Elementary Music Teachers’ Implementation of General Music Approaches and Perceptions of Preparation to Teach Elementary Music

Abstract

This descriptive study examined elementary music teachers’ perceptions of their preparation and implementation of general music approaches. Missouri elementary music teachers (N = 142) participated via email survey. Kodály and Orff Schulwerk were most frequently implemented, accounting for the greatest classroom time allocation, yet most teachers lacked formal credentials in these approaches. Teachers felt most prepared to teach singing and least prepared for improvisation and composition. Orff Schulwerk training was associated with significantly higher confidence in teaching improvisation and composition, whereas participants with Kodály training reported higher levels of confidence for teaching listening. Teachers demonstrated strong confidence for teaching traditional activities (singing, instrument playing) but lower preparedness for creative pedagogy and pedagogical approaches, possibly suggesting gaps in teacher preparation. Responses to open-ended questions revealed participants perceived that their preparation programs emphasized secondary over elementary music education. These teachers reported pursuing continued professional development through workshops and training to strengthen their elementary music expertise.

Keywords

general music elementary music music education teacher perception general music approaches

Introduction

Elementary general music education is the first formal music education experience that most children in the United States receive. According to the National Arts Education Status Report (2019), 90.5% of elementary students had access to music education, which included general music. In the American K-12 education system, general music “refers to a specific facet of the school curriculum designed to meet diverse music learning goals” (Abril, 2016, p. 5), and it differs from performance- and ensemble-based music education. General music develops all students’ basic musicianship despite their previous musical backgrounds and training (Abril, 2016). Although the term may seem broad and unspecific, students in general music classes typically learn music from a wide range of experiences, not limited to, but including singing, instrument playing, movement, listening, improvisation, composition, and historical/cultural context. General music provides comprehensive music training that serves as a foundation for more focused music instruction, and it fosters students’ lifelong musicianship (Vasil, 2023).

General music education is essential for elementary students for a variety of reasons, in addition to the musical benefits. It fosters students’ interdisciplinary creativity and offers benefits to their social, emotional, and academic growth (Della Pietra et al., 2010; Hallam, 2010; Schellenberg, 2004). Recognition of music education’s comprehensive developmental benefits has long positioned it as essential to well-rounded curricula that meet society’s evolving demands (Laiho, 2004; McSwain, 1954). The National Core Arts Standards (National Association for Music Education [NAfME], 2014) formalize this holistic approach by organizing music instruction around four fundamental categories: Creating (generating and improvising musical ideas through composing and arranging), Performing (selecting, rehearsing, and presenting works with technical proficiency and expressive intent), Responding (analyzing and evaluating musical elements and structure), and Connecting (relating music to other disciplines, cultures, and daily life). These standards reflect the multifaceted nature of music education and its integration across developmental domains.

Although there is no federal law requiring the implementation of the National Core Arts Standards (NAfME, 2014), these standards provide a general framework for all states. States may either adopt the national standards or develop their own. Nolan (2009) surveyed elementary music teachers across the United States and found that more than 81% of teachers planned their lessons with the guidance of their state standards. Furthermore, the majority of elementary music teachers have been found to connect music with other school subjects in teaching, including, for instance, language arts, math, social studies, science, and history (Byo, 1999; Nolan, 2009).

General Music Approaches

For the purposes of this study, general music approaches are defined as pedagogical systems that offer specific training programs, certification processes, and established communities of practice that guide teachers’ instructional decision-making and classroom implementation (Abril, 2016). Various approaches to teaching general music have emerged over time. The three methodologies often considered the most influential are Orff Schulwerk, developed by German composer and music educator Carl Orff (1895–1982); the Kodály approach, established by Hungarian composer Zoltán Kodály (1882–1967); and Dalcroze Eurhythmics, originated by Swiss composer and educator Émile Jaques-Dalcroze (1865–1950) (Beegle & Bond, 2016; Gault, 2016; Juntunen, 2016; Mynatt, 2018). Although similar in some respects, each approach comes with its own set of philosophies and emphasis.

There are other well-established approaches that meet this definition, including but not limited to Gordon’s Music Learning Theory (The Gordon Institute for Music Learning, n.d.) and Feierabend’s First Steps in Music and Conversational Solfege (Feierabend Association for Music Education, n.d.). It is important to acknowledge that general music curricula are also widely available through commercial online packages such as Musicplay, McGraw Hill, QuaverMusic, Essential Elements Music Class, and others. While these resources are commercially viable and utilized by numerous educators, they do not fit the operational definition used in this study because they primarily function as curriculum resources rather than comprehensive pedagogical approaches with associated training programs and philosophical frameworks.

Orff Schulwerk

Orff Schulwerk represents a child-centered, process-oriented approach that integrates music with movement, speech, singing, instrument playing, and drama, offering children holistic educational experiences through natural behaviors and play (Shamrock, 1997). The approach’s versatility and inclusiveness enable children to create music and express themselves artistically regardless of their previous musical knowledge (Özevin, 2018). Research has consistently demonstrated Orff Schulwerk’s effectiveness in fostering student engagement and creativity. Students taught through Orff Schulwerk have shown significantly higher interest, positive attitudes, and enjoyment in rhythmic activities, singing, and creative music activities compared with those receiving traditional instruction, although traditional approaches yielded stronger results in standardized achievement tests and classical music appreciation (Siemens, 1969). The approach’s emphasis on rhythmic development has proven particularly effective, with beginning band students receiving Orff-based instruction demonstrating significantly higher overall rhythmic achievement than those with traditional band instruction (Mason, 2012). In addition, Orff-inspired lessons have been shown to enhance musical abilities and auditory processing skills among students with special needs and intellectual disabilities more effectively than traditional reproductive approaches (Senkal & Muhtar, 2021; Vančová & Osvaldová, 2019).

