Content uploaded by Sara Curran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sara Curran on May 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Doing More with Secondary School Music: Exploring Teachers’
Engagement in Two Integrative Mainstream-Special School Music
Projects
Sara Curran
University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract
Secondary school music curricula often alienate pupils because of the disjuncture between the latter’s
experiences of music outside and inside school. Moreover, music continues struggling for its place in secondary
schools. With an objective of expanding music educational thinking and increasing music’s relevance, parallel
case studies were used to explore, among other concepts, teachers’ engagement in two integrative secondary
mainstream-special school musical projects. Small’s concept of ‘musicking’ underpinned this research. In
exploring the notion of an inclusive form of musicking, achieved through the musical integration of secondary
mainstream and special school pupils, this paper outlines some of the hierarchical relationships in the projects
influencing participating teachers’ engagement. Mainstream and special school teachers’ sense of self-efficacy
was found to be important in enhancing or limiting the possible future application of similar integrative projects.
Suggestions for augmenting teachers’ self-efficacy and for future research in this under-researched field are
offered.
1. Introduction
Despite the increased inclusion of pupils with
special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in
UK mainstream classrooms, pupils with severe
learning difficulties (SLD) in special schools are still
largely excluded from working with their mainstream
peers. The participation of pupils with SLD in music
may be increased by providing opportunities for
them to work together with mainstream school pupils
on a music-based project, potentially also fostering
the latter’s understandings of learning difficulty. My
recently completed doctoral research explored two
mainstream-special school integrative music projects
in terms of the engagement of the teachers leading
each project (the ‘lead teachers’), the interaction
between mainstream and special school pupils, and
the feasibility of such projects in secondary schools.
Small’s concept of ‘musicking’ [1], which asserts the
centrality of ‘relationship’ in musical performance,
underpinned this research.
The projects themselves involved mainstream and
special school pupils working together for one hour a
week for ten weeks, and being taught by teachers
from both schools. This paper focuses upon the lead
teachers’ engagement with their respective projects,
found to be crucial in determining each project’s
perceived success. The research is set in context with
a brief review of mainstream and special school
music education and documented music-based
studies of mainstream and special school pupils
working together
2. Background
Mainstream secondary school music has long
been documented as problematic [2; 3]. Pupils often
engage willingly with music outside school but find
school music inauthentic or even boring [4]. Despite
a wide range of musics being introduced into the
formal curriculum, the inherent values of Western
‘classical’ traditions (underpinning much of trainee
music teachers’ education) are still promoted,
resulting in many pupils becoming alienated from
music in school [3]. Relatively few teachers engage
with popular or non-Western musics that more
closely reflect many of their future pupils’ musical
experiences and preferences [5]. While there is some
room for creativity, the requirement for
accountability across the secondary age range means
that teachers are under sustained pressure to
demonstrate pupil achievement [6], often through
improved levels of musical performance. The
auditioning and selection of pupils for school
concerts this often necessitates can leave some pupils
feeling inadequate and unmusical [1].
In special schools music plays an important part
in the lives of most pupils [7], yet music education
for pupils with SLD is a largely invisible area in
terms of relevant research and literature [8]. Many
generalist teachers placed in charge of music in
special schools have little or no musical background
or qualification [7]; it is possible that such teachers
may, as do many generalist primary school teachers
[9], lack confidence in teaching music. Mainstream
teachers too, have their own concerns about teaching
pupils with SLD, with many lacking the knowledge
and understanding of how to match their instruction
to such pupils’ learning characteristics [10],
significantly limiting these pupils’ participation [11].
Although integration is closely linked with
participation [12], very little empirical research exists
on secondary school integrative music projects
involving pupils with SLD working with their
mainstream peers [13]. In 1992 Moger and Coates
reported briefly on such a project, which aimed at
greater involvement of special school pupils in their
local community and mainstream pupils’ increased
sensitivity towards their special school peers [14]. Its
brevity meant that it lacked much methodological
information. A much later study explored changes in
mainstream pupils’ perceptions of disability after
working musically with a group of special school
pupils with SLD [15]. Otherwise, performing arts
projects aiming at fostering inclusion and examining
pupils’ changes in perception have involved drama
[16; 17] and dance [18], both included in Small’s
concept of musicking [1].
