An Examination of the Teacher-Student Interaction in the Orff ...

~------------------~-------------------Abstract

This study examines the instruction of the OrJf-Schulwerk approach by expertteachers. This study documents student activities and teacher behaviors observedin 24 elementary general music classes conducted by.five exemplary teachers ofOrjJ-Schulwerk. An ''instruction Record" chart was specially desif!,ned to presentthe time use oj classroom events and teacher-student interaction. Results s;iowthat multiple layers of student music-making activities and teacher talking andmodeling as conducted by these expert teachers typifY the Orff-Schulwerk process.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TEACHER-STUDENTINTERACTION IN THE ORFF-SCHULWERK PROCESS

Cecilia Chu Wang and David W:'SoginUniversity of[(entucky

IntroductionThe music education approach-

es founded by Carl Orff, ZoltanKodaly, and Emile Jaques-Dalcroze have influenced manygeneral music teachers. Whileeach of these approaches has itsown underlying philosopb.y andpedagogic tools, most teacherswill use a combination of tech-niques that work for them, regard-less of their ori.gin. However,some teachers confess to followinga singular approach more e;xten-sively than others even thoughthey assert that their teaching is aresult of many factors includingpast musical experiences, training,personality, school environment,and professional goals. The Orff-Schulwerk movement has existedsince 1923 and is still dispersinglike "wild flowers" (as Carl Orffhad described) in many parts ofthe world (Warner, 1991, 1-8).Wbile teachers and students alikehave great enthusiasm for theSchulwerk method, no study

attempted to show how instructionbased on the Orff-Scb.ulwerkmethod is distinguished fromother music lllS'lTuct1on. In spiteof the fact that Orrf Schulwerk hasbeen addressed in a number ofstudies over the past 30 years, thecontext of these investigations var-ied so widely that no comparisoncould be made across studies toindicate specific attributes oreffects of the Schulwerk method(Wang & Sogin, 1995). This studyidentifies the elements of the Orff-Schulwerk process as observed in!:he classroom of expert Schulwerkteachers.

The Orff approach utilizeschants, singing, movements, andplaying pitched and non-pitchedpercussion insU'uments to engagechildren in creative music male-ing. In the endeavor to maximizeactive musical involvement of allchildren, the success of thisapproach demands that theteacher is also sufficiently creativein providing authentic, child-cen-

tered, and age-appropriate musicactivities. This seemingly sponta-neous approach is perhaps themaiJ1 reason why the Orff-Schulwerk process is difficult todefine for research pmposes.Arnold Walter, Director of theFaculty of Music at the Universityof Toronto, who is credited withbringing OrfTSchulwerk to NorthAmerica, described the Schulwerkmethod as "not easy to teach; itcannot be taught mechanically;""it involves more than the con-scious intellect; it activates achild's spontaneous capacities;""nothing is pre-digested, ready tobe applied;" and "the teacher is onhis own." (Walter, 1969). Studiesby Osterby (1989), Shamrock(1989), Snell (1980), and Wimmer(1993) provide an extensive back-ground in both the philosophy andthe history of the Orff-Schulwerltmovement. The AmeIican Orff-Schulwerk Association (AOSA)was established in 1968 and is anassociate organization of MENC.

6 Research Perspectives in Music Education 2004

1extbooks dedicated to explainingin detail the Orff Schulwerk as amusic teaching approach andsequential currtcuhun (Frazee,1987; Steen, 1992; Warner, 1991)appeared only within the last 12years. Currently, 52 institutions inthe United States provide regularsummer AOSA-approved Odt'-Schulwerk Teacher TrainingCourses. This U'aining is providedin a progression of three levels,with an option ot' an additionaladvanced master level (AOSA,Guidelines for Orff-SchulwerkU'a:ining Courses, 1996). InformalU'aining is available in the form ofone-day worl,shops in most statesfour to five times a year.

