Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The study was aimed to adapt, implement, and reflect on a music production curriculum in public elementary schools while developing an open-access resource for teachers. Two music industry professionals informed the content of the study; four elementary school teachers, including myself, implemented the curriculum; and 28 students from primary, junior, and intermediate grades applied the concepts in various projects. Using participatory action research (PAR) as a methodological framework, I explored the following research question: How can music industry professionals, music teachers, and students collaborate, share ideas and their experiences, to inform a curricular design for public elementary school music education that has music production as its core? I theorized that music production should be introduced earlier than traditionally discussed, at the elementary rather than secondary level. The study followed three phases; (1) music industry professionals informed content development: (2) teachers planned and implemented a flipped classroom approach; and, (3) student feedback and experiences guided the creation of open access video resources. Findings support the early integration of music production in elementary education, emphasizing, but not limited to, vocal mixing, beat making, and recording with digital audio workstations (DAWs).

Keywords

music production popular music education elementary school music education participatory action research the process of recording DAW

Introduction

As the clock struck 8:55 am, the morning school bell rang, C, E, G, C (insert the arpeggio sound here). The students lined up at their designated doors in the school yard and waited for their teachers to come pick them up. As the doors opened, the students entered the school, and the sounds of excitement filled the halls. The students changed into their indoor shoes, sat at their desks, and the school day was ready to begin. The day began with three music teachers, in three different schools, ready to try a new plan they had never done before. This plan consisted of embarking on a music production journey with their students. This journey included recording, manipulating sounds with a digital audio workstation (DAW), and sharing music with others.

Music production education has the power to transform how students connect with and understand music. Despite growing academic support for integrating music production in classrooms (Bell, 2020; Burns, 2020; Clauhs et al., 2019, 2021; Emo, 2022; Freedman, 2013; Kuhn & Hein, 2021; Pendergast, 2021; Watson, 2011), many elementary school music teachers remain hesitant to embrace this approach (Cain, 2013). This reluctance, often tied to a lack of confidence or exposure, limits younger students’ opportunities available to explore music in ways that extend beyond traditional performance (D. B. Williams, 2007).

Historically, research on music production has focused primarily on secondary and post-secondary settings (Anthony, 2023; Stefanic, 2019; E. Tobias, 2010). However, this leaves a significant gap when it comes to primary and junior grades – years that offer a unique opportunity to nurture creativity and build a deep connection to music. These foundational years are where students begin to form their musical identity, yet they have received little attention in academic literature (Evans, 2019; Ruthmann, 2007).

By starting music production at an earlier stage, teachers can equip students with the tools to understand and shape the music they love, fostering a more inclusive and empowering learning environment. In this article, I seek to explore how elementary music educators can integrate music production into their programs. Drawing on a participatory action research (PAR) approach (Cohen et al., 2018; Lewin, 1946; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I collaborated with three music teachers and their students to design and implement a music production curriculum tailored for primary (ages 6–8), junior (ages 9–11), and intermediate (ages 12–13) students. Informed by insights from music industry professionals, the participants and I explored how music production concepts can seamlessly align with Ontario’s provincial standards while addressing real-world classroom challenges (Ministry of Education and Training, 2009).

Theoretical Framework

This study was framed by the concepts of critical pedagogy (Giroux, 1978), informal learning (Green, 2008), and punk pedagogy (Smith et al., 2017). In the following sections, I examine each of these frameworks in detail, highlighting their relevance to this study.

Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is defined in scholarly literature as:

Attempts to understand how power works through the production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge within particular institutional contexts and seeks to constitute students as particular subjects and social agents. It is also invested in the practice of self-criticism about the values that inform our teaching and a critical self-consciousness regarding what it means to equip students with analytical skills to be self-reflective about the knowledge and values they confront in classrooms. (Giroux, 2006, p. 31)

For decades, critical pedagogy theorists have raised compelling arguments against traditional modes of knowledge transfer in schools (Bernstein, 2003; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1978). These theorists argued that conventional educational approaches often operate on the assumption that educators inherently know what students need, which can stifle critical thinking and hinder the development of students’ unique voices. Instead of fostering independent thought, these methods frequently emphasize memorization and regurgitation, particularly in the context of formal assessment.

In this study, critical pedagogy provides a lens to examine how music production can create a connection between students’ musical interests outside of school and traditional school music programs. As the music industry continues to evolve alongside pop culture (Howard, 2012; Mulligan, 2015; Xiaorui, 2023), public school music education should consider adapting to these changes as well. While recorded music have been a central part of the music industry for over a century (Bell, 2016), its use in schools has largely been limited to music appreciation and passive listening (Volk, 2007).

