View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Describing Engagement in the Collegiate Concert Band Rehearsal

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Describing Engagement in the Collegiate Concert Band Rehearsal
Language: English
Authors: Ryan D. Shaw (ORCID 0000-0003-0819-8480), David Hedgecoth, Andrew Bohn, Emily Moler Huddleston, Nathan Irby, Charles Oldenkamp (ORCID 0000-0001-9898-1342), Gentry Ragsdale, Lorenzo L. Sánchez-Gatt, Austin D. Thomas
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education. 2025 72(4):417-441.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Higher Education, Music Activities, Musicians, Drills (Practice), Learner Engagement, Group Activities, College Students, Student Attitudes, Leadership, Musical Instruments, Teacher Attitudes, College Faculty, Classroom Environment, Student Participation, Educational Strategies, Peer Relationship, Teacher Student Relationship, Influences, Check Lists, Performance, Musical Composition, Teacher Responsibility, Universities
DOI: 10.1177/00224294241228213
ISSN: 0022-4294
1945-0095
Abstract: The purpose of this multiple case study was to investigate engagement in the collegiate concert band setting. Research questions were: (1) How do collegiate band students describe their engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? (2) How do collegiate band directors describe engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? and (3) What does rehearsal engagement look like in action? Cross-case analysis suggested that student engagement is related to personal/temporal factors, the repertoire and instructional strategies, and interpersonal factors among students and between the student and director. Directors spoke of the responsibility and pressure they felt to encourage independence and the challenges of establishing a collaborative, agentic environment. Observation field notes reflected variety in body language, liveliness, and hands-on interactions and technology distractions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1457534
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEx-SOetssSfM-CaeKOj-rgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDDKTdeM4pTh-NL1gQIBEICBmxModKsrfss_0swzHhal30rQZAbxZ3Gw9ABLRKkAfBdF00-9Wb3JvO4SVGngezTJT6oqC9dm2kUa0C3crfNSWTRZ9waVhax1guSYfnP-aQzD_Mr1H2BCh73J2Ygyqjf2zBXjfeZ6ary9FT-5Fpq2AnnOsAtJOkn4OUzrwzf90GAsmgfcYnHdmuuWcdukKAlScg3JNcTbVf_3Fum2
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182244050;3ug01jan.25;2025Jan17.04:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182244050-1">Describing Engagement in the Collegiate Concert Band Rehearsal </title> <p>The purpose of this multiple case study was to investigate engagement in the collegiate concert band setting. Research questions were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) How do collegiate band students describe their engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) How do collegiate band directors describe engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) What does rehearsal engagement look like in action? Cross-case analysis suggested that student engagement is related to personal/temporal factors, the repertoire and instructional strategies, and interpersonal factors among students and between the student and director. Directors spoke of the responsibility and pressure they felt to encourage independence and the challenges of establishing a collaborative, agentic environment. Observation field notes reflected variety in body language, liveliness, and hands-on interactions and technology distractions.</p> <p>Keywords: engagement; democratic instruction; instrumental music; concert band</p> <p>Calls for interrogation of the traditional, director-centric instructional model in music ensemble classrooms have been frequent. Scholars have specifically urged adoption of student-centered instruction ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]), democratic practices ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref8">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]), peer-assisted learning ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]), constructivist rehearsal ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref12">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]), and a focus on musical independence ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref14">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref15">61</reflink>]). Some of these calls for interrogation of the instrumental ensemble have been pointed (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>]), suggesting instrumental ensembles in particular are antiquated, that the repertoire lacks relevance, and that the teaching is autocratic and the learning passive. These critiques have been met with defensive frustration (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]) and counterarguments (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]). Authors like [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref19">41</reflink>], who pushed back on critiques of the large instrumental ensemble, noted these criticisms often represented specious or extreme arguments, full of stereotyping or straw man appeals. Not all responses have been defensive, however: Instrumental ensemble directors have demonstrated some enthusiasm for ideas like the director-less (i.e., student-led) ensemble performance ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]) or instrumental rehearsals predicated on shared governance, imagination, and discussion with students ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many of the concepts suggested in these articles involve moving from a one-way instructional model, with the student as passive recipient of direction, to one based on active learning and increased engagement. Rarely, however, has engagement been included as an explicit topic. In addition, although engagement research is common across non-music classrooms (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]) and often employs similar theoretical frameworks, school engagement research in music education settings is rare, and what exists generally does not contend with theoretical models. This study offers novel examination of engagement in the large ensemble, connecting the aforementioned concerns of the field with the theoretical foundations that appear in general education research.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-2">Theoretical Foundations</hd> <p>Although there is no singular theory of school engagement, it is generally treated as multifaceted. The "ABC" model, most common in school engagement research, suggests three subconstructs of affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]). Behavioral engagement relates to active involvement in curricular and extracurricular activities, and affective engagement is concerned with a reported sense of school belonging and emotion regarding school. Cognitive engagement has been the most elusive to define and measure and relates to a student's investment in their learning. However, there is not complete agreement on the underlying aspects of engagement, with some models incorporating a fourth subconstruct, agentic engagement, defined as "the process in which students proactively try to create, enhance, and personalize the conditions and circumstances under which they learn" ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref26">49</reflink>], p. 161). Others delineate academic engagement as a fourth subconstruct, as measured by specific time on task and homework completion rate (see [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref27">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Scholars discussing engagement sometimes define it as "energy in action" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>], p. 285) or suggest that engagement is how motivation presents itself ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). The connection to motivation is clear in the literature, with scholars tying engagement especially to self-determination theory ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]). Researchers have framed school engagement as malleable, developmental, and contextual ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]). In this sense, engagement is situated, related to an individual student but also to contextual variables, including the student's peers, teachers, and school environment ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]). Others have suggested that although the two are linked, motivation is only part of engagement. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>] wrote that "one can be motivated but not actively engage in a task. Motivation is thus necessary, but not sufficient for engagement" (p. 428). Engagement may also be part of a cyclical arrangement with motivation: Whereas motivation may precede and impel school engagement, ongoing and active involvement in school may predict future motivation ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]). Finally, engagement—or disengagement—may be gradual, with some school interventions showing success at increasing engagement and the process of losing engagement leading to school dropout also occurring over time ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-3">Review of Literature</hd> <p>Much of the research on school engagement involves standardized self-report instruments (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]) or less frequently, teacher ratings, interviews, and observations (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]). Research has spanned a variety of topics (see [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]), but here we focus on studies most germane to the present line of inquiry: research on engagement with classroom instruction (see [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]). Across studies, several concepts have emerged as essential: hands-on, active learning ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref43">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]); instructional rigor and "demandingness" of the teacher ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]); the importance of teacher-student relationships ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]); and "connective instruction"—encouraging personal connections to course content ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]). In other studies, researchers have been more fine-grained in terms of investigating specific teacher practices (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>] found that practices supportive of engagement included teaching caring, high expectations, soliciting student perspectives, incorporating student interest and choice, offering relevant rationales, demonstrating enthusiasm, storytelling, collaboration, and using culturally relevant approaches. By contrast, some practices that can "thwart" engagement included emphasis on grades, efforts to control or suppress behavior, and provision of uninteresting work or busywork ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref52">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Few researchers in music education have focused on these aforementioned school engagement concepts. Rather, researchers have mostly included involvement in music in broader discussions of well-being (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>]) or have defined engagement with music to mean active participation. For example, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>] focused on students' competence, autonomy, and relatedness when "engaged" with music, defined as when they were enrolled in elective instrumental music instruction. Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref55">26</reflink>] investigated correlations between older musicians' well-being and engagement with community music, defined similarly as active participation in performing. In these studies and others (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>]), researchers have typically used "engagement with music" as synonymous with elective involvement in music classes, and while they have related engagement to motivational constructs, they typically have not incorporated prevailing academic engagement theories. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref58">33</reflink>] study is most on point in terms of addressing engagement directly, including it as an outcome measure after a peer-assisted learning intervention. Johnson used a quasi-experimental design to measure the impact of symmetrical (like ability) and asymmetrical (different ability) peer groupings on seventh-grade band students' engagement, sight-reading performance, and music theory knowledge. He used a researcher-adapted version of [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>] Engagement Versus Dissatisfaction With Learning Scale and found small but non-significant posttreatment increases in reported behavioral/affective engagement across schools in the symmetrical peer grouping condition. Results were mixed in the asymmetrical condition, and socioeconomic status played a significant moderating role in all conditions.</p> <p>Despite a lack of studies directly focused on engagement, topics relevant to engaging instruction—that is, focused on students' active involvement in learning, agency, voice, and decision-making—are present in the instrumental music education literature. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref60">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref61">61</reflink>]) focused on the development of musical independence in concert band settings. In both of his studies, teachers prioritized student-led activities and critical thinking questions and guided students to engage in decision-making. In other studies, researchers have found that despite instrumental music teachers espousing beliefs in student independence and decision-making, actual practice may be more limited ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref64">47</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref65">7</reflink>] found that band directors who said they believed in student-led instruction mostly limited this to open-ended questioning. Studies of teachers' questioning suggest a lack of engaging ensemble students in critical thinking ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>]) and music listening/discussion activities ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref67">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several researchers ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref70">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref71">55</reflink>]) have framed inquiry around democratic rehearsal procedures in band classrooms. While definitions vary, the democratic activities the researchers included typically involved student voice and choice in rehearsal planning and instructional decision-making. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>] investigated high school band directors' perceptions and use of democratic practices, finding the most support for having students lead sectionals and identify areas of focus during rehearsal. The participants cited lack of time as a barrier to adopting other democratic practices. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref73">55</reflink>] study of collegiate bands involved eight weeks of scaffolded democratic rehearsal experiences including collaborative selection of repertoire, score study discussions during rehearsal, and collaborating on rehearsal plans and interpretive decisions. Furthermore, students practiced giving feedback during rehearsal, and they participated in student-led sectionals and full ensemble rehearsal. Participants generally expressed positive views of the experience, and increased engagement emerged as a theme. However, participants in [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>] study of a conductor-less rehearsal intervention were frequently negative about the experience, noting that without a conductor playing a traditional role, rehearsals could be awkward, tense, and ineffective.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-4">Purpose and Research Questions</hd> <p>Despite the myriad calls for music ensembles to become more engaging, there is scant empirical evidence of what engagement looks like in the ensemble setting. Additionally, the researchers who have included engagement in their studies have measured the effects of special interventions (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref75">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref76">55</reflink>]) and used Likert-type questionnaires rather than capturing a baseline, qualitative description of engagement in the rehearsal from instrumental music students. Therefore, the purpose of this multiple case study was to investigate ensemble engagement. We used both the ABC (affective, behavioral, cognitive) theoretical model of engagement and literature focusing on engagement with instruction ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref78">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref79">44</reflink>]) as the basis for the study. Research questions were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) How do collegiate band students describe their engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>) How do collegiate band directors describe engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>) What does rehearsal engagement look like in action?</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-5">Method</hd> <p>This was a multiple case study ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref83">58</reflink>]) of engagement in three collegiate bands across three institutions. We considered the phenomenon to be engagement and each ensemble to be a separate case. Multiple case study design was optimal because it allowed us to pay attention both to the particular (case-specific) and the shared—the phenomenon of interest, or what [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>] called the "Quintain." We were introduced to the potential participants when one of the directors approached one of us (Ryan) to ask about studying student engagement and suggested other possible research sites. In this sense, sampling was criterion-based, with participants chosen because they directed a collegiate concert band with members of different ages/levels and because they were interested in participating and facilitating data collection in their ensemble setting. We believed that three cases provided depth and an opportunity for comparing, contrasting, and triangulating findings ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref85">58</reflink>]) while also making data collection and interpretation manageable.</p> <p>At each university, participants included the ensemble's director and a subset of undergraduate students (total students <emph>N</emph> = 23) who played in the groups during the spring term of the 2021–2022 school year. After we received Institutional Review Board approval at all three universities, we began participant recruitment. To recruit participants, researchers visited each participating ensemble and explained the project. Students could then submit consent forms if interested in participating. To ensure student anonymity, directors were kept separate from this recruitment process. See Table 1 for more details on the institutions and participants.</p> <p>Table 1. Sites and Participants.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">Enrollment (University)</th><th align="center">Enrollment (Music)</th><th align="center">Instrumental Ensemble Structure</th><th align="center">Participants</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Site 1: Great Lakes University</td><td>≈50,000</td><td>≈500</td><td>3 bands</td><td>DirectorJosh (trumpet, junior) Chris (trombone, junior) Ella (bass trombone, sophomore) Kyla (flute, senior) Marshall (bassoon, sophomore) Brian (euphonium, sophomore) Mitchell (tuba, sophomore) Nina (saxophone, junior)</td></tr><tr><td>Site 2: Lower Midwest University</td><td>≈64,000</td><td>≈425</td><td>4 bands</td><td>DirectorRichard (flute, junior) Brad (bassoon, sophomore) Damian (french horn, freshman) Suveer (clarinet, junior) Jim (tuba, junior) Theo (trombone, sophomore) Katie (flute, senior)</td></tr><tr><td>Site 3: Western University</td><td>≈36,000</td><td>≈550</td><td>3 bands</td><td>DirectorAubrey (trumpet, freshman) Olive (euphonium, junior) Amber (clarinet, junior) Brandon (trumpet, sophomore) Grace (clarinet, sophomore) Kimberly (clarinet, freshman) Maria (trumpet, junior) Taylor (bass clarinet, freshman)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0182244050-6">Sites and Participants 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182244050-7">Site 1: Great Lakes University</hd> <p>Great Lakes University (GLU) is a large, Midwestern land-grant state university with enrollment of approximately 50,000 undergraduate/graduate students. The College of Music enrolls around 500 students, with an almost equal split of undergraduate and graduate students. Those who play wind and percussion instruments audition into and participate in a large ensemble each semester, three of which are concert bands. The middle of the three GLU bands, the Symphony Band, is featured in this study. Its conductor has been at the university as a faculty member since 2015. The ensemble is populated with a mix of students of different years (undergraduate and some graduate) and puts