Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COLLEGE OF MUSIC
By
EMILY J. MASON
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2008
Copyright © 2008
Emily Mason
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Emily J. Mason defended on
June 5, 2008.
______________________________
Kimberly VanWeelden
Professor Directing Dissertation
______________________________
Carolyn Piazza
Outside Committee Member
______________________________
Clifford K. Madsen
Committee Member
______________________________
Alice-Ann Darrow
Committee Member
Approved:
________________________________________________
Clifford K. Madsen, Chair, Department of Music Education
________________________________________________
Don Gibson, Dean, College of Music
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Piazza, Dr. Darrow, and Dr. Madsen: Thank you for serving on my committee and
for giving of your time. It has been a privilege to work with such distinguished
educators.
Dr. VanWeelden: I cannot thank you enough for your advice, support, and most
importantly your encouragement. You are wonderful and I will cherish our time
together!
Christina Shields: Someone I respect, admire, and love. Thank you for the unending
encouragement to pursue my dream of becoming a doctor. You believed even when I
didn‟t.
Zach Shields: Thank you for your time and effort spent editing.
My family: Thank you for always supporting and believing in me and for keeping a
smile on my face. I could not have done this without each any every one of you.
My mother: You saw something in me as a small child and did everything in your power
to help me pursue my musical aspirations. Thank you for all your time, love, and support
through the years.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables vi
Abstract viii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 32
4. METHOD
Participants 33
Dependent Variable 33
Independent Variables 34
Procedure 36
5. RESULTS 37
6. DISCUSSION 70
Teaching Excerpts 70
Method Preference before Viewing Teaching Excerpts 72
Former Elementary Music Teacher 72
Methods Included in Introduction to Music Education Course 73
iv
Method Preference after Viewing Teaching Excerpts 74
Implications/Suggestions for Future Research 74
Conclusions 76
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Percentage of Correct Responses from Students in all Majors 38
Table 2- Instrumental Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts 39
Table 3- Instrumental Majors Correct Versus Incorrect Responses 40
Table 4- Choral Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts 40
Table 5- Choral Majors Correct Versus Incorrect Responses 41
Table 6- Elementary Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts 41
Table 7- Elementary Majors Correct Versus Incorrect Responses 42
Table 8- Correct Versus Incorrect Responses for All Majors 43
Table 9- All Participants by Year in School Regardless of Major 45
Table 10- Instrumental Responses to Teaching Excerpts by Year in School 48
Table 11- Correct Versus Incorrect Responses of All Instrumental Majors
by Year in School 50
Table 12- Choral Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts by Year in School 52
Table 13- Correct Versus Incorrect Responses of All Choral Majors by Year
in School 54
Table 14- Elementary Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts by Year in School 55
Table 15- Correct and Incorrect Responses of All Elementary Majors by Year 57
Table 16- Preservice Teachers‟ Preferred Method for Teaching Music to
Elementary Children 58
Table 17- Preservice Teachers‟ Preferred Method for Teaching Music to
Elementary Children by Year in School 58
Table 18- Instrumental Majors Preference for a Method in Teaching Elementary
Children Year in School 59
Table 19- Choral Majors Preference for a Method in Teaching Elementary
Children By Year in School 60
Table 20- Elementary Majors Preference for a Method in Teaching Elementary
Children By Year in School 61
Table 21- Teaching Method Used by Preservice Teachers‟ Former Elementary
Music Teacher 62
Table 22- Method Used by Former Elementary Music Teacher for All
Participants By Year in School 62
Table 23 Method(s) Included in All Preservice Teachers‟ Collegiate Introduction
to Music Education Course 63
vi
Table 24- Method(s) Included in Preservice Teachers‟ Collegiate Introduction to
Music Education Course by Year Regardless of Major 64
Table 25- Preservice Teachers‟ Preferred Method of Teaching Elementary
Children After Viewing Five Teaching Excerpts 65
Table 26- Preferred Method of Teaching After Viewing Excerpts for All Majors
By Year in School 66
Table 27- Preferred Method of Teaching After Viewing Excerpts for
Instrumental Majors by Year in School 66
Table 28- Preferred Method of Teaching After Viewing Excerpts for Choral
Major By Year in School 68
Table 29- Preferred Method of Teaching After Viewing Excerpts for
Elementary Majors By Year in School 69
vii
ABSTRACT
While teacher training in music education has been a topic of interest for many
years, of particular interest is what preservice teachers‟ should know concerning best
instructional practices when teaching music to children. The majority of research on
preservice teachers has primarily focused on improving teaching skills. While this
research has merit, a thorough understanding of the history of teacher training in music
education, as well as the curriculum used to prepare preservice teachers appears
necessary. There is an existing body of literature, which includes preservice teachers‟
choice of music education as a major, methodologies and approaches used in the
elementary music classroom, and university music curriculum. However, there is a lack
of literature specifically focused on what preservice teachers‟ know about methods and
approaches used in teaching elementary general music. Research on which methods and
approaches are best has yielded inconclusive results and involved in-service teachers.
The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice teachers‟ ability to identify
two different methodologies used in teaching elementary general music when viewing
teaching excerpts. Preservice teachers‟ past experience with the two methodologies as
well as major emphasis, personal teacher experience and method preference was also
explored. Participants (N = 134) for this study were undergraduate music education
majors in their sophomore, junior, or senior year of college from eight different
universities across the United States. Students were in their sophomore (n = 23), junior
(n = 61), and senior (n = 50) year and represented instrumental (n = 86), choral (n = 33),
and elementary (n = 15) emphasis. All participants viewed a stimulus DVD of five
teaching excerpts containing music lessons using either the Kodály or Orff method and
chose which method they believed was being used. Preservice teachers had several
choices from which to choose, Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, Suzuki, or “Don‟t Know”.
Results revealed preservice teachers‟ were more successful in identifying the
Kodály method when viewing the teaching excerpt using solfa and the Orff method when
viewing the excerpt using Orff instruments. Findings for the three remaining excerpts
(Orff body percussion, Orff speech chant, and Kodály game) revealed low percentages of
correct answers from all participants. However, elementary majors had the greatest
viii
number of correct responses for all five teaching excerpts. Results for past experiences,
personal teacher experience, and method preference are also discussed.
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Teacher training in music education has been a topic of interest for many years.
Of particular interest, are what preservice teachers‟ should know and what techniques are
best when teaching music to children. The majority of research done on preservice
teachers has primarily focused on improving teaching skills. While this research has
merit, a thorough understanding of the history of teacher training in music education, as
well as the curriculum used to prepare preservice teachers is necessary. It is the history
of teacher training and the expansion of music education curriculum at the university
level, which served as the foundation for the following discussion.
1
were held outside the home and offered advanced study for those who were to become
leaders in society (Labuta & Smith, 1997; Spring, 1990).
As general education was becoming a priority, by the 18th century music
education also became important. The focus on music came from church leaders
frustrated with the lack of singing skills displayed by their congregations (Abeles, et al.,
1984; Mark & Gary, 1992; Robinson & Winold, 1992; Kennedy, 2000). The formation
of singing schools sought to improve congregational singing. Two types of singing
schools existed at this time; congregational schools and independently sponsored schools
(Silverman, 1987). Congregational schools were formed by individual churches for their
own congregations and independently sponsored schools were begun by singing
instructors. Independent schools were not associated with a particular church, and
advertised in the community (Labuta & Smith, 1997). Musicians and composers such as
William Billings, Daniel Read, Jeremiah Ingalls, Timothy Swan, John Tufts, and Lowell
Mason not only taught in the singing schools but also composed specifically for their
students (Britton, 1982; Stolba, 1994; Hanning, 1998). Compilations of these works
appeared frequently in printed form. Lowell Mason in particular, gained much success in
teaching and publishing his songbooks (Mason & Ives, 1831; Mason & Webb, 1833;
Mason, 1833; Mason, 1834).
2
Pestalozzi‟s ideas. However, he did believe he was bringing about a “spirit of reform”
(Britton, 1982, p.93). This reform also brought the realization that music should not be
exclusive to those attending singing schools, but should be included in the public schools
where every child could partake in musical experiences.
Initially, administrators saw no need for the inclusion of music but Mason was
persistent. In fact, the publication of the Juvenile Lyre in 1831 (with co-author Elam
Ives, Jr.) gave a subtle yet persuasive argument for the inclusion of music in the public
schools. The authors provided a list of reasons within the preface of the book (Mason &
Ives, 1831), which included music as “a means to promote devotional feelings in the
worship of God, a source of enjoyment, promoting health, an influence on good mental
power, and improving the heart” (Pemberton, 1990, p. 28-29). Although motivation for
including this in the preface was specific and deliberate, the book received positive
attention.
After demonstrating the value of vocal music education in a performance with
public school children, Lowell Mason convinced School Committee members to
incorporate music into the Boston public schools. On August 28, 1838, the decision to
include music in the public schools was announced, but with the stipulation that Mason
serve as the supervisor in charge of instruction and also teach in the schools himself
(Rich, 1946). In the beginning, music was included in a few Boston schools and
gradually expanded to all public schools in the city. Mason was released from his duties
as supervisor in 1845, but not before he earned the title “father of singing among the
children in his country” and was named “the first supervisor of public school music in the
history of the world” (Rich, 1946, p.32).
Training the First Music Teachers
When Mason first introduced music into Boston classrooms, he hired several
assistants to help him teach. These assistants received prior training at the Boston
Academy of Music and each was required to pass examinations developed by Mason, to
ensure that children would be taught by competent teachers (Rich, 1946). However, once
music was incorporated in the remaining schools, it became the responsibility elementary
classroom teachers to provide instruction in this subject (Rich, 1946). The same
insistence for competency and knowledge in teaching music did not apply for general
3
classroom teachers. Training in general education would soon take great steps forward to
help teachers with the subject (Labuta & Smith, 1997; Mark & Gary, 1992).
The development of the Common Schools in the beginning of the 19th century
offered education to all children regardless of class or gender. This change also
prompted a shift in teaching personnel, as women now had the opportunity to become
classroom teachers (Tyack, & Hansot, 1982). The Troy Female Seminary was founded in
1821 “for the purpose of educating women to be responsible mothers and teachers”
(Labuta & Smith, 1997, p.15). As the establishment of teacher training schools advanced
the quality of education children would receive, school systems also began to institute
their own reform in the make-up of classes. Children were divided according to their
age, which brought about graded schooling (Howe, 1992). School administrators also
looked to European school systems for ways to improve American schools. Common
School classrooms adopted Heinrich Pestalozzi‟s philosophy of a child-centered
approach, just as Lowell Mason had done.
The northern part of America welcomed these reforms toward more effective
teaching practices and teacher training. However, the same reforms were met with
resistance in the southern part of the country, where schooling took place in a private
setting, or in the religious atmosphere of Sunday school. The same was true for music
education. The south continued to lag behind the northern states in all aspects of
education well after the Civil War. Even so, the north continued to move forward with
the incorporation of music in the school curriculum in many schools. Following the
success of the Boston music program school districts in Chicago, Baltimore, Columbus,
and Louisville all included music as part of the school curriculum (Kapfer, 1967; Riley,
1990; Howe, 1992). The influx of Normal Schools (teacher training schools) after the
Civil War continued to advance teacher education. Music courses for the classroom
teacher included basic musical skills, but were not designed for the music specialist until
the 1880‟s (Abeles, et al., 1984; Keene, 1982; Rich, 1946).
Although Lowell Mason adopted the Pestalozzi child-centered approach as a
reform to earlier teaching techniques, it was not long before his approach was questioned
and educators searched for different ways to teach music (Bergee, 1987). In the late 19th
century, several music text series were published in an effort to give classroom teachers a
4
way to teach musical skills and concepts to children. The multiple series published gave
many choices for teachers, but neglected to consider the fact that many classroom
teachers themselves lacked a solid understanding of basic music skills and concepts and,
therefore, could not teach what they did not know (Stellacio, 1994).
5
and concepts “to be presented in each year of elementary school plus plans for thirty-six
weeks of music instruction for each grade” (Stellaccio, 1994, p. 152). Thaddeus P.
Giddings emphasized the same goals in School Music Teaching (1910). The success of
the Ginn music series and the National Summer Schools of Music was not only due to the
benefit it provided the elementary classroom teacher in teaching music; it was also due to
a willingness to adapt to the changing trends in education. In addition, a move toward
specialized methods courses brought about the inclusion of pedagogy and psychology
into teacher training programs. The first four-year music program to train teachers began
in 1922 at Oberlin College (Choksy, Abramson, Gillespie, Woods, & York, 2001).
The increased interest in elementary general music also formed the focus of the
1936 special edition on music education of the National Society for the Study of
Education Yearbook (NSSE) (1936) (Mark & Gary, 1992; Miller, 1993). Several writers
discussed the transformation of the elementary music curriculum and the influence of
many published music series (Miller, 1993). The renewed interest in the elementary
music curriculum included pedagogical approaches and methodologies, which originated
in Europe. The work of Emile Jacques- Dalcroze, Carl Orff, and Zoltan Kodály received
attention due to their success in teaching music to elementary school children in their
respective countries.
Pedagogical Approaches
th
By the early-to-mid 20 century, the teaching methods and approaches of
Dalcroze, Orff, and Kodály had gained popularity in the United States (Choksy, et al.,
2001; Mark & Gary, 1992; Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995). Music teachers who
ventured to Europe for the specific purpose of studying with these Master teachers
experienced music and the teaching of music in a very different way. Children taught
using these approaches excelled in singing, music reading, composing, and creating.