Orff Schulwerk training appears to influence teachers’ instructional practices and confidence in meaningful ways. Teachers with Orff Schulwerk training have reported that the approach enhanced their overall teaching effectiveness and increased student engagement in music making and creative activities (Williamson, 2011). The level of training has been found to correlate with instructional priorities, as teachers with more advanced Schulwerk training were found to have devoted significantly more time to playing, creating, and movement activities while facilitating greater student participation in musical decision-making processes (Sogin & Wang, 2008). However, assessment challenges within the approach have been identified, including insufficient clarity in defined teaching practices, minimal emphasis on evaluation, and inherent difficulties in assessing student creativity (Johnson, 2019). While expert music teachers can assess students informally through continuous dialogic interactions and daily participation observations (Ruiz-Primo, 2011), questions remain about how effectively teachers without specialized training implement these assessment strategies and whether formal certification influences teachers’ confidence in teaching creative activities.

The Kodály Approach

The Kodály approach emphasizes children’s sight-singing ability using movable-do and the solfege-syllable system, with strong emphasis on folk music (Hooker, 2014). Since its introduction to the United States in the 1960s, the approach has become widely integrated into elementary music education, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s when educational reform efforts focused on accountability and national standards aligned with Kodály’s core principles of singing, music literacy, and aural skills (Sheridan, 2019). The approach promotes disciplinary literacy by systematically helping students decode and understand music sounds and symbology within developmentally appropriate frameworks, utilizing folk music’s familiarity and simplicity to facilitate musical understanding in ways similar to language decoding (Dunbar & Cooper, 2020). Research has demonstrated that students in Kodály-based classes showed significant improvements in distinguishing sounds, recognizing intervals, and performing rhythmic and melodic patterns, while the approach fostered positive emotions toward music education that made learning more engaging and memorable (Soykunt et al., 2023). Beyond musical skills, Kodály-inspired programs have positively influenced both cognitive development, such as numeracy and literacy, and non-cognitive development, including social-emotional growth and creativity in young children (See & Ibbotson, 2018).

Despite the Kodály approach’s widespread implementation and documented student benefits, little is known about how teachers’ formal training in the approach relates to their instructional confidence and classroom practices. A possible disconnect between the approach’s popularity and teachers’ actual preparation raises questions about whether teachers implement Kodály principles based on comprehensive training or limited exposure during undergraduate coursework. Understanding the relationship between Kodály certification and teachers’ confidence in specific instructional areas, particularly listening and aural skills, where the approach emphasizes systematic development, may inform teacher preparation and professional development initiatives.

Dalcroze Eurythmics

Dalcroze Eurhythmics consists of three core elements: movement-based musical training (eurhythmics), ear training and sight singing (solfege), and spontaneous musical creation (improvisation) (Anderson, 2012). Developed in the early 20th century after Dalcroze observed students performing music and rhythms mechanically rather than musically, the approach emphasizes kinesthetic learning through the relationship between music and movement (Anderson, 2012; Juntunen, 2016). Eurhythmics, the most influential component in general music settings, allows students to internalize rhythm and aspects of expression through bodily experience before intellectual analysis, incorporating activities such as canons, quick-response exercises, and partner work that progress from introverted to extroverted movement experiences (Anderson, 2012; Landis & Carder, 1990). Research has demonstrated the approach’s effectiveness in developing coordination skills, with students showing improved ability to maintain steady beat and enhanced meter competency after training, although pitch performance has not shown similar improvements (Berger, 1999; Ismail et al., 2023; Rose, 1995). The approach’s emphasis on physical coordination and kinesthetic awareness extends beyond music education, as exercise interventions incorporating Dalcroze principles have significantly decreased fall risk among older adults (Adamczyk et al., 2020, 2022; Ferguson-Stegall et al., 2017; Hars et al., 2025).

With only eight accredited Dalcroze training institutions nationally, concentrated on the East Coast (Training Programs, n.d.), compared with the broader availability of Orff (47 programs) and Kodály (35 locations) training, this limited geographic distribution may influence implementation patterns in elementary music classrooms. Understanding how training accessibility relates to classroom practice may inform efforts to expand professional development opportunities and support teachers in providing comprehensive movement-based music experiences for students.

Music Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparation to Teach Elementary Music

Research has revealed music teachers’ concerns about their preparedness to teach elementary general music, with many wishing they had received more comprehensive preparation in this area (Conway, 2002). Music teacher certification varies considerably across the United States, with most states certifying preservice teachers in K-12 Music and only two states (South Dakota and Wyoming) offering specialized elementary music certification (NAfME, n.d.). Despite identifying general music method courses as among the most valuable components of their preparation programs, teachers have indicated that their undergraduate training emphasized choral and instrumental music over elementary approaches, and that their student teaching experiences focused primarily on ensemble teaching rather than diverse elementary settings (Conway, 2012, 2022; Smith, 2023). Preservice music teachers have demonstrated limited confidence in their knowledge of pedagogical approaches, with participants in one study rating their knowledge an average of only 2.68 out of 5, even while recognizing the importance of general music education to students’ future musical success (Reese et al., 2024). The challenge of transitioning from ensemble-focused preparation to elementary general music teaching was found to be particularly evident among instrumental music education majors, who reported initially feeling unprepared and overwhelmed despite recognizing that elementary general music offers creative opportunities and better work-life balance (Kuebel, 2019). These findings underscore gaps between teacher preparation program emphases and the realities of elementary general music teaching assignments.

