1
An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk
Dr. Cecilia Chu Wang and Dr. David W. Sogin
School of Music
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0022
Paper Submitted for Presentation at the
MENC National Conference
Minneapolis, MN, 2004
An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the current body of research literature pertaining to Orff Schulwerk (OS). Research articles and writing from journals, dissertations, theses, and conferences papers were classified into fifteen categories identified to cover all areas related to research in Orff Schulwerk. Important findings were reported to provide an overall perspective of Orff Schulwerk research. Over half of the research studies were completed in 1990 and later, indicating that much attention has been given to OS research in recent years as more teachers have received OS training and practiced OS. All methods of research as well as a spread of research categories are represented in the literature, with an increase in qualitative inquiry in more recent research. Recommendations from the authors, along with thefifteen categories provide ameansfor designing and evaluating future research in OS. The sources for further reference are made available in an extensive list of bibliography.
An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk
Carl Orff was born in 1895 in Munich, Germany. In 1924 he and Dorothee Gunther, a dancer, founded the Guntherschule where improvisation was a major part of the program. Guild Keetman joined the school in 1926 where music were taught with dance and gymnastics; and percussion instruments, African xylophone and recorders were used in instruction. In 1928, Karl Maendler began to develop xylophones and later metallophones specifically to create the combination of timbres for the Orff ensemble. In 1931, the first volume titled “Orff Schulwerk—Elementare Musikubung” was published. While Carl Orff is known to many for his compositions, his compositions were greatly influenced by his own teaching. His most famous work, Carmina Burana, was premiered in 1937. Much has been written about Orff’s life and his musical works. To music educators, Carl Orff was known as a teacher, pedagogue, and writer all of which culminate in his five-volume work Music for Children (Orff & Keetman, 1950). Orff Schulwerk has spread worldwide and reached North America in the early 1950’s.
Research about the Schulwerk did not begin until the late sixties. There have been several major studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It is in the last ten years that we see more consistent output by researchers specifically devoted to the impact of Orff Schulwerk (denoted as OS from here on) in teaching and learning. The purpose of this paper is to describe the current body of research related the Schulwerk. The studies presented here are limited to those found by computer data bases available to the authors, they have to relate to Orff Schulwerk directly and must be considered to be based on a systematic method of investigation. Research studies using Orff Schulwerk only in a tangential way or writings of position papers have not been included here. Furthermore, only studies deemed relevant to MENC membership are included. Unintended omissions are inevitable and the authors believe that the inclusions here are representative of the literature as a whole.
Procedure
Data for this article come from journals, dissertations, theses, and conference papers. The research reports embody all methods of empirical research, namely historical, philosophical, descriptive (case studies, surveys, etc.) and experimental in method. They represent both quantitative and qualitative/ethnographic studies, and mainly field research. We will attempt to present the body of Orff Schulwerk research in music education in specific themes or categories designed for this purpose. These categories came about as a result of integrating components important to the Orff Schulwerk and those identified for music education research (Radocy, 1998). As a consequence, fifteen categories were considered. They are listed in the order indicating highest occurrence to least occurrence, but without any intention to denote the importance of the topic. The number following the term denotes the number of studies belonging to that category used for this paper. The assignment of category is based on the main focus of the research and only one category is assigned to each research study. Most studies follow easily into their category although a few studies are comprehensive in nature and thus could fall into more than one categories.
The categories are as follows: 1) Curriculum/Assessment—11, 2) Effect of OS on Music Knowledge/Skills—9, 3) Teacher/Student Characteristics—4, 4) Influence of OS on Attitudes/Preferences—4, 5) Contributions of Organization/Individual—4, 6) Creativity/Improvisation—4, 7) Pedagogic process/Settings—3, 8) Relating OS to Language/Other curricula subjects—2, 9) OS and Theoretic/Philosophical Inquiries—2, 10) OS Teacher Training—2, 11) Learning and development/Diverse learners—2, 12) Instruments/Recorders in OS—2, 13) Relating OS to Movement/Arts—1, 14) OS Research/Research Methods—1, 15) American Music/World Music/Teaching Materials—0. In the following paragraphs, we will give a brief explanation and provide research sample(s) for each category. Details will be presented for selected studies in the hope to give a good perspective of research pertaining to Orff Schulwerk.
The Curriculum/Assessment category applies to all studies that examine curriculum or assessment issues. This category includes studies by Addo (1990), Calusel (1998), Chang (1991), Chin (1993), Daigneault (1993), Kubitsky (1998), Lyne (1991), Madden (1984), Shamrock (1988), Tsisserev (1993), and Woody and Fredrickson (2000). Several of these studies examined how Orff Schulwerk can be applied in cross-cultural settings, other relate Schulwerk to existing or create new curriculum models. Shamrock’s work is very comprehensive and it provides real-life examples of OS in three different Asian cultures (Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand) with different language systems. Her insight is significant in the understanding the adaptation of OS materials with cultural factors in mind. In general, researchers here find that OS can enhance learning when incorporated into the curriculum.
