A Phenomenology of First-Year Music Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The purpose of this phenomenology was to examine the lived experience of being a first-year music teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across two data waves, the first in winter 2020 and the second in late spring 2021, we collected written reflections and conducted online interviews with 10 music teachers who began their careers in 2020 to 2021. We found that participants’ experiences were characterized by overwhelm, disconnection, a pervasive concern for well-being, and a sense of missing out. These experiences were shaped by contextual factors like being responsible for mixed instructional modalities, coping with inconsistent student attendance, and navigating safety protocols that presented barriers to learning. The essence of being a first-year music teacher during the pandemic was the feeling of being adrift amid a largely lost year, looking to the next year as another first year of teaching. We suggest that this cohort of novice music teachers is distinct from previous cohorts, having been shaped by an intensified teaching experience. Induction supports such as mentoring may need to be extended through the first 3 years of their careers, and researchers should continue to follow this cohort because their trajectory is unclear.

The COVID-19 pandemic uprooted educational practices around the world. When schools shuttered in-person learning in the United States during spring 2020, an estimated 57 million children were affected (Donohue & Miller, 2020). Teachers, with little to no preparation, assumed a new paradigm (Hamilton et al., 2020): remote and hybrid instruction at mass scale; implementation of masking, distancing, and other mitigation measures; and the cessation of schools as a physical anchor in communities. For music educators, live rehearsals and performances were canceled, and many struggled to adapt their programs for the virtual environment (Hash, 2021). Early evidence suggests a marked decline in music teacher mental well-being and self-efficacy. In a national survey conducted in July 2020, music teachers reported “less positive emotion, less engagement, less accomplishment, more negative emotion, and poorer overall health” (Miksza et al., 2021, p. 12) relative to prepandemic norms for adults. Working under these conditions undoubtedly taxed music educators and likely created a unique climate for novices. As such, we sought to understand the experiences of first-year music educators in this study.

Related Literature

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous and varied challenges pervaded the literature on novice music teachers’ experiences. Examples include experiencing gaps between education and practice (Ballantyne, 2007; Ballantyne & Packer, 2004), struggling with large class sizes (Conway & Zerman, 2004; Krueger, 2000), experiencing a lack of agency (Powell, 2019), and encountering challenges inherent to teaching at multiple campuses (Krueger, 2000). Amid these varied difficulties, three challenges seem to be especially pervasive, as noted in Conway’s (2015b) review of literature on first-year teachers: (a) isolation (e.g., Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005), (b) insufficient administrative support (e.g., Garvis & Pendergast, 2010), and (c) issues with classroom management (e.g., Krueger, 2000).

Isolation is a well-documented challenge for music teachers in general (Sindberg, 2011; Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005) and novice music teachers in particular (Ballantyne, 2007; Conway & Christensen, 2006; Conway & Zerman, 2004; Krueger, 1999, 2000; Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005). Physically, music teachers have reported teaching in spaces distant from other classrooms due to the noise inherent to musical performance (Ballantyne, 2007). Professionally, music teachers have reported isolation due to being the only music teacher or vocal/instrumental specialist on their campuses (Ballantyne, 2007; Conway & Zerman, 2004). The experience of isolation may be especially poignant during the first year of teaching, when novice music teachers are most in need of professional guidance (Krueger, 2000). Furthermore, the contrast between the socially dense university environment and the more insular public school campus may highlight feelings of isolation for first-year music teachers (Krueger, 1999).

In addition to isolation, novice music teachers have reported feeling unsupported by administrators. Garvis and Pendergast (2010) found that music educators in Queensland, Australia, believed they received fewer financial resources and assistance than teachers of English and mathematics. In Krueger’s (2000) survey of beginning music teachers in Washington State, half indicated that they did not feel supported by administration. Additionally, in Madsen and Hancock’s (2002) case study of issues concerning teacher attrition, one of the most common reasons participants gave for leaving the profession was a lack of administrative support.

Classroom management comprises another salient issue for novice educators. Potter (2021) found that novice music teachers reported lower classroom management self-efficacy than experienced music teachers, and Krueger (2000) and DeLorenzo (1992) reported that classroom management issues ranked among the top concerns for novice music educators. In qualitative studies, first-year music teachers have expressed fear of losing control of their classrooms (Gruenhagen, 2012), anxiety as a result of being verbally berated by students (Barnes, 2010), and feeling unprepared for the challenges of managing rehearsals with large class sizes, such as 85 students (Conway et al., 2004). Anecdotally, Haack (2003) noted that music educators may be more vulnerable to classroom management struggles than their core subject counterparts because elementary music teachers tend to teach larger numbers of students and secondary music teachers tend to teach larger class sizes.

Considering the professional isolation, insufficient administrative support, and classroom management challenges experienced by novice music educators, it may be unsurprising that this population has historically been prone to attrition (Hancock, 2008; Krueger, 2000; Madsen & Hancock, 2002). Sixteen percent of respondents to Krueger’s (2000) survey of early-career music teachers in the state of Washington intended to leave the profession within the next few years. In Madsen and Hancock’s (2002) survey of the alumni of a southeastern university, 17.5% of participants reported that they had left the music teaching profession. Six years later, the number had grown to 34.4%. Nationally, Hancock (2008) found that music educators who left the profession were primarily under the age of 30, and in a later study (2009), he reported that 6% of music teachers left the profession each year.

Induction and mentoring are conventional mechanisms for supporting new music teachers (e.g., Bell-Robertson, 2015), although programs can vary widely in scope, quality, and availability, as noted in Conway’s (2015a) longitudinal evaluation of music teacher mentorship. In an analysis of national survey data, Gallo (2018) found significant discipline-based disparities in access to early-career support. Compared with other teachers, novice music educators were less likely to report having a mentor and less likely to have participated in an induction program. Prior to the pandemic, school- and district-based new teacher programs often fell short in meeting music educators’ distinctive needs; examples have included assigning music teachers to non-music mentors and offering induction initiatives that failed to address the unique concerns of music teachers, such as public performance, itinerant teaching schedules, and structural isolation (Benson, 2008). Extant research suggests mentoring and induction can be effective interventions against early-career teacher turnover and dissatisfaction (e.g., Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017), but for music teachers, inconsistency in program access and relevance remains a pressing concern.

