate preparation to facilitate the successful inclusion of mainstreamed learners into music classes is a major concern of many music educators. In a follow-up many which measured music teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreamed 2 6 children in North Carolina, White (1984) concluded that many of the teachers in the sample felt inadequately prepared to work with mainstreamed children. Gfeller and Hedden (1987) surveyed elementary and secondary teachers in Iowa and reported that less than half the respondents worked with mainstreamed students, the majority having little or no training in methodology for teaching special students. The teachers reported limited administrative assistance and little input into the decision to place handicapped children in their music classes. In a later study, Gfeller, Darrow, and Hedden (1990) examined the perceived status of mainstreaming among educators in Iowa and Kansas. Among the findings was the fact that the average music educator reported little preparation in terms of coursework pertinent to working with mainstreamed students. In addition, the greatest percentage had teaching assignments with elementary school populations. Darrow and Gfeller (1991) examined the status of public school music instruction for hearing impaired students and studied the factors which contributed to their successful inclusion in regular music classes. Findings indicated more than half of this population attended regular music classes, while many of the music educators cited lack of educational preparation in working with these students. The researchers identified several factors which can promote the successful mainstreaming of these students in the music classroom: ”(a) the need for clearly identified educational objectives, (b) the need for adequate educational preparation of teachers, and (c) the need for instructional support in the classroom and in curriculum planning” (p. 37). Insuring the adequate preparation of prospective music educators for working with the handicapped is a legitimate concern. No studies were located that specifically investigated music teacher preparation programs in terms of coursework or field experience requirements relevant to mainstreaming practices. The only study that 2 7 revealed curriculum content in this area was an investigation of 180 randomly selected teacher training institutions offering undergraduate degrees in music education (Schmidt, 1989). Although the content of teacher preparation courses in music methods for mainstreamed learners was not the primary focus of the study, data analysis showed 61.5 % of the teacher training institutions required a class that included the topic of music in special education; 18.3 % required coverage of the topic for some students, while 20.2% did not offer it in the curriculum. Additional findings from the study showed that fewer than three class hours were devoted to this subject. A recent study by Wilson and McCrary (unpublished) examined the attitudes of rmdergraduate music education and music therapy majors toward students with and without disabilities. In the study, researchers asked the participants to rate 20 statements that described individuals with different or no impairments using a five- point Likert scale. The results showed that the music education students’ mean score responses were lower for all statements except for those that described children with no apparent handicapping condition. Other findings revealed a direct relationship between levels of increasing previous experience with children having special needs and a higher mean score response for the music education group. These results suggest the importance of providing coursework and experiences with exceptional populations. In the literature Darrow (1990) identified three critical contributing factors to the success of music education experiences for mainstreamed learners: ”adequate preparation of teachers who work with special students; adequate administrative support (e. g., sufficient preparation time, use of teachers’ aides when necessary); and teacher participation in decisions as to placement of special students” (p. 37). Recommendations from many of the music education/music therapy studies 2 a cited reiterated these factors in order to meet adequately the needs of mainstreamed students. Summary An analysis of the literature reveals similar issues and concerns among professionals in various educational specialities. Although a number of years has passed since PL. 94-142 was implemented, many of the concerns professionals voiced in the early years continue to be relevant in the present. It is apparent that most educators in the public school system are supportive of the mainstreaming philosophy, yet continue to express concern that they are not receiving the training at preservice levels to work effectively with special students. Although teacher training programs have the responsibility for preparing students to work with special learners in mainstreamed settings, the literature indicates that most graduates feel they have been inadequately prepared to meet this goal. The review of literature found no research that revealed the extent to which university music education comses prepare prospective teachers to work with mainstreamed learners. This study, through an investigation of teacher training programs, actual university course content, and provisions for field-based experiences with mainstreamed learners in music classes attempted to provide that information within its previously stated limitations. CHAPTER III Procedures For The Study I l . This chapter contains a discussion of college/university selection, participant selection, the development of the survey instrument, procedures for carrying out the study, and the data analysis techniques. 11 . . [E I . The population for this study was a selected sample of full-time music education methods’ instructors at NAS M-affiliated colleges/rmiversities in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Only colleges and universities that offered baccaulareate degrees or the equivalent in music education were selected. A total of 103 institutions who listed at least one full-time instructor in music education methods was identified by the researcher as meeting the criteria for selection. The survey instrument was sent to 333 faculty members at these schools. W In their book, W (1954), Good and Scates state that the ”survey technique is the most effective method of data-gathering for descriptive survey studies and is used to secure information from varied and widely scattered sources” (p. 606). A questionnaire was designed for gathering information from the population cited above. Most of the questions contained in the survey form were designed to be multiple choice that could be answered by the placement of an ”x” in the appropriate space. Several questions, however, required short written responses. 29 3 o The researcher developed prospective items for the questionnaire by: (a) reviewing research literature on mainstreaming in regular and special education, music education, and music therapy; (b) examining existing questionnaires within these disciplines to decide if any of the items were suitable for inclusion in the present instrument; (c) studying the guidelines for educating students with special needs that - , and Music experiences and concerns of the researcher and other colleagues with Special learners in the elementary/secondary school system; and (e) following the research methods described by Babbie in the second edition of his book, WW (1990). It was important to consider proper flow and wording of the questions as the researcher developed the survey instrument. Babbie explains ” . . . the order in which questions are asked can affect the responses as well as the overall data collection” (p. 142). Wording was designed to eliminate inconsistent responses. The questionnaire was divided into two major parts. Part One contained questions which were answered by all participants. Items found in Part One were grouped according to the following categories: (a) college/Imiversity demographic information, classification of instructors, and years of college teaching; (b) professional experience at the elementary/secondary level in the public/private sector before college employment; (c) teaching responsibilities and course content at the college level; (d) names of courses that included the topic of educating mainstreamed students; and (e) departmental provisions for preparing pre-service music teachers to work with mainstreamed students. Part Two provided an opportunity for the participant to request an abstract of the completed study and contained space for additional comments. Part Two was 3 1 designed to be detached from the original questionnaire if the participant elected to complete it. A draft of the questionnaire was presented to the author’s thesis advisor on three separate occasions and was checked each time for relevance, clarity, and flow. After revision, the draft was pre-tested by seven individuals associated with the Michigan State University School of Music who currently teach or have taught music methods courses at the college level. This step in the development process was conducted at the suggestion of Babbie (1990), who explained that pre-testing the survey instrument allows the researcher to discover ”whether that design is possible, provide an assessment of its difficulty, and give a rough estimate of the time and cost that will be involved” (p. 221). The individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire, to critique the items, to make suggestions for improvement of the wording and flow of the questions, and to note their completion time. Suggestions for revisions were accepted; the draft was revised and prepared for a pilot mailing. Eight instructors of music methods courses at eight N ASM-affiliated colleges and/or universities in Michigan (other than Michigan State University) were contacted by telephone and asked to pilot the questionnaire. Neither the individuals nor the schools in which they teach have been identified in any part of the study to guarantee the confidentiality of their responses. They were informed that their participation in the pilot study would not be included in the final study although they would receive the same revised questionnaire that would be mailed to all recipients. All of these instructors agreed to participate in the pilot study. A questionnaire, cover letter (see Appendix B), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope were sent to them. All but one 3 2 draft were returned by the established cutoff date. The seven questionnaires that were returned were studied and several changes were made. Minor changes were made in the terminology and syntax of some questions. One suggestion from a member of the pilot study team resulted in the addition of a question to find out if the subjects had received any training or experience with mainstreamed learners/special