TEACHING METHODOLOGY IN ELEMENTARY MUSIC AND BEGINNING BAND: THE EFFECT ON STUDENT RHYTHMIC ACHIEVEMENT

TEACHING METHODOLOGY IN ELEMENTARY MUSIC AND BEGINNING BAND: THE EFFECT ON STUDENT RHYTHMIC ACHIEVEMENT A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Education Department Carson Newman University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education By Leslie M. Benson May 2016

i

Copyright page I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson-Newman University, to reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding that in no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution. Signature Date ii

Permission Statement I hereby grant permission to the Education Department, Carson Newman University, to reproduce this research in part or in full for professional purposes, with the understanding that in no case will it be for financial profit to any person or institution. Signature Date iii

Abstract Teaching Methodologies in Elementary Music and Beginning Band: The Effect on Student Rhythmic Achievement Leslie M. Benson School of Education, Carson Newman University May 2016 Data from research suggests there is very little curricular unity or alignment between music instruction that progresses from elementary, middle, and high school programs. This may be the reason for the diminished rhythmic reading ability that often occurs between elementary general music classes and beginning band classes. Consistent practice of initial and similar concepts over a period of time allows for transfer of learning from one grade level to the next. However, there is a dramatic difference in the way rhythmic instruction is given in elementary music classes and beginning band methods. A sequential presentation of rhythmic instruction, should provide a curricular link between elementary music and beginning band. Students are often able to perform more difficult rhythms in general music classes than are presented in most beginning band method books. Subjects performed seven common rhythmic patterns from fifth grade curricula. Students in this study who experienced continuous rhythmic instruction (fifth grade students) scored significantly higher (than students (sixth grade beginning band students) who experienced a different method of rhythmic instruction. The recommendation is to encourage communication between elementary specialists and instrumental specialists regarding curriculum and methods to ensure a cohesive music education program. A more collaborative strategy would involve developing a cohesive method and linear learning experience from general elementary music method curricula to beginning instrumental music curricular methods. iv

Acknowledgements A journey such as this, is not traveled alone. I would like to thank the following people for traveling this road with me J. Littleton, you tirelessly listened to me and encouraged me throughout this journey. You spent hours of your own time helping me listen to recording after recording. K. Bagwell, your selfless service as an assistant in my classroom has been an incredible blessing J. Leiser, as the third musketeer you served hours to listen to recordings and helped behind the scenes Principal Sutton and S. Rogers assisted me in the acquisition of data Dr. Taylor, Dr. Price, & Dr. Buckner, you provided me with the tools I needed and assisted me in achieving a lifelong dream.. I thank you from the bottom of my heart! Most importantly, I thank God, who gave me a love for music from an early age and placed individuals in my life to cultivate my love for all things music. Whether playing, singing, or listening I am incredibly blessed by the gift of music. v

Dedication Without the support of my wonderful family this study would not have happened. To my husband, JR, who has been the Wind Beneath My Wings and I could never truly express my love and devotion to him. His love and support have given me the wings to soar toward and secure a lifelong goal. To my mom, D. Kirst and sister, K.Vyskocil your encouragement and support kept me going when I wanted to quit (over and over again). To my special gifts from God, my children, Jessica, Matthew, Andrew, and Philip thank you for putting up my continuous educational journeys. Most importantly, I thank God who gave me a love for music from an early age and placed individuals in my life to cultivate my love for all things music. Whether playing, singing, or listening I am incredibly blessed for the gift of music. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT... iv Acknowledgments...v Dedication... vi List of Tables and Figures...x 1. Purpose and Organization...1 Introduction and Background...1 Theoretical Foundation...1 Elementary Music and Beginning Band Methods...3 Lack of Continuity...5 Purpose and Significance of the Study...6 Differences Between General Music and Beginning Band...7 Implications...7 Research Question and Null Hypothesis...8 Limitations and Delimitations...9 Assumptions and Definition of terms...10 Organization of the Document...11 2. Literature Review...12 Music Learning Theories...12 The Influence of Piaget...14 Behaviorism and Cognitive Constructivism Theory...15 Bruner s Concept Theory...17 Critical Pedagogy...18 Generative Theory and Music Learning Theory...18 Elementary Music Education Instructional Practices...19 Elementary Teaching Methods...20 History of Movement in Music Education...22 Rhythm and Importance of Movement...22 Movement in Elementary Music...23 Movement Coupled with Multiple Modes...24 Studies of Movement in Education...25 Instrumental Teaching Methods...26 Instrumental Methods of Teaching Rhythm...23 Comparison of Elementary and Beginning Band Methods of Rhythmic Instruction...27 Comparison of Rhythmic Patterns in Elementary and Beginning Band...30 3. Methodology...35 Research Design...35 Research Participants and Setting for the Study...35 Data Collection Procedures...36 Data Analysis...39 Ethical Issues...39 4. Results of Data...41 Inter-Rater Reliability...41 Presentation of Data...42 5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations...49 Introduction...49 vii