The COVID-19 pandemic further destabilized the preservice to in-service music teacher transition. Student teaching, a cornerstone in teacher preparation (e.g., Kelly, 2015), was abruptly and fundamentally diminished. The spring 2020 term was effectively halved once instruction moved online and student teachers lost physical contact with their cooperating teachers (Thomas et al., 2021). Many music teacher candidates then faced uncertain job prospects with a delayed recruiting season and atypical vetting processes (e.g., virtual interviews). Perhaps most troubling, many of the skills and frameworks these new teachers honed as undergraduates were suddenly called into question. The pandemic-inflected field they entered with masking, physical distancing, videoconferencing, learning management programs (e.g., Google Classroom), and more bore little resemblance to the one for which they had been prepared.

Given the challenging landscape of novice music teaching and of pandemic teaching, it would seem likely that music educators who began their careers during the pandemic encountered considerable difficulty. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the experience of being a first-year music teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three questions guided our inquiry: (1) What was it like to be a first-year music teacher during the pandemic? (2) Which contextual factors were integral to that experience? and (3) What was the essence of being a first-year music teacher during the pandemic?

Method

Design and Sampling

We conducted a phenomenological study to explore the lived experience of music teachers who began their careers during the pandemic. Phenomenology refers to both a theoretical framework, which underpins qualitative research in general, and an analytic method (Patton, 2014). Both are rooted in the philosophical work of Edmund H. Husserl, who challenged the tenets of empiricism by theorizing that consciousness is our only means of acquiring knowledge (Moustakas, 1994). Husserl proposed that knowledge is obtained through a posture of intentionality, turning our consciousness to the things themselves. He held that objective and subjective knowledge are intimately entwined as an object presents itself to the consciousness, is perceived and encoded with meaning, and is finally understood as knowledge.

Intentionality, according to Husserl, is comprised of both noematic and noetic consciousness (Moustakas, 1994). In noematic consciousness, the characteristics of an object are perceived—its look, its feel, and its view from different angles. In noetic consciousness, the object is understood in light of its context, including its relation to previous experience, the anticipation of future experience, and its position relative to other objects (Moustakas, 1994). The noematic and noetic are correlates, serving as grounding poles on a continuum of human experience. As such, a person reflecting on an experience attends to both the noema and noesis of the experience, although one is often dominant (King & Horrocks, 2010).

As a theoretical framework, phenomenology rests on two key assumptions: first, that experiential knowledge is of value, and second, that experiential knowledge can be gleaned through prolonged engagement (e.g., in-depth interviews) with those who have lived experience with a phenomenon (Patton, 2014). As an analytic method, phenomenology also assumes that the particulars of individual experience are grounded in a common thread—an experiential essence shared by all who have encountered a phenomenon. Thus, phenomenological research aims to elucidate the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of a phenomenon for a group of people (Patton, 2014).

Prior to data collection, we engaged in epoché (Moustakas, 1994), identifying our previous experiences, theory, and knowledge regarding novice music teaching and teaching during the pandemic. Although we acknowledge that fully setting aside previous experience and knowledge is impossible, we engaged in the process of epoché to open a dialogue with the self, assuming a posture of naiveté. We embraced Moustakas’s (1994) view of epoché as a

preparation for deriving new knowledge, but also as an experience in itself, a process of setting aside predilections, prejudices, predispositions, and allowing things, events, and people to enter anew into consciousness, and to look and see them again, as if for the first time. (p. 85)

Thus, each researcher wrote a personal statement describing their experiences as a first-year music teacher and their experiences teaching during the pandemic. We shared these documents with each other and discussed them during a synchronous online meeting (see Appendix SA in the supplemental materials included with the online version of this article).

After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from our respective institutions, we recruited participants from the pool of graduates of the universities at which we currently teach or formerly taught. Email invitations were sent to all graduates who met the criteria of having started their music-teaching careers in 2020. To account for varied teaching contexts, we established a quota of one participant per content area representing elementary general music, choir, and band. Ten first-year teachers agreed to participate in the study (Polkinghorne, 1989). Participants were heterogeneous with respect to gender, grade level, content area, and geographical region. To preserve anonymity, each participant has been assigned a pseudonym. See Table 1 for participant profiles.

Table 1.

Participant Profiles.

Name	Grade Level	Content Area	Location	Primary Teaching Modality
Alice	Elementary	General music	Southeast	F2F & hybrid
Amber	Elementary	General music	Southwest	F2F & online asynchronous
Angelica	Elementary	General music	Southwest	F2F & online asynchronous
Derek	Middle school	Band	Southwest	F2F, online synchronous, & hybrid
Gina	Middle school	Orchestra	Southeast	Hybrid
Julia	High school	Band	Southeast	Hybrid
Mia	Elementary	General music	Southwest	F2F & online asynchronous
Robert	Middle school	Choir	Southwest	F2F & online asynchronous
Sierra	Elementary & middle school	General music band	Northeast	Online synchronous
Zoe	Middle school	Choir	Southwest	F2F, online synchronous, & hybrid

Note. F2F = face-to-face.

Data Collection

We followed Bevan’s (2014) three-part process for phenomenological interviews: contextualization (i.e., collecting background information to elucidate the participant’s lifeworld), apprehending the phenomenon (i.e., gleaning a description of participant experience), and clarifying the phenomenon (i.e., engaging the participant in imaginative variation, varying the structure of experience to clarify meaning). We also used King and Horrocks’s (2010) technique of combining written prompts with interviews to facilitate deep reflection. We gathered data in two waves: one at the beginning of participants’ winter breaks and the other at the beginning of their summer breaks.

The first data wave began with written prompts aimed at contextualization (Bevan, 2014). Participants provided a written account of their student-teaching and job-search experiences, current job descriptions, current schedules, and pandemic-related school policies. The written prompts ended with one question aimed at apprehending the phenomenon: “Describe a typical day of teaching.” One week after submitting written responses, each participant engaged in a semistructured, 1-hour, online interview. Interview questions prompted participants to describe the horizons of their experience (e.g., what it is like to teach online, face-to-face, when colleagues are absent due to illness, etc.) and to clarify or elaborate on elements of their written responses.

The second data wave also began with written prompts, eliciting updated contextual information (e.g., changes in pandemic-related policies) and questions aimed at apprehending the phenomenon (e.g., “What does it mean to you to be a teacher during the pandemic?”). Again, 1 week after submitting written responses, participants engaged in a semistructured, 1-hour, online interview, this time addressing the third step in Bevan’s (2014) process: clarifying the phenomenon by engaging participants in imaginative variation.

