Music Participation and Nonparticipation of Nonmajors on College Campuses

Council for Research in Music Education

Music Participation and Nonparticipation of Nonmajors on College CampusesAuthor(s): Roger Mantie and Jay DorfmanSource: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 200 (SPRING 2014), pp.41-62Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.200.0041 .

Accessed: 14/01/2015 14:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:27:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=crme

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.200.0041?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


41

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education © 2015 Board of Trustees Spring 2014 No. 200 University of Illinois

Music Participation and Nonparticipation of Nonmajors on College CampusesRoger Mantie Arizona State University Tempe, AZJay Dorfman Boston University Boston, MA

ABSTR ACTThe purpose of this study was to survey students on college (university) campuses to generate knowl-edge about music participation and nonparticipation by nonmajors in order to better inform school music practices. Volunteer research assistants (N = 24), located at multiple sites across the United States and beyond, assisted with the data-gathering process, which involved a short on-the-street survey of passersby. In addition to ascertaining participation and nonparticipation in music and possible relationships with selected variables (academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, musical instrument), the survey sought responses aimed at discerning reasons for participation and nonparticipation, and the likelihood of future participation. Results revealed a reported rate of participation in music ensembles of 14.6%, with an attrition rate of 75–80% for those citing high school music involvement. There were few significant relationships with selected variables, suggesting that college music participation is likely a phenomenon not reducible to isolated variables. The most frequently cited reason for nonparticipation among those with precollege experience was “I don’t have the time.” The highest-rated item among college music participants was “I love my instrument and/or I love singing.” Reported likelihood of future participation was significantly higher for cur-rent participants than for nonparticipants with precollege experience, but was not especially strong overall, raising the question of whether college music participation is viewed as a transition activity or as an indicator of lifelong participation in music.

You are really known for your school music, right, but it gets lost after that, doesn’t it?

—Welsh choir participant about music making in the United States (Rohwer & Rohwer, 2012)

A primary rationale for music in U.S. schools cited in professional literature from the 1930s to the 1970s was that school music learning should result in adult music production (i.e., making) (e.g., Brandenburg, 1946; Funchess, 1939; Haas, 1954;

BCRME_200.indd 41 12/15/14 1:20 PM



Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Spring 2014 No. 200

42

Tallmadge, 1941), not just consumption (i.e., listening). In a 1956 Music Educators Journal article entitled, “Participation after Graduation,” for example, the author jokes that a parent who has spent a considerable sum on an instrument that is no longer being played should be rightly suspicious when told reassuringly that school music had improved their daughter or son’s “appreciation” (Rea, 1956, p. 58). From the 1940s through the 1980s, the concept common to research into connections between school and adult musical activity was carry-over.1 Notwithstanding the music appreciation movement following the introduction of the phonograph and radio in the earlier part of the century and prior to its eventual eclipsing during the “aesthetic education” movement of the late twentieth century, the concept of carry-over serves as a reminder of a long-standing belief that the proof of school music’s success was to be measured not according to an individual’s developed sense of aesthetic appreciation, but according to the percentage of school music graduates whose musical learning “carried over” into adult life as singers or players. Although some researchers have examined explicit connections between school music activity and adult musical activity (e.g., Arasi, 2006; Bowring, 1952; Brown, 2012; Clothier, 1967; Falkner, 1957; Holmquist, 1995; Larson, 1983; Lawrence & Dachinger, 1967; Lonnberg, 1960; Mantie, 2012; Mantie & Tucker, 2008; Moder, 2013; Moore, Burland, & Davidson, 2003; Mountford, 1977; Neal, 1949; Ordway, 1964; Pitts, 2009, 2012; Stein, 1970; Turton & Durrant, 2002; Waggoner, 1971; Woody & Parker, 2012), much of this research is dated, narrow in scope, or lacking in theorization. Few contemporary researchers have followed the lead of these early stud-ies by attempting to explore and problematize the relationships between school music participation and postschooling participation in music. Among those who have, one of Arasi’s (2006) conclusions was that traditional performing ensembles might not provide the best experiences for encouraging lifelong involvement in music making. Similarly, Woody and Parker (2012) concluded that lifelong participation may depend on forms of musical identity not generally developed through school music. Commentators (Jones, 2009; Myers, 1992; Williams, 2007, 2011) have suggested that disparities between music making in school and later in life are attributable to the lack of musical agency developed in traditional school music programs and school music’s “distantia-tion from society” (Regelski, 2006; see also Kratus, 2007). School music need not be conceptualized and actualized on the basis of amateur, recreational music making of course, but strong arguments have been made that the lack of visible music making later in life only exacerbates what Reimer has called music education’s crisis of irrelevancy (as cited in Myers, 2008a; see also Myers, 2008b; Regelski, 2005, 2006, 2007).2

In order to better inform school music practices and expand conceptions of music teacher education (Kerchner & Abril, 2012), more research is needed that considers the musical interests and perceived needs of adults of all ages, and the nature of the “carry-over” relationships between school music participation and postschooling musical activ-ity. Given this concern, the focus of this study was on the early adult years immediately

BCRME_200.indd 42 12/15/14 1:20 PM



43

Mantie, Dorfman Participation and Nonparticipation of Nonmajors

following grade 12 graduation (emerging adulthood), a time in life when most people first exercise independent choices about how to spend their leisure time. Specifically, it involved surveying college students (nonmusic majors)3 about their musical activities. Following the findings of Elpus and Abril (2011) that some segments of the population are underrepresented in school music programs (see also Wang, 2009), and the findings of Stuber (2009) that collegiate extra-curricular activities are often a reflection of social class, this study also sought to take note of the social variables of gender, race/ethnicity, and academic major in addition to the variables of academic year and musical instrument.

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUEST IONSThe purpose of this study was to survey students on college (university) campuses in order to generate knowledge about music participation and nonparticipation by non-majors. The research questions were (1) What rates of participation in avocational music making exist on college campuses, and how do these relate to precollege involvement? (2) What relationships exist between participation/nonparticipation and the variables of academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, and instrument? (3) What reasons are given for participation and nonparticipation? (4) How likely do participants feel they are to be musically active in the future (i.e., beyond college graduation)?

