619068

research-article2015
IJM0010.1177/0255761415619068International Journal of Music EducationSpringer

Article

International Journal of

Teaching popular music:

Music Education
1­–13
© The Author(s) 2015
Investigating music educators’ Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
perceptions and preparation DOI: 10.1177/0255761415619068
ijm.sagepub.com

D. Gregory Springer
University of South Carolina, USA

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate in-service music teachers’ perceptions of popular
music in the classroom and to examine their own preparation to teach popular music. A sample of
music teachers, drawn from two regional chapters of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association,
completed a researcher-designed survey instrument. Results suggest that these teachers
perceived popular music to be an effective instructional tool in the music classroom, although
their responses suggest that they perceived it to be appropriate for older students and in certain
classroom settings only. In addition, the sample reported a lack of training in popular music
pedagogy and responded that they generally felt unprepared to teach popular music. Among
three types of preparation, they provided significantly higher preparation ratings for informal
experiences, followed by performance-oriented experiences and formal educational experiences.
Implications for music educators and music teacher educators are discussed.

Keywords
informal learning, in-service teachers, Orff Schulwerk, popular music, preservice teacher
preparation, vernacular musicianship

Numerous authors have described a disconnect between children’s in-school and out-of-school
music experiences and have proposed that the genuine use of popular music in music classes can
provide a connection between these seemingly-disparate sources (e.g., Allsup, 2011; Bowman,
2004; Woody, 2011). Nonetheless, the use of popular music in the classroom has remained a con-
troversial area of practice since the middle of the 20th century, as some have supported its use in
the classroom (e.g., MacCluskey, 1979; O’Brien, 1982), while others have opposed its use (e.g.,
Fowler, 1970; Mark, 1994; Wolford, 1970).

Corresponding author:
D. Gregory Springer, School of Music, University of South Carolina, 813 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

2 International Journal of Music Education 

Defining popular music

As a label, the term popular music is problematic and has been called an “imprecise [term] for
which there is neither an established definition nor a clear boundary of application” (Gracyk, 2004,
p. 51). Although popular music is frequently used to classify music into a particular genre, notable
diversity can be found in published definitions of the term. Some authors classify popular music by
contrasting it with folk music or art music (e.g., Frith, 2001; Gracyk, 2004), while others explain
that music’s popularity can be assessed by other factors, such as its mass production (Bowman,
2004; Frith, 2001), appeal to the masses (Gracyk, 2004), high consumption (Rodriguez, 2004),
strong social influence (Davis & Blair, 2011; Rodriguez, 2004), and appeal to embodied experi-
ence (Bowman, 2004). Others describe it in a broader sense by including all vernacular forms of
music making under the popular music label (e.g., Hamm, 1982; Woody, 2011), such as rock,
country, jazz, folk, and R&B. This inclusive definition constituted the operational definition of
popular music used in the present study.

Popular music and informal learning in the music classroom

In music classrooms, the use of popular music is often associated with a variety of informal learn-
ing practices, which differ from those practices commonly found in traditional school music class-
rooms (Davis & Blair, 2011). Green (2008) lists some of these informal practices, which include
the following: (1) music chosen by the students, rather than the teacher; (2) copying recordings by
ear as a conventional learning strategy, rather than strategies driven by notation; (3) learning in
small peer groups; (4) learning in a chaotic and holistic manner, rather than a traditional simple-to-
complex learning sequence; and (5) the integration of composition, improvisation, arranging, and
other creative processes throughout the learning experience. These informal practices are consid-
ered to be corequisite with popular and vernacular music learning (Green, 2008), and they have
been reported to positively influence both music skill acquisition (Cope, 2002; Jaffurs, 2004) and
the development of aural musicianship (Woody & Lehmann, 2010).
Despite the benefits of popular music study and informal learning reported in the literature,
some music teachers avoid the use of popular music in the classroom. Authors have reported
numerous reasons why teachers may be hesitant to include popular music in their classes, such as
(1) a perception of poor aesthetic quality in comparison with other genres (Fowler, 1970;
MacCluskey, 1979), (2) a perception of negative effects on morality and student values (Fowler,
1970; Wolford, 1970), (3) a belief that school instructional time should not be spent on popular
music since students experience it outside of school (Fowler, 1970; Mark, 1994), (4) a lack of cur-
ricular resources for successful inclusion in music classes (Davis & Blair, 2011; Dunbar-Hall,
2002; Hebert & Campbell, 2000), (5) a perception of rebellious, anti-educational characteristics
(Hebert & Campbell, 2000; Wolford, 1970), and (6) a lack of popular music performing experience
(Allsup, 2011; MacCluskey, 1979).