needs students after completion of their undergraduate degrees. Another question was added to discover if the recipient’s state required that prospective teachers complete a course addressing the requirements of mainstreamed learners/special needs students. E . [II B . I The original proposal for the application of this dissertation was submitted to the Guidance Committee on February 25, 1993. Approval was granted on March 11, 1993 (Appendix C). Following this, the author sent a copy of the proposal, along with a copy of the revised questionnaire to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Michigan State University policy requires that any research that involves human subjects must be approved by UCRIHS. On March 16, 1993, approval was granted (Appendix D). To ensure the confidentiality and protection of the respondent, the following procedure was canied out: (a) each questionnaire was given a code number for mailing purposes. As each was returned, the researcher checked off the name of the respondent from the mailing list, removed the code number, and replaced it with an identification number; (b) the name of the respondent did not appear on the questionnaire; (c) if the respondent requested an abstract in Part II of the questionnaire, this page was removed before an identification nmnber was assigned; 3 3 (d) all individual responses remained anonymous; and (e) only summarized data were reported in this dissertation. ! l . . . E l The selection of colleges and Imiversities in this study was compiled by the use of the National Am’gn'gn of Schools of Music [2m (1992) to decide which schools in the Great Lakes region of the United States offer an undergraduate degree in music education. Only NASM-affiliated colleges and Imiversities were considered to provide a reasonable sample with similar acceptable standards of instruction. The Great Lakes region was the primary choice for this survey because it represented a reasonable cross-section of colleges and universities of varying enrollment sizes, communities, and educational goals. The six states used in the sample were: (a) Illinois, (b) Indiana, (c) Michigan, (d) Minnesota, (e) Ohio, and (1) Wisconsin. In these six states, 103 NASM-affiliated colleges and universities were identified that currently offer an undergraduate degree in music education. A list of prospective participants in the study was determined by consulting the '17- '1" an... .1. . u ' a .. . «av-.11"... .. Canada. Institutions in this resource are grouped in alphabetical order within each state or province. Appearing within each listing are the names of faculty along with the following information provided for each member: (a) rank, (b) highest degree achieved, and (c) a listing of as many as five areas of teaching specialization. In the directory, the area of teaching specialization is denoted by a code number. In the event that the faculty member teaches in more than one area of specialization, more than one code number is used. For example, if a faculty member teaches in all areas of music education, the code number 23 is used with the letters a, 34 b, and/or c added when the specialization can be further described as early childhood education, elementary education, and/or high school education, respectively. Prospective participants were selected and invited to complete the survey if the following two conditions could be decided: (a) their area of teaching specialization included the code 23 and/or the coding was followed by the letters a, b, and/or c; and (b) they were listed as a full-time faculty member. A total of 333 individuals were identified who met these criteria. The survey was accompanied by a cover letter (Appendix E), providing subjects with the purpose and need for the study along with directions for completion. The cover letter was endorsed by Dr. Robert Erbes, Chairperson of Music Education at Michigan State University, and the researcher. Babbie (1990) devotes a chapter to the topic of self-adrninistered questionnaires. He explains that first-class and bulk-rate mail ”seem to move at the same speed through the mails, so bulk-rate mailing presents no disadvantage in terms of speed” (p. 178). The researcher, therefore, decided to use bulk rate for the initial mailing of the questionnaire. The initial mailing of the questionnaire took place on March 22, 1993. Each person received a cover letter, a questionnaire (Appendix F), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. A total of 116 (34.8%) faculty members responded to the first mailing. The researcher decided to send the follow-up mailing of the questionnaire by first-class postage after receiving several phone calls from some faculty members. These individuals explained that some questionnaires had been received one to two weeks after the requested return date (April 5, 1993). Apparently the bulk-rate mailing resulted in some unanticipated delays in the delivery of the survey instrument. 3 s The second mailing was made on April 19, 1993 to the individuals who did not respond to the questionnaire. Each envelope contained a different cover letter (Appendix E), another questionnaire, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope for a reply. Seventy-two additional questionnaires were received by the established cutoff date (May 7, 1993). Four questionnaires were received shortly after the cutoff date which the researcher decided to include in the study. A total of 192 (57.7%) out of 333 questionnaires were returned. Of the 192 questionnaires, 179 (53.8%) were found to have usable data. The other questionnaires were unanswered or lacked adequate data. Of the 13 unusable questionnaires, eight were returned unanswered; four recipients explained that they were teaching methods classes to nonmajors, and one recipient had moved to a region outside the Great Lakes area. A joint decision was made by the researcher and advisor that no subsequent mailings would take place since many schools surveyed would be ending their academic year, and the questionnaires might not reach the targeted population. Since Babbie stated ”a response rate of at least 50 percent is generally considered adequate for analysis and reporting” (p. 182), the 57.7 percent response rate was considered acceptable for the study, and data analysis was performed on the responses. Writes Because this study was descriptive in nature, the data were organized to present the findings for each of the following research questions: 1. Do music education professors have personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level before their college/university employment? 3 6 2. If the music education professor has had previous personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, which kinds of mainstreamed students were present in their classrooms? 3. If the music education professor has had previous personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, does it vary between the public and private school system? 4. What undergraduate curricula and programs trained prospective music educators to work with mainstreamed students? 5. To what extent does the music education professor’s prior personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level affect teacher preparation methods for mainstreaming in their courses? 6. In what manner are pre-service music educators currently being prepared to work with mainstreamed students? 7. Are music education students involved with mainstreamed students during pre-service field-based experiences and/or student teaching? 8. Do undergraduate music teacher training programs presently have internal requirements for preparing pre-service music teachers for working with mainstreamed students? 9. Do music teacher training programs require students to enroll in courses provided outside the music department that focus on mainstreamed learners and/or special needs students? 10. Do the undergraduate curricula for preparing pre-service music educators to work with mainstreamed students vary according to the enrollment of different colleges/rmiversities? 3 7 11. Are changes being planned in undergraduate music teacher training programs to improve the preparation of preservice teachers to work with mainstreamed students? 12. Is there a higher incidence of mainstreaming requirements in the music education program at the colleges and Imiversities that also have a music therapy program? Questionnaire responses were treated by computing descriptive statistics using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSPC+). This program was available for use by faculty and students at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Data were analyzed according to FREQUENCIES on all responses and CROSSTABS with accompanying chi-square tests on selected responses dealing with comparisons among questions. In addition, demographic variables were obtained. CHAPTER IV Presentation of Data Inttadnetion This chapter is divided into four sections. It begins with the results of the survey return and a description of data treatment for analysis purposes. The second section presents general demographic information received from instructors of the selected institutions who responded to the survey. General information about the individual respondents is contained in the third section. The final section presents the analysis, discussion, and interpretation of specific data related to the twelve research questions listed earlier in this dissertation. WWW Many schools in the study were represented by more than one faculty member. In one case, as many as nine individuals from the same institution completed the survey instrument. Since specific information was solicited from each school to compare responses, one questionnaire was selected randomly to represent each school. Many questionnaires in the total sample were not filled out completely; therefore, each response on relevant questions from the randomly selected questionnaire was compared to the other questionnaires from the same schools to ensure that the data provided were consistent. For statistical purposes, two data repositories were created The first file consisted of all of the data that were reported by the participants in the study. This data file was used to determine general information from individual respondents and to procure the answers to Research Questions 1-7. The second file 38 3 9 contained information on the type of institution, location, enrollment, music therapy degree program, and answers to Research Questions 8-12. The information for this file was collected from one randomly selected completed questionnaire representing each school. A total of 192 (57.7%) out of 333 questionnaires were returned Of the 192 questionnaires, 179 (53.8%) were found to have usable data. Most of the respondents elected to identify their schools. Of the 103 schools selected for participation in the study, 78 (75.7%) were represented by at least one response. These percentages exceed the ”at least 50 percent . . . considered adequate for analysis by Babbie (p. 182). E I D I . I E . Several questions contained in Part One of the survey instrument were designed to provide general information about the institutions that were selected to participate in the study. Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each question totaled 78. One hundred and sixty-two individuals provided information about their place of employment. The actual schools that participated in the study have not been identified to insure confidentiality; however, approximately 75 percent of the schools surveyed from each state were represented (see Table 1). Over half the institutions (56.6%) were classified as public or state supported. A majority (69.2%) of the representative colleges/rmiversities that participated in the study operate on the semester system (n-=54). Twenty-three (29.5%) reported the quarter system, and one school (1.3%) indicated another system of operation (trimester). 40 Table 1 W State Number of Schools Number of Schools Percentage That Received Surveys Represented Illinois 19 14 73.7% Indiana 12 9 75.0% Michigan 14 1 1 78.6% Minnesota 14 1 1 78.6% Ohio 29 22 75.8% Wisconsin 15 11 12.1% Total 103 78 75.7% EmallmentJnfennation Three schools (3.8%) reported 1,000 undergraduates or fewer. Twenty-four (30.8%) of the institutions reported their undergraduate population between 1,001 and 3,000. Nine (11.5%) were in the 3,001 to 5,000 category, and twelve (15.4%) reported the number of undergraduates in the 5,001 to 10,000 category. In the remaining two categories, 10,001-20,000 and more than 20,000, fifteen schools (19.2% each) were represented. Fourteen of the schools (18.4%) reported the number of undergraduates majoring in music education as fewer than 20. Eleven (14.5%) of the schools reported 20 to 29 students. There were five (6.6%) schools with 30-39 students, six (7.9%) 41 with 40-49 students, and seven (9.2%) that reported 50-59 students. Thirty-one of the schools (40.8%) reported having 60 or more undergraduates majoring in music education. Sixty-two of the schools (79.5%) did not provide a degree-granting program in music therapy at the undergraduate level. Sixteen (20.5 %) offered a degree in the field. Other questions in Part I of the questionnaire elicited specific information from the individual respondents who participated. These questions were designed to gather information in the following areas: (a) present title, (b) gender, (c) years of employment as an instructor in higher education, and (d) elementary and secondary teaching experience. Unless otherwise indicated, the data provided for each question were based on 179 responses. W Most of the respondents who participated in the survey were classified as full professors, associate professors, or assistant professors. The titles of the respondents were as follows: Sixty-two (34.6%) were full professors, 53 (29.6%) were associate professors, 52 (29.1%) were assistant professors, five (2.8%) were instructors, four (2.2%) were lecturers, one (.6%) was visiting faculty, and two (1.1%) listed ”other.” Gender Responses to the question showed that 111 individuals (62%) were male, while 68 individuals (38%) were female. All but one individual provided information in this area (n-178). The responses were analyzed and grouped according to decade. Six (3.4%) faculty 42 members reported they entered the system between the years of 1949 and 1959. Thirty-six (20.2%) began teaching between the years of 1960 and 1969. Between 1970 and 1979, the period during which PL. 94-142 was passed, 42 (23.6%) entered the profession. Many individuals who responded to the survey (64, 36%) began teaching at the college level between the years of 1980 and 1989. In the remaining years (1990-1993), 30 additional individuals (16.9%) entered the system. Approximately 76.5% of the respondents have been teaching since the passage of PL. 94-142. Specific information regarding the number of years the respondent taught music education classes was also tabulated All but three subjects completed this portion of the srn'vey instrument (n- 176). The answers to the question were found in six categories. Nine (5.1%) of the respondents reported teaching music education classes for fewer than two years. Thirty-two (18.2%) were in the 2-5 years category, 34 (19.3%) were in the 6-10 years category, and 32 (18.2%) reported that they had taught music education classes between 11 and 15 years. Seventeen (9.7%) had taught for 16-20 years. Fifty-two (29.5 %) had taught college level music education classes for 20 or more years. Most of the 176 respondents who provided information in this area said they had past elementary and/or secondary school teaching experience in public or private settings; only one faculty member indicated having no such experience. One respondent, without explanation, wrote in an additional category that was called ”other.” The data are given in Table 2. Many respondents who had public and/or private school teaching experience completed an additional question in the survey that asked for more information 4 3 regarding the number of years they had spent in this setting (n= 104). Seven respondents (4.1%.) reported they had taught in the public school system for fewer than two years. Sixty-nine respondents (40.4%) were in the 2-5 year category and 62 (36.3%) indicated they had taught in the public schools for 6-10 years. There were 21 faculty members (12.3%) who reported 11-15 years of teaching experience. Five individuals (2.9%) taught for 16-20 years. Seven people (4.1%) taught in the public schools for 20 years or more. Most of the respondents who had taught in the public schools elected to provide specific information regarding their experience (n= 171). They indicated that most of their experience occurred at the upper elementary, middle school/junior high, and high school levels. Slightly over half the respondents (52.6%) reported they had not worked at the lower elementary level. A breakdown of these levels appears in Table 3, and the musical areas in which they taught is presented in Table 4. It should be noted that 12 individuals selected ”other” as a response in Table 4. These respondents reported having responsibilities in the following areas: class piano, class guitar, supervising school or citywide music programs, orchestra, and regular and/or special education classroom assignments. Information that addressed the year the respondents left public school teaching was analyzed and the answers were grouped into decades. Less than one-third of the respondents (30.7%) left public school teaching between the years of 1980 and 1989 (n-49). Fifty-seven (35.7%) left public school teaching between the years of 1970 and 1979. Between the years of 1960 and 1969, 38 (23.8%) left the setting, while six (3.8%) ended their public school teaching careers between 1950 and 1959. Thirty-six people indicated that they had taught in a private school setting. Most of them (22 or 61.1%) reported that they had taught in this setting for 2-5 years. 44 Four people (11.1%) had fewer than two years experience. Seven (19.4%) had 6—10 years experience. In each of the 11-15, 16-20, and 20 years and over categories, one person responded (2.8% in each of the three categories). These respondents indicated that most of their experience occurred at the upper elementary, middle school/jrmior high level. A breakdown of these levels appears in Table 3 and the musical areas for which they were responsible is presented in Table 4. Information collected that addressed the year the respondents left private school teaching was analyzed and the answers were grouped according to decades. Most of the respondents (21 or 61.6%) left public school teaching between the years of 1980 and 1989. Two people (5.8%) exited between the years of 1990 and 1993. Between the years of 1970 and 1979, 9 (26.4%) left the setting, while two (5.8%) ended their private school teaching career between 1950 and 1959. Table 2 Category Number of Respondents (n=176) Percentage Public School 137 77.8% Private School 6 3.4% Both 31 17.6% Other 1 0.6% No experience 1 0.6% 45 Table 3 Category Lower Upper Middle or High Elementary Elementary Jr. High School Public School (n=171) 47.4% (81) 71.9% (123) 81.3% (139) 80.7% (138) Private School (n=36) 52.8% (19) 83.3% (30) 72.2% (26) 47.2% (17) Note: Totals will not equal 100% 46 Table 4 ArrauLMusiaIaught Area Public School Private School (n=171) (n-36) Elementary General 49.7% (85) 63.9% (23) Elementary Choral 33.3% (57) 33.3% (12) Elementary Instrumental 37.4% (64) 33.3% (12) Middle School General 51.5% (88) 55.6% (20) Middle School Choral 46.2% (79) 38.9% (14) Middle School Instrumental 43.3% (74) 22.2% (8) High School General 29.2% (50) 22.9% (8) High School Choral 46.2% (79) 31.4% (11) High School Instrumental 48.0% (82) 22.9% (8) Other areas 7.0% (12) 0.0% (0) Note: Totals will not equal 100% 47 {6.5.}; I 0 95.0)! ' '10 u ' '1'. -20): no as...» I; ‘ ear-1m}. Ham an ' .I nan lung! trim. ; _ue' ‘Uitlil Amines ‘ ‘ u.‘ 011‘ .I‘ .0 ' as armament? Over three-fifths of the former public school teachers (n- 170) recalled that their classrooms contained students with special needs (62.4%). A smaller percentage of former private school teachers (n= 35) remembered having these types of children in their classrooms (45.7%). The data are given in Table 5. Table 5 Category Yes No Not Sure Public School (n=170) 62.4% (106) 28.8% (49) 8.8% (15) Private School (n=35) 45.7% (16) 34.3% (12) 20.0% (7) 48 {$41111 0 is.“ ' II 1°C ‘10. 12.0: I) 0 is...» I.:1V‘ I}! 0) ‘ 1.0.. 0161mm: '.01")|"}| 1‘. _I “.11.: -r‘1aucd I'm- 2 1I‘ ' 'vm’vrn 1:15 HAUL-1a 'V' W. I an- 1.113 m "19 In the survey instrument, the respondents were asked to provide information in nine categories of disabilities: (a) specific learning disabilities, (b) speech or language impairments, (c) mental retardation, (d) serious emotional disturbance, (e) hearing impairments, (1) multiple disabilities, (g) orthopedic impairments, (h) deaf-blindness, and (i) other health impairments. These categories were based on most of the disability catcgofifts outlined in the Wm WM (1991). Although 106 respondents indicated they had special students in their public school classrooms, only 97 provided requested information. In the private school group, all 16 respondents who indicated they recalled having special needs students were able to provide specific information. Most of the special students found in both private and public settings were classified as learning disabled. This information coincides with data given in the 'Il’x'dl I 4 u {emu 0 ma u I: u . amen 121.01: 0 «- uu'v' .21 .1. DisahflitiesAet (1991). Students classified in the remaining categories were present in similar numbers in both settings. The major exception was in the mental retardation and multiple disabilities categories. Although these students were present in the music classes of both public and private schools, a much smaller percentage was found in the latter. Table 6 provides a complete breakdown of the types of special students found in each setting. Table 6 49 1 .