After witnessing the advantage of using such approaches, American teachers found
themselves eager to incorporate this newfound knowledge into their own classrooms.
They were also eager to share their experiences with others in the music field. The
excitement of new pedagogies in music teaching inspired educators to learn more about
Dalcroze, Orff, and Kodály. Although distinctly different, the new European approaches
6
shared many philosophical ideas with their predecessors Heinrich Pestalozzi and Lowell
Mason (Costanza & Russell, 1992; Mason, 1834).
7
books provide an explanation of the approach, further understanding is available in
teacher training classes.
Summer workshops held in several states offer instruction in Dalcroze-
Eurhythmics, while certification (the certificate, the license, and the diploma) must be
completed in designated teacher training centers (http://www.dalcrozeusa.org). The time
involved in obtaining any type of certification is often lengthy and challenging. As a
result, the number of music teachers with completed certification in Dalcroze-
Eurhythmics is far less than other methodologies and approaches.
8
and glockenspiel) that were considered complimentary to the child‟s singing voice
(Labuta & Smith, 1997). In addition, he added the recorder and unpitched percussion for
teaching melodic and rhythmic concepts. Instruments were used to accompany singing
and were an integral part in improvisation activities.
In addition to the Music for Children books and other compositions, Orff
explained his approach to music education through his writings (Orff, 1978). Interest in
learning about the Orff approach resulted in the first Orff institute, established in 1961,
which offered teacher-training classes. The practice of Orff-Schulwerk in the United
States, since the 1960‟s, is documented in methods books written to aid the music teacher
in applying Orff principles in the music classroom (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995;
Frazee, 1987, Saliba, 1991; Steen, 1992; Warner, 1991). Training in the Orff approach is
offered in summer teacher-training courses held at colleges and universities throughout
the United States. Summer courses provide classroom music teachers with certification
in Orff levels but most do not offer credit towards a degree. There are, however, a few
colleges and universities awarding degrees with an emphasis in Orff at the Masters level
(http://www.aosa.org).
9
music a person must understand it or be musically literate, music from the mother tongue
must be used, teaching should follow developmental stages of the child, must use the
child‟s natural instrument- the voice, and teaching of music must begin early (Kodály,
1974). From Kodály‟s philosophy the “method was developed by colleagues, teachers,
and students” (Choksy, 1981, p. 8). The methodology encompassed systematic,
accumulative, sequenced learning that included analyses of song repertoire,
unaccompanied singing to develop in-tune singing, rhythm syllables, Curwen hand signs,
moveable do solfa, discovery, movement, and improvisation (Szőnyi, 1973; Kodály,
1974; Choksy, 1974; Choksy, 1981).
As Kodály began implementing his methodology, he realized children needed
music with which they could relate and were familiar. He incorporated folk songs
collected from the Hungarian culture. It was the inclusion of music from the „mother
tongue‟ that laid the foundation of this new concept. Folk songs also made the teaching
of musical skills and concepts easier in addition to bringing back music of the culture.
While folk songs served as a starting point to teach musical skills and concepts, children
were not yet ready for art music and music of the masters. In 1920, Kodály began
composing music for children to sing in order to fill the gap between folk and art music
(Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995; Choksy, 1974).
Armed with appropriate song repertoire, Kodály systematically taught music to
children by sequencing the presentation of skills and concepts according to age and grade
level. Sequencing is important, as children cannot comprehend a concept presented in a
matter of fact manner, if he/she does not receive proper preparation. Sequencing musical
skills and concepts through a continuous cycle of preparation, presentation, and practice,
is a major component of the methodology (Choksy, 1974).
Several books addressing the Kodály methodology include historical information,
give teachers a basic understanding of how to incorporate the methodology in the
elementary music classroom, and provide a yearly curriculum with individual lesson
plans (Choksy, 1981; Choksy, 1999; Choksy, et al., 2001; Eisen & Robertson, 2002). As
with Dalcroze and Orff, teacher training in the Kodály method is available throughout the
United States. The Organization of American Kodály Educators (OAKE) endorses many
certification programs held during the summer, and offers continuing education credit as
10
well as graduate credit toward a Masters degree with Kodály emphasis
(http://www.oake.org).
11
The basic ideas in teaching this philosophy were; (1) the human being is a product
of his environment; (2) the earlier, the better – not only music, but all learning; (3)
repetition of experiences is important for learning; (4) teachers and parents (adult
human environment) must be at a high level and continue to grow to provide a
better learning situation for the child; and (5) the system or method must involve
illustrations for the child based on the teacher‟s understanding of when, what, and
how. Suzuki also believed in teaching by rote first and gradually incorporating
music reading skills to the child (Kendall, 1966; Suzuki, 1969).
While this method of teaching had only been part of Japanese culture just prior to
World War II, it was relatively new and did not appear in the United States until 1964,
when Suzuki brought a group from Japan to play at the Music Educators National
Conference in Philadelphia (Cook, 1970). After this appearance, Suzuki began to discuss
his writings and lead demonstrations on his philosophy and method of teaching children
in the United States. Many workshops and clinics followed and were presented by
Suzuki and those who had studied with him (Cook, 1970).
Suzuki was not only a philosopher and educator but a composer as well. He
wrote many compositions for his students that were appropriate for various age and
ability levels, in addition to writings on his teaching philosophy (Suzuki, 1969).
Biographies exist on the life and teachings of Suzuki, (Cook, 1970; Hermann, 1981) but
methods books on teaching his approach are not found. This is due in part to Suzuki‟s
insistence that “one cannot learn his approach by simply opening a book; it must be
experienced” (http://www.suzukiassociation.org).
The Suzuki Association of the Americas (SAA) is the national organization for
Suzuki teachers and offers information for those seeking training in Suzuki. Teacher
training courses are offered in summer workshops and institutes as well as in music
schools and colleges. Courses taken during the summer are usually for those teachers
seeking continuing education credit and can be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
Courses taken through music schools and colleges are part of a two-year program leading
to a degree with Suzuki emphasis at the Masters level.
12
The Gordon Learning Theory
Edwin Gordon (b. 1927), unlike other pedagogues, did not grow up in a musical
family; instead he received his musical training in the public schools of New York. He
began studying the string bass in high school and eventually studied with Sid Weiss.
During his time with Weiss, who taught from an improvisational approach, Gordon
discovered a new approach that would be influential in developing his learning theory
(Gordon, 1994; Labuta & Smith, 1997; Walters & Taggart, 1989).
After earning a doctorate from the University of Iowa in 1958, Gordon became
interested in the psychology of music and developed what is referred to as “music
learning theory” (Gordon, 1994). This theory focused on audiation, or “the ability to
imagine musical sound when it is not present, and to make sense of musical sound while
listening to, performing, creating, reading, and writing it” (Labuta & Smith, 1997, p.116).
He identified three types and seven stages of preparatory audiation are essential if
children are to be able "to sing in tune, in a steady tempo, or with a sense of meter"
(Gordon, 1997, p.89).
In addition to the stages of audiation, two key components of the learning
sequence are discrimination and inference learning (Walters, 1992). Discrimination
learning encompasses five stages; (1) aural/oral learning; (2) verbal association learning;
(3) partial synthesis learning; (4) symbolic learning and (5) composite synthesis learning.
Inference learning includes three stages (1) generalization learning, (2) creativity or
improvisation learning, and (3) theoretical learning (Gordon, 1997, p. 28). While
writings on the music learning theory are mostly those of Gordon, himself, former
students have contributed to the body of literature (Gordon & Woods, 1990; Grunow,
1991).
The incorporation of Gordon‟s theory into American music classrooms is far less
than that of Dalcroze, Orff, or Kodály. According to the Gordon Institute for Music
Learning, training and certification is offered in six states, and requires previous
knowledge and understanding of the music learning theory. Similar to Dalcroze, the
number of teachers possessing certification from the Gordon Institute is small most likely
due to lengthy and challenging course requirements (http://www.giml.org/).
13
Music Education in the 20th Century
By the middle of the 20th century, the introduction of new methodologies and
approaches in teaching music to young children gave music educators the opportunity to
expand their own knowledge and present children with varied experiences in the music.
At present, music teachers in the elementary classroom are required to have mastered
many skills and concepts in order to teach young children. In addition to those skills
learned in music theory, music history, and in the private studio, the skill of how and
what to teach children is learned in music education courses. The how and what to teach
elementary and secondary students is experienced in “methods” courses. It is in these
courses that many widely accepted teaching approaches and learning theories are
introduced in addition to understanding State and National Standards required in music.
The National Standards for Music Education, established in 1994, include nine
content areas, which are
(1) singing alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music; (2) performing on
instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music; (3) improvising
melodies, variations, and accompaniments; (4) composing and arranging music
with specific guidelines; (5) reading and writing music; (6) learning to analyze
and describe music; (7) evaluating music and music performance; (8)
understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside
the arts; and (9) understanding music in relation to history and culture
(http://www.menc.org/resources/view/national-standards-for-music-education).
The typical music education student is introduced to developmental learning theories in
addition to the teaching approaches and methodologies of Kodály, Orff, Dalcroze,
Suzuki, and Gordon. The amount of time required for a thorough understanding of each
theory and approach is almost impossible to achieve within the limited time of
undergraduate study. Arguments that it is better to have been introduced to learning
theories and approaches, rather than the alternative of none, exist among many educators.
Supportive evidence is found in interviews with teachers currently teaching in the
classroom (De Nicola, Mehr, Daily, et al., 1988). Furthermore, a call to universities to
improve method courses was summarized by a teacher from California.
14
A student needs a foundation from which to evaluate the many methodologies
such as Orff, Kodály, the Comprehensive Music Project, Dalcroze, and Gordon‟s
learning theory. Furthermore … the best thing that a university can do to improve
teaching is to move away from how-to courses and give the student a thorough
background in the basic principles of music education and teach them ways of
devising their own instructional techniques (De Nicola et al., 1988, p. 40).
The existing music education curriculum includes courses required for elementary
and secondary levels of schooling regardless of major area; choral, instrumental, or
general. The content of these courses is determined by the course instructor and while
state and nationals standards play a part in the content included in methods courses, the
amount of time devoted to topics and methodologies used in teaching children is also
decided by the course instructor. Additionally, while the author of this study attempted to
remove any personal bias from the study, the author does have extensive experience and
training in Kodály, Orff, and Dalcroze methodologies and understands the direct benefit
of covering these methodologies within the music education curriculum. Thus, assuming
that current trends, theories, and methodologies in teaching are incorporated in methods
courses, retention of information comes into question. Specifically, if information has
been retained, can preservice teachers apply the information and identify specific theories
and methodologies when presented in a real classroom setting? These questions served
as motivation for further examination of preservice teachers in elementary music
education.
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Music Teacher as a Main Influence
Research on preservice teachers‟ choice of music education as a major has
indicated the school music teacher as a main influence (Bergee, Coffman, Demorest,
Humphreys, & Thornton, 2001; Kantorski, 2002; Madsen & Kelly, 2002; Schmidt, 1998;
Schonauer, 2002). For example, in a study sponsored by the Music Educators National
Conference (MENC), Bergee, Coffman, Demorest, Humphreys, & Thornton (2001)
investigated influences leading to undergraduate music education majors‟ decision to
become a teacher. Specifically, the researchers examined influential people, experiences,
events, and involvement in professional organizations such as Tri-M and Collegiate
MENC from students (N = 431) in nine different MENC divisions around the United
States. Results revealed a number of interesting responses. For many preservice
teachers‟ (62%), the decision to become a music teacher was influenced by their high
school music teacher and/or their parents/guardians. In addition, a number of students
(18.9%) cited their elementary music teacher or private music teacher (10.2%) as
influential in the decision to become a teacher.
Madsen and Kelly (2002) also examined the influence of the music teacher in
undergraduates‟ decision to become a music teacher. In their study, music education
majors (N = 90) were asked to answer an open-ended essay question including when they
decided to become a music teacher and who was influential in their decision. Results
indicated that 76% made the decision to become a music teacher before entering college
and 51% indicated their high school music teacher was included when making their
decision. Participation in various musical activities that gave students the opportunity to
perform “teacher-like” tasks was also cited in the decision to become a music teacher
(Madsen & Kelly, 2002, p. 330).
Past music experiences, including participation in various musical activities, have
also been found to be significantly important in preservice teachers‟ preference when
choosing their first teaching position (Kelly, 2003; Richards, 1999). For example, Kelly
(2003) investigated the effect of family and culture, type of K-12 public schools they
attended, types of music programs offered in the public schools, and included different
16
activities. A total of 406 undergraduate music education majors, (n = 268 instrumental,
n = 106 choral, and n = 32 elementary general music majors) were asked to complete a
survey of twenty-one questions. Results revealed that preservice teachers rated their
music programs in elementary, middle, and high school positively. Enrollment in
multiple music classes was reported by 328 students and 188 were enrolled in non-
performance classes. While students (n = 258) in the study preferred the high school
setting for their internship, they also tended to prefer schools that closely resembled their
prior school experience; large (n = 232) and suburban (n = 190). For their first teaching
position, students (n = 266) preferred high school. While the research has indicated
school music teachers greatly influence preservice teachers, it may be possible that music
education majors in this study preferred programs similar to their own past school
experiences due to their former music teacher.