Popular music and preservice music teacher education

Aside from the reasons hypothesized why some music teachers do not include popular music in the
classroom, some authors have described insufficient preservice training due to a lack of popular
music study in undergraduate coursework (Dunbar-Hall, 2002; Hebert & Campbell, 2000; Springer
& Gooding, 2013; Woody, 2011). For example, Wang and Humphreys (2009) reported that in
music history, theory, and performance courses, only .54% of instruction time was devoted to
popular music study at one North American university. Moreover, recent self-reported responses of

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 3

music education majors (Kruse, 2015) indicate that their undergraduate performing opportunities
were primarily focused on Western classical music. Given the growing number of course offerings
and curricular demands in music education degree programs, some may find it difficult to include
popular music pedagogy within a curriculum that already seems to be filled beyond capacity (Davis
& Blair, 2011; Hebert & Campbell, 2000).
Even though it may be challenging to include popular music pedagogy in undergraduate curric-
ula, this area of pedagogy is needed for several reasons. First, many music teachers in the U.S.
complete rigorous preservice training, which prepares them to teach students in various music set-
tings, but this preparation often focuses on a narrow cultural milieu—that of the Western classical
tradition (Emmons, 2004). Because many students do not listen to Western art music exclusively in
their formative years, some authors (Davis & Blair, 2011; Emmons, 2004) have recommended that
music teachers consider the interests and experiences of students to provide a more relevant
approach. Second, because popular music is highly connected with the development of students’
personal identities and their understanding of social experiences (Davis & Blair, 2011; Hebert &
Campbell, 2000), popular music study can offer unique benefits when used in the classroom. Finally,
popular music study can promote the development of desirable musical skills through experiences
with composition, improvisation, and arranging (Davis & Blair, 2011; Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss,
2000; Hebert & Campbell, 2000).

Popular music learning and Orff Schulwerk1

As noted above, a lack of preservice training in popular music pedagogy in the U.S. has been
reported, but some have pointed out that the informal pedagogies associated with popular music
learning are notably similar to the Orff Schulwerk approach (Dunbar-Hall, 2000; Dunbar-Hall &
Wemyss, 2000; Woody, 2011). Dunbar-Hall (2000) lists four similarities between Orff Schulwerk
and popular music learning, including (1) a strong emphasis on creativity throughout the learning
process, (2) the presence of group work throughout the learning process, (3) a basic pedagogical
approach following an observe–imitate–experiment–create scheme, and (4) an emphasis on expe-
riential learning (i.e., experiencing musical concepts enactively before identifying/labeling them
cognitively). Also, other aspects of informal learning are similar in the contexts of Orff Schulwerk
and popular music, including the practice of listening and copying (echoing), as well as other
activities that are intrinsically motivating by nature (Woody, 2011).
Musical materials of some popular music are similar to that which is often found in Orff
Schulwerk repertoire as well, such as pentatonic scales, modes, and ostinato accompaniments
(Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000). Certain extramusical materials of popular music are also common
with Orff Schulwerk, including an emphasis on poetry/lyrics, natural/vernacular speech, and
expressive movement/dance (Woody, 2011).
Finally, Woody (2011) illuminates a broader connection between Orff Schulwerk and the infor-
mal practices associated with popular and vernacular music in terms of a broader conception of
musicianship and an openmindedness to a variety of informal learning processes. He states that
“teachers who use Orff Schulwerk recognize the value of giving up absolute control of a classroom
so that students may employ their own creativity and natural musicianship” (p. 17). This openness
to an informal approach to teaching reflects a broader theoretical connection between Orff
Schulwerk and popular music learning (Woody, 2011).
The value of popular music in the classroom has generated productive dialogue among scholars
across the globe, but Mantie (2013) points out that international differences do exist in popular
music practices and conceptions of the role of popular music in the classroom. Although some
regions (e.g., Hong Kong [Leung & Hung, 2008], the United Kingdom [Odam, 2004], Finland

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

4 International Journal of Music Education 

[Väkevä, 2006], Australia [Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000], and Sweden [Georgii-Hemming &
Westvall, 2010]) have been reported to include popular music in music classrooms to a greater
extent, there is a need for more popular music in North American classrooms (Allsup, 2011; Hebert
& Campbell, 2000). Despite this need, preservice preparation to teach popular music is lacking in
many settings (Davis & Blair, 2011; Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000; Hebert & Campbell, 2000;
Leung & Hung, 2008; Springer & Gooding, 2013).
The purpose of the present study was to explore music educators’ perceptions of popular music
in the classroom and to investigate how they perceive their own preparation to teach popular music.
The following research questions guided this study: (1) How do music educators rate the effective-
ness of popular music in addressing the 1994 National Standards for Music Education? (2) How do
music educators rate the appropriateness of popular music in various school age groups and music
classroom settings? (3) What are music educators’ expressed attitudes toward the use of popular
music in the classroom? (4) Are there differences in music educators’ ratings of three types of edu-
cational experiences (formal, informal, and performance-oriented experiences) in terms of their
preparation to teach popular music?

