Journal of Research in Music Education

Teachers’ goals and perceptions of content standards in

American elementary music programs
Fo

Journal: Journal of Research in Music Education

Manuscript ID: draft

r

Manuscript Type: Original Research Article

Pe

Keywords: music, education, elementary, goals, standards

The purpose of this investigation was to identify current elementary

music teachers’ goals and perceptions of content standards in their
music programs. Participants (N = 963) were sampled from
er

elementary music teachers across the United States and

administered a survey addressing program goals and perceived
importance of various content standards by grade level.
The most commonly indicated music program goals were to foster
Re

students’: lifelong love of music (17.24%); music appreciation

(15.16%); music foundation skills (8.62%); and music reading
skills/literacy (8.10%). Seventeen other goals constituted the
remaining half of all responses.
Abstract:
Participants also rated the perceived importance of various music
vi

content standards by grade level. Twenty-nine content standards—

drawn from the National Standards and state music standards—
were rated as very important, moderately important, or not
ew

important for the following three grade level categories: 1)

Kindergarten through first grade, 2) second through third grades,
and 3) fourth through sixth grades. Content standards were
considered not important, important, or essential for the grade level
depending on the rating given by the majority of participants. The
ratings for each content standard by grade level are presented in
Table 2.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 1 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

1
2
3
Teachers’ goals and perceptions of content standards in American elementary music programs
4
5
6
7 Abstract
8
9
10
11
The purpose of this investigation was to identify current elementary music teachers’ goals
12
13 and perceptions of content standards in their music programs. Participants (N = 963) were
14
15 sampled from elementary music teachers across the United States and administered a survey
16
17
18 addressing program goals and perceived importance of various content standards by grade level.
Fo
19
20 The most commonly indicated music program goals were to foster students’: lifelong
21
22 love of music (17.24%); music appreciation (15.16%); music foundation skills (8.62%); and
r
23
24
music reading skills/literacy (8.10%). Seventeen other goals constituted the remaining half of all
Pe

25
26
27 responses.
28
er

29
Participants also rated the perceived importance of various music content standards by
30
31
32 grade level. Twenty-nine content standards—drawn from the National Standards and state music
Re

33
34 standards—were rated as very important, moderately important, or not important for the
35
36
following three grade level categories: 1) Kindergarten through first grade, 2) second through
vi

37
38
39 third grades, and 3) fourth through sixth grades. Content standards were considered not
ew

40
41 important, important, or essential for the grade level depending on the rating given by the
42
43
44 majority of participants. The ratings for each content standard by grade level are presented in
45
46 Table 2.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 2 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 1

1
2
3
Teachers’ goals and perceptions of content standards in American elementary music programs
4
5
6
7 For many students, elementary school music programs often represent their primary
8
9 exposure to formal music training and serve as their foundations for further musical endeavors.
10
11
12 Students’ participation in quality elementary music programs remains a vital component of their
13
14 musicianship and appreciation of music (Elliot, 1995). One’s basic musical abilities are
15
16
developed during the first ten years of life, creating a compelling argument for quality musical
17
18
Fo
19 experiences in elementary schools (Gembris, 2006).
20
21 Music curricula across the United States are loosely guided by MENC’s National
22
r
23
24
Standards and individual state standards for music. There is no single-set of music standards,
Pe

25
26 however, teachers follow for each grade level. Efforts have been undertaken since the 1920s to
27
28 articulate standards and goals for elementary music programs. The first published attempt
er

29
30
31 occurred in 1921; the Music Supervisors National Conference (name changed to MENC in 1934)
32
Re

33 developed a standard course of elementary music study with the intent of securing a stronger
34
35 place for music in the school curriculum. Even today, however, no standard music curriculum
36
vi

37
38 has been nationally accepted by music teachers, which presents some difficulty when
39
ew

40 summarizing the goals and standards of American music curricula.

41
42
43
In order to assist music teachers with an organizational attempt to summarize the goals
44
45 and standards of the American music curricula, the Music Educators National Conference
46
47 (MENC)—the national association for music education—worked extensively with other arts
48
49
50 associations to create the National Standards for Arts Education (Consortium of National Arts
51
52 Education Associations, 1994). The National Standards for music consisted of nine main
53
54 standards, and within these standards were specific behavioral objectives for grades four, eight,
55
56
57 and twelve. Recommendations to these national music standards included the necessity to
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 3 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 2