The next most researched category consists of nine studies that investigated the effect of OS on some form of music knowledge or skills such as singing (Muse, 1994), rhythmic or pitch accuracy, and audiation (Hudgens, 1987), musical sensitivity (Olson, 1964) or music achievement based on standardized music tests (Hensley, 1981). Researchers here tend to use the experimental method of research, employing two or more teaching methods as treatment groups, designating the Schulwerk approach as the experimental group and a traditional method as control. The Kodaly and/or the Dalcroze approaches would make up the other treatment groups. Besides the four studies mentioned above, other studies that fall into this category include those by Flohr (1981), Siemens (1969), Glasgow & Hamreus (1968), and Shank and Rashley (2001). Here the results regarding the effects of OS varied, some studies indicated that OS increased musical learning, yet other studies, especially those with short instructional span, found no significant differences. At the same time, no adverse effect has been reported anywhere. One difficulty is that the treatment labeled Orff Schulwerk as well as that labeled Traditional or other method of instruction varied from study to study.
A study titled “Orff-Schulwerk: Design for Creativity” based on the project “Creativity and Participation in Music Education” in the Bellflower Unified School District in California (1968) is also listed under this category. This project is unique due to its extensiveness and at such an early stage of OS research. The project spanned the duration of at least two years, involved 325 first and second grade students, and 23 classes in secondary schools. While creativity was the main dependent variable, the project also addressed curriculum development, assessment of student behaviors, attitude, reading, as well as the effect of OS on children of different race. It utilized both quantitative measures in creativity scores, reading scores, behavior checklists, as well as qualitative data obtained by means of field observations by administrators and teachers, discussions, and other performance-based assessments. In the Bellflower study, students receiving Schulwerk instruction increased in seven out of nine areas related to creative expression.
The first two categories comprised of about forty percent of all research studies considered here. There are four studies in each of the next four categories. Hamilton (1999), Martin (1992), Munsen (1986), and Wang and Sogin (1997) investigated Teacher and Student Characteristics. All examined time use related to teacher and student activities, and student/teacher interaction. Martin’s study is a replication of Munsen’s in a different setting. The first three studies used the ethnographic method of observations, and teacher or student behaviors were observed mainly during activities involving improvisation. They found that much teacher/student interaction goes on in the Orff classroom and that students are excited about learning. The study by Wang and Sogin utilized the quantitative measures of time analysis and found that teachers consistently over-estimated the proportion of time they spent per activity.
Research on the Influence of OS on Attitudes/Preferences included studies by Barker (1981), Bondurant-Koehler (1995), Mckoy (1998), and Mishenhelter (2001). These studies used quantitative analyses to investigated if relationship exists between OS and self concept (Barker), music listening preference (Bondurant-Koehler, Mckoy), and perception of teaching ability and anxiety (Mishenhelter). Barker’s subjects were with learning disabilities and significant differences were found at the p .05 level of the pre-post testing on the Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. Results for Bondurant-Koehler and Mckoy indicate that other variables besides OS would influence listening preference. Mishenhelter found that his college students perceived slightly better teaching ability after participation in an OS workshop but no change in anxiety.
There are again four studies classified as Contributions of Organization or Individual. These studies are important because they present the history of Orff Schulwerk in America in a cohesive and comprehensive manner. The work by Patricia Osterby (1988) Orff Schulwerk in North America 1955 – 1969 provided in extraordinary details the leaders and their thoughts culminating to the formation of AOSA. De Lois Wimmer’s work (1993) The Organization of American Orff Schulwerk Association from 1968 - 1980 and its influence upon Music Education in America traced the work of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association (AOSA) from its beginning (1968) through its expansion until 1980. Weisert-Peatow (2002) focused on the leadership of AOSA and extended the coverage to 1998. The study by Orrell (1995) detailed the influence of Grace Nash on music education in the United States. These are all qualitative studies showing the rich history of Orff Schulwerk in the United States, and of Canada to a great extent.
Research with focus on Creativity and Improvisation comprises of the work by Beegle (2001), Amchin (1995), Brophy (1998), and Flohr (1980, 1981). Beegle interviewed three teachers before and after oberving their teaching three improvisation lessons, and analyzed the pedagogic process in guiding children’s improvisation and relate improvisation to the music curriculum. Flohr (1980) explored and described how pre-school children improvise. The studies by Amchin, Brophy, and Flohr (1981) were experimental in design in studying children’s ability to improvise in an OS setting. Brohpy studied children ages 6-12 and found a clear developmental trend demonstrated in children’s improvisation, with a great increase between ages 8 and 9. Amchin’s study did not yield significant difference in fourth and fifth graders’ creative thinking after 23 weeks of improvisation instruction but students showed increased music aptitude and interest.
