Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mzica in Viata Oamenilor Descumpaniti
Mzica in Viata Oamenilor Descumpaniti
Education
http://upd.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Update: Applications of Research in Music Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://upd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://upd.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://upd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/1/33
Update
28(1) 3340
MENC: The National Association
for Music Education 2009
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/8755123309344327
http://update.sagepub.com
Patrick K. Freer1
Abstract
The purpose of the study reported in this article was to investigate the instructional discourse of two middle school
choral music teachers videotaped during a total of 24 classroom visits. The findings indicate that teacher attention to
complete sequential units of instruction (teacher presentation, student interaction, teacher feedback) may encourage the
employment of scaffolding language (language that supports student learning).A focus on scaffolding language corresponded
to a decrease in the completion of sequential units of instruction. Choral teachers seeking to foster a constructivistoriented rehearsal environment may find it advantageous to focus attention on the completion of sequential units of
instruction. Similarly, teachers of collegiate methods classes may wish to draw students attention to complete sequential
units as a precursor to exploring the application of constructivist theory to ensemble rehearsal technique.
Keywords
choral music, constructivism, instructional language, middle school, scaffolding, sequential units
Corresponding Author:
Patrick K. Freer, Georgia State University, School of Music, PO Box 4097,
Atlanta, GA 30302
Email: pfreer@gsu.edu
34
Update 28(1)
Conceptual Framework
A focal point of this study was a replication of the quantitative discourse analysis portion of a study of mathematics
instruction (Turner et al., 1998). The present study included
the categories of scaffolding and nonscaffolding instructional language employed in the mathematics study,
although the category names were slightly altered to reflect
instruction in music. Subcategories of scaffolding included
negotiation, transfer of responsibility, and task-focused
support. Subcategories of nonscaffolding language included
initiation-response-evaluation, procedures, and criticism/
coercion. The subcategory of procedures was further delineated by instructional procedures and logistical procedures.
Tables 1 and 2 contain definitions and excerpts from transcripts collected for this study. This categorization was
coupled with an analysis of the same instructional language
to identify complete sequential units of instruction (see
Table 3).
The present study was also a partial replication of previous research in music education (Freer, 2008). The earlier
study noted that as levels of scaffolding language increased
during middle school choral music instruction, there was a
corresponding increase in complete sequential units. Analysis
of the instructional language revealed the types of scaffolding language that were used within complete sequential
units, but it was unclear whether teachers were intentionally
using the language associated with scaffolding to complete
their sequential units or whether the act of completing
sequential units resulted in the greater employment of scaffolding language.
The present study was therefore designed to address the
remaining question: Does an increased focus on scaffolding language result in greater numbers of complete
sequential units of instruction, or does a teachers focus on
completing instructional units result in greater use of scaffolding language? Because research indicates that the two
language types occur in tandem, constructivist-oriented
ensemble teachers may find it simpler to focus attention
on just one type. Collegiate instructors may similarly find
it beneficial to emphasize the use of just one of these
instructional language types within their preservice methods classes.
35
Freer
Table 1. Distinguishing Characteristics of Scaffolding Discourse Categories
Code
Definition
Examples
Negotiation
Adjusting instruction in
response to students and
guiding them to deeper
understanding
TR
Transfer of responsibility
TFS
Task-focused support
Note: Scaffolding language is defined as language that assists students in the creation of their own knowledge and skills.
Subcategory of
Nonscaffolding Language
Definition
Examples
I-R-E
Initiation-responseevaluation
PI
Procedures (instructional)
PL
Procedures (logistical)
CC
Criticism/coercion
Note: Nonscaffolding language is defined as language indicating that authority for learning rests with the teacher.
and Linda. The teachers were of similar age, ethnic background, and socioeconomic status. Both teachers were
36
Update 28(1)
Presentation
Response
Reinforcement
Specifications
Must contain academic musical information or task
Must contain a single task (not a series of directions)
May include questions or prompts that relate to the academic or musical
task
May end with directions necessary to initiate student interaction with
the task (1, 2, ready, sing)
Must immediately follow the presentation without interruption
Can be expressed verbally (answering questions), nonverbally (adjusting
posture), or through musical production (singing or playing)
May occur immediately following the student interaction
May be delayed by further presentation-interaction activities only if the
intervening presentation-interaction activities are directly related to the initial
task
May be approving or disapproving
Simple feedback (good) may only be considered if clearly related to the
task
37
Freer
Table 4. Total Percentage of Categories of Language Use by
Teachers
Language Category
% Scaffolding total
% Negotiation
% Transfer
% Task-focused
support
% Nonscaffolding
total
% Initiation-response-
evaluation
% Procedures
(instructional)
% Procedures
(logistical)
% Criticism/coercion
# Language elements
coded
Juliea
Lindab
Phase II
4.87
0.18
3.61
1.08
12.70
2.86
5.08
4.76
11.20
0.66
8.12
2.41
12.19
5.14
4.60
2.79
95.13
87.30
88.80
87.81
18.77
13.81
24.48
33.81
8.48
15.40
9.44
17.18
61.55
46.51
53.13
34.80
6.32
554
11.59
630
1.76
911
2.06
681
38
Update 28(1)
Lindab
Phase I
Instructional Units
Seventh
Phase II
Eighth
Seventh
Eighth
Phase I
Seventh
Eighth
Phase II
Seventh
Eighth
10.67
2.08
6.67
5.69
Note: Many sequential units contained more than one occurrence of scaffolding language.
a. Received instruction about complete sequential units between Phases I and II.
b. Received instruction about scaffolding language between Phases I and II.
Language Category
Discussion
b
Julie
Linda
Presentation
Negotiation
Transfer
Task-Focused Support
-
5
2
3
28
9
16
15
3
Reinforcement
Negotiation
Transfer
Task-Focused Support
-
4
0
-
2
11
1
21
15
8
3
8
2
5
2
39
Freer
Table 7. Frequency of Scaffolding Language and Complete
Sequential Units by Rehearsal
Phase I
1
Rehearsal #
a
Julie, Grade 7
Occurrences of
scaffolding language
Complete sequential
units
Julie, Grade 8a
Occurrences of
scaffolding language
Complete sequential
units
Linda, Grade 7b
Occurrences of
scaffolding language
Complete sequential
units
Linda, Grade 8b
Occurrences of
scaffolding language
Complete sequential
units
6
3
3
23
11
17
11
13
8
3
4
18
3
11
Phase II
18
32
16
24
22
14
16
47
13
16
9
11
10
22
3
36
14
25
42
20
18
13
10
40
Update 28(1)
Financial Disclosure/Funding
Funding for this project was provided by a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant awarded by the Faculty Learning
Community at Georgia State University.
References
Arnold, J. A. (1995). Effects of competency-based methods of instruction and self-observation on ensemble directors use of sequential
patterns. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 127-138.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Miller-Buchannan, C.,
Reuman, D., Flanaghan, C., et al. (1993). Development during
adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young
adolescents experiences in schools and families. American
Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Freer, P. K. (2008). Teacher instructional language and student experience in middle school choral rehearsals. Music
Education Research, 10(1), 107-124.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society:
Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll
(Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications
and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review
of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hendel, C. E. (1995). Behavioral characteristics and instructional
patterns of selected music teachers. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 41, 182-203.
Maclin, J. P. (1993). The effect of task analysis on sequential
patterns of music instruction. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 41, 48-56.
Meyer, D. K. (1993). What is scaffolded instruction? Definitions,
distinguishing features, and misnomers. In D. J. Leu & C. K.
Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research,
theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National
Reading Conference (pp. 41-53). Chicago: National Reading
Conference.