Research Question...50 Method of Performance...52 Steady Beat...54 Order of Rhythm Pattern Presentation...54 Null Hypothesis...56 Rhythmic Pattern Difference...56 Movement and Steady Beat...57 Different Methods of Rhythmic Performance...58 Summary...60 Recommendations...62 References...64 6. Appendices...71 Appendix A Pattern Set A...71 Appendix B Pattern Set B...57 Appendix C Pattern Set C...58 Appendix D Parental Consent Letter...60 Appendix E Student Recruitment Script...62 Appendix F Student Recording Script...64 viii

List of Tables and Figures Figures Figure 2.1 Rhythmic Pattern Example... 27 Figure 2. Pattern Set C... 55 Figure 3. Word Cue Methods... 59 Figure 4. Number Counting System... 60 Tables Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Nine Beginning Band Methods... 32 Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Twelve Band Methods (1994-2010)... 33 Table 3. Beginning Band Pre-test Pattern Set Mean... 42 Table 4. Beginning Band Post-test Pattern Set mean... 42 Table 5. Beginning Band Pre/Post Dependent t-test... 43 Table 6. Public School Group AB* Beginning Band Pattern Set Mean... 44 Table 7. Group AA* Pattern Set Mean... 44 Table 8. Independent Sample t-test... 45 Table 9. Method of Rhythmic Performance Group AB* (Pre & Post-Test)... 45 Table 10. Method of Rhythmic Performance Comparison... 47 Table 11. Pattern Set Means All Subjects... 47 Table 12. Comparison of Performance Methods... 53 ix

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Background Many music educators agree that listening to music often elicits a physical response from its listeners (Reifinger, 2006). Even the youngest of children respond to music (Ferguson, 2005). Almost every person has been swept away by music at one time or another. Toes tap, heads nod, and fingers snap are a mere subconscious response to the sound of certain types of music (Westervelt, 2002). Theoretical foundation Music education is a profession that exists within a multi-faceted discipline. Because music learning is comprised of complex cognitive processes, there is a need for diverse learning theories in order to research and enhance the many educational phenomena existing within a music education classroom (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). However, according to Boardman (1988), music instruction cannot be based on a specific learning theory. Regelski (2002) also states that the theoretical principles for music education are ambiguous at best and controversial at worst (p. 102). Isbell (2011) agrees with this statement, There is no single explanation regarding how best to teach music (p. 23). A brief overview of learning theories, as they apply to music education, is provided in this section. The most common learning theories used in music will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Constructivists posit that humans are naturally active learners and must construct knowledge for themselves by using tools at hand to learn from their experiences (Keast, 2009). The foundation of Constructive Learning Theory was built by the contributions of

2 philosophers, such as Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and Bruner. The theoretical framework for this study was from the works of Vygotsky. Constructivism places any learning in the context of active engagement. Students move from experience through to the construction of understanding. Through participation in activities, students develop or construct individual understanding. The process of teaching music mirrors that of the language development of children (Rinaldo & Denig, 2009). The conceptual framework for this study was the Music Learning Theory. Edwin Gordon developed the Music Learning Theory. Gordon s theory, which guides instructors to the best sequences for helping students learn music. Gordon s theory begins with a process he calls audiation. Audiation is the process of hearing and comprehending music in the mind (Dalby, n.d.). The idea of sound before symbol is not unique to MLT. According to this theory, audiation is the basic foundation of any music learning. Much like the process of learning language, the methodology behind this theory is based upon beginning a foundation through rhythmic movement, singing, and tonal/rhythmic pattern instruction. Each instructional session builds upon previous experience and knowledge. As students learn a musical vocabulary a musical language is developed and constructed (Dalby, n.d.). The construction of methodology in musical instruction should be based upon the building and extension of student experiences. During the 1960 s, Jerome Bruner s theories of conceptual learning led to curricula that were sequenced developmentally (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). In Bruner s modes of representative learning, the usual response of students begins with an Enactive Representation, which presents understanding through a motor response when experiencing a new concept (Gault, 2005). Psychomotor awareness may lead to better

3 rhythmic performances (Rowher, 1998). Bruner s Concept Theory is primarily a developmental theory; however, the premise applies in a music education setting (Boardman, 1988). In a music education setting, Bruner s Concept Theory dictates that music symbols be introduced after the student is able to demonstrate the ability to assimilate musical sounds with iconic notation (Boardman, 1988). Bruner s spiral curriculum and conceptual learning has been used as an elemental method of music instruction (Taetle and Cuttieta, n.d.). Information gathered on children s perceptual and performance abilities in regards to rhythmic development should be researched in applied instrumental settings and assessed empirically (Reifinger, 2006). Elementary Music and Beginning Band Methods Elementary educators of general music classes have implemented methodologies such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly as a primary step in the process of learning music (Rowher, 1998). Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff methods all promote multi-sensory musical experiences before conceptual understanding (Gault, 2005). At the most basic level, people learn rhythm through movement (Westervelt, 2002). In the Orff process for instance, movement is the foundational element used to develop beat and rhythm competencies, as well as to develop rhythmic memory followed by symbolic music notation (Mason, 2012). Music education for primary grades in the United States has employed the use of the sound-to-symbol approach for the last few decades (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.). Music Learning Theory, along with other music teaching methods such as the Orff and Kodaly methods, employs the sequence of sound before sight (Dalby, n.d.).