3. Music and musicking
Music is widely held to be beneficial for people
of all abilities, ample evidence existing to permit the
likelihood of universal musicality [19]. Every baby
in the womb experiences the rhythm of the maternal
heartbeat, of movement, and the musicality of its
mother’s voice [20]. For special school pupils
working with their mainstream peers, music thus
forms an accessible, fundamental channel of
communication, and a medium through which
meaning may be shared even where spoken language
is not possible [21]. School-based projects
incorporating music, musical performance and dance
(all encompassed within the concept of musicking)
can give pupils with SLD the opportunity to develop
their creative and artistic potential, both for their own
benefit and for the enrichment of society, advocated
by the United Nations [22].
Small considers music as something people do,
and his concept of musicking places performance
(including practice and rehearsing) and relationships
in pivotal roles when exploring, and analysing
different forms of music-making [1]. From a starting
point of universal musicality, the meanings of
making and doing music – what Small calls
musicking – are located both in the relationships
between the musical notes and within participants
‘ideal relationships’ as they imagine them to be
during performance [1]. The relationships are
described as ‘ideal’ because they are right for the
participants, as they themselves perceive them at the
specific time and place where the musicking
happens. ‘Ideal’ does not imply moral rightness here;
musicking is not inherently concerned with
valuation:
It is descriptive not prescriptive. It
covers all participation in a musical
performance, whether it takes place
actively or passively, whether we like
the way it happens or whether we do
not…[1].
Small attaches great importance to gesture in the
articulation and consideration of interpersonal
relationships, making musicking an apposite
framework for the analysis of teachers’ engagement
with work, colleagues and pupils, where several
pupils’ use of verbal language was either limited or
absent.
4. Methodology
Following ethical review, two partnerships,
Project A and Project B (involving four schools)
were arranged. Project A consisted of a co-located
mainstream and special school, while Project B’s
schools were separated by a distance of three miles.
Project B’s teachers had never met; those in Project
A had worked together previously on a short (three
hour) music workshop. Both projects’ mainstream
lead teachers were music specialists, with the special
school teachers having some musical experience but
no formal musical training. Qualitative interpretive
case studies incorporating ethnographic and narrative
elements were conducted in parallel over one year,
with the study being divided into three phases.
Before the projects (Phase 1), video-recorded
observations of ‘regular’ music lessons in the
individual project schools were carried out each
week over a period of ten weeks. During the projects
(Phase 2), a further ten weekly video-recorded
observations of project sessions were carried out.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with
lead teachers before, during, and after the projects
(Phases 1-3). This enabled comparison of the
teachers’ practice as they worked in their individual
schools in ‘regular’ music lessons, prepared for the
project, and worked together in the projects
themselves. Phase 3 allowed teachers to reflect upon
their project and validate their responses to the
research findings. The mainstream and special
school lead teachers in each project chose its
content, and planned and led project sessions, each
one of which was considered as a musical
performance. Data obtained from the above methods
were considered together with those obtained from
support staff interviews, pupil interviews and focus
groups, obtaining a triangulated picture of the
projects from several perspectives.
Table 1. Project content
4.1. Engagement
Teachers’ cognitive engagement was reflected by
their willingness and motivation to exert the effort to
master new skills [23] and their behavioural
engagement, by effort, participation, and sociable
collegial and teacher-pupil relationships [24].
Teachers’ emotional engagement was demonstrated by
their affective ties with others, and their attitudes
towards, interest in and commitment to their
respective projects [25]. Potentially, these components
differed in intensity and duration.
4.2. Data collection
Video-recorded classroom observations permitted
repeated review of the project sessions and enabled
the capture of important non-verbal (gestural) data in
context. The amount of textual data, including field
notes from classroom observations and interviews,
was extensive. To facilitate data management, NVivo
qualitative data analysis software was used [26].
