This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Table 3: Mean (Average) Resume Rating by Level of the Po-


sition and Instrument Played by the Candidate Instrument


Trombone Clarinet Flute


Trumpet Total


Elementary 7.04


6.82 8.61 7.57 7.50


High School


7.49 7.93 7.25 7.38 7.51


Total 7.38


7.67 7.57 7.43 7.50


There was not a significant difference between the ratings of


resumes by instrument (ANOVA Instrument F =.85, p > .05), al- though a statistically significant difference existed between instru- ments and the level of the position (ANOVA Instrument by Level F = 4..56, p < .05). Once again, this difference does not take into account the sex of the applicant.


Discussion The implications of this study share many factors with Kopetz’s


research; however, several differences were noted during the experi- ment. First, letters of recommendation were included in the appli- cation packets created by Kopetz, while the present study only in- cluded the resumes of each individual applicant. Kopetz states that “letters of reference are very important for inexperienced teachers” (20), therefore future researchers may wish to include this aspect in subsequent studies. Additionally, Kopetz placed an emphasis on the applicant’s in- stitution in his hypothesis, stating that recruiters would rank stu- dents from a music-education school differently as opposed to a per- formance-oriented school (9). Four fictitious schools were created for each resumé, two for a performance-based music institution and two emphasizing a curriculum in music education. In the present study, the names of real universities were used, each representing large state-level institutions. All four candidates possessed a degree of Bachelor of Music Education from these universities. It is unlikely that the applicant’s university portrayed a signifi- cant factor in evaluators’ decisions in their rankings. As stated, each university is characterized as a traditional state-level four year institu- tion located in a similar region in the U.S. Furthermore, it is also un- likely that the majority of the evaluators possess the specific knowl- edge as to which schools have a greater prestige in music education training. Future studies may wish to focus on only using subjects with training and experience in music supervision to ascertain if the applicant’s university is a significant factor in the ranking process. Kopetz’s results place males as receiving a higher percentage of


favorable rankings in all four of the application sets (57). Females had a weaker chance of being ranked first, but their percentages im- proved when the application noted their choice of instrument were the “male” characterized trumpet or clarinet. In the present study, females were given preferences in both the elementary and second- ary music positions, although the difference in variance was much smaller than the gap between the male and female applicants in Kopetz’s research. However, this new data contributes evidence that


TEMPO 44


sex stereotyping in the present has potentially become less biased and more equitable in the field of music education. The applicant’s instrument of choice also did not seem to pro-


vide a definitive conclusion when compared to sex or the level of the position. While female flutists at the elementary level were the high- est ranked, it is not enough evidence to produce a definitive correla- tion between these variables and evaluator preference. A factor that should be explored further in future studies is the work experience and professional background notated on the resume. The work ex- perience accounts for the majority of the information on the resume, and could be the most significant aspect in evaluators’ decisions. These results may have also been influenced by the fact that


there are more female administrators working in school systems than there were in 1981. Out of the eight subjects the author utilized, four were male and four were female. Kopetz did not state the per- centage of male to female ratio in his study, nor was the ratio of male to female evaluators given for the total of the 143 subjects. Focusing on this data in future studies may possibly reveal a correlation be- tween the results and the individual sex of the evaluator.


Conclusion Much has changed in the thirty-four years since Kopetz’s re-


search in the field of gender studies and sex stereotyping. This partial replication of Kopetz’s original study suggests that sex stereotyping has become less biased against women and that administrators are more sensitized to promoting equality in the workplace. However, future research must be continued in all fields of industry to properly gauge how far American society has progressed in this issue. While this study does not prove that the proverbial “glass ceiling” has been wholly eliminated, it does provide some evidence that it has signifi- cantly thinned over time.


References


Abeles, H. F., & Porter, S. Y. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 65-75.


Anyon, J. (2009). Theory and educational research: Toward critical social explanation. New York: Routledge. Cohen, S., & Bunker, K. (1975). Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters’ hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 566-572.


Kopetz, B. E. (1981). The effect of selected characteristics of first-time applicants for instrumental music positions on teacher employment decisions (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.


Lamb, R. (2010). Music as sociocultural phenomenon: Interactions with music education. In Abeles, H. & Custodero, L. (Eds.), Critical issues in music education: Contemporary Theory and Practice (p. 23-38). Oxford University Press, USA.


Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2012). Is everyone really equal? New York: Teachers College Press.


Tarnowski, S. (1993). Gender bias and musical instrument preference. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(5), 14-21.


MARCH 2016


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68