HISTOR ICAL AND THEORET ICAL PERSPECT IVESIn The Inquiring Mind, Houle (1961) provided a three-fold typology, supported by subsequent research (e.g., Boshier, 1971; Boshier & Collins, 1983, 1985), of adult avocational interests (goal-oriented, activity-oriented, learning-oriented) that has con-tinued to inform several fields, in particular adult education. Houle’s typology suggests the possibility that learning for learning’s sake may be a factor in some adult musical participation, as several researchers of adult music making claim or imply (e.g., Boswell, 1992; Busch, 2005; Dabback, 2007; Gilbert & Beal, 1982; Robertson, 1992; Rohwer & Rohwer, 2009; Roulston, 2010; Tsugawa, 2009; Wilhjelm, 1998). Similarly, Bowles and Jensen (2012) have recently argued for the obligation of music units in higher edu-cation to continue to provide professional leadership in music education for nonmusic majors based on the idea that formal music learning opportunities should not stop at the secondary level. However, while lifelong (or ongoing) learning may be a factor in some people’s avocational choices about music participation, it is also reasonable to speculate, following Houle, that adults, young or old, may involve themselves in avoca-tional music making for other reasons, such as the nature of the activity irrespective of any learning coincident with it. Historically, one of the beliefs guiding the curriculum and instruction of school music in the first half of the twentieth century was that musical engagement was considered an important aspect of leisure in the social fabric of the nation. The Music Supervisors National Conference even had a “Committee on Music and Leisure Time”

BCRME_200.indd 43 12/15/14 1:20 PM




44

in the 1920s and 1930s. Reporting on the work of this committee, McConathy (1933) wrote, “It is our affair to study every element in the relationship of music and leisure time. Our contribution to the new social order must be to make music serve humanity in ways richer, finer, and broader . . . [The goal is to] find the best way of making our country better and happier through music” (pp. 5–6). There was, in other words, an explicit motive where learning music in school was to serve the purpose of future partic-ipation as a leisure activity, not ongoing musical learning. Over the course of the twenti-eth century, however, the focus of school music, in theory if not in practice, increasingly shifted in the direction of what might be called “learning for learning’s sake,” whereby the study of music in schools was to be self-justifying (Leonhard & House, 1959). By making the study of music self-justifying, however, adult leisure time participation was no longer foregrounded as a desired outcome of musical learning. That is, one did not learn music because music making was a worthy use of leisure time; one learned music because music itself was important. Whether or not various leisure time activities are “worthy” speaks to broader indi-vidual and social concerns. Much research, for example, has been directed at issues of extracurricular involvement and its potential effects on development, especially among adolescents, in terms of such aspects as academic achievement, behavior, and social adaptation (e.g., Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001; Covay & Carbonaro, 2010; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005; Guest & Schneider, 2007). Unfortunately for music education researchers, music involvement in this line of research is usually not distinguished from other forms falling under the umbrella of “performing arts,” and thus it is unclear to what extent the curricular study of music might differ from extracurricular involvement. Moreover, this line of research has been focused on the relatively short-term influence or impact of extracurricular involvement by youth rather than as part of what Stebbins (1998) calls a “leisure lifestyle”; little attention has been paid to how these various activities sustain themselves through adulthood as lifelong aspects of leisure. “Emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2000, 2006) is a concept that arose out of the recognition that reaching or attaining full adult status is different today than in the past. Arnett (2006) proposes five features of emerging adulthood: identity explorations, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and an awareness of possibilities. The concept is intended to explain how adulthood today differs from views, such as that of Erik Erikson, that posit adulthood as a clearly bounded stage of life. Blatterer (2010) and Settersten, Furstenberg, Rumbaut, and associates (2005), for example, argue that adult-hood is a concept defined more by markers or indicators (e.g., living on one’s own, mak-ing independent choices about time usage). For many people today, the college years represent an important transition point; students are no longer children, but not quite adults (except in the legal sense). The decision to partake in recreational music making while at college/university can thus be understood as part of an individual’s volitional choices about the kind of adult one wishes to become. While it may be that recreational music making during the college years is, per Bohnert, Aikins, and Edidin (2007), part

BCRME_200.indd 44 12/15/14 1:20 PM



45


of a strategy to facilitate transition and adaptation, identifying reasons for participation and nonparticipation holds potential insights for educators regarding the value musical involvement has for people beyond the college/university years.

METHODThe target population for the study was current college students. For reasons of simplic-ity and expediency, a convenience sample of arbitrarily approached passersby on college campuses was considered appropriate for this exploratory study. In order to maximize the number of respondents and the geographical reach of the survey, we employed a “crowd-sourcing” design whereby volunteer data gatherers (research assistants) were solicited via an e-mail invitation to the university’s student and alumni database (music education). These volunteer research assistants (N = 24), located at multiple sites across the United States and beyond, assisted with the data-gathering process.

InstrumentThe survey instrument was designed to balance expediency with maximum data gather-ing. Specifically, the questionnaire was designed to take a maximum of 90 seconds per individual. A pilot study was conducted in Spring (February–May) 2012 at selected col-lege campuses in the U.S. Northeast. A volunteer research assistant was trained by the principal investigator to collect data from students “on the street” by seeking out high-traffic locations at five college campuses. The pilot study proved invaluable in helping to refine the survey instrument and in designing the training video for research volunteers. Five preliminary questions, designed to qualify respondents as college students and to note gender and visible race/ethnicity, preceded the questionnaire proper. Questions reflected the literature review and the purpose and research questions of the study. Although the questionnaire contained 14 questions, skip logic meant that a given indi-vidual would answer between four and eight questions depending on how the answers unfolded. Three main groups were targeted from the outset: those who said they had never participated in formal music making (henceforth the “Never” group), those who said they played or sang precollege but were not currently participating (“Used to” group), and those who reported that they currently played or sang in a group (“Now” group). For the first two groups the questionnaire sought responses aimed at discerning reasons for nonparticipation and the likelihood of future participation; for the third group the questionnaire sought responses aimed at discerning personal values regard-ing musical participation as well as the likelihood of future participation. Although the third group was originally conceptualized on the assumption that those currently musically active would have played or sung in a group in high school, and the majority of this group indicated that they played or sang in an ensemble in high school, analysis identified a small subgroup of people who were musically active in college who did not play or sing in high school.

BCRME_200.indd 45 12/15/14 1:20 PM




46

The first item on the questionnaire asked if the person participated in music in high school and, if so, in what capacity. All those who had played or sung in an ensemble were asked to indicate instruments they could play.4 Those who were not currently musically active were asked to provide a reason for nonparticipation from a list of options based on the literature review. Those who indicated they were currently playing or singing with a group were asked to rate reasons, determined in part by the literature review and in part on the basis of the principal investigator’s previous research on avocational music making, for their current musical participation. They were then given the opportunity to supply additional reasons for their participation. All those with precollege experience, regardless of current status as an active participant, were asked to indicate the likelihood of their musical participation beyond college graduation.