— 1 .1... . .1 , .. 1.. t 9' . {4.1.1.1. ' .- :13 .31.. . 01m a a. ' I! E . I I . I I Category Public Private (n-97) (n-16) Specific learning disabilities 72.2% (70) 87.5% ( 14) Speech or language impairments 40.2% (39) 50.0% (8) Mental retardation 53.6% (52) 12.5% (2) Serious emotional disturbance 46.4% (45) 50.0% (8) Hearing impairments 33.0% (32) 25.0% (4) Multiple disabilities 28.9% (29) 6.3% (1) Orthopedic impairments 29.9% (29) 25.0% (4) Deaf-blindness 16.5% (16) 18.8% (3) Other health impairments 15.5% (15) 12.5% (2) Nete: Totals will not equal 100% 50 (my. a 01.. n ’ 1:6 It. -_ ' ’1... 1:. m u o ‘11110 ta. :21 u‘ ' mum :_ . . '19! 51' x. 1' "i I I )1," -x'1 ,L ._ A I :1 .I ‘ . 'vJIt‘vil 15.. ..L-AA.'..._'.1‘ 'V’ ..ALL :1. A crosstabulation was made between the setting @ublic or private) in which the individual taught to see if a higher incidence of mainstreamed students were found in the classes. A chi-square test to compare the settings did not show significance at the minimal 5 % level; however, the derived probability of .06 does suggest a tendency toward a significant finding (x2 - 3.416, df = 1, p - .06457). Since the sample from the private schools was considerably smaller than the public school sample, most of the data reflected public school information. In general, more classes had mainstreamed students in public schools than in private schools. ‘ I... 1'1") '41:! 1:.' .n an u our: "1 1:21:11 1101:1011 'v Of the 171 respondents who provided information in this category, only 46 (26.9%) reported that they had received training to work with mainstreamed students at the undergraduate level. The results, as presented in Table 7, showed that the most frequent type of training was attendance at workshops (41.3 %), followed by enrollment in special education courses outside the music department (30.4%), and lectures/demonstrations in regular music courses (30.4%). The remainder of the training included field-based observations in special education classes (26.4%), field- based observations in regular music classes ( 19.6%), field-based experiences in regular music classes (17.4%), other training not specified (10.9%), field-based experiences in special education classes, and course(s) in special education within the music department (8.7% each). 5 1 The respondents were asked to what extent they felt their teacher training institution prepared them to work with mainstreamed students. One hundred and seventy-four individuals completed this section. Most of them (64.4%) rated their undergraduate preparation as less than adequate. An adequate rating was given by 22% of the respondents, followed by more than adequate (9.8%), and highly adequate (2.9%). One respondent indicated he/she had received no training. Fifty-five percent of the respondents reported that they had not received additional training in working with mainstreamed students since completing their undergraduate programs. Over half of the respondents (45 %) who received additional training reported that they learned about mainstreamed students through graduate study (54%) and attendance at conferences and/or workshops (52.7%). Other areas of additional training included readings on special topics (40%), consultations (34.2%), and on-the-job training (28%). 52 Table 7 C . [II I l I . . Category Percentage (n-46) Attendance at workshops 41.3% (19) Special education courses outside of music department 30.4 % (l4) Lectures/demonstrations in regular music courses 30.4% (14) Field-based observations in special education classes 26.0% (12) Field-based observations in regular music classes 19.6% (9) Field-based experiences in regular music classes 17.4% ( 8) Other training not specified 10.9% (5) Field-based experiences in special education classes 8.7% (4) Courses in special education in music department 8.7% (4) Note: Totals will not equal 100% {urge :0 ‘. .0: ° 0 ma ‘. an H u. ° ‘J_.1.0)'UO;-OI~IUIO you... nor-um is It u_:_.n In"). Jim- 1. _ae ' among. run..-” ‘V‘ a." Of the 174 individuals who provided information, the majority (92.4%) reported teaching undergraduate courses in music education. The remainder of the respondents either had administrative positions or taught graduate courses only. The faculty members who taught undergraduate music education courses were asked if their courses contained topics that addressed mainstreaming issues. One hundred people (62.9%) reported they included these topics in their classes. or the 37.1% who did not incorporate mainstreaming topics into their classes, 42 or 67.7% had no plans to include them in the future (see Table 8). Table 8 Question Yes No Not Sure 1. Do your present courses contain mainstreaming topics? 62.9% 37.1% 0.0% 2. If you do not include mainstreaming topics, do you plan to add them in the future? 11.3% 67.7% 21.0% 54 A series of crosstabulations along with their accompanying chi-squares tests was used to analyze the data and to determine if the professors’ prior personal experiences with mainstreamed students affected the incidence of mainstreaming topics occurring within their courses. The information received from the survey was sorted according to the respondents’ past teaching experience in public or private school settings and level of academic training. Former public school teachers comprised the largest single group of respondents in the survey (n=170). Among these individuals, the instructors who had taught children with special needs in their classes (75.5 %) were much more likely to include mainstreaming topics in their college courses than the instructors whose classes did not contain these types of learners (43.9%) (x2 = 15.528, df = 2, p = .00042). This information is displayed in Figure 1. Although the private school sample was much smaller (n= 35) than the public school sample, the results supported the fact that the instructors with prior experience with mainstreamed students (48%) were more likely to include special needs topics in their college music education courses (x2 = 6.400, df = 2, p = .0408). Most of the individuals who did not include these topics had no prior experience with mainstreamed students (83.3 %). The information received from instructors with past private school teaching experience is reflected in Figure 2. A significant relationship also exists between instructors’ post-baccalaureate experience with mainstreamed students and the inclusion of special needs topics in their college music education courses (see Figure 3). Instructors who indicated they had received additional training were more likely to include special needs topics (57.7%) than those who did not (77.8%) (x2 - 17.67, df = 1, p .. .00003). 55 $0! mun-m alum no mum stud-m I includ-stopics notoplcs N919: Percentages do not equal 100; data received from those who selected "not sure if classes contained mainstreamed students" category are not included in graph. Figure 1. Percentage of respondents with past public school experience teaching mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents with past public school experience who did not teach mainstreamed students. 56 100 $0! mum-mum- ”mun-mm - lneludostoples notnplcs Figure 2. Percentage of respondents with past private school experience teaching mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in college/university music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents with past private school experience who did not teach mainstreamed students. Figure 3. 57 o._.r mow ”DIN-II II. m “I'll“. - Includes topics notoples Percentage of respondents with post baccalaureate training/experience with mainstreamed students who currently include mainstreaming topics in music methods courses compared with the percentage of respondents who have no post baccalaureate training/experience. 5 s Figure 4 compares instructors’ past level of education and experience with mainstreamed students with their inclusion of special needs topics in their music education courses. The chart divides the instructors’ responses into undergraduate, graduate, both levels and no academic experience columns. The information from the survey respondents shows that the individuals who were prepared to work with special needs students in their respective teacher train'mg programs are more likely to include these topics in their music methods’ courses. Conversely, the respondents who received no academic training for working with students with special needs are less likely to include mainstreaming topics in their classes (66.7%) (x2 = 25.8, df = 3, p = .00001). The information received from the survey indicates that college instructors who have prior teaching experience that includes working with mainstreamed students and/or who have academic training in this area are much more likely to include preparation for teaching special needs students in the course requirements for their own music education majors. Analysis of the survey results establishes a relationship between the instructors’ personal experience and training with special needs students and the importance they place on preparing their own college majors in this area. Figure 4. S9 E!) E!) l H VIII/A __ gun- has - Indus—staple. notopha \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s Percentage of respondents with past undergraduate and/or graduate level exposure to mainstreaming topics who currently include mainstreaming topics in coHege/tmiversity music methods courses. 6 o Other crosstabulations and chi-square tests were performed to determine whether there was a relationship between the decade in which the professor entered college teaching and the incidence of mainstreaming topics in the courses they teach. Although the findings were not significant (x2 - 4.42759, df = 4, p 8 .3512), there was a tendency for the individuals who began their college teaching careers in the 19705 and 19808 to include mainstreaming topics in their courses. In addition, there was no significant relationship between the number of years that the respondent taught college level classes and the incidence of inclusion of mainstreaming topics in the curricula (x2 = 5.04365, df - 5, p -= .4106). However, the data indicated a greater tendency for professors who either had 11- 15 years or fewer than two years of teaching experience to include these topics in their courses than instructors in the other groups. (my: I .J,'v\‘i.0JI ' n m; u...uu‘, 21' u‘--‘-iu.' u.» 1.