![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Much of what we know about music classes comes from observing students without disabilities; there is little empirical research that informs music education practices for students with disabilities in inclusive music settings. The purpose of this study was to systematically observe and describe opportunities for nine students with disabilities to engage in behaviors related to the objectives on their Individualized Education Programs and describe their peer interactions, on-task behaviors, and music participation. Students had multiple opportunities to practice Individualized Education Programs goals. Students were most often on-task and interacted with peers extemporaneously and in assigned groups. Opportunities for individual responses and music performances were rare but most often accurate. Results indicate that students’ opportunities to show what they know and can do are often controlled by the teacher, suggesting that music educators, music therapists, and special educators can collaborate to improve and plan for opportunities for students with disabilities.
Reports by the U.S. Department of Education show that millions of children are served under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) every year. The most recent report shows that among the 5,789,884 students, ages 6 through 21 years, served under IDEA in 2011, 94.9% were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the day and 61.1% were educated inside regular classrooms for at least 80% of the day (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). It follows that VanWeelden and Whipple’s (2014) survey of music teachers found that all the respondents taught in inclusive classrooms; however, there is a paucity of research that examines the behavior of students with disabilities and their typically developing peers in the same music classroom (Brown & Jellison, 2012; Jellison, 2000; Jellison & Draper, 2015).
Most research on students with disabilities in music typically concentrates on the measurement of behaviors that can be categorized as social, academic (nonmusic), and on- and off-task, whether children are in separate therapeutic settings (Brown & Jellison, 2012) or inclusive school settings (Jellison & Draper, 2015). Music goals are rarely found in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and although music goals are of the utmost importance in music education, children often exhibit behaviors that could be categorized as nonmusic goals (e.g., social skills, communication skills, motor skills). It is likely that specific behaviors within these or other broad categories are identified as goals and objectives on students’ written IEPs.
An important dimension of learning is the generalization of the newly learned skills, such as those identified in their IEPs, to different contexts, and for children with disabilities, inclusive music classrooms provide just such a setting. However, studies have not focused on the connection between students’ behavior in the music classroom and their IEP goals and objectives. Do inclusive music classrooms provide opportunities for students with disabilities to practice skills identified on their IEPs, thus increasing their opportunities to generalize newly learned skills to different contexts? Are students with disabilities engaging in behaviors that can facilitate their learning and successful inclusion, such as interacting with peers, participating in music activities, and remaining on-task during instruction and class activities?
Peer interactions is a frequent variable for study in the fields of psychology and special education and is of utmost importance to many students with disabilities since it can influence the attitudes of typically developing peers and their learning (Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003). The interactions between children with and without disabilities, however, are studied rarely in music research (e.g., Brown & Jellison, 2012). To date, only one experimental music study has been conducted in inclusive music classrooms (Jellison, Brooks, & Huck, 1984) that examined the effects of small group activities on students’ interactions and attitudes. The researchers found that when typical students and students with disabilities interacted with one another in small group activities, typical students’ acceptance of children with disabilities increased, as did positive peer interactions in class sessions. These effects generalized to interactions during free time. Effects were more positive for classrooms of students who engaged in small group activities (the intervention) early in the project. The researchers concluded that positive interactions among students were not a result of music classroom experiences and instruction alone but were influenced by the degree to which classroom music activities were specifically structured for interactions.
Student attentiveness (on-task behavior) has been studied for four decades as reported in reviews of music education and music therapy research literature (e.g., Brown & Jellison, 2012; Duke, 1999; Jellison & Draper, 2015; Yarbrough, 2002). Beginning with Forsythe’s (1977) study comparing on- and off-task behaviors in general music and other academic classroom settings, studies have consistently shown that elementary school students are more on-task during active music-making activities, such as playing instruments and singing, than they are during periods of transition between activities or when teachers and students are simply talking (e.g., Brendell, 1996; Madsen & Geringer, 1983; Moore, 1987; Moore & Bonney, 1987; Witt, 1986; Yarbrough & Price, 1981).