4 One way elementary students learn rhythmic patterns is through the use of spoken syllables, which act as an aural coding, or memory of the sounds before the visual picture of iconic notation (Reifinger, 2006). Kodaly methods support the sound-to-symbol approach by providing experience before notation, as well as singing games and movements to build musical development. Feldman & Contzius (n.d.) propose that students must learn rhythm by the way it feels and sounds. Visual connection comes afterward as a symbolic representation of what the student has already experienced. One of the major differences between elementary music and beginning band classes is that many elementary methodologies use word cues such as the Kodaly, Orff, Gordon, or Takidimi method of rhythmic syllables to teach rhythmic patterns. Word cues such as tah for quarter notes and ti-ti for paired eighth notes are used as a way to teach students to recognize and feel the duration of notation as they speak and clap or move their bodies to match the rhythm (Richardson, 2008). A study by Santelli (2007) revealed that the majority of band method books approach rhythmic instruction using a mathematical approach or a counting system. This change in rhythmic method instruction can cause confusion (Santelli, 2007). This means that students have to learn a new method of counting rhythms when it would be much easier if the rhythms were presented in the same way as they had previously been instructed. This method would also make the transfer of previous learning to new learning easier due to the similarity of previous rhythm recognition. When the same method of instruction is presented in elementary and middle school music classes, students are able to build upon their previous knowledge and experiences (Santelli, 2007).

5 The number based counting system is the most commonly used rhythmic instruction technique (Richardson, 2008). Varley (2005), as cited in Mason (2012), compared thirty-seven instrumental method books and the rhythmic systems used within the United States. The results showed that six of the methods used kinesthetic rhythmic activities and three books used mnemonic or syllables in rhythmic instruction. Thirty books used only a counting approach to rhythm instruction. In a study of seven popular band method books, Collins (2013) determined that six out of seven books used clapping exercises and only one of the seven used clapping or foot tapping. None of the seven method books included any whole body movements or activities to aid in learning. None of the seven methods used rote learning methods or audiation training. Only one of the seven methods included melodies written in symbols to accommodate students who could not yet read music notation. Lack of Continuity In a study by Woods (1982), a comparison of elementary and middle school band methods reveals that there is very little to no conceptual cohesiveness or curricular unity between the two areas even though there may only be one summer between the methods. It was if students experience music from one grade level to the next as an isolated entity. Since 1966, Bruner s spiral curriculum has been used to order the structure of teaching and learning concepts at appropriate levels and periodically with greater levels of complexity (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d). The question to be asked then, is, shouldn t music students experiences build conceptually in the cross over between elementary general music and beginning band or chorus? When music educators provide music concepts in similar ways to those used in upper level general music classes, a

6 transfer of learning can occur from one grade or class to the next level. Transfer learning is most successful when there is a consistent practice of initial and similar concepts throughout the instruction process (Santelli, 2007). Purpose of the study/significance of Study Observation of music programs from elementary, middle, and high school has revealed very little conceptual cohesiveness or curricular unity almost as if the music experiences exist as isolated entities (Woods, 1982). This may be the reason for the differences that exist between elementary general music classes and beginning band classes. Just as math concepts build sequentially upon the other, music concepts do as well. Bruner s spiral curriculum theory allows students to encounter gradual, increasing presentations of concepts that build upon previous knowledge or experience (McLeod, 2008). Woods suggests that each level of music instruction should naturally develop conceptually from elementary, middle school, to high school levels. A sequential presentation of musical concepts should provide a link between elementary music and beginning band, which can begin as early as fourth grade or begin as late as sixth grade. Transfer of learning from one grade level to the next is best accomplished by the consistent practice of initial and similar concepts over a period of time (1982). Elementary students carry with them an elementary musical mindset as they transition into middle school. This musical mindset is based on their previous musical learning experiences (Conklin, 2007). A holistic musical approach across the school levels will provide a more cohesive musical education experience.