Textual data were coded (‘tagged’ with coding
references) in three stages. The first coding stage used
codes derived directly from the data and from Small’s
musicking framework. The second and third stages
increasingly categorised these references into themes
as they emerged from the findings.
5. Findings
The number of coding references describing each
lead teacher’s observed cognitive, behavioural and
emotional engagement during their respective
projects provided a strong indication of the nature of
their engagement. These coding references were then
associated with the criteria described in section 4.1
(above). A brief summary of these findings is shown
in Table 2. It indicates how Project A’s mainstream
lead teacher retained her focus on assessment for her
own pupils in project sessions and saw music
specialist training as important in such projects
(reflected to some extent by her special school
colleague). Both Project B’s lead teachers showed
high expectations of all pupils’ behaviour, were more
autonomous in taking responsibility for project
planning and activities and were clear in directing
these. They viewed musical training as less
important.
A: Integrated whole class and group work (percussion, singing, rap and
keyboards) involved pupils learning and practising a popular hip-hop song
based on Pachelbel's Canon in D. Teaching approaches used a 'rehearsal
model,' aiming at correct notes and timings.
B:Pupils worked in integrated groups incorporating music technology,
dance, percussion, songwriting and sign language, practising group
performances. Project sessions began with whole class singing and signing,
ending with groups sharing their work.
Table 2. Lead teachers’ cognitive engagement, Phase 2
Table 3 shows that Project B’s lead teachers
worked well as a team and were more alert to what
was happening around them in project sessions,
dealing quickly with situations as they arose. Both
projects’ special school lead teachers were generally
more proactive in project sessions in addressing
pupils’ needs. Project B’s mainstream lead teacher not
only modelled positive behaviour for pupils in project
sessions but also cultivated open, dialogic
relationships with pupils and colleagues.
Table 3. Lead teachers’ behavioural engagement, Phase 2
Table 4, below, indicates the lead teachers’
emotional engagement. There are clear differences
between the two projects in terms of the lead teachers’
observed passion for their subjects (music and SEND),
in conveying appreciation to all pupils for effort,
achievement, and their attitude towards the project.
This fostered a generally positive affect in the whole
project. The coding reference, ‘Respect’, refers to
teachers’ use of this word to pupils in class and in their
interviews, where they referred positively to their
partner school colleague’s specialist knowledge and
expertise. It thus indicated not only respect but also
appreciation.
Table 4. Lead teachers’ emotional engagement, Phase 2
6. Discussion
Small [1] states that ‘…somebody’s values are
being explored, affirmed, and celebrated in every
musical performance, at any time, anywhere.’ This
school-based study inherently involved power
relationships between teachers and pupils. Several
other hierarchies influencing each lead teachers’
engagement became apparent within each project as
each teacher’s ideas, attitudes and professional
practice reflected her values concerning music
LEAD TEACHER
and PROJECT
Focus on
assessment in
teaching
Accepts/
assumes
responsibility
Clarity
Importance of
music specialist
High expectations
of pupils
special school A 3 2 0 8 0
mainstream school A 19 2 1 27 1
special school B 0 7 18 0 3
mainstream school B 0 13 12 0 5
Number of coding references
Number of coding references
LEAD TEACHER
and PROJECT
Working together
well
Proactivity
More alert to
context
Relationships:
openness
Relationships:
positive
Modelling
positive
behaviour
special school A 2 11 1 2 6 0
mainstream school A 0 4 3 2 0 2
special school B 8 12 7 7 9 5
mainstream school B 8 6 25 12 13 12
LEAD TEACHER
and PROJECT
Conveying
appreciation
Passion for
subject
Positive
affect Positive attitude Respect
special school A 0 1 6 0 0
mainstream school A 2 0 10 1 0
special school B 20 12 19 6 9
mainstream school B 25 9 27 6 3
Number of coding references
education, and education generally. This notion of
hierarchy provided a way of associating teachers’
reconciliations of their inner values with the external
demands of accountability and the interpersonal
requirements of relationship. The hierarchies
discussed below include their prioritisation of
activities, and hierarchies of knowledge and of
curriculum.