For several decades following the passage of the IDEA in 1975, students with disabilities were included in regular classrooms for the primary purpose of socialization; however, amendments to the IDEA require children with disabilities to have “access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible” (IDEA, 1997, §1400.C.5.a). “Access to the general curriculum” includes music instruction, although few studies of children with disabilities measure music learning and performance in separate or inclusive settings (Brown & Jellison, 2012; Jellison & Draper, 2015). Jellison and Draper (2015) identified only 22 music studies that were conducted in inclusive school settings across a span of almost 40 years.
The purpose of this observational study with one teacher and four of her inclusive music classrooms was to expand the knowledge base of children’s behaviors in inclusive classrooms, to gain new insights on variables that affect their learning, and thus provide insights into ways music teachers may approach the challenge of teaching children with disabilities in regular classrooms. Specifically, this study examined opportunities for students with disabilities to engage in behaviors related to the objectives on their IEPs, their peer interactions, on-task behaviors, and music participation. Observations were conducted with the contexts of different types of instructional formats (e.g., whole class music making, dyad talking), and music activities. Research indicates different types of instructional formats occur frequently in regular classrooms (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012), and behaviors of students in elementary school classrooms vary with respect to types of music activities (Bowles, 1998; Forsythe, 1977; Orman, 2002). Observations sought to answer the following questions:
What opportunities are present in activities and instructional formats for students to demonstrate IEP objectives?
What percentages of time are students engaged in peer interactions, and how do peer interactions vary among different activities and instructional formats?
What percentages of time are students on-task, and how does on-task behavior vary among different activities and instructional formats?
When given the opportunity, how frequently do students answer (verbally or nonverbally) music and other academic content questions that are asked by the teacher?
When given the opportunity, how frequently do students perform music individually in class, and what is the quality of their performance?
Method
Participants (N = 9) were elementary students with disabilities in the third (n = 6) and fourth (n = 3) grades. All the participants were assessed as having specific learning disabilities and/or speech or language impairments. On examination, most of the students’ IEP objectives were related to specific academic tasks (e.g., editing drafts) and specific speech tasks (e.g., produce the /s/ sound at the word and sentence level). To facilitate measurement, IEP objectives were categorized based on the skills required (see Table S1 in the online supplemental material).
The nine students were observed in four general music classes, two in third- and two in fourth-grade levels (14–20 students per class) that met every 4 school days for 45 minutes. All four of the music classes were taught by the same music teacher, although as a matter of practice for this school, students from different academic classes were combined to create sections for music, art, and physical education, so that each class contained some children from the gifted and talented class, some children from the bilingual classes (including children who speak Spanish at home as well as English language learners), and some from general education classes. Based on the most recent demographics collected by the school district, a large majority (79%) of the school’s students were considered at-risk, 97.6% were nonwhite (78.4% Hispanic, 19.2% black, 1.6% white, and <1% American Indian and two or more races), over half the students (53%) were bilingual, and 94% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs.
Based on the research literature and initial observations of the videotapes, categories, subcategories, and operational definitions for activities, instructional formats, and students’ behaviors (see Table S2 in the online supplemental material) were developed. The behavior categories for music activities were as follows: singing, playing instruments, singing and playing instruments, music listening, music theory, music knowledge, and conducting. The behavior categories for instructional format were as follows: whole class music making, whole class talking/listening, whole class worksheet, dyad talking, large group game, and noninstructional. Student behaviors included the following: IEP goal opportunities, music verbal and nonverbal responses, music performance responses, on- and off-task behavior, and peer interaction.
Two Canon Vixia cameras mounted on tripods were used to record the class sessions. The cameras were placed at opposite corners of the room, facing each other. Videos were converted to Quicktime files using a MacBook Pro computer for later analysis. Data were recorded using Scribe (Duke & Stammen, 2011), a computer-based observation program, and a MacBook Pro computer connected to a LG IPS LED 27” monitor. All the nine participants were observed during three class sessions; all students’ behaviors could be observed for more than 50% of each session.
With the university’s institutional review board and school’s approval of the study, written consent forms were sent home with students, which were returned with parent/guardian signatures granting consent for their children to participate in the study. There was an additional page for parents of students with disabilities to sign, granting permission to access their child’s IEP goals. Observations of the students in the classes began following the collection of the returned consent of the students in the class.
