For this column I thought I would make sure everyone knew about the latest in journals and also bring a couple findings to your attention, just in case they fell through the cracks. I am sure you are all aware that the Journal of Research in Music Education is the premier journal in our field and, if you want it in print, that comes with a rather hefty price tag in addition to your NAfME annual membership. But, if you just want to stay current, you can access it online for free by logging into the NAfME website and going to journals. Though I adore paper, I know that many do not need either the cash layout or more stuff in their environment. Be that as it may, NAfME has made this easy because you can set up your account to alert you every time a new issue is released. That way you do not have to go visiting the site - the site can find you. I want to continue to encourage all of you to stay up to date with all the current findings. This journal is the direct reflection of the direction our profession is taking in developing new knowledge and defining what we are as professionals. This is probably an opportune time to remind everyone that there are no real rules to who can do research. The area is open to anyone who has a question. Please allow me to invite you to come join the party and help us all shape the profession's agenda in the way you think things should go. There is always room for another wise voice and the research community is always interested in more friends. Do not forget that KMEA is YOUR State organization. Let KMEA help in any way we can if that would be useful. You might be suprpised at all the resources you can access through your State Professional Organization.
Having talked about the virtues of JRME, allow me to also remind you about Update: Applications of Research in Music Education. It comes free with your membership, is online, and is easy to access. Of course you have to log in at the NAfME web site and go to the journals; but again, all issues are there for your perusal. Remember, Update's mission is a little different than JRME's. It is:
Update is a peer-reviewed online-only journal brings research in
music teaching and learning close to everyday practice to help
teachers apply research in their music classrooms and rehearsal
halls. The journal presents reviews of the literature and findings of
individual studies without research terminology or jargon.
Which should mean that, for some of you, you might find these articles easier to apply to your room, and more apparently relevant to what you do every day. Update is certainly an excellent entry into the research world for people with a little less experience working with research.
Two other quick notes on the Journal front. As many of you know, the International Journal of Music Education used to have discrete Research and Practice issues. They have now modified their dissemination plan and now have research and practice articles in every book they produce. Thus far the mix has been a little more than 3:1 research to practice. This seems like an excellent approach, and I applaud their insight into making this modification. Also, the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education is alive and well. They have maintained their publication and distribution schedules extremely well for many years now, and never seem to have a shortage of good copy. In the Fall edition they featured an article of two Kansas residents, Jacob Dakon and Abbey Dvorak. Allow me to share the abstract of this interesting study.
The purpose of this study was to acquire baseline data regarding
string instructors' perceptions on the use of memorization in string
instructional environments. The researchers surveyed string
instructors (N = 126) from two midwestern states about
memorization conceptualization, curricular importance, perceived
benefits, personal level of ease and enjoyment, and application in
string-based learning environments. Results indicated that the
majority of string teachers perceive memorization as cognitive recall
without the presence of visual stimuli. Although correct, this
definition overlooks many other modes of cognitive encoding and
retrieval associated with memorization. String teachers also reported
supporting the use of aural and visual memorization strategies, but
only used them rarely to teach fundamental technique, solo material,
or specialty music. Additionally, string teachers may not recognize a
standardized method of teaching memorization. Implications for
music education are discussed.
Please feel free to go find the full article. CRME is an excellent resource.
And while I generally do not like to sound too much like I am ever waving a KU flag with regard to KMEA, another of my colleagues had an article published which has substantial and direct implications to most teachers in Kansas, so I want to make sure that I draw attention to this most important work. Martin Bergee published an article titled "A Theoretical Structure of High School Concert Band Performance" in the July edition of the JRME. While the article (and for that matter, the abstract) are somewhat complex, so is the topic. I am going to reprint the abstract here. I realize that it might take a few minutes to wade through the concepts; however, the rewards are well worth the effort. I hope you find the study as interesting as I do.
This study used exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to verify a theoretical structure for high school concert band
performance and to test that structure for viability, generality, and
invariance. A total of 101 university students enrolled in two different
bands rated two high school band performances (a "first" band's
Performance I, and "second" band's Performance 2) using items from
Sagen's Band Performance Rating Scale. EFA methods verified a
structure consisting of three interrelated primary-order factors. Items
did not have the same factor loadings in both performances. For
performance I, the factor accounting for the most variance was
Expression/Tone Quality, followed by Intonation and then Rhythm.
For Performance 2, the factor accounting for the most variance was
Tone Quality/Intonation, followed by Expression and then Rhythm.
Both performances' structures exhibited a strong second-order
general factor (g). CFA demonstrated that models consisting of three
interrelated primary-order factors and one second-order g fit both
sets of data. Regarding generality, the Performance I model did not
fit Performance 2 data, whereas the Performance 2 model did fit the
Performance I data. The Performance I model demonstrated a high
degree of invariance between the two sets of evaluators; the
Performance 2 model did not.
While all studies have many interesting points, these two seemed to have clear applicability to things that many of us deal with every day. The fact that they have Kansas authors never hurts their local applicability. Of course, none of the researchers claimed to have final definitive answers, but both studies provoke some interesting questions. Of course, if you would like a more complete and accurrate picture of these studies, the full articles are all available, and the authors as well. I do hope you will check the full reports out so that you can judge for yourself what questions should be asked next.