By incorporating music production into the classroom, students can shift from passive consumers to active creators. Listening to recordings becomes an opportunity for critical analysis, enabling students to identify and evaluate the differences between live music and recorded music. Beyond analysis, students can engage directly in the creative process by experimenting with DAWs, exploring, and manipulating sounds to create their own recordings.

Informal Learning

In Green’s seminal (2008) work, Music informal learning, and the school: A new classroom pedagogy, she identified a disconnect between musical experiences in general music classrooms and those outside school, advocating for a new approach. However, her work primarily reflected how past popular musicians (Green, 2002), particularly White male rock guitarists, learned (R. Allsup, 2008). While her pedagogy emphasized using recordings to develop performance skills, it overlooked the potential for critical listening and the technical ear development needed for creating and producing recordings (Corey, 2012). The “technical ear” refers to the ability to listen beyond the surface of a performance, focusing on intricate details that shape a final sound of a recording to “perfection” (Blackwell, 2013).

Despite these gaps, Green’s (2008) principles for informal learning provide a strong foundation for a music production curriculum. She developed five key principles for educators: (a) students learn music that they choose and identify with, (b) students learn by listening and copying recordings, (c) students play and learn alongside friends, (d) holistic learning, and (e) integration of listening, performing, composing, and improvising. My study expands on her second principle, encouraging students to engage with recordings not just by copying, but incorporating production practices – such as recording, editing, and manipulating sounds – into the learning process to understand what they are hearing (Hodgson, 2019).

Many students may have never attended a live concert of their favorite bands and may be surprised to hear how different live performances sound compared to studio recordings, which often involve production techniques (Beyt, 2022). When copying recordings by ear, students should understand that some sounds are irreproducible without the aid of technology, as they are digitally manipulated (Hodgson, 2019). Recognizing this distinction early in the learning process is essential, as recordings can be complex and time intensive (Izhaki, 2023). A music production curriculum can build on Green’s framework of emphasizing meaningful classroom experiences where students choose instruments, songs, and group members, but recontextualize her second principle to focus on foundational production concepts before applying them in practice (Corey, 2012; Oltheten, 2018).

Punk Pedagogy

“Punk pedagogy” (Smith et al., 2017) is an educational framework rooted in constructivism, social constructivism, and critical pedagogy (King, 2021). It emphasizes independence, collaborative learning, equity, and inclusion, drawing inspiration from the do-it-yourself (DIY) ethos. This pedagogy encourages students to explore their musical interests, whether in performance or non-performance roles, using open-access materials and fostering creativity through self-directed learning.

Unlike traditional top-down models that focus on analyzing and performing historical music standards – resembling cover bands – punk pedagogy promotes a “bottom-up-design” (Niknafs, 2017). This mirrors how musicians often learn outside of school – through experimentation, collaboration, and drawing inspiration from personal musical preferences. By enabling students to work independently or in diverse, self-selected groups, punk pedagogy challenges conventional classroom practices that segregate learners by age and limit collaboration (Cremata & Powell, 2017; Green, 2008; Kafara, 2017).

Through Punk pedagogy, educators can emphasize non-performance roles, such as sound engineering or lighting technician, broadening opportunities for students who may not wish to perform on stage. In this study, students explored various genres and instrumentation, experimenting freely with instructional resources. At the elementary level, where students are more open to trying new things, this approach proved especially effective. Ultimately, punk pedagogy complements Green’s (2008) informal learning principles by creating a DIY environment that encourages autonomy, inclusivity, and creative freedom in both performance and production roles.

Purpose Statement and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to adapt, implement, and reflect on a music production curriculum in public elementary schools and to develop an open-access resource for teachers. Two music industry professionals informed the content of the study; four elementary school teachers, including myself, implemented the curriculum; and 28 students from the primary, junior, and intermediate grades applied the concepts in various projects.

Using participatory action research (PAR) as a methodological framework, I explored the following research question and sub-questions:

How can music industry professionals, music teachers, and students collaborate, share ideas and their experiences, to inform a curricular design for public elementary school music education that has music production as its core?

a) What would each of their roles consist of during the design process?

b) What would their roles be when actively engaged in the classroom?

c) What would be some of the possible issues and constraints found in this design, and how would they be resolved?

d) How often would each cycle of PAR (planning, applying, observing, and reflecting) be adapted and repeated? What would the process look like?

e) What are some of the outcomes and expectations found in a music production curriculum and how can it be adapted to the current provincial standards?

Grounded in the principles of critical pedagogy, informal learning, and punk pedagogy, I adopted PAR as the foundation for its methodological framework.

Methodology

In this study, I used participatory action research (PAR) to design and implement a music production curriculum for elementary schools, emphasizing collaboration among the researcher, teachers, professionals, and students. Together, we followed iterative cycles of planning, applying, observing, and reflecting (Lewin, 1946). Students analyzed their favorite music, then recorded original composition, covers, or remixes, to share with peers. The curriculum was designed to reflect industry practices, incorporating both collaborative and independent production workflows.