Batt Rawden and DeNora [27] state that ‘music’s
affordances are constituted through the ways music
is framed or prepared for use’. In Project A,
approximately 20 minutes were spent on pre-project
preparation, and over three hours in Project B,
indicating the importance teachers attached to it.
While all teachers planned these preparation
sessions carefully, the time, empathy, and in
particular, humour, shown by Project B’s lead
teachers helped everyone taking part to work
together confidently. Staff seniority was also
significant. Project B’s special school lead teacher,
an assistant head teacher, was able to ensure that the
particular support staff she wanted to attend each
week could do so. Project A’s special school lead
teacher’s relatively junior status did not permit this.
It is well documented that music teachers’
identities fall on a continuum between
musician/performer and teacher. Project A’s
mainstream lead teacher classed herself as a music
specialist and her special school partner as a non-
music specialist, establishing an unequal power
relationship within a project that the mainstream
teacher considered as defined by its musical nature.
Her special school partner appeared to accept this,
and remarkably, never mentioned her own specialist
ability. Implicitly this not only diminished its status,
but also her own perceptions of her ability (self-
efficacy, described by Bandura [28] to contribute
musically to Project A. In this way, subject
specialism was prioritised over pupils’ wider
educational and social development. In contrast,
Project B’s lead teachers saw curricular music’s
primary role as helping to increase pupils’
confidence and co-operation and for them, the
prioritisation of musical expertise did not arise.
Project A’s content was determined by its
mainstream school lead teacher who remained
primarily concerned for her own pupils’ musical
attainment throughout, then demonstrated by
National Curriculum levels: a form of hierarchy.
Project B’s mainstream lead teacher willingly laid
aside her regular way of working and its demands of
assessment in favour of a creative form of musicking
that privileged the importance of social relationships
among all pupils taking part. Unusually for a music
teacher, she was concerned with outcomes other
than musical ones:
[musical outcomes were] never for me the main goal
which was thinking about them working together,
breaking those barriers down and producing
something that the students were proud of.
Where forms of hierarchy were less visible or even
absent, notions of parity came to the fore. These were
articulated strongly by Project B’s lead teachers in
their collegial equality. There was a parity of effort,
similar levels of engagement, and a sense of ‘give and
take’ as they worked during their project. Project B
featured far fewer instances of apparent hierarchy than
did Project A, whose teachers not only appreciated
one another’s expertise but also the constraints they
were working within. Importantly, they treated each
other’s pupils as equals.
7. Conclusion
The power relations described above need to be
addressed through the fostering of mainstream
teachers’ willingness and ability to see pupils with
SLD (and their own music educational practice)
differently. Certain characteristics in teachers from
both settings may need development for them to
participate actively in similar projects. Addressing
mainstream teachers’ concerns about implementing
inclusive practice is crucial in developing their sense
of self-efficacy, which strongly influences their
engagement not only in such projects but also all their
teaching.
Further research is required to determine the most
effective way to develop such characteristics as self-
efficacy when teaching pupils with diverse abilities or
those whose learning needs are unfamiliar.
Mainstream-special school teacher’s partnerships may
enhance generalist specialist school teachers’
confidence and self-efficacy beliefs in teaching music
in the context of music-based integrative projects.
Similarly, mainstream music teachers’ perceptions of
their abilities to work with pupils with SLD may also
be addressed in this way. Their comfort levels in
working with such pupils can be increased through
appropriate training and practical work with such
pupils. While integrative projects demand
considerable confidence in participating teachers, they
should not be ignored or laid aside because of the
challenges they undoubtedly pose. The obstacles are
not insurmountable, given teachers’ willingness to try.
References
1. C. Small, Musicking: the meanings of performing and listen-
ing. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT., 1998.
2. L. Green, Music, informal learning and the school: a new
classroom pedagogy. Ashgate, Aldershot, 2008.
3. G. Spruce and F. Matthews, “Musical ideologies, practices
and pedagogies: addressing pupil alienation through a praxial
approach to the music curriculum.” In Philpott, C. and Spruce,
G. (eds.) Debates in Music Teaching, Routledge, London,
2012, pp. 118-134.