ProcedureIn January 2013 an initial solicitation e-mail for research assistant volunteers for the main study was sent to alumni and current students of a large music education graduate pro-gram. The solicitation e-mail explained the purpose of the research, outlined the overall design and timeline for the research, and indicated the approximate time commitment required of volunteers. Those who expressed interest in acting as a volunteer data collec-tor were sent a follow-up e-mail with a PDF of the questionnaire, a PDF tally sheet for responses, and a link to a YouTube training video that demonstrated how to collect and record the data to ensure accuracy and consistency. The training video provided instruc-tions intended to improve the quantity and quality of data by suggesting ideal locations and reminding data collectors of the importance of targeting a balanced response with respect to age, gender, and race/ethnicity. The follow-up e-mail also included an Excel spreadsheet template onto which the volunteer data collectors transferred their results. The 24 volunteers collected data at a time and place of their choosing on college campuses, but were encouraged to seek out high-traffic locations such as outside of food courts around mealtimes. Passersby responding “yes” to the approach question, “Are you a student here?” were then asked if they would consent to answer a few short questions about music making on campus. Those who declined participation in the survey were tallied in order to discern a general level of interest in the topic. Those who agreed to take the survey (N = 814) were asked about their year of study and their academic major in order to provide descriptive data for the sample. Gender and visible race/ethnicity were recorded, but were not asked. Given the nature of the convenience sample, no effort was made in order to ensure that respondents reflected the overall demographic or academic makeup of each campus. However, requiring the research assistants to record gender and visible race/ethnicity and having them ask about year or study and academic major, coupled with explicit training instructions reminding the research assistants to try to aim for “balanced” samples, was intended to avoid a disproportionate conve-nience sample from any given college (e.g., only males, only whites, only freshmen, only engineering majors, and so on).

BCRME_200.indd 46 12/15/14 1:20 PM



47


RESULTSData for the main study were collected from college students (N = 814) on campuses (N = 30) in the United States (n = 28), in Israel (n = 1), and Colombia (n = 1). The 30 college campuses in the United States represent the following geographic distribution: California (3), Florida (1), Iowa (1), Massachusetts (2), Maryland (4), Montana (1), New Jersey (2), New York (6), Texas (3), Virginia (3), and Washington (2). Of those arbitrarily approached by the data collectors, only 174 reportedly declined to partici-pate, an unanticipated low number, possibly suggesting a high degree of interest in the topic. Another possibility is that some volunteer data collectors failed to accurately record those who choose not to participate. Of the 814 respondents, 33 indicated that they were music majors (of some description); these were excluded from analysis, result-ing in an adjusted sample of 781.

Precollege and College Music Participation and NonparticipationFollowing the purpose of the study, we asked respondents about their participation in college music groups as well as participation in music prior to college. Many of our analyses were based on the three subgroups: “Never,” “Used to,” and “Now” (Table 1). Of the 665 who reported they were not participating in music at college, 365 indicated that they had played an instrument or had sung prior to college. This number was surprisingly high, as it suggests that approximately 60% of all respon-dents were involved in some form of precollege music making. As shown in Table 2, 343 of the 365 people with prior music experience reported participating in school music ensembles. Of the 114 who reported participating in music at college (i.e., “Now”), 3 were in orchestras, 28 were in bands, 44 were in choirs, 5 were in a cappella groups, and 34 were in other kinds of ensembles. Notably, continuity of ensemble type from precollege to college varied more for the instrumentalists than noninstrumentalists (e.g., precol-lege band members in college choirs)—likely due to noninstrumentalists having fewer

Table 1Music participation

Frequency

Never participated 302 (38.7%)Used to participate 365 (46.7%)Participating now 114 (14.6%)Total 781 (100.0%)

Table 2Precollege participation by ensemble type

Ensemble Type Frequency (Percentage of Whole Sample)

Orchestra 36 (4.6%)Band 139 (17.8%)Choir 131 (16.8%)Other 37 (4.7%)None 434 (55.6%)Total 777 (99.5%)

Note: Four participants did not provide this information

BCRME_200.indd 47 12/15/14 1:20 PM




48

participation options. As indicated in Table 3, among those reporting precollege music involvement, choir participation exhibited the highest level of continuance within the same form of participation (28%). However, former high school choir members had higher rates of college nonparticipation (74%) than orchestra members (72.2%) or band members (70.5%).

Academic Year, Academic Major, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Musical InstrumentIn order to describe demographic characteristics of the sample and test for possible relationships with music participation, data collectors recorded information for five independent variables: academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, and instrument (Tables 4–8). To reduce the possibility of Type I error due to running mul-tiple tests, we used a more stringent alpha level of .025, following the recommendation of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).

Academic Year As shown in Table 4, respondents were distributed relatively evenly from years 1–4 (year 5+ represents those who identified as graduate students), suggest-ing that the convenience sample approximates what one might expect to find in the student population at a large college or university. A chi-square test for independence

Table 4Ensemble participation by academic year

Year Never Participated Used to Participate Participates Now Total

1 118 (47.6%) 102 (41.1%) 28 (11.3%) 2482 59 (32.2%) 88 (48.1%) 36 (19.7%) 1833 53 (32.0%) 88 (53.7%) 23 (14.0%) 1644 57 (40.7%) 67 (47.9%) 16 (20.4%) 1405 14 (31.1%) 20 (44.4%) 11 (24.4%) 45

Note: One respondent did not provide this information. All percentages are within year.

Table 3Proportions of past and current ensemble participation (retention)

Current Ensemble Not K-12 Ensemble (n) Orchestra Band Choir A cappella Other Participating

Orchestra (36) 2 (5.6%) 1 (2.8%) 2 (5.6%) 1 (2.8%) 4 (11.1%) 26 (72.2%)Band (140) 1 (0.7%) 19 (13.6%) 8 (5.7%) 1 (0.7%) 13 (9.3%) 98 (70.0%)Choir (131) 0 (0.0%) 2 (1.5%) 28 (21.4%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.3%) 97 (74.0%)Other (37) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.7%) 4 (10.8%) 31 (83.8%)No (434) 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.9%) 6 (1.4%) 1 (0.2%) 10 (2.3%) 413 (95.2%)