First, each music activity and instructional format for each class session were identified and timed. Second, behaviors and opportunities for IEP responses for each of the nine students with disabilities were counted and timed. The total duration of observations for each child was approximately 120 minutes.
Several videotapes that were not part of the main study were used to train an independent observer. Following training on the research variables, the independent observer watched 30% of the total number of class session tapes for purposes of calculating interobserver agreement. Interobserver reliability was high with an average of 92% (range 78% to 100%) overall, 100% for IEP opportunities, 91% (range 84% to 100%) for peer interactions, 93% (range 81% to 100%) for off-task behaviors, 89% (range 78% to 100%) for verbal/nonverbal responses, and 100% for music performance responses.
Results
Third-Grade Classes
A total of 247 minutes (approximately 4 hours) of class instruction was recorded for the six third-grade class sessions. Across all six sessions, music theory activities occurred most frequently (19 occurrences) and for the majority of the instructional time (55%). There were few instances (<5) of singing, playing instruments, and singing and playing instruments (see Table S3 in the online supplemental material).
The instructional format during music theory activities was mostly whole class (eight occurrences) and dyads (seven occurrences). The teacher used a whole class format for all the remaining music activities (playing instruments, singing and playing instruments, and singing). During Session 1, each third-grade class completed a worksheet to summarize a book the teacher had just read to the class—an activity that lasted approximately 15 minutes (13% of instructional time). Overall, third-grade students spent 63% of their time in activities designed for the whole class and 40% of their time in activities designed for dyads or large groups (see Table S3 in the online supplemental material).
Fourth-Grade Classes
A total of 222 minutes (approximately 4 hours) of class instruction was recorded for the six fourth-grade class sessions. Across all six sessions, fourth-grade students spent a majority of class time playing instruments (approximately 1 hour, or 26% of instructional time) and engaging in music knowledge activities (approximately 1 hour or 26% of instructional time). Less time was spent listening to music (15% of instructional time; see Table S4 in the online supplemental material).
Similar to the third-grade classes, the most common instructional format was whole class. There was one instance of the whole class engaging in a worksheet activity (approximately 20 minutes each class section or 19% of instructional time) and three brief instances of dyad time (each <1 minute), all which occurred during music listening activities. Overall, fourth-grade students spent 78% of their time in activities designed for the whole class and, unlike the third-grade classes, very little time (1%) in activities designed for dyads (see Table S4 in the online supplemental material).
Individual Data
IEP Opportunities
IEP opportunities were calculated for each student by recording the frequency and duration of each class activity that included behaviors addressed in the objectives for each student’s IEP. IEP objectives were categorized as reading/writing, reading/talking, and math/science. No music learning objectives were included in the IEPs. I considered only instances of addressing objectives as they were written. The students’ math and science objectives focused on learning addition and subtraction of two-digit numbers; using place values, multiplication, division, fractions; and following scientific reasoning—none of these objectives were observed in any of the sessions. The number of IEP objectives for each student and those observed are presented in Table S1, available in the online supplemental material.
All third-grade students had at least one opportunity to address an IEP goal during two of the three sessions. During Session 1, students listened to a storybook, discussed the key points with a partner, and individually completed a worksheet about the book. During Session 2, students reviewed the key points of the book with a partner before going to centers to practice the concepts presented in the book in either a large group game or with a partner. Frequencies of total opportunities ranged from two to five with durations from 1:25 to 43:09.
Fourth-grade students had only one opportunity each to address their reading/writing IEP goals (all which occurred in Session 1) and no opportunities to address their reading/talking goals. The reading/writing opportunity occurred during an activity when students were prompted to use a book to complete a worksheet. Overall, all nine students had opportunities to address at least some of their IEP goals although the number of opportunities varied depending on the type of activity (e.g., music theory) as did the duration of total opportunities.
Peer Interactions
The type, frequency, and duration of peer interactions varied across students; however, there were some overall trends. In the instance of assigned interactions, the teacher created opportunities and included this format in her lesson plan for particular sessions. Similarly, the teacher allowed, and even encouraged, students to seek help and interact with others to complete their tasks while working independently, categorized as unassigned interactions. Interactions where students were off-task during an interaction were coded as unassigned off-task interactions; these were infrequent and did not occur for all students.