7 Students are often able to perform more difficult rhythms in general music classes than are presented in most beginning method books. Sixteenth note rhythm patterns are experienced and performed by most elementary music students as early as fourth grade. In contrast, this rhythmic pattern is generally not included in beginning band method books until the second year of instruction. Instrumental method books that leave more complex patterns to the next year can deprive students of the consistent performance of patterns that increase the transfer of learning to new contexts (Byo, 1998 & Watkins, 2011). By creating connections between elementary music and instrumental music, students are allowed to build upon previous experience without a grade level gap. Pierce s 1992 study found that similar rhythmic tasks resulted in an increase in the possibility of transfer of knowledge transfer (Santelli, 2007). Differences Between General Music and Beginning Band Music concepts, just like math, build upon each other in a logical sequence. The question to be asked then, is shouldn t music students experiences build conceptually in the cross over between elementary general music and beginning band or chorus? When music educators provide music concepts in similar ways to those used in upper level general music classes, a transfer of learning can occur from one grade or class to the next level. Transfer learning is most successful when there is a consistent practice of initial and similar concepts throughout the instruction process (Santelli, 2007). Implications A review of the literature revealed that the pedagogical practices successfully used in elementary classes are not typically used in band or orchestra rehearsals (Dalby, 1999). There is a definite need for a connection between elementary general music and

8 beginning band instruction. Research supports that instructional methods used successfully in elementary classes can also be successful in beginning band instruction (Mason, 2012). Methods such as Orff, Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Music Learning Theory found in elementary classes can be used in instrumental settings to continue the rhythmic development of students moving from one grade level to the next (West, 2015). Although the idea of singing and moving in instrumental classes is not new, the concepts are not widely used even though it has been shown that these methods will enhance music achievement (Conway, 2003). Sixth grade or older students may not be entirely comfortable with the use of kinesthetic movements such as those used in elementary music, these activities have the potential to aid in the development of psychomotor awareness (Rowher, 1998). Most instrumental method books do not use basic kinesthetic learning methods that are so readily used in general elementary music (Rowher, 1998). When general elementary music teachers and instrumental teachers have aligned their curricula, the musical concepts learned in elementary class can be transferred to instrumental learning. Consistent terminology and approaches will ensure that students transfer learning from one level to the next (Conway, 2013). Research Questions and Null Hypothesis What effect does the lack of continuity between elementary general music and beginning band curricula have on the rhythmic performance of beginning band students? The lack of continuity between elementary and beginning band methods has no effect on student rhythmic achievement.

9 Limitations and Delimitations This study will be limited by the small sample size based upon the number of students who elect to enroll in beginning band and the number of enrolled students in the fifth grade. The number of parental permission slips returned by public school students may also be small depending on school schedules or other factors. Previous beginning band classes have been predominately male. Therefore, gender distribution will be a limitation. Participants in this cross-sectional design will be similar but there may be differences within the pre-existing groups. Participants may include transfer students from other elementary music programs who have not used similar teaching methods or who have had little or no musical experiences. Delimitations include the author s ability to analyze and understand both general music and instrumental strategies. The author teaches both general music and instrumental music in the school and will be able to create a rhythmic measurement based upon the curriculum used in the elementary fifth grade level. The educator would be able to control the method of instruction to beginning band and fifth grade students by following the current school curriculums for each.

10 Assumptions and Definition of terms Rhythm: The term originates in the Greek language as rhythmos or flow. As humans listen to or perform music, he or she feels the rhythm and as a result either overtly or covertly moves to the rhythm or flow of the music (Westervelt, 2002). Orff Schulwerk : an elementary method approach to music learning that includes active music making. Educators use imitation, exploration, literacy/composition, and improvisation through singing, movement, various forms of speech, and performance on instruments (Mason, 2012) Kodaly: The Kodaly approach advocates hearing the sound before reading standard written music notation. Singing is taught using solfege syllables (ex do, re, mi) to represent pitches in the scale. (Geoghegan, 2006). Kodaly also uses rhythmic names to represent the length or duration of a note or rhythmic pattern. Music Learning Theory: students develop rhythmic and tonal vocabulary patterns through experiences such as singing, performing, and rhythmic movement before seeing iconic notation. MLT approaches instruction through a process known as Whole/Part/Whole (Dalby, n.d.). Audiation: the musical equivalent of thinking in language (Dalby, n.d., p. 5). Rhythmic Achievement: the ability to perform rhythms that include half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth notes, equivalent rests, and dotted rhythmic patterns in common time Steady Beat: Music has basic steady pulse that can be identified as the heartbeat of the music. The basic pulse is the underlying beat to which a listener or performer would tap or clap in time or in conjunction with the steady pulse. Tempo is the speed of the steady beat or pulse

11 Organization of the Document This document begins with an introduction and background of the study. The reason and purpose of the study, as well as the limitations and delimitations are included within the first chapter. The second chapter contains a literature review of music learning theories. A brief historical context of both elementary and instrumental instruction is provided, as well as a description of the common methodologies used in each level of music instruction. For the purpose of this study, the focus will be on rhythmic instructional strategies in elementary general music and beginning instrumental music classes. Elementary and instrumental rhythmic instructional methods will be compared. A discussion of empirical studies will be included. Methodology and specifics of the study will be discussed in the third chapter. The subjects will be identified and an explanation of the data that will be collected. The third chapter will also describe the procedure to be used in the gathering of data. Data analysis for the study can be found in Chapter 4 and the Summary in Chapter 5.