Total 3 28 44 5 34 665

BCRME_200.indd 48 12/15/14 1:20 PM



Table 5Ensemble participation by academic major

Grouped Major Never Participated Used to Participate Participates Now Total

Architecture 1 (25.0%) 3 (73.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4Communications 10 (29.4%) 20 (58.8%) 4 (11.8%) 34Education 23 (45.1%) 21 (41.2%) 7 (13.7%) 51Engineering 30 (40.5%) 35 (47.3%) 9 (12.2%) 74Fine Arts 8 (38.1%) 8 (38.1%) 5 (23.8%) 21Hospitality 2 (28.6%) 4 (57.1%) 1 (14.3%) 7Law/Pre-law 10 (50.0%) 8 (40.0%) 2 (10.0%) 20Liberal Arts 35 (42.2%) 37 (44.6%) 11 (13.3%) 83Management 35 (39.3%) 40 (44.9%) 14 (15.7%) 89Medical/Pre-med 1 (8.3%) 10 (83.3%) 1 (8.3%) 12Natural Sciences 29 (41.4%) 30 (42.9%) 11 (15.7%) 70Social Work/Health 10 (38.5%) 12 (46.2%) 4 (15.4%) 26Undeclared 108 (37.2%) 137 (47.2%) 45 (39.5%) 290

Note: All percentages are within major

Table 6Ensemble participation by race/ethnicity

Race/Ethnicity Never Participated Used to Participate Participating Now Total

White 157 (36.3%) 209 (48.4%) 66 (15.3%) 432Black 33 (29.2%) 58 (51.3%) 22 (19.5%) 113Hispanic 32 (55.2%) 17 (29.3%) 9 (15.5%) 58Asian 23 (35.4%) 33 (30.4%) 9 (13.8%) 65Other 2 (13.3%) 10 (66.7%) 3 (2.6%) 15Non-U.S. 55 (56.7%) 37 (10.1%) 5 (4.4%) 97

Note: One participant did not provide this information. All percentages are within race/ethnicity.

Table 7Ensemble participation by gender

Gender Never Participated Used to Participate Participates Now Total

Female 175 (38.7%) 219 (48.5%) 58 (12.8%) 452Male 127 (38.6%) 146 (44.4%) 56 (17.0%) 329

Note: All percentages are within gender.

Table 8Ensemble participation by instrument group

Instrument Group Never Participated Used to Participate Participating Now Total

Brass 0 (0.0%) 28 (80.0%) 7 (20.0%) 35Guitar 0 (0.0%) 27 (79.4%) 7 (20.6%) 34Multi-instrumentalist 7 (7.8%) 50 (55.6%) 33 (36.7%) 90Other 0 (0.0%) 84 (87.5%) 12 (12.5%) 96Percussion 0 (0.0%) 25 (71.4%) 10 (28.6%) 35Piano 0 (0.0%) 33 (78.6%) 9 (7.9%) 42Strings 0 (0.0%) 31 (88.6%) 4 (11.4%) 35Voice 0 (0.0%) 29 (61.7%) 18 (15.8%) 47Woodwinds 0 (0.0%) 58 (80.6%) 14 (19.4%) 72

Note: All percentages are within instrument group.

BCRME_200.indd 49 12/15/14 1:20 PM




50

revealed significance in this model (X2 = 23.75, df = 10), suggesting that academic year may influence whether or not students participate in ensembles. Students in their first or third year of college were less likely to be participating in ensembles; however, we accept these differences hesitantly because of the increased likelihood of discovering dif-ferences between groups in a large sample (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and because of the lack of a theoretical basis for such a finding.

Academic Major We asked respondents about their academic major, which we sorted and assigned according to our own institution’s academic major categories (Table 5). Due to the large number of undeclared majors, it was not prudent to test for statistical differences among academic majors. On the surface, however, there do not appear to be meaningful connections between musical participation and academic major.

Race/Ethnicity We include analysis of race/ethnicity (Table 6) with the strong caution that identifications were assigned based on visual assessment of the data collectors, not self-report.5 The decision to include assessed race/ethnicity in data collection was made in order to help ensure that data collectors were cognizant of the need to strive for a broadly representative sample. Chi-square analysis revealed several significant differ-ences (X2 = 12.11, df = 6). Among black and “other” respondents, students were signifi-cantly more likely to be in the “used to” group than either of the other groups. Hispanic and non-U.S. respondents were more likely to have never participated.

Gender The gender breakdown of the sample (Table 7) was 57.9% (n = 452) female, 42.1% (n = 329) male. This approximates what one might expect to find on American college campuses, supporting overall claims of representativeness of the convenience sample.6 Chi-square analysis revealed that females and males were equally like to be in any of the three participation groups (X2 = 2.96, df = 2).

Musical Instrument We categorized each respondent into discrete musical instrument groups (Table 8). The “multi-instrumentalist” group includes respondents who listed two or more instruments in response to the question, “Which instrument or instru-ments do you play?” This is the only instrument group in which respondents indicated experiences with playing an instrument while at the same time indicating no precollege experience in ensembles. Analysis revealed that in all instrument groups, including the multi-instrumentalist group, there were significantly more participants in the “used to participate” category than in the “participating now” category (X2 = 814.00, df = 8). This suggests that choice of instrument does not necessarily impact (positively or negatively) participants’ avocational music making while at college.

Reasons for NonparticipationWe asked those who were not currently participating in college music making about their reasons for nonparticipation (Table 9). Of those in the “Never” group (n = 302), 18 supplied their own reason for nonparticipation. Answers included: fear/intimidation

BCRME_200.indd 50 12/15/14 1:20 PM



51


(n = 3), lack of ensembles in which they would like to participate (n = 2), and lack of musical skills (n = 2). In the “Used to” group (n = 365), 35 supplied their own reason for nonparticipation. Their answers included: not offered (2), don’t know how to find a group (2), preferred other activities (3), and not good/talented enough (7).

Reasons for ParticipationRespondents who claimed to be in some form of music group reported that they participated in rehearsals for a mean of 4.38 hours per week (SD = 4.01). Reasons for participation supplied by the respondents included: love of music/love of playing/per-forming (n = 17), fun/enjoyment (n = 11), positive (health) activity/good use of time (n = 11), talent/creativity/expression/improvement (n = 13), and always done it/can’t live without it/it’s a part of me (n = 11). We asked those who claimed to be in some form of music group to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = strongly agree; 10 = strongly disagree), their responses to eight statements regarding reasons for participation (Table 10). Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality showed that the distributions of likelihood scores could not be considered normal (p < .0005 for each set of scores). As a result, we conducted a series of nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests to determine if the means of each of the attitudinal measures differed significantly from each other. This test showed that the mean for “I find it a stress release” was significantly higher (p < .0005) than the next highest mean, “I love my instrument and/or love singing.” The mean for “Studies have claimed that music makes you smarter” was significantly lower (p < .0005) than “I love the music we play/sing,” and the mean for “It provides balance to my other activities and responsibilities” was significantly lower (p < .0005) than “Studies have shown that music makes you smarter.”