--; us -u‘m u‘u' The answer to this question was based on the responses of only the subsample of individual faculty members; responses regarding the undergraduate music teacher- training program as a whole were addressed by Research Question 8. Although 100 individuals reported that they included mainstreaming topics in their classes, only 95 of them gave specific information that could be analyzed. Most of the inclusion of mainstreaming topics occurred in general music methods classes (65.6%), followed by introductory courses in music education (22.9%), and courses listed as ”other” (20.8%). Instrmnental courses (16.6%), choral music classes (13.5%), and music classes that specifically addressed special populations (5.2%) completed the remainder of the courses that included mainstreaming issues. A further investigation of ”other" 6 1 revealed that these courses included classes devoted entirely to student teaching topics, classroom instrument instruction, psychology of music, administration courses, conducting techniques, and multicultural music. A total of 99 individuals completed the section of the questionnaire that asked in what format the topic of mainstreaming was incorporated into their courses (see Table 9). Most of them reported covering the topic by a lecture format (81%) and assigned readings (69%). Field-based observations in regular education settings (43%), guest lecturers (42%), and classroom demonstrations (32%) were also used to convey the topic. Other formats included the use of videotapes (28%), field-based experiences in regular classrooms (20%), field- based observations in special education settings (18%), other requirements not specified (12%), and field-based experiences in special education settings (10%). Most of the required readings came from journals within the field of music education (93%). Journals in the fields of music therapy (29.6%), teacher education (16.9%), and special education (14.3%) also were used. In addition, a small number of ”other journals,” not specified, were stated as a resource (4.3%). Another question in the survey instrument sought to discern if the individuals required their music education students to have field-based experiences with mainstreamed students. One htmdred and forty-eight people responded to this question and only 23 (15.5%) required this type of experience. These individuals reported that the most frequent types of field-based experiences were regular school observations (47.8%) and field-based teaching in regular education classrooms (30.4%). Observations in special education settings (17.4%), field-based teaching in special education classrooms (8.7%), and completion of special projects (8.7%) comprised the remainder of the requirements. 62 Table 9 Item Percentage Lectures 81 % Required Readings 69% Field-based observations in regular classrooms 43 % Guest lecturers 42% Classroom demonstrations 32% Videotapes 28% Field-based experiences in regular classrooms 20% Field-based observations in special education settings 18% Other requirements 12% Field-based experiences in special education settings 10% 1101;: Total percentages will not equal 100% 63 {in}? I 0.6.x»: ' it‘ u ' 'x'. -2 0): nth-it. u o it i“ nan lulu}! Of the 165 individuals who responded to this section of the survey instrument, 82 (49.7%) supervised pre-service field-based experiences in public schools. These faculty members were asked if the classrooms in which their pre-service music education students were placed contained mainstreamed students. Fifty-eight (70.7%) indicated that these types of students were present in the classrooms, while 15 faculty members (18.3%) were not sure. Only nine (11%) respondents reported that no mainstreamed students were in these classrooms. Of the faculty members who indicated that mainstreamed students were included in the claser where pre-service music educators were assigned, 51 (87.9%) recalled the categories and provided specific information for analysis. They reported that most of the mainstreamed students found in these classrooms were classified as learning disabled (86.3%) followed by mental retardation (52.9%). The other categories included speech and language impairments (49%), emotional impairments (49%), orthopedic impairments (43.1%), hearing impaired (41.2%), multiple disabilities (29.2%), deaf-blindness (17.6%), and other health impairments (13.7%) (see Table 10). Of the 175 responses to this portion of the survey instrument, 123 (70.2%) faculty members reported that they supervised student teachers. N inety-two supervising faculty (74.8%) indicated that the classrooms in which their student teachers were placed contained mainstreamed students, while 17.9% (22) were not sure. No mainstreamed students were present in nine of the settings (7.3%). Specific 64 information regarding the categories was provided by 67 (72.8%) respondents who could recall specifically the types of special students who were present in the classrooms where student teachers were assigned. They reported that a majority of the mainstreamed students found in these classrooms were classified as learning disabled (86.6%) followed by mental retardation (62.7%). The other categories included emotional impairments (56.7%), orthopedic impairments (52.2%), speech and language impairments (41.8%), hearing impaired (40.3%), multiple disabilities (37.3%), deaf- blindness (25.4%), and other health impairments (17.9%) (see Table 10). The information provided suggested large numbers of mainstreamed students were included in the classes in which field-based experiences take place. This was true in both pre-service and student teaching settings. Most of the mainstreamed students found in the classrooms were classified as ”1ng disabled.” 65 Table 10 u. cu I'rttx' can b‘ruabau :0 1'! in: Classmns Category Pre-Service Student Teachers (n=51) (n-67) Specific learning disabilities 86.3% (44) 86.6% (58) Speech or language impairments 49.0% (25) 41.8% (28) Mental retardation 52.9% (27) 62.7% (42) Serious emotional disturbance 49.0% (25) 56.7% (38) Hearing impairments 41.2% (21) 40.3% (27) Multiple disabilities 39.2% (20) 37.3% (25) Orthopedic impairments 43.1% (22) 52.2% (35) Deaf-blindness 17.6% (16) 25.4% (17) Other health impairments 13.7% (7) 17.9% (12) Nels: Totals will not equal 100% {v} 1.1 01 .0 II Jt‘ u_ )1 I6) Jilt' ”curt." u‘ 'I I; ‘I ‘IIIe ‘rI ' 6mm- or IfIauI° Ire-rm ‘ II__ he I‘vlh I W aI' -I mainstreamedflndemsl As reported earlier in this chapter, one questionnaire from each school was selected randomly to represent each college/university that responded to the survey. Overall, 78 different schools (75.7%) were represented in the sample; however, only 71 schools reported specific information that was used to answer this question. The data from this sample were compared to the data from all of the individuals who provided information (n= 149) and the percentages were similar. Only 29 colleges/universities (40.8%) reported their departments’ of music education had internal requirements for preparing pre-service music teachers to work with mainstreamed/special needs learners. The requirements included the following: (a) field-based observations (31%); (b) required classes in special education within the music department (21.4%); (c) field-based experiences (8.5%); and (d) attendance at workshops and other requirements (6.9% each). Some individuals explained that the ”other requirements” were fused into existing music education classes and left up to the individual instructor. {in}: I 0.; -0! " .011. gr; I‘v) .r=..II' Home" ii! .t‘I-_ 0 m 0 .I .I,II~.‘-.~ III I'.I. I,_I' .I' II. ° I,‘-iI.I.tIIIeI I; or H m II-.I pang! ‘ianfts WWW Most of the 78 schools who responded to this question (70.1%) reported that they required their students to enroll in courses provided outside the music department which included topics focusing on mainstreamed learners/special needs students. Sixteen schools (20.8%) did not have this requirement. Six schools (9%) reported 6 7 they were not sure if their students were enrolled in outside courses, while three (1.3%) indicated that it was optional. Forty-four schools provided additional data regarding the number of courses that their students were required to take. Information about the number of courses required by institutions showed that 26 (59%) required only one course, 13 (30%) required two courses, and five (11%) required three or more courses. A total of 68 schools provided more specific information about the outside departments in which their students took required classes. Fifty-three schools (77.9%) reported that the outside courses in which the students were enrolled were located in education departments. Eight (11.8%) schools said that psychology departments provided the necessary courses, while seven (10.3 %) listed other non-specified departments. (my. I 01'. .III 0' DI .I' .II‘ utaI _u ,1. I Il'viI.=.II' Inf-gen ' II ' uh; Uh I 0).11.1Htl,‘1!'rtll'x!‘i.!")|-V2.ixx0!-|‘ I .I‘ ‘viI I II‘le I ICEE I l] I O .l. 9 Analysis of the survey data showed that the larger schools (enrollment greater than 10,001) were somewhat more likely to have requirements for preparing pre- service music educators to work with mainstreamed students than those whose enrollment totaled less than 10,000 students; however, the results were not significant (x2 = 9.575, df = 10, p -- .479). A crosstabulation and chi-square test showed that there also was some tendency for those schools who had larger numbers of music majors enrolled (more than 40) to have mainstreaming requirements (x2 = 19.64, df = 12, p = .074). As indicated previously, most schools did not have requirements for preparing their students to 6 a work with special learners (59.2% ). In addition, there was no difference in student preparation between public and private institutions that required mainstreaming topics (n-75). Of the schools surveyed, 18 public colleges/universities had mainstreaming requirements in their programs, while 20 did not. In privately funded institutions, 11 schools had requirements and 20 lacked them. Four schools in the public system and two schools in the private system were rmsure. Although the number of affirmatives was larger in publicly funded colleges and universities, the crosstabulation and chi- square tests revealed no significant differences between the two systems (x2 - 1.295, df = 2, p - .523). An effort was made to discover if mainstreaming requirements differed among the schools located in the six states surveyed. Since the sample of the number of colleges/universities from each state was relatively small, the results should be viewed as general tendencies. A larger percentage of the music education programs at the schools located in Illinois had departmental requirements (71.4%) than in the remaining five states. Conversely, most of the programs located in the state of Ohio did not have mainstreaming requirements (see Table 11). A crosstabulation and chi- square test showed that there were significant differences among the states regarding mainstreaming requirements (12 = 21.22, df = 10, p -= .01961). Table 11 u_=.I‘iIl‘.2IIII' {‘rI idli‘dl_ II I‘ u, ' .