12 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review For centuries music has been a form of expression and has served as a reflection of a culture (Dalby, 2005). Music celebrates the good times and gives comfort during the hard times. Music elicits a physical response from its listeners (Reifinger, 2006). Even the youngest of children respond to music (Ferguson, 2005). Almost every person has been swept away by music at one time or another. Toes tap, heads nod, and fingers snap as a mere subconscious response to the sound of certain types of music (Westervelt, 2002). Moog s (1976) landmark study observed that six-month old infants first responses to music often involved the entire body. These responses were considered as rhythmic due to the repetitive nature of the movement (Reiginger, 2006). Prior to the turn of the 20 th century, movement in the classroom was used as a form of stress relief and a way to improve posture (Ferguson, 2005). Music educators must understand the nature of rhythm and how it is learned (Westervelt, 2002). The movement of young children to music can provide insight as an outward display of an internal understanding (Ferguson, 2005). As students mature, their capacity of musical skills will stabilize and without further training, will not continue to develop. Music education must see that crucial rhythmic skills are developed through the use of proper musical experiences (Reifinger, 2006). Music Learning Theories Music education has been viewed as an integral component in the educational experience. Many scholars believe that music education is a critical part of a child s

13 complete and aesthetic development (Barry, 1992 p. 16). Before making instructional decisions, there must first be an understanding of how students learn. In the past educational landscape, instructional theories have been based on what Boardman describes as a factory model. This factory model theory of learning produced learning strategies that have been reductionist, analytical, and linear (1998, p. 5). Every profession has a theory that derives from research and theoretical principles that function as the foundation of practice. This foundation encompasses the commonly recognized and accepted action ideals of the profession s ethical and other guiding philosophical considerations (Regelski, 2002 p. 102). Music education curriculums and other educational subjects are informed by a synthesis of philosophy, psychology, or learning theory and praxis (Abrahams, 2005, p. 7) Music educators are often faced with multiple diverging practices, which are rarely linked. The definition of a theoretical framework for music education is closely related to a general philosophy of education (Gruhn, 2006, p 15). However, according to Boardman, music instruction cannot be based on a specific learning theory (1998). Taetle and Cutietta suggest the importance of the creation of a learning theory unique to music (n.d. p. 294). Regelski also states that the theoretical principles for music education are ambiguous at best and controversial at worst (2002, p. 102). Isbell seems to agree with this statement, There is no single explanation regarding how best to teach music (2011, p. 23). Music education is a profession that exists within a multi-faceted discipline. Because music learning is comprised of complex cognitive processes, this creates the need for diverse learning theories to attempt to research and enhance the many educational phenomenon existing within a music education classroom (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.).

14 Through social and educational transitions of the 1950 s, 1960 s, and 1970 s general learning theories began to serve as a foundation for both educational research and methods (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.) Most general learning theories used in education can also be dissected into categories that are applicable to music education classrooms. Theories such as behaviorism, humanism, cognitivism, and constructivism overlap in music education but differ in the definition of learning, the purpose of education, and the roles of the teacher and student. However, all four of these theories provide music education with a conceptual framework for interpreting the examples of learning. The learning theories also offer a specific vocabulary and provide guidance for solutions to practical problems (Isbell, 2011 p. 20). Due to the numerous learning theories employed in music education, a brief overview will be presented. The Influence of Piaget Many learning theories are linked to the work of Swiss child psychologist, Jean Piaget. Piaget believed that learning was more than a passive cognitive process, but instead was an active construction of personal experiences (Cognitive, 2015). The work of Piaget provided insight into the process of learning. Through assimilation and accommodation, children experience new information, which is then combined with existing knowledge. Children then re-arrange the known to add new concepts or precepts (Boardman, 1988). Cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget has shown that thinking follows action, so essentially there is no difference between thinking and action (Gruhn, 2006). Piaget s learning theory was endorsed and accepted during the 1950s through the 1970s. The theory has had monumental influence on preceding cognitive theories, which still accept and adhere to the precepts of assimilation and accommodation (Cognitive,

