University of Connecticut University of Connecticut

Digital Commons @ UConn Digital Commons @ UConn

Honors Scholar Theses Honors Scholar Program

Spring 4-26-2024

Early Career Teachers’ Readiness to Teach Students with Early Career Teachers’ Readiness to Teach Students with

Exceptionalities Exceptionalities

Delaney Schiefen

delaney[email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses

Early Career Teachers’ Readiness to Teach Students with Exceptionalities

Delaney Schiefen

Honors Thesis

Dr. Cara Bernard, Thesis Supervisor

April 26, 2024

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Cara Bernard, for guiding me through the

process of conducting my first research study. Her dedication toward helping me, and countless

not for the mentorship of Dr. Jamie Spillane, who has been pivotal in my development as a

conductor, musician, and leader. This study was made possible by the nine music educators who

participated in the focus groups; I am extremely appreciative for the time and knowledge that

they contributed to this study, and for the valuable experiences that they provide for their

students daily. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues who have

continuously supported me throughout my musical and educational journey; I would not be

nearly the person I am today without you, and I am forever grateful for you.

Abstract

Over the past decade, the majority of music educators in the U.S. have reported working

with students with exceptionalities (VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014). However, literature suggests

ways in which they apply salient aspects of exceptionality in their curriculum and instruction.

Data was collected through focus group discussions with music educators in their first five years

of teaching. Findings suggest that music educators feel more comfortable supporting students

with exceptionalities in certain (non-ensemble) types of music courses; developing a language

and toolkit to advocate for exceptional students is imperative for support; strategies for engaging

exceptional learners in music classes may not work for all exceptional students; and that they did

not feel adequately prepared by their exceptionality courses to work with exceptional

populations. Participants’ commentaries on their undergraduate and in-service experiences

provided perspective on how preservice music educators may more effectively be prepared to

teach students with exceptionalities.

Chapter I

Introduction

Background/Narrative

shared the sentiment that the class did not quite cater toward the environments in which we will

be teaching.

The Exceptionality course gathered preservice teachers from all content areas. The music

education cohort was grouped in a class with education majors from across disciplines, so this

class needed to cater to a variety of classroom settings. Our professor was a former public school

teacher; though she had minimal experience in music classes. Despite her efforts to supplement

her knowledge in how exceptional students function in music classes, her understanding could

never reach the thorough level of an in-service music teacher who has made music with students.

Therefore, when the semester ended, my classmates and I were left with more questions than

answers regarding how to best include, educate, and engage exceptional students. This was the

Luckily, as aforementioned, I have several years of firsthand experience engaging with

exceptional students that have deepened my understanding of how to best serve them in music

classes. When I volunteered with TOPSoccer, I was paired with a different athlete each fall and

many talks about his music class, and he shares how he participates in ensemble classes using his

iPad and a kazoo. These positive musical learning experiences make me happy, but I know that

this is not the case for all students.

Additionally, my high school had a program for exceptional students whose challenges

made it difficult for them to participate in the typical classroom setting. These students

completed coursework separately for most of the day, but sang alongside peers in our Concert

Choir. Many of these students vocalized to my peers and I how much they enjoyed making music

with friends, and how proud they felt to take part in a performing ensemble. I knew in high

school that I wanted to be a music teacher, so through that lens, I noticed how their social and

behavioral skills developed throughout the year, in addition to their musical abilities, including

importance of equitable practices for teaching diverse students through examination of literature

by Ladson-Billings (2006), Kelly-McHale (2018), and Salvador & Kelly-McHale (2017).

However, there seemed to be a disconnect between these values and the takeaways from my

teach students with exceptionalities, and gather the ways in which they apply salient aspects of

exceptionality in their curriculum and instruction.

Research Questions

The following questions guided this study:

1. What topics and aspects do early career music educators consider the most

important to be taught in an exceptionality course?

2. In what ways do early career music teachers utilize knowledge from their

exceptionalities courses in their planning and instruction?

contexts; and, importantly, (4) hire teachers with disabilities. Such goals may help to push

beyond a deficit model of disability and lessen the marginalization of exceptional students.

Disability and Exceptionality in K-12 Practice

and enabled students to create music using a tablet/laptop, eye movement tracking, and more.

The flexibility of the technology to cater toward varied, individual needs allowed more students

to engage with music in school. Both parents and teachers expressed how positively the students

responded to these technologies.

A 2013 study conducted by Abramo showed how teachers in a school for the blind have

adapted their teaching to make musical experiences more accessible for vision-impaired students.