Need for the Study

Teachers may utilize diverse pedagogical approaches when delivering instruction across various contexts, because different methods provide different advantages and emphases. Individual teachers’ implementation of these approaches may be influenced by their professional preparation and training background, but there is little research evidence regarding elementary music teachers’ perceptions of these general music approaches. Thus, the purpose of this study was to learn about current elementary general music teachers’ practices and attitudes. Having these data may help music teacher educators consider their curricula and whether they need to be revised and improved. The findings may assist teacher preparation programs to better prepare all preservice teachers in general music approaches; those whose intention is to teach elementary general music, and those who may later choose to teach at that level. The results of this study also may provide guidance regarding professional development needs for in-service teachers.

The following research questions guided the study:

Research Question 1: What general music approaches do in-service elementary music teachers implement, and to what extent?

Research Question 2: What general music certifications are most commonly obtained by elementary general music teachers?

Research Question 3: How well do music teachers perceive that they were prepared to teach various aspects of elementary music content?

Research Question 4: Do elementary music teachers’ confidence levels differ based on their pedagogical certifications?

Method

Respondents

Respondents were in-service elementary music teachers from Missouri (N = 142). My 5 years of teaching experience in Missouri and current doctoral studies in the state informed this purposive sampling decision. Email addresses were obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, yielding 1,182 valid recipients after removing duplicates and inactive addresses. Of those, 150 responded, and 142 provided usable data, resulting in a response rate of 12.01%.

Design and Procedure

Following Institutional Review Board approval, the survey instrument underwent expert review by a music education professor and pilot testing with in-service elementary music teachers from a mid-sized Missouri city (N = 11) to enhance content validity and feasibility (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Pilot study feedback informed several revisions: adding an “other elementary approaches” category to the preparedness question, incorporating a new 6-point Likert-type question assessing teachers’ current confidence levels in teaching different aspects of elementary music, and modifying the time allocation question to require responses totaling 100%. Pilot study participants were not included in the final survey distribution.

Upon accessing the survey via the link included in the recruitment email, participants encountered an informed consent statement explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights as participants. Participants provided consent by clicking an “I agree” button to proceed to the survey questions; those who declined were thanked and exited the survey. Responses were collected anonymously, with no identifying information linked to survey data. One reminder email was sent 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

The survey contained demographic questions, 6-point Likert-type questions designed based on The National Core Arts Standard (NAfME, 2014), and open-ended questions. The 6-point scale was selected to eliminate a neutral midpoint option, thereby requiring respondents to indicate a directional tendency (Garland, 1991). This approach was particularly appropriate for this study because teachers’ perceptions of their preparation have direct implications for instructional practice, and avoiding neutral responses provides more actionable data for teacher education programs. Likert-type questions were on a scale from (1) very unprepared to (6) very prepared concerning how well teachers felt they were prepared on the following: Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, other elementary approaches, teaching singing, instrument playing, moving, listening, improvisation and composing, and connecting with other school subjects. Teachers’ confidence was also measured with Likert-type questions from (1) very unconfident to (6) very confident. Internal consistency reliability for both scales was excellent: preparedness (α = .93, 10 items, n = 116) and confidence (α = .90, 10 items, n = 116). At the end of the survey, respondents were asked for additional comments and thoughts regarding their perceptions of their teacher preparation and teaching elementary general music. See the Appendix (online supplemental material) for the complete set of survey items.

Results

Respondents held diverse teaching certifications, with half (50.70%) certified in K-12 Vocal music and more than one third holding K-12 All Music certification (37.32%) (see Table 1). The majority (76.06%) had completed traditional music education undergraduate programs, and most held bachelor’s degrees (55.63%) or master’s degrees in music education (35.92%). No respondents held educational specialist or doctoral degrees in music education.

Table 1.

Respondent Teaching Certifications and Preparation Backgrounds.

Characteristic	n	%
Teaching certification ^a
K-12 Vocal	72	50.70
K-12 All Music	53	37.32
K-12 Instrumental	48	33.80
Other	17	11.97
Preparation route
Traditional music education undergraduate	108	76.06
Alternative certification	17	11.97
Post-baccalaureate or master’s program	12	8.45
Music performance undergraduate	5	3.52
Highest degree attained
Bachelor’s in music education	79	55.63
Master’s in music education	51	35.92
Bachelor’s or advanced degree outside music education	12	8.45
Educational specialist or doctoral degree	0	0.00

Respondents could select multiple certification categories; percentages exceed 100%.

Respondents averaged 11.10 years (SD = 8.50) teaching elementary general music, but brought diverse teaching backgrounds to their current positions. As shown in Table 2, more than half had previously taught middle school vocal music (54.93%) or high school vocal music (52.11%), while substantial proportions had secondary instrumental music experience (45.77% for middle school and 42.96% for high school). Nearly one quarter (24.65%) had taught other subjects or provided private music lessons before transitioning to elementary music teaching. This pattern reveals that most elementary general music teachers in this sample had prior experience in secondary music settings.