4. S. Curran, Towards inclusion in and through music: an
exploratory study of secondary school student and staff
attitudes towards school music and collaborative working
between mainstream and special school peers. Master’s
dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2011.
5. G.F. Welch, R. Purves, D.J. Hargreaves et al., “Reflections
on the Teacher Identities in Music Education [TIME] Project”,
Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 2010, 9(2),
pp. 11-32.
6. D. Brady, “Prologue: rethinking assessment in music.” In
Finney, J. and Laurence, F. (eds.) Masterclass in Music
Education: transforming teaching and learning. Bloomsbury
Academic, London, 2013, pp. xxi –xxx.
7. G.F. Welch, A. Ockelford and S. Zimmerman, Provision of
Music in Special Education (‘PROMISE’), Institute of
Education and Royal National Institute of the Blind, London,
2001.
8. A. Ockelford, Music for children and young people with
complex needs. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
9. Z. Bremner, “Transforming an ‘unmusical’ primary teacher
into confident musician: a case of personal narrative enquiry”,
In Finney, J. and Laurence, F. (eds.) Masterclass in Music
Education: transforming teaching and learning. Bloomsbury
Academic, London, 2013, pp. 79-87.
10. B. G. Cook, “A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward
their included students with mild and severe disabilities”. The
Journal of Special Education, 2001, 34(4), pp. 203-213.
11. S. Lindsay and A. C. McPherson, “Experiences of social
exclusion and bullying at school among children and youth
with cerebral palsy”, Disability and Rehabilitation, 2012,
34(2), pp. 101-109.
12. T. Booth, Special biographies, Open University Press,
Milton Keynes, 1982.
13. S. Beveridge, “Experiences of an integration link scheme:
the perspectives of pupils with severe learning difficulties and
their mainstream peers”, British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 1996, 24, pp. 9-19.
14. M. Moger and P. Coates, “Why integration matters: a
report on the partnership between a special school and a
comprehensive school”, Links, 1992, 17(2), pp. 8-10.
15. S. Curran, “A whole new perspective’: a case study of a
collaborative music project between a mainstream and a
special school”, Master’s dissertation, Newcastle upon Tyne,
University of Newcastle.
16. T. Whitehurst and A. Howells, “ ‘When something is
different people fear it’: children’s perceptions of an arts-based
inclusion project”, Support for Learning, 2006, 21(1), pp. 40-
44.
17. A. Kempe and C. Tissot, “The use of drama to teach
social skills in a special school setting for students with
autism”, Support for Learning, 2012, 27(3), pp. 97-102.
18. M. R. Zitomer and G. Reid, G. (2011) “To be or not to
be – able to dance: integrated dance and children’s
perceptions of dance ability and disability”, Research in
Dance Education, 2011, 12(2), pp. 137-156.
19. J. Blacking, How musical is man? University of
Washington Press, Washington, 1974.
20. C. Trevarthen, “Origins of musical identity: evidence
from infancy for musical social awareness”, In MacDonald,
R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J. and Miell, D. (eds.) Musical
identities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
21. R.A.R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves and D. Miell,
(eds.) Musical identities, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2002.
22. United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities [online], available from:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.sh
tml [Accessed 24 October 2015], 2006.
23. M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation: theory, research and
applications, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2000.
24. H. M. Marks, (2000) Student engagement in
instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle,
and high school years, American Educational Research
Journal, 2000, 37(1), pp. 153-184.
25. J. D. Willms, Student engagement at school: a sense of
belonging and participation, results from PISA 2000,
OECD, Paris, 2003.
26. QSR International, NVivo 10 for Windows
[online],avail- able from:
http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx
[Accessed 24 October, 2015], 2015.
27. K. Batt-Rawden and T. Denora, “Music and informal
learning in everyday life”, Music Education Research, 2005,
7(3), pp. 289-304
28. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: the exercise of control,
Freeman, New York, 1997.