For third-grade students, the majority of assigned interactions occurred when they were asked to work with peers, and most often when they were assigned to talk with a partner (“dyad talking”). In these types of assigned peer activities, students were asked to discuss what they remembered from the previous class. Some students engaged in peer interactions when assigned and others did not, although they interacted spontaneously when completing a task individually.
All the third-grade students engaged in peer interactions that were unassigned. For most of the students, the majority of these interactions occurred during Session 1 when students were assigned to complete a worksheet individually but talked with another classmate. For all students, their longest total time of unassigned peer interactions was during this same activity (Cole = 3:34, James = 0:22, Martin = 1:03, Peter = 2:49, Ray = 0:29, Rick = 0:25).
The majority of off-task peer interactions (47 of 59 overall) occurred during the second session when students were assigned to participate in “centers,” spending over 10 minutes either in a large group playing a game or in dyads using flash cards. During these interactions, students were talking instead of paying attention to the large group game, or they were talking about the large group game instead of using flash cards with their partners. It is important to note that although most of the third-grade students did engage in off-task peer interactions, these interactions did not occur during all sessions for all students and that most were brief.
Overall, the fourth-grade students engaged in fewer peer interactions compared to the third-grade students. Similar to the third-grade students, there was variation in the overall number of interactions for each student. All three fourth-grade students engaged in unassigned peer interactions, and similar to the third-grade students, the majority of these interactions occurred during an activity in the second session when students were assigned to complete worksheets individually.
Overall, the type, frequency, and duration of peer interactions varied both by student and by grade level. Many of the assigned interactions occurred during activities when the students were paired to discuss an idea with each other or to practice a skill (third-grade). The majority of unassigned interactions for both grade levels occurred during an activity when students were assigned to complete a worksheet individually and were allowed to talk to each other as part of the activity (overall, 46% of the total number of unassigned interactions occurred during these activities).
On- and Off-Task Behavior
For the most part, all the third-grade students were on-task for all instructional activities. Some students were on-task for entire activities; for example, Martin (Session 1: music theory dyad talk and music theory whole class talk), Peter (Session 2: music theory dyad talk), Rick (Session 1: music theory dyad talk and music theory whole class talk; Session 2: music theory dyad talk and music theory whole class talk), and Ray (Session 1: music theory dyad talk; Session 2: singing whole class music making). The activities listed above were also very short activities (all <3 minutes).
In considering the percentage of time on-task, two students (James and Ray) were on-task for at least 75% for all instructional activities in all sessions. Four of the six students had their highest percentage of time off-task (Cole = 40%, James = 23%, Martin = 45%, and Rick = 74%) during activities in Session 2. This session primarily consisted of students in centers, either playing a flash card game with a partner or waiting their turn at a game with the teacher in a large group. However, in Session 3, when the majority of class time was spent making music, all six students were on-task for at least 80% of all instructional activities; three of the students (James, Martin, and Rick) were on-task for over 90% of all instructional activities.
Even though students were on-task for most of all instructional activities, and even for all of some instructional and noninstructional activities, four of the students had their highest percentage of time off-task in a session during noninstructional time. During Session 1, James (23.02%), Rick (8.75%), and Ray (47.26%) had their highest percentage of time off-task during noninstructional time. During Session 2, Martin (52.33%) and Rick (8.33%) had their highest percentage of time off-task during noninstructional time. During Session 3, James (8.86%) and Rick (18.91%) had their highest percentage of time off-task during noninstructional time.
When considering the frequency of off-task behavior, there was variation across instructional activities and across students. For example, off-task frequency could be zero for one activity and then the same student could be off-task very frequently in another activity (e.g., range for Peter = 0–48 occurrences). Often, when off-task frequency was high, the duration of the activity was long, for instance Peter was off-task 48 times during a 21-minute music-making activity, compared to zero times in a 38-second dyad talking activity.
Similar to the third-grade students, all three of the fourth-grade students were mostly on-task for all instructional activities; and all three students were on-task for entire activities. When examining the percentage of time on-task, Kristen was on-task for over 70% of all instructional activities in all sessions. Adam was off-task for over 60% of two dyad talking activities in Session 2; if these two activities were not considered, Adam was on-task for over 75% of all instructional activities in all three sessions.