Table 9Reasons for nonparticipation

FrequencyReason “Never” Group “Used to” Group

I’m not interested 67 (22.1%) 67 (18.4%)I never learned when I was younger 84 (27.8%)I’m not musical 57 (18.9%)I don’t have the time 59 (19.5%) 162 (44.4%)I don’t like the kind of music most groups sing or play 4 (1.3%) 10 (2.7%)I don’t have an instrument 11 (3.0%)I don’t know of groups to play or sing with 46 (12.6%)Other 22 (7.3%) 35 (9.6%)Multiple reasons 1 (0.3%) 22 (6.0%)

Note: Eight respondents from the “never” group and 12 respondents from the “used to” group did not provide responses to these questions.

BCRME_200.indd 51 12/15/14 1:20 PM




52

To determine if the responses differed significantly along any of the independent variables of academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, and instrument we ran a series of multiway ANOVAs with Bonferroni correction. The analyses showed that there were no statistically significant differences across the attitudinal measures based on academic year, academic major, and gender. Analysis of race/ethnicity revealed significant differences (p = .02, η squared = .13) in the response to the statement “music makes you smarter,” with the responses from the non-U.S. group (M = 10.0) being substantially higher than any other group’s mean score. Statistically significant differ-ences across instrument type were found for the items “I want to get better” (p < .01, η squared = .14), “I love the social aspects of the group” (p = .02, η squared = .18), and “I love my instrument and/or love singing” (p < .005, η squared = .28). For the item “I want to get better,” woodwind responses (M = 5.73) and the voice group’s responses (M = 6.59, SD = 3.48) were lower than other instrument type scores, means of which ranged from 8.00 to 9.38. For the item “I love my instrument and/or love singing,” woodwind responses (M = 7.64, SD = 2.29) were lower than other instrument type responses, means of which ranged from 9.33 to 10.0. Finally, for the item “I love the social aspects of the group,” brass scores (M = 5.50, SD = 3.87) and woodwind scores (M = 6.91, SD = 2.70) were lower than the scores of the rest of the instrument types, the means of which ranged from 7.71 to 9.67.

Self-Reported Likelihood of Future Music ParticipationWe asked respondents to predict their own future likelihood of music participation on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = not likely; 10 = very likely). For the “Never” group we phrased the question as, “How likely would you be to play or sing in the future if convenient and affordable music instruction were available?” (M = 4.61, SD = 3.10). For the “Used to” group we phrased the question as, “How likely is it that you will play or sing regularly in the future?” (M = 4.84, SD = 3.02). For the “Now” group, we asked, “How likely is it that you will play or sing regularly beyond graduation?” (M = 7.31, SD = 3.55). A non-

Table 10Self-reporting reasons for participation

Item Mean SD

a) It provides balance to my other activities and responsibilities 1.04 2.81

b) It is a worthwhile use of my leisure time 6.72 4.04c) I love the music we play/sing 6.62 4.14d) I want to get better 7.07 3.69e) I love the social aspects of the group 7.13 3.54f ) I love my instrument and/or love singing 8.76 2.72g) Students have claimed that music

makes you smarter 5.62 3.72h) I find it a stress release 7.92 3.23

BCRME_200.indd 52 12/15/14 1:20 PM



53


parametric Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that the groups differed significantly (p < .005), and that the mean differences between these likelihood measures were all significantly different from each other. Multiway ANOVAs showed only one significant main effect among the five independent variables: the multi-instrumentalist group was found to be significantly more likely to participate in the future than the brass or “other” instru-ment groups (p = .008). Small cell sizes for several groups prevented post hoc testing. To further describe likelihood of participation, we grouped the “Used to” and “Now” respondents according to type of participation (Table 11).

DISCUSS IONWe had neither originally conceptualized nor imagined this study transcending its U.S. context. The opportunity to include data collection sites from outside the U.S. was unanticipated, and the decision to include the data in our analyses was not made lightly. As indicated by the attention historically given to carry-over in American music education, and as evident in the work of music education researchers outside of the United States who have drawn attention to the problems of school music (e.g., Lamont, Hargreaves, Marshall, & Tarrant, 2003; Paynter, 2002), the issue of participation has been and continues to be of concern to all music educators. Having analyzed the results with and without the non-U.S. data and having found its impact negligible or minimal at best, we decided to include the data in order to emphasize that music participation (or lack thereof ) is not strictly an American problem—though we do not deny the possible distinctiveness of American secondary school music which, in contrast to music educa-tion in many other countries, has been historically grounded in the large ensembles of bands, choirs, and orchestras. The relationship between school music participation and postschooling musical activity, the aims and purposes of music education, and the role

Table 11Likelihood of future participation based on previous experiences

Participation Group Ensemble Likelihood Mean SD

Used to Orchestra 5.68 2.95 Band 5.34 2.86 Choir 4.53 3.12 Other 5.32 3.38 Not in ensemble 4.36 2.94Now Orchestra 5.95 4.03 Band 6.33 3.82 Choir 8.33 2.34 Other 7.14 4.88

BCRME_200.indd 53 12/15/14 1:20 PM




54

of music making in relation to “leisure lifestyle” and “emerging adulthood” transcend national boundaries. Because the non-U.S. data do not fundamentally alter the results, we argue that the theoretical and practical value of its inclusion in drawing attention to the wider problem of musical participation outweighs any potential issues of validity. That is, we do not wish to emphasize whether or not the traditional American school music paradigm is anachronistic or irrelevant to contemporary society, but rather, we foreground the nature of lifelong musical participation and its relationship with music education. The results from this study raise a number of issues related to music participa-tion and nonparticipation of nonmusic majors on college campuses. Specifically, the concerns of this study centered on rates of participation, possible relationships with the variables of academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, and instrument, rea-sons for participation and nonparticipation, and the reported likelihood of future par-ticipation. That approximately 60% of respondents cited having some precollege music involvement would seem to suggest that music learning and participation are valued to some extent. That approximately 20–25% of those citing high school music involve-ment claimed to be musically active while at college points to at least some “carry-over” effect where participating in music groups is viewed as a desirable option for spending one’s discretionary (i.e., leisure) time. These same figures indicate that approximately 75–80% of those with high school experience do not continue, suggesting that, given the freedom to do so, most pre-college music makers choose not to participate in ensembles a regular part of their “leisure lifestyle” (Stebbins, 1998). Although the figure of 14.6% respondents report-ing regular college music making could be viewed as low, it is in line with commonly cited figures for high school music involvement in the United States (Elpus & Abril, 2011). This seems to suggest that playing or singing in a group is more of a niche rather than widespread activity, at least as such participation relates to bands, orchestras, and choirs in conjunction or as associated with schooling and education. Consistent with previous research (Moder, 2013) was the lack of relationships between musical involve-ment and the variables of academic year, gender and musical instrument (other than multi-instrumentalists being more likely to participate, consistent with the findings of previous researchers). For reasons explained earlier, it is not prudent to speculate too much on race/ethnicity. Although social concerns should not be brushed aside, relation-ships between music participation and demographic, sociocultural, and socioeconomic variables, to the extent they exist, are likely more nuanced than could be adequately examined in this study. One of the reasons cited for the lack of lifelong participation is the inability of high school graduates to develop the kind of musicianship necessary for lifespan engagement in music (Jones, 2009; Myers, 2008a; Williams, 2007, 2011). With the notable exception of choir participants, ensemble type occasionally changed from precollege to college (Table 4 above), something that speaks to issues of continuity and the musical agency necessary