There are three studies in the next category of Pedagogic process/Settings. Price and Harding (1998) found that teachers who were trained in OS did not use time in music teaching differently than those not trained. Sogin and Wang (1990) investigated whether the amount of Orff training has influence on the perception of a music lesson and found none. However teachers rated the time spent on musical activity consistently lower than those events that are considered general teaching techniques. Wang and Sogin (2003) documented student activities and teacher behaviors observed in 24 elementary general music classes conducted by five exemplary teachers of OS and found that these teachers used modeling extensively and that there are more music-making activities than reported in other general music research.
Each of the next five categories has two research studies in its classification. Two categories have one study each and one category has no study found. They are reported here by name as follows: Relating OS to Language/Other curricula subjects (Kelley, 1981; Whitehead, 2001), OS and Theoretic/Philosophical Inquiries (Jaccard, 1995; Snell, 1980), OS Teacher Training (McDowell, Abril, & Frego, 2002; Robbins, 1994), Learning and development/Diverse learners (Grant, 1991; Persellin, 1999), Instruments/Recorders in OS (Sogin & Wang, 2002; Velasquez, 1990), Relating OS to Movement/Arts (Moore, 1984), OS Research/Research Method (Wang & Sogin, 1995), and American Music/World Music/Teaching Materials—0. The last categories has not found a matching research study here, however this category denotes some important media in OS teaching and this topic appears often in non-data-based articles. The authors feel that listing all the categories here might be useful by providing a complete research agenda in Orff Schulwerk for future researchers.
Conclusion
The amount of research related to Orff Schulwerk has increased significantly in the last ten years. The methodologies used in these research studies also seem to follow the trend of the music education research practice in general. For instance, there has been an increase of ethnographic studies using qualitative techniques. Among the studies noted in this article, 21 studies can be classified as qualitative and 30 quantitative. Some recent qualitative research studies also included some quantitative measures and vice versa.
The analysis of these works on Orff Schulwerk in the Classroom suggest that much greater care must be taken in defining the variables used in conducting the research, specifically "Orff Schulwerk". Also, different researchers use a variety of definitions when using Orff Schulwerk as an independent variable. Comparisons cannot be made across studies when this is the case. On the other hand, more recent research indicates that the researcher or the teacher tends to have more formal training in Orff Schulwerk and that more stringent criteria were met in designating a teacher as Schulwerk-trained. In earlier research, a teacher with Level I OS training was denoted as Orff-certified while in later studies Level 3 is more typical. If researchers can better define "Schulwerk" then clearer patterns will evolve from the literature and better information can be used in the decision making process.
In a related manner, many researchers tend to use Orff in conjunction with other curriculums such that it is difficult to say what the effect of Orff Schulwerk, if any, has on the dependent variable when there is such cross pollination of curriculum ideas. This other curriculums traditionally have been those of Kodaly, Dalcroze, and Comprehensive Musicianship. However, the current literature also suggests comparing OS with other approaches such as by Rolland, Suzuki, Gordon, and other instructional methods. The literature also shows strong interest in examining OS in cross-cultural settings.
After three decades of research and teaching and learning in Orff Schulwerk, we can now define the approach much better. We now know that true Schulwerk classrooms should be filled with music making and movement activities. We know the approach is student-centered and that they provide many ideas for active learning. We now have a wealth of music materials suitable for OS classes, and for wider range of age groups. We know that Orff Schulwerk is process-oriented and that Orff Schulwerk is not complete until students have experienced the four phases of pedagogic process: imitation, exploration, literacy, and improvisation. Using Orff instruments per se, or teaching songs by rote alone, or using chants and body percussion without understanding the teaching process is not Orff Schulwerk. The body of OS research indicates that more studies addressed the OS curriculum content and its effect on music skills than other categories mentioned above. Thus, when reading some of the research listed here, one still needs to decide if the results truly reflect the effect of Orff Schulwerk. For future studies using Orff Schulwerk as a curriculum treatment, we suggest using curriculum guidelines provided by Frazee & Kreuter (1987), Steen (1992). The book by Saliba (1991) and by Warner (1991) also provide good examples of Schulwerk activities for children.
Finally, we hope that the fifteen research categories mentioned in this study provide some way to look at Orff Schulwerk as a whole. We would like to see more research immediately to focus on the pedagogic process and on improvisation. We would like to see a continuing increase of Orff Schulwerk research, covering each of the fifteen categories.
Reference
Addo, A. O. (1990). A Survey Of Music Teaching Strategies In Ghanaian Elementary