Given the influence of the music teacher and past musical experiences on
preservice teachers‟ choice of a career in music education, it may be reasonable to
assume the methods and techniques used in the music class could also be influential to
preservice teachers‟ career choices. What is being taught and how it is being taught may
also be determining factors. The elementary music teacher, in particular, is of interest to
the current study in terms of classroom activities. Research investigating Kodály, Orff-
Schulwerk, Dalcroze-Eurhythmics, Gordon, and traditional approaches has revealed that
music teachers are currently using these methodologies in addition to other resources.
17
that 73% of the teachers were aware of the TEKS standards but also identified the
methods used in teaching; Kodály (39%), Orff (35%), standard method (16%), and an
eclectic approach (10%).
In a more recent study, Peddell (2005) examined classroom activities of
elementary music teachers (N = 102). Specifically, the frequency of activities, the
perceived importance of activities, the impact of teacher and teacher training on
elementary music teachers' choice of activities, frequency of use, importance, and reasons
for elementary music teachers' choices of activities they considered important in teaching
elementary general music. Teachers were asked to choose the activities they used in their
classroom from a list of twenty-seven and to answer several free response questions.
Results indicated that group singing was the most important activity and melodic
dictation was the least used. Those subjects (n = 38) who had more teaching experience
also indicated part singing, study of composers, instrument recognition, form, dynamics,
and interdisciplinary activities were used more frequently than those with less experience.
It was also revealed that subjects (n = 24) with "specialized pedagogical training"
(Kodály, Orff-Schulwerk, Dalcroze, and/or Gordon) used solfege, rhythmic dictation,
inner hearing and audiation, singing games, instrument playing, and improvising more
frequently than those without specialized training.
Kodály
Beginning in the early 1970s, a number of doctoral dissertations (Hudgens, 1987;
Jarjisian, 1981; Jones, 1981; McDaniel, 1974; Martin, 1987; Palmer, 1974; Sinor, 1984;
Zemke, 1973) and peer reviewed research (Colley, 1987; Klemish, 1970; Shehan, 1986)
focused on a comparison of the Kodály method to other approaches. For example,
Klemish (1970) sought to test two different methods to teach first graders to read music.
Teaching method 1 (incorporating principles of Kodály) used visuals and iconic
representations of melody that gradually moved toward notation. Teaching method 2
(incorporating principles of a traditional approach) used the music staff with filled in note
heads and no intermediate process. A pretest posttest design was employed in which the
treatment included each group receiving a 20-minute music lesson four times a week for
52 class periods. Results revealed no significant difference overall between the two
18
methods but some skills did improve more under one method than the other.
Specifically, students instructed with method 1 increased their ability to identify melodic
direction, aural matching, aural/visual matching and singing patterns. Students instructed
with method 2 improved their recognition of patterns, dictation skills from the piano, and
visual matching skills (Klemish, 1970). The researcher concluded that a "pseudo
notation system prior to conventional notation" is not necessary and that music reading
activities should not be based on grade level but on the "readiness of the individual"
(Klemish, 1970, p. 364).
In a more recent study, Martin (1987) examined the effects of instruction using
three different modes on the development of symbolic and verbal melodic syllable skills
of students in the first grade. Tonal syllables, hand signs, and letter representation of
tonal syllables were used as modes of instruction. All students were given a tonal
aptitude test at the beginning then were divided into three treatment groups. Group one
echoed patterns sung by the teacher, group two echoed patterns and used hand signs, and
group three echoed patterns while using hand signs and seeing visual representation with
letters symbolizing solfa. Training sessions, completed during the first week, asked
students in all groups to listen to pre-selected patterns sung by the teacher on a neutral
syllable and echoed the pattern back using the correct tonal syllables. After the training
session, classes were conducted for 6 weeks in treatment group format followed by a
final week of training sessions in the same format as the first training session. A test
administered individually after the second training session asked students to listen to a
pattern and echo back with tonal syllables. Results revealed no significant difference
between the groups in mode of instruction.
In a second part of the same study, Martin (1987) used the same procedures but
with slight variations to the task. Class sessions had group one echoing patterns while
seeing patterns written on the staff with note heads, group two echoed patterns and used
hand signs, and group three echoed patterns with hand signs and on alternate days saw
the patterns written with letters (as in Part one) instead of with note heads. Training
sessions had all groups seeing note heads only on a staff, hearing the teacher hum the first
pitch and then sing the pattern with tonal syllables. A posttest was administered in the
same format as the other training session; however, students sang individually. In
19
addition, another training session was followed by a third test. Again, results revealed no
significant difference between the groups. Results also indicated that tonal aptitude was a
better predictor of performance than instructional mode (Martin, 1987).
Palmer (1974) compared the Kodály-based methodology found in the Mary Helen
Richards‟s book, Threshold to Music (1964) with the Gordon approach using Edwin
Gordon's book, The Psychology of Music Teaching (1971). The relative effectiveness of
these two approaches in rhythm reading scores of fourth grade students was examined.
Students were divided into six groups; two experimental groups receiving instruction in
the Kodály approach, two experimental groups receiving instruction in the Gordon
approach, and two control groups. Pre and posttests were administered to all groups.
After receiving instruction for five months, the experimental groups scored significantly
higher in relation to the control groups. While it appeared that the groups receiving
Gordon instruction did better, results were not clear enough to make further conclusions.
Results from these particular studies did not find one approach or method as
superior. Instead, the researchers suggested a combination of methods. The amount of
research focused on the Kodály method also reveals ongoing interest in the use of the
method by researchers and music teachers.
Orff
The early 1960s was the beginning of a number of doctoral dissertations written
on the Orff approach and teaching elementary music (Bondurant-Koehler, 1995; McKoy,
1998; Moore, 1984; Munsen, 1986; Olson, 1964; Siemens, 1967). For example,
Bondurant-Koehler (1995) examined the effect of selected modes of instruction on
children‟s music preference. The selected modes of instruction were Orff, Kodály, and
traditional methods. Results of the study revealed that students who received Orff
instruction preferred avant-garde and country music, while those who received Kodály-
based instruction preferred a wide variety of genres, including art music, world music,
jazz/improvisation, and pop/rock.
Much like the research on the Kodály method, peer reviewed research has focused
on the Orff Schulwerk method in comparison with other approaches (Robbins, 1994;
Siemens, 1969). Siemens (1969), for example, compared two approaches to teaching
20
music. Specifically, the researcher examined music achievement and interest, attitude,
and feelings of success in music in classrooms using the Orff approach and a traditional
approach. Students in the fifth grade from five different elementary schools participated;
two schools used the Orff approach and served as the experimental group and three
schools used a traditional method and served as the control group. Comparisons between
the groups were made using a student questionnaire, the Knuth Achievement Test in
Music and the Kwalwasser-Ruch Test of Musical Accomplishment. Results revealed
significant differences between the two groups. The experimental group (Orff approach)
performed at higher levels in interest, attitude and enjoyment of rhythmic and singing
activities. The control group (traditional method) performed better on the Knuth
Achievement Test and the Kwalwasser-Ruch subtest 1, which included discrimination
tasks between genres of music and enjoyment of classical music. Girls in both groups
showed higher levels of interest and "more favorable attitudes towards music" (Siemens,
1969, p. 285). Correlations between achievement scores and attitude and interest were
also significant in students instructed with the traditional method.
Research focused solely on the Orff approach has also been done but to a lesser
extent (Robbins, 1994; Shamrock, 1988). For example, Robbins (1994) documented Orff
teachers as they progressed through two consecutive summers of Orff-Schulwerk training
held at Eastman. Six subjects registered in the Level I Orff Schulwerk class at Eastman
agreed to 2 years‟ participation in the project. After the first summer, teachers went back
to their classrooms and kept journals pertaining to their teaching. All six met as a group
four times during the year to discuss their teaching. The year following the second
summer, subjects kept journals again but asked to examine their teaching and
implementation of Orff instruction and write about it. The journal entries provided
insight to questions each subject had regarding Orff and its incorporation into their music
classroom. Concerns raised by the subjects pertained to organization (the time and space
required for setting up instruments), pedagogy (involving students in the creative process
without losing control), and interpretation (what is an Orff song? What does it mean to
use the Orff approach?). Within this study, subjects became more confident in
expressing their view of the Orff approach and even engaged in discussions with Orff
experts. In the beginning participants were concerned with "doing it right" and by the
21
end began to embrace the ability to question and therefore further their knowledge of the
approach. The researcher suggested further research on how to sustain this type of
growth and inquiry in those teachers who participated in the study.
The implementation of Orff into different cultural settings has also been studied.
Shamrock (1988) investigated the implementation of Orff-Schulwerk in three different
countries; Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand. Specific factors that were examined included
language, movement behavior in terms of cultural standards and student/teacher
interaction, all of which may play a part in "transplanting" an approach into a different
culture. The researcher specifically sought to include the time of introduction through its
current status, information on the public music schools, and what, if any, musical
traditions were considered. Results of the study revealed that the Orff-Schulwerk method
was used as it was established, with relatively no alterations except in procedures and
repertoire. The researcher speculated that cultural factors could have made any
alterations impossible.
As with previous research, results of Orff based studies comparing one approach
to another have not yielded one approach or method as superior over another. However,
it is also evident that the Orff approach has been implemented into the elementary music
classroom. In addition, teachers with training have become more confident in employing
Orff techniques into their classrooms.
Dalcroze
The amount of research on the use of the Dalcroze-Eurhythmics approach is far
less than Kodály or Orff. Dissertations written on Dalcroze-Eurhythmics have also been
inconclusive in their results (Joseph, 1982; Crumpler, 1982; Moore, 1984; Moore, 1992).
For example, Crumpler (1982) investigated the effect of Dalcroze instruction on the
melodic musical growth of first graders. Students from four intact classes were divided
into two groups; group one (control group) received instruction using units from the 1978
Silver Burdett Music Series, and group two (experimental group) received instruction
from the same Silver Burdett Music Series and included Dalcroze activities. A pre and
posttest was administered to both groups. Pretest results indicated group one scores
higher than group two. Posttest results revealed no significant difference between both
22
groups, but group two increased their scores to match group one. While results proved
Dalcroze activities had a positive effect on one group, there were several flaws in the
study. In particular, there were problems with the initial design and teacher effect was
not controlled.
Lewis (1988) sought to examine the effect of movement-based instruction on
listening skills of first and third grade students. Students were from two public
elementary schools in first grade (n = 61) and third grade (n = 52). After subjects were
randomly assigned to two groups, experimental and control, teaching sessions began.
Each session was 30 minutes in length and taught by the regular music teacher for a total
of 12 lessons. Lessons were based on the 1981 Silver Burdett Music series, and adapted
by the researcher. All groups received the same lesson with the experimental group
experiencing psychomotor activities incorporated in the lesson. Specific tasks included
melodic direction, tempo, rhythm, meter, dynamics, and patterns. Results indicated that
movement-based had a significant affect on achievement scores of tests on dynamics for
first graders. Third graders also saw significance in achievement on dynamics, melodic
direction, and music listening composite measures.
As evidenced by the research, interest in Orff, Kodály, and Dalcroze
methodologies is abundant. Many studies compared one method to another in an effort to
establish a superior methodology. Although no one method was proven significantly
better than the other, the recognition of Orff and Kodály methods provides evidence that
they are widely used in the elementary music classroom.
23
should not be isolated in the jazz genre served as the premise for this book. Specifically
written for music teachers, the book is organized into three phases for success in
improvisation. The first phase encompassed exploratory activities and included skills
that students have already mastered beginning where the students are developmentally.
The second phase is an expansion of known skills while continually developing new
music skills through experiential activities. The third phase also builds upon prior
knowledge and increases development and involvement toward "greater performance
capability and self-motivating inquiry" (Konowitz, 1973, p. 2). Although this book was
not an experimental study, it introduced an idea for a new approach in teaching
elementary general music.
Using two other traditional approaches, Klinger (1998) examined the effect of
teaching songs to children through either immersion or phrase-by-phrase. Students (N =
39) from two second grade classes were taught two songs using both approaches. In the
immersion approach, students listened as the teacher sang a song from beginning to end
several times and then performed the song on their own. Using the phrase-by-phrase
approach, the teacher performed small segments of the song, after which students would
repeat/echo the teacher. Results revealed that students who learned through immersion
were able to perform the song with fewer errors than those who learned through the
phrase-by-phrase approach.
Shehan (1987) studied the effect of rote versus note presentations on rhythm
learning and retention of elementary students enrolled in second and sixth grade.
Students were asked to listen to four, eight-beat rhythm patterns in four different modes
and asked to play each back on a woodblock. The four modes of presentation were audio-
rhythm mode, audio-mnemonics mode, (audio) visual rhythm mode, and (audio) visual-
mnemonics mode. Results indicated that both auditory-visual modes aided students in
both grade levels in learning and retention of rhythmic patterns. Sixth grade students also
acquired the rhythms faster than the younger subjects regardless of the mode of
presentation.
Research on the Gordon Learning Theory has examined comparisons with one or
several of the previously mentioned methods (Jarjisian, 1981). Among the existing
literature are books written by Edwin Gordon about his theory of learning in music
24
(Gordon, 1971; Gordon, 1984; Gordon, 1986; Gordon, 1987; Gordon, 1989a; Gordon,
1989b; Gordon, 1997). For example, Gordon (1997) discussed seven stages and three
types of preparatory audiation which must be included when introducing music to
newborns and young children; without these stages, children will not be able "to sing in
tune, in a steady tempo, or with a sense of meter" (Gordon, 1997, p.89). Learning to play
an instrument should also include the stages of preparatory audiation.