BCRME_200.indd 54 12/15/14 1:20 PM



55


to transcend ensemble boundaries. That 74 of the 114 college music makers continued to participate in bands, orchestras, and choirs—ensembles typically found in American sec-ondary schools—raises questions. On the one hand, this may suggest that those involved in such ensembles regard them as an extension of their high school experience, perhaps considering them primarily as desirable transitional activities during the college years as part of emerging adulthood (Bohnert et al., 2007; Kokotsaki & Hallam, 2011). On the other hand, this may suggest that those involved consider such ensembles as a desirable form of lifelong participation; however, the means in response to the question on likeli-hood of future participation ranged between just over 4 to just over 8 out of 10 (Table 11 above) for those with prior experience (current participants and nonparticipants), indicat-ing the that college students do not necessarily see themselves as lifelong music makers, an observation consistent with the findings of Woody and Parker (2012). Contrary to discourse since the 1980s that has emphasized the lifelong learning aspect of adult participation, results in this study did not support this as a primary rea-son for continuing to be musically active. While “I want to get better” was the fourth highest-rated item, this should be contextualized by considering the highest-rated item, “I love my instrument and/or love singing” and the third lowest-rated item, “I love the music we play/sing.” That is, participants seemed relatively unconcerned with learning “the music” and were more interested in the participatory aspects of music engagement. “Getting better” should thus be interpreted as meaning that participants want to get better at playing or singing (i.e., participating), not that they desire to be “educated” about music. A surprising result, given the principal investigator’s previous research, was that “It provides balance to my other activities and responsibilities” did not rate higher. However, when contextualized against the backdrop of the second highest-rated item, “I find it a stress release,” and the fifth-highest item, “It is a worthwhile use of my leisure time,” it would seem that participants engage in avocational music making both because they enjoy the activity (love to play/sing) and because they feel it is a healthy and worthwhile use of their discretionary (i.e., leisure) time. That almost 1 in 5 people in the “Never” group said “I’m not musical” should not be an encouraging finding for music educators given that music is a compulsory subject at the elementary level in most areas of the United States. That over a quarter of this group chose “I never learned when I was younger,” however, suggests that many people might desire to participate but feel it is beyond consideration based on their percep-tions of the requisite skills and knowledge for participation, something that may reflect narrow conceptions of what music participation is or should be. While commentators (Kratus, 2007; Williams, 2011) have suggested that nonparticipation, at least at the secondary level, is attributable to the anachronistic nature of large ensembles such as bands, choirs, and orchestras, dislike of the repertoire most groups sing or play was not a highly cited reason for nonparticipation. Notably, almost 16% (n = 57) of respondents said they were not participating either because they did not have an instrument (echoing Mountford, 1977) or because they

BCRME_200.indd 55 12/15/14 1:20 PM




56

did not know of a group with which to play. If people possess a desire to participate, surely music educators have an obligation to facilitate this desire. A more disconcerting finding, one consistent with the arguments of Kratus (2007) and Williams (2011), was that over 18% (n = 67) of those with precollege music experience expressed no interest in being musically active. Music educators can interpret this in two ways: a failure to properly foster a desire to remain musically active as a result of school music instruction, or a failure to adequately respond to the musical interests of school music graduates by providing a more appealing range of participation options. This study was designed to address concerns related to emerging adult music makers, in this case college attendees, who are at a stage in life when they first exercise volitional choices about how they choose to spend their time. Results indicate that among the college population there are few relationships (if any) to be found among the variables of academic year, academic major, race/ethnicity, gender, and instrument, suggesting that music participation is a broadly based phenomenon, at least among those attending college. It is also clear that those who participate do so not for strictly “educational” reasons, but because they love to sing and play; they reported music mak-ing to be an enjoyable and healthy activity, not something that might be described as “lifelong learning.” This, we submit, should give pause to those who attempt to meet school, state, and nationally-mandated evaluation requirements by focusing on narrow and easily assessable learning outcomes unrelated to the reasons people cite for choosing to participate in music making.

CONCLUS IONBy taking advantage of a crowdsourcing design, the quantity and geographic range of data in this study exceeded what is usually attainable in unfunded research. We would argue that the weaknesses of convenience sampling were mitigated to some degree by the diversity of data gatherers and data-gathering times and locations. While normalcy of the sample cannot and should not be assumed, the number of data-collection sites reduces the likelihood that the sample represents outliers or anomalies. That said, it must be acknowledged that many of the data-collection sites were smaller colleges. Students attending larger colleges may differ in their music-making involvement, although there is no current theoretical basis for such a speculation. The desire to maximize participation in the survey by making it as short as pos-sible limited some of the survey’s usefulness for analysis and prevented the gathering of potentially informative data. Future researchers might benefit by asking several very short questions designed to disambiguate levels of participation, such as “Did you participate in music in elementary school?” “Did you participate in music in middle school?” “Did you participate in music in high school?” and “Did you study music outside of school?” The figure of 61.3% precollege participation, even if reflective of the broader population of college students, does not meaningfully distinguish between those who may have taken