In both formal and informal contexts, music educators often prioritize performance over production, raising questions about how qualifications and expertise are defined within the field (Bell, 2018; Green, 2008; Vasil, 2015). Critiquing Green’s informal pedagogy, R. Allsup (2008), questioned the qualifications of teachers in informal learning settings:

The music teachers [involved in this pedagogy] could easily be outsourced in favour of cheaper, less experienced, and under-educated labor. If the tenets of informal musical learning are to be adapted, second-wave research needs to provide broad and self-critical illustrations of what constitutes a qualified, indeed highly qualified, music teacher. (p. 5)

In Ontario, teachers must be certified by the Ontario College of Teachers, yet being a specialized music educator is not a requirement for teaching elementary music. In 2018, a school board where I worked as a music teacher created 89 new music positions, many filled by certified but non-specialist teachers. One participating teacher shared, “I know how to play piano, but I’m not awesome at it yet. I’m not musically trained, like in the sense that I went to school for it. I have taught myself everything.”

As a mentor during this 2018 initiative, I created video resources for my school board showcasing students’ engagement with DAWs and DIY technology projects (https://youtu.be/2CdS-fau_sA?si=GCCYgLhf8nIpyU4_). While the students’ recordings’ sonic quality was imperfect, the process positively impacted students. These experiences underscored the need for improved music production resources and pedagogy in elementary music education. To address this, I pursued independent practice, post-secondary coursework, and presented my ideas at conferences. Aligning with Hodgson’s (2019) production planes, discussions with music educators revealed that the concepts like panning, EQ frequencies, and reverb in production could be analogized to familiar band rehearsal practices: (a) The horizontal plane of panning represented seating arrangements from left to right, (b) The vertical plane of EQ frequencies represented the balancing of instrumental timbres and, (c) The proximity plane of reverb and volume represented the front, middle, and back rows of an ensemble.

These parallels encouraged educators to approach music production with confidence. This realization, combined with gaps in existing research in both higher education (Bell, 2016; Hodgson, 2019; E. Tobias, 2010), and elementary research (Evans, 2019; Ruthmann, 2007), shaped this study’s three-phase design.

Phase 1

The purpose of phase one was to gather professional insights on how to implement music production with elementary-aged students. I collaborated with two industry professionals with extensive music production experience, including work on multiple platinum-certified¹ albums in the U.S. and Canada. This collaboration was facilitated by one of my university supervisors who was already acquainted with them.

Through two Zoom meetings with each expert and ongoing email correspondence, we interpreted the existing Ontario curriculum to develop a music production curriculum suitable for elementary schools. One professional emphasized the importance of broad exposure, stating, “I think it’s important for students early on to have that 10,000 foot bird’s eye view of what’s possible.” This perspective helped shape our approach, expanding the curriculum to bridge traditional music with the structure of a recording session in a DAW.

The professionals guided foundational practices like session setup, recording, mixing, and distribution, aligning withprovincial curriculum expectations. As one expert noted: “Just taking the little bit of extra time to go into that small bit of detail and understanding. Not, ‘You do this to get sound.’ It’s, ‘This is how it happens, and this is why you do this to get sound.’”

Phase 2

The purpose of phase two was to implement the professionals’ suggestions. Students began by listening to their favorite music and analyzing recordings to differentiate performance and production concepts, developing their technical ear (Corey, 2012). One student reflected, “I’ve been working on making rock and funk songs, and I’ve been listening to some while I’ve been recording, so I could kind of make them like the songs.” This highlights the student’s interest in analyzing recordings and applying those elements to their projects.

Next, students chose a song idea – whether an original, a cover, or an arrangement – and worked individually or collaboratively (Green, 2008). They recorded tracks using physical and digital instruments, then progressed to mixing, where they edited and manipulated sounds. One teacher observed, “They’re being productive and out of their chair, I’m watching one student right now clicking on another student’s computer. That engagement level, for some teachers, it would be hard because you kind of have to let them get up and interact.”

In the final stage, students rendered² their tracks as Mp3s and distributed them via Google Classroom, replicating professional industry practices. One student shared, “I’m working on a new song, and I was thinking of putting this into my phone.”

This approach shifted the classroom dynamic from a teacher-centered environment (Corwin, 2021; Freire, 1970) to learner-centered space (Weimer, 2002; D. A. Williams & Kladder, 2019), encouraging collaboration and discoveries (Diéguez, 2017; Kladder, 2019; Lynch, 2016). One teacher remarked, “I am a very type A teacher, so I struggle with not having structure. And like, this is what you do next. But it’s also something that I’m interested in learning - or unlearning, you know, and not be so type A.”