Researchers have attempted toinvestigate Schulwerk-related top-ics in various studies. Brophy(1998) and F10hr (1980) focusedtheir investigation on children'simprovisation in the context ofOdf Schulwelk They both fOtmdthat the improvisations of 8-yearolds and those younger containedvery few instances of using musi-cal patterns. Sogin and Wang(1990) researched the perceptionof OrIT-trained teachers on amusic lesson and found thatteachers with more training ratedthe lesson more favorably thanthose with less training and pro-vided a wider range of comments.Some researchers compared OrffSchulwerk to various instructionalmodels or have utilized elementsof the Orff-Schulwer1 approach tobuild new models of instruction(Clausel, 1998; Daigneault, 1995;Jaccard, 1995; Tsisserev, 1995).Other studies include reseaTchingthe effect of Orft' Schulwerk onmusical preference (Bondurant-

Koehler; 1995), on instrumentalprogram (Daigneault, 1995;Madden, 984), on memorydevelopment (Grant, 1991), andon musical achievement (Hensley,1981). At an earlier time, a schooldislTict report (EASA, 1968)indicated that implementing OrnSchulwerk at several pilot schoolsproduced positive results inseveral curriculum areas.

Several researchers employedtime use as a meaSlll'e inresearching OrIT-related activitiesor teacher behaviors. Price andHarding (1988) found no signifi-cant difference in time use inclassroom activities regardless ofwhether or not the t acheI' hadreceived or not 'eceived Orff-Schulwerk U'aining. Martin (1995)replicated Munsen's ( 987) casestudy in detailing the activitiesthat took place in one classroomtaught by an expelienced Orffteacher. They fotmd similarresults that musical activitiesincluded singing, moving andbody percussion, instrument play-ing, improvising, music reading,and listening and occmred 50% to60% of the time. Wang and Sogin( 997) compared the self-reportedand observed time use of variousclassroom activities of teacherswho had received varying levels ofOrff-Schulwerk training. Theydiscovered that teachers consis-tently overestimated their percent-age of time use for music activi-ties. h1 tlus study, Moving as astudent activity was allotted themost class time (26.14%) audCreating as a student activity wasallotted the least time (1.33%). Asan experienced Orff teacher,Hamilton ( 999) implemented

Interaction in the Orff-Schulwerk Process

specific improvisation and compo-sition project& for her ethnograph-ic study. She recorded detailedtime allocation of six students inthree classes and found that playand socialization is an importantpalt of the learning envirollment.

Time use in elementary musiclessons has also been researchedin several studies in non-Orff set-tings (Forsythe, 1977; Hendel,1995; Moore, 1981; Wagner alldShul, 1979). Hendel examined thelessons conducted by elementarymusic teachers who have beenidenlified as "excellent" musicspecialists. Overall, these studiestend to delineate teacher-teachingtim (sometimes described asteacher talk) from student musicactivities time. It is interestingthat the results from these studiesare ill general agreement thatroughly 50% of music lessons 'wasspent in teaching and 50% in stu-dent music activities. Wagner andAnderson (1997) also examinedelemental'Y music teachers' timeuse in the school and found that45% of the teaching school claywas spent in teaching, 17% inmonitoring activities, and 38% innon-currtcular activities.

A study by Wallg and Sogin( 997) revealed several illlriguingresults. First, these teachers oftenconducted multiple activitiessimultaneously. Second, eventhough students enjoyed playingthe Orff instruments, the intensitymeasure correlated negativelywith the playing activity. Third,the time spent in teacher talk wasrecorded at 56.31 % of the classtime. These particulal' findingsal'e strong indicators for examin-ing the Orff-Schuhverk process.

Research Perspectives in Music Education 2004 7


Orff Schulwerk "isactivity- andperformance-oriented, which fitsthe frequent multiple-task occur-rences. Orff ensemble perform-ances are usually comprised ofmultiple layers of speech, singingand the playing of different sizedinstruments with different pitch-baT configurations; it is a complexand difficult situation for teachersto manage and thus the low inten-sity observed. The high percent-age of teacher talk is deemed nec-essary because frequent verbaldirection is necessary to keep theensemble or music making activi-ties going. Perhaps instead of justlooking at how teachers allocatetheir time, one should also look atthe overall picture of how teach-ers and students interact in time.