on three to four concerts per semester. The student participants in the study were eight undergraduates whose year in school and primary instrument varied (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-8">Site 2: Lower Midwest University</hd> <p>Lower Midwest University (LMU) is a large state university with an enrollment of 67,000 students. The School of Music enrolls 325 undergraduate and 100 graduate students. Undergraduate wind and percussion players audition each semester for one of four concert bands. The Symphonic Band, the second-tier group, rehearses 5 hours each week and is composed of all undergraduate students. The group's director is the associate director of bands and has been at LMU for 11 years. The ensemble presents four to five concerts per year. Student participants in this study were eight undergraduate music majors, varying in year of study (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-9">Site 3: Western University</hd> <p>Western University (WU) is a large university with a student enrollment of approximately 30,000 undergraduate and 6,600 graduate students. At the time of the study, the College of Music enrolled 547 students, including 318 undergraduate music majors. Each fall, wind and percussion students audition for membership into one of three large concert bands. The Symphonic Band, the second of these ensembles, is the subject of this research. This group's director was named the associate director of bands in 2019 after serving as the assistant director of bands from 2014 to 2019. The ensemble is primarily composed of undergraduate students across all years of collegiate study. There were eight student participants from WU in this study (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>The research team included one music education faculty member and two to three doctoral students in music education at each site, with the overall group numbering 10 researchers. We collected data between January and April 2022, and data sources included three individual interviews with each student and director, three videos of rehearsals, and intermittent check-ins with students (i.e., short survey links sent via SMS). We felt that three interviews and three observations spread out across the semester would enable us to capture different phases of the spring term and to understand how engagement might change or develop over time without unduly burdening participants. Interviews were considered the main data source for Research Questions 1 and 2 and were semistructured with protocols that we developed sequentially. This meant that all three sites used identical first interview protocols that allowed for emergent topics and follow-up questions. Then, after completing the first interviews, each site's research team met to generate subsequent protocols. Interviews took place in person in the researchers' offices and lasted 20 to 45 minutes each. Overall, we based initial interview questions on the theoretical framework for the study (engagement as affective, behavioral, and cognitive) and on topics suggested by a review of extant literature in music education around ensemble reform (e.g., democratic practices, peer-assisted learning). Sample questions in the first interview protocol included "Do you feel engaged in rehearsals lately?" "What do you find engaging?" "What helps or hinders your engagement?" and "Can you discuss how your peers or the director impact your engagement?"</p> <p>Observations were the basis for Research Question 3. The research teams video recorded three rehearsals that were also spaced out across the semester. The vantage point was from the rear corner of the rehearsal room, allowing us to see both the director and most of the students. At each site, members of the research teams later watched the videos and composed qualitative field notes ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref86">16</reflink>]). We attempted to maintain an open focus and to note observable characteristics of the rehearsal, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, and nature of interactions. We also took notes on more intangible characteristics, such as classroom energy/climate, level of focus, and overall sense of momentum. Although we considered a more behaviorist approach of dividing the rehearsal into frames, as with some previous research, we felt this ethnography-inspired approach allowed for a nuanced interpretation.</p> <p>The check-ins served as the final data source. These check-ins were filled out by students immediately after finishing rehearsals one day per week. We texted a Google Drive link with two questions: "Were you engaged in today's rehearsal? Please briefly describe" and "What were you paying attention to in rehearsal today?" This data source represented the inclusion of experience sampling method (ESM). The goal of ESM is to capture the experience of the everyday parts of life as close as possible to when they occur ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]). We intended this data source to act as a means of triangulation on the interview and observation field notes. Only two of the three sites ended up being able to capture this check-in data, and even at those sites, student responses were intermittent at best.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-11">Analysis</hd> <p>Each site's research team analyzed data independently of the other sites but used a common approach. At each institution, the team collaboratively coded a single student interview transcript with an inductive, open-coding approach. The team then compared initial codes, combining like codes and deleting those deemed unneeded. Each team then coded a second transcript and refined these codes further. Then, teams created a site-specific codebook with definitions for each code and discussed how to apply codes. Teams then split up the rest of the student interviews among individuals for analysis. In some instances, team members added codes as necessary to capture new material that did not fit with the existing codes. After initial coding, each team combined codes to create categories ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref88">52</reflink>]). Observations were treated differently, with two members of each site's research team creating field notes, which were then combined and analyzed in full. We coded field notes in a similar manner to the interview transcripts. Although the ABC model of engagement inspired the study design and our interpretation of findings, we preferred to approach the analysis with an inductive approach so as to not force a predetermined structure on the findings.</p> <p>Per the recommendations of [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref89">58</reflink>], each site's research team compiled a case report. The case reports included a brief description of the institution/ensemble and participants and findings organized by research question and codes/categories. Each case report was between five and 10 pages of double-spaced text. I (Ryan) then engaged in cross-case analysis. Stake suggested that "the main activity of cross-case analysis is reading the case reports and applying their Findings of situated experience to the research questions of the Quintain" (p. 74). By examining findings across the three universities, I composed short, "tentative assertions" ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref90">58</reflink>], p. 93) of shared importance. After reading and rereading in the spirit of constant comparison ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref91">23</reflink>]), I (Ryan) finalized cross-case assertions.</p> <p>Several features of the research design aided with trustworthiness. We pursued triangulation in several aspects. First, multiple data sources helped to triangulate findings, as interviews were corroborated with check-ins and observations. Second, multiple cases are themselves a form of triangulation, strengthening assertions made about the phenomenon of interest ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]). Finally, our use of multiple researchers at each site strengthened the trustworthiness because we were able to collaboratively analyze different data sources and discuss emerging interpretations.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-12">Findings</hd> <p>We present the findings organized by research question, with subheadings representing themes.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-13">Research Question 1: How Do Collegiate Band Students Describe Their Engagement in Large Ensem...</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182244050-14">Curriculum and instruction decisions</hd> <p>Across sites, participants emphasized the importance of curriculum and instruction in affecting their engagement. This included aspects of the repertoire for each concert cycle. For some, newness and variety was important. Brian (GLU) explained: "We're all pretty excited in general, especially when we get a new piece for the first time and we're all just kind of like a little child in a candy store." Conversely, Kyla (GLU) was bored with music she had been rehearsing for a long time: "The music that we've been doing for the concert, honestly, has gotten kind of boring, in that I know my part and I'm not really getting anything out of rehearsals." Others emphasized that the music needed to be of sufficient rigor to capture their attention, as exemplified by Marshall (GLU): "This cycle, I feel like we have a more substantial part. We play something other than footballs [whole notes] written on a page, which really helps our engagement." Other participants suggested that the most difficult repertoire meant rehearsals that were painstakingly focused on small details rather than playing through big chunks of music, and this tediousness harmed overall engagement. Participants also raised the aesthetic aspects of the repertoire as related to engagement. They suggested that studying beautiful music and music that evoked emotional responses improved engagement.</p> <p>Some suggested that more relatable repertoire was more engaging. Josh, for example, (GLU) bemoaned repertoire he found difficult to understand:</p> <p>One third of our rep throughout the semesters sounds like new music, new composers like getting their names out. I personally don't like it. Like just not my cup of tea. And I feel that I'm personally not as engaged.... Talking about it with other players, we're like "Yeah, this sucks. We don't enjoy playing this."</p> <p>Students spoke frequently, too, about the size/intimacy of the ensemble. Sectionals, smaller chamber pieces, and solo opportunities were naturally more engaging, as were rehearsals where their parts in the music were prioritized. Brandon (WU) said these arrangements made him feel more "alive," noting a heightened sense of responsibility to the group. David (LMU) explained that he tends to "zone out" unless directly asked to engage.