Phase 3

Based on findings, phase three aimed to create an open access resource for students and teachers. I developed an animation series tailored for elementary music education, along with assessment recommendations (https://www.youtube.com/@DrTooNice). These videos aligned with provincial curricular goals and were used in a flipped classroom model (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2016; Mok, 2014) allowing students to learn at their own pace, fostering independent learning and teamwork (Seabrook, 2015; Warner, 2003). The flipped classroom featured instructional videos centralized in Google Classroom. Rather than following a set chronology, the videos were organized for flexible access, allowing students with varying experience levels to choose content based on their needs (Keengwe et al., 2014). Similar to how students explore online resources at home (Cayari, 2021), the flipped classroom provides a central hub for accessing videos related to class discussions. Each video includes curriculum expectations in the description box, providing teachers with a basis for assessments.

Video topics include: (a) song creation using digital and physical instruments, (b) voice recording techniques, (c) production equipment functionality, and (d) basic mixing and mastering techniques. Each episode is designed with accessible visuals, language, and pacing. One teacher noted, “It’s like a shortened version of a masterclass. It even sounds like a kindergarten play-based approach for that type of instruction.”

The series bridges industry practices and classroom application, emphasizing creativity, collaboration, and digital literacy. One educator commented, “The toughest part for teaching is to learn a lot of knowledge very quickly in a short span of time. A music production video resource like this is exactly what’s needed.” Future plans include expanding topics, such as multi-mic recordings, and incorporating feedback to ensure ongoing relevance and accessibility.

Participants

The participating teachers included Rachel, a second-year music teacher without any post-secondary musical training; Bradley, a first-year music teacher without any post-secondary musical training; and Aimee, an experienced music teacher with a music degree from an accredited university. To protect their identities, all names are pseudonyms. I, the author, also participated as an experienced music teacher with multiple music degrees from three post-secondary institutions.

I selected my participants using purposeful sampling (Conway et al., 2015) to ensure a diverse range of backgrounds, spanning from novice to experienced, with varying levels of music training. The research took place between February to June 2023. However, delays in ethics approval, the collection of signed consent letters from students, and changes in teaching roles for Aimee and Rachel during the study affected the number of interviews and observation conducted. Despite these challenges, I met with Aimee and Rachel five times each, and Bradley 10 times.

Types of Data

The meetings involved semi-structured interviews, guided by methods outlined by Yin and Campbell (2018), and observations informed by Cohen et al. (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016). During observations, I also collaborated with the participating teachers’ students. In my school, I engaged with primary students twice a week and junior/intermediate students once a week. Over 5 months, the participants and I worked together to plan, apply, observe, and reflect on a music production curriculum in elementary schools.

The weekly process required flexibility to accommodate interruptions, such as absences, school events, and slower-than-anticipated progress. Coordinating in-person meetings with teachers and students was challenging, so most communication occurred through text and Zoom, therefore the observations and interviews did not take place in their natural physical settings (Cohen et al., 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Stake, 2006); instead, they occurred in their natural digital environments (Hjorth et al., 2017; Pink et al., 2015; Underberg & Zorn, 2013).

Analysis

Action research often produces substantial amounts of data, requiring simultaneous data collection and analysis to manage the process effectively (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure accuracy and deepen immersion in the data, interviews and observations were recorded via Zoom and then transcribed. Following Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) guidance to “winnow the data” during data collection, I identified key themes during transcription and analysis, with the goal of refining findings into five to seven overarching themes (p. 192).

A systematic coding approach was employed to highlight significant patterns and phrases, which were then grouped into broader categories to identify themes and sub-themes. This process facilitated the creation of a “matrix of contrasting evidence,” visual displays, event frequency tables, and chronological organization of the data (Yin & Campbell, 2018, p. 174).

Adopting an inductive approach, I worked to “develop common themes or patterns or categories that cut across the data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 297). Research notes and written reflections provided contextual insights, initial impressions, and connections between data points. These notes were also coded and incorporated into the thematic analysis.

To ensure reliability, I triangulated findings across multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and reflections, while critically considering my position as a researcher, or “reflexivity” (Finlay & Gough, 2003). Each theme was meticulously traced back to its original data source, enhancing transparency in the analysis process. This systematic approach not only bolstered the credibility of the findings, but they also underscored their alignment with the study’s objectives (Comte & Lenzer, 1998).

Findings and Discussions

The primary question guiding this research study was, “How can music industry professionals, music teachers, and students collaborate, share ideas and their experiences, to inform a curricular design for public elementary school music education that has music production as its core?” In short, the answer is not to place music production as the core of the curriculum but to include music production opportunities for students in each divisional grade in elementary school. One teacher shared, “music production intimidates me, so I haven’t brought it into the classroom yet.” This sentiment reflected a common lack of confidence among the participants; however, the use of the word “yet” demonstrated openness and initiative to gradually build this confidence. The following sections detail the process and reasoning that led to my conclusions regarding this research question and its sub-questions.