Several students shared with the researcher how when they attended public school, insufficient

accommodations were made for them in the music class. As a result, they were teased and fell

behind in their schoolwork. One specific instance of this was when they were given scores with

enlarged text and expected to make further accommodations on their own (p. 17). At the school

focus on students’ strengths, the educators focused on building a valuable component of musical

ability while effectively promoting learning and engagement (Abramo, 2015). These educators’

understanding of the environment’s role in creating disability reflects the social model of

person comes before the label” (e.g. “child with autism” rather than “autistic child”) (Abramo,

2012, p. 42). Abramo acknowledged that some disability-rights advocates actually prefer

disability-first language because it is less wordy, but he personally supports person-first language

because of the way it places the emphasis on the individual (who has a condition) rather than

solely their diagnosis. Educators should be aware of their language and how using either

person-first or disability-first language may affect an exceptional individual’s self-esteem and the

first impressions that others might make of them. Additionally, learning by ear is an excellent

way of how teachers can be more inclusive for vision-impaired students in mainstream classes.

Although the use of aural skills was previously mentioned in this literature review for its use in a

school for the blind (Abramo, 2013), varied methods of teaching repertoire can be used in any

that size. Especially in high school, these classes may span all four grades present in the school.

The large class size, wide age range, presence of instruments, seating charts, and more pose

challenges to music educators, particularly when trying to abide by IEPs and best serve students

student’s participatory music experience versus the final musical product? This can be especially

pertinent when deciding how to best engage students with exceptionalities.

In order to carry out the research questions, I employed a qualitative focus group study,

be taught in an exceptionality course?

course in their planning and instruction?

Participants

I used purposeful sampling (Glesne, 2016) to solicit participation. To begin the sampling

process, I sent an email to music teachers who graduated their undergraduate music education

programs in the past five years, and are currently in their first five years of teaching. The email

included a note from myself and Dr. Cara Bernard, my thesis supervisor and an Associate

Professor of Music Education at the University of Connecticut in the Neag School of Education,

All focus group participants were recent graduates of the University of Connecticut’s

Neag School of Education who were in their first five years of teaching music in public schools.

The participants all completed the five-year Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s program, which

Table 1

Data Collection

The primary data source was semi-structured focus groups (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Morgan (1996) described how focus groups are especially beneficial when the researcher and

since the educators who participated have gained teaching experiences that I do not yet have. It

current and former jobs (students’ age, courses taught, etc.); information about teaching

students with exceptionalities; information on their undergraduate courses and engagements

with exceptionality; and questions or recommendations for the future. Focus groups were held

in three, one-hour sessions via Zoom and in a one month time span in early 2024. Each focus

group was recorded for transcription purposes, transcribed, and participants were given

opportunities to comment upon and/or verify their statements.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data gathered in focus groups, I used an online program to transcribe

recordings of the Zoom meetings and printed each transcription. I used color-coded highlighters

to highlight key phrases and ideas that related to the research and interview questions, and used a

common themes, thought-provoking ideas, and quotes from educators, many of which are

included in Chapter IV of this thesis. From this master list of data, I began categorizing ideas by

recurring themes more directly related to the research questions (Saldaña, 2013). I engaged in

Findings

Analysis of participants’ focus group responses yielded four main themes surrounding

with students with exceptionalities. Lydia furthered that while “there’s valuable stuff in every

[school of education] course we took,” Connor framed the exceptionality course as “a very

well-intentioned class that missed the mark on most things.” It is important to note that several of

the focus group participants took their undergraduate exceptionality course via Zoom during the

COVID-19 pandemic, which participants attested that this format automatically created a

learning barrier. Anthony commented on this saying that he “felt like [the class] was a waste of

time, not because of the content, but because of the Zoom nature of it.”

Connor found it detrimental that “outside of that one class, we never touched

[exceptionality] anywhere else.” Jasmine shared that she “really [wished] in undergrad, there was

more than one course on it.” One gap she felt was that she “didn’t know enough about the

felt that it would have been beneficial to “directly apply it to student teaching or internship…just

having some opportunity to really dive into it.” He said that it “would have been nice to get more

feedback on, like, ‘hey, this is how I work with this student of exceptionality. How would you go

preservice teachers, drawing from all content areas. So, the music education majors had class

with elementary, social studies, English, world language, science, and math preservice teachers.