</p> <p>Participants frequently talked about the structure of rehearsal as an important factor in engagement. Overall, longer rehearsals made engagement more difficult to maintain. At GLU, one rehearsal per week was a shorter period, and students there uniformly appreciated this, noting that everyone—conductor and students—approached the day with more efficiency and focus. Additionally, students noted that a carefully structured rehearsal was important for encouraging the goal setting and motivation needed to engage. Kimberly (WU) elaborated: "I like how organized [rehearsal] is. We have, like, a schedule for how things are supposed to work, and I think that actually helps hone in our attention." Beyond this, feelings varied. For example, some participants appreciated variety throughout a rehearsal period—in the form of shorter segments, conductor changes and guest conductor visits, and alterations to the rehearsal format. Kyla (GLU) noted: "When I came into the rehearsal and saw that we were all in a circle. I was like, 'Okay, this might be something that's a little different.' So I think that in itself made me more engaged." Others explained that with more frequent breaks came more opportunities to lose focus.</p> <p>Participants explained that too much repetition, especially without clear reasons provided, harmed engagement. Suveer (LMU) wrote in a check-in: "Some of the rehearsal strategies that were used by the graduate students came off as being redundant or not as productive, so I saw myself getting antsy and wanting to quickly move on when this was happening." Likewise, Brandon (WU) said that "Running really tough reps... over and over and over" led to going into "survival mode," which was not enjoyable. By contrast, participants seemed to appreciate a mixture of goal-oriented and fast-paced rehearsal of the music combined with the director talking about the piece and encouraging peer-to-peer interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-15">Day-to-day and temporal factors</hd> <p>A strong assertion we can make across sites is that engagement is "U-shaped" with regard to a concert cycle and that engagement is highest when a performance is imminent. As a rehearsal cycle started, students said they were initially engaged, "like a kid in a candy shop" (Brian, GLU). Brian (GLU) further explained that engagement would then dip before returning to a high point:</p> <p>I feel like for myself and the entire ensemble, getting a new piece is exciting. And then like doing the initial read through, like it starts at an upward peak and then we get to the fourth, fifth rehearsal, and it starts to go downhill.... But then the day of it finally skyrockets up and everybody's really motivated and it goes well.</p> <p>Participants across sites also noted that no matter what else may be happening in rehearsal or the concert cycle, personal factors also impacted engagement. Participants explained that being tired, hungry, or stressed by life led to a lack of focus. A check-in response from LMU provided an example: "Today was just not my day. I was up very late working on a theory assignment and by this point in the day I was absolutely brain fried." Others like Chris (GLU) noted the relationship of engagement to self-efficacy, explaining: "Sometimes I'm like, 'I've got everything together,' sometimes I don't. I would say if I do—like I am meeting the expectation, then I feel like I'm more engaged in the rehearsal."</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-16">Ensemble/director relationship and interactions</hd> <p>Participants across the three sites discussed three main aspects related to the interactions between director and ensemble: relationship, director persona, and democratic/interactive ethos. In terms of relationships, students discussed how engagement depended in part on the prior connection forged with the director.</p> <p>Some participants consistently suggested that a close relationship with the ensemble director encouraged their engagement. Several members of the GLU band who had been with their director for several years explained that their close ties grounded their participation. Kyla (GLU) explained: "His understanding of other things that are going on in your life causes you to want to be present in that moment, and, you know, to remember why you are there." This theme was not universal across sites, however. At WU and LMU, we did not hear evidence of the importance of this type of student-director relationship. Students talked about positive, if superficial, interactions in the hallway, but personal connections were not otherwise discussed.</p> <p>Comments frequently centered on the impact of the director's persona. Student participants believed that the director's warmth and welcoming demeanor were integral to successfully engaging the ensemble. Use of eye contact, humor, and verbal communication affected how the students perceived the rehearsal. Sophomore Grace (WU) appreciated the conductor's use of humor: "It just makes it feel like it's a safer space to learn and to like, make mistakes. Like, if you're using humor, it means there's, like, room for forgiveness."</p> <p>Regarding communication, students mentioned that rehearsals were more entertaining when the director was engaged in what one student referred to as "calm theatrics." This director was perceived as energetic and engaging when he was communicating the meaning of the music through stories, varying the cadence or pitch of his voice, or moving in certain ways to elicit responses. Grace (WU) mentioned that he had an "intensity and energy" that helped keep her engaged. In one example where the director was trying to get certain sections to play more aggressively, participant Brandon (WU) mentioned that the conductor would be "screaming... stomping, or running or jumping" to demonstrate the intensity he was looking for. Students also noted that how the conductor relayed their passion has impact. Richard (LMU) shared, "The conductor has to sell it. When the conductor has high energy, it makes a big impression."</p> <p>Participants also shared some negative aspects of ensemble/director interaction. In a few instances, tension was introduced through a negative interaction, and this had an adverse impact on engagement. Participants from GLU and WU recalled moments in rehearsals where the director was visibly frustrated or short with students, and Kyla (GLU) explained how director mood affected the overall rehearsal environment: "If the conductor is having a bad day, I think it can have an effect on engagement just because we'll notice something is not usual... like as if there were a neon sign in the room." Students also talked about times where feedback was negative in a belittling way. Maria (WU) recalled when the director was frustrated: "[He said] 'Y'all can play it so much better than this, you're slacking,'" which made her feel discouraged and disconnected. Additionally, students at GLU recalled times where motivational talks by the director felt forced and did not help engagement. Marshall (GLU) recalled:</p> <p>We had "the talk" [making air quotes] about what happened—what we liked about last cycle, and then he gave us our "motivational speech" [air quotes again] about, "Well, I think that you guys have a lot of talent in this room. However, I think we could play like you guys played on Thursday night all the time."... But it's kind of just a monotone—just him talking. I don't really feel any motivation behind it.</p> <p>An extension of this theme concerned the interactions in rehearsals, with a focus on the appreciation by students of democratic/interactive practice. For example, Marshall (GLU) noted:</p> <p>The ability to ask questions and understand what is happening around the ensemble is great. Getting to make points about style, stuff like that. Sometimes you are just told what to do and I think the ability to ask questions makes it more of a reciprocated environment where it's professional both ways.</p> <p>At WU, students discussed how the conductor included students in the decision-making process. He asked questions, promoted dialogue between the ensemble members, and facilitated reflective discussions. The director often began each rehearsal by playing a clip from the last rehearsal and asked the students to take a minute or so to discuss what they thought needed improvement. While participants appreciated the democratic ethos and shared ownership, students also noted they sometimes preferred more specific and direct feedback or explained that too much conversation was harmful to engagement. Nina (GLU) explained:</p> <p>I would say the ensemble is pretty engaged when we discuss things, but it depends on length. If it goes over a certain amount of time, I don't know—like 10 minutes or something—then you start to lose engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-17">Peers and social cohesion</hd> <p>Participants' discussion of how peers impacted engagement was nuanced. Numerous students spoke of the importance of the overall level of focus and preparation in the ensemble—what they frequently labeled as the "vibe." Chris (GLU) explained that "I feel motivated if I see other people that are motivated, if that makes sense, or if I see people ready for rehearsal." Amber (WU) felt more engaged when her peers enjoyed a piece and less engaged when section members did not like the music. In this sense, engagement—or a lack thereof—was contagious.</p> <p>Numerous students said they appreciated the chance to socialize with peers, explaining that social cohesion was important to engagement. Mostly this extended to students' sections, not necessarily to every member of the ensemble. At WU and GLU, directors provided structured moments for students to discuss issues in the music or to give feedback to one another. WU students mostly discussed enjoying the 30 seconds given to talk to their sections and address issues. However, some students described these conversations as disruptive, especially when students were not on task.</p> <p>The need for community in the ensemble, as facilitative of engagement, was not universal. Some students were supportive of this, like Brian (GLU), who again referenced the need for sections to be close:</p> <p>Band is a chance for people to have community.... I think that could also maybe help engagement too, if the band is closer to each other because then it's kind of like, "Oh I'm not just playing for myself. I'm playing for, like, my friends, like in my section."</p> <p>Damian (LMU) noted that "a social section plays better together." However, Jim (LMU) was adamant that he did not want to socialize during rehearsals, noting that "ensemble time should be focused on music and not social time."