Table 2.

Respondent Prior Teaching Experience.

Prior teaching experience	n	%
Middle school vocal music	78	54.93
High school vocal music	74	52.11
Middle school instrumental music	65	45.77
High school instrumental music	61	42.96
Other subjects or private lessons	35	24.65

Note. Respondents could indicate multiple prior teaching experiences; percentages exceed 100%.

Implementation of General Music Approaches

Of the 142 respondents, 116 (81.70%) completed the pedagogical time allocation section of the survey. Participants were asked to estimate the average percentage of time they spent over the course of a school year using each approach when teaching elementary music. Kodály and Orff Schulwerk dominated classroom implementation, with 89 teachers (76.72%) using each approach and allocating the largest shares of instructional time to them (Kodály: M_{time spent} = 33.00%, SD = 28.71, range: 5%–100%); Orff Schulwerk: M_{time spent} = 29.88%, SD = 27.64, range: 5%–100%). Dalcroze was used by 46 teachers (39.66%) for minimal time (M_{time spent} = 6.76%, SD = 11.45, range: 5%–60%). Notably, 57 teachers (49.14%) reported using additional methodologies beyond the three specified approaches, with these collectively accounting for substantial instructional time (M_{time spent} = 30.36%, SD = 26.52). Among written-in approaches, Feierabend was used by 10 teachers who devoted considerable time to it (M_{time spent} = 36.00%, SD = 25.57), whereas World Music Drumming was reported by two teachers (M_{time spent} = 10.00%, SD = 5.00). Some respondents also referenced commercial curriculum packages such as MusicPlay Online, QuaverMusic, and Game Plan.

Participants were given a list of general music activities and asked to estimate the percentage of time spent on each during a typical school year. Missouri teachers devoted the most time to singing (M_{time spent} = 33.16%, SD = 12.91), followed by instrument playing (M_{time spent} = 20.40%, SD = 10.14), moving (M_{time spent} = 19.87%, SD = 9.39), listening (M_{time spent} = 11.39%, SD = 6.48), improvising and composing (M_{time spent} = 7.64%, SD = 5.23), and connecting music with other school subjects (M_{time spent} = 7.55%, SD = 5.90).

General Music Certifications

Despite Kodály and Orff Schulwerk being the most frequently implemented approaches, the majority of teachers lacked formal training in either methodology (see Table 3). No respondents possessed Dalcroze credentials, and few held certifications in other pedagogical approaches.

Table 3.

Pedagogical Approach Training and Certification Levels.

Approach	No training	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3
Approach	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Orff Schulwerk	109 (76.76)	15 (10.56)	5 (3.52)	13 (9.15)
Kodály	116 (81.69)	12 (8.45)	5 (3.52)	9 (6.34)
Dalcroze Eurhythmics	142 (100.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)
Other Approaches	127 (89.44)	—	—	15 (10.56)^a

Other approaches include Music Learning Theory, Conversational Solfège, First Steps, and World Music Drumming; specific level information was not collected for these certifications.

Perceived Preparation to Teach Elementary Music Content

Teachers reported strong preparedness for traditional musical activities (singing, instrument playing, listening) but lower preparedness for creative pedagogy (improvisation and composition) and for all pedagogical approaches. There was a noticeable contrast between high confidence in most music activities (M > 4.40) and moderate-to-low confidence in approaches (M < 3.25) and creative activities (M = 3.39) and integration (M = 3.78) (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Teacher Preparedness Ratings for Pedagogical Approaches and Musical Activities.

Content area	M	SD
Pedagogical approaches
Another elementary approach or method	3.24	1.30
Kodály	3.09	1.57
Orff Schulwerk	2.81	1.54
Dalcroze Eurhythmics	2.05	1.09
Musical activities
Singing	4.79	1.08
Instrument playing	4.53	1.37
Listening	4.41	1.29
Movement	4.08	1.35
Connecting music with other subjects	3.78	1.40
Improvisation and composition	3.39	1.47

Note. Ratings based on a 6-point Likert-type scale: 1 = very unprepared, 6 = very prepared.

Confidence Levels Based on Pedagogical Certifications

Simple linear regression analyses revealed that Orff training significantly predicted confidence in teaching improvisation and composition, b = .73, SE = .24, t(114) = 3.05, p = .003, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.26, 1.21], accounting for a small percentage of the variance (7.6%, R² = .076). Teachers with Orff training reported substantially higher confidence (M = 5.00, SD = 1.17) than those without training (M = 4.27, SD = 1.17). No significant effects were found for moving, singing, instrument playing, listening, or connecting music with other subjects (all p values > .066).

Kodály training significantly predicted confidence in teaching listening (b = .45, SE = .21, p = .036, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.86]), although the effect size was small (R² = .038). No significant effects emerged for the remaining five instructional domains (all p values > .131). Teachers with Orff training reported higher confidence in teaching improvisation and composition, whereas those with Kodály training reported higher confidence for teaching listening.