The Roles of Industry Professionals, Teachers, and Students

Drawing on Bell’s (2013) analogy of audio tracks in a DAW – where tracks can be soloed or played collectively – I examined the contributions of each group individually before blending their input.

Industry Professionals

Music industry professionals provided foundational concepts for integrating production into the classroom. During virtual meetings, they shared insights from their careers, emphasizing the importance of building a strong foundational knowledge. One professional explained, “Just having that basic understanding from the get-go, will be so valuable,” referencing topics like (a) how physical sounds are converted to digital signals, (b) the various roles in the music production process, and (c) the creative opportunities available. Their expertise shaped a curriculum structure mirroring industry practice, focusing on recording (tracking), manipulating (mixing), and distributing music.

Elementary School Teachers

Teachers brought these industry concepts into classrooms, adapting them to their students’ diverse needs and experiences. During the production projects, a flipped classroom approach was used, where students accessed video resources independently, allowing teachers to provide personalized support during class.

For younger students, analogies were a key strategy. Bradley compared DAW tracks to soup ingredients: “By blending different foods, you will get different flavours. You can mix the food to your taste and see if others enjoy it as well.” Aimee on the other hand, tailored projects to align with her students’ musical preferences, noting, “It would be really neat if we could incorporate more of what your class wants to listen to.” For intermediate-grade students, Rachel encouraged exploration of the production software independently. Reflecting on this approach, she shared, “Most of my students stayed focused and on task, more so than in most of my other lessons taught in the past.”

Elementary School Students

Students demonstrated creativity and engagement by applying production concepts to their music projects. Some gravitated toward digital creations, while others experimented with recording physical instruments. For example (all names are pseudonyms), Jennie crafted remixes, Craig recorded metal karaoke, and Arthur created original songs and mashups. Inspired by Eminem’s use of backing tracks, Brodie and Carl explored live performance elements. One primary student shared, “I looked at Soundtrap a different way, I didn’t know what we were going to do in music, I just looked at music as playing instruments and like people singing, but now I feel like it’s my whole life.”

Blending of Roles

The collaboration between professionals, teachers, and students culminated in guided music production video lessons. Industry professionals’ insights addressed gaps they encountered in their own early education, while teachers adapted these lessons to their specific classroom contexts. Students then applied this knowledge to create recording projects.

Roles While Actively Engaged in the Classroom

The students were tasked with creating songs using approaches similar to independent artists (McArton, 2023). They had the flexibility to work individually or in groups (Green, 2008). Their projects included original songs, covers, or arrangements, incorporating recording techniques for digital and physical instruments. Mixing was guided by Hodgson’s (2019) principles of horizontal, vertical, and proximity planes: Horizontal referring to panning sounds across the left and right speakers, vertical involving tools like EQ to emphasize specific frequencies, and proximity adjusting the perceived distance of sounds using effects such as reverb and delay. Once complete, students shared their work by uploading it to Google Classroom or playing it for their peers. The overarching goal was to foster independent music production skills, supported by teacher facilitation.

Teachers played a pivotal role in creating a learner-centered environment by shifting to a facilitator role (Clauhs et al., 2019). They provided “space” (Albert, 2020) for exploration through a flipped classroom approach (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2016; Mok, 2014) in a co-learning environment (R. E. Allsup, 2015). This design allowed students to integrate their external musical experiences into the classroom, a process E. S. Tobias (2015) described as “crossfading.” Teachers guided students to resources, supported their musical interests, and adapted their teaching to student needs.

Troubleshooting

The research sub-question, “What would be some of the possible issues and constraints found in this design, and how would they be resolved?” uncovered challenges related to computer literacy, time management, and equipment functionality. These challenges, while anticipated, were addressed with practical solutions and strategies that helped students and teachers navigate the music production curriculum effectively.

The shift from a traditional performance classroom to a music production environment introduced a learning curve for students unfamiliar with digital tools. Common issues included selecting the correct microphone permissions when prompted, adjusting, or deactivating the loop bar in Soundtrap (which caused playback issues), and aligning audio and MIDI tracks. To address these, procedural engagement strategies (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991) were employed to guide students step-by-step through essential processes, such as logging into software and navigating its basic features. Teachers played an active role in troubleshooting these challenges and referred students to additional resources to reinforce their learning.

Time constraints were another recurring issue, as class time was often limited due to traveling teachers needing to set up equipment and interruptions from external events. In many cases, a 40-min lesson effectively translated to just 30 min of instructional time, reducing opportunities for students to progress on their projects.