Imaginative variation is a thought experiment. In the traditional imaginative variation process, the researcher imagines how textural elements of participant experience may be altered if structural elements were altered. For example, in our study, we might engage in imaginative variation by considering whether themes of participant experience could have been altered if participants had been responsible for a single instructional modality rather than multiple modalities. The intention of the imaginative variation process is to identify those structural elements that are essential to the textural experience itself (Moustakas, 1994). Traditionally, researchers engage in imaginative variation during data analysis (Moustakas, 1994).

In lieu of the traditional, researcher-led process of imaginative variation, we chose to follow Bevan’s (2014) recommendation that researchers engage participants themselves in the imaginative variation process, thereby illuminating a structure “borne out of real experience that is verified by the person, and as such adds credibility, dependability, and trustworthiness” (p. 142). Thus, before the final interview, we reviewed the first interview transcript and the first and second sets of written responses for each participant. We used these data to develop questions that prompted participants to imagine how varying structural elements of their experience might have changed the experience itself. Examples include imagining how the school year may have been different without masking or if teachers were only required to deliver a single mode of instruction. We designed a few questions for all participants (see Supplemental Materials, Appendix B) and tailored others to individuals. Ultimately, this second interview allowed participants to identify structural elements that were integral to their experience and to clarify the precise nature of that experience.

Phenomenological Reduction

We analyzed the data using Moustakas’s (1994) procedures for phenomenological reduction, which begins with horizonalization. Moustakas posited that every statement about an experience comprises a distinct horizon, which is a particular view of that experience, situated in a specific time and context. Moustakas tasked researchers with extracting each individual horizon, clustering them into themes for each individual, and then analyzing across individuals to identify themes common to all. Data for horizonalization were comprised of the first set of written responses, transcripts from the first round of interviews, and the second set of written responses, totaling approximately 211 typed pages. Each researcher analyzed data from participants interviewed by another researcher, extracting statements that detailed horizons of participant experience as novice music teachers during the pandemic. We clustered horizons into themes for each individual participant and discussed these themes during weekly hour-long online meetings. After four weekly meetings, we agreed on four textural themes that converged across participants.

Next, we consulted the imaginative variation data from the second round of interviews to validate textural depictions of experience and identify structural themes (Bevan, 2014; Moustakas, 1994). Teasing out the distinctions between textural and structural themes proved challenging given that each structural element seemed intimately tied to a particular textural theme. The intertwining of the textural and structural may be unsurprising given the broad scope of the phenomenon (i.e., an entire year of teaching experience) and the complexity of the school environment. We ultimately agreed to embed reports of structural elements within their companion textural themes.

Finally, having identified textural and structural themes, we intuitively and reflexively synthesized them (Moustakas, 1994) to arrive at an essence statement that distilled participants’ experiences. We each independently wrote an essence statement and then met online to share our statements and discuss commonalities and differences. Our three statements overlapped substantially. We ultimately arrived at a single, synthesized statement that captured the essential nature of participants’ experiences as first-year music teachers during the pandemic (Moustakas, 1994).

Trustworthiness

We sought to enhance trustworthiness in all phases of our research. Before data collection, we engaged in epoché (Moustakas, 1994), an exercise that helped us surface and then bracket our prior experiences so we would be sensitive to participants’ accounts. We collected multiple forms of data, enabling triangulation (Patton, 2014), and we conducted member checks of interview transcripts (King & Horrocks, 2010). Each interview was recorded and later transcribed by a professional transcriptionist. Participants received copies of their transcripts and were invited to add, eliminate, and/or clarify content. One participant chose to clarify content. Our use of the somewhat novel practice of engaging participants in imaginative variation also strengthened trustworthiness (Bevan, 2014), providing another means to review emergent understandings with participants. Our work as a three-person team gave us additional confidence. In regular meetings, we scrutinized each other’s independent interpretations to ensure they aligned and were well grounded, up to and including the development of the essence statement, a core analytic outcome in phenomenology.

Limitations

Each participant was interviewed by the researcher who recruited them. Although we acknowledge the power differential between ourselves and our former students, we believe our history and rapport with them facilitated access and encouraged candor. Nevertheless, we sought to mitigate any negative impact by beginning each interview with a reminder regarding (a) our roles as researchers and not as instructors or evaluators, (b) our commitment to confidentiality, and (c) our desire for candid answers (see Supplemental Materials, Appendix SB). The power differential between ourselves and participants was also mitigated by the fact that we recruited them after they had graduated from our programs, earned their teacher certifications, and gained full-time positions in the field. Finally, although we sampled heterogeneously on multiple criteria (e.g., music specialty, geographic region), our sample favored females, elementary general music teachers, and the southwest region.

Findings

Four emergent themes characterized the experience of being a first-year music teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic: overwhelm, disconnection, concern for well-being, and missing out. We discuss each theme and then present an essence statement. To aid in contextualizing experiences, the following designations correspond to grade levels and content areas: EM (elementary music), MSB (middle school band), MSC (middle school choir), MSO (middle school orchestra), and HSB (high school band).

Overwhelm

One of the central facets of participants’ experience as first-year music educators during the COVID-19 pandemic was their feeling of overwhelm. They repeatedly referred to the difficulty of their experiences, high levels of stress, and exhaustion. Participants attributed their intense feelings of overwhelm to structural elements, including (a) mixed instructional modalities, (b) attendance issues, (c) COVID-19 safety protocols, and, among secondary teachers, (d) limited control over performance expectations.

Mixed instructional modalities

All participants began the school year with completely remote instruction, and then their districts moved to mixed modalities within a few weeks. For the rest of the school year, participants taught various combinations of face-to-face, synchronous virtual, asynchronous virtual, and/or hybrid (simultaneous face-to-face and virtual) instruction. Gina (MSO, interview) called hybrid instruction a “big challenge,” and Derek (MSB, interview) and Zoe (MSC, interview) identified it as “the worst.” Amber (EM) explained that mixed-mode instruction was a major stressor because “it requires far more hours than a teacher is paid for or has time to shove into a day, and they end up working much longer than they intended” (written response).