Similar to the third-grade students, even though fourth-grade students were on-task for most of all instructional activities, and for all of some instructional and noninstructional activities, students had their highest percentage of time off-task in a session during noninstructional time. There was variation across instructional activities and across students in the frequency of individual students’ off-task behavior. Overall, most of the third- and fourth-grade students were on-task for most all instructional activities in all three sessions. There were differences in the percentage of time and frequency of off-task behaviors across instructional activities and across students. Some students were on-task for all of some noninstructional activities, although six of the nine students had their highest percentage of time off-task in a session during noninstructional activities.
Music Verbal/Nonverbal Responses
All the third-grade students had opportunities to respond to questions related to music content knowledge in at least two of the three sessions. Four of the six third-grade students responded in all sessions. Some students had more opportunities than others to respond either as a result of questions to the groups or individuals. Correct responses and total opportunities are as follows: Cole = 6/7, James = 27/32, Martin = 11/14, Peter = 12/16, Rick = 17/25, Ray = 9/11.
Of the fourth-grade students, only Raul and Kristen had opportunities to respond; Adam was not asked any questions individually in any of the three sessions and did not respond when questions were posed to the entire class. Raul had opportunities to respond during Sessions 2 and 3, and Kristen had opportunities to respond during all three sessions. As with the third-grade students, when Raul and Kristen had opportunities to respond, they were most often correct (Raul = 7/10, Kristen = 9/17). Overall, when prompted to respond verbally/nonverbally, almost all students’ responses were more correct than incorrect, although not all students had opportunities to respond in all sessions, and one of the fourth-grade students did not respond during any of the class sessions.
Music Performance Responses
The teacher called on three of the third-grade students (Cole, James, and Peter) to perform an instrumental solo with the class ensemble during the third session. Although the duration of these performances was short (20–35 seconds), all three students performed their solos correctly. Martin, Rick, and Ray were not asked to perform during any of the sessions.
The teacher asked for fourth-grade students to volunteer to play prepared pieces on their recorders; Raul was the only student to volunteer. He played eight times during Session 2 and three times during Session 3. Raul’s performances were short (18–56 seconds), and they were correct or approximately correct. Adam and Kristen did not volunteer during these sessions.
Few students had opportunities to perform in front of their peers. Five of the nine students did not have opportunities to perform in front of their peers during the observed sessions. For those few students who did, most often their performances were correct or approximately correct.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to observe the behaviors of nine students with disabilities in third- and fourth-grade music classes (two class sections per grade level) for a total of 12 class sessions. Since previous research shows that students’ behaviors are affected by classroom environments (e.g., Forsythe, 1977; Rohrbeck et al., 2003), their behaviors were observed with consideration given to the contexts for the behaviors (i.e., in a variety of instructional activities and formats). Although this study involved only one teacher and four of her classrooms for a portion of the school year, results have implications for classroom music teachers and future researchers to consider, particularly related to opportunities for students with disabilities to learn and practice IEP objectives in regular music activities and classrooms.
Results suggest that it is possible for students to practice their IEP goals in inclusive music classrooms; however, it may be beneficial for music teachers to work in collaboration with music therapists and special educators to develop appropriate activities and adaptations as needed for music learning and learning IEP objectives, as appropriate (e.g., Clark & Breman, 2009; Darrow, 1999; Throneburg, Calvert, Sturm, Paramboukas, & Paul, 2000). Music therapists can provide a unique and beneficial perspective for music educators who are working with students with disabilities in their classrooms.
As stated previously, the students in this study had specific learning disabilities and/or speech or language impairments, as reflected in their IEP goals and objectives. Although the lessons were not specifically designed with the students’ IEPs in mind, the teacher planned activities that were academically based (related to literacy objectives), thus allowing students to address some of their IEP objectives in music class. Literacy-based music activities reflect this teacher’s interest in children’s literature. While the connection between the teacher’s interest and the students’ IEPs was coincidental, this finding highlights the close relationship that can exist between IEP objectives (behaviors) and behaviors in music activities. Although students’ IEP objectives are often outside those typically found in music curricula, it is most likely that music teachers will want to contribute to their students’ overall development and learning if they are aware of their students’ learning needs. When teachers are aware of students’ learning needs, they can structure ways for their students to participate more successfully in music activities and practice skills. For example, if a teacher knows from an IEP that a student has difficulty reading, then the teacher would not ask that student to read the words for a phrase from a song aloud but would structure pairs of students to read words of different phrases quietly together and then aloud. Or, if a teacher knows from an IEP that a student has difficulty using capitalization and punctuation, in music activities using writing the teacher could give the student brief feedback on these goals.