</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-18">Research Question 2: How Do Collegiate Band Directors Describe Engagement in Large Ensemble R...</hd> <p>The directors spoke of engagement in terms of what they were trying to accomplish with students. The three shared a commitment to moving beyond a classroom dominated by passive, one-way exchanges from director to student. Three main themes stood out across the directors' interviews: responsibility, empowerment/independence, and setting up a collaborative environment.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-19">Director responsibility</hd> <p>Directors spoke of responsibility in a few different ways. First, they espoused a general belief that engagement was their responsibility, at least to some extent. The director at WU explained: "Personally, I think there's always something more that I need to be doing to engage the students." He noted that this included choosing engaging repertoire, shaping the ensemble's goals, and directing students' roles. This sense of responsibility, verging on worry, was always on his mind:</p> <p>I like to think that I'm perceptive but also very sensitive when it comes to looking at the students and seeing, you know, trying to judge and trying to get in their brain. What are they thinking? Are they engaged? Are they not? Are they bored to tears? Why are they bored? This is like this inner struggle that I'm having.</p> <p>The director at LMU echoed this emphasis on responsibility: "Thoughtful rehearsal planning and execution is central to effective teaching.... I am responsible for nurturing and setting up the stage for engagement. This changes from day to day, of course, but I am the one who should adapt."</p> <p>The directors also talked about a responsibility to connect the ensemble experience with students' other musical pursuits. This was especially true of the music education students because the directors felt a responsibility to engage them in thinking through how to conduct future ensembles. The director at WU agreed, talking about how he tried to connect ensemble learning to students' private studio experiences and chamber music pursuits.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-20">Empowerment and independence</hd> <p>The directors also spoke about a mission of empowerment and creating student agency in rehearsals. At LMU, the director saw this as even more important after the social isolation and lingering negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic:</p> <p>Post pandemic, I find myself making a new effort to draw everyone in the room into the task at hand. So, clarinets are rehearsing a section, I will ask the trumpets and trombones to be ready to share how this rehearsal moment might apply to them and their parts.</p> <p>Directors ruminated, however, on the difficulty of shifting the culture toward empowerment. They said a few students—mostly upperclassmen who had been in the ensemble for a while—were going along with their ideas, but it was slow to take hold across the ensemble. GLU's director was wondering about how to encourage students to take more initiative with regard to conversations in class, listening to rehearsal recordings and practicing accordingly, and organizing outside-of-class extra rehearsing of tricky parts in the music. He said:</p> <p>How can we have them feel like more of their voice is heard or their ideas are heard in a safe place where they don't have to feel like their answer is wrong? And so I'm trying to create this culture because what I really am interested in is having them reflect individually on, "Okay, what have I learned this semester? And am I applying it on a daily basis? Am I trying to just play my part, or am I really trying to think more globally about what's going on?"</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-21">Collaborative environment</hd> <p>The director at WU talked about sharing his thinking with ensemble members as a way to encourage them to engage more deeply in rehearsal: "If they understand the process or the reason that we're going through some things, then maybe they appreciate it a bit more than me just saying, 'Jump through this hoop.' I don't necessarily think that that breeds great engagement." To this end, all three directors also projected the score to every piece they were playing on a large screen behind the podium and referred to it during rehearsal.</p> <p>A collaborative environment, however, was not always easy to establish. The director from GLU talked about a time he strove to be ambitious with his programming. He created a concert program titled "The Music of Our Time" built around engaging themes:</p> <p>We basically played music that related to a variety of topics that have been relevant in our life the last 2 years. So this piece is about the election, this one was played at Biden's inaugural address. This piece was a tribute to the last 2 years and the pandemic. This one talked about civil rights and just human rights—it's written for the first transgender activist, Marsha Johnson.</p> <p>However, when he tried to get conversations going around the topics, students did not engage. He also encouraged students to share original artwork or poems at the concert, but students were not responsive—it was, as he said, "crickets." He recounted his frustration, saying, "I spent a lot of time to figure that out. And dammit, I was really proud of that!"</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-22">Research Question 3: What Does Rehearsal Engagement Look Like in Action?</hd> <p>Across the six rehearsal video recordings, themes related to what we saw in terms of student and director behavior emerged. For each theme, we include an excerpt of the field notes.</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-23">Director talk</hd> <p>Observers noted numerous aspects of how the directors spoke to the ensemble and the impact this seemed to have on engagement. Across sites, directors used "we" language instead of saying "I need you to" or giving a direction (e.g., "play louder here"). They also noted times where they made mistakes (e.g., "I pushed the tempo too far, that's my fault"). This seemed to coincide with moments where the director aimed at establishing the open, collaborative environment they talked about in interviews. Notes from GLU's rehearsal are indicative:</p> <p>So far today rehearsal is filled with a lot of explaining ("this is a three-bar transition"), singing, asking for some things ("can we try to... "). At one point the students sing a part (and he says "notice how we... "). Some checking for comprehension—he says "Do we get it?" And then follows with "and if we don't like it, we can try something different." He's demonstrating that openness he said he's after. The "we" seems agentic. (February 17, 2022)</p> <p>We also noticed the affirming and engaging character of the directors' talk. Speaking voice was upbeat and energetic across sites; smiles were frequent, and affirmation was common. Affirmations of playing often spurred students to shuffle or applaud to support fellow students.</p> <p>We saw frequent instances of the directors reminding students to pay attention to specific things they were doing. In some cases, this meant drawing their focus to compositional devices. In others, it meant reminding them to engage more critically with their own playing, which we see as tied to the directors' insistence on empowering students to be more independent in rehearsals. This excerpt from GLU's rehearsal is an example:</p> <p>Director steps up on the podium and makes some announcements—mostly about when the concert is (it's coming up pretty soon he implores them to consider) and what the plan for the week's rehearsals is. Then we move right into tuning—electronic drone on. There are some instructions for each section, for the entire group ("Listen down and blend your sound"). Then a comment from the director—this feels a little bit chastising: "Some of us are more worried about playing the other notes. Let's get the one note good. Some of us still haven't found it yet." Says they have to be more intentional. I feel like I can read the frustration from him a bit here. Do the students? I can't tell. (January 28, 2022)</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-24">Student body language</hd> <p>Students demonstrated engagement or disengagement in a variety of behavioral ways. One visual cue was their use of eye contact. Students who were disengaged when another section was the focus looked around the room, at other nonperforming students, or at their phones. However, they focused on the conductor and their music when engaged, sitting upright or farther forward on their chairs. Engaged students tended to take on a more active, almost athletic, stance. Body language also shifted as different pieces of repertoire were rehearsed, as notes from WU exemplify:</p> <p>The focus on this Maslanka piece appears different. What am I seeing that makes me think that? More eye contact. No side conversations. More upright posture. Feet are more planted. The students look ready to respond and active. I'm not sure how to quantify that. (WU rehearsal, March 2022).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-25">Norms: quiet, professional, and compliant</hd> <p>In general, we saw students acting according to typical band rehearsal norms—attentive and ready to play when called on but otherwise quiet and serious. From GLU's rehearsal, we noted:</p> <p>I see mostly direct instruction—folks are quietly participating. I don't see off-task behavior. I don't see evidence of drifting attention really. His pacing is likely helping with engagement. They play a lot. He said he wants them to speak up more, but I remember what it's like to be in these ensembles—that could be hard. You'd have to be really confident. (GLU rehearsal, February 2022)</p> <p>Across observation periods, we noted a significant amount of quiet, compliant rehearsing. Although directors mixed up their instructional modes, we noted a fair amount of direct instruction. The directors asked for something or gave a direction, the ensemble performed, and the director affirmed the effort and/or moved on to a new objective. This one-way instructional mode made engagement challenging to observe, as notes from WU show: "How can we tell the difference between engagement and compliance? Students at this level may comply as far as musical goals, but are they really engaged?" (WU rehearsal, March 2022).