Participants described a variety of challenges related to mixed modalities, including preparation, student engagement, and assessment. They did not feel as though they had enough time to plan lessons and create content for two different ways of teaching. Alice (EM) dealt with the lack of time by planning games rather than lessons. “[I had to] gamify everything if I wanted to teach a new concept. . . . It was never a structured lesson . . . no structured units. There just was no time in the day for planning” (interview). In contrast, Zoe (MSC) spent personal time creating online content exclusively for her virtual students. “It has been honestly terrible. . . . There is no [online] template course for choir, so, I have created one for my virtual students from scratch” (written response).

The new educators were also overwhelmed by the extra energy they spent attempting to engage both virtual and face-to-face students in music instruction. Julia (HSB, interview) explained that she tried her “hardest” but that she wasn’t “always the best at it.” She tried to “actively engage” her virtual students while teaching her in-person students at the same time, but

none of them really turn their cameras on. . . . It is difficult to go back and forth because I’ll have to say, like, “Alright, kids in front of me. Hold on one second. Let me set this up and let me say to them what I just told you.”

Then, after long days and weeks of trying to engage remote students, several participants spent their evenings and weekends assessing students’ virtual submissions. They shared that their administrators required that all students’ work be graded online even if it was submitted by in-person students. Derek (MSB, interview) called grading students’ rhythm assignments a “nightmare” because it required “about 45 seconds for each kid every day.” He said, “It’s just a lot—I feel like I spent all my time grading.” Juggling the planning, delivery, and assessment of multiple modes of instruction was overwhelming for these participants as they grappled with added workloads while feeling they sometimes fell short in terms of meaningfully engaging all students.

Attendance issues

In addition to mixed modalities, the new music teachers also experienced issues with student attendance. A steady stream of students passed through the “revolving door” (Amber, EM, interview and Mia, EM, interview), switching instructional modalities according to their preferences, family needs, and academic performance. The first-year teachers faced continual uncertainty regarding which students they could expect to teach. They felt that they had to repeatedly start over with classroom management and reteach concepts when students switched instructional modalities or returned to school after quarantine.

Amber (EM, written response) described this experience as “hard” because when students returned to school, it was “almost as if we are starting back at the first day of school. The students have lost all sense of procedures and behavior.” She explained that she tried not to think about her job during her personal time, but sometimes she would begin to “dread going back every day.” She attributed that dread to her thoughts “bunny-trailing” to concerns over “how many students” she would have in class and “which students/classes got quarantined.”

For some participants, the difficulty of inconsistent attendance was compounded by attendance procedures. They were required to take attendance for virtual and in-person students every day and in some cases, during every class period. These first-year teachers reported that taking attendance took up a great deal of class and/or administrative time. If virtual students were absent, teachers were required to contact them individually. A few participants described complex reconciliation procedures that involved different forms of attendance for each learning modality. This was especially onerous for tracking attendance of asynchronous online students because some schools established policies by which any form of contact on the part of these students (e.g., submitting work, sending an email, making a phone call) was credited to these students as attendance. Derek (MSB, interview) made direct connections between attendance procedures and his overwhelming stress:

I’ve started counseling . . . I’m very stressed and anxious all the time. I’ve been having trouble sleeping. Like, the other day I woke up stressing about taking attendance, because . . . the kids that are virtual get one attendance thing, and then the face-to-face get another, and then the kids that are quarantined but are normally face-to-face get a different type of attendance.

The uncertainty of inconsistent attendance coupled with the added tasks of burdensome attendance reconciliation procedures created an environment in which some of these novice educators struggled to thrive.

Safety protocols

Participants were also overwhelmed by their obligation to enforce the COVID-19 safety protocols of mask-wearing, social distancing, and cleaning. They consistently referred to stress and fatigue from reminding students to wear masks correctly and stay socially distanced. Mia (EM, interview) attributed some of the “exhaustion” specifically to being a music teacher because compared to mask protocols in other courses,

in music, everybody has to be in [a mask] the whole time. And yes, you have to cover your nose. . . . And no, don’t take it off to sneeze. . . . Stop chewing your mask and using it as a slingshot. That’s the majority of my day.

The sheer volume of cleaning tasks also contributed to participants’ sense of overwhelm. The educators were responsible for sanitizing their classrooms and explained that cleaning conflicted with typical teaching tasks like greeting students or monitoring hallways. This dilemma contributed to their stress. As Derek (MSB, interview) stated, “Between classes, we’re supposed to have hall duty, but we’re also supposed to be cleaning, so, not sure how that's supposed to happen.”

Enforcing safety protocols in the midst of politically turbulent environments added stress. The first-year music teachers recounted stressful moments of reminding students of the dangers of COVID-19 while trying to avoid ideologically fraught conversations:

Suddenly, we’re not talking about solfège, we’re talking about why it’s important to respect your neighbor and how autoimmune diseases can be harmful for people. . . . With 12-year-olds, you don’t want to say, “People die and you might be contributing towards it [because you’re not wearing your mask].” We try not to make our classroom political because we teach in an environment that mostly does not support the ideals and safety procedures we use. (Robert, MSC, interview)

Following and enforcing COVID-prevention protocols created yet another layer of tasks for which these first-year teachers were responsible, adding to the sense that expectations were sometimes exceeded their capacities.

Limited control over performance expectations

While all participants experienced overwhelm, those who taught secondary ensembles experienced an additional layer of stress due to expectations that they present concerts and compete in contests. Secondary teachers described limits on their agency in terms of making decisions for their students and programs. For example, Julia (HSB, interview) described how administrators kept her and her colleagues in a state of reactivity due to changing contest participation mandates.

We were consistently having to react to, “Here are our numbers now, we’re still being told that we have to go to [performance assessment] even though marching band is not mandatory and we only have 20 winds. How do we make this work?” On top of that, are we really going to have to take this to a competition where they are still grading us? So, we were just constantly reacting to try and make anything out of nothing. . . . It was very stressful.

Like Julia, Derek (MSB) and Zoe’s (MSC) leaders required them to enter their ensembles into music performance assessments (MPAs) even though the educators did not think doing so was in their students’ best interest. Zoe (interview) stated that “I did not want to take [my choir] to MPA. Six of them were quarantined. They were very weak . . . I was forced to go. I would not have done MPA this year if I had my choice.”