=_II '00utEIL I I W; an I! . .. B l . l S I State Schools Have N 0 Not (n=77) Represented Requirements Requirements Sure Illinois 14 10 (71.4%) 4 (28.6%) 0 (0.0%) Indiana 9 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) Michigan 11 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 2 (18.2%) Minnesota 11 3 (27.3%) 5 (45.5%) 3 (27.3%) Ohio 22 6 (27.3%) 16 (72.7%) 0 (0.0%) Wisconsin 10 5 (50.0%) 4 (40.0%) 1 (10.0%) W In the analysis of data, responses were gathered from two separate areas of the survey instrument: schools that presently had mainstreaming requirements in their programs (n=31), and those that did not (n-46). A total of 77 institutions (74.8%) provided information (see Table 12). Table 12 Category (n=77) Yes No Not Sure 1. Schools that presently have requirements (n-31) 2 (6.5%) 24 (77.4%) 5 (16.1%) 2. Schools that do not presently have requirements (n=46) 3 (6.5 %) 27 (58.7%) 16 (34.8%) 71 Of the institutions that presently have requirements, the majority (24 or 77.4%) indicated that they had no plans to implement additional ones. Five schools (16.1%) were not sure, while two (6.5 %) responded positively. Some requirements that these schools planned to add included the integration of field-based observations and experiences that involve mainstreamed students in general methods classes, placement of new courses on the topic in the program, and better coverage of the topic in introductory level music education courses. Of the schools reporting that they were not sure if changes were to take place, several said the subject was ”rmder discussion.” Over half the colleges/universities who did not have these requirements indicated they had no additional plans to implement them in the future (27 or 58.7%), while 16 (34.8%) of the schools were not sure. Three of the institutions (6.5%) planned to implement some requirements in the future. Some schools described the requirements that were under consideration at the time of the survey. These schools planned to add field-based observations and experiences where special populations are located, to expand instruction into all senior level music methods courses and early childhood music courses, and to implement a course in special education at the undergraduate level. Several respondents said that the discussion was in the beginning stages and no definite requirements had been articulated. The results from both groups showed that few of the schools surveyed were planning to implement any additional requirements in their respective programs. hm: ‘. _ '. .H : ”r 1 ..yr . .W' _. u z... m; u.“ n _' WWL . .I- It __ no-2 0)! u Iurau: _I- adv-s :_II_ ,I'v'asx. it an I; '2" __ W As reported earlier in the demographic section of this chapter, only 16 (20.5%) of the colleges/universities surveyed indicated they currently offered an undergraduate degree in music therapy. An analysis of the data showed that those schools which offered degree programs in music therapy were somewhat less likely to have mainstreaming topics in the curricula (12 = .51643, df = 2, p = .772); however, this finding was not significant. The findings suggest that music therapy programs and the incidence of mainstreaming requirements in music education programs at the same institutions are unrelated. CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Summary The problem studied through this research was fourfold: (1) to ascertain the training and experiences that current music education methods’ instructors received in their undergraduate programs that addressed mainstreamed students; (2) to determine how university music education programs are preparing their students to work with mainstreamed students; (3) to discover whether the current music teacher training faculty plan to implement program changes in the future; and (4) to recommend areas for future research directed toward curricula for prospective music educators. A descriptive research design was used in conducting this study. The writer developed the survey instrument and procedure by: (a) reviewing research literature on mainstreaming in regular and special education, music education, and music therapy; (b) examining existing questionnaires within these disciplines to decide if any of the items was suitable for inclusion in the present instrument; (c) studying the guidelines for educating students with special needs that were published in W W and W: mm; (d) considering the professional experiences and concerns of the researcher and other colleagues with special learners in the elementary/secondary school system; and (e) following the research methods described by Babbie in the second edition of his book, Wands (1990)- 73 74 The questionnaire was divided into two major parts. Part One contained questions which were answered by all participants. Items found in this section were grouped according to the following categories: (a) college/university demographic information, classification of instructors, and years of college teaching; (b) professional experience at the elementary/secondary level in the public/private sector before college employment; (c) teaching responsibilities and course content at the college level; (d) names of courses that included the topic of educating mainstreamed students; and (e) departmental provisions for preparing pre-service music teachers to work with mainstreamed students. Part Two provided an opportunity for the participant to request an abstract of the completed study and contained space for additional comments. A draft of the questionnaire was presented to the thesis advisor and a group of seven individuals associated with the Michigan State University School of Music who taught music methods’ courses at the college level. These individuals participated in reviewing and evaluating the: survey instrument. Suggestions for revisions were accepted, and the draft was revised and prepared for a pilot mailing to eight instructors of music methods’ courses at N AS M-affiliated colleges and/or universities outside Michigan State University. All but one draft were returned by the established cutoff date. The seven returned questionnaires were studied, and minor changes were made in the terminology and syntax of some questions. Several suggestions made by the participants resulted in the addition of two questions. Prior to the pilot mailing, the original proposal for the application of this dissertation was submitted to the Guidance Committee and approved. After the changes were made in the survey instrument following the pilot mailing, the author sent the proposal along with the final draft of the eight-page questionnaire to the 75 University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Subsequently, approval was granted, and the survey instrument was prepared for mailing. The population for this study was a selected sample of full-time music education methods’ instructors at N AS M-affiliated institutions in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A total of 103 schools in these six states met the criteria for selection. Seventy-eight colleges and lmiversities (75.7%) were represented by at least one completed questionnaire. Questionnaires were sent to prospective participants (n-333) who were listed in the 3‘1-3" Do; In I u o :_ .'v.\ II I III I' as”; it! Canada. One-hundred and ninety-two (57.7%) questionnaires were returned and 179 (53.8%) contained usable data for analysis. Responses on the questionnaires were treated by computing descriptive statistics using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSPC+). Statistical procedures included FREQUENCIES on all responses and CROSSTABS with accompanying chi-square tests on selected responses dealing with comparisons among questions. The data analysis provided information for each of the following research questions: 1. Do music education professors have personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level before their college/university employment? 2. If music education professors have had previous personal experiences with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, which kinds of mainstreamed students were present in their classrooms? 7 6 3. If the music education professor has had previous personal experience with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level, does it vary between the public and private school system? 4. What undergraduate curricula and programs trained prospective music educators to work with mainstreamed students? 5. To what extent do music education professors’ prior personal experiences with mainstreamed students at the elementary/secondary level affect teacher preparation methods for mainstreaming in their comses? 6. In what manner are pre-service music educators currently being prepared to work with mainstreamed students? 7. Are music education students involved with mainstreamed students during pre-service field-based experiences and/or student teaching? 8. Do undergraduate music teacher training programs presently have internal requirements for preparing pre-service music teachers for working with mainstreamed students? 9. Do music teacher training programs require students to enroll in courses provided outside the music department that focus on mainstreamed learners and/or special needs students? 10. Do the undergraduate curricula for preparing pre-service music educators to work with mainstreamed students vary according to the enrollment of different colleges/universities? 11. Are changes being planned in undergraduate music teacher training programs to improve the preparation of pre-service teachers to work with mainstreamed students? 77 12. Is there a higher incidence of mainstreaming requirements in the music education program at the colleges and universities that also have a music therapy progmm? Bindings I 1' . l I B l Over three-fifths of the 170 respondents who had prior teaching experience in the public school sector indicated that their classrooms had contained students with special needs. Collectively, two-thirds of them left public school teaching in the 19705 and 1980s. While 35 respondents indicated having prior private school teaching experience, slightly less than one-half recalled having students with special needs in those classrooms. Most of the mainstreamed students present in these earlier classrooms were classified as learning disabled. Students classified in the remaining disability categories outlined in the II ' I; - (1991) were present in similar numbers in both settings with the exception of those students who were listed as having mental retardation or multiple disabilities. In the private school sector, a much smaller incidence of students appeared in these classifications. In general, more respondents who reported past public school experience indicated a higher incidence of mainstreamed students than those who previously were employed in the private school sector. Only 26.9% of the respondents indicated they had received training to work with mainstreamed students in their respective undergraduate music education programs and the majority (65.4%) rated their undergraduate preparation as less than adequate. Furthermore, 55 % reported they had not received additional training in working with mainstreamed students since completing their undergraduate programs. 