IEP objectives may differ for students with other types of disabilities. Given results from this study and the breadth of elementary music activities that can engage students socially, emotionally, physically, and academically, it is likely that irrespective of the nature of students’ disabilities, music activities can be structured in a way that will allow students to practice a variety of IEP goals. Collaboration with other professionals, including parents, can give teachers greater insights into ways they can develop and implement opportunities within music learning activities that will enhance their students’ learning of other types of objectives—objectives that are important to students’ success in school.
In the same way students were able to practice IEP objectives, the music teacher created opportunities for both structured and, to some extent, unstructured peer interactions. Activities included talking in pairs about the instructional content, and students were encouraged to seek help from one another when completing a worksheet individually. The majority of interactions for students at both grade levels in this study were unassigned (e.g., while working individually); therefore, if this teacher had not encouraged the students to collaborate, these positive interactions may not have occurred. Based on these observations, it is recommended that music teachers purposefully plan opportunities for students with and without disabilities to interact both formally and informally during music classes.
The students in this study were on-task for the majority of the music activities, a positive finding and one that is inconsistent with findings from previous research that found that, compared to their typical peers, students with learning disabilities have social deficits in classrooms, including significant challenges to remaining on-task (Bender & Smith, 1990). Additionally, teachers often identify students with learning disabilities as being mostly off-task in general classroom environments (Bender & Smith, 1990), although results from the current study indicate that students with disabilities are mostly on-task during music instructional activities, thus helping dispel any notion that students with disabilities are “always” off-task.
Previous music research suggests that typical students are more on-task when actively engaged in music activities as compared to noninstructional time or times when they are expected to listen to teacher talk (e.g., Forsythe, 1977; Yarbrough & Price, 1981). Likewise, students with disabilities in this study were mostly on-task during instructional activities, and many had their highest percentage of time off-task in a session during noninstructional activities. Given the deficit of research including students with disabilities in a music classroom setting (Brown & Jellison, 2012; Jellison & Draper, 2015), results from this study may contribute to music teachers’ efforts to observe similarities in behavior between students with disabilities and their typical peers. Additionally, results from the observations of on-task behaviors suggest that teachers can increase on-task behavior in their students with and without disabilities when they maximize the time their students are engaged in active music-making experiences.
As stated earlier, only a few studies have been conducted in inclusive music classrooms, and none measured the music learning of students with disabilities. Although an attempt was made in this study to observe music behaviors, these measures are far from comprehensive, and additional forms of evaluation should be developed in the future. Measurement in this study was limited to situations when students were asked or volunteered to perform music individually (most often they performed correctly). Five of the nine students did not have opportunities to perform in front of their peers during the observed sessions. Results raise the important point that students’ opportunities to show what they know and can do are most often controlled by the teacher, and the teacher can purposefully plan for these opportunities when developing lesson plans.
The observations of students’ behavior were collected over a period of approximately 1 month toward the end of the school year. Although the teacher reported these lessons as representative of her lessons, it is possible that additional observations across time may have yielded different results from those reported in this study. However, given the paucity of research that has been conducted in inclusive music classrooms, the results of this observational study makes a contribution to the knowledge base, specifically as it relates to the on-task behavior and classroom participation of students with disabilities and to a new area for teaching and research, opportunities for incorporating students’ IEP objectives into music activities.
Overall, the nine students observed in these inclusive music classrooms were most often on-task as they participated and interacted in music activities with their typical peers. Given these behaviors, it is quite likely that many outside observers would see these students with disabilities as indistinguishable from their typical peers; all were participating and appeared to enjoy the music classroom experience. What remains to be answered by future research, however, are important questions concerning the music learning of students with disabilities in inclusive music classrooms and ways music classes can provide opportunities for students to generalize important nonmusic skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified in IEPs. Ultimately, our goal as music educators is to provide the highest quality of educational experiences to the millions of children with disabilities across educational settings; as researchers, we need to continue to study ways to make this possible.