The pmpose of this study is torecord the Orff-Schulwerk processin the classroom as taught byexpert teachers. It is :importantthat this research examines theteaching by music teachers whoare recognized as experts of theSchulwerk approach and whoseteaching is regarded as exemplaryby their own peers in order toascertain that lesson contentwould demonstrate the Schulwerkapproach. Thi investigationexamined the teacher-studentinteraction in Orff-Schulwerkclasses.

MethodAs a first step, we identified

subjects who are known by theirpeers as experts in the OrffSchulwerk and are regarded asexemplary teachers. This wasaccomplished by the work of apanel of four music educators whohad completed the master level of

Orff-Schulwerk training, served asan officer of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association and hadbeen an active member of AOSAfor 10 or more years. The paneldrew up a list of "names of masterteachers" based on the followingcriteria:1. A minimum of three levels of

Orff-Schulwerk training, com-pleted successfully, in an AOSAapproved program;

2. A minimum of seven years ofOrff-Schulwerk teaching expe-rience at the elementaryschool levels;

3. Currently teaching children inan eleri1entary school; and

4. A current AOSAmember andone who has attended at leastone national AOSAconference.

The names of 28 teachers werejudged to meet the above criteriaand beyond. Five teachers fromthe list agreed to be participants ofthis research project. These fiveparticipants far exceeded the orig-inal criteria of Orff-Schulwerkexperience. They all completedthe master's level of Schulwerktraining and have been teacher-trainers for years. They hadtaught using Orff Schulwerk rang-ing from 10 to 22 years, with anaverage of 6.2 years. Each of theteachers was asked to write theirlesson plans and make three sepa-rate videotapes of their teachingspecifically for this project. Theywere asked to videotape threeconsecutive music lessons for sec-ond graders, and three lessons forfilth graders. Each lesson was tolast a minimum of 25 minutes.Teachers were asked to providerepresentative lessons of sometypical music instruction, with

Schulwerk techniques imbeddedin the teaching. They were toldthat the tapes would be analyzedcarefully according to establishedresearch techniques to identifyelements of effective music teach-ing/learning and elements, whichmight be unique in the Schulwerkclassroom. In addition, teacherswere to send a lesson plan andcormuents for each taped lessonand asked to complete a question-naire to describe their ownSchulwerk experience and theirschool assignments.

In order to obtain 0bjective datafrom the sample lessons, an obser-vation form was designed to dotime analysis specifically withOrff-Schulwerk activities in mind.The items to be observed includ-ed:P-playing pitched instruments,V-playing unpitched instruments,B-body percussion,R-rhythmic speech,S-singing,M-movement and dance,I-improvisa tion,C-creativi ty,ST-student talldng,N-activities :involving notation,L-listening to composed music,G-gesturinglmodeling by theteacher,crT-teacher talking,A-approvals,andTO-teacher talldng alone.

Observation procedmes fol-lowed those developed by Madsenand Madsen (1981). The timeanalyses were obtained by using a5-second "observe" and a 5-sec-

ond "record" protocol. Twentypercent of the lessons wereobserved by two researchers toexamine the reliability of the


Table 1. Average percent of time use in music classroom by students andteachers.

Note: The number in parenthesis denotes the number of different activi-ties used in each lesson. The overall mean of student activities for allles-sons is 6.5.