Most focus group participants agreed that it was difficult being in the same class as education

majors with other focuses, for the scenarios and strategies discussed in class were not always

applicable to music classes, especially large ensemble settings. Alex agreed that “in general,

because we had all the contents in one space, the [school of education] courses…there wasn’t a

lot of direct application to music.” Mark reaffirmed that there “wasn’t a ton of how to include it

in music.” However, he mentioned, “our cohort was there, so we were ourselves able to have

those conversations.” Lydia agreed, saying:

We had to figure out ways to puzzle pieces together to be relevant…we always had a lot

that the music cohort utilized when answering the questions that this class created from its

exclusion of music examples. Mary reiterated this idea, saying, “even though we might not have

been the most prepared as preservice teachers, it kind of was a springboard into, ‘well, I’m going

address “unless the whole style of the class changed.”

Mary further explored this idea, commenting on how the “big lecture” setting of the class

was not ideal for engaging with the content that the class explored. The big lecture setting was

more conducive to memorization than application; Anthony said, “it just kind of felt like ‘you

need to memorize these facts, then you need to be able to regurgitate them on a test or in a

paper.’” Miles agreed, saying, “I don’t think it had any true meaning to me, even though I knew

it was important.” According to Alex, “it was just a lot of theory and jargon” and “not a lot of

putting into practice, or a clinical application.” Focus group participants seemed to agree with

Mary’s feeling that a “smaller environment with more practical learning” would have allowed

students to further consider “what that looks like in music specifically.” Lydia wished for more

can also read music,” saying that it “really stresses a lot of those kids out” and makes them “so

frustrated that they can’t communicate.” On the whole, the educators were tremendously

appreciative of paraprofessionals and the perspective they provide on the students they work

than how you would talk to a student with autism.” Jasmine felt that this nuance is rooted in

understanding the differences between the disabilities themselves, but as a first-year teacher, she

lacked this understanding and was therefore disadvantaged when interacting with exceptional

students. Since then, she has focused on “little tweaks that [she] can make in her own language”

that help convey her ideas to exceptional students more effectively.

One gap that many focus group participants identified was a disconnect in music

teachers’ understanding of how IEPs and discussion of exceptional students’ needs can be

directly applied to their music classes. Lydia wished she “had more practice in those

conversations…to translate for what [she] needed.” Alex and Lydia both mentioned how music

teachers participate in IEP forms but are rarely invited to participate in IEP meetings; advocating

Strategies for Engaging Exceptional Learners in Music Classes

Each early career teacher who participated in the focus group had unique experiences and

preferred strategies for teaching exceptional students, but they all shared the same sentiment, as

exceptional students. Henry felt that “it is so, so, so important to try and establish relationships

with the students early on.” Lydia said that she also tries to “really get to know [her] kids as best

as [she] can, as quick as [she] can.” Jasmine emphasized that in addition to getting to know

students, it is highly beneficial to involve students in the process of developing accommodations,

saying that “it is their own educational experience.” She explained that this has made the process

of developing accommodations easier because the student was able to voice their strengths,

weaknesses, and concerns, as well as give input on how to best move forward in the class.

Although both Lydia and Jasmine teach middle school band, all teachers in the focus groups

nodded their heads and reaffirmed these ideas that the two shared.

Another common strategy that participants contributed was utilizing the exceptional

for his middle school ensembles, although his pairings usually span just a specific activity or

lesson rather than long-term seating. He mentioned that this helps him as an educator:

When I have nine violins in a room, and I’m trying to solve as many problems at once,

saying that she’s “never had to prompt a student” to help out a peer; they naturally engage. Mary

said that “sometimes students just need to be explicitly taught how to interact in an appropriate

and fair way to students with special needs,” but that “on the whole, they’re pretty naturally

empathetic and nurturing and caring and helpful.” Lydia feels that “it would be harder to teach

without students of different ability levels because…it gets twice the work done and it builds

community faster than anything else.”

Focus group participants generally agreed that in addition to their students, other staff in

the building served as tremendous resources. Although a few participants, including Lydia,

shared how supportive their administration is, most agreed that the special education teachers are

a more valuable resource. Anthony stated, “talk to your special education teacher, they are your

time with the kid than the admin does. They have better resources, they have better tricks to help

you through those classes.” Connor expanded from Mark’s thought, saying that he also goes to

the general music teacher at his school, saying, “look, you’ve had this fifth grader for four and a

allowing students to come with a fidget, utilize flexible seating options, and the use of earmuffs

to prevent overstimulation from sound.