Author’s Note
This study was completed in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Music and Human Learning at The University of Texas at Austin. Full dissertation is available through The University of Texas Libraries.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Table S1–S4 are available in the online supplemental material.
References
|
Bender, W. N., Smith, J. K. (1990). Classroom behavior of children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 298–305. doi:10.1177/002221949002300509 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bowles, C. L. (1998). Music activities preferences of elementary students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 193–207. doi:10.2307/3345623 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Brendell, J. K. (1996). Time use, rehearsal activity, and student off-task behavior during the initial minutes of high school choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 6–14. doi:10.2307/3345409 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Brown, L., Jellison, J. (2012). Music research with children and youth with disabilities and typically developing peers: A systematic review. Journal of Music Therapy, 49, 335–364. doi:10.1093/jmt/49.3.335 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Clark, M. A., Breman, J. C. (2009). School counselor inclusion: A collaborative model to provide academic and social-emotional support in the classroom setting. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 6–11. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00543.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Darrow, A. -A. (1999). Music educators’ perceptions regarding the inclusion of students with severe disabilities in music classrooms. Journal of Music Therapy, 36, 254–273. doi:10.1093/jmt/36.4.254 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Duke, R. A. (1999). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48. Google Scholar | |
|
Duke, R. A., Stammen, D. (2011). Scribe 4 (for observation and assessment). Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources. Google Scholar | |
|
Forsythe, J. L. (1977). Elementary student attending behavior as a function of classroom activities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 228–239. doi:10.2307/3345307 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 732–749. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 . (1997). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/1999-2/062499a.html Google Scholar | |
|
Jellison, J. A. (2000). A content analysis of music research with children and youth with disabilities (1975–99): Applications in special education. In Effectiveness of music therapy procedures: Documentation of research and clinical practice (3rd ed., pp. 199–264). Silver Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Jellison, J. A., Brooks, B. H., Huck, A. M. (1984). Structuring small groups and music reinforcement to facilitate positive interactions and acceptance of severely handicapped students in the regular music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 243–264. doi:10.2307/3344923 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jellison, J. A., Draper, E. A. (2015). Music research in inclusive school settings: 1975–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 325–331. doi:10.1177/0022429414554808 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Kurth, J., Mastergeorge, A. M. (2012). Impact of setting and instructional context for adolescents with autism. Journal of Special Education, 46, 36–48. doi:10.1177/0022466910366480 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M. (1983). Attending behavior as a function of in-class activity in university music classes. Journal of Music Therapy, 20, 30–38. doi:10.1093/jmt/20.1.30 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Moore, R. S. (1987). Effects of age, sex, and activity on children’s attentiveness in elementary music classes. In Madsen, C. K., Pricket, C. A. (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 26–31). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Moore, R. S., Bonney, J. T. (1987). Comparative analysis of teaching time between student teachers and experienced teachers in general music. Contributions to Music Education, 14, 52–58. Google Scholar | |
|
Orman, E. K. (2002). Comparison of the National Standards for Music Education and elementary music specialists’ use of class time. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 155–164. doi:10.2307/3345819 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Throneburg, R. N., Calvert, L. K., Sturm, J. J., Paramboukas, A. A., Paul, P. J. (2000). A comparison of service delivery models: Effects on curricular vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 10–20. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs . (2014). 35th Annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2013. Washington, DC: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
VanWeelden, K., Whipple, J. (2014). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 148–160. doi:10.1177/0022429414530563 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Witt, A. C. (1986). Use of class time and student attentiveness in secondary instrumental rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 34–42. doi:10.2307/3344796 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Yarbrough, C. (2002). The first 50 years of the Journal of Research in Music Education: A content analysis. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 276–279. doi:10.2307/3345354 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Yarbrough, C., Price, H. E. (1981). Prediction of performer attentiveness based on rehearsal activity and teacher behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 209–217. doi:10.2307/3344994 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