76 These findings are not surprising; other studies conducted during the last twenty years have reported that a common complaint among teachers in the field of music education, as well as other disciplines, is a lack of educational preparation in working with students who have special needs. A major finding was that those professors who had prior personal experiences with mainstreamed students were much more likely to include mainstreaming topics in their classes, while those without experience were much less likely to include these topics. Furthermore, this finding was true whether the individual had previous public school experience, private school experience, and/or additional training. There was a tendency for the respondents who began their college teaching careers in the 1970s and 19805 to include mainstreaming subjects in their music methods’ classes although these findings were not significant Nearly 63 % of the respondents reported that they included mainstreaming topics in their courses. These topics appeared more frequently in general music methods classes (65.6%) than in other music education classes. Most of the individuals reported covering the topic in lectures (81%) and required readings (69%). The majority of these readings were found in music education journals. While some respondents indicated that field-based observations and/or experiences with special needs students were a part of the coursework, it was discouraging to find that only 15.5 % required their music education students to have actual field-based experiences with mainstreamed students. The respondents reported that over 70% of their music education students were involved with mainstreamed students in their pre-service field- based classroom and student teaching experiences. Most of these mainstreamed students were classified as having specific learning disabilities or mental retardation. The information provided by the professors suggested that large numbers of 7 9 mainstreamed students with varying disabilities were included in the classrooms where field-based experiences take place. Only 40.8% of the college/university music education programs have internal requirements for preparing pre-service music teachers to work with mainstreamed and/or special needs learners. The most frequent requirements within the music education curricula consisted of field-based observations (31%), and classes in special education within the music departments (21.4%). Among the schools who had requirements, less than 10% of their students were required to have field-based experiences with special learners. On the other hand, 70.1% of the programs required their students to enroll in comses provided outside the music department that included topics focusing on mainstreamed learners and/or special needs students. The majority of these courses (77 .9%) were located in education departments. Although those coHeges/lmiversities with total lmdergraduate enrollments greater than 10,001 were somewhat more likely to have mainstreaming requirements for preparing pre-service music educators, the results were not significant. Similarly, there was some tendency for those schools who had larger numbers of music majors enrolled (greater than 40) to have mainstreaming requirements. No difference between public and private institutions in their mainstreaming requirements was found in the data. Significant differences were noted among the music education programs located in the six states having mainstreaming requirements; however, since the sample from each state was relatively small, the results should be viewed as general tendencies. Specifically, a larger percentage of the music education programs in Illinois (71.4%) e 0 had departmental requirements than in the other states. Conversely, most of the programs located in Ohio did not (72.7%). Of the colleges/universities that presently have mainstreaming requirements in their curricula, the majority (77.4%) reported that they have no plans to implement additional requirements. A major concern was that over half the programs with no mainstreaming requirements have no specific plans to implement them in the futrne. It was surprising to find that the existence of music therapy programs at the colleges/universities did not appear to reflect a higher incidence of mainstreaming requirements in music education programs; in fact, there was a tendency for the opposite to be true. A small number of the schools surveyed offered a degree in music therapy (16), yet an analysis of the data showed that the music education programs at the same schools were somewhat less likely to have mainstreaming topics in the curricula. Sandman: This study revealed that over half of the respondents, currently teaching undergraduate music methods courses, have had previous personal experience with mainstreamed students in the public and/or private school sector. These professors were much more likely to include mainstreaming topics in their music methods classes than those who had no experience. However, it is important to emphasize that the topics were most frequently addressed within a lecture format and/or through required readings in music education journals. Fewer than half of these professors required field-based observations or experiences as part of the course(s). Today most music education students are encountering special needs students in their pre-service and student-teaching assignments. Statistical evidence compiled from annual reports sent by the Secretary of the United States Department of Education to a 1 Congress over the past few years indicates that an increasing number of students with disabilities are receiving their educational and related services in regular school settings. As reported earlier in this dissertation, Salend (1990) explained that students with special needs are most often mainstreamed into art, music, industrial arts, and/or physical education classes. Less than half of the college/university curricula in this study, however, have internal requirements for preparing their students to work with these individuals; and only a few programs require their students to have field-based experiences with them. It is evident that recommendations from earlier research addressing teacher preparation concerns have gone largely unheeded. Many authorities have recommended that colleges and universities should provide students with opportunities to gain practical experience with mainstreamed students in local school systems; however, the results of this study showed that less than half of the music teacher training programs had these requirements for their students. The most frequent type of requirement was enrollment in courses outside the music department that addressed these issues. Although the content of these courses was not part of the study, it is likely that field-based observations and/or experiences were not included. Although many courses outside the music department may cover topics that address mainstreamed students adequately, it is important for music education students to learn specific techniques that they can incorporate in their future music classrooms. However, this type of experience was not a priority in over half the colleges or universities surveyed. As discussed earlier, the lack of adequate preparation to facilitate the successful inclusion of mainstreamed learners into music classes is a major concern expressed by many music educators. Therefore, one should be cautious in assuming that music a 2 education pre-service students will gain the training they need from supervising teachers to whom they are assigned. Many music teachers who are currently working in public school settings are finding that an increasing number of students with special needs are being placed in their classrooms. As a result, they are finding it necessary to teach themselves on how best to meet the needs of these students, since they did not receive the training in their college programs. Perhaps it is unfair to expect current music education faculty to provide all of the experiences necessary to train future music teachers. As reported earlier, most of them rated their own undergraduate teacher training in this area as inadequate and over half have not received any additional training to work with special needs students. Many music teachers who are currently working in elementary/secondary settings do not feel that they are adequately prepared to work with special needs students. In addition, a survey of the research conducted over the last twenty years has shown that teachers in other areas of specialization express similar frustrations and concerns when working with mainstreamed students. According to the literature from the field of teacher preparation, many college/university education programs are undergoing revisions with the goal of better preparation for their students to work in the mainstreamed classrooms of the future. Perhaps curricula planners in music education could save some time and effort by studying the efforts of the experts in the field of teacher preparation. One suggestion is for music education departments to develop a closer alliance with teacher education programs in other disciplines located at their college or university. Many teacher training programs employ professionals who have experience in working with mainstreamed students. These instructors bring a backgrormd of information on teaching special needs children that can only be gained from direct experience and e 3 could prove to be a valuable resource for the music education program. Such an arrangement should only be a temporary solution until music education departments can employ their own professionals. Another suggestion is for the music methods’ instructors who supervise pre- service and student-teaching field experiences to identify schools where students with special needs are mainstreamed and schools where only special needs learners are enrolled. In both settings music education students would have the opportunity to fulfill a clinical experience requirement; in schools devoted entirely to the special needs learner the student teacher would have the unique opportunity of learning teaching techniques from a professional staff from a variety of academic disciplines. By working with and assisting in the instruction of some of these learners individually or in small groups, student teachers will get to know the children and will lose the fear beginning teachers often experience in working with special needs children. A final suggestion is for music education departments to develop a closer alliance with music therapy programs where available. If a college/university has a degree-awarding program in music therapy, perhaps the music education department could tap into this potential resource. Some music therapy programs have on-carnpus clinics where clients with special needs receive services. In addition, some school districts employ school-based music therapists to work with students both individually and in groups. It is possible that some pre-service music education experiences could take place under the supervision of a music therapist at either setting. Music therapists are trained to meet with individuals of all ages who have a variety of needs. Although music therapists do not necessarily stress the achievement of musical goals by the participant(s), many music activities they use to reinforce behavioral or physical goals can easily be assigned specific music education goals and objectives. In addition, 64 music therapists are trained to use a variety of techniques that can facilitate success on the part of the learner. W The results from this study suggest the following recommendations: 1. That the study be replicated in other regions of the United States to see if the responses and results are similar. 