Much of the conversation surrounding strategies for teaching exceptional students

focused around differentiation, especially in the third focus group. Jasmine discussed how she

utilizes a “tiered system” for differentiation in her general music classes. She modifies both

worksheets and performance-based activities. She described an example of possible

differentiation in band for a student who isn’t able to read music right away, suggesting that they

could “keep a steady beat or work on a simple beat pattern while the rest of the kids do what’s

actually written.” Anthony echoed Jasmine’s sentiment, saying that he also produces “slightly

reduced versions” of assignments, which works great for some students, but not always for

provides some challenge opportunities for those students that maybe the target level was a little

bit too easy for.” Jasmine also incorporates these varied levels of differentiation in her teaching,

saying that differentiation can go “either way.” Henry explained that this tiered system may be

provided a good access point for the student to participate. Connor discussed how he often keeps

the same end goals for each student, but acknowledges that the learning process is different. He

said that motor impairments do not “mean you can’t learn your D major scale, just means you

might need a little more steps to break it up, or you might need to sequence it in a slightly

different way.” Similarly, he shifts focus away from technique beyond the basics, and toward

concert repertoire as he helps exceptional students prepare for band concerts. He described how

he spends a lot of time going over note names and does not mind if students write the note names

in, saying, “I would rather they play on the concert with their note names written in then not

playing the concert but have a perfect trombone hold.” Connor summed up his views on

differentiation by saying that “there are things that you can do and have little tricks of the trade,

Participants did not hesitate to share stories of their successes and challenges, which reinforced

this idea. Lydia described a one-on-one situation with an exceptional student where she did not

“have any time to think” and did not “have a good plan,” so she said to herself, “I don’t know

thoughts on how they could have perhaps been more prepared during their undergraduate

education.

Chapter V

Discussion

Chapter IV presented the data in themes. In this Discussion chapter, I will interpret the

students themselves. Such a framing might align with a medical model of disability, where

disabilities are posed as abnormalities and inherent issues rather than a product of one’s

environment (Abramo, 2012). Participants wished that instead of presenting this content

abstractly, the course instead would have given ample opportunities to engage with these ideas in

a practical setting. This would have reflected a social model of disability, for educators would

have been able to draw connections between how an environment imposes disability for

individuals with impairments (Abramo, 2012). The participants’ shared notion of under

preparation aligns with much of the literature that suggests that preservice teachers need a more

robust education on how to best teach students with exceptionalities (Colwell & Thompson,

2000; Grimsby, 2020; Heller, 1994; Hourigan, 2007a; Hourigan, 2007b). Several of the

the addition of a course that occurred later in the degree sequence, ideally when preservice

teachers were working with students more regularly. He felt as though this would allow for more

immediate practical application of knowledge learned in the course, thus making the entire

(2018) explained how direct contact with students with exceptionalities tends to yield more

positive attitudes toward diversity and inclusion amongst teachers, both preservice and

in-service. Yet another suggestion was the addition of a course titled “Exceptionality for Music

Educators.” This course would be taught by music educators and thus able to include more

specific knowledge and scenarios that were applicable to the wide array of class settings and

modalities that music educators teach (Colwell & Thompson, 2000).

Although additional exceptionality courses could undoubtedly benefit preservice

teachers, there are obstacles that administrators come across when trying to establish new

courses. Music education majors already take far more credits than the average college student,

and adding a new course to their plan of study might result in the dissolution of another required

incidents, the preservice teachers were rarely given the opportunity to put themselves in those

scenarios. Participants agreed that it would have been beneficial for them to develop solutions on

their own before hearing what the professor or teachers in the video had to say about it.

Several educators expressed that more of an emphasis on language in their exceptionality

course would have been beneficial. This includes how to communicate with exceptional students

as well as what language to use when discussing exceptionality with other students, special

education teachers and support staff, and other colleagues. Participants expressed that they or

their peers felt uncomfortable talking about exceptionality because they were scared of using the

wrong terminology or accidentally saying something offensive. Based on this sentiment, it would

be helpful for undergraduate exceptionality courses to include discussion on person-first

language. Person-first language means that “in the construction of a sentence, the person comes

before the label” (Abramo, 2012, p. 42). For example, one would say “child with autism” rather

than “autistic child.” Many scholars feel that this language is more humanizing and respectful for

2012). In doing so, educators will comprehend how inaccessible environments create disabilities

for individuals with impairments rather than the other way around. With this mindset, they can

make adjustments to their curriculum, classroom, and teaching practices that reinforce equity and

productive dialogue to occur surrounding how to best serve their classes of diverse learners.