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-26">More lively: conversation and humor</hd> <p>The instances we saw that broke from the norms of quiet, compliant rehearsing occurred when the director asked questions, invited conversations, or recognized an ensemble member's contribution. Notes from GLU demonstrate this:</p> <p>Director asks the group: "Do you feel like the music is driving to the downbeat or do you hear it differently?" He sings it both ways. One student offers an idea, a few others raise their hands. Now they try both ways. Now they're voting. This is the first time in the rehearsal that people are chattering a bit, laughing. This is the first time the quiet vibe "breaks" and the engagement changes.</p> <p>Humor came in the form of intentionally funny comments but also in the form of gesture, which functioned as visual hyperbole. Small gestures were sometimes used to draw individuals in and focus attention. Other times, large and animated movements appeared designed to exaggerate a desired musical outcome or to regain momentum following frustrating portions of rehearsal. Notes from WU demonstrate this:</p> <p>The conductor is coming off of the podium and punching the air to get more volume out of the trombone section. His facial expressions appear angry—this is a reflection of the desired sound rather than conductor emotion. With each note, the conductor is growing more exaggerated. He is stabbing at the air above the ensemble with more force each time. No verbal instructions were given now or at the next stopping point. (WU rehearsal, March 2022)</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-27">Technology</hd> <p>Phones and tablets were a part of all the rehearsals we observed. Tablets were often on the music stands, displaying music in place of hard copy sheet music. Frequently, phones were sitting on music stands, out of the view of the director. In our field notes, we sometimes noted these as distractions: "A girl near the camera checking her phone—checking the time? Or messages/notifications?" (GLU rehearsal, February 2022). At LMU, notes were similar:</p> <p>A student was looking at their cell phone during a time when the teacher was giving instruction. The director saw this, gave a strong nonverbal disapproval, waited for the student to put the cell phone away, and then began to conduct the next section. It was clear the entire ensemble was aware of this off-task moment, given the turning heads and length of time the teacher waited for the off-task student to gain awareness of what was happening around them. (April 17, 2022)</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-28">Discussion</hd> <p>We see a variety of important points arising from the findings. Because this is one of the first studies to focus directly on engagement in ensembles, it is important to discuss the findings in the context of the broader foundational literature on engagement and to relate this to specific music education research strands. Of course, there are important limitations to keep in mind. First, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to other university contexts, and they may not resemble engagement in K–12 instrumental ensembles. It is also true that these findings should be interpreted in terms of engagement with instruction, which is narrower than the broader multifaceted concept of school engagement.</p> <p>The interview, check-ins, and observation findings speak to the theoretical basis for engagement. Much of the student participants' comments reflect the affective and cognitive dimensions of engagement: They discussed the emotional components of ensemble rehearsal, connection to peers and the director, and aspects of the curriculum and instruction that related to their cognitive investment. Moreover, observation field notes connect to some specific behavioral aspects of engagement, providing some descriptions of what active learning exchanges looked like. Perhaps most salient in terms of foundational concepts was the extent to which engagement was contextual. Participants clarified how engagement varied daily—or even within a rehearsal period—–depending on a host of personal and environmental factors. That engagement with music instruction depends on repertoire is compelling and tracks with motivational concepts around interest ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref93">50</reflink>]) and task difficulty ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref94">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the situational nature of engagement being evident, some aspects of the ensemble rehearsal seemed definitively tied to heightened engagement. Echoing prior research outside of music ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref95">44</reflink>]), active involvement seemed to be tied to cognitive investment in the rehearsal. When students were asked to think, talk, and play, they said they were more engaged. By contrast, when they repeated parts of music over and over or when they were ignored for long periods of time, they said they were disconnected. This echoes research in music education on time allotment in rehearsals ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]) and also may relate to research on so-called "thwarts" or practices that discourage engagement, such as "busywork" ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref98">44</reflink>]). These findings present some new information on the music rehearsal specifically: When the group is smaller, either because of a sectional or a chamber-type piece being rehearsed, this seems connected to heightened engagement. This is likely because a more intimate rehearsal involved more active learning, but it may also entail increased personal focus and sense of responsibility to perform at a high level. It may also be easier for teachers to explicitly connect students with curriculum when working with relatively smaller groups of students ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref99">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>The findings suggest that the relationship with the director is important for engagement, mirroring general education literature on the importance of teacher/student connection ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref100">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref101">48</reflink>]). In addition, ensemble director persona matters, echoing previous work in music education on teacher magnitude/intensity and general student perceptions of effective music teaching (see [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]). A more tenuous connection, however, seems to exist around the importance of peer-to-peer relationships. Participants prioritized social cohesion with other players in their section, echoing some previous work ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>]). Some students felt that socializing in the course of rehearsal facilitated engagement, and others were uninterested in this aspect of the ensemble. A novel finding here is that the overall "vibe" of both the director and peers in the ensemble has the potential to harm engagement. This suggests that engagement may be symbiotic in the collegiate ensemble, perhaps more so than in classrooms where independent work is more common than group work.</p> <p>Although high levels of engagement were sometimes obvious in observations and were discussed by participants, lower engagement was more challenging to recognize in a behavioral sense. Put simply, the norms of ensemble rehearsal—quiet compliance with teacher directions, professionalism and readiness to play one's instrument—may mask low engagement. Although some classroom environments might be prone to student disruption or avoidance of tasks and nonparticipation, more "buttoned up" environments like those we studied were free from these more obvious signs of low engagement. The only signs we saw of low engagement—what students in the study called "going through the motions" or "checking out"—involved the occasional distraction with a phone. Therefore, it is likely that in collegiate ensembles and K–12 groups modeling themselves on the professionalism and quiet working style of collegiate ensembles, compliance might conceal low levels of cognitive engagement.</p> <p>Additionally, we wondered whether the norms of instrumental rehearsals interfered with the active learning directors say they wanted. Directors emphasized how much they wanted student agency and empowerment, hoping that student musicians would raise their hands, ask questions, or pair up with a partner to practice a tough passage. However, ingrained norms of rehearsal again seemed to preclude efforts to shift engagement toward shared ownership or democratic practices. In this sense, the findings here echo other work in music education. Students may have been concerned about talking too much when the director invites opinions, mirroring concerns reported in other research ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref105">55</reflink>]). It is also possible that sustaining high levels of rehearsal engagement—as opposed to more passive rehearsal—may simply involve too much effort for busy collegiate musicians. Even though it is generally treated as wholly positive, high engagement in school can also co-occur with burnout and exhaustion ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]). It may be that college band students were dissuaded from deeper engagement by the difficulty it presented, especially amid the other things they juggled, given what researchers have found about music student stress levels ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>]) and anxiety ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref108">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182244050-29">Implications and Conclusion</hd> <p>This study represents a targeted investigation of engagement in the instrumental ensemble rehearsal, and it has important implications for different stakeholders. First, more research is needed, given the general lack of focus on engagement in ensemble settings. Researchers could more directly explore engagement in K–12 settings. Studies that are focused on instrumental ensembles could then build on these findings, uncovering similarities and differences at lower levels. There should also be a sociological exploration of music class engagement to study the intersections of engagement with race, social class, and gender. Additionally, more research is needed that ties engagement to other related concepts. Engagement should be a more explicit focus in studies of both teacher actions and student experiences in music education. In terms of teachers, researchers might include engagement in studies that look at lesson planning, pedagogical content knowledge, feedback, and teacher talk (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref109">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref110">42</reflink>]). In terms of student experience, scholars might consider explicitly linking engagement to musical independence ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref111">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref112">61</reflink>]) and critical thinking (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref113">22</reflink>]) and should continue to explore this in the context of democratic practices ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref114">54</reflink>]). Finally, more empirical work is needed that includes engagement as an outcome in studying curricular innovations like project-based learning ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref115">59</reflink>]) or a focus on popular music genres.