Method
Respondents and procedure
In an earlier investigation (Springer & Gooding, 2013), researchers examined preservice music
teachers’ attitudes toward popular music in the classroom, but the present investigation was focused
on the attitudes and perceptions of in-service music teachers. Because one of the primary goals of
this study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions of what types of experiences best prepared them
to teach popular music, a population of teachers was selected who were believed to be most likely
to use this type of music (along with its associated informal learning practices) in their class-
rooms—teachers with Orff Schulwerk experience. As noted above, there are parallels between Orff
Schulwerk pedagogy and the informal learning processes used in popular music learning (e.g.,
Dunbar-Hall, 2000; Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000; Woody, 2011), so this constituency of music
teachers represented an ideal target population for this study.
Respondents were music educators who were sampled from two regional chapters of the
American Orff-Schulwerk Association (AOSA) located in different regions of the United States—
one in a midwestern state and one in a southern state. This sample represented a cohort of music
teachers who were relatively homogeneous due to their membership in an AOSA regional chapter
and who also represented diversity in terms of teaching experience and level of Orff Schulwerk
training. Because the results of prior research (Sogin & Wang, 2008) suggest that music activities
and classroom environments vary based on the music teacher’s level of Orff Schulwerk training, it
was expected that teachers with more Orff Schulwerk training might report different attitudes
toward popular music than those with less training.
Respondents were contacted via email with an invitation to complete a web-based question-
naire. Total membership of the combined chapters was 160 members, and all members received an
initial email announcement and two follow-up emails. Seventy-one individuals completed the
questionnaire, resulting in a 44.38% response rate. Only those respondents who reported comple-
tion of at least one year of full-time K–12 teaching experience were included in the sample, which
resulted in a valid sample size of 69 respondents used in all data analyses.
Within this sample, the majority of respondents (89.9%) were female. The majority were public
school music teachers (82.6%), although private or parochial school music teachers (8.7%),

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 5

graduate students (4.3%), and college or university music teachers (4.3%) were represented in the
sample as well. In terms of primary musical background, slightly more respondents reported an
instrumental music background (55.1%) than those who reported a vocal music background (44.9%).
Overall, the sample reported a mean of 15.03 years of full-time teaching experience in public,
private, or parochial schools, although notable variability was observed (SD = 11.77), with
responses ranging from 1 to 44 years of teaching experience. Regarding prior Orff Schulwerk
teacher training, responses indicate that teachers had completed Level III (30.4%), Level II
(26.1%), Level I (26.1%), and no Orff Schulwerk levels training (17.4%).

Instrumentation
For this study, respondents completed the same survey instrument used by Springer and Gooding
(2013) in a web-based questionnaire format (using SurveyMonkey) with additional items appended
to collect data describing their perceived preparation to teach popular music. The instrument was
composed of several brief sections: (1) a demographic section, (2) a scale measuring respondents’
perceived effectiveness of popular music in the music classroom, (3) a scale measuring their per-
ceived appropriateness of popular music in various school age groups and classroom settings, (4)
a scale measuring their attitude toward popular music, (5) two items focused on their preservice
coursework that included popular music pedagogy as a content area, and (6) a scale measuring
their perceived preparation to teach popular music based on various formal, informal, and perfor-
mance-oriented educational settings.

Results
Before conducting statistical analyses, data were screened to evaluate whether the assumptions of
parametric analyses were met. Following a visual examination of histograms and quantile-quantile
plots, it was concluded that these data did not meet the assumption of normality. This conclusion
was supported by statistically significant Shapiro-Wilk tests for all survey items (all items were
statistically significant at p < .01). Because these data violated the normality assumption, nonpara-
metric statistical procedures were used for all significance tests, and medians and interquartile
ranges (IQR) were examined as primary measures of central tendency and dispersion, respectively.
Because the median and IQR for all survey items were often whole numbers, means and standard
deviations are also provided as an additional descriptive measure for better interpretation, although
they were not the focus of analyses.

Perceived effectiveness of popular music

On this section of the questionnaire, respondents were presented the following question: “How
effective is popular music in addressing the following learning outcomes in music classes?” A list
of the nine 1994 National Standards for Music Education followed. In response to this question,
respondents rated each standard on a scale anchored by 1 (very ineffective) and 5 (very effective).
Descriptive statistics for these effectiveness ratings are summarized in Table 1. Mean and median
ratings for all standards were observed to be at or above the midpoint of 3 (neither effective nor
ineffective), suggesting that the overall sample perceived popular music to be somewhat effective
as an instructional tool to address these standards. As shown in Table 1, the sample reported highest
ratings for standards 6 (listening) and 7 (evaluating), while reporting lowest ratings for standards 5
(reading and notating) and 3 (improvising).