In another study, Jarjisian (1981) used Gordon‟s Primary Measures of Music
Audiation (PMMA) tonal test to measure the effect of three different types of pitch
pattern instruction; pentatonic, diatonic, and a combination of pentatonic and diatonic.
Students in the first grade were divided into three treatment groups and all were given the
PMMA test before receiving instruction. Immediately after instruction, students in all
three groups were recorded singing the same diatonic and pentatonic songs. Results
revealed that students receiving a combination of diatonic and pentatonic pitch pattern
instruction performed better than the pentatonic and diatonic groups. Results also
revealed that students who performed better on the PMMA test also did better on singing
tasks after instruction.
Research on the Suzuki method has also been done, but exists to a lesser extent in
the form of unpublished doctoral dissertations (Blaine, 1976; Brunson, 1969; Sperti,
1970; Wensel, 1970). The studies included the adaptation and implementation of the
Suzuki method in instrumental classes. Mostly descriptive in nature, these dissertations
are outdated and did not evolve into further research.
25
specialized method books are useful, they are not the only sources for music teachers to
find lesson material, which includes instruction using a single approach or several
approaches. The music textbook series have provided a wide variety of material and
resources for the elementary music teacher.
Beginning in the late 1800s, the music textbook series have been an integral part
of the elementary music curriculum (Stellacio, 1994). Initially meant as an approach by
itself, teachers in the elementary music classroom often use these textbooks as a resource
for varied song repertoire and activities to compliment their music instruction. In recent
years, two widely used series, Silver Burdett Ginn (Beethoven, Brumfield, Campbell, et
al., 2005) and Macmillan McGraw-Hill (Bond, Boyer, Campbelle-Holman, et al., 2006),
have incorporated lesson objectives that highlight state and National Standards and
activities that are specifically oriented with Kodály and Orff methodologies (Clementz,
1990).
The integration of Kodály and Orff methodologies into the music textbook series
provides evidence that publishers have embraced current methodologies used in
elementary music classrooms. The successful incorporation of Kodály and Orff into the
series is due to contributing editors who are experts in each of the respective
methodologies. Given the volume of research centered on Kodály and Orff
methodologies and the music series‟ recognition of these two particular methods, it is
possible these methodologies may be used more readily than any other. The wide
popularity of the textbooks by Silver Burdett Ginn and Macmillan McGraw-Hill only
serves to enhance the opinion that many elementary music teachers are using these two
methodologies, along with the traditional approach, in their classrooms.
Current methodologies used in the elementary classroom have also been
recognized in university textbooks (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995; Choksy, et al.,
2001; Labuta & Smith, 1997; Mark & Gary, 1992). For example, Choksy, et al. (2001)
incorporated the Kodály and Orff methods with other philosophies and techniques used in
twentieth century music classrooms. Labuta and Smith (1997), Campbell and Scott-
Kassner (1995), and Mark and Gary (1992) included Kodály and Orff in a section of their
books on teaching music. Although these methodologies are recognized in previously
discussed research studies, music textbook series, and university textbooks, little research
26
exists in terms of university curriculum and the inclusion of Kodály and Orff into
methods courses.
27
the standards listed under teaching competencies specific to those who will receive
certification in music for PK-12th grade.
The musician-teacher must be able to lead students to competency, apply music
knowledge and skills in teaching situations, and integrate music instruction into
the process of P–12 education. Essential competencies are:
(1) Ability to teach music at various levels and in a variety of settings in ways that
develop musical knowledge and includes effective classroom and rehearsal
management.
(2) An understanding of child growth and development and principles of learning
as they relate to music.
(3) The ability to assess aptitudes, experiential backgrounds, orientations of
individuals and groups of students, and the nature of subject matter, and to plan
educational programs to meet assessed needs.
(4) Knowledge of current methods, materials, and repertories available in various
fields and levels of music education appropriate to the teaching specialization.
(5) The ability to accept, amend, or reject methods and materials based on
personal assessment of specific teaching situations.
(6) An understanding of evaluative techniques and ability to apply them in
assessing musical progress of students and objectives and procedures in the
curriculum (NASM, 2007, p. 96).
Although broad in scope, the NASM guidelines for an undergraduate student
seeking a degree in music education are numerous. While some provisions are left to
individual institutions, it is clear that students must have access to coursework that will
enable them to fulfill requirements for designated skills and competencies. Additionally,
each state requires specific examinations in order to obtain teaching certification in that
state. The most commonly used test is the Praxis Series, which is administered by the
Education Testing System. The National Association of State Directors of Teacher
Education and Certification (NASDTEC) provide information on specific state
requirements and certification processes on their website (http://old.menc.org/
information/infoserv/Testing.html#1). The purpose of both NASM and NASDTEC is to
ensure that students receiving a degree in music education are fully prepared to teach
28
music in public school settings. With guidelines and standards in place for music teacher
certification, the question of what should be taught in music education degree programs
has been established. Within these guidelines, universities have freedom to create degree
programs and offer courses that serve the needs of their students while maintaining the
mission of the school.
29
study, contingency managed-lecture discussion, contact control, and delay contact
control. The effects of the five techniques were examined as they pertained to teaching
skills, achievement, and attitude of subjects enrolled in an elementary music education
class. Students (N = 125) were placed in 5 groups representing the different teaching
techniques and received instruction on the same units over the course of one semester.
All were given pre and posttests, quizzes, essays, and attitude questionnaires. In addition,
all were video taped teaching a music lesson and did a course evaluation at the end of the
semester. Results revealed no significant differences between the groups in pretest scores
but posttest scores on Units I (contemporary issues in elementary music education) and II
(classroom management) of the contingency managed instruction group were
significantly higher than the independent and both control groups. The contingency
managed instruction group also did significantly better than all groups in videotaped
lessons. Questionnaires measuring attitude were "high positive" from the higher
achieving groups and "low positive" for lower achieving groups. In addition, course
evaluations from those groups with more instructor time were higher than from those in
groups with limited or no instructor time.
Womble (1974) replicated and extended the previous study by Moore (1974).
The purpose was to examine the effect of modular instructional materials combined with
lecture and discussion methods on achievement, attitude, and teaching skills of students
in elementary music classes. Students (N = 50) were elementary music majors and
elementary education majors studying music at two different universities. Texts,
objectives, pre and posttests, and questionnaires were all identical to those used in
Moore's study. Results revealed that materials were very beneficial to music majors as
found in improvement of scores between pretests and posttests. Although achievement
was lower in the non-music major group, comparisons between pre and posttest scores
revealed significant improvement.
Wunderlich (1980) also examined challenges in structuring a college music
methods course for music education majors. Course objectives and evaluation methods
for the course were based upon the musical competencies established by MENC in 1971
and included the methods and approaches of Dalcroze, Kodály, Orff, and the
Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project. Instructional sessions were held on campus in
30
a large-group and at a public school in smaller groups. Continuous evaluation was done
by means of pre and posttests in addition to written comments. Results supported the
inclusion of regular on-site experiences involving college students, professors, and
elementary students. Collegiate students reported satisfaction with the opportunity to
interact with children and to teach in a real classroom setting. Methods included in
classroom instruction were not a factor.
The practicum setting is not only the student‟s opportunity to practice teaching,
but also serves as a means by which to assess retention and transfer of knowledge.
Tarnowski (1997) investigated what elements, learned in an elementary music methods
course, are retained and transferred in an early practicum experience. Participants (N =
67) were music education majors who had recently finished a semester long methods
course. While taking part in a practicum experience, students were asked to keep a
journal. An analysis of the journals revealed 12 reoccurring categories ordered by the
frequency of appearance; references to lesson planning, singing, specific teaching
strategies and materials, classroom management strategies and behavior, children's
enjoyment, individual children, time management and pacing, communication with
students, teacher characteristics, need for active participation by children, and
ability/developmental level of the children. Results of this study revealed students to be
most successful in transferring learned material and concepts when they planned the
concepts to be taught, goals and objectives, prepared materials, and "structuring set
induction" (Tarnowski, 1997, p. 43). Students were less successful in their comfort level
while teaching a lesson, identifying ability/development level of the children, giving
directions, classroom management, anticipating responses of children, and proper
evaluation and assessment. With these results, the researcher stressed the importance of
evaluation by methods professors of students and course content/strategies to better assist
preservice teachers in transferring learned material into practicum experience and the first
years of teaching.
31
Research Questions
Need
Previous research in music education has encompassed the music curriculum in
general but there is a lack of literature specifically focused on what preservice teachers
know about methods and approaches used in teaching elementary general music.
Research on which methods and approaches are best, has yielded inconclusive results and
involved in-service teachers. While the principles of Kodály and Orff have been
embraced and recognized by MENC and the music textbook series of Silver Burdett Ginn
and Macmillan McGraw-Hill, the incorporation into university methods courses is
limited. Research examining what is being taught and how it is taught to preservice
teachers is needed. It is the lack of research that prompted the present study.
Purpose
Research Questions
1. Are preservice teachers‟ able to differentiate between Orff and Kodály methodologies
when viewing teaching excerpts of singing and playing activities with elementary
children?
2. Which music education methodology do preservice teachers prefer when teaching
elementary children?
3. Which music education method did preservice teachers‟ former elementary music
teacher use?
4. Which method(s) were included in preservice teachers‟ collegiate Introduction to
Music Education course?
5. Do preservice teachers‟ preferences for a specific teaching methodology change after
viewing teaching excerpts using two different methodologies (Orff and Kodály) with
elementary children?
32
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Participants
Participants (N = 134) for this study were undergraduate music education majors
in their sophomore, junior, or senior year of college from eight different universities
across the United States. Students were in their sophomore (n = 23), junior (n = 61), and
senior (n = 50) year and represented instrumental (n = 86), choral (n = 33), and
elementary (n = 15) emphasis. In order to participate in the study, all participants had
taken an introduction to music education course. There were no other stipulations for
participation in the study.
Dependent Variable
Questionnaire
A questionnaire consisting of nine questions was devised with a short
demographic section appearing at the beginning (see Appendix B). The demographics
section included year in school, major emphasis and gender. The first question asked
subjects to indicate their preference for a method used in teaching elementary children.
The next two questions asked students to indicate which methodologies their former
elementary music teacher used and which methodologies were included in their collegiate
introduction to music education course. Students then viewed five teaching excerpts with
elementary children and answered questions about the methodology they believed was
used. Preservice teachers were given multiple teaching methods from which to choose.
The teaching methods included Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, and Suzuki. Additionally, the
response “don‟t know” was listed as an answer choice for those students who could not
determine a teaching method. After viewing the teaching excerpts, a final question asked
subjects to indicate their preference for a methodology used in teaching music to
elementary children. All questionnaires were assigned a school code, which
corresponded to the participating university and accompanying DVD.
33
Independent Variables
Lesson Plans/Teaching Excerpts
A total of five lesson plans/excerpts representing Orff and Kodály methodologies
were devised. Indicative to each method‟s philosophical approach, lessons involved
singing and playing activities. Lessons using the Kodály methodology included (1)
singing with sol-fa, and (2) singing with a game. Lessons using the Orff methodology
included (1) singing with body percussion, (2) singing with speech ostinato, and (3)
singing with Orff instruments. One song, Tideo (see Appendix C), was used for all five
lessons. To account for order effect, several copies of a DVD were made with lesson
excerpts appearing in random order assigned a priori.
DVD Preparation
A model teacher was asked to participate in the study and teach all lessons. This
teacher had 31 years of music teaching experience and was certified in the teaching
methodologies of Kodály and Orff. After agreeing to participate, a model teacher
consent form was given to the teacher to sign (see Appendix D). The teacher was
recorded teaching five different lessons using two different methodologies, Kodály and
Orff. Each teaching excerpt was no longer than 3 minutes.
Because lesson activities included singing, dancing, and playing instruments,
children (n = 10) were necessary to facilitate the lessons and recording process. The
children participating in the DVD were in the third grade and from different elementary
schools in Central Ohio. All were in a local community children‟s choir directed by the
model teacher. Information regarding the purpose of the study was given to the children
and their parents and permission was obtained before recording (see Appendix E).
Participation in the DVD was voluntary and did not affect the children‟s involvement in
the community choir.
The videotaping session took place on a Saturday in the model teacher‟s
elementary classroom. The need for various instruments necessitated the use of this
classroom. Permission was obtained from the principal of the building using a site
participation form (see Appendix F). On the day of taping, the children participated in a
practice session lasting thirty minutes. The practice session was done so the children
34
would know what to expect and how each excerpt would be recorded. After the practice
session, the children had a 15-minute break and a snack before recording. Lessons
excerpts were taped one at a time. In an effort to eliminate any miscellaneous noise or
mistakes, lessons were recorded more than once. After each lesson, the children were
given a short five-minute break in order to set up instruments and allow them to stretch
and relax. All lessons were taped in one session by the researcher. The total time
commitment for the children was two hours. Upon completion of the taping session, each
child received a special certificate of participation from the researcher. Parents of the
children were present for the entire taping session.
All teaching excerpts were downloaded on the researcher‟s computer and
imported into Nero 8, video editing software. Ten excerpts were downloaded and the
researcher reviewed each in order to choose the best take for each lesson. Once excerpts
were chosen, each excerpt was edited to eliminate any extraneous noise and for time.
The editing process included cutting portions from the beginning and end of each excerpt.