Event Overall Mean Grade 2 Grade 5Teacher Talking 77.37 76.49 78.24

During Other Event(s) 57.60 56.81 59.39Talking Only 19.77 19.68 19.85

Teacher Gesturing/Modeling 48.92 48.19 49.64Teacher Giving Approval 4.87 5.60 4.12Student Activities:Playing Pitched Instruments 21.02 17.66 24.38Talking 18.24 18.80 17.60Using Notation 18.08 10.85 25.31Singing 12.32 16.14 8.49Playing Body Percussion 11.66 12.76 10.55Moving/Danci ng 9.43 8.19 10.66Saying Rhythmic Speech 7.89 9.63 6.15Playing Unpitched Instruments 7.29 5.91 8.67Creating 3.63 2.49 4.77Listening 1.06 2.11 0.00Improvising 0.16 0.00 0.32

Table 2. Average number of student activities per observation interval (15sec.) and number of different activities observed in each lesson.

Teacher Grade lesson 1 lesson 2 lesson 3 Mean1 2 2.45 (7) 2.63 (8) 2.49 (9) 2.522 2 2.43 (6) 2.45 (5) 2.45 (5) 2.442 5 2.46 (6) 2.30 (6) 2.46 (6) 2.413 5 2.48 (7) 2.71 (8) 2.40 (8) 2.534 2 2.32 (6). 2.12 (4) 2.30 (5) 2.294 5 2.39 (7) 2.65 (4) 2.33 (8) 2.475 2 2.37 (7) 2.10 (8) 2.10 (7) 2.205 5 2.85 (8) 2.42 (5) 2.43 (6) 2.57

instrument. The average overallreliability was found to be 85%agreement for the variousobserved activities. Additionalinformation was collected bymeans of a teacher questionnaireseeking demographic backl:,'Toundas well as open responses, and bycontent analysis of lesson plans.

ResultsTwenty-four videotaped les-

sons-12 second grade and 12 fifthgrade-from the 5 expert teachersof the Ort!"Schulwerk were col-lected for analysis. Three teach-ers taught both second and frftllgrades, one taught fifth grade onlyand one taught second grade only.All 24 lessons were time analyzedfor the activities described earlierand the average time spent oneach was calculated. As seen inTable 1, these teachers spentabout half of the lesson modelingfor their students. While thereseems to be a great amount ofteacher talk (77.37%), 74.44% ofthe talking was done simultane-ously with other classroom events.This verbalization included mostlyshort directives as instructions,telling students to modify themusic making, or to add a newdimension to the ongoing task, orto provide feedback.

Teacher talking alone occurred19.77% of the time for academicand social reasons. Playing,singing, moving, notation-relatedactivities were observed frequent-ly. Student activities with thehighest amount of time allotmentwere in playing pitched instru-ments (21.02%), student talking(18.24%), and using notations.Creative activities happened in alllessons, with an average of 5.65%.

This, along with listening (1.06%)and improvisation (0. 6%) consti-tute the least time observed in themusic class.

Comparing the second-gradeactivities to fifth-grade activities,there were no great differences


except that filth graders spentmore time on pitched instruments,reading/wTiting notation, and lesstime on singing. Since overlap-ping activities appeared to occuroften, we examined the observa- .tion records and calculated the


Interaction in the Orff-Schulwerlc Process

average number of activitiesoccurring simultaneously for allthe lesson time together.

The results in Table 2 indicatethat each of the flve expert teach-ers conducted a mean of about 2.6activities per observation intervalof 15 seconds in duration. Thisoverlapping is quite consistentamong teachers as well as acrosslessons. Table 2 also reveals thatthese teachers used four to ninedifferent types of music activitiesfor their students in their lessons,at an average of 6.5 events per les-son. This rate of activities is con-sidered high, especially when theteachers talked an average of77.57% and modeled 48.92% ofthe class time.

In order to examine theteacher-student interaction-thedynamics of which cannot berevealed in a time percentagetable-we designed an"Instruction Record" chart to doc-ument multiple classroom activi-ties as they unfold during each

lesson. Figure 1 illustrates thevisual representation of the first60 observation periods (20 min-utes) of a lesson identified as 552,(Teacher No.5, Grade 5, Lesson2). There are seven student activ-ities throughout the lesson super-imposed against the blocks show-tng teacher taThing and teachermodeling as the lesson progressedin time. (The different widths andshades of the bars do not havespecial meaning and are used forvisual clarity only.)

