My Teaching Philosophy

In my elementary general music classroom, I try to follow two educational approaches: those of Zoltán Kodály and Carl Orff. I think the Kodály approach resonates with me so well because of its strong reliance on the singing voice. The voice is an instrument every child possesses and should therefore be the first he/she begins to develop. The act of singing allows students to feel the music they are creating come from within their own bodies, helping them develop their inner ear much more so than any other instrument. I also strongly adhere to the Kodály belief that only the absolute best music is good enough for children. We see them far too little to waste our time with anything else, and their minds are far too malleable. Folk music of the student’s own culture should be sung first, as it is something they can relate to the most (and folk songs in general have stood the test of time), followed by folk music of other cultures, followed by music written by master composers (which, to come full circle, is often based on folk music of the composer’s own culture). And of course, one of Zoltan Kodály’s goals as a Hungarian composer and educator was to develop a curriculum that would result in all citizens being musically literate, so I begin music literacy earlier than a traditional Orff philosophy would suggest. The literacy is always connected to the folk repertoire, though. I use a lot of moveable Do solfege in my classroom, as I believe this is the best method for students to develop their inner ear and sight-singing skills. I also try to use a lot of singing games and dances so students learn that the act of singing is enjoyable, hopefully laying the foundation for students to love singing in and of itself. (For a great summary of the Kodály philosophy, visit OAKE’s website. The philosophy is not to be confused with the methods, which are described here). In my Kodály level one training, I loved how there was a strong emphasis and improving the teacher’s musicianship. We would have to sing with ourselves in a round by using the Curwen hand signs as the second voice, we would sing one song while signing a partner song, we’d play one part of a duet on the piano while singing the other part, we’d sing a song forward and sign in retrograde, we’d have to sing all the pentatonic scales (Do Re Mi So La Do, Re Mi So La Do Re, etc.) in a row but always beginning on the same absolute pitch, etc. I believe I’ve become such a better musician by studying and teaching with solfege, in turn making me a better teacher. Furthermore, I strongly believe that a sequenced curriculum as the most effective way for students to succeed, and the Kodály philosophy provides ways to achieve this.

I appreciate Orff Schulwerk because it fills in the creative gaps that the Kodály philosophy might be lacking. Where the Kodály approach has its strength in performance, Orff focuses heavily on creating. As with the Kodály approach, Orff Schulwerk encourages music education to come naturally through things children would be doing and enjoying anyway: singing, chanting, dancing, hitting things, etc. I try to use nursery rhymes or other children’s poems in my classroom as natural introductions to beat and rhythm (of the words). Orff instruments are wonderful accompanying sounds for the singing voice, and they allow students to achieve almost immediate success at producing a good tone (on xylophones, metallophones and glockenspiels). I love to use Orff and unpitched percussion instruments with my students to increase their ensemble skills, which really, more simply, is improving their listening skills. (The World Music Drumming curriculum is also excellent for this. I wrote and was awarded a grant entitled “Drumming to Increase Listening, Cooperation and Respect” to buy tubanos for my classroom). I also try to hit National Standards three and four pretty hard through the Orff approach. I believe improvisation should precede formal composition (through some would argue that improvisation without guidelines is composing). I’ve really tried hard to use more improvisation in my classroom this year, especially with recorder. And of course, the timbre of the recorder balances out the Orff percussion sounds in a way children can appreciate. I use recorder in third, fourth and fifth grades. I don’t stop after third grade because I find it to be such a great tool in targeting nearly all of the National Standards, especially two through seven. Where I really fall short as a teacher when it comes to the Orff approach is movement education. I of course incorporate as much movement as I can into my lessons (you absolutely have to with young children), but I feel I could do better at giving students the tools and stepping stones they need to use movement creatively and expressively, therefore increasing their musicianship, rather than just in imitation (not that folk dances where students learn through imitation are without value!) The hands-on approach to the Orff method is invaluable in providing students with active, memorable learning experiences. Research shows that learning by doing is more effective than any other method, and Orff allows nothing but active, engaging musical experiences. (A short summary of the Orff philosophy can be found on AOSA’s website).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, I’m a strong believer in MENC’s National Standards. This probably results from North Central College’s music education undergrad program placing such a strong emphasis on them, and I’m thankful for it. I could walk into any school district, teach to the standards, and probably be following the district’s curriculum (if it’s a good curriculum) without even looking at it.
The standards succinctly summarize all the important musical experiences a child should be exposed to, though I look forward to the revisions that should be coming soon, because there’s talk of adding a movement component.

I spent a lot of time in undergrad reading Bennett Reimer’s and others’ philosophical musings for one of my upper-level music education courses. In my music education philosophy paper, I stated that the purpose of music education is: 1) to make musical values more widespread and understandable; 2) to educate feeling; 3) to teach musical creativity to help individuals think, do and feel music in a meaningful way; 4) to cultivate the ability to gain significant musical meanings; and 5) to teach musical context in order for students to “know within” music. My “thesis” was, “These five aspects of music education are intricately related. The creative process is permeated with feeling and elicits meaning, and the ability to create meaning is dependent upon context. Humans value music because of the profound results of this process. As music educators, we are faced with the task of supporting the fundamental necessity of our subject matter, and having a clear understanding of the purpose of music education can help us clarify to ourselves and to others that our profession is valuable and essential to the quality of human life.” I think the most important part of this philosophy statement is in regard to valuing music. All cultures throughout the world and throughout history have had music. Obviously it’s something humans value, then, and I think it’s because music can express that which words and actions cannot. A thousand different emotions can be experienced from a smattering of sounds arranged in a certain way, which, to me, is awe-inspiring to consider. Valuing music all comes down to enriching the quality of one’s life. As music educators, we owe it to our students to give them the ability to improve their lives in the most rewarding way possible.

While I believe the entire above paragraph is significant, I think teachers need to have a clear mission or goal in mind if they want to achieve all of these things. A lot of my colleagues say that their primary goal is to instill a love of music in children. That’s a great goal, but I think we’re shortchanging our children if we limit ourselves to that. My goal (and active teaching philosophy in sum) is to produce independent musicians and life-long musical learners. When children take ownership of their own musical learning, it produces an intrinsic love and motivation that goes far beyond simply liking music. I want my students to not only love music and want to be music consumers, but I want them to have the skills necessary to do something with that love of music and to better themselves in the process.

Relating to the importance of basic musical skills being necessary for children/humans to enrich their lives, I think one of the biggest travesties in any society is a child, or adult, who cannot sing in tune. Either someone didn’t teach them or they didn’t try to learn (barring physical handicaps), and they’ve been denied or are denying themselves a highly enjoyable, life-enriching experience. I also am saddened that in American culture, parents don’t sing to their children as often as they used to, and families and friends don’t pass time by singing or creating music together. Part of the problem is lack of musical literacy, and so, for me (and Kodály), my two greatest focuses in the classroom are on singing and developing literacy skills. A society in which every citizen is musically competent would be my ultimate goal. And in a society where ADHD and autism become more and more prevalent, two of our secondary teaching goals will have to be to teach students to be better listeners and to work in harmony (pun intended) with others.

I realize this is quite lengthy (tl;dr), but it’s something I feel passionately about. And I suppose that’s a good thing, because it makes me a better music educator to feel so strongly about the importance of what I do. I feel very fortunate to have a job that I not only love but that (I feel) makes a difference in the world.