Each excerpt was no longer than 3 minutes in length. The final DVD began by showing a
screen that read, “Excerpt #1,” immediately followed by the first teaching excerpt.
Subsequent teaching excerpts appeared in the same manner with a 5-second interval
between each. The order of each teaching excerpt was randomly chosen a priori. The
total time of the DVD was 8 minutes, 9 seconds. To account for order effect, several
copies of the videotape were made with lesson excerpts appearing in random order
assigned a priori. The order for each DVD is included in Appendix G.
Validation of Methodologies
Three reliability observers in the field of music education validated the teaching
methodologies used in each teaching excerpt. The observers had certification in both
Kodály and Orff methodologies. Operational definitions of the methodologies were
provided and each observer was asked to view the five teaching excerpts. The
assignment of each videotaped excerpt to a methodology (Kodály, Orff, Dalcroze,
Suzuki, or Don‟t Know) served as validation of whether or not independent observers
could assign each excerpt to one methodology or the other. All three observers identified
each excerpt with one hundred percent accuracy.
35
Procedure
Participating Universities
An email letter was sent to music education professors at eight different
universities requesting help in recruiting participants for the study (see Appendix H).
Once the researcher received acceptance of participation in the study, a DVD, a site
participation form (see Appendix I), teacher directions (see Appendix J), and
questionnaires (see Appendix B) were sent to each participating university.
Undergraduate students read an informed consent page attached to the front of each
questionnaire (See Appendix K). If students decided not to participate, questionnaires
were returned unanswered. After reading the informed consent page, students completed
the first page of the questionnaire and then viewed the teaching excerpts uninterrupted.
A site participation form was included and signed by the administering professor or
department head (See Appendix I).
36
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The primary purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachers‟ ability to
recognize two different teaching methodologies (Orff and Kodály) used in teaching
elementary general music. In addition, an examination of their past experiences with the
two methodologies as well as major emphasis, personal teacher experience and method
preference were explored.
A total of N = 134 questionnaires were returned from undergraduate music
education majors at eight different universities. Students were in their sophomore (n =
23), junior (n = 61), and senior (n = 50) year and represented instrumental (n = 86),
choral (n = 33), and elementary (n = 15) emphasis. Participants in the study answered
several demographic questions and viewed five teaching excerpts on a DVD. Two
excerpts used the Kodály method and three used the Orff method. To help control for
order effect, each excerpt on the DVD was randomly assigned, a priori, and a different
order was used at each university. The questionnaire included questions corresponding to
the teaching excerpts, and preservice teachers‟ were given multiple teaching methods
from which to choose. The teaching methods included Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, and
Suzuki. Additionally, the response “don‟t know” was also listed as an answer choice for
those students who could not determine a teaching method.
For purposes of analysis, answers to all teaching excerpts were put into one order
(Kodály- solfa, Kodály- game, Orff- body percussion, Orff-speech chant, and Orff-
instruments). Correct and incorrect responses were tabulated by individual teaching
excerpt. While not intended as a comparison study between majors, this study does
provide a breakdown of responses for each major by year in school.
The first question asked whether preservice teachers were able to identify Orff
and Kodály methodologies when viewing teaching excerpts of singing and playing
activities with elementary children. Correct responses from all participants (N = 134)
were tabulated and sums and percentages were obtained (see Table 1). While the three
groups were not equal in size, differences can be seen between groups. Preservice
teachers, regardless of emphasis, were able to identify excerpts using Kodály solfa and
Orff instruments with 60% or greater accuracy. The Kodály game was identified with
37
less than 40% accuracy. Preservice teachers identified the Orff body percussion excerpt
with 53% or less accuracy and the Orff speech chant excerpt was identified by 46% or
less accuracy. Correct responses for all majors are found in Table 1.
% % %
Teaching Excerpts
Kodály-Solfa 63 73 100
Kodály-Game 6 15 40
Orff-Body Percussion 13 21 53
Orff- Instruments 70 81 73
Because of unequal group size, results were tabulated for each major emphasis
individually. For preservice instrumental majors (n = 86), students correctly identified
the Kodály method in the excerpt using solfa with 63% accuracy and 6% accuracy in the
game excerpt. Teaching excerpts using the Orff methodology were correctly identified
by 13% of the instrumental majors when viewing body percussion, 5% on speech chant,
and 70% with Orff instruments. Results for all instrumental majors regardless of year in
school are located in Table 2.
38
Table 2- Instrumental Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts
Teaching Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Excerpts
Kodály- 1 1 54 63 4 5 5 6 22 26
Solfa
Kodály- 2 2 5 6 31 36 10 12 38 44
Game
Orff-Body 11 13 8 9 21 24 6 7 40 47
Percussion
Orff- 4 5 11 13 11 13 16 19 44 51
Speech
Chant
Orff- 60 70 1 1 1 1 7 8 17 20
Instruments
When specifically examining correct and incorrect responses for all Orff and
Kodály excerpts, 172 correct responses were possible for Kodály excerpts and 258 for
Orff excerpts. Preservice instrumental majors correctly identified the Kodály excerpts
with 34% accuracy and the Orff excerpts with 29% accuracy. The number of incorrect
responses from instrumental majors was greater for Orff excerpts (71%). The total
number of correct and incorrect responses for all instrumental majors, regardless of year
in school, appears in Table 3.
39
Table 3- Instrumental Majors Correct Versus Incorrect Responses
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Orff 75 29 183 71
Kodály 59 34 113 66
Preservice choral majors (n = 33) correctly identified the teaching excerpts using
Kodály method with solfa (73%) and game (15%). Excerpts using Orff methodology
were correctly identified by 21% of choral majors when viewing excerpts using body
percussion, 15% on the speech chant, and 81% on Orff instruments. Results for all choral
majors, regardless of year in school, appear in Table 4.
Teaching Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Excerpt
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 24 73 4 12 1 3 4 12
Kodály-Game 0 0 5 15 14 42 4 12 10 30
Orff-Body 7 21 9 27 9 27 3 9 6 18
Percussion
Orff- Speech 5 15 6 18 4 12 3 9 16 48
Chant
Orff- 27 81 2 6 1 3 2 6 2 6
Instruments
40
When specifically examining correct and incorrect responses for all Orff and
Kodály excerpts, 66 correct responses were possible for the Kodály excerpts and 99 for
the Orff excerpts. Choral majors correctly identified the Kodály excerpts with 43%
accuracy and the Orff excerpts with 39% accuracy. The number of incorrect responses
from choral majors was greater for Kodály excerpts (60%). The total number of correct
and incorrect responses, for all choral majors, regardless of year in school, appears in
Table 5.
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Orff 39 39 37 56
Kodály 29 43 60 60
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 15 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
41
Table 6- Continued
Kodály-Game 0 0 6 40 5 33 2 13 2 13
Orff-Body 8 53 1 6 1 6 1 6 4 26
Percussion
Orff- Speech 7 46 3 20 0 0 0 0 5 33
Chant
Orff- 11 73 1 6 0 0 1 6 2 13
Instruments
When specifically examining correct and incorrect responses for all Orff and
Kodály excerpts, 30 correct responses were possible for Kodály excerpts and 45 for Orff
excerpts. Elementary majors correctly identified the Kodály excerpts with 70% accuracy
and the Orff excerpts with 57% accuracy. The total number of incorrect responses from
elementary majors was greater for excerpts using the Orff method (43%). Results for
correct and incorrect responses for all elementary majors, regardless of year in school,
appear in Table 7.
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Orff 26 57 19 43
Kodály 21 70 9 30
42
When combining all correct and incorrect responses from all majors, regardless of
year in school, certain trends appeared. Preservice elementary teachers had the highest
percentage of correct responses with the Orff method (57%) and the Kodály method
(70%). The highest number of incorrect responses was greater for preservice
instrumental majors with 71% on Orff excerpts and choral majors with 67% on Kodály
excerpts. Results for correct and incorrect responses from all majors appear in Table 8.
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Instrumental (n = 86)
Orff 75 29 183 71
Kodály 59 34 113 66
Choral (n = 33)
Orff 39 39 60 61
Kodály 29 43 37 67
Elementary (n = 15)
Orff 26 57 19 43
Kodály 21 70 9 30
The second question asked whether year in school, regardless of major emphasis,
affected students‟ ability to identify Orff and Kodály methodologies when viewing
teaching excerpts of singing and playing activities with elementary children. Teaching
excerpts using the Kodály method with solfa were correctly identified by greater than
57% of sophomore, junior, and senior preservice teachers. Similar results were found in
43
excerpts using the Orff instruments with greater than 50% accuracy for all preservice
teachers. However, unlike the Kodály solfa excerpt, sophomores had greater accuracy
with the Orff instruments than did juniors. For all other excerpts, preservice teachers had
less than 35% accuracy and no sophomores correctly identified the speech chant excerpt.
Finally, the excerpts with the largest percentage of “don‟t know” answers were the
Kodály game, Orff body percussion, and Orff speech chant. Results appear in Table 9.
44
Table 9- All Participants by Year in School Regardless of Major
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Sophomore
(n = 23 )
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 13 57 3 13 2 9 5 22
Kodály-Game 1 4 2 9 7 30 4 17 9 39
Orff-Body Percussion 8 35 4 17 5 22 1 4 5 22
Orff- Instruments 18 78 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 17
Junior
(n = 61)
Kodály-Solfa 1 2 36 59 4 6 3 5 17 28
Kodály-Game 3 5 6 10 15 25 7 11 30 49
Orff-Body Percussion 6 10 5 8 16 26 5 8 29 48
45
Table 9- Continued
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Orff- Instruments 34 56 3 5 2 3 8 13 14 23
Senior
(n = 50)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 44 88 2 4 1 2 4 8
Kodály-Game 0 0 8 16 26 52 5 10 11 22
Orff-Body Percussion 15 30 13 26 10 20 4 8 8 16
Orff- Instruments 45 90 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 5
46
When analyzing results by year in school with major emphasis, instrumental
majors in their sophomore year (n = 21) correctly identified the Kodály solfa excerpt with
52% accuracy and the Kodály game with 9% accuracy. The same group correctly labeled
Orff body percussion (38%) and the excerpt with Orff instruments (76%). No sophomore
instrumental majors correctly identified the Orff speech chant. Junior (n = 39) and senior
instrumental majors (n = 26) correctly identified Kodály solfa with 51% or greater
accuracy. Teaching excerpts using Orff instruments were identified correctly by 50% or
greater of all instrumental juniors and seniors. For all remaining excerpts, preservice
teachers in their junior or senior year had less than 12% accuracy. Results for all
instrumental majors, by year in school, appear in Table 10.
47
Table 10- Instrumental Responses to Teaching Excerpts by Year in School
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Sophomore
(n = 21)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 11 52 3 14 2 10 5 24
Kodály-Game 1 5 2 10 7 33 3 14 8 38
Orff-Body 8 38 4 19 4 19 1 5 4 19
Percussion
Orff- Instruments 16 76 0 0 0 0 1 5 4 19
Junior
(n = 39)
Kodály-Solfa 1 3 20 51 1 3 2 5 15 38
Kodály-Game 1 3 2 5 7 18 4 10 25 64
Orff-Body 2 5 2 5 8 21 2 5 25 64
Percussion
48
Table 10- Continued
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Orff- Instruments 20 51 1 3 1 3 5 13 12 31
Senior
(n = 26)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 23 88 0 0 1 4 2 8
Kodály-Game 0 0 1 4 16 62 4 15 5 19
Orff-Body Percussion 4 15 6 23 9 35 3 12 4 15
Orff- Instruments 24 92 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 4
49
When combining all correct and incorrect responses from instrumental majors by
year in school, sophomores had 42 correct responses possible for excerpts using the
Kodály method and 63 correct responses possible for excerpts using the Orff method.
Junior instrumental majors had 78 correct responses possible for excerpts using the
Kodály method and 117 for the Orff method. In addition, senior instrumental majors had
52 correct responses possible for excerpts using the Kodály method and 78 for the Orff
method. All three groups correctly identified excerpts using the Kodály method with
46% or less accuracy and the Orff excerpts with 40% or less accuracy. Senior
instrumental majors had the highest percentage of correct responses for Kodály and Orff
excerpts with 40% or greater accuracy. The percentage of incorrect answers for all
instrumental majors on excerpts using Kodály and Orff was 50% or greater. Correct and
incorrect responses for instrumental majors, by year in school, appear in Table 11.
Table 11- Correct Versus Incorrect Responses of All Instrumental Majors by Year in
School
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Sophomore (n = 21)
Orff 24 38 39 62
Kodály 13 31 29 69
Junior (n = 39)
Orff 23 20 94 80
Kodály 22 28 56 72
Senior (n = 26)
Orff 31 40 47 60
Kodály 24 46 28 54
50
When analyzing results by year in school with major emphasis, choral majors in
their sophomore year (n = 2) correctly identified excerpts using Kodály solfa and Orff
instruments with 100% accuracy. Preservice choral majors in their junior and senior year
correctly identified teaching excerpts using Kodály solfa and Orff instruments with 66%
or greater accuracy. For all remaining excerpts, preservice teachers in their junior and
senior year correctly identified excerpts with 30% or less accuracy. There were no
correct responses recorded for sophomores in the remaining excerpts. Results for all
choral majors, by year in school, appear in Table 12.