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

6 International Journal of Music Education 

Table 1.  Perceived effectiveness of popular music in addressing the 1994 National Standards for Music
Education.

Item M (SD) Mdn (IQR) Observed

  Min. Max.
6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music 3.98 (.81) 4.00 (.00) 1 5
7. Evaluating music and music performances 3.91 (.89) 4.00 (.00) 1 5
9. Understanding music in relation to history and 3.78 (.98) 4.00 (.00) 1 5
culture
1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire 3.61 (.97) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
of music
8. Understanding relationships between music, the 3.61 (.92) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
other arts, and disciplines outside the arts
2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, 3.48 (1.01) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
a varied repertoire of music
4. Composing and arranging music within specified 3.34 (1.03) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
guidelines
3. Improvising melodies, variations, and 3.23 (1.07) 3.00 (1.00) 1 5
accompaniments
5. Reading and notating music 3.11 (1.14) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5

Note. Respondents rated each item on a scale anchored by 1 (very ineffective) and 5 (very effective). Two measures of
central tendency and dispersion are provided for enhanced interpretation.

Perceived appropriateness of popular music

This section contained two questions describing how respondents perceived the appropriateness of
popular music in music classrooms: (1) “How appropriate is popular music for the following
school age groups?” and (2) “How appropriate is popular music in the following classroom set-
tings?” On a rating scale anchored by 1 (very inappropriate) and 5 (very appropriate), respondents
rated the appropriateness of the use of popular music in five school age groups and 14 classroom
settings. Descriptive statistics for these appropriateness ratings are summarized in Table 2.
Respondents’ appropriateness ratings of school age groups demonstrated a clear trend. As
shown in Table 2, the sample reported higher appropriateness ratings for older age groups and
lower ratings for younger age groups. Each increase in age group was associated with an overall
increase in appropriateness rating. Respondents’ appropriateness ratings varied across different
music classroom settings, however. Among 14 music classroom settings, the sample provided the
highest ratings for music appreciation and guitar classes, and they provided lowest ratings for
chamber music ensemble and folk/regional music ensemble classes.

Attitude toward popular music

As a measure of their attitudes toward popular music in the classroom, respondents completed an
attitude scale used in a prior study (Springer & Gooding, 2013), which was composed of 16 state-
ments describing benefits of popular music study (e.g., “Popular music is culturally relevant to
students’ lives” and “Popular music study enhances students’ creativity”). Respondents rated each
statement on a scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Seven of the items
were negatively worded (e.g., “Instructional time should not be spent on popular music”) and
scored with a reverse-keyed response (i.e., a rating of 5 was scored as 1) to reduce acquiescence

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 7

Table 2.  Perceived appropriateness of popular music across school age groups and classroom settings.

Item M (SD) Mdn (IQR) Observed

  Min. Max.
School age groups
  Grades 9 through 12 4.25 (.68) 4.00 (1.00) 2 5
  Grades 6 through 8 4.06 (.69) 4.00 (.00) 2 5
  Grades 3 through 5 3.31 (.97) 4.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Kindergarten through Grade 2 2.51 (.91) 2.00 (1.00) 1 4
  Early childhood through preschool 2.16 (.96) 2.00 (2.00) 1 4
Classroom settings
  Music appreciation 4.07 (.69) 4.00 (.00) 2 5
  Guitar class 4.05 (.77) 4.00 (.75) 1 5
  Marching band 4.00 (.88) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Jazz ensemble 3.85 (.80) 4.00 (.75) 1 5
  Music history 3.83 (.94) 4.00 (.00) 1 5
  General music 3.68 (.77) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
 Choir 3.60 (1.01) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Piano class 3.60 (.83) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Concert band 3.50 (.89) 4.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Music theory 3.42 (.96) 3.50 (1.00) 1 5
  World music ensemble 3.27 (1.04) 3.00 (1.00) 1 5
 Orchestra 3.02 (1.05) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Folk or regional music ensemble 2.77 (1.03) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Chamber music ensemble 2.45 (1.19) 2.00 (3.00) 1 5

Note. Respondents rated each item on a scale anchored by 1 (very inappropriate) and 5 (very appropriate). Two measures
of central tendency and dispersion are provided for enhanced interpretation.

response sets. Respondents’ attitude scores were calculated as the average of each of the 16 state-
ments (using the reverse-keyed response where appropriate) such that higher scores represented a
more favorable attitude toward popular music in the classroom.
As an overall sample, respondents reported a modestly favorable attitude toward popular music
in the classroom (Mdn = 3.44, IQR = .61, M = 3.42, SD = .49). A series of Kruskal-Wallis tests
(Siegel, 1956) were conducted to ascertain whether there were significant differences in attitude
scores among subgroups. No significant differences were found on the basis of regional chapter
membership (p = .79); gender (p = .33); status as a public school teacher, private/parochial school
teacher, college/university teacher, or graduate student (p = .29); instrumental versus vocal back-
ground (p = .65); primary teaching area (p = .21); or completed level of Orff Schulwerk teacher
training (p = .80), which suggests some amount of homogeneity among the sample.

