Skip to content

NAfME 2024 Conference Presentation

Welcome!

I’m sharing some details of my research project on music educators’ experiences and perspectives on developing music curriculum below:

Contents

Research Questions

  1. What are music educators’ perspectives on music curriculum and curriculum development?
  2. What experiences do music educators have in relation to music curriculum and curriculum development?
  3. What challenges do music educators face in relation to music curriculum and curriculum development?

This exploratory qualitative research study combines survey and interview research approaches in a 4 phase design (Bhattacharya, 2017).

Research Approach: Design & Data Generation

Phase 1 Survey

  1. After obtaining IRB approval I piloted and iterated a survey via Qualtrics based on responses to the survey itself and a secondary survey that asked participants questions about the survey and their experience taking the survey.
  2. After iterative development and refinement of the survey, I launched the survey nationally via posts in multiple music education-focused Facebook groups, Instagram, and TikTok.
  3. I then shared the survey nationally by inviting faculty across higher ed Music Education programs to share the email with others and via the NAfME Researcher Email service.
  4. Survey responses were anonymous unless a participant indicated they would like to participate in a follow up conversation or to participate in reviewing and providing feedback on curricular resources. To preserve anonymity in survey analysis, each survey response was assigned a random ID number via Qualtrics.
  5. Prior to the NAfME presentation I analyzed 344 survey responses. I did not analyze responses that included partial demographic information or did not complete at least the first open-ended question regarding a definition of curriculum.
  6. Survey respondents were largely White and included a cross-section of the field in relation to gender identity, area of teaching (elementary/secondary, instrumental/voical/general), area of the country, and age (based on which decade they were born). Respondents also included music educators with administrative roles such as department chairs and fine arts/VAPA coordinators.

Examples of Survey Questions

The survey includes many questions around demographics and experiences related to curriculum and curriculum development. The survey also included open-ended questions. Here are examples of some of the open-ended questions:

  • This research project leaves the term “curriculum” open. Since so many people use the word in different ways, it would be helpful to know how you think about curriculum. In whatever way makes the most sense to you, define what a music curriculum is:
  • When it comes to music curriculum I’m most curious about (or really would like to know). .
  • Please provide additional information about the status of curriculum when you started your current position:
  • What aspects of your curriculum do you think are most important to your program?
  • What are 2 – 3 challenges or frustrations when it comes to your existing curriculum?
  • What would be most helpful or supportive to you in updating, expanding, or designing your curriculum?
  • What’s one thing about your curriculum that you’ve considered changing or you might consider changing in the future?
    • Why this particular change ?
  • What suggestions would you give to other educators seeking to update, expand, or design music curriculum?

Phase 2: Individual semi-structured interviews

  1. I sent an email invitation to select groups of participants who completed surveys and who opted in to the possibility of engaging in follow up conversations to engage in a 1 hour interview via Zoom.
  2. Prior to the NAfME conference I completed 30 interviews.
  3. Interview questions expand on data generated during Phase 1 and explore additional areas specific to participants’ approach and perspectives on curriculum design and development and curricular resources.
  4. Interviews were recorded via Zoom and I uploaded the video recordings to Descript for automated transcription and to link the transcript to video data for further analysis.
  5. I am not including analysis of the interviews as part of the NAfME presentation.

Phase 3: Focus Group Interviews

In Fall 2024 and Spring 2025 I will invite participants who engaged in semi-structured interviews to participate in focus group interviews to continue learning about their experiences and perspectives on curriculum and curriculum design

Phase 4: Curriculum resource feedback

In Fall 2024 and Spring 2025 I will be sharing writing and thinking around curriculum and curriculum development to participants who opted in to this part of the study. I piloted this phase during the summer but did not include any of the feedback or comments from participants in the NAfME presentation.

Research Design: Analysis and Meaning Making

Analysis for Phase 1

Analysis is ongoing throughout all phases of the study. For Phase 1 data, all individual survey responses are stored intact as a PDF in the application Obsidian. While Obsidian is not designed as Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), its flexibility and affordances make it a compelling application for qualitative research and analysis (Webster, 2014).

I developed a way of using Obsidian to support a nonlinear, rhizomatic, hyperlinked approach to working with data and making meaning that fits my approach to qualitative research analysis. This approach also allows data to be traced back to individual participants at any point during the analysis.

The answers to each survey question are consolidated across respondents per question to provide the overview of responses.

I then engaged in inductive analysis (Bhattacharya, 2017) by creating new files specific to each theme and linking data and analysis across files, somewhat in the form of an interactive wiki. While this involves aspects of coding and thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2021) the process does not follow a particular approach to coding. This process allows for fluid movement across themes, ideas, data, and other aspects of analysis to make meaning with data.

Works Cited

  • Barrett, J. R. (2007). Currents of change in the music curriculum. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 147-161). Springer. 
  • Campbell, M. R., Thompson, L. K., & Barrett, J. R. (2021). Constructing a personal orientation to music teaching: Growth, inquiry, and agency. Routledge. 
  • Darling-Hammond, L., Banks, J., Zumwalt, K., Gomez, L., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L.-E. (2005). Educational goals and purposes: Developing a curricular vision for teaching. In Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 169-200). Jossey-Bass. 
  • Deng, Z. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge reconceived: Bringing curriculum thinking into the conversation on teachers’ content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 155-164. 
  • Hanley, B., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Contemporary curriculum practices and their theoretical bases. In R. Colwell & C. P. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 113-143). Oxford University Press. 
  • Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The Tyler rationale revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 81-88. 
  • Reynolds, H. R. (2000). Repertoire is the curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 87(1), 31-33. 
  • Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. Macmillan. 
  • Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. In F. M. Connely, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 399-419). Sage. 
  • Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In Curriculum studies reader E2 (pp. 60-68). Routledge.