Space and accessibility also played a significant role in adapting the curriculum. Unlike traditional recording studios, modern setups allowed for flexibility in working spaces (Bell, 2014). Students could use headphones and work anywhere within the school, while teachers improvised by setting up makeshift studios in offices, libraries, and hallways.

Adapting the Music Production Curriculum to Current Provincial Standards

In the 2020s, music production has become an integral part of both the recording and performance process (Canfer, 2023). Popular artists and bands frequently use live digital effects and integrate computers into their stage setups, marking a shift from past norms where such practices were seen as intrusive (Zak, 2001). This evolution underscores the need for music educators to familiarize themselves with these tools and methods to better engage students and remain relevant to contemporary music practices (Green, 2008; E. S. Tobias, 2013; Wright et al., 2016).

The study demonstrated how music production skills can align with Ontario’s broad provincial curriculum expectations by translating performance-based terms into production concepts. For example, tracking involves timbre (recording desired tones), rhythm (aligning tracks), notes (pitch alignment), and tempo (setting speed). Similarly, mixing focuses on sound blending (volume), spatial arrangements (pan), pitch adjustment (EQ), dynamics (compression), and proximity effects like reverb and delay.

Adding to Music Education’s Understanding of Music Production in Elementary Schools

Initially, one teacher participant, Bradley, was skeptical about the capacity of primary students to engage in music production, but then reflected, “If students were doing this from grade three or four on and they were interested in this, what kind of producers would you have by the time they get older?” The students in this study not only met, but exceeded expectations, producing songs, and demonstrating foundational skills comparable to those observed at secondary and post-secondary levels (Clauhs et al., 2019; E. S. Tobias, 2015). These findings suggest that young students are fully capable of understanding and creatively applying core principles of music production.

Establishing a foundation in music production at the elementary level offers long-term advantages. Early exposure can prepare students for advanced music production programs at the secondary and post-secondary levels. By emulating production techniques used by popular artists, students also connected their classroom activities to real-world music practices, making their learning experience more relevant and engaging.

Implications/Future Research

This study’s findings indicate that elementary students are fully capable of engaging with music production, challenging assumptions that these skills are too advanced for younger learners. Integrating music production into the curriculum shifts the focus from traditional performance-based models to a more holistic and inclusive approach.

Importantly, teachers do not need extensive production backgrounds to implement these projects. By adopting a learner-centered model and utilizing accessible resources, educators can learn alongside their students, fostering a collaborative classroom dynamic. Incorporating production techniques into existing curricular goals modernizes music education without disrupting established frameworks. However, collaboration with industry professionals and educators with production expertise can offer valuable mentorship, technical guidance, and real-world connections that enhance both teacher confidence and student learning. This partnership model helps bridge gaps in production knowledge while maintaining an accessible and engaging classroom experience.

The findings also highlight the transformative potential of digital tools, enabling students to collaborate both synchronously and asynchronously. By embedding production activities within existing music programs, schools can create sustainable models that prepare students for future roles in the music industry. Even with limited resources, students can explore professional practices through DIY approaches and innovative teaching methods.

Future Implications

This study paves the way for research into music production at the primary level, an area with limited prior exploration. Further investigation is needed to refine teaching strategies, assess long-term impacts, and explore how early exposure influences secondary and post-secondary music education outcomes. By embracing music production as a vital component of music education, schools can prepare students for the realities of contemporary music creation, fostering both technical skills and artistic expression. I conclude this article with a medley of some of the students’ greatest hits (https://youtu.be/9pPM4nmLq1U).

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Johnny Touchette

Author Contributions

Johnny Touchette: Resources: Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Albert

D. J.

(2020). The classroom culture of a middle school music technology class. International Journal of Music Education, 38(3), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419881483

Allsup

(2008). Creating an educational framework for popular music in public schools: Anticipating the second-wave. Visions of Research in Music Education, 12(2), 1–12.

Allsup

R. E.

(2015). Another perspective: Our “both/and” moment. Music Educators Journal, 102, 85–86. https://doi.org/10.11770027432115613327

Anthony

(2023). Music production cultures: Perspectives on popular music pedagogy in higher education. Routledge.

Bell

A. P.

(2013). Oblivious trailblazers: Case studies of the role of recording technology in the music-making processes of amateur home studio users. (Publication No. 3553941) [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Bell

A. P.

(2014). Trial-by-fire: A case study of the musician–engineer hybrid role in the home studio. Journal of Music Technology and Education, 7(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.7.3.295_1

Bell

A. P.

(2016). The process of production the production of process: The studio as instrument and popular music pedagogy. In Wright

Younker

B. A.

Beynon

(Eds.), 21st century music education: Informal learning and non-formal teaching approaches in school and community contexts (pp. 243–262). Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Bell

A. P.

(2018). Dawn of the DAW: The studio as musical instrument. Oxford University Press.