Qualitative Findings

At the survey’s conclusion, respondents provided open-ended comments about their teacher preparation experiences and current teaching contexts. There was a total of 131 comments provided by 72 respondents. Comments were collected and analyzed using an inductive approach (Thomas, 2003) facilitated by QCAmap (n.d.) qualitative analysis software. Responses were reviewed iteratively in relation to the research questions, and patterns identified that emerged from the data, rather than applying predetermined frameworks. Four primary themes emerged that directly address Research Question 3 (preparation perceptions) and provide context for understanding Research Questions 1, 2, and 4 (implementation patterns, training levels, and confidence differences).

Insufficient Elementary Music Coursework

The most frequent theme (n = 22 comments) addressed inadequate elementary music preparation in undergraduate programs. Teachers consistently reported that their programs emphasized secondary ensemble instruction, with one noting, “There is a huge imbalance in the preparation for general music and the preparation for instrument education in undergrad. There should be more than one class for general music.” Multiple respondents made statements similar to this: “one class in elementary music, this is not enough.”

Student Teaching Experiences

Teachers emphasized the critical importance yet limited scope of their student teaching placements. Many reported only one semester of student teaching, with placements exclusively in middle or high school ensemble settings. Several noted they “learned the most about teaching music during student teaching.”

Value of Orff and Kodály Training

Twenty-one comments addressed specialized approach training, with teachers expressing enthusiastic support for professional development opportunities. One participant wrote that “the BEST training by far has been completing my Orff Schulwerk Levels. I also have one level of Kodály, which helps to integrate the method into my practice.” Many expressed wishes for more education in these approaches and intentions to pursue certification. Notably, several teachers without formal credentials reported implementing Orff and Kodály frequently.

Classroom Management Challenges

Eight comments addressed classroom management difficulties, an area teachers reported feeling unprepared to handle despite its critical importance. One veteran teacher noted, “It has CHANGED at least three times during my 21 years as a music teacher. The accountability that students and parents take has declined basically every seven years.” Another wrote, “I struggle with classroom management and buy-in with older kids a.k.a participation.” Although classroom management was not directly addressed in the survey questions, this theme emerged from participant responses.

Discussion and Implications

This study investigated Missouri elementary music teachers’ perceptions of common general music approaches and their preparation to teach elementary general music. The findings reveal important patterns regarding approach implementation, training disparities, and preparation gaps that have implications for teacher education and professional development.

Implementation Patterns and Teacher Training

Responses to Research Question 1 indicated that Kodály and Orff Schulwerk dominated classroom implementation, accounting for the largest shares of participants’ instructional time. This finding aligns with previous research (Mynatt, 2018) and confirms these approaches’ continued prominence in elementary music education. However, the substantial presence of alternative methodologies written in by respondents, collectively representing the second-most implemented category, suggests that many of these Missouri teachers are creating eclectic combinations of multiple methods beyond the three traditional approaches examined in this study. The inclusion of commercial curriculum resources (MusicPlay Online, QuaverMusic, Game Plan) in some responses highlights a conceptual difference between pedagogical approaches as comprehensive philosophical frameworks and curriculum materials as instructional resources. Teacher preparation programs may benefit from explicitly distinguishing between pedagogical philosophy and curriculum materials to help future teachers understand their respective roles in planning and instruction.

Findings from Research Question 2 demonstrated a concerning disconnect: while Kodály and Orff Schulwerk dominated implementation among these Missouri teachers, 81.69% of participants lacked Kodály training and 76.76% had no Orff credentials. According to these data, participants may be implementing these approaches based on limited undergraduate exposure, informal professional development, or potentially an incomplete understanding of core principles. This disconnect between implementation and formal training raises questions about how these teachers learn and apply these methodologies in practice. The absence of any Dalcroze-trained teachers among participants, combined with minimal implementation of this approach, likely reflects limited training accessibility—only eight accredited institutions nationally, concentrated on the East Coast (Training Programs, n.d.), compared with broader availability of Orff (47 programs) and Kodály (35 locations) training.

Music teacher preparation programs might consider providing more comprehensive exposure to pedagogical approaches, including authentic hands-on experience with their core principles. In addition, the field may need to explore alternative training models, as current programs typically require at least 2 weeks of intensive, expensive in-person instruction that may be prohibitive for many teachers.

Teaching Background and Instructional Priorities

The pattern observed in participant backgrounds revealed important context for understanding preparation gaps. Most elementary general music teachers in this sample had prior experience in secondary music settings, with more than half having taught middle or high school vocal music and substantial proportions having secondary instrumental music experience. This pattern aligns with concerns about preparation program emphases on ensemble-based instruction over elementary general music (Conway, 2012, 2022; Smith, 2023).

Participants’ instructional time allocation provides additional insight into current practices. Singing received the highest time allocation, followed by instrument playing, moving, listening, improvising and composing, and connecting music with other school subjects. The low allocation to improvisation and composition (7.64%), combined with participants’ lowest preparedness rating in this area, suggests these teachers may be prioritizing foundational skills over creative pedagogy, potentially creating a problematic cycle where teachers feel unprepared, allocate minimal time to these activities, and students receive limited exposure to creative music-making despite the National Core Arts Standards’ emphasis on creating as a fundamental category (NAfME, 2014).

Preparation Gaps and Confidence Patterns

Responses to Research Question 3 indicated that these teachers felt well-prepared to teach traditional activities (singing M = 4.79; instrument playing M = 4.53) but demonstrated lower preparedness for improvisation and composition (M = 3.39) and all pedagogical approaches (all M < 3.25). The noticeable contrast between high confidence in most music activities and moderate-to-low confidence in approaches and creative activities suggests systematic gaps in teacher preparation programs. This contrast indicates that while teacher preparation programs successfully develop competencies in foundational musical skills, they may provide insufficient training in creative pedagogy and pedagogical methodologies. Teacher preparation programs might consider expanding coursework and field experiences focused on creative pedagogy and assessment strategies for improvisation and composition.