51
Table 12- Choral Majors Responses to Teaching Excerpts by Year in School
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Sophomore
(n = 2)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kodály-Game 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50
Orff-Body Percussion 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 1 50
Junior
(n = 18)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 12 66 3 16 1 8 2 11
Kodály-Game 2 11 3 16 7 38 2 11 4 22
Orff-Body Percussion 3 16 3 16 7 38 2 11 3 16
52
Table 12 -Continued
Teaching Excerpt Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ % Σ %
Orff- Instruments 12 66 1 8 1 8 2 11 2 11
Senior
(n = 13)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 10 76 1 7 0 0 2 15
Kodály-Game 0 0 2 15 6 46 0 0 5 38
Orff-Body Percussion 4 30 6 46 1 7 1 7 1 7
Orff- Instruments 12 92 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
53
When combining all correct and incorrect responses from choral majors by year in
school, sophomores had 4 correct responses possible for excerpts using the Kodály
method and 6 possible for excerpts using the Orff method. Choral majors in their junior
year had 36 correct responses possible for the excerpts using the Kodály method and 54
possible for excerpts using the Orff method. In addition, senior choral majors had 26
correct responses possible for excerpts using the Kodály method and 39 for excerpts
using Orff. Preservice choral majors in their sophomore, junior and senior years
correctly identified excerpts using the Kodály method with 50% or less accuracy and
excerpts using the Orff method with 44% or less accuracy. The percentage of incorrect
responses for students in all three years of school was 50% or greater. Correct and
incorrect responses for instrumental majors, by year in school, appear in Table 13.
Table 13- Correct Versus Incorrect Responses of All Choral Majors by Year in School
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Sophomore (n = 2)
Orff 2 33 4 67
Kodály 2 50 2 50
Junior (n = 18)
Orff 19 35 35 65
Kodály 15 42 21 58
Senior (n = 13)
Orff 17 44 22 56
Kodály 12 46 14 54
54
When analyzing results by year in school with major emphasis, there were no
elementary majors in their sophomore year that completed the study. Preservice
elementary majors in their junior and senior year correctly identified the Kodály solfa
excerpt with 100 % accuracy. Junior and senior elementary majors correctly identified
teaching excerpts using the Kodály game with 45% or less accuracy. The three
remaining excerpts using Orff body percussion, speech chant, and instruments were
correctly identified with 81% or less accuracy by choral majors in their junior and senior
year. Results for elementary majors in their junior and senior year appear in Table 14.
Junior
(n = 4)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kodály-Game 0 0 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 25
Orff-Body 1 25 0 0 1 25 1 25 1 25
Percussion
Orff- Speech 1 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 2 50
Chant
Orff- 2 50 1 25 0 0 1 25 0 0
Instruments
Senior
(n = 11)
Kodály-Solfa 0 0 11 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kodály-Game 0 0 5 45 4 36 1 9 1 9
55
Table 14- Continued
Orff-Body 7 63 1 9 0 0 0 0 3 27
Percussion
Orff- Speech 7 63 2 18 0 0 0 0 2 18
Chant
Orff- 9 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18
Instruments
Note. Underlined numbers equal the highest percentage of answers.
When combining all correct and incorrect responses from elementary majors by
year in school, students in their junior year had 8 correct responses possible for excerpts
using the Kodály method and 12 correct responses possible for excerpts using the Orff
method. Preservice elementary majors in their senior year had a total of 22 correct
responses possible for excerpts using the Kodály method and 33 correct responses
possible for excerpts using the Orff method. Both juniors and seniors correctly identified
excerpts using the Kodály method with 63% or greater accuracy. Teaching excerpts
using the Orff method were correctly identified with 70% accuracy by elementary majors
in their senior year. The highest percentage of incorrect responses (67%) was from junior
elementary majors on excerpts using the Orff method. Correct and incorrect responses for
elementary majors, by year in school, appear in Table 15.
56
Table 15- Correct and Incorrect Responses of All Elementary Majors by Year
Correct Incorrect
Σ % Σ %
Junior (n = 4)
Orff 4 33 8 67
Kodály 5 63 3 38
Senior (n = 11)
Orff 23 70 10 30
Kodály 16 73 6 27
The third question asked which music education methodology preservice teachers
would prefer when teaching elementary children. Because participants could choose
more than one method, totals are greater than 100% of the number of participants. The
percentage of students who did not know what method they preferred differed from one
major to another, instrumental (48%), choral (33%), and elementary (12%). The Orff
method was preferred by 27% of instrumental majors, 36% of choral majors, and 40% of
elementary majors. The Kodály method was preferred by 13% of instrumental, 36% of
choral, and 12% of elementary majors. A preference for the Dalcroze method was
chosen by 6% of instrumental, 9% of choral, and 3% of elementary majors. Fifteen
percent of instrumental majors preferred the Suzuki method; however, choral or
elementary majors did not prefer this method. Those who did not know which method
they preferred included 48% of instrumental, 33% of choral, and 12% of elementary
majors. Results appear in Table 16.
57
Table 16- Preservice Teachers’ Preferred Method for Teaching Music to Elementary
Children
% % % % %
Instrumental 27 13 6 15 48
(n = 86)
Choral 36 36 9 0 33
(n = 33)
Elementary 40 12 3 0 12
(n = 15)
Table 17- Preservice Teachers’ Preferred Method for Teaching Music to Elementary
Children by Year in School.
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore
(n = 23)
6 5 3 2 10
58
Table 17- Continued
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Junior
(n = 61)
15 5 4 8 33
Senior
(n = 50)
20 17 3 4 12
When analyzing results by year in school with major emphasis, less than half of
instrumental majors in their sophomore year chose the Orff or Kodály method as their
preference for teaching music to elementary children. The highest number of responses
for sophomores was “don‟t know”. More than half of preservice instrumental majors in
their junior year indicated “don‟t know” as their preferred method. The method most
frequently chosen method for senior instrumental majors was the Orff method. Results
for instrumental majors‟ preferred method of teaching, by year in school, appear in Table
18.
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore 6 4 2 2 9
(n = 21)
Junior 6 3 1 8 23
(n = 39)
59
Table 18- Continued
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Senior 11 4 2 4 9
(n = 26)
Total 23 11 5 13 41
Table 19- Choral Majors Preference for a Method in Teaching Elementary Children By
Year in School
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore 0 1 1 0 1
(n = 2)
Junior 8 2 2 0 8
(n = 18)
Senior 4 9 1 0 1
(n = 13)
Total 12 12 3 0 11
60
When examining preservice elementary majors‟ preference for a teaching method,
no students in their sophomore year completed the study. One elementary major in their
junior year preferred the Orff method and one preferred the Dalcroze method. Five
elementary majors in their senior year preferred the Orff method while four from the
same group preferred the Kodály method. Two juniors and two seniors answered, “don‟t
know”. Results for elementary majors‟ preference for a methodology appear in Table 20.
Table 20- Elementary Majors Preference for a Method in Teaching Elementary Children
By Year in School
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Junior 1 0 1 0 2
(n = 4)
Senior 5 4 0 0 2
(n = 11)
Total 6 4 1 0 4
The fourth research question asked which music education method was used by
the preservice teachers‟ former elementary music teacher. Because participants could
choose more than one method, totals may be greater than 100% of the number of
participants. Instrumental majors reported their former elementary music teacher used
the Orff method (21%), the Kodály method (8%), and the Suzuki method (5%). Choral
majors indicated their former elementary teacher used the Orff method (15%); Kodály
method (6%), Dalcroze method (3%) and the Suzuki method (3%). Elementary majors
reported their former elementary music teacher used the Orff method (33%) and the
Kodály method (20%). Those who answered, “don‟t know” included instrumental
(69%), choral (76%), and elementary majors (53%). Results appear in Table 21.
61
Table 21- Teaching Method Used by Preservice Teachers’ Former Elementary Music
Teacher
% % % % %
Instrumental 21 8 0 5 69
(n = 86)
Choral 15 6 3 3 76
(n = 33)
Elementary
(n = 15) 33 20 0 0 53
When examining year in school, the Orff method was reported by 14 juniors as
being used by their former elementary music teacher. Five or fewer students in their
sophomore, junior, and senior year of school, reported the Kodály method. More than
half of students in all three groups answered, “don‟t know”. The method used by
preservice teachers‟ former elementary music teacher for all majors, by year in school,
appears in Table 22.
Table 22- Method Used by Former Elementary Music Teacher for All Participants by
Year in School
Year in Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
School
Sophomore
(n = 23) 4 3 0 2 15
Junior
(n = 61) 14 5 0 3 40
62
Table 22- Continued
Senior
(n = 50) 10 4 1 0 36
The fifth question asked which method(s) were included in their collegiate
Introduction to Music Education course. Because participants could choose more than
one method, totals were greater than 100%. Instrumental majors indicated Orff (57%),
Kodály (60%), Dalcroze (42%), and Suzuki (41%) were included in their introduction to
music education course. Choral majors reported the inclusion of the Orff method (82%),
the Kodály method (88%), Dalcroze (61%), and the Suzuki method (52%). Elementary
majors indicated Orff (87%), Kodály (87%), Dalcroze (67%), and Suzuki (60%) were
included in their collegiate introduction to music education course. Preservice teachers
who answered, “don‟t know” were instrumental (36%), choral (12%), and elementary
(13%) majors. Results appear in Table 23.
% % % % %
Instrumental 57 60 42 41 36
(n = 86)
Choral 82 88 61 52 12
(n = 33)
Elementary 87 87 67 60 13
(n = 15)
63
When analyzing results by year in school, many sophomores indicated the Orff,
Kodály, Dalcroze, and Suzuki methods were included in their collegiate course. Over
half of the students in their junior year indicated the Orff and Kodály methods were
included and over one-third reported Dalcroze and Suzuki were included in their
introduction to music education course. More than two-thirds of all preservice teachers
in their senior year indicated the Orff and Kodály methods were included and over one-
third reported Dalcroze and Suzuki were included in their introduction to music education
course. Over one-third of students in their junior year of school indicated they did not
know what methods were included in their collegiate course. Results for methods
included in preservice teachers‟ introduction to music education course, by year in
school, are included in Table 24.
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore
(n = 23) 18 19 14 18 4
Junior
(n = 61) 32 34 23 22 25
Senior
(n = 50) 38 41 29 21 8
The last question asked whether preservice teachers‟ preferences for a specific
teaching methodology changed after viewing teaching excerpts. Because participants
could choose more than one method, totals for each group may be greater than 100%.
Preservice instrumental majors indicated a preference for the Orff and Kodály method but
had the highest percentage of responses as “don‟t know”. Many choral majors chose the
Kodály method as their preferred method of teaching but also had a high percentage that
64
chose “don‟t know.” Elementary majors indicated a strong preference for the Orff
method followed by a preference for the Kodály method. Results appear in Table 25.
Table 25- Preservice Teachers’ Preferred Method of Teaching Elementary Children After
Viewing Five Teaching Excerpts
% % % % %
Instrumental 28 23 3 2 44
(n = 86)
Choral 24 36 12 3 33
(n = 33)
Elementary 40 33 13 7 27
(n = 15)
65
Table 26- Preferred Method of Teaching After Viewing Excerpts for All Majors By Year
in School
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore
(n = 23) 4 6 1 1 10
Junior
(n = 61) 13 13 5 1 30
Senior
(n = 50) 22 17 5 2 11
Table 27- Preferred Method of Teaching after Viewing Excerpts for Instrumental Majors
By Year in School
Sophomore
(n =21 ) 4 6 2 1 9
66
Table 27- Continued
Junior
(n = 39) 7 8 1 0 22
Senior
(n = 26) 14 6 2 1 5
In regards to choral majors, more than half of all senior choral majors preferred
the Kodály method. Less than one-third of junior and senior choral majors preferred the
Orff method. The highest number of students who chose “don‟t know” were in their
junior year of school. Results for choral majors‟ preferred teaching method, by year in
school, after viewing five teaching excerpts appear in Table 28.
67
Table 28- Preferred Method of Teaching after Viewing Excerpts for Choral Majors
By Year in School
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Sophomore
(n =2) 0 1 0 0 1
Junior
(n = 18) 5 3 4 1 7
Senior
(n = 13) 3 8 1 0 3
When examining elementary majors by year in school, about half of all seniors
preferred the Orff method. A small number of elementary majors in their junior and
senior year of school preferred the Kodály method. Results for elementary majors‟, by
year in school, preferred teaching method after viewing five teaching excerpts appear in
Table 29.
68
Table 29- Preferred Method of Teaching after Viewing Excerpts for Elementary Majors
By Year in School
Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ
Junior
(n = 4) 1 2 0 0 1
Senior
(n = 11) 5 3 2 1 3
69
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Research on what preservice teachers know about current methodologies used in
the elementary general music class appears to be almost nonexistent. The main purpose
of this study was to ascertain whether undergraduate music education majors could
identify Kodály and Orff methodologies when viewing them in teaching excerpts.
Preservice teachers viewed five teaching excerpts and indicated which method they
believed was being used. Students were given multiple choices from which to choose,
Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, Suzuki, and “don‟t know”.
Teaching Excerpts
Results for the five teaching excerpts revealed instrumental, choral, and
elementary majors were more successful in identifying the Kodály method when viewing
the excerpt using solfa. A majority of each group also identified the Orff method in the
excerpt using Orff instruments. This result was not surprising, as these two excerpts may
be commonly associated with Kodály and Orff methodologies. The teaching excerpt
using the Kodály game proved more difficult for preservice teachers to identify. Less
than 40% of all majors correctly identified this excerpt. Many students associated this
excerpt with using the Dalcroze method. This is of particular interest because students
did not identify movement in the form of games and dances with the Kodály or Orff
methods. Movement is one of the basic elements for each of these methods. Folk songs,
playparty games and dances are included from the beginning in the Kodály method, as
they are indicative of children‟s backgrounds and their „mother tongue‟. Movement is
also a basic element in Orff, involving children in movement in a very structured manner.