This illustration indicates thatmuch teacher-student interactiongoes on at all time throughout thelesson. The amount of studentmusical involvement is high, butin short spans. It shows that itwas common for the teacher totalk and model simultaneouslywhile students were engaged intwo or more types of music tasks.While the teacher only gaveapproval explicitly only two times,the lesson was intense. Eventhough the lesson objectives were

quite varied from lesson to les 'on,this kind. of pattern showing thestudents continuously engaged inmusic maldng while the teachergave directives and modeled iscommon among all of the teach-ers. The lesson objectives hereranged from learning a rote song,learning to play the recorder, tocreating music and a dance for astory.

Figure 2 represents the"panoramic view" of teacberbehaviors 0bserved in eight les-sons, eacb selected randomly fromthe eight classes completing tbe24 lessons in tbis study. Exceptfor Teacher Number 4 who wasworking on developing a story,most teachers started the lessonproviding modeling near thebeginning of the class and contin-ued to near the end.

One item of the questionnaireasked the teachers "In your opin-ion, what factors distinguish Orff-

Figure 1. Instruction record.

Research Perspectives in Music Education 2004

Periods 1 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0ID<352

PITCHED

BODY PERC.

RHY SPEECH

SINGINGMOVEMENT

S. TALKING

NOTAllON

A A

10


Figure 2. Illustration of teacher behaviors across eight lessons.

251 . ~,~ hi:; ~-f=:J! fj....J._!~~~-,-' ~v ~.::..

'" -------- ..------- ---

3 •• •,,, ,, ,3 D,,~"""'~~~\3 B~ ~:l~\~~J· _~ t.J~... --------

,.1 ,,.

mZ2J •

121

A22 t- ~.22

453 ....:: --J.f-.#ft...~2""~""V .U1

.S3

::w~'%-~f-rJ:" ..••Ii ttl -.-r.;:;-tJ ~ tl I r ·~t:~;y'J.:It..i:Ci ~1J t!. m::1J."lJj-tli.- .- ....-. ,..7

tL.1 r~ t1!:fJ [!]!)j d 37• ••521 ':::.ol~~~~=:;5" _

s52 ~,.:-.:- '",

552

L~ TEACHEA TA1..Klt."G;

U 11-i~[)__~)"'""1'f r:CG:!.l1J [!..C] 040--- --,.,_ TEACtiEA MOD.EUN'G

Schulwerk fTom other approachesin general music education?" Allteachers responded (though in dif-ferent words) that the Orff-Schulwerk approach engages stu-dents in active learning throughplaying, singing, moving, I' adingand crea'ting music. All of themalso expressed the process aschild-centered, flexible, and with abroad appeal to reach every child.

DiscussionThis study examined the teach-

illg of these five exemplary teach-ers of Orff Schulwerk. Whilethese sample lessons cannot rep-resent all Schulwerk lessons, theyillustrate that expert teachers canconsistently teach etfectively.These teachers fit nicely with themodel for prototype teach.ingexpertise by Sternberg andHorvath (1995). In brief, themodel states 1l1atthe expertteacher is Imowledgeable suchtha t he or she can "perform manyof the constituent activities of

teaching rapidly and with little orno cognitive effort;" is "planfuland self-aware in approachulgproblems;" and is "able selectivelyto Hcode, combine, and compareulformation to arrive at insightfulsolutions to problems in teaching."The Orff-Schulwerk process asconducted by these expert teach-ers is fully packed with varioussimultaneous music making activ-ities. There is great efficiency inclassroom management. Whilethe teacher talks throughout eachlesson, it is primarily for instruc-tion, giving cues, and directingactivities. Since these cues oftenlast only 1 to 2 seconds but wererecorded in 5-second slots, thepercentage of actual time use isvastly inflated. For a more realis-tic amount of teacher directives,future research should employactual time measures such as usedin Goolsby's (1996) study.