Bell

A. P.

(2020). The music technology cookbook: Ready-made recipes for the classroom. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197523889.001.0001

10.

Bernstein

(2003). Class, codes, and control: Vol. 4. Routledge.

11.

Beyt

(2022, June 3). Empowering students to get their music out into the world: Incorporating the technological imperative into existing music curricula (Conference presentation ed.). Association of Popular Music Education.

12.

Blackwell

(2013). Music education, recording technology, and the illusion of perfection. GEMS, 6(4), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.5561/5087

13.

Burns

A. M.

(2020). Using technology with elementary music approaches. Oxford University Press.

14.

Cain

(2013). “Passing it on:” Beyond formal or informal pedagogies. Music Education Research, 15(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.752803

15.

Canfer

(2023). Music technology in live performance: Tools, techniques, and interaction. Routledge.

16.

Cayari

(2021). Popular practices for online musicking and performance: Developing creative dispositions for music education and the internet. Journal of Popular Music Education, 5(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00018_1

17.

Clauhs

Franco

Cremata

(2019). Mixing it up: Sound recording and music production in school music programs. Music Educators Journal, 106(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119856085

18.

Clauhs

Powell

Clements

A. C.

(2021). Popular music pedagogies: A practical guide for music teachers. Routledge.

19.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

K. (Keith R. B.)

(Eds.). (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

20.

Comte

Lenzer

(1998). Auguste Comte and positivism: The essential writings. Transaction.

21.

Conway

Pellegrino

West

(2015). Case study research in music education. Music Education Faculty Publications and Presentations. https://digitalcommons.ithaca.edu/mused_faculty_pubs/6

22.

Corey

(2012). Audio production and critical listening: Technical ear training. Taylor & Francis.

23.

Corwin. (2021, November 1) . Leading 5 generations in your school with Mark White | Corwin leaders coaching leaders podcast. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKQQPckvSs

24.

Cremata

Powell

(2017). Online music collaboration project: Digitally mediated, deterritorialized music education. International Journal of Music Education, 35(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415620225

25.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(Eds.). (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

26.

Diéguez

D. V.

(2017). Should I stay or should I go? A survival guide for punk graduate students. In Smith

G. D.

Dines

Parkinson

(Eds.), Punk pedagogies: Music, culture, and learning (pp. 43–56). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276250

27.

Emo

(2022). Ableton Live professional learning development for secondary school music teachers. Journal of Music Technology and Education, 14(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00033_1

28.

Evans

(2019). “Deeper than rap”: Cultivating racial identity and critical voices through hip-hop recording practices in the music classroom. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 11(3), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2019-11-3-3

29.

Finlay

Gough

(2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Blackwell Science.

30.

Freedman

(2013). Teaching music through composition: A curriculum using technology. Oxford University Press.

31.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.

32.

Giroux

H. A.

(1978). Developing educational programs: Overcoming the hidden curriculum. Clearing House, 52(4), 148–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1978.10113565

33.

Giroux

H. A.

(2006). Academic freedom under fire: The case for critical pedagogy. College Literature, 33(4), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2006.0051

34.

Green

(2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Ashgate.

35.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate.

36.

Hjorth

Horst

H. A.

Galloway

Bell

(2017). The Routledge companion to digital ethnography. Routledge.

37.

Hodgson

(2019). Understanding records: A field guide to recording practice. Zed.

38.

Howard

V. A.

(2012). Must music education have an aim? In Bowman

Frega

A. L.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music education (pp. 249–262). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394733.013.0014

39.

Izhaki

(Ed.). (2023). Mixing audio: Concepts, practices, and tools (4th ed.). Routledge.

40.

Kafara

(2017). “Here we are now, educate us”: The punk attitude, tenets, and lens of student-driven learning. In Smith

G. D.

Dines

Parkinson

(Eds.), Punk pedagogies: Music, culture, and learning (pp. 109–127). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276250

41.

Keengwe

Onchwari

(2016). Employing active learning and the flipped classroom model in developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. In Keengwe

Onchwari

(Eds.), Handbook of research on active learning and the flipped classroom model in the digital age (pp. 272–285). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9680-8.ch014

42.

Keengwe

Onchwari

Oigara

J. N.

(Eds.) (2014). Promoting active learning through the flipped classroom model. Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4987-3

43.

King

(2021, May 26). Punk pedagogy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIU0oNVzQiI

44.

Kladder

(2019). The non-traditional secondary music performance class. In Kladder

J. R.

Williams

D. A.

(Eds.), The learner-centered music classroom: Models and possibilities (pp. 141–160). Routledge.

45.

Kuhn

Hein

(2021). Electronic music school: A contemporary approach to teaching musical creativity. Oxford University Press.

46.