Preparation to teach popular music

On this section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked how many undergraduate classes they
had taken that included popular music teaching skills as a content area, and they were also asked,
“At this time, how prepared do you feel to teach popular music?” Respondents used a rating scale
anchored by 1 (very unprepared) and 5 (very prepared) in response to this question. Results indi-
cated that popular music pedagogy was marginal or absent from these respondents’ preservice

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

8 International Journal of Music Education 

coursework. In fact, 90.0% of the sample reported taking zero courses that included this area of
pedagogy (8.3% reported one class, and 1.7% reported two classes). In response to the second
question, respondents indicated that they generally felt unprepared to teach popular music (Mdn =
2.00, IQR = 1.00, M = 2.59, SD = 1.04).
Respondents were then asked, “How well did each of the following experiences prepare you to
teach popular music in a music classroom setting?” This question was followed by a list of 10
formal educational experiences, 11 informal experiences, and 10 performance-oriented experi-
ences, which respondents rated on a 5-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all well) and 5 (extremely
well). A “not applicable” option was available for those who had no experience with certain items.
Descriptive statistics for these items are presented in Table 3.
To examine differences in how respondents perceived the three types of preparation to teach
popular music (formal educational experiences, informal experiences, and performance-
oriented experiences), a Friedman two-way analysis of variance on ranked data (Siegel, 1956)
was conducted. Results indicated a significant difference among the three types of preparation,
χ2(2) = 65.87, p < .001. As a follow-up measure, pairwise comparisons were examined using
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Bonferroni correction to control for inflated Type I error.
Results of this post hoc analysis indicated that respondents provided significantly different rat-
ings for all three types of experiences. Highest ratings were provided for informal experiences
(Mdn = 2.91, IQR = 1.66, M = 2.89, SD = 1.03), which were rated significantly higher than
formal experiences (Mdn = 1.37, IQR = .88, M = 1.64, SD = .69), Z = –6.40, p < .001, and
performance-oriented experiences (Mdn = 2.25, IQR = 1.55, M = 2.30, SD = .97), Z = –4.44,
p < .001. Performance-oriented experiences were also rated significantly higher than formal
experiences, Z = –5.19, p < .001.

Discussion
Perceptions of popular music in the classroom
The purpose of this study was to examine in-service music teachers’ perceptions of popular music
in the music classroom and to investigate their perceived preparation to teach popular music.
Results suggest that the sample viewed popular music to be effective as a tool for addressing the
1994 National Standards, and their ratings of popular music’s effectiveness reflected some com-
monly-cited trends in the literature. For example, respondents rated popular music to be most
effective in addressing standard 6 (listening), which is consistent with earlier reports of the empha-
sized role of listening in popular music learning (Green, 2008; Woody, 2011). Also, their effective-
ness ratings were lowest for standard 5 (reading and notating), which echoes the reduced role of
musical notation reported in previous literature (Green, 2008).
Curiously, however, respondents also provided relatively low effectiveness ratings for the “cre-
ativity standards”—standards 3 (improvising) and 4 (composing and arranging). This finding was
unexpected, as earlier reports claim that popular music learning naturally involves these creative
processes (Dunbar-Hall, 2000; Emmons, 2004; Green, 2008; Hebert & Campbell, 2000). Based on
these low ratings, it seems that these music educators did not view popular music to be the most
effective vehicle for addressing these creative processes in the music classroom, as they rated all
but one of the standards higher. Because traditional Orff Schulwerk pedagogy strongly emphasizes
the creative processes of composition and improvisation (Frazee, 1987), it is interesting that these
respondents provided low ratings for the standards that address these creative processes. It is not
clear why these music educators provided fairly low ratings for the creativity standards, and this
explanation was beyond the scope of the present study.

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 9

Table 3.  Preparation to teach popular music ratings among formal, informal, and performance-oriented
educational experiences.