One distinct featme that is com-mon among these lessons is thatinstruction was broken down in

very small steps and progress isalmost continuous. Playing,singing, movement, and notationalactivities are all integrated intothe lesson. The layering tech-nique was used to keep the musicmaking evolving from simple pat-terns to a comple whole. Orff-Schulwerk techniques such aslearning through imitation, fre-quent use of ostinato, rhythmicspeech, body·percussion, attentionto insn'umental colors and bodymovement were readily observed.Singing and reading notation wereintegrated into the music maltingrather than as separate and dis-CI'ete activities. The instructionwas definitely child-centered asmusic malting was found in abun-dance. Whereas the teacher hadgreat control of the lesson events,student input was encoUl'aged ininstances such as choosh1g which"instrument or part to play hI apiece. The fact that the lessonswere packed with musIcal tasksprobably explains the low use of



teacher verbal approval. Theseresults here aTe consistent withthe findings of a recent study byDuke and Henning (1998) thatallowing students to feel accom-plished by achieving musical goalsoutweighs the need to providepositive/negative feedback.

Additionally, results of a studyby Duke, Pricl<ett, and Jellison(1998), suggest that the pacing ofinsn'uction depends more on rateof alternation between teacherand student activities rather thanthe proportion of activities andthat faster paced lessons receivemore favorable rating. The Orff-Schulwerk approach as observedin vivo and documented in theinstruction chart in this study cer-tainly can be considered very fastpaced indeed. However, the class-room annosphere can best bedescribed as one of quiet excite-ment with students and teacherbeing busi:i1ess-like.

Comparing the present study toHendel's (1995) study of nineselected "excellent" elementaryspecialists, several similaritiesemerge. Both studies examinedexemplary teachers from differentregions of the United States andthe teachers in both studies uti-lized a wide range of activities,presented materials or talked, andmodeled or gestured for themajority of the lesson period. InHendel's study, the teachersemployed an average of 8.6 out of21 categories of teaching items ormethods identified for her obser-vation; the teachers in this studyemployed an average of 9.5 out of14 categories of observation perclass. There is, however, at leastone discrepancy between the two

studies. 'Whereas Hendel exam-ined vocal and gesture changes asvariants of reinforcement, thisstudy treated verbal approval sep-arately. This difference explainsin part the high reinforcementrate found in her study and thelow verbal approval rate in thisstudy.

Creativity is ingrained in theSchulwerk approach. 'While cre-ative-thinking activities happenedregularly, the actual time spent bystudents was only 5% to 4% ofclass time. Improvisation wasobserved even less. Improvisationis an important aspect in Orft'Schulwerk, but teachers might notdo them regularly in daily lessonsbut rather as an end product in aseries of lessons. At least, improv-isation was not observed here totake much of the lesson time inthis study of only three-lessonsequence. Most likely, long-termlongitudinal observations areneeded to record the process lead-ing to improvisation.

In addition to the main resultsshowing how time was spent inthe classrooms, the teacher char-acteristics and classroom climatecan be generalized from thevideotaped lessons. Generally,they reveal that multi-tasking wasa common occurrence in theseclasses, that students were givenample opportunities to make deci-sions and such decisions wereoften musical decisions. Theteaching was generally well pacedand sequential, the verbal instruc-tion clear. The atmosphere wasone of quiet excitement and stu-dents were eager to participate.Almost every student was involvedin part of music ensemble and

performing multiple parts wascommon.

Discussion and ConclusionsBased on the data collected in

this study, the Orff-Schulwerkprocess as exemplified by.theseexpert teachers is etl'ectivebecause it is characterized withintrinsic motivational featuressuch as those described by Goodand Brophy (1991). Specit1cally,the process provides a means toincorporate "active response,divergent thinking, immediatefeedback, game-like features, cre-ating of finished products for dis-play, fantasy in experiencingevents vicariously, and interactionwith peers."