In addition, when Derek’s (MSB) colleague felt that his band was not ready for their MPA, she took over teaching his students for 3 or 4 weeks. Derek (interview) explained that she “basically just crammed” the music “into their heads” so that they would “be able to do MPA.” He did not “think that was that productive for anybody.” Derek believed that he “lost out, personally, on the chance to work through that.” These ensemble directors lived in a state of overwhelm as they attempted to maintain performance standards amid pandemic-related restrictions on singing/playing and large-group rehearsals.

Disconnection

Teaching was an isolating experience for participants, with physical-distancing requirements translating into social and emotional distance. Policies intended to keep teachers safe also seemed to keep them detached, stunting relationships and musical growth. Participants referred to feeling like an “island” (Amber, EM, interview; Zoe, MSC, interview) and described their experiences as “insular” (Robert, MSC, interview). According to Mia (EM, interview), “The biggest thing was that it was lonely. . . . Everybody was lonely and in the same boat. . . . My boat was just lonely.”

Every participant described feeling disconnected from students, either socially or musically. Participants attributed this sense of disconnection to the structural element of COVID-prevention protocols, including online instruction, masks, and physical distancing. As such, the feeling of detachment from students hinged on instructional modes, being most poignant in the synchronous online setting, followed by face-to-face instruction, and finally, asynchronous online instruction. In addition to feeling distant from students, half of the first-year music teachers described feeling removed from their colleagues, which they also attributed to the structural element of COVID-prevention protocols.

Disconnection from students

Disconnection from students was most poignant in the context of synchronous online instruction, where barriers to connecting with students included inadequate Internet connectivity, poor attendance, and student behaviors such as turning off cameras, muting microphones, and failing to participate in activities. Derek (MSB, interview) described the challenges of building relationships online:

The kids that are virtual, I don’t hardly have any relationship with them, and that feels horrible. It’s so hard to build connections with them . . . those kids are not getting the full experience, academically or just like me being their teacher and getting to know them.

Sierra (EM and MSB, written response) echoed Derek’s sentiments:

I wish I could say that I thought of my students more, but I still feel like I do not really know them . . . I have over 800 students that I have worked with over the course of this year, most of whom I have spent 17 hours with, mostly online. One of my hopes for next year is to get to know them better so that I can serve them better.

In addition to experiencing social disconnection from students, participants experienced musical disconnection as they struggled to hear students’ performances and offer guidance. Sierra (EM and MSB, interview) explained that giving “feedback through the computer to a group of students is completely different from having them in person . . . there are like 17 different sounds that make their way through the speakers.” Teaching across the barrier of a computer screen was especially stressful for participants who directed ensembles. They worried about online students “falling behind” (Derek, interview), and they struggled to close the performance gap between online and face-to-face students.

In the context of face-to-face instruction, disconnection from students was less poignant yet equally persistent. Participants struggled to communicate with students and build rapport when expressions were hidden behind masks. Amber (EM, interview) explained, “When you can only see from the bridge of the nose up, it’s really hard to figure out if a kid is unhappy, feeling sick, or whatever.” Masks also impeded musical communication between these teachers and their students, particularly in the choral setting. Zoe (MSC) struggled to assess her students’ singing because their voices were muffled and their mouths weren’t visible. She explained that students sang timidly when masked and that they sounded “like baby mice.”

Social distancing added to the disconnect between teachers and students in the context of face-to-face instruction. Participants were unable to use proximity to connect with students and monitor their behavior. Elementary music teachers could not offer commonplace assistance like tying shoes, helping students line up, and giving hugs. Band directors were unable to physically assist with technique. Derek (MSB, interview) described teaching a beginning flute class: “I just want to grab their fingers and put them where they go. And I can’t do that. I’m like ‘No, the other finger. The other key. Do this, move that.’”

In the context of asynchronous online instruction, participants experienced complete physical, emotional, and musical disconnection from students. Several participants referred to asynchronous online students whom they had never met, and a few communicated with students solely through their parents. Participants expressed limited frustration with disconnection in this setting compared with other modes of instruction, perhaps because learning outcomes were so altered that they had little expectation of building relationships and fostering musical growth.

Although all participants described disconnection from students, it should be noted that half of these first-year teachers also acknowledged advantages of distance. All participants taught remotely at the beginning of the school year; they described remote instruction as “easier” (Angelica, EM, interview; Amber, EM, interview), “less pressure” (Sierra, EM and MSB, interview), and generally “great” (Zoe, MSC, written response). Alice (EM, interview) described teaching small face-to-face classes, explaining that “it was kind of like you got to practice being a teacher.” Sierra (EM nd MSB, interview), a self-described introvert, found that teaching online required less social energy than face-to-face instruction. She explained, “I get to do the fun parts of teaching. I don’t really have to do much discipline.” For these participants, although distance from students impeded social and musical progress, it also offered some relief.

Disconnection from colleagues

In addition to feeling disconnected from students, half of the participants indicated a sense of disconnection from colleagues that they attributed to safety protocols. They described attending online faculty meetings, struggling to recognize masked colleagues in the hallway, and eating lunch alone to avoid unmasked gatherings. Mia (EM, interview) explained,

The lack of bonding between faculty and staff has been really hard . . . I don’t know these people, and even on our Zooms, we wear masks. So, I’m still getting to know what these people look like from the nose down . . . I know them by the kids they’re carrying around the halls.

Furthermore, a few participants experienced tensions with colleagues regarding safety measures. Robert (MSC) avoided the break room because he did not feel comfortable around teachers who wore only face shields or wore masks below their noses. Alice (EM, interview) wished her colleagues would be “a little more careful” and wouldn’t “rip off their masks” when the vaccine became available. Both Robert and Alice felt dismayed when they enforced masking protocols for students, only to be told that other teachers didn’t have the same standards.

Concern for Well-Being

Participants lived in a heightened awareness of well-being during this first year of teaching. Concern for physical and emotional health pervaded their thoughts at work and at home. These concerns were compounded by a lack of transparency among administrators that left some participants confused and mistrustful.

Physical well-being

Most participants expressed some degree of concern for their own physical health when teaching in the face-to-face setting. They referred to “dread” (Mia, EM, interview) of getting sick and a sense that the virus was “creeping closer” (Derek, MSB, interview). Concern for physical health was especially pronounced for Robert (MSC) and Derek (MSB). Robert (interview) explained, “For a long time, I was just terrified about my own health . . . I am worried about having a reduced lung capacity from a respiratory disease and then not having any life at all.” For Derek (interview), offering face-to-face instruction seemed irresponsible: “It doesn’t seem safe at all, but here I am. I have to have a paycheck.”