The qualitative data provided crucial context for these patterns and helped explain why many of these teachers reported low preparedness ratings for pedagogical approaches (Research Question 3) despite implementing them in classrooms (Research Question 1). The teachers repeatedly commented that their preparation programs emphasized secondary music over elementary approaches, with one participant noting that “one class in elementary music, this is not enough.” Many reported that student teaching focused exclusively on middle or high school ensemble settings, leaving them unprepared for elementary general music responsibilities. Several noted they “learned the most about teaching music during student teaching,” highlighting the disconnect between valuing this experience and its actual availability in elementary contexts. These comments align with previous research (Conway, 2012, 2022; Kuebel, 2019) and suggest systematic issues in program design that directly connect to the preparation gaps identified in Research Question 3 and help explain why these teachers lack confidence in pedagogical approaches despite later implementing them.

It was notable that classroom management emerged as a concern in participant comments, despite not being directly addressed in the survey questions. This suggests that there may be additional preparation gaps beyond pedagogical content knowledge that need attention in teacher education programs and further investigation.

Value of Specialized Training

Analysis of Research Question 4 showed that specialized training associates with higher confidence in targeted areas aligned with each approach’s emphasis among these Missouri teachers. Orff training was significantly associated with increased confidence in teaching improvisation and composition, with trained teachers reporting substantially higher confidence (M = 5.00) than teachers who did not have the training (M = 4.27). These findings suggest that Missouri teachers perceived higher confidence in specific areas aligned with Orff Schulwerk’s philosophical emphasis on creative music-making and aligns with research demonstrating student benefits from Orff-based creative activities (Elkoshi, 2023; Siemens, 1969; Zachopoulou et al., 2003).

Kodály training showed a small but significant association with listening confidence, potentially reflecting the approach’s systematic focus on aural skills development. These findings suggest that specialized training is associated with higher teacher confidence in areas aligned with Kodály’s philosophical emphasis, although this interpretation requires caution, given the minimal effect size and the broad scope of elementary music listening beyond sight-singing preparation.

Teachers’ positive comments about Orff and Kodály training in the qualitative data underscore the value they place on specialized professional development, with one participant describing Orff levels as “the BEST training by far.” Many expressed wishes for more education in these approaches and intentions to pursue certification. Notably, several teachers without formal credentials reported implementing Orff and Kodály frequently, providing qualitative context for the quantitative finding that most participants lack formal training (Research Question 2) yet implement these approaches extensively (Research Question 1). These comments also support the finding that specialized training is associated with higher confidence (Research Question 4), as trained teachers explicitly valued this preparation. This finding suggests that intensive methodology workshops provide meaningful ways to develop elementary music teaching expertise and supports previous research identifying general music methodology workshops as highly desired professional development (Bowles, 2002). Given that formal training associates with higher confidence in specific pedagogical areas, music education programs might explore partnerships with approach organizations to provide subsidized or integrated training opportunities for preservice and in-service teachers.

Actionable Recommendations

Based on these findings, several actionable steps emerge for stakeholders in music teacher education:

For Teacher Preparation Programs

Given the reality that music education curricula are already at capacity (Aguilar & Dye, 2019), and adding coursework typically requires difficult decisions about what to reduce or eliminate, programs might consider: (1) Restructuring existing coursework to provide more comprehensive pedagogical training, potentially by redistributing content currently covered in methods courses or integrating elementary approaches into existing classes; (2) ensuring student teaching placements include diverse elementary general music experiences, not exclusively secondary ensemble settings, which could be accomplished through policy changes rather than additional credit hours; (3) integrating authentic experiences with pedagogical approaches through partnerships with certified trainers or intensive workshops that occur during existing field experience requirements or as embedded professional development; and (4) explicitly addressing creative pedagogy and assessment strategies for improvisation and composition within current methods coursework, perhaps by reallocating time from other topics or using more efficient pedagogical strategies to cover this content alongside traditional skills instruction.

For Professional Development Providers

(1) Develop accessible, affordable alternatives to traditional 2-week intensive training programs; (2) create tiered professional development that helps teachers understand and implement core principles of approaches authentically rather than borrowing surface-level activities; and (3) offer targeted workshops on improvisation, composition, and creative assessment strategies.

For Researchers

(1) Investigate whether formal training is necessary for effective implementation of pedagogical approaches through comparative studies of trained versus untrained teachers’ instructional practices and student outcomes; (2) examine how teachers without certification learn and apply approach principles to identify effective informal learning mechanisms; and (3) explore the relationship between training levels and teaching effectiveness beyond self-reported confidence.