In comparison, movement in Dalcroze is more improvisational and requires students
respond to changes in music through body movements. Given these results, it may be
surmised that preservice teachers associate one element to each methodology; Kodály
equals solfa, Orff equals Orff instruments, and Dalcroze equals movement. This limited
view of teaching methodologies is of interest and may call for a reexamination of what
preservice teachers are learning about each of these methods.
70
The two remaining Orff excerpts (body percussion and speech chant) also saw
low percentages of correct answers from all three groups. All three major emphasis
groups had the smallest percentage of correct answers when identifying the excerpt using
the Orff speech chant. However, of the three groups, the elementary majors were more
successful at identifying the Orff speech chant as well as the body percussion.
Instrumental majors identified the Orff body percussion excerpt as either Dalcroze or
“don‟t know,” while choral majors‟ assigned three different methods to the Orff body
percussion excerpt- Orff, Kodály, and Dalcroze. Speech chant and body percussion are
also integral to the Orff method, just as folksong games and dances are integral to the
Kodály method. This result may be due to preservice teachers association of one element
to each methodology.
The activities in all five teaching excerpts were basic elements in one of the two
methodologies. The results bring additional questions of where preservice students
receive instruction on methodologies used in the elementary classroom and how
information is presented. The retention of information is brought into question
particularly for instrumental majors. The number of “don‟t know” responses from this
group was high. One possible reason for this result could be that preservice instrumental
teachers‟ may feel they will not need to know these methods if teaching at the secondary
level. It may be assumed these methodologies are only associated with the elementary
level. Additionally, when considering overall percentages of responses, instrumental and
choral majors had more incorrect responses than correct responses. Elementary majors,
however, had more correct responses than incorrect responses. A possible reason for this
could be that elementary majors take additional coursework indicative to their major that
emphasize these methodologies.
Several trends were found when examining whether year in school affected the
ability to correctly identify teaching excerpts using Kodály and Orff methods. Overall,
seniors, regardless of major, more successfully identified the methods used in the
teaching excerpts. This may be due to seniors having taken more methods courses than
their peers. Results varied, however, by major emphasis for juniors and sophomores.
Sophomore instrumental majors correctly identified more excerpts overall than junior
instrumental preservice teachers. This finding is of particular interest as students in their
71
junior year may have taken more music education courses in comparison to students in
their sophomore year. This result may indicate that the addition of methods courses does
not equate to a better score in identifying teaching methodologies. Choral majors‟
responses did not result in differences between these two groups. However, Dalcroze
was a common choice when identifying the Orff body percussion and the Kodály game.
The choice of the Dalcroze method for Orff body percussion and the Kodály game may
reveal a lack of understanding of this method. Elementary majors, regardless of year in
school, had more correct responses than incorrect but students in their senior year
identified Kodály excerpts with greater accuracy.
72
teachers may not be able to recall experiences that took place many years before entering
college. While results revealed that past elementary music teachers did not influence
preservice teachers‟ preference for a particular teaching method, it is important to note
that most teachers do not usually indicate to students what method is being used. This
result may also indicate that preservice teachers do not associate their elementary musical
activities with a particular method even after taking methods courses in college.
73
Method Preference after Viewing Teaching Excerpts
The final question asked whether preservice teachers‟ preference for a teaching
method changed after viewing the teaching excerpts. There was a strong correlation
between preservice teachers‟ preferences chosen before and after viewing the teaching
excerpts, which indicates preferences chosen before viewing were similar to those chosen
after viewing excerpts. Both choral and elementary majors‟ preference for a method did
not change by a large margin. However, the percentage of instrumental majors who
answered “don‟t know” did decrease slightly. Given that preservice teachers could not
correctly identify the five teaching excerpts, this result is not surprising. Because
students did not know what method they were watching they could not decide what
method, if any, they preferred.
The number of instrumental students who indicated they did not know what
method they preferred was particularly interesting. As students progress through their
collegiate years it is assumed they will gain and retain knowledge of best teaching
practices, and form an individual philosophy of teaching. It is also assumed they will
develop a preference in terms of teaching methods. Of course, these assumptions are the
ideal outcomes for most music education programs and NASM guidelines, but do not
necessarily reflect findings in this study. The answer “don‟t know” may lead to the
assumption that students are not as prepared to teach using these methods because they
have not received adequate instruction required to make a decision. This could also be
indicative of preservice teachers‟ major emphasis. Instrumental majors, in particular,
may be less likely to use Orff and Kodály methods due to the forum in which they are
introduced. Because these methods are included in elementary methods, students may
not recognize how they could be transferred to an instrumental rehearsal. These results
may also indicate a need for a reexamination of methods courses in terms of teaching for
transfer and infusing the idea that these methodologies are not only for the elementary
music classroom.
74
not identified were the Kodály game, Orff body percussion, and Orff speech chant.
Given the information provided about what methods were included in the collegiate
introduction to music education course, several conclusions may be drawn. Time spent
on current methodologies and approaches used in the elementary music class may not
include specific elements unique to each method, or provide examples of real life
teaching situations that incorporate these methods. An examination of how, and if, these
methodologies are presented might provide more insight to these results.
In terms of preference for a particular method, instrumental majors may not have
a clear understanding of each method and therefore cannot make an informed decision.
Because choral and elementary majors more readily identified a preferred method, further
research is needed to discover why instrumental majors did not choose a method.
Viewing the teaching excerpts did not seem to have a significant influence on students‟
preference for a particular method. Results may indicate a need for specific instruction,
in all methods courses, on how to transfer and use these methodologies at the secondary
level.
Implications from this study indicate that elementary majors correctly identified
teaching excerpts more often than choral or instrumental majors. Caution should be
taken when considering this result, as the subject pool was small and some of the
participating universities may not have had any elementary music education majors at the
time of the study. It is important, however, to consider that many states issue teaching
certification for K – 12th grades regardless of major emphasis. This is of particular
interest when taking into account music teaching positions can, and often do, include
classes outside the individual‟s major emphasis. The ability to not only identify but also
implement current methodologies in the elementary music class is essential for all
preservice teachers. A closer examination of university methods courses and university
professors‟ experience with methodologies used in the elementary music class may
provide insight into these findings.
One limitation to the study was the ability to account for order effect. Although
the researcher had established a plan to help control for order effect, it was not possible to
establish one way or the other if an order effect took place. The number of returned
questionnaires was far lower than initially agreed to by the participating universities, and
75
therefore resulted in unequal numbers from each university. While all participants had
taken an introduction to music education course, sophomores and juniors may not have
had the opportunity to take an elementary methods course prior to this study. Because
these methods are presented in more detail in an elementary methods course, students
may not have had enough information to correctly identify the teaching excerpts.
Given all results of this study, however, it can be seen that preservice teachers
may not have the ability to consistently identify Orff and Kodály methodologies when
viewing teaching excerpts that depict more than the commonly associated element for
each method. This is of particular concern when considering the teaching positions
available to those students preparing to enter the profession. It is also of concern because
MENC and current music textbook series (Beethoven, et al., 2005; Bond, et al., 2006;
Clementz, 1990) recognize Orff and Kodály methodologies, but the same recognition was
not found in university methods courses discussed in the review of literature of this study.
Although certain books containing sections on Orff and Kodály are included in methods
courses (Campbell & Kassner, 1995; Choksy, et al., 2001; Labuta & Smith, 1997; Mark
& Gary, 1992), the extent to which each method is discussed is unknown.
The ongoing argument to add more courses to an already full undergraduate
music education curriculum often results in more topics covered, to a lesser extent, in one
course. What preservice music education teachers should know and be able to do
deserves a closer examination, paying particular attention to the curriculum in university
methods courses. Future research could examine whether the university professor‟s
experience with different methodologies influences the amount of time spent on all
methodologies in methods courses. An examination of the certifications held by
university professors who teach methods courses is also warranted.
In addition, if students are to retain previously learned information, it is the
responsibility of all music education faculty to provide connections and transfers of this
information into a variety of settings. Whether in an elementary methods course or a
woodwind techniques class, faculty could include these methodologies and provide ways
to transfer them into the secondary classroom. Finally, students need more opportunities
to see these methodologies being used in a real classroom setting. This may encompass
76
field observations or videotapes of model teachers specifically using Kodály or Orff
methodologies.
Conclusions
Research on what preservice teachers know about current methodologies used in
the elementary music class appears to be nonexistent. As is evident from the results of
this study, preservice music education majors were unable to identify Orff and Kodály
methodologies when viewing five different teaching excerpts. Students‟ preference for a
specific teaching method was also examined. Results revealed many interesting findings
and raised questions for future research. A closer examination of university curriculum
and university faculty is necessary. Additionally, further exploration of instrumental
majors and their perceptions of elementary teaching methods may provide insight for
university professors teaching music education courses. Finally, the difference in
responses from students in their sophomore and junior years warrants future
investigation.
77
APPENDIX A
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL
78
79
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
80
Please answer the following questions by placing an “X” in the spaces provided.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Which music education methodology would you prefer when teaching elementary children?
___ Orff ____ Kodály ____ Dalcroze ____ Suzuki ____ Don‟t Know
Which music education method did your elementary music teacher use?
____ Orff ____ Kodály ____ Dalcroze ____ Suzuki ____ Don‟t Know
____ Orff ____ Kodály ____ Dalcroze ____ Suzuki ____ Don‟t Know
Over →
81
Watch the video and place an “X” next to the method you believe is being used in each
teaching excerpt. There is only 1 method used in each excerpt.
Example: ___ Orff X_ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
__________________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Excerpt #1 ___ Orff ___ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
Teaching Excerpt #2 ___ Orff ___ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
Teaching Excerpt #3 ___ Orff ___ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
Teaching Excerpt #4 ___ Orff ___ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
Teaching Excerpt #5 ___ Orff ___ Kodály ___ Dalcroze ___ Suzuki ___ Don‟t Know
_____________________________________________________________________
____ Orff ____ Kodály ____ Dalcroze ____ Suzuki ____ Don‟t Know
82
APPENDIX C
TIDEO
84
APPENDIX D
MODEL TEACHER CONSENT FORM
85
Kodály or Orff: Preservice Teachers‟ Perceptions of and Preference for Two Different
Methodologies Used in Teaching Elementary General Music
_______________________________________ ___________________
Teacher‟s Name (Print) (Date)
_______________________________________
Teacher‟s Name (Signature)
_______________________________________ ___________________
Researcher‟s Name (Signature) (Date)
86
APPENDIX E
PARENTAL CONSENT LETTER FOR MINORS
87
Dear Parent:
I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Kimberly VanWeelden in the College of Music
at Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to examine preservice teachers‟
perceptions of and preference for two different methodologies used in teaching elementary
general music.
Your child‟s participation will involve taking part in six elementary general music lessons. Your
child‟s music teacher is the focus and she will be videotaped teaching portions of a typical
elementary music lesson. The total time commitment is 2 hours and will take place in one
session. Your participation, as well as that of your child, in this study is voluntary. Should you
choose not to participate, your child‟s membership in choir will not be affected. The results of
the research study may be published, but your child‟s name will not be used.
As mentioned above, video and audio taping is necessary in this study. Although the focus is on
the music teacher, your child will be included on the video tape depending upon the activity.
Video/Audio tapes will be stored in a locked filing cabinet for an undetermined amount of time
by the researcher. Information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential,
to the extent allowed by law.
Although there may be no direct benefit to your child, the possible benefit of your child‟s
participation might involve improvements and/or changes in university courses for preservice
music teachers.
If you have any questions concerning this research study or your child‟s participation in the study,
please call me at (555) 555-5555 or e-mail me at ejm05d@fsu.edu. You may also contact Dr.
Kimberly VanWeelden at (850) 644-4042 or kvanweelden@fsu.edu.
Sincerely,
Emily Mason
********
If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel
you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee,
Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633
or you may access their website at http://www.fsu.research.edu.
88
APPENDIX F
SITE PARTICIPATION FORM (SCHOOL)
89
By signing this form _____________________________ voluntarily agrees to
(Name of School/School District)
___________________________________________________________
(Signature of School Principal or other Authority Figure)
___________________________________________________________
(Title)
90
APPENDIX G
DVD TEACHING EXCERPT ORDER
91
DVD #1 DVD #2
Kodály- Solfa Orff- Body percussion
Orff- Body percussion Kodály- Solfa
Kodály- Game Orff- Speech Chant
Orff- Speech Chant Orff- Instruments
Orff- Instruments Kodály- Game
DVD #3 DVD #4
Orff- Instruments Kodály- Game
Orff-Speech Chant Orff- Speech Chant
Orff- Body Percussion Orff- Instruments
Kodály- Game Kodály- Solfa
Kodály- Solfa Orff- Body Percussion
DVD #5 DVD #6
Orff- Instruments Orff- Body Percussion
Kodály- Solfa Orff- Speech Chant
Orff- Speech Chant Kodály- Solfa
Orff- Body Percussion Orff- Instrument
Kodály- Game Kodály- Game
DVD #7 DVD #8
Kodály- Solfa Orff- Body Percussion
Kodály- Game Orff- Instruments
Orff- Instruments Kodály- Solfa
Orff- Body Percussion Kodály- Game
Orff- Speech Chant Orff- Speech Chant
92
APPENDIX H
E-MAIL LETTER
93
Emily Mason
ejm05d@fsu.edu
Dear Dr.__________,
Each school participating in the study will receive a packet containing procedures and
directions for the proctoring teacher, a videotape, and questionnaires. The cooperating
teacher will be asked to read instructions before the subjects view the videotape, operate
the TV and VCR/DVD, and mail all materials back in a pre-paid envelope, which will be
provided. Subjects will be asked to view the videotape and fill out a questionnaire. The
total time of involvement for students will be no longer than 10 minutes.