Concerns about contracting COVID-19 were coupled with fears of spreading it. Three participants worried that they would spread the virus to older, more vulnerable colleagues, and others were concerned they would spread the virus to their families. Gina (MSO, interview) described the impact on her home life:

There are times when I come home and I try to go straight upstairs because I came into contact with a lot of students that day. I don’t want to hug my family because I don’t want to spread any germs. And that’s weird because we’re huggers and we’re very close.

In addition to worrying about the physical risks of getting sick, participants worried about the logistical consequences of contracting the virus. A COVID-positive test meant missing work amid substitute-teacher shortages. For participants with families, getting sick also meant navigating a family quarantine. Mia (EM, interview) explained,

It’s not even the being sick part that’s scary. It’s all of the extra: trying to teach from home sick with your kids who would be home because they’ve been exposed, and a husband who would probably be home, too, because he’d have to quarantine.

In contrast, Sierra (EM and MSB), Angelica (EM), and Amber (EM) were not especially concerned about contracting the COVID-19 virus because they trusted their bodies to “fight back” (Amber, interview). Angelica and Amber conceptualized a direct tension between physical health and emotional health. Their students had complicated home lives, and they believed the benefits of being in school outweighed the risks. Amber (interview) reasoned,

It’s probably better that I get out there and do that face-to-face instruction because those kids need to be at school. . . . They need food, structure, and love from teachers that they’re not getting at home. And so, I view it more as . . . taking one for the team.

For some participants, concern for physical well-being was compounded by a lack of transparency on the part of school administrators. They described confidentiality practices that kept them “in the dark” (Alice, EM, interview; Amber, EM, written response) regarding COVID cases at their schools. Robert (MSB, interview) shared that he received email updates about positive-COVID cases,

[but] we were never told who they were . . . I never got to know if they were students that were in my classes. So, there was a general worry because I felt like I was uninformed and I was unable to become informed about who was sick, how they got sick, who they were around, and if I had been exposed.

Alice (EM, interview) explained, “Sometimes it feels like they aren’t 100% honest about telling us what is going on.” She described seeing a dark classroom, knowing that a teacher and her students had been sent home, and yet never receiving notice of new COVID cases. Participants’ mistrust of their leadership led to negative feelings toward their jobs. Zoe (MSC, interview) felt like she had been “teaching for five years” and was “embittered by the system,” and Robert (MSC, interview) believed that “the way things were handled . . . influenced employee morale” in a negative manner.

Concern for physical well-being ebbed and flowed in response to COVID-19 case counts and the availability of vaccines. In Julia’s (HSB, interview) words, “As we move on, I get more nervous. At the beginning of this, I was less nervous. It’s fluctuating.” Most participants shared that they opted to get vaccinated when vaccines become readily available in the second half of the school year. They described feeling “more comfortable” (Zoe, MSC, interview), “significantly less stressed,” and “safer [with that] extra layer of protection” (Mia, EM interview).

Emotional well-being

In addition to expressing concern for physical health, concern for emotional health saturated interview transcripts and written responses. Participants worried about the emotional health of their students amid a climate of distance, fear, and loss. These first-year teachers were also concerned for their own emotional health as they sought to juggle their new responsibilities and establish a work-life balance.

The pandemic took an emotional toll on some students according to some participants. Robert (MSC, interview) believed that students’ “social and emotional needs are not being met”; some of his students regularly received counseling at school. Sierra (EM and MSB) received professional development training from a psychologist because her school administration was concerned for students’ well-being. Angelica (EM, interview) explained that “sometimes, kids just need a hug. [Eventually], I started to give them side hugs or a pat on the back because they needed it. Especially the little ones.” Sierra (interview) echoed her concerns. She described her first day teaching sixth grade:

I had a poor little sixth-grader who is a super sweet kid . . . he came in wearing a face mask, a face shield, and goggles. And my heart just went out to this kid. He’s just horrified to come to school. That’s not the environment we want at all.

In addition to considering students’ emotional health, these novice music educators were concerned for their own emotional health. Establishing a work-life balance proved challenging amid the added workload of pandemic teaching. Furthermore, the shift toward online instruction blurred the lines between work time and personal time as a growing amount of work could be completed at home. Participants sought to protect their emotional health through “intentionality and boundaries” (Sierra, EM and MSB, written response). Some described very specific boundaries, like “leaving work at work” (Zoe, MSC, interview) or “not thinking about work on Saturdays” (Sierra, EM and MSB, written response).

For a few participants, social distancing outside of work compounded the challenges of preserving emotional health. Derek (MSB) explained “there wasn’t much of a personal life this year,” just a continual rhythm of “go to work and go home” (interview). Robert (MSC) felt an “immense amount of pressure” (interview) to isolate himself to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus to friends and family.

Missing out

For participants, the 2020 to 2021 school year was characterized by a palpable sense of missing out. They spoke of many lost opportunities: trips, concerts, competitions, in-class learning experiences, and more. They also spoke of lost growth, for their students and for themselves. Many participants had to limit the scope of classroom activities and lower student learning standards.

Dashed expectations

In-person students’ activities were circumscribed by school policies on distancing and masking as well as restrictions on playing instruments and singing. In the elementary setting, participants (i.e., Alice, Amber, Angelica, Mia, and Sierra) described limitations on foundational activities like singing, playing recorder, and moving to music. Angelica compared her upper elementary students’ disappointment over canceled music activities to “high school seniors missing out on the fun stuff in their senior year” (interview).

In the secondary setting, participants experienced limitations on the amount of time students could play or sing, the inability to gather their full ensembles for rehearsals, and the cancellation of concerts and trips. Derek (MBS) noted that he was scheduled to have his fall concert outdoors, but it was canceled and moved online due to inclement weather; Julia’s (HSB) winter concert was online, too. These missed experiences were disappointing for students as well as teachers. Gina (MSO, interview) attributed low enrollment in her orchestra classes to the pandemic restrictions:

I still am struggling with numbers because [students] didn’t get the full experience of being in an orchestra. It’s about playing with the group, in close proximity. Being virtual, you don’t see that, or being in person, there aren’t as many people and they’re spaced out so it doesn’t feel complete. Especially if you are a beginner, it’s not as easy to see what you’re contributing to the sound of the group.