One of the most prevalent themes expressed in the focus groups, which is supported by

literature in Chapter II, is that exceptionality courses for preservice teachers are not always

directly applicable to music educators (Colwell & Thompson, 2000; Grimsby, 2020). Participants

shared that examples given in class were hard to translate to the diverse environments that music

educators work in, particularly ensemble settings. They were placed in classes with elementary,

social studies, English, world language, science, and math preservice teachers, so questions

asked during class typically centered around the more traditional classroom environments that

these preservice teachers would find themselves in. They also felt that it was detrimental to their

preparation to teach exceptional learners that the course was taught by professionals with no

be valuable in addressing Research Question 2 and exploring strategies for engaging exceptional

learners. Future research could include participants who have a wider variance in age to account

for all levels of experience.

References

Abramo, J. M. (2012). Disability in the classroom: Current trends and impacts on music

education. Music Educators Journal, 99(1), 39-45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115571367

Alvarez McHatton, P., & Vallice, R. (2014). Exceptional student education. Utilizing the arts to

facilitate inclusive environments. In B. C. Cruz, C. R. Ellerbrock, A. Vásquez, & E. V.

Howes (Eds.), Talking diversity with teachers and teacher educators. Exercises and

critical conversations across the curriculum (pp. 172–188). Teachers College Press.

Arnersen, A. L., Hadzhitheodoulou-Loizidou, P., Bîrzéa, C., Essomba, M. A., & Allan, J.

(2009). Policies and practices for teaching sociocultural diversity: Concepts, principles

and challenges in teacher education. Council of Europe Publishing.

Ballantyne, J., & Mills, C. (2008). Promoting socially just and inclusive teacher education:

Exploring perceptions of early career teachers. Research Studies in Music Education,

and typically developing peers: A systematic review. Journal of Music Therapy, 49(3),

335-364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/49.3.335

Camlin, D. (2015). Whose quality is it anyway? Journal of Arts & Communities, 6(2-3), 99-118.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/37.3.205

Darrow, A. A. (2015). Ableism and social justice: Rethinking disability in music education. In:

C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, G. Spruce, & P. Woodford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

social justice in music education (pp. 204–220). Oxford University Press.

Dobbs, T. (2012). A critical analysis of disabilities discourse in the Journal of Research in Music

Education, 1990–2011. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 194,

7–30. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.194.0007

Draper, E. A. (2023). Let’s play: Including students with disabilities in ensembles. Journal of

General Music Education, 37(1), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527646231188084

Fleischer, D. J., & Zames, F. (2001). The Disability Rights Movement: From

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson Education.

for music teachers and music teacher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(4),

174-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2011.592463

Heller, L. (1994). Undergraduate music teacher preparation for mainstreaming: A survey of

States (Publication No. 9524941) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University].

ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Hourigan, R (2007a). A special needs field experience for preservice instrumental music

educators. Contributions to Music Education, 34, 19-33.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24127256

Hourigan, R. (2007b). Preparing music teachers to teach students with special needs. Update:

politics and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of

qualitative research, Vol. 4 (pp. 545-561). Sage.

Kelly-McHale, J. (2018). Equity in music education: Exclusionary practices in music education.

Music Educators Journal, 104(3), 60-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117744755

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding

achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083427

Raponi, S. (2019). Learning differentiation in music education: Theory and practice (Publication

No. 22584571) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertation

Publishing.

Robinson, C. R., Belgrave, M. J., & Keown, D. J. (2018). Effects of disability type, task

complexity, and biased statements on undergraduate music majors’ inclusion decisions

for performance ensembles. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(2), 70-83.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083718811396

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.

Salvador, K., & Kelly-McHale, J. (2017). Music teacher educator perspectives on social justice.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(1), 6-24.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417690340

Smit, R. (2012). Towards a clearer understanding of student disadvantage in higher education:

Problematising deficit thinking. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3),

369-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.634383

https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083713484585

Appendix A: Participant Recruitment Letter

Greetings, former students and colleagues! Happy 2024!

I’m writing today with an invitation. One of our seniors, Delaney Schiefen, is embarking on a

research study to examine and describemusic teachers’ readiness to teach students with

exceptionality and would like you to participate.Delaney is interested in speaking with teachers

in their first five years of teaching who have worked with students with exceptionalities and the

ways in which they were prepared to do so. It is her hope that the participants’ view can be used

to develop recommendations and strategies for music teachers to engage students in their

classrooms.

Appendix B: Focus Group Protocol and Questions

b. How do they engage with repertoire? Peers?