2. That a survey be sent to graduates in music education from the colleges/universities who participated in the study to determine how they rated their undergraduate preparation for teaching mainstreamed students. 3. That college/university programs in music education that have provided adequate coursework and experiences for mainstreamed and/or special needs students in their curricula be identified and studied to discover their components. 4. That longitudinal studies be designed to test an experimental curriculum for training music education students to work with mainstreamed students and determine its effects. 5. That music professors become more involved with the departments of education in their colleges or universities. This involvement would counteract the traditional isolation of music faculty members from other disciplines and would help to acquaint the professors with the variety of pupils their own students are likely to encormter in the comse of pre-student teaching and student teaching experiences. 6. That music education programs interface with music therapy programs to expose the students to special populations in controlled settings and that studies then be designed to measure results of their exposure to these experiences. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DATA FROM TI-IIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS APPENDIX A-l .3313 nail-3333333433 lo: $35.3..- .9sou4 95:25 was .3315 an «3.3.:- s...» .Iousuu 9... l9: suds 99130.: 9.9 9.9 9.9 n.9u 9.9a n.9n ss«u«««n¢n«v ««< u.« «.9« 9.9“ 9.9N n.” 9.«« ssu:v:««ntussn 9.9 9.9 9.9 m.«~ 9.p« 9.9m nueslu«sal« «s:a«> 9.«u 9.9 9.p 9.9« 9.9" 9.9a sueslu«s9l« :u«ss: uoeuo 9.9 9.9 «.«« 9.99 9.9« n.9u sucslu«snl« c«vsno:uu9 o.« o.c o.n~ u.o¢ ~.¢— o.» aoaua««a¢u«e cacao—a: «.9 9.9 9.9 9.99 9.«u 9.9u u»:slu«sal« ue«uso: 9.N 9.» v.»« 9.99 9.9» «.v« socsauaus«v «1:0«90lo 0:0«usm 9.9 u.« a.«« 9.99 v.u« 9.m :o«usvusuou «sues: «.9 «.9 9.« a.» «.9« 9.mp sueslu«¢al« sua:u:s« so seesaw a«.9 a«.9 an.« a9.9u u9.pn a9.9« -s«u«««nse«u u:«:uas« c«u«ccam gnu-agglu- 3 3333 \usaoaslca «I«acoc«ucn susudaoa ouch-non sense-on us«=nsn 99I999« an.» «90:09 "Ase-susu >u«««a¢u«9 an nucslcou«>:u «9:0«990950 acououu«9 =« vo>uon «NI9 09¢ uvcovsum we ensue-cues 85 IXIHPEHQTDIXIIK-Z .«udluudddddaqudd ad4uII4dau4u4uaaIuAqlual9a4AdH9qIaaaIHlaadl9alddquIaauIaMl«Hana-Iddaaadl949994u49H luau voae«unsns .999u< I:«>«u:9 1:9 .9«AI:«90 99 ao«uu9«9 9:» .999999 9m 9999 9999 999:«o:« v.« min a... o." accessoz\ucaoaoso= a.» u.« 9.9 9.9 >u«««osu «9«ac9v«9on 9.9« «.o «.9 9.«« «09:09 99999999 m.«a «.ou 9.9" n.9u 999«o 9999-59» 9.ua 9.m9 9.9» «.9« Icon 909:099: «n.9« an.9« u9.«9 n~.~9 999«o u9«9999 «sued H«uu« «and add «auuuqudnuu a; 99I999« 999% «cocoa "99:9lcou«>:n «9:0«090318 u«9 9« 099999 «NI9« 6:9 .p«l~« .««I9 .uIn 9.4 99:96:99 «0 9999990999 86 APPENDIX B PILOT TEST COVER LETTER APPENDIX B Pilot Test Cover Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY scwoor Of MUSIC EAST LANSING 0 MEXICAN ' assured} School of Ma's ($17) 353-3540 In? Eves. Lise (917) 393-5345 March 1. 1993 Dear Colleague: Thank you for agreeing to pilot this questionnaire which will help so to discover how susic teacher training institutions are preparing their undergraduate susic education students to work with sainstreased learners/special needs students in elesentary and/or secondary school systess. Your cossents will be a valuable part of the design of the final questionnaire that will be sailed to a selected sasple of full- tise susic education sethods instructors at MASM affiliated schools in the Great Lakes region of the United States. I want the questionnaire to be easy to understand and cosplete, as well as relevant to the study. Any consents that you sake will be considered in the final design of the questionnaire. Please sark the questionnaire in any sanner that you choose, elisinating questions that you feel are irrelevant or inappropriate. or changing wording in a sanner that would increase clarity. ' You do not need to cosplete the questionnaire. If you do elect to cosplete the survey, 1 would appreciate it if you would indicate on the questionnaire how sany sinutes it took to accosplish the task. Data derived fros the pilot will not be included in the study. Your anonysity in participating in this pilot is guaranteed. A self-addressed, stasped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. I hope you will find it possible to respond within two weeks fros the tise received. I hope to have the revised questionnaire in the sail by March 22, 1993, and I will appreciate your prospt reply. If you have any questions concerning the questionnaire or the study, please feel free to contact as at (517) 882-5866, or sy saJor advisor. Dr. Robert Erbes, Departsent of Music Education, Michigan State University (517) 355-7658. Sincerely, / ”*é/uw .c. " W Lisa Me ler, ~BC Dr. Robert Erbes Ph.D. Candidate Area Chairsan Music Education/Therapy Music Education “3 U i as Allis-aim Anion/Equal Opportunity Institutio- 87 APPENDIX C GUIDANCE COMIWITTEE APPROVAL LETTER APPENDIX C Guidance Committee Approval Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MUSIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Thesis Proposalggpproval Form Student Lisa Heller Student No. M0940168 Proposal Title: The thesis proposal listed above M been approved. has/has not If not approved, the following recorlrnended revisions must be completed: The Guidance Cassatt certifies that the proposal has been approved and any recomended revisi completed: ,fi' - ta’égzggjvf::r-ehsirnan f32EzgiigfxTZEQataséuezzzr' 9;. ‘ 1 tt '5 .. A v-I-I‘s -.J‘S’z' A s O ’99:.I - ° 99 . ‘ I A I a a t " .1.._‘: e ‘ .- \‘ i h I A- u ‘ ‘ ‘ .;999re 9 91. g? 4"" '43,- 'éf.‘ ‘E‘I'T “ :1 CC: Student, Advssor, Committee Me Ibers, Area Chairman 88 APPENDIX D UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE APPROVAL LETTER APPENDIX D University Committee Approval Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF “G PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 «cu-nous AND DEAN 0' THE GRADUATE SCHOOL March 19. 1993 TO: Lisa Heller School of Music RE: [RD 1: 93-082 TITLE: UNDERGRADUATE TEACHER PREPARATION FOR MAINSTREAMING: A SURVEY OF MUSIC TEACHER TRAINNG INSTITUTIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION OF THE U.S. CATEGORY: l-C REVISION REQUESTED: NIA AMOVAL DATE: March 16. I993 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. lampleaaedtoadvisethattherightsandwelfareofthehunmnsubjectsappeartobeadequatelyprotectedand methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators phoningwcontinueaprojectbeyondoneyarnnrstseekupdatedcertificadon. Requestforrenewedapprovalmust be accompanied by all four ofthe following mandatory assurances. l. The human subjects protocol is the same as in previous studies. 2. Therehavebeennoill effects suffered bythesubjectsduetothcirparticipationinthestudy. 3 There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives related to their participation in the study. 4. Therehasnotbeenachangeintheresearchenvimnmentnornewinfomationwhicbwmddindicategreater risk to hum subjects than that assumed when the protocol was initially reviewed and approved. There is a maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjecu. prior to initiation of the change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. If we can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355.2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171. ’ Jr Sincerely, David E. Wright. mo. ucnms can: DEW:pjm cc: Dr. Robert Erbes MSU Is an Affirmative Amen/Equal Opportunity Imitation 89 APPENDIX E INITIAL MAILING COVER LETTER APPENDIX E Initial Mailing Cover Letter MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL Of HUSIC EAST LANSING 0 HIOIIGAN 0 “Id-IOU School of Ids (SIT) SSS-”40 lair Events lies (SI?) 355-55“ March 22, 1993 Dear Colleague: The aainstreaaing of special learners/special needs students into eleaentary and secondary school systea ausic classes is coason today. In the early years following the passage of Public Law 94-142, the anority of the literature in the fields of regular education, special education, and ausic education cited the lack of adequate preparation at the pre-service college/university level. Current research expresses siailar concerns although it has been over 15 years since the law was passed. My research will exaaine the content of undergraduate ausic education curricula to discover how ausic teacher training institutions are preparing their undergraduate ausic education students to work with aainstreaaed learners/ special needs students. The general population of interest for this study includes a selected sanple of full-tine ausic education aethods instructors at NASH affiliated schools in the Great Lakes region of the United States. This letter cones to you to ask for your help by coapleting and returning the enclosed questionnaire. All results will be treated with strict confidence and all participants will reaain anonyaous. Your identity will not be used in any way in the dissertation or in any subsequent published aaterials. The coded nuaber on the questionnaire is only for the purpose of follow-up, if necessary. The final page provides you with the opportunity to receive an abstract of the study and to include any additional consents you say consider pertinent to the study. No data will be analyzed until the final page of the survey instruaent is reaoved and the codesheet destroyed. This will occur after the established cut-off date for receiving the questionnaire is reached. A self-addressed stanped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Your participation is voluntary; you say elect not to participate or not to answer certain questions without penalty. Your agreeaent to participate will be indicated by returning the coapleted questionnaire. To follow the tile-line for ay research, I request that you respond by April 5, 1993. Results fros the pilot study indicated that the average tile for coapletion of the questionnaire was 15 sinutes. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire or the study, please feel free to contact ae at (517) 882-5866, or sy anor advisor, Dr. Robert Erbes, Departsent of Music Education, Michigan State University (517) 355-7658. Thank you for taking the tine to assist us with this study. Sincerely, 1) / <::::x€?i}