Limitations and Future Research

Although 142 elementary music teachers responded to this survey, they represented only one Midwestern state, limiting generalizability. Now that we have insight into implementation patterns and preparation gaps in Missouri, it would be imperative to investigate teachers’ perceptions across diverse geographic regions, as training accessibility, state certification requirements, and preparation program structures vary considerably. Teachers who completed the survey may have a particular interest in pedagogical approaches, potentially introducing self-selection bias. In addition, self-reported data regarding time allocation and preparedness may not accurately reflect actual classroom practices (Wang & Sogin, 1997), suggesting that future research should incorporate classroom observations alongside teacher surveys. Some participants noted difficulty quantifying time percentages because activities often overlap (e.g., moving while singing), indicating that future survey designs might benefit from alternative methods for disaggregating instructional time. Sample sizes for specific certification levels were too small for analyses beyond trained versus untrained comparisons, and the absence of any Dalcroze-trained teachers prevented analysis of this approach’s impact on confidence.

Conclusion

This study provides insights into the current state of elementary music education regarding pedagogical approach implementation and teacher preparation. The disconnect between widespread implementation of established approaches and limited formal training suggests that teachers may be drawing from incomplete pedagogical knowledge. The strong confidence levels reported for traditional musical activities, contrasted with lower preparedness in creative pedagogy and pedagogical approaches, suggest systematic gaps in teacher preparation. The significant associations between specialized training and specific confidence areas demonstrate the value of comprehensive pedagogical preparation. Ultimately, the quality of elementary music education, the first formal music experience for most American children, depends on teachers who are well-prepared in both music content and pedagogical approaches. Because elementary music education serves as the foundation for lifelong musicianship and provides essential developmental benefits to students, ensuring comprehensive teacher preparation in established pedagogical approaches represents an investment in the musical and holistic development of future generations.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233261444039 – Supplemental material for Elementary Music Teachers’ Implementation of General Music Approaches and Perceptions of Preparation to Teach Elementary Music

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-upd-10.1177_87551233261444039 for Elementary Music Teachers’ Implementation of General Music Approaches and Perceptions of Preparation to Teach Elementary Music by Jason Jian Han in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Wendy Sims, and my professor, Dr. Brian Silvey, for their valuable feedback and assistance in editing this manuscript. Their insights and guidance greatly improved the quality of this work.

ORCID iD

Jason Jian Han

Ethical Approval

This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Missouri (IRB Project Number 2127701; IRB Review Number 455341) on April 17, 2025. The study was classified as exempt under 45 CFR 46.104d(2)(i).

Consent to Participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to completing the voluntary and anonymous survey.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abril

C. R.

(2016). Untangling general music education. In Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(Eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 5–22). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

Adamczyk

Celka

Stemplewski

Ceynowa

Kamińska

Maciaszek

(2020). The impact of 12-week Jacques-Dalcroze eurhythmics programme on the dynamic agility in single-dual-task conditions in older women: A randomized controlled trial. Biomed Research International, 2020, 9080697. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9080697

Adamczyk

Celka

Stemplewski

Ceynowa

Maciaszek

(2022). Effects of Jaques-Dalcroze Eurhythmics program on postural stability in elderly women. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11095-x

Aguilar

C. E.

Dye

C. K.

(2019). Developing music education policy wonks: Preservice music education and policy. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083719885335

Anderson

W. T.

(2012). The Dalcroze approach to music education: Theory and applications. Journal of General Music Education, 26(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371311428979

Beegle

Bond

(2016). Orff Schulwerk: Releasing and developing the musical imagination. In Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(Eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 25–48). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

Berger

L. M.

(1999). The effects of Dalcroze eurhythmics instruction on selected music competencies of third- and fifth-grade general music students [PhD Dissertation]. University of Minnesota.

Bowles

(2002). The self-expressed professional development needs of music educators. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21(2), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233020210020701

Byo

S. J.

(1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345717

10.

Conway

(2002). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345690

11.

Conway

(2022). Preservice music teacher education: The view from 20 years later. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 31(3), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837221075676

12.

Conway

C. M.

(2012). Ten years later: Teachers reflect on “perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and administrator regarding preservice music teacher preparation.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412453601

13.

Della Pietra

C. J.

Bidner

Devaney

T. A.

(2010). Preservice elementary classroom teachers’ attitudes toward music in the school curriculum and teaching music. Research & Issues in Music Education, 8(1), Article 4.

14.

Dunbar

Cooper

(2020). Speaking the same language: How the Kodály method promotes disciplinary literacy. General Music Today, 34(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371320909804

15.

Elkoshi

(2023). A study of rhythmic emergent literacy within an Orff-based program implemented in Israel. International Journal of Music Education, 42(1), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221144685

16.

Ferguson-Stegall

Vang

Wolfe

A. S.

Thomsen

K. M.

(2017). A 9-week Jacques-Dalcroze eurhythmics intervention improves single and dual-task gait speed in community-dwelling older people. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 14(9), 740–744. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0416

17.

Garland

(1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2(3), 66–70.

18.

Gault

(2016). Kodály-inspired teaching: A bridge to musical fluency. In Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(Eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 73–78). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

19.

The Gordon Institute for Music Learning. (n.d.). About music learning theory. https://giml.org/mlt/about/

20.

Hallam

(2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658

21.

Hars

Fernandez

Herrmann

Rizzoli

Ferrari

Graf

Vuilleumier

Trombetti

(2025). Effects of Dalcroze eurhythmics exercise versus multicomponent exercise on physical and cognitive function, and falls in older adults: The ephycos randomized controlled trial. Advanced Biology, 9, Article e2400089. https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.202400089

22.

Hooker

L. M.

(2014). The Kodály and Rajkó methods: Voices, instruments, ethnicity, and the globalization of Hungarian music education in the twentieth century. Hungarian Cultural Studies, 6, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.5195/ahea.2013.117

23.