Zoe (MSC, interview) shared Gina’s outlook:

This year, I couldn’t really get [the students] to fall in love with choir, so I had to get them to fall in love with me. And that was the only way that I was going to get them because choir sucked this year. It was awful. And I keep telling them “COVID choir is not regular choir. This is COVID choir.”

Zoe went on to describe how her virtual students got the “short end of the stick,” only about “30% of the experience” that in-person students receive. Zoe summarized her year as an “ego killer.” She went on:

There was never a single moment this year that was a reminder of why you do what you do. And that was really hard. Like no conventions to go to, no concerts to have. So, every single day was the very worst of teaching and you had to make the best of it. And the only redeemable qualities of this year were the kids.

Lost growth

In addition to missing out on formative experiences, these first-year music teachers believed they missed out on sufficient growth for students and for themselves. This lost growth was especially pronounced in the secondary ensemble setting, where teachers and students are typically expected to demonstrate progress through performances. Ensemble directors were forced to lower standards in response to pandemic challenges. Derek (MSB) explained, “I got to a point where I realized this is just going to be lesser for some students. That was kind of a weight off, just accepting the way it is” (interview). Robert (MSC, interview) also expressed a sense of resignation, recognizing that his students were not going to progress as much as he had hoped:

Teaching during a pandemic is a lot of sometimes being okay with really, really low expectations and just saying “this is how it is this year.” . . . Sometimes it’s just having super high expectations and trying your best to reach them and then failing nonetheless, which is very sad.

Standards seemed to shift by learning modality. For virtual students, conventional music-making (e.g., playing and singing with live feedback) and in some cases all contact with teachers were effectively absent. Because of this, Derek (MSB) said his virtual students were “really behind and struggling” (interview). Julia (HSB) described virtual teaching as “stressful because [students] are not turning in their assignments, and they’re not retaining a whole lot because I only see them twice or once a week” (interview).

Participants also shared that their first years were not as growth-filled for themselves as they would have hoped. Because of the loss of a typical transition from student teaching to being a first-year teacher, Derek (MSB) said that “COVID band” represented a “majority of what [he is] now experienced in.” He expressed frustration about student teaching, saying, “I came out of [it] with almost nothing. I did not get nearly as much experience in that time as I would have liked to feel prepared about starting the first year” (interview). Julia (HSB) felt similarly. At her placement, the first part of the student-teaching semester featured small-group work leading up to an annual festival. The latter part of the semester, which was disrupted by the pandemic, would have included conducting large ensembles. Because she missed the second half of student teaching, Julia feels “very comfortable” in small-group settings but less adept at directing large ensembles (interview).

Zoe (MSC, interview) expressed how the reality of pandemic teaching, in which she was in survival mode all year, left her feeling like she hadn’t really grown at all. She stated,

I feel like I am the same teacher at the end of the year that I was at the beginning of the year. And that’s not what I wanted. I wanted to be able to have some sort of mentorship and grow, and that’s really hard when you are by yourself in a normal year. But it’s especially hard when there was no visitation, so I couldn’t be observed this year.

Opportunities for growth were also limited by a lack of mentorship. Three participants were assigned mentors who were largely absent for the year. The mentors rarely communicated with these first-year teachers, did not observe their teaching, and were generally unresponsive. Participants ascribed this absence, at least in part, to mentors being overwhelmed by their own struggles to adapt their teaching to new parameters. Amber (EM, interview) reported, “I am growing, but I think as a first-year [teacher], if I had to advocate for anything, I’d say that mentor teachers need to work a little bit harder at being there for first-year teachers.” Similarly, the mentor assigned to Mia (EM, interview) never met with her:

I was supposed to go observe her one day, and I got called back to school because of substitute shortages; there was nobody to cover my class. So, I didn’t get to do my observation—and I desperately needed that observation.

Because of this stunted growth, participants were concerned, if hopeful, about their second year of teaching. “I definitely think about the future,” Julia (HSB, interview) said. “A lot of what we’re doing right now isn’t working . . . everyone talks about how the next several years of everybody’s band class is going to be a lot of regression.” Zoe (MSC, interview) assumed her students would need “remediation” to get back on track. She said she had already scheduled “Choir Boot Camp” for all incoming sixth-grade students and any students transitioning from virtual to in-person learning.

Essence

The essence of first-year music teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic was a feeling of being adrift during a largely lost year. Disconnection from students, colleagues, and preconceptions of what music teaching would be like pervaded participants’ experiences. Teaching mixed instructional modalities required more time and energy than they had to spend, especially as they responded to the physical, emotional, and social toll wrought by the spread of COVID-19. Student attendance and COVID-mitigation policies were continually in flux, forcing these first-year teachers into survival mode. Despite a superseding commitment to serving students and making the best of trying circumstances, pandemic teaching was characterized by overwhelm and exhaustion. Participants did not have a clear indication of what the next year might bring. For them, 2020 to 2021 was aberrant; they looked to 2021–2022 as another first year of teaching.

Discussion

The experience of being a first-year music teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by challenges, some of which were typical and some distinct. For example, the overwhelm and disconnection experienced by these music educators aligns with findings from previous studies. Researchers have reported a sense of overwhelm among novice teachers (e.g., Stringham & Snell, 2019), although it is noteworthy that participants in this study largely attributed their overwhelm to pandemic-specific factors such as juggling teaching modalities and navigating attendance issues. Some participants experienced overwhelm due to administrators requiring that they participate in MPAs, which also corroborates previous research findings in which novice music teachers reported disappointment with a lack of administrative support (Garvis & Pendergast, 2010). However, the feelings of our participants were once again tied to pandemic-specific parameters. These findings indicate the pandemic may have highlighted the overwhelm experienced by novice teachers.

Participants’ disconnection from colleagues also corroborates previous studies, overlapping with reports of music teacher isolation (Krueger, 1999, 2000; Sindberg & Lipscomb, 2005). However, like the experience of overwhelm, the disconnection felt by these novice music educators was distinct insofar as they attributed it to pandemic-specific factors. Moreover, all participants experienced a facet of isolation that has not appeared in previous literature: disconnection from students, which was linked to pandemic protocols such as online learning, masking, and social distancing. The pandemic seems to have both expanded and exacerbated the challenges typically experienced by novice music teachers.