BCRME_200.indd 56 12/15/14 1:20 PM



57


piano lessons for a year at the age of 5 and those who engaged in serious study for multiple years and/or participated in a variety of high-level ensembles prior to college. Intensity of engagement could be a valuable measure to include in future research. This would seem especially pertinent given research claims that intensity and diversity of involvement are predictors of lifelong engagement (e.g., Busch, 2005; Chiodo, 1997; Larson, 1983). Similarly, greater precision in the instrument could lead to better differentiation between formal and self-directed music making. This seems especially important given the difficul-ties in ascertaining definitions of what counts as music learning and participation. One of the overall issues highlighted by this line of investigation is the complex-ity embedded in the 1994 U.S. National Standards for Music Education (http://musiced.nafme.org): (1) Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music; (2) Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. That 61.3% of respondents reported having precollege and/or college experience in music speaks to the conflation of, and perhaps confusion surrounding, various forms of engagement. All people have experienced music, and almost everyone has sung at one time or another. Even if one suspends judgments about superior or more desirable forms of musical engagement, it must be acknowledged that sporadic singing alone in the shower or attending live music performances are vastly different kinds of engage-ment than singing or playing an instrument with other people on a regular basis, or even regularly playing an instrument alone for sustained periods of time. Although we agree in principle with Bowles and Jensen’s (2012) call for higher edu-cation music units to provide professional leadership for nonmusic majors wishing to remain musically active, most college music units in the United States are based almost entirely on the same band-orchestra-choir model found in secondary schools. Most of the active music makers in this study exhibited continuity in ensemble type from pre-college to college involvement, but it is unclear whether this suggests a true carry-over effect indicative of a solid commitment to music making as part of one’s leisure lifestyle connected to emerging adulthood (e.g., identity explorations), or whether involvement in college bands, orchestras, and choirs is simply an extension of their high school experience. Such an extension might be part of a concerted effort to provide continuity of identity in order to ameliorate the effects of “in-betweenness” and uncertainty associ-ated with emerging adulthood. Although providing additional formal instruction and performing opportunities for nonmusic majors is undoubtedly laudable, its potential is perhaps only partially realized if it fails to result in sustained music making—“value added” (Regelski, 2005)—beyond the college years. Research into adult—especially early adult—music making should hold promise for those who wish to better inform curricular and instructional practices for school music. Although an increasing amount of research is being devoted to the activities of older adults, such as New Horizons research (e.g., Dabback, 2007; Tsugawa, 2009), more research is needed that examines the music participation practices of college graduates in order to ascertain if music making continues to constitute a valued

BCRME_200.indd 57 12/15/14 1:20 PM




58

aspect of their leisure activities beyond the college years or whether music making is, like Greek life or participating in student clubs, simply one among many things one might do while at college. We maintain that if school music is to make itself rel-evant to society and a desired part of the school curriculum, an overt outcome in the form of demonstrable activity (i.e., regular, active music making) among graduates is desperately needed. As Holmquist concludes, “Until adult music participation is no longer regarded [as] unusual, there will be a need for further research in the area of carryover” (1995, p. 153). By studying the activities and interests of school music graduates we can hopefully evaluate the “results” of our professional efforts (Reimer, 1965), reorienting curriculum and instruction accordingly.

AUTHORS’ NOTEPortions of this study were presented at the Music and Lifelong Learning Symposium, University of South Carolina, October 13–15, 2013.

NOTES 1. The term also appears as “carryover” or “carry over.” Holmquist’s (1995) use of the word is a bit of a throwback, as the term seems to have fallen out of favor in the 1970s and 1980s, save Mountford (1977) and Larson (1983). 2. See also Valerie Strauss [interview with Libby Larsen], “For Music Teachers, a Trumpet Call to Relevance,” Washington Post (March 2, 2004), p. A09. 3. We use “college” in its broad sense, denoting all postsecondary (or tertiary) -level education. 4. Voice was not considered an instrument for the purposes of this study. 5. The “non-U.S.” category represents respondents from whom data were collected at institu-tions outside of the United States. 6. The gender breakdown of the U.S.-only sample was 56.9% female, 43.1% male. The gender breakdown on American college campuses varies by race and socioeconomic status, but is, on the whole, entirely consistent with our sample (see: http://www.aacu.org/ocww/ volume38_3/data.cfm).

REFERENCESArasi, M. (2006). Adult reflections on a high school choral music program: Perceptions of meaning and

lifelong influence (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 305333250)

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock, the brain, and the princess?: Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and social iden-tity. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 429–455. doi:10.1177/0743558401165002

Blatterer, H. (2010). The changing semantics of youth and adulthood. Cultural Sociology, 4(1), 63–79. doi:10.1177/1749975509356755

BCRME_200.indd 58 12/15/14 1:20 PM



59


Bohnert, A. M., Aikins, J. W., & Edidin, J. (2007). The role of organized activities in facilitating social adaptation across the transition to college. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(2), 189–208. doi:10.1177/0743558406297940

Boshier, R. (1971). Motivational orientations of adult education participants: A factor analytic explo-ration of Houle’s typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 21(2), 3–26.

Boshier, R., & Collins, J. B. (1983). Education participation scale factor structure and socio-demo-graphic correlates for 12,000 learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 2(2), 163–177.

Boshier, R., & Collins, J. B. (1985). The Houle typology after twenty-two years: A large-scale empiri-cal test. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 113–130.

Boswell, J. (1992). Human potential and lifelong learning. Music Educators Journal, 79(4), 38–40.Bowles, C. L., & Jensen, J. (2012). The role of higher education in fostering a musically engaged

adult population. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 2, pp. 273–288). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bowring, G. E. (1952). Utilization of high school musical experiences in adult life, a study of selected graduates of Beaverhead County High School (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 1124962830)

Brandenburg, A. (1946). Music education need not stop at graduation. Music Educators Journal, 32(6), 26–28.

Brown, T. R. (2012). Students’ registration in collegiate choral ensembles: Factors that influence con-tinued participation. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 4(1), 80–86.

Busch, M. (2005). Predictors of lifelong learning in music: A survey of individuals participating in ensembles at community colleges in Illinois (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 305001908)

Chiodo, P. (1997). The development of lifelong commitment: A qualitative study of adult instrumental music participation (adult learners). (58 Dissertation/Thesis), State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.

Clothier, R. I. (1967). Factors influencing freshmen with high school band experience to elect or not to elect band membership at five liberal arts colleges in Iowa (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 302268870)

Covay, E., & Carbonaro, W. (2010). After the bell: Participation in extracurricular activi-ties, classroom behavior, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 83(1), 20–45. doi:10.1177/0038040709356565

Dabback, W. (2007). Toward a model of adult music learning as a socially-embedded phenomenon (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 304917902)

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(1), 10–43. doi:10.1177/0743558499141003

Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 128–145. doi:10.1177/0022429411405207

Falkner, K. W. (1957). The influence of music education and private study on adult interest in music in two selected communities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 301919288)

Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in ado-lescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 159–210.

Funchess, L. (1939). Community music project. Music Educators Journal, 26(1), 36.

BCRME_200.indd 59 12/15/14 1:20 PM




60

Gilbert, J. P., & Beal, M. R. (1982). Preferences of elderly individuals for selected music education experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(4), 247–253.