Lewin

(1946). Action research and minority problems. In Lewin

G. W.

(Ed.), Resolving social conflicts (pp. 201–216). Harper & Row.

47.

Lynch

(2016, November 19). Social constructivism in education. The edvocate. https://www.theedadvocate.org/social-constructivism-in-education/

48.

McArton

(2023). How unpopular musicians live: Complex leisure careers in Toronto’s indie scene (Publication No. 30687324) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

49.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(Eds.). (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

50.

Ministry of Education and Training. (2009). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1-8: The arts. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/arts18b09curr.pdf

51.

Mok

H. N.

(2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom. Journal of Information and Systems in Education, 25(1), 7–11.

52.

Mulligan

(2015). Awakening: The music industry in the digital age. MIDiA Research.

53.

Niknafs

(2017). “Khas-o-Khâshâk”: Anarcho-improv in the Tehrani music education scene. In Smith

G. D.

Dines

Parkinson

(Eds.), Punk pedagogies: Music, culture, and learning (pp. 30–42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276250-3

54.

Nystrand

Gamoran

(1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.

55.

Oltheten

(2018). Mixing with impact learning to make musical choices. Routledge.

56.

Pendergast

(2021). Creative music-making with digital audio workstations. Music Educators Journal, 108(2), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321211060310

57.

Pink

Horst

Postill

Hjorth

Lewis

Tacchi

(2015). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage.

58.

Ruthmann

(2007). The composers’ workshop: An approach to composing in the classroom the way writing teachers approach composition can illuminate how we teach composing. Music Educators Journal, 93(4), 38–43.

59.

Seabrook

(2015). The song machine: Inside the hit factory. Norton.

60.

Smith

G. D.

Dines

Parkinson

(Eds.) (2017). Punk pedagogies: Music, culture, and learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276250

61.

Stake

R. E.

(2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.

62.

Stefanic

(2019). The music technology class. In Kladder

J. R.

Williams

D. A.

(Eds.), The learner-centered music classroom: Models and possibilities (pp. 19–37). Routledge.

63.

Tobias

(2010). Crossfading and plugging in: Secondary students’ engagement and learning in a songwriting and technology class (Publication No. 3402496) [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

64.

Tobias

E. S.

(2013). Composing, songwriting, and producing: Informing popular music pedagogy. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(2), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x13487466

65.

Tobias

E. S.

(2015). Crossfading music education: Connections between secondary students’ in- and out-of-school music experience. International Journal of Music Education, 33(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515809

66.

Underberg

N. M.

Zorn

(2013). Digital ethnography: Anthropology, narrative, and new media. University of Texas Press.

67.

Vasil

(2015). Integrating popular music and informal music learning practices: A multiple case study of secondary school music teachers enacting change in music Education. (Publication No. 3743553) [Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

68.

Volk

T. M.

(2007). Anne Shaw Faulkner Oberndorfer (1877–1948): Music educator for the homemakers of America. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 29(1), 26–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215331

69.

Warner

(2003). Pop music: Technology and creativity: Trevor horn and the digital revolution. Ashgate.

70.

Watson

(2011). Using technology to unlock musical creativity [electronic resource]. Oxford University Press.

71.

Weimer

(2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Jossey-Bass.

72.

Williams

D. A.

Kladder

J. R.

(Eds.) (2019). The learner-centered music classroom: Models and possibilities. Routledge. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.4324/9780429261510

73.

Williams

D. B.

(2007, April). Reaching the “other 80%”: Using technology to engage “nontraditional music students” in creative activities. Paper prepared for the proceedings of the Tanglewood II “Technology and Music Education” Symposium, University of Minnesota.

74.

Wright

Beynon

Younker

B. A.

(Eds.) (2016). 21st century music education: Informal learning and non-formal teaching approaches in school and community contexts. Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

75.

Xiaorui

(2023). The evolution of the music industry in the digital age: From records to streaming. Journal of Sociology and Ethnology, 5, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.23977/jsoce.2023.051002

76.

Yin

R. K.

Campbell

D. T.

(Eds.). (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

77.

Zak

(2001). The poetics of rock: Cutting tracks, making records. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520928152

Well DAW! That’s Why I Don’t Sound Like the Recording: Teacher Perspectives on Music Production in Elementary Schools

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Critical Pedagogy

Informal Learning

Punk Pedagogy

Purpose Statement and Research Question

Methodology

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Participants

Types of Data

Analysis

Findings and Discussions

The Roles of Industry Professionals, Teachers, and Students

Industry Professionals

Elementary School Teachers

Elementary School Students

Blending of Roles

Roles While Actively Engaged in the Classroom

Troubleshooting

Adapting the Music Production Curriculum to Current Provincial Standards

Adding to Music Education’s Understanding of Music Production in Elementary Schools

Implications/Future Research

Future Implications

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

References