While the Orff-Schulwerkapproach provides ample opportu-nities for optimal music learning,it takes an expert teacher withgood teaching skills to deliver theprocess effectively. These skillsinclude the ability to conduct mul-tiple activities simultaneously in afast pace of giving directives, eval-uating student performances, andcarrying out lesson objectives effi-ciently and with musical integrity.The Instruction Record chart pro-vides a new dimension in lookingat classroom content, instructionalpacing, and overall pattern ofteacher-student interaction. Thischart would provide an objectivemeans of visual feedback for stu-dent teachers to monitor theirprogress in teaching and for com-parison to lessons taught by expertteachers. In the future, thisresearch might be replicated withexpert teachers in other eclecticapproaches such as those relatedto Kodaly, Jaques-Dalcroze, 01'

Suzuki.


ReferencesAOSA (1996). Guidelines for OrJf

Schulwerk Training Courses.American Or1f-SchulwerkAssociation.

Bondurant-Koehler, S. (1995). Theeffect of selected.modes ofmusic instruction on children'smusic preference. (Doctoraldissertation, Indiana University,1995). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 56-08A, 3044.

Brophy, T. S. (1998). The melodicimprovisations of children agessix through twelve: A develop-mental perspective. (DoctoralDissertation, University ofKentucky, 1998). DissertationAbstracts International, 59-09A,3386.

Clausel, S. L. S. (1998).Applications of Cambourne'smodel of literacy learning andthe Orff-Schulwerk musicmetllOd to the development of acurriculum. model forMississippi music education, K-1. (Doctoral dissertation,University of Mississippi., 1998).Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 59-iOA, 3768.

Daigneault, D. J. (1993). A surveyof recommended proceduresand teaching methods for build-ing and maintaining a wind andpercussion insb:umental musiceducation program grades sixthrough tvvelve. (Doctoral dis-sertation, University ofMississippi, 1993). DissertationAbstracts International, 54-09A,3362.

Duke, R. A. & Henninger, J. C.Effects of verbal corrections onstudent attitude and perform-ance. Journal oj Research inMusic Education, 46,482-495.

Dul{e,R.A,Prickett,C.A.&Jellison, J. A. (1998). Empiricaldescription of the pace of musicinstruction. Journal of Researchin Music Education, 46, 265-280.

EASA ( 968). orff-Schulwerk:Design for creativity: A report ofthe project "Creativity and par-ticipation in music education."(EASA Title 3 report).Bellflower, California:Bellflower Unified School dis-trict. (ERIC documentReproduction service No. ED053 153).

Flohr, J. W. (1980). Musicalimprovisation behavior ofyoung children. (Doctoral dis-sertation, University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, 1979).Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 40, 5555A.

Frazee, J. (1987). DiscoveringOrjf. New ork, NY, Schott.

Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1991).Looking in classrooms. (5th ed.)NY: Harper Collins.

Goolsby, 1'. W. (1996). Time use ininstrumental rehearsals: Acomparison of experienced,novice, and student teachers.Journal of Research in NlusicEducation, 44,286-303.

Grant, T. W. (1991). The effect ofOrff-Schulwerk instruction onmemory development in chil-dren ages ten and eleven.(Doctoral dissertation, BrighamYoung University, 1.990).Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 52, 206 A.

Hamilton, H. J. (1999, February).Time allocation as a view intothe learning world of threesixth grade music classes.Paper presented at theMinnesota Music ducators


Association Mid-Winter Clinic,Minneapolis, MN.

Hendel, C. (1995). Behavioralcharacteristics and instructionalpatterns of selected musicteachers. Journal of Research inMusic Education, 43, 182-203.