Item M (SD) Mdn (IQR) Observed

  Min. Max.
Formal
  Undergraduate orchestration or arranging classes 2.00 (1.11) 2.00 (1.00) 1 5
  In-service professional development sessions 1.94 (1.01) 2.00 (1.25) 1 4
  Undergraduate music history classes 1.88 (1.01) 2.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Local workshops 1.76 (1.03) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4
  Undergraduate music theory classes 1.54 (1.01) 1.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Undergraduate piano class 1.53 (1.03) 1.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Undergraduate guitar class 1.47 (.81) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4
  National music conferences 1.42 (.74) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4
  State music conferences 1.38 (.78) 1.00 (.00) 1 4
  Undergraduate music education courses 1.38 (.73) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4
Informal
  Listening to a variety of musical styles 3.48 (1.19) 4.00 (2.25) 1 5
 Dancing 3.26 (1.20) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Being around younger people 3.16 (1.15) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Interactions with friends 2.93 (1.30) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Singing karaoke 2.90 (1.33) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Interactions with family 2.88 (1.34) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Watching and imitating popular musicians 2.85 (1.37) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Attending musicals 2.78 (1.28) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Religious practice 2.67 (1.29) 3.00 (2.25) 1 5
  Watching popular television shows 2.63 (1.39) 3.00 (3.00) 1 5
  Observing social media 2.18 (1.38) 2.00 (2.00) 1 5
Performance-oriented
  Performing in a concert band 3.46 (1.45) 4.00 (3.00) 1 5
  Performing in an orchestra 2.93 (1.26) 3.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Performing in a choral ensemble 2.62 (1.25) 2.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Performing in a folk or regional music ensemble 2.58 (1.31) 2.00 (1.00) 1 5
  Performing in a chamber music ensemble 2.45 (1.26) 2.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Performing in a world music ensemble 2.23 (1.21) 2.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Performing in a marching band 2.09 (1.11) 2.00 (2.00) 1 5
  Playing the piano 1.82 (1.05) 1.50 (1.25) 1 5
  Undergraduate private lessons (instrument or voice) 1.61 (.96) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4
  Performing in a jazz ensemble 1.58 (1.90) 1.00 (1.00) 1 4

Note. Respondents rated each item on a scale anchored by 1 (not at all well) and 5 (extremely well). Two measures of
central tendency and dispersion are provided for enhanced interpretation.

Although these teachers reported a mostly favorable attitude toward popular music in the class-
room in the present study, their appropriateness ratings did not indicate uniform support across vari-
ous age groups and classroom settings. Consistent with prior research (Springer & Gooding, 2013),
respondents provided higher ratings for older age groups than for younger age groups. In terms of
classroom settings, they provided higher ratings for certain classes, such as music appreciation,
guitar class, and marching band, yet they provided lower ratings for other classes like orchestra,
folk/regional music ensemble, and chamber music ensemble.

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

10 International Journal of Music Education 

In this study, no significant differences in attitude toward popular music in the classroom were
noted among various subgroups in the sample (e.g., regional chapter membership and instrumental
versus vocal background). Additionally, although prior research indicates that teachers with more
Orff Schulwerk training tend to allow more decision-making autonomy among their students dur-
ing various music activities (Sogin & Wang, 2008), no differences in attitude toward popular music
were observed among teachers with various levels of Orff Schulwerk training in this study. This
unexpected finding could be indicative of teachers’ lack of transfer between Orff Schulwerk
instruction and popular music learning, which could perhaps be improved with more instruction in
popular music study and informal pedagogical practices in undergraduate coursework.

Preparation to teach popular music

In agreement with prior literature (Dunbar-Hall, 2002; Emmons, 2004; Springer & Gooding,
2013), respondents reported that they felt unprepared to teach popular music, with 90.0% of the
sample reporting zero courses devoted to popular music pedagogy in their undergraduate curricu-
lum. In addition, they reported that informal experiences (e.g., listening to a variety of musical
styles and dancing) provided better preparation to teach popular music than formal educational
experiences and performance-oriented experiences, although reasonably low ratings were gener-
ally observed even for the informal experiences. Since the sample reported negligible preparation
to teach popular music, these low ratings could perhaps be expected.
In terms of performance-oriented experiences, respondents generally noted that experiences
performing in ensembles provided better preparation to teach popular music than solo performing
experiences, as some of their lowest ratings were provided for the two solo performance items
(playing the piano and undergraduate private lessons). The only exception to this trend was the
lowest-rated experience of playing in a jazz ensemble. This unpredicted finding could be attributed
to the fact that many of these participants may have only limited performance experience with jazz
ensembles.
Overall, respondents provided the lowest preparation ratings for formal educational experi-
ences, which included various types of undergraduate coursework and professional development
opportunities. Among these experiences, they responded that state music conferences and under-
graduate music education courses provided the least preparation to teach popular music.

Limitations
The generalizability of these findings is subject to certain limitations. First, these data were col-
lected from a purposefully-chosen sample of music teachers who were members of American Orff-
Schulwerk Association regional chapters in the United States. As such, it is unknown whether these
findings are applicable among a broader sample of music teachers from other geographic regions.
Second, although the response rate (44.38%) is a limitation of the study, it is slightly higher than
the response rates reported in studies using similar web-based survey instruments (e.g., Brewer &
Rickels, 2012; Kruse, 2015), so the response rate was considered to be acceptable for this investi-
gation. Aside from these limitations, these results provide certain implications for professional
practice.