Ismail

M. J.

Loo

F. C.

Loo

F. Y.

(2023). An active learning study: Mastering music coordination skills through Kompang and Dalcroze eurhythmics among primary students. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16111a

24.

Johnson

(2019). Assessment and Orff Schulwerk pedagogy. In Brophy

T. S.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education, volume 2 (pp. 538–560). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190248130.013.60

25.

Juntunen

(2016). The Dalcroze approach: Experiencing and knowing music through embodied exploration. In Abril

C. R.

Gault

B. M.

(Eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues, and viewpoints (pp. 141–167). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328093.001.0001

26.

Kuebel

C. R.

(2019). Preparedness of instrumental music majors teaching elementary general music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419850110

27.

Laiho

(2004). The psychological functions of music in adolescence. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 13(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08098130409478097

28.

Landis

Carder

(1990). The Dalcroze approach. In Carder

(Ed.), The eclectic curriculum in American music education (2nd ed., pp. 7–29). Music Educators National Conference.

29.

Mason

N. F.

(2012). The effects of Orff Schulwerk instruction on rhythmic achievement in beginning band [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY]. https://saalck-uky.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01SAA_UKY/15remem/alma9933686646802636

30.

McSwain

E. T.

(1954). Improving the music curriculum in the elementary school. Music Educators Journal, 40(6), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3387813

31.

Music Educator Certification—NAfME. (n.d.). NAfME. https://nafme.org/careers/music-educator-certification/

32.

Mynatt

(2018). Curricular priorities of elementary general music teachers [MM dissertation, University of Delaware]. https://udspace.udel.edu/items/f015bd44-9cb1-48d6-8d04-58b49167519f

33.

National Association for Music Education. (2014). 2014 music standards for general music grades pre-K-8. https://nafme.org/resource/2014-music-standards-pk-8-general-music/

34.

National Arts Education Status Report. (2019). Arts education data project. https://artseddata.org/national_report_2019/

35.

Nolan

(2009). American elementary music programs: Current instructional methods, goals, resources, and content standards by geographic region and grade level [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona]. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/194200?show=full

36.

Özevin

(2018). Humanistic, artistic and pedagogic aspects of Orff Schulwerk music and dance pedagogy Orff Schulwerk. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(1), 8–23. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/4991

37.

QCAmap. (n.d.). https://www.qcamap.org/ui/en/home

38.

Reese

J. A.

Kuebel

C. R.

Svec

C. L.

(2024). Elementary general music: Perceptions and aspirations of preservice music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 33(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837231193101

39.

Rose

R. E.

(1995). The effects of Dalcroze eurhythmics on beat competency performance skills of kindergarten, first-, and second-grade children [PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro]. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/Rose_uncg_9531852.pdf

40.

Ruiz-Primo

M. A.

(2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003

41.

Schellenberg

E. G.

(2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x

42.

See

B. H.

Ibbotson

(2018). A feasibility study of the impact of the Kodály-inspired music programme on the developmental outcomes of four to five year olds in England. International Journal of Educational Research, 89, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.03.002

43.

Senkal

Muhtar

(2021). Role of Orff music therapy in improving auditory processing skills in children with intellectual disability. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 24(7), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_410_20

44.

Shamrock

(1997). Orff-Schulwerk: An integrated foundation. Music Educators Journal, 83(6), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399024

45.

Sheridan

M. M.

(2019). The Kodály concept in the United States: Early American adaptations to recent evolutions. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 41(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536600618787481

46.

Siemens

M. T.

(1969). A comparison of Orff and traditional instructional methods in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.2307/3343876

47.

Smith

N. E.

(2023). Music teachers’perceptions of undergraduate music education curricula: A quantitative survey of current music teachers [PhD dissertation, Auburn University]. https://etd.auburn.edu//handle/10415/8715

48.

Sogin

D. W.

Wang

C. C.

(2008). Music activity reports by music teachers with varying training in Orff Schulwerk. International Journal of Music Education, 26(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761408092527

49.

Soykunt

Çoban

Öztuğ

E. K.

(2023). The effect of music classes conducted in northern Cypriot schools with the Kodály approach on the musical development of students: A pilot study. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374231156859

50.

Thomas

D. R.

(2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. School of Population Health, University of Auckland.

51.

Training Programs. (n.d.). Dalcroze society of America. https://dalcrozeusa.org/teacher-training/training-programs/

52.

Vančová

Osvaldová

(2019). Effects of Orff Schulwerk conception on music abilities of pupils with mental disorder. Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 9(2), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.33543/0902

53.

van Teijlingen

Hundley

(2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, 35, Article 35. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.pdf

54.

Vasil

(2023). A practical guide to teaching elementary music. https://pressbooks.pub/vasil/

55.

Wang

C. C.

Sogin

D. W.

(1997). Self-reported versus observed classroom activities in elementary general music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345538

56.

Williamson

(2011). Elementary music educators’ perceptions of effectiveness after Orff Schulwerk training [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. PQDT Open. https://www.proquest.com/openview/8c3337550480e924d97569a3e2f8c37c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

57.

Zachopoulou

Derri

Chatzopoulou

Ellinoudis

(2003). Application of Orff and Dalcroze activities in preschool children: Do they affect the level of rhythmic ability? The Physical Educator, 60(2), 51–58.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.06 MB

0.00 MB