Hensley, S. E. (1981). A study ofthe musical achievement of ele-mentary students taught by theMemphis City CurriculumGuide and students taught bythe traditional approach.(Doctoral dissertation,Louisiana State University,981). DissertationAbstracts

International, 42-11A, 4757.Jaccard, J. L. (1995). A conceptual

model for literature-basedmusical education. (Doctoraldissertation, University ofMassachusetts, 1995).Disse1tation AbstractsInternational, 56-iiA, 4312.

Madden, J. A. (1984). ZoltanKodaly and Carl Orff:hnplications for program devel-opment in elementary instru-mental music education.(Doctoral dissertation, TempleUniversity, 1984). DissertationAbstracts International, 45-01A,0072.

Madsen, C. H. and C. K. Madsen(1981). Teaching/discipline: Apositive approachfor education-al development. (3rd ed.)Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Martin, M. A. (1993). An examina-tion of the Orff-Schulwerkapproach to music education ina public elementary school: areplication study. (DoctoralDissertation, University of NorthCarolina at Greensboro, 1992).Doctoral DissertationInternational, 53, 2728A.



Munsen, C. K. (1987). A descl'ip-tion and analysis of an Orff-Schulwerk program of musiceducation. (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, 1986).Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 47, 3351A.

Osterby, P. M. (1989). Orff-Schulwerk in North America1955-1969. (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of illinois atUrbana-Champaign, 1988).Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 50, 94A.

Price, H. & Hardin, L. (1988)Elementary school teachers'comparative use of class time:Teacher who are versus thosewho are not Orff-Schulwerkcertified. Paper presented atthe 1988 national convention ofMusic Educators NationalConference, Indianapolis,Indiana.

Shamrock., M. E. (1989).Applications and adaptations ofOrff-Schulwerk in Japan,Taiwan, and Thailand.(Doctoral dissertation,University of California, LosAngeles, 1988). DissertationAbstracts International, 49,2576A.

Snell, C. A. (1980). The philosoph-ical basis for Orff-Schulwerk.(Doctoral dissertation,

niversity Southern California,1980). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 41, 1470A.

Sogin, D. W. & Wang. C. C. (1990).An analysis of the perceptionsof OrIT-traDled teachers on anelementary music lesson. Paperpresented at the 1990 worldcongress of the InternationalSociety for Music Education,Helsinki, Finland.

Steen, A. (1992). Exploring OrjJ.New York, NY:Schott MusicCorp.

Sternberg, R. J. & Horvath, J. A.(1995). A prototype view ofexpert teaching. EducationalResearcher, 24, 9-18.

Tsisserev, A. (1993). An analysis ofthe music education methodolo-gy of Dmitry KabalevsJ{y and acomparison with those of ZoltanKodalyand Carl Orfl'. MasterAbstract International, 35-02,0399.

Wagner, M. J. & Anderson, M. J.(1997). Elementary musicteacher time use: A reanalysisafter Wagner/Srrul (1979).Paper presented to the TWelfthNational Symposium onResearch in Music Behavior,

Minneapolis, Minnesota.Walter, A..(1969). Meditation on

method. In Carley, 1. M. (Ed.),(1985) Orff Be-Echoes, Book 2.American Orff-SchulwerkAssociation.

Wang, C. C. & Sogin, D.W. (1997).comparative study of self-

. reported versus observed class-room activities in elementarygeneral music. Journal ofResearch in Music Education,45,444-4,56.

Wang, C. C. & Sogin, D.W. (1995).research perspective of Ortf-

Schulwerk in the classroom.Paper presented at the Orff 100International Conference ofMusic and Dance, Melbourne,Australia.

Warner, B. W. (1991). Or:ff-Schulwerk: Applications for theclassroom. Englewood cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Wimmer, D. L. (1993). The organ-ization of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association from1968-1980 and its influenceupon music education inAmerica. (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Houston,1993). DissertationAbstractsInternational, 54, 847A.


An Examination of the Teacher-Student Interaction in the Orff ...

Documents

Transcript of An Examination of the Teacher-Student Interaction in the Orff ...