Implications for practice and suggestions for further research

Related to these teachers’ preparation to teach popular music, perhaps the most disturbing finding
in this study was the reported lack of preparation to teach popular music in their preservice

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 11

coursework. Although these teachers reported favorable attitudes toward the use of popular music
in the classroom, they reported inadequate preparation in the area of popular music pedagogy. In
fact, among a variety of formal educational experiences, respondents provided the lowest prepara-
tion ratings for undergraduate music education coursework!
Preparing preservice music teachers for successful future work in the field requires the prepara-
tion of multifaceted professionals (e.g., teachers, scholars, and performing musicians), so the inclu-
sion of popular music into curricula that already seem too rotund reflects a unique challenge for
music teacher educators (Davis & Blair, 2011; Emmons, 2004; Woody, 2011). Despite the chal-
lenge, this type of preparation is needed. The propagation of the status quo—that is, continuing to
promote the gap between how music teachers are traditionally educated and the actual context of
students’ out-of-school music experiences—will continue if this type of preparation remains absent
in undergraduate coursework (Leung & Hung, 2008).
The findings of this study suggest that certain changes could be made to improve the prepara-
tion of music teachers. First, respondents reported that popular music pedagogy was nearly absent
from their preservice curricula, so simply including this type of pedagogy as a content area in
music methods courses could provide some benefits. Second, respondents claimed that informal
experiences prepared them to teach popular music better than any other type of experience. This
finding suggests that the inclusion of informal practices in preservice coursework could provide
them with the best type of preparation for teaching popular music and is consistent with prior
research (e.g., Davis & Blair, 2011). Finally, as noted by the relatively low ratings for other types
of undergraduate courses (e.g., music theory and music history), respondents reported that these
courses did not provide adequate preparation in popular music, which echoes earlier results pre-
sented by Wang and Humphreys (2009). As recommended by Emmons (2004), music education
faculty might consider making concerted efforts to convince their music colleagues in non-educa-
tion areas to include popular and vernacular musics in their music history, theory, and composition/
arranging classes.
Future research in the area of popular music pedagogy is warranted. For example, a study com-
paring preservice and in-service music teachers’ perceptions of popular music in the classroom
would benefit music educators and music teacher educators. In addition, a descriptive analysis of
teachers’ self-reported uses of various types of popular music genres during instructional activities
would be particularly valuable for music teacher educators. Because respondents rated standards 3
and 4 (“creativity standards”) lower than expected, future descriptive studies might also be con-
ducted to examine music educators’ beliefs regarding the use of popular music with composition,
improvisation, and arranging activities in music classes. Finally, another worthy research venture
would be a phenomenological investigation of young musicians’ music learning in an informal
setting, such as a school of rock.
Preservice teacher training can be improved with enhanced preparation in the area of popu-
lar music pedagogy. Including popular music in classrooms offers numerous benefits by offer-
ing students relevant musical experiences that relate to those they experience outside the
classroom, and it can encourage greater music participation (Emmons, 2004). Woody (2011)
summarizes: “Equipping music teachers [to teach popular music] will not just make them
more able teachers of popular music, but perhaps better teachers altogether. The flexibility
they will gain along the way—in their musicianship and otherwise—may be too valuable to
ignore” (p. 14).

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

12 International Journal of Music Education 

Note
1. As applied in a prior study (Sogin & Wang, 2008), the non-hyphenated form of the term “Orff Schulwerk”
is used throughout this article, except when referring to the American Orff-Schulwerk Association. The
hyphenated version is copyrighted for AOSA use only.