Guest, A., & Schneider, B. (2007). Adolescents’ extracurricular participation in context: The mediat-ing effects of schools, communities, and identity. Sociology of Education, 76(2), 89–109.

Haas, A. (1954). Correlating school and community music. Music Educators Journal, 40(5), 71–72.Holmquist, S. (1995). A study of community choir members’ school experiences (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 304203371)Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Jones, P. (2009). Lifewide as well as lifelong: Broadening primary and secondary school music educa-

tion’s service to students’ musical needs. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2&3), 201–214.

Kerchner, J., & Abril, C. (2012). Music teacher education: Crossing generational borders. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 2, pp. 257–272). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kokotsaki, D., & Hallam, S. (2011). The perceived benefits of participative music making for non-music university students: A comparison with music students. Music Education Research, 13(2), 149–172. doi:10.1080/14613808.2011.577768

Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–48. doi:10.1177/002743210709400209

Lamont, A., Hargreaves, D. J., Marshall, N. A., & Tarrant, M. (2003). Young people’s music in and out of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 229–241.

Larson, P. S. (1983). An exploratory study of lifelong musical interest and activity: Case studies of twelve retired adults (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 303183972)

Lawrence, S., & Dachinger, N. (1967). Factors relating to carryover of music training into adult life. Journal of Research in Music Education, 15(1), 23–31.

Leonhard, C., & House, R. W. (1959). Foundations and principles of music education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lonnberg, E. D. (1960). The influence of secondary music education on adult musical participation (Master’s thesis). Available from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ (OhioLink osu1170431949)

Mantie, R. (2012). A study of community band participants: Implications for music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 191, 21–43. doi:10.5406/bulcouresmusedu .191.0021

Mantie, R., & Tucker, L. (2008). Closing the gap: Does music-making have to stop upon gradua-tion? International Journal of Community Music, 1(2), 217–227.

McConathy, O. (1933). Music and leisure time. Music Supervisors’ Journal, 20(2), 5–6.Moder, J. A. (2013). Factors influencing non-music majors’ decisions to participate in collegiate bands

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 1424274189)

Moore, D. G., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2003). The social context of musi-cal success: A developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94(4), 529–549. doi:10.1348/000712603322503088

Mountford, R. D. (1977). Significant predictors of college band participation by college freshmen with high school band experience (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 302862790)

Myers, D. (1992). Teaching learners of all ages. Music Educators Journal, 79(4), 23–26.

BCRME_200.indd 60 12/15/14 1:20 PM



61


Myers, D. (2008a). Freeing music education from schooling: Toward a lifespan perspective on music learning and teaching. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 49–61.

Myers, D. (2008b). Lifespan engagement and the question of relevance: Challenges for music education research in the twenty-first century. Music Education Research, 10(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/14613800701871330

Neal, C. (1949). Carry-over of musical activities following graduation from high school (Doctoral dis-sertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 301853717)

Ordway, C. (1964). Music activities of high school graduates in two communities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 12(2), 172–176.

Paynter, J. (2002). Music in the school curriculum: Why bother? British Journal of Music Education, 19(3), 215–226.

Pitts, S. (2009). Roots and routes in adult musical participation: Investigating the impact of home and school on lifelong musical interest and involvement. British Journal of Music Education, 26(03), 241–256. doi:10.1017/S0265051709990088

Pitts, S. (2012). Chances and choices: Exploring the impact of music education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rea, R. C. (1956). Participation after graduation. Music Educators Journal, 42(6), 58–59.Regelski, T. (2005). Music and music education: Theory and praxis for “making a difference.”

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(1), 7–27.Regelski, T. (2006). Reconnecting music education with society. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music

Education, 5(2), 2–20.Regelski, T. (2007). Amateuring in music and its rivals. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music

Education, 6(3), 22–50.Reimer, B. (1965). Effects of music education: Implications from a review of research. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 13(3), 147–158.Robertson, W. D. (1992). A survey of music education programs for senior citizens in Mecklenburg

County, North Carolina (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 303991849)

Rohwer, D., & Rohwer, M. (2009). A content analysis of choral students’ participation perceptions: Implications for lifelong learning. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2 & 3), 255–262. doi:10.1386/ijcm.2.2&3.255/1

Rohwer, D., & Rohwer, M. (2012). How participants envision community music in Welsh men’s choirs. Research and Issues in Music Education, 10(1). Available from http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/ vol10/rohwer.htm

Roulston, K. (2010). “There is no end to learning”: Lifelong education and the joyful learner. International Journal of Music Education, 28(4), 341–352. doi:10.1177/0255761410381822

Settersten, R. A., Furstenberg, F. F., & Rumbaut, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stebbins, R. A. (1998). After work: The search for an optimal leisure lifestyle. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Stein, G. E. (1970). A study of the relation of music instruction during secondary school years to adult musical status, as reflected in the activities interests and attitutdes of recent high school graduates (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 301828882)

Stuber, J. M. (2009). Class, culture, and participation in the collegiate extra-curriculum. Sociological Forum, 24(4), 877–900. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01140.x

BCRME_200.indd 61 12/15/14 1:20 PM




62

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tallmadge, J. (1941). Music for a lifetime. Music Educators Journal, 27(4), 18–19, 61.Tsugawa, S. (2009). Senior adult music learning, motivation, and meaning construction in Two New

Horizons ensembles (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 304828334)

Turton, A., & Durrant, C. (2002). A study of adults’ attitudes, perceptions and reflections on their singing experience in secondary school: Some implications for music education. British Journal of Music Education, 19(1), 31–48.

Waggoner, R. (1971). Factors relating to participation and non-participation in community performance groups at the adult level in Atlanta, Georgia (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 302587755)

Wang, G. (2009). Interlopers in the realm of high culture: “Music moms” and the performance of Asian and Asian American identities. American Quarterly, 61(4), 881–903.

Wilhjelm, C. C., Jr. (1998). A case study of the Ridgewood Concert Band, a New Jersey community band dedicated to lifelong learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (Document ID 304434330)

Williams, D. A. (2007). What are music educators doing and how well are we doing it? Music Educators Journal, 94(1), 18–23.

Williams, D. A. (2011). The elephant in the room. Music Educators Journal, 98(1), 51–57. doi:10.1177/0027432111415538

Woody, R. H., & Parker, E. C. (2012). Encouraging participatory musicianship among university students. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 189–205. doi:10.1177/1321103X12464857

BCRME_200.indd 62 12/15/14 1:20 PM



Date post:	28-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	utoronto
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Music Participation and Nonparticipation of Nonmajors on College Campuses

Documents