15 2015 p 5). In a music education setting, pedagogy that employs the use of active learning enables students to learn by doing. This practice is found in the majority of instructional methods used in music education (Gruhn, 2006). Hargraves (1986) and Zimmerman (1992) point to three areas of music learning research that has been influenced by Piaget s work. Developmental stages and symbolic function as it relates to music learning comprise the first two areas of music learning research. The third area of music learning research has been focused on a concept of conservation. In this process, young children begin to understand that two properties of a concrete object can lead to a third property (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). The work of Bamberger (1991), which is based on Piaget s Cognitive Learning theory, relates the music learning process as one that builds progressively from one experience to the next (Gruhn, 2006). Behaviorism and Cognitive Constructivism Theory There are several lines of thought in regards to how people learn. Behaviorists claim that knowledge is obtained through passive absorption of experiences and behaviors. Hodges and Sebald (2011) explain that behaviorism is based on the work of Ivan Pavlov, which focuses on behaviors that are observable and ways in which the behaviors can be changed or modified (Isbell, 2011). In this learning theory, students are passive and demonstrate desired behaviors. In a music classroom, a teacher might modify behavior by controlling the classroom decisions. Use of rewards by educators often stimulate desired behaviors in their classrooms. (Isbell, 2011). Educators and scholars who have embraced the constructive learning theory, have been influenced by the works of Vygotsky as well as other prominent psychologists such

16 as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Jerome Bruner (Isbell, 2011). Cognitive constructionists see knowledge as an active mental process in which the student builds upon previous knowledge or experiences (Cognitive, 2015). Cognitivists tend to focus on the hidden processes rather than observable behaviors. In this learning theory, students are viewed as individuals who arrive in class with different ways of knowing and understanding. The goal of the educator is to assist students in the process of understanding (Isbell, 2011). Based on past learning experiences, a student would retrieve knowledge to increase understanding. To cognitive constructionists, each person synthesizes current knowledge as it relates to personal experiences based on past experiences or cultural history (Cognitive, 2015). Cognitivism learning theory proposes that knowledge is not transferred from one person to another, but that each individual constructs his or her own knowledge (Isbell, 2011). Within Cognitivism, there exists differing beliefs in regards to the student and educator roles. The reception method views the educator as the main focus. In this method it is the role of the teacher to design and deliver education opportunities for students who then become passive recipients of knowledge (Isbell, 2011). Because Cognitive Constructivism proponents view learning as an active rather than passive process, new knowledge must be presented through active discovery (Cognitive, 2015 & Isbell, 2011). The role of the instruction moves from teachercentered to student-centered. The educator determines current knowledge and provides opportunities for students to take existing understanding and add new information and experiences. Students then assimilate existing knowledge and new knowledge to form a broader scope of information (Cognitive, 2015). This discovery method, according to

17 Isbell, is the foundation or key to understanding the constructivist theories on learning (2011). Bruner s Concept Theory During the 1960 s, Jerome Bruner s theories of conceptual learning led to curricula that was sequenced developmentally (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.). Bruner s Concept Theory is primarily a developmental theory; however, the premise applies in a music education setting (Boardman, 1988). Following the translation of Jean Piaget s research into English, Bruner developed his own stages of learning, which has been widely accepted in music as well as other subjects (Taetle and Cutietta, n.d.) The Concept Theory is based on experience rather than age or stage as proclaimed by other child psychologists. In Bruner s modes of representative learning, the usual response of students begins with an Enactive Representation, which presents understanding through a motor response when experiencing a new concept (Gault, 2005). Music educators witness this phenomenon in classes on a regular basis. Boardman claims that without appropriate educational experiences, basic concepts remain under-developed or false concepts are accepted as true (1998). Kinesthetic movements such as those used in elementary music, these activities have the potential to aid in the development of psychomotor awareness. Psychomotor awareness may lead to better rhythmic performances (Rowher, 1998). In a music education setting, Bruner s Concept Theory would dictate that music symbols be introduced after the student is able to demonstrate the ability to assimilate musical sounds with iconic notation (Boardman, 1988). Bruner s spiral curriculum and conceptual learning has been used as an elemental method of music instruction (Taetle and Cuttieta, n.d.). Information gathered on children s perceptual and performance

18 abilities in regards to rhythmic development should be researched in applied in instrumental settings and assessed empirically (Reifinger, 2006). Critical Pedagogy Critical Pedagogy for music education derives from a philosophical framework based on the Critical Theory as well as an educational psychology referred to as Experiential Learning (Abrahams, 2005 p. 7). Critical Pedagogy can be described as a flexible pedagogy. Music education approaches such as Orff or Kodaly use a specific repertoire along with specific teaching procedures. This methodology/theory does not limit the genre or the teaching sequence. Abrahams notes that Bernice McCarthy views experiential learning as a model of learning that focuses on conceptual learning. Both the teacher and the student engage in learning together. Students participate in activities to construct knowledge, to act and to reflect on their experiences (2005). Generative Theory and Music Learning Theory The Generative Theory is based on several cumulative assumptions. The first assumption is that a basic system as a whole is greater than the part. The second and third assumption is that symbols and symbol systems represent views of reality and that the general function of knowledge is generative in nature. This means than an individual can expand his or her personal understanding beyond the part to the whole. Boardman explains that music is based on a symbolic system and the interpretation of the symbol system would be considered as part of the basic unit system (1998). Musical sound could be viewed as a symbolic representation of cognitive and emotional activity, just as language is the symbolic representation of other forms of cognition and emotion