References
Allsup, R. E. (2011). Popular music and classical musicians: Strategies and perspectives. Music Educators
Journal, 97(3), 30–34. doi: 10.1177/0027432110391810
Bowman, W. D. (2004). “Pop” goes …? Taking popular music seriously. In C. X. Rodriguez (Ed.), Bridging
the gap: Popular music and music education (pp. 29–50). Reston, VA: MENC.
Brewer, W. D., & Rickels, D. A. (2012). Demographics and faculty time allocation of music education professors
in the United States. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22, 63–74. doi: 10.1177/1057083711424504
Cope, P. (2002). Informal learning of musical instruments: The importance of social contexts. Music
Education Research, 4, 93–104. doi: 10.1080/14613800220119796
Davis, S. G., & Blair, D. V. (2011). Popular music in American teacher education: A glimpse into a secondary
methods course. International Journal of Music Education, 29, 124–140. doi: 10.1177/0255761410396962
Dunbar-Hall, P. (2000). World music, creativity and Orff-Schulwerk methodology. In A. De Quadros
(Ed.), Many seeds, different flowers: The music education legacy of Carl Orff (pp. 58–67). Porth, WA:
CIRCME.
Dunbar-Hall, P. (2002). Designing a teaching model for popular music. In G. Spruce (Ed.), Aspects of teach-
ing secondary music (pp. 173–181). London, UK: Routledge/Falmer.
Dunbar-Hall, P., & Wemyss, K. (2000). The effects of the study of popular music on music education.
International Journal of Music Education, 36, 23–34. doi: 10.1177/025576140003600104
Emmons, S. E. (2004). Preparing teachers for popular music processes and practices. In C. X. Rodriguez
(Ed.), Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education (pp. 159–174). Reston, VA: MENC.
Fowler, C. B. (1970). The case against rock: A reply. Music Educators Journal, 57(1), 38–42. doi:
10.2307/3392869
Frazee, J. (1987). Discovering Orff. New York, NY: Schott.
Frith, S. (2001). Pop music. In S. Frith, W. Straw & J. Street (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to pop and
rock (pp. 93–108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Georgii-Hemming, E., & Westvall, M. (2010). Music education – a personal matter? Examining the current
discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 27, 21–33. doi: 10.1017/
S0265051709990179
Gracyk, T. (2004). Popular music: The very idea of listening to it. In C. X. Rodriguez (Ed.), Bridging the gap:
Popular music and music education (pp. 51–70). Reston, VA: MENC.
Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
Hamm, C. (1982). Some thoughts on the measurement of popularity in music. In D. Horn & P. Tagg (Eds.),
Popular music perspectives (pp. 3–15). Exeter, UK: IASPM.
Hebert, D. G., & Campbell, P. S. (2000). Rock music in American schools: Positions and practices since the
1960s. International Journal of Music Education, 36, 14–22. doi: 10.1177/025576140003600103
Jaffurs, S. E. (2004). The impact of informal music learning practices in the classroom, or how I learned
how to teach from a garage band. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 189–200. doi:
10.1177/0255761404047401
Kruse, A. J. (2015). Preservice music teachers’ experiences with and attitudes toward music genres. Journal
of Music Teacher Education, 24, 11–23. doi: 10.1177/1057083714530721
Leung, C. C., & Hung, C. C. (2008). The enjoyment of popular music as a valuable experience in music
learning. In C. C. Leung, L. C. R. Yip & T. Imada (Eds.), Music education policy and implementation:
International perspectives (pp. 182–194). Hirosaki, Japan: Hirosaki University Press.
MacCluskey, T. (1979). Peaceful coexistence between pop and the classics. Music Educators Journal, 65(8),
54–57. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3395676

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016

Springer 13

Mantie, R. (2013). A comparison of “popular music pedagogy” discourses. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 61, 334–352. doi: 10.1177/0022429413497235
Mark, M. L. (1994). Youth music: Is it right for schools? Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning,
5(2), 76–82.
O’Brien, J. P. (1982). A plea for pop. Music Educators Journal, 68(7), 44–53. doi: 10.2307/3395940
Odam, G. (2004). Music education in the Aquarian age: A transatlantic perspective (or “How do you make
horses thirsty?”). In C. X. Rodriguez (Ed.), Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education (pp.
127–139). Reston, VA: MENC.
Rodriguez, C. X. (2004). Bringing it all back home: The case for popular music in the schools. In C. X.
Rodriguez (Ed.), Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education (pp. 3–9). Reston, VA: MENC.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sogin, D. W., & Wang, C. C. (2008). Music activity reports by music teachers with varying training in Orff
Schulwerk. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 269–277. doi: 10.1177/0255761408092527
Springer, D. G., & Gooding, L. F. (2013). Preservice music teachers’ attitudes toward popular music
in the music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 32, 25–33. doi:
10.1177/8755123313502349
Väkevä, L. (2006). Teaching popular music in Finland: What’s up, what’s ahead? International Journal of
Music Education, 24, 126–131. doi: 10.1177/0255761406065473
Wang, J.-C., & Humphreys, J. T. (2009). Multicultural and popular music content in an American music
teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27, 19–36. doi: 10.1177/
0255761408099062
Wolford, D. K. (1970). Rock’s questionable role in the school curriculum. Idaho Music Notes, 11(3), 15–16.
Woody, R. H. (2011). Willing and able: Equipping music educators to teach with popular music. Orff Echo,
43(4), 14–17.
Woody, R. H., & Lehmann, A. C. (2010). Student musicians’ ear-playing ability as a function of vernacular music
experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 101–115. doi: 10.1177/0022429410370785

Downloaded from ijm.sagepub.com by guest on April 22, 2016