Criteria for subjects participating in the study have been established and are listed below:
1. Subjects are music education majors.
2. Subjects have an academic standing of sophomore, junior, or senior status.
3. Subjects are currently enrolled in a Music Education course.
While this study will present an elementary music teacher on the videotape, subjects from
choral, instrumental, and elementary emphasis are needed in order to accurately complete
the study.
If you agree to participate in this study, please email the following information to me at
ejm05d@fsu.edu.
1. Your name
2. School Name
3. Work Phone Number
4. Number of evaluation forms
If you are unable to participate, please email me to prevent any further emails at
ejm05d@fsu.edu.
Sincerely,
Emily Mason
College of Music
Florida State University
94
APPENDIX I
SITE PARTICIPATION FORM (UNIVERSITY)
95
By signing this form _____________________________ voluntarily agrees to
(Name of University)
___________________________________________________________
(Signature of Department Head or other Authority Figure)
___________________________________________________________
(Title)
96
APPENDIX J
INSTRUCTIONS
97
Please follow the instructions below. The total amount of time required is 10 minutes.
3. Students should read the informed consent page which is attached to the questionnaire.
If any student wishes to remove himself from the study, he/she should do so at this
time by turning in the questionnaire. (Students may also keep this page if they
choose)
4. After reading the informed consent page, students should then complete the first page
of the questionnaire.
5. You will need a TV and DVD player. Please play the DVD. Students will watch 5
teaching excerpts and answer questions pertaining to each excerpt. Please stop the
DVD at the end of teaching excerpt 5.
6. Students should answer the last question and hand in the questionnaire.
7. Mail all materials (DVD, completed questionnaires, and Site Participation form) back
in the prepaid envelope by February 8, 2008.
98
APPENDIX K
QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER
99
Dear Student,
I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Kimberly VanWeelden, in the College
of Music at Florida State University. I am conducting a research study to examine
preservice teachers‟ perceptions of and preference for different methodologies used in
teaching elementary general music.
I am requesting your participation, which will involve viewing six teaching excerpts and
answering questions pertaining to each excerpt. Your participation in this study is
voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time,
there will be no penalty and will not affect your grade. The questionnaire is anonymous.
The results of this research study may be published, but your name will not be known.
Information obtained during the course of the study will remain confidential, to the extent
allowed by law.
If you have any questions concerning this research study, please call me at (555) 555-
5555 or e-mail me at ejm05d@fsu.edu. You may also contact Dr. Kimberly VanWeelden
at (850) 644-4042 or kvanweelden@fsu.edu.
If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if
you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects
Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of
Research at (850) 644-8633 or you may access their website at
http//www.fsu.research.edu.
Return of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Emily Mason
100
REFERENCES
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. R., & Klotman, R. H. (1984). Foundations of Music Education.
New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
Beethoven, J., Brumfield, S., Campbell, P. S., Connors, D. N., Duke, R. A., Jellison, J.
A., et al. (2005). Silver Burdett Making Music (Vols. K -5). Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Bergee, M. J. (1987). Ringing the changes: General John Eaton and the 1886 public
school music survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 103-116.
Bergee, M. J., Coffman, D. D., Demorest, S. M., Humphreys, J. T., & Thornton, L. D.
(2001). Influences on collegiate students' decision to become a music educator.
Retrieved on January 29, 2008, from http://old.menc.org/networks/rnc/Bergee-
Report.html
Blaine, R. J., Jr. (1976). Adaptation of the Suzuki-Kendall method to the teaching of a
heterogeneous brass-wind instrumental class of trumpets and trombones.
(Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 37(03), 1315-A.
Bond, J., Boyer, R., Campbelle-Holman, M., Crocker, E., Davidson, M. C., de Frece, D.,
et al. (2006). Spotlight on Music (Vols. K – 5). New York, NY:
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
101
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Improving Students‟ Memory for Musical
Compositions and Their Composers: Mneme That Tune! College Student
Journal, 41(4), 918- 925.
Choksy, L. (1974). The Kodály Method: Comprehensive Music Education from Infant to
Adult. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Choksy, L. (1981). The Kodály Context: Creating an Environment for Musical Learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Choksy, L. (1999). The Kodály Method I: Comprehensive Music Education (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Choksy, L., Abramson, R. M., Gillespie, A. E., Woods, D., & York, F. (2001). Teaching
Music in the Twenty-First Century (Second ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cook, C. A. (1970). Suzuki education in action: A story of talent training from Japan.
New York, NY: Exposition Press.
Cremin, L. A. (1970). American Education: the colonial experience 1607- 1783. New
York, NY: Harper and Row.
102
Cutietta, R. (2007). Content for Music Teacher Education in This Century. Arts
Education Policy Review 108(6), 11-18.
De Nicola, D. N., Mehr, N., Daily, D. P., McHugh, J., Sorenson, V., Nicolucci, S. S., et
al. (1988). Point of view: Are college methods classes useful? Music Educators
Journal, 75(1), 39-42.
Efland, A. (1983). Art and music in the Pestalozzian tradition. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 31(3), 165-178.
Elliot, R. (1960). Teaching music: Methods and materials for the elementary schools.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.
Frazee, J. (1987). Discovering Orff: A curriculum for music teachers. New York, NY:
Schott.
Gordon, E. E. (1986). Jump right in: The music curriculum. Chicago, IL: G.I.A.
Publications.
103
Gordon, E. E. (1987). Jump right in: The instrumental curriculum. Chicago, IL: G.I.A.
Publications.
Gordon, E. E. (1989b). Music learning theory. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
Suncoast Music Education forum on creativity, Tampa, FL.
Gordon, E. E. (1997). A Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young Children.
Chicago: GIA Publications, Inc.
Gordon, E. E., & Woods, D. G. (1990). Jump right in: The music curriculum. Chicago,
IL: G.I.A. Publications.
Hanning, B. R. (1998). Concise History of Western Music. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Heath, C. Q. (1984). The Song Garden, Book Three. West Hartford, CT: The Kodály
Musical Training Institute.
Hermann, E. (1981). Shinichi Suzuki: The man and his philosophy. Athens, OH: Ability
Development Associates.
Hickey, M., & Rees, F. (2002). Developing a Model for Change in Music Teacher
Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 12(1), 5.
Hickok, D., & Smith, J. A. (1974). Creative Teaching of Music in the Elementary
School. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Howe, S. W. (1992). Music teaching in the Boston public schools, 1864-1879. Journal
of Research in Music Education, 40(4), 316-328.
104
music classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 98(03), 556-A.
Jacques-Dalcroze, E. (1930). Eurhythmics: Art and education. Salem, NH: Ayer Co.
Jarjisian, C. (1981). The effects of pentatonic and/or diatonic pattern instruction on the
rote singing achievement of young children. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple
University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(05), 2015-A.
Kantorski, V. (2002). Music education majors‟ perceptions of the “best teacher I ever
had.” Poster session presented at the National Biennial In-Service Conference of
MENC: The National Association for Music Educators, Nashville, TN.
Kapfer, M. B. (1967). Early public school music in Columbus, 1845- 1854. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 15(3), 191- 200.
Keene, J. A. (1982). A history of music education in the United States. Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England.
Kendall, J. D. (1966). Talent education and Suzuki: What the American music educator
should know about Shinichi Suzuki. Washington, D.C.: MENC.
105
Kennedy, M. A. (2000). Creative music making since the time of the singing schools:
Fringe benefits. Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education, 21(2), 132-
148.
Klinger, R., Campbell, P. S., & Goolsby, T. (1998). Approaches to children's song
acquisition: Immersion and phrase-by-phrase. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 46(1), 24-34.
Kodály, Z. (1974). The selected writings of Zoltan Kodály (L. Halapy & F. Macnicol,
Trans.). London, England: Boosey and Hawkes.
Kohs, E. B. (1980). Current needs and problems in the teaching of undergraduate music
theory. Music Theory Spectrum, 2, 135- 142.
Koppelman, D. (1978). Introducing Suzuki Piano. San Diego, CA: Dichter Press.
Labuta, J. A., & Smith, D. A. (1997). Music education: Historical contexts and
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Madsen, C. K., & Kelly, S. N. (2002). First remembrances of wanting to become a music
teacher. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(4), 323-332.
Mark, M. L., & Gary, C. L. (1992). A history of American music education. New York,
NY: Schirmer Books.
Martin, B. A. (1987). The effect of hand signs, verbal tonal syllables, and letter
representation of tonal syllables on the verbal and symbolic acquisition of tonal
skills by first-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(02), 328-A.
Mason, L. (1833). Sabbath school songs. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Sabbath School
Society.
Mason, L. (1834). Manual of the Boston Academy of Music, for Instruction in the
elements of Vocal Music, on the system of Pestalozzi (First Ed.). Boston, MA:
Carter, Hendee & Company.
106
Mason, L., & Ives, E. J. (1831). Juvenile Lyre. Boston, MA: Richardson, Lord &
Holbrook.
Mason, L., & Webb, G. J. (1833). Sacred melodies. Boston, MA: Carter, Hendee &
Company.
Mead, V. H. (1994). Dalcroze Eurhythmics in today's music classroom. New York, NY:
Schott Music Corporation.
MENC. (1994). National standards for arts education. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from
http://www.menc.org/resources/view/national-standards-for-music-education
Miller, S. D. (1993). Elementary general music and the NSSE Yearbook of 1936.
Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education, 14(2), 114-125.
Moore, S. F. (1992). The writings of Emile Jacques-Dalcroze: Toward a theory for the
performance of musical rhythm. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(09), 3037-A.
107
Munsen, S. C. (1986). A description and analysis of an Orff-Schulwerk program of
music education (improvisation). (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(09), 3357-A.
NASM (2007). NASM Handbook 2007-2008 (2nd ed.). Retrieved February 4, 2008,
from http://nasm.arts-
accredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/NASM_HANDBOOK_2007-2008_2ndEd.pdf
Nero Inc. (2007). Nero 8 Ultra Edition [Computer software]. Glendale, CA: Nero AG.
The new educational music course (1903). Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1958- 1966). Musik für Kinder (Vol. 1- 5). Mainz, Ger.: B.
Schott Sohne.
Orman, E. K. (2002). Comparison of the national standards for music education and
elementary music specialists' use of class time. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 50(2), 155-164.
Palmer, M. H. (1974). The relative effectiveness of the Richards and the Gordon
approaches to rhythm reading for fourth grade children. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 35(12), 7702-A.
Pemberton, C. A. (1990). A look at the Juvenile Lyre (1831): Posing a rationale for
music in the schools. Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education, 11, 17-
32.
108
Rich, A. L. (1946). Lowell Mason: "The father of singing among the children". Chapel
Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Richards, M. H. (1964). Threshold to Music. New York, NY: Harper & Row,
Publishers.
Robbins, J. (1994). Levels of learning in Orff SPIEL. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 123, 47-53.
Robinson, R., & Winold, A. (1976). The choral experience: Literature, materials, and
methods. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Schmidt, M. (1998). Defining "good" music teaching: Four student teachers' beliefs and
practices. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19-46.
Shehan, P. K. (1987). Effect of rote versus note presentations on rhythm learning and
retention. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 117-126.
109
Siemens, M. T. (1969). A comparison of Orff and traditional instructional methods in
music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17(3), 272-285.
Silverman, K. (1987). A cultural history of the American Revolution. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Sperti, J. (1970). Adaptation of certain aspects of the Suzuki method to the teaching of
the clarinet: An experimental investigation testing the comparative effectiveness
of two different pedagogical methodologies. (Doctoral dissertation, New York
University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(03), 1557-A.
Spring, J. (1990). The American School: 1642-1992 (Second ed.). New York, NY:
Longman.
Suzuki Association of the Americas (SAA) (2008). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from
http://www.suzukiassociation.org
Suzuki, S. (1969). Nurtured by love: A new approach to education (W. Suzuki, Trans.).
Smithtown, New York, NY: Exposition Press.
110
Tarnowski, S. M. (1997). Transfer of elementary music methods and materials into an
early practicum experience as seen through preservice teacher journals. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 131, 42-43.
Thornton, L., Murphy, P., & Hamilton, S. (2004). A case of faculty collaboration for
music education curricular change. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(2),
34- 40.
Tufts, W., & Holt, H. E. (1891). The normal music course, second reader. Boston, MA:
Silver, Burdett, & Co.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in
America, 1820- 1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Walters, D. L., & Taggart, C. C. (Eds.) (1989). Readings in music learning theory.
Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications.
Zemke, L. (1973). The Kodály method and a comparison of the effects of a Kodály-
adapted music instruction sequence and a more typical sequence on auditory
musical achievement in fourth-grade students. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 33(12), 6956-A.
111
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Millikin University
Decatur, Illinois
2002-2005
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Voice
112
Ithaca College
Ithaca, NY
Fall 2008
Assistant Professor, Music Education
113