19 (Boardman, 1998 p. 5). When it comes to learning theories, Boardman emphasizes that any theory of learning must acknowledge that there is an inter-dependence between cognition, emotion, and action (1998). E. Gordon s Music Learning Theory (MLT) was developed through extensive research. This theory outlines the learning process in music. Gordon s MLT provides a sequential and comprehensive guide for music educators (Sangiorgio, 2006). At the heart of this learning theory is what Gordon calls audiation. Audiation is the term for thinking and understanding music in the mind without the presence of sound. Audiation can be compared as the musical equivalent of the cognitive processes that occur during thinking in language (Dalby, n.d. p. 5). Music learning consists of the learning of patterns, relationships, and structures that compose mental representations of sound (Sangiorgio, 2006). Gordon s MLT is similar to the Generative theory in that Gordon s theory approaches music education in a process that could be described as Whole/Part/Whole (Dalby, n.d.). Elementary Music Education Instructional Practices The process of learning music closely relates to the process of language acquisition process. Children begin with a type of musical sound vocabulary, which enables them to become familiar with melodic and rhythmic patterns found in songs, as well as aural recognition of instrumental sounds. Music educators should approach instruction in such a way to develop musical understanding by helping students to learn to speak and think through musical experiences (Gruhn, 2006). Gruhn notes that educators should use singing, moving, and playing instruments to build mental

20 representations. Because learning is the sequential process of developing mental representations, music educators need to follow an effective instructional approach (2006). There are many popular methods and instructional approaches available to elementary music educators. Some educators choose to primarily use one method, while others choose to blend characteristics from many methods. Three of the methods will be briefly examined and will not contain a comprehensive report. Elementary Teaching Methods The Orff Schulwerk approach to learning music can be summed up in these four words: sing, say, dance, and play. The Orff Schulwerk method for teaching and learning music was developed by Carl Orff and Gunild Keetman. At the core of the philosophical approach to teaching children is active music making. This approach is cognizant of the conceptual and affective development of children (What is Orff?, n.d.). The main emphasis of the Orff approach is to develop the awareness of an internal steady beat and enable children to become musically independent (Long, 2013). Students engage in creative thinking, movement, and play xylophones, which are often referred to as Orff instruments (What is, n.d.). Musical independence is nurtured through experiences such as exploration, dance and movement, composition, improvisation, and performance (Long, 2013). In teaching melody and rhythm, the guiding principles are that notation and reading be built on known musical materials and that sound precede symbol (What is, n.d. para.1) Educators using a Kodaly approach provide music instruction that is child centered and in a logical and sequential process. Although the Kodaly approach is often referred to as a method, Geoghegan suggests that it should instead be viewed as a series

21 of guidelines (2006). The Kodaly approach advocates hearing the sound before reading standard music notation. Singing is taught using solfege syllables (for example: do, re, mi) to represent pitches in the scale. Along with using solfege syllables, Kodaly also used Curwen hand signs to represent each pitch name which would serve as a visual representation of the relative position of each pitch in the scale (Geoghegan, 2006). Of particular interest to this study is the use of rhythmic names to represent the length or duration of a note or rhythmic pattern. For example, a quarter note in common time would be spoken as a ta. Two eighth notes would be spoken as ti-ti and four sixteenth notes are spoken as ti-ka-ti-ka. E. Gordon s Music Learning Theory (MLT) places great emphasis on the process of audiation, which relates to the musical equivalent of thinking in language (Dalby, n.d., p. 5). Audiation of tonal and rhythmic patterns is the main focus of MLT. Gordon s method of teaching music is both comprehensive and sequential. MLT, along with other music teaching methods such as the Orff and Kodaly methods employ the sequence of sound before sight. Dalby explains that students develop rhythmic and tonal vocabulary patterns through experiences such as singing, performing, and rhythmic movement before seeing symbolic music notation. MLT approaches instruction through a process known as Whole/Part/Whole. Students hear the whole song or section of music and then discover parts of the whole through discovery. In regards to rhythmic instruction, students must develop a sense of meter, pulse, steady beat, and microbeat. This is accomplished through movement. MLT also uses rhythmic syllables based on beat function. Gordon s system is based on how rhythmic patterns are audiated (Dalby, n.d.)

