Preservice and In-Service Music Educators’ Perceptions of Functional Piano Skills

Abstract

Abstract Class piano instruction is a mainstay of music higher education. At many institutions, curricula are guided by accreditation organization standards, which bifurcate aspiring music teachers’ piano requirements by specialization. The purpose of this survey study was to document preservice and in-service music educators’ perceptions related to acquisition and use of specific functional piano skills across specializations. To create a survey instrument, we reviewed piano class outcomes from eight schools of music accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music. This review yielded 32 skills that we organized into five categories: technique, repertoire, accompanying and functional piano skills, sight-reading, and generative creativity. Using a Likert-type scale for each skill, we asked preservice participants (n = 316) to rate their level of agreement with “learned” and “anticipate using” for each skill; in-service participants (n = 295) rated “learned” and “using” for each skill. In-service teachers reported using all skills less than preservice teachers’ responses indicated using them. Both sets of participants learned basic piano technique, but anticipated need for more advanced and functional skills for teaching. Participants’ responses related to sight-reading skills did not have a clear pattern; we suspect this may relate to participants’ licensure track(s) and current teaching responsibilities. Statistically significant differences existed between choral and nonchoral in-service teachers’ use of skills within all five categories. Based on these findings, we conclude a need for several interrelated conversations among stakeholder groups and recommend further research to clarify our profession’s currently murky definition of functional piano skills.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.