In addition to overwhelm and disconnection, participants described experiences that have not appeared in previous research. Concern for well-being and the sense of missing out were unique experiences that were specific to pandemic teaching. Thus, beyond highlighting some of the challenges that previously typified novice music-teaching, the pandemic seems to have introduced new challenges.

One challenge common to the literature on novice music teachers (e.g., Conway, 2015b), classroom management, was notably absent from our data set. Few participants mentioned it when asked to describe their classroom experiences. Amber (EM) expressed frustration at having to reteach appropriate classroom behaviors each time students returned from quarantine. Conversely, Sierra (EM and MSB) said that she enjoyed synchronous online instruction because she did not have to put energy into disciplining students, and Julia (MSB) explained that small class sizes made her job easier. Perhaps the challenges of pandemic teaching were so all-consuming that this cohort had little energy and attention left for traditionally thorny issues like classroom management. Alternatively, limited class sizes and mandated social distancing may have cultivated a more controlled classroom climate. Regardless, the absence of classroom-management concerns along with the presence of new challenges underscores the unique nature of this cohort’s experience.

Apple’s (1986) theory of intensification offers a clarifying lens for interpreting our findings. According to Apple, expanding workloads, deteriorating conditions, and increasing isolation have intensified the teaching profession in the United States. We found evidence of intensification in participants’ responsibilities for multiple instructional modalities, requirements to complete an impossible number of simultaneous tasks, and mandated physical separation from colleagues and students. Most participants were required to plan, conduct, and assess two or more instructional modalities with no corresponding increase in their administrative conference periods. As a result, workloads were substantially greater than that of first-year music teachers in prepandemic settings. In addition, these first-year educators were responsible for simultaneously monitoring hallways, building rapport with students, and sanitizing their classrooms during passing periods. One participant taught from a cart but was not allotted sufficient time to move her cart from one room to the next or to log into classroom computers to teach her virtual students. In these ways, participants felt expected to do more than one individual could physically accomplish.

Based on our findings, we suggest that the cohort of first-year music teachers who begin their careers during the COVID-19 pandemic may be a distinct population. They taught within the parameters of COVID-prevention protocols, which exacerbated some of the challenges commonly experienced by first-year music teachers and introduced a new set of challenges. We posit that these teachers experienced acute intensification, which may have implications for their long-term job satisfaction, teacher identity, and emotional health.

Implications and Recommendations

Considering the intensified experience of teaching music during the COVID-19 pandemic, we suggest the following recommendations for practice, policy, and scholarship. First, we recommend that programs typically designed as first-year interventions (e.g., mentoring and induction) be extended to at least the third year of teaching. The impact of induction supports on new teacher satisfaction, success, and retention is well established (Bell-Robertson, 2015; Benson, 2008; Conway, 2006), yet these supports were severely disrupted in 2020 to 2021. A few participants in this study were assigned mentors who were effectively absent because all teachers, novice and veteran alike, were preoccupied with navigating a daunting new professional reality. We believe the provision of induction supports during the second and third years of these teachers’ careers will help address this gap in their induction. An extended induction period for novice pandemic teachers is also necessary because of the anomalous nature of the 2020 to 2021 school year. As schools taper pandemic-related teaching practices, such as remote instruction, masking, and distancing, educators who began their careers during the pandemic will need to adapt to a shifting landscape. For example, teachers may find themselves facing new classroom-management challenges as schools lift restrictions on classroom capacities and rehearsal capacities. Second-year teachers may find themselves functioning, in some ways, much like first-year teachers and as such, will require the requisite supports.

We also recommend that music teacher educators and in-service professional development providers focus on issues such as emergency remote teaching and distance learning. Most teachers did not receive sufficient training on distance learning prior to the pandemic (Hamilton et al., 2020), which frustrated the transition to fully remote instruction. As shocking as the pandemic was for educators, education and professional development for all music teachers may ensure that they are as prepared as possible when similar disruptions arise in the future (West et al., 2022). In emergency-preparedness plans, schools could add provisions for continuity of instruction. In a crisis, student and faculty safety and health are paramount. However, once the initial threat abates and it becomes clear that instruction will be disrupted for a persistent period, it is essential that schools have in place plans for the resumption of teaching and learning activities.

Our final recommendations are specific to novice music teachers who direct ensembles. This subpopulation faces additional challenges amid pressures to recruit and retain students, produce high-quality performances, and participate in music performance assessments (West & Bowers, 2022). We recommend that administrators consider relaxing performance expectations as directors seek to address remedial needs in their ensembles. For example, three of our participants were required to participate in MPAs against their wishes. Allowing these directors to opt out of MPAs for a season or to perform for feedback alone (rather than feedback and a score) would offer space to rebuild. We also recommend that ensemble directors receive additional supports, such as funding for clinicians, extra instructional time for remedial rehearsals, and positive attention and encouragement from administrators and professional organizations.

Future research might include tracking this cohort of music teachers during their second and third years of teaching, examining potential shifts in their challenges, experiences, and identities. Future research might also seek to expand our sample. Although we attempted to obtain a heterogeneous sample, our participants were teachers from the southwestern and southeastern regions of the United States and teachers who were responsible for mixed instructional modalities. Preliminary research on first-year music teachers in the Northeast who predominantly taught a single instructional modality (i.e., online synchronous instruction) suggests they may have experienced a lesser degree of overwhelm (Prichard, 2021). Descriptive, more generalizable inquiry through surveys may provide needed insight into how widespread our findings are among novice teachers across the country. Scholarship that includes EC–12 music students’ perspectives may also add a missing piece to the portrait of pandemic education.

Scholars have warned of a looming exodus of teachers on account of the pandemic (Fullard, 2021), and novice music teachers may be especially vulnerable to attrition (Hancock, 2008). Continued scholarship is vital to understanding the trajectories of music teachers who entered the profession during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through continued research and targeted, sustained support, perhaps the educational community can alleviate hardships and bolster music teacher satisfaction.

Author Biographies

Marta Frey-Clark is assistant professor of music education at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor. Her research interests include novice music teachers and music teacher burnout.

Olivia G. Tucker is assistant professor of music education at the University of New Mexico. Her research interests include the agency, education, and identity of music teachers.

Justin J. West is assistant professor in music and human learning at The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include music teacher learning and professional development.