22 History of Movement in Music Education Movement became part of the musical landscape in U.S. schools at the beginning of the 20 th century. This inclusion of movement in elementary music was influenced by the work of Jacques Dalcroze and John Dewey. Dalcroze s successful work with eurhythmics training in music classes coupled with Dewey s progressive education model, which focused on the creative work of children ushered in a new era of movement as a pedagogical tool (Ferguson, 2005). Since 1994, national and state standards have advocated movement instruction as a component of the music curriculum, which indicates the importance of movement in music education (Westervelt, 2002). However, the suggestion of movement in music classes met with serious obstacles just as any new methodology does when it is introduced. Conflicts centered on the types of movement and the philosophical differences about rhythmic understanding (Ferguson, 2005). Conservative educators of the day such as Giddings, Earhart, Kwalwasser, and Seashure believed that rhythmic ability was more of an inherited trait that could not be altered through instruction. More progressive educators of the day, Gehrkins, Mursell, and Farnsworth believed that children could develop rhythmic understanding while participating and experiencing body movement activities. These progressive educators felt that movement should include large muscle movements, while the conservative educators suggested the use of small muscle movements, such as the tapping of a finger (Ferguson, 2005). Rhythm and Importance of Movement All around the world, music shares a common important component: rhythm (Dalby, 2005). How exactly is rhythm defined? The term originates in the Greek

23 language as rhythmos or flow. As humans listen to or perform music, he or she feels the rhythm and as a result either overtly or covertly moves to the rhythm or flow of the music (Westervelt, 2002). The flow of music is often referred to as the pulse or the beat. Most everyone can easily recognize a pulse in music, and the body responds with some type of movement. Listening to music often results in a tap of the foot, a nod of the head, or a snap of the fingers (Cash, 2011). Jacques Dalcroze, creator of Eurhythmics believed that awareness of musical rhythm only comes through experiences of movement of the entire body. Gerald Edelman developed a neurological theory about movement and rhythm. According to this study, Edelman claimed that a motor response is needed as music is being taught about or learned (Westervelt, 2002). Movement in Elementary Music. Many elementary educators of general music classes are familiar with the movement methodologies, such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodaly, and have implemented these methods as a primary step in the process of learning music (Rowher, 1998). Most professional literature examines the use of movement with students in preschool or primary age subjects. Studies indicate that large-motor movements in music classrooms produce positive results. Joseph (1982) conducted a study with kindergarten students using Dalcroze eurhythmics. Students who received this treatment out-performed in the areas of recognition and response in regards to familiar rhythmic patterns within unfamiliar music. These students also out-performed in the area of improvisational activities (Ferguson, 2005). Students should be able to move and feel both macro and micro beats within the music. Movement only to a macro beat might

24 cause some students to never learn to feel the subdivision of the beat, which is an essential skill in rhythmic performance (Conway, 2003). Movement Coupled with Multiple Modes. At the most basic level, people learn rhythm through movement (Westervelt, 2005). Dalcroze, Kodaly, and Orff methods all promote multi-sensory musical experiences before conceptual understanding (Gault, 2005). Elementary music education in the United States has employed the use of the sound-to-symbol approach for the last few decades (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.). One way elementary students learn rhythmic patterns is through the use of spoken syllables which acts as an oral coding of the sounds before the visual picture of iconic notation (Reifinger, 2006). Kodaly methods support the sound-to-symbol approach by providing experience before notation as well as singing games and movements to build musical development (Feldman & Contzius, n.d.). There are several methods used by educators that encompass multiple modalities. The Kodaly method uses the words ta and ti-ti to correspond with note durations. The work of Gordon includes the use of du and di which represents the metrical placement of notes. Some educators use a Word method, which employs the use of novel word syllables to correspond with rhythmic groupings (Reifinger, 2006). Many educators approach rhythm instruction using either a visual/oral combination or an aural/kinesthetic combination (Persellin, 1982). Reifinger notes that the mode in which patterns are presented affects the performance of rhythms. The use of verbal, kinesthetic, and aural presentation is an effective way to reach all learning styles (2006). Feldman & Contzius propose that students must learn rhythm by the way it feels and sounds. Visual

25 connection comes afterward as a symbolic representation of what the student has already experienced (n.d.). Studies of Movements in Education. The music education community has embraced the importance of movement as tool in learning rhythm in recent decades. Pioneers of movement in music such as Gordon, Orff, and Dalcroze consistently advocate movement in relation to rhythmic learning rather than a purely intellectual process such as mathematics (Dalby, 2005). Most professional literature examines the use of movement with young students rather than older elementary or middle school students. This may reflect a trend of a decrease in the use of movement as a tool as students mature (Ferguson, 2005). Even though movement has been proven to be a useful tool in learning strategies for rhythm, experimental situations have shown mixed results. A study by Salzberg and Wang (1989) noted that movement was more difficult than counting aloud (a traditional method) for younger students (Rowher, 1998). In work with third grade elementary students, Persellin noted that movement seemed to be a distraction to rhythmic learning due to the fact that students concentrated more on the movement than on the music (1982). Rowher s study appeared to show that the use of body movement activities in various tempi did have a positive effect on sixth-grade beginning instrumental student performance (Rowher, 1998). Research with mixed-age groups by Groves (1969), Jersild and Bienstock (1935) and Smoll (1974) suggest that the maturation process rather than training has shown the best results on improvement in rhythm performance (Rowher, 1998). In another study by Crumpler (1983), first grade students receiving movement methods showed improvement in musical performance (Ferguson, 2005).