</p> <p>The field also needs conceptual/theoretical work and empirical research that can be related to general education research on engagement. The nature of the ensemble classroom is distinct from, for example, elementary school classrooms in some important ways: the focus on group performance, building of skill, and emphasis on nonverbal communication, to name a few. This makes it challenging to import certain engagement concepts into the music ensemble class. For example, how might scholars define independent work and group work? Is all ensemble rehearsal "group work"? Is all ensemble rehearsal active and hands-on by default? And how might connective instruction ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]) occur in large classes and with spaces dedicated to musicking more than discussion? These are just a few of the questions that scholars might take up as they connect music teaching and learning with broader conversations in educational engagement.</p> <p>This study also has implications for instrumental ensemble teachers' practice. Although these findings are not necessarily generalizable to all levels or types of concert ensembles, they provide ways to examine influences on engagement. Teachers might, for example, consider how engagement is implicated in their choice of repertoire and structure of rehearsals. They might also examine video of their own rehearsals with an eye on active student involvement, making sure students were not disengaged by excessive repetition or being ignored in instruction. Finally, ensemble teachers might consider ways to personally connect with students and encourage community and social connection among ensemble members given the positive associations these had with reported engagement. Attention to these concepts should involve informal conversations and check-ins with ensemble members to understand student perceptions in light of the findings from this study.</p> <p>Music teacher educators and policymakers may also consider these findings. For music teacher educators, engagement may be a topic worthy of inclusion as both a foundational topic and one explored in the context of different methods classes. Research on teacher noticing has suggested that as teachers develop expertise, they refine noticing skills and are able to apply sophisticated schema to their assessments of their classroom (see [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref117">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref118">56</reflink>]). Music teacher educators might investigate how to scaffold the development of music preservice music teachers' noticing of student engagement. Finally, administrators, leaders of professional music organizations, and designers of professional development might consider ways to incorporate an understanding of engagement in the large ensemble into the design of mentoring/support structures for novice teachers.</p> <ref id="AN0182244050-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adderley C., Kennedy M., Berz W. (2003). "A home away from home": The world of the high school music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ainley M. (2012). Students' interest and engagement in classroom activities. In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 283–302). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allsup R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345646</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allsup R. E., Benedict C. (2008). The problems of band: An inquiry into the future of instrumental music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 156–173. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40327299">www.jstor.org/stable/40327299</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Appleton J. J., Christenson S. L., Kim D., Reschly A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref108" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey E. N. (2023). University music ensemble participation and psychological well-being. Contributions to Music Education, 48, 99–119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref62" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bazan D. (2011). The use of student-directed instruction by middle school band teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189, 23–56. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.189.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Benton C. W. (2013). Promoting metacognition in music classes. Music Educators Journal, 100(2), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113500077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blair D. V. (2009). Stepping aside: Teaching in a student-centered music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 95(3), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432108330760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blazar D., Pollard C. (2022). Challenges and tradeoffs of "good" teaching: The pursuit of multiple educational outcomes (EdWorkingPaper No. 22-591). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/AJHT-4D94</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown J. K. (2008). Student-centered instruction: Involving students in their own education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321080940050108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper K. S. (2014). Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 363–402. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213507973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darr C. W. (2012). Measuring student engagement: The development of a scale for formative use. In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 707–723). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke R. A. (1999). Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 143, 1–48. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319011">www.jstor.org/stable/40319011</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson R. M., Fretz R. I., Shaw L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans P., McPherson G. E., Davidson J. W. (2013). The role of psychological needs in ceasing music and music learning activities. Psychology of Music, 41(5), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612441736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn J. D., Zimmer K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fonder M. (2014). Another perspective: No default or reset necessary—large ensembles enrich many. Music Educators Journal, 101(2), 89–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432114553776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks J. A., McColskey W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrett M. L. (2013). An examination of critical thinking skills in high school choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413497219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goolsby T. W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallam S. (2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallam S., Creech A., Varvarigou M., McQueen H., Gaunt H. (2014). Does active engagement in community music support the well-being of older people? Arts & Health, 6(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533015.2013.809369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haston W. (2013). Perceived use of teacher questioning in secondary music ensembles. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 195, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.195.0077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedgecoth D. M. (2018). Student perspectives and learning outcomes from self-guided ensemble rehearsal. Research and Issues in Music Education, 14(1), 1–27. https://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol14/iss1/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hektner J. M., Schmidt J. A., Csikszentmihalyi M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herman C. H. (2022). Group work that works: Peer-assisted learning in large ensemble classrooms. Music Educators Journal, 109(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321221115417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holsberg P. W. (2009). Constructivism and band: New approaches for instrumental music (Publication No. 3388717) [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inkinen J., Klager C., Juuti K., Schneider B., Salmela-Aro K., Krajcik J., Lavonen J. (2020). High school students' situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations. Science Education, 104(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson E. (2017). The effect of symmetrical and asymmetrical peer-assisted learning structures on music achievement and learner engagement in seventh-grade band. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417712486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston Turner C. (2013). Another perspective: Crowdsourcing our ensemble rehearsals. Music Educators Journal, 100(2), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113505839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly S., Abruzzo E. (2021). Using lesson-specific teacher reports of student engagement to investigate innovations in curriculum and instruction. Educational Researcher, 50(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20982255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson M. A., Lawson H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J.-S. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin A. J., Dowson M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin A. J., Ginns P., Papworth B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miksza P. (2013). The future of music education: Continuing the dialogue about curricular reform. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 45–50. https://www-jstor-org/stable/43289016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nápoles J., Vázquez-Ramos A. M. (2013). Perceptions of time spent in teacher talk: A comparison among self-estimates, peer estimates, and actual time. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(4), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412463246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill S. A. (2015). Youth empowerment and transformative music engagement. In Benedict C., Schmidt P., Spruce G., Woodford P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education (pp. 388–405). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patall E. A., Vite A., Lee D., Zambrano J., Janowicz P., Aguilar M., Ahrens R., Arkatov A. (2023). The state of teachers' use of engaging classroom practices in 2022 [Paper presentation]. AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne P. D., Lewis W., McCaskill F. (2020). Looking within: An investigation of music education majors and mental health. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(3), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720927748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins R., Mason-Bertrand A., Fancourt D., Baxter L., Williamon A. (2020). How participatory music engagement supports mental well-being: A meta-ethnography. Qualitative Health Research, 30(12), 1924–1940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320944142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prichard S. (2012). Listening to learn: The status of listening activities in secondary instrumental ensemble classes. Contributions to Music Education, 39, 101–115. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24127247">www.jstor.org/stable/24127247</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quin D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345–387. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger K. A., Hidi S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly A. L., Christenson S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmela-Aro K., Moeller J., Schneider B., Spicer J., Lavonen J. (2016). Integrating the light and dark sides of student engagement using person-oriented and situation-specific approaches. Learning and Instruction, 43, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherer A. D. (2021). High school band directors' perceptions and applications of democratic rehearsal procedures in concert band rehearsals. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123321989299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scherer A. D. (2023). Collegiate musicians' experiences with democratic rehearsal procedures. International Journal of Music Education, 41(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221108472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherin M. G., Jacobs V. R., Philipp R. A. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shively J. L. (1995). A framework for the development and implementation of constructivist learning environments for beginning band classes (Publication No. 9624497) [University of Illinois - Champaign Urbana]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobias E. S., Campbell M. R., Greco P. (2015). Bringing curriculum to life: Enacting project-based learning in music programs. Music Educators Journal, 102(2), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115607602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weidner B. N. (2015). Developing musical independence in a high school band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 205, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.205.0071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weidner B. N. (2020). A grounded theory of musical independence in the concert band. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419897616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wellborn J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A., Eccles J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182244050-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan D. Shaw</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0819-8480 Charles Oldenkamp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-1342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> All names are pseudonyms</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ryan D. Shaw; David Hedgecoth; Andrew Bohn; Emily Moler Huddleston; Nathan Irby; Charles Oldenkamp; Gentry Ragsdale; Lorenzo L. Sánchez-Gatt and Austin D. Thomas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Ryan D. Shaw is assistant professor of music education at Michigan State University. His research interests include arts education policy and music teacher micropolitics.</p> <p>David Hedgecoth is associate professor of music education, associate director and director of undergraduate studies at the School of Music at The Ohio State University. His research interests include music education at charter schools.</p> <p>Andrew Bohn is PhD student in music education at Michigan State University. His research interests include education policy, music teacher agency, and inclusive teaching practices.</p> <p>Emily Moler Huddleston is PhD candidate at Michigan State University. Her research interests include women band director experiences and psychological topics as they relate to music education.</p> <p>Nathan Irby is graduate teaching associate in music education at The Ohio State University. His research interests include the teaching strategies and philosophies of effective jazz ensemble directors and the mental wellness of K–12 music educators.</p> <p>Charles Oldenkamp is PhD student in music education at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research interests include student motivation and supporting students with dyslexia in undergraduate music education programs.</p> <p>Gentry Ragsdale is PhD student in music education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on access and inclusion in music education and the use of culturally responsive pedagogy.</p> <p>Lorenzo L. Sánchez-Gatt is PhD student in music education at Michigan State University. His research interests include anti-oppressive education, centering Black and Latiné experiences, Afrofuturism, and Critical Race Theory in music education.</p> <p>Austin D. Thomas is associate faculty of music education at The Ohio State University, Lima. His research interests include music continuation through modern band programs and music health and wellness.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1457534
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Describing Engagement in the Collegiate Concert Band Rehearsal
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryan+D%2E+Shaw%22">Ryan D. Shaw</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0819-8480">0000-0003-0819-8480</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Hedgecoth%22">David Hedgecoth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Bohn%22">Andrew Bohn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Moler+Huddleston%22">Emily Moler Huddleston</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nathan+Irby%22">Nathan Irby</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charles+Oldenkamp%22">Charles Oldenkamp</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-1342">0000-0001-9898-1342</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gentry+Ragsdale%22">Gentry Ragsdale</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lorenzo+L%2E+Sánchez-Gatt%22">Lorenzo L. Sánchez-Gatt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Austin+D%2E+Thomas%22">Austin D. Thomas</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Music+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Music Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 72(4):417-441.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Activities%22">Music Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Musicians%22">Musicians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drills+%28Practice%29%22">Drills (Practice)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Activities%22">Group Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Musical+Instruments%22">Musical Instruments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Check+Lists%22">Check Lists</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Musical+Composition%22">Musical Composition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Responsibility%22">Teacher Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00224294241228213
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-4294<br />1945-0095
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this multiple case study was to investigate engagement in the collegiate concert band setting. Research questions were: (1) How do collegiate band students describe their engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? (2) How do collegiate band directors describe engagement in large ensemble rehearsals? and (3) What does rehearsal engagement look like in action? Cross-case analysis suggested that student engagement is related to personal/temporal factors, the repertoire and instructional strategies, and interpersonal factors among students and between the student and director. Directors spoke of the responsibility and pressure they felt to encourage independence and the challenges of establishing a collaborative, agentic environment. Observation field notes reflected variety in body language, liveliness, and hands-on interactions and technology distractions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1457534
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1457534
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00224294241228213
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 417
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Musicians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drills (Practice)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Musical Instruments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Check Lists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Musical Composition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Describing Engagement in the Collegiate Concert Band Rehearsal
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan D. Shaw
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Hedgecoth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew Bohn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Moler Huddleston
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nathan Irby
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Charles Oldenkamp
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gentry Ragsdale
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lorenzo L. Sánchez-Gatt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Austin D. Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-4294
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1945-0095
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Music Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1