1
2
3
articulate objectives for each grade level, Kindergarten through eighth grade (Consortium of
4
5
6 National Arts Education Associations, 1994). MENC, however, has yet to articulate standards for
7
8 the remaining elementary grade levels.
9
10
11
Arts education is state-mandated in all but four states—Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, and
12
13 Massachusetts—although these four states have adopted state music standards (Arts Education
14
15 Partnership, 2008). Only three states, however, have not formally adopted state music standards:
16
17
18 Iowa, Nebraska, and Rhode Island (Arts Education Partnership, 2008). Unlike the National
Fo
19
20 Standards, individual state standards for music, tend to list music objectives for each grade level.
21
22 Mississippi and Wisconsin are the only two states to have adopted state standards identical to the
r
23
24
National Standards. Other states, such as Florida, have also adopted the National Standards as
Pe

25
26
27 their state standards but with additional guidelines for each grade level.
28
er

29
Although there are National Standards and individual state standards for music, there is
30
31
32 no assurance that music specialists emphasize those specific standards within their lessons. Some
Re

33
34 teachers revealed felt there was a lack of music instructional time needed to adequately address
35
36
the required standards (Byo, 1999; Phillips, 2008). Hill (2001) discussed an apparent disconnect
vi

37
38
39 between language used in content standards and teachers’ interpretations of those standards.
ew

40
41 Creating National Standards for music programs has been an important step in
42
43
44 centralizing music curricula, yet there remains enough curricular elasticity to allow music
45
46 educators to determine what musical skills and objectives are most appropriate for their
47
48 particular music classrooms. Louk (2002)—through observations and surveys—evaluated
49
50
51 Arizona general music teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding implementation of the nine
52
53 National Standards for Music Education, and discovered that although 40% of general music
54
55
56
teachers used the nine standards as the basis for their teaching, teachers were “. . . most
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 4 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 3

1
2
3
influenced by what they and their students like to do” (p. 67). Information is still needed to
4
5
6 determine how music teachers utilize such standards in their lessons and curricula.
7
8 Standards represent one facet of a music curriculum; prior to establishing content
9
10
11
standards, however, teachers must decide on their programs’ primary goals. Goals for American
12
13 music programs have transformed since the 1920s, when the first standard course of elementary
14
15 music was published (Mark, 1986; Mark & Gary, 2007). Clark (1921), for example, suggested
16
17
18 the music curriculum contribute to the seven goals of education: (1) health, (2) knowledge, (3)
Fo
19
20 skill, (4) judgment, (5) appreciation of beauty and development of ethics, (6) purpose, and (7)
21
22 will. By the end of the 1920s, music programs, started to include other musical behaviors, such
r
23
24
as participating in rhythmic activities (Glenn, 1929). Music instruction during the 1950s
Pe

25
26
27 solidified the shift from vocal music to the “new music instruction” (Mark & Gary, 2007, p.
28
er

29
326), which included the following seven goals: (1) socialize music, (2) generalize music
30
31
32 instruction, (3) integrate vocal and instrumental music, (4) recognize the influence of media on
Re

33
34 musical tastes, (5) correlate music with other educational areas, (6) include every child in music,
35
36
and (7) share music within the home and community (Kalamazoo Public Schools Music
vi

37
38
39 Resource Guide, 1953; Morgan, 1955)
ew

40
41 Focus eventually shifted from progressive education and lofty, immeasurable goals of the
42
43
44 1920s-50s to the combination of concrete and abstract standards that focused on music creation
45
46 and appreciation. During the 1960s, music programs underwent a shift away from primarily
47
48 singing instruction. Five musical goals emerged as a result of this shift: singing, playing
49
50
51 instruments, moving, listening, and creating (Growman, 1985; Runfola & Rutkowski, 1992).
52
53 Logan’s (1967) conducted a study of recent graduates (N=358) to evaluate their
54
55
56
elementary music programs and goals. The majority of respondents reported the most important
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 5 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 4

1
2
3
goal of their music instruction was to “provide pupil understanding and appreciation of music by
4
5
6 receiving satisfaction from performing and listening to music,” and the second most important
7
8 goal was to provide a “happy, cooperative group activity” (p. 291).
9
10
11
In the late 1970s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (1981) reported music
12
13 educators agreed upon the following five music goals: (1) value music, (2) perform music, (3)
14
15 create music, (4) identify the elements and expressive controls of music, and (5) identify and
16
17
18 classify music historically and culturally. Abril and Gault (2006) decided to study principals’
Fo
19
20 perceptions of their music programs based on the National Standards. In ideal conditions,
21
22 principals ranked these seven goals (listed in order of priority): (1) listen to music attentively; (2)
r
23
24
relate music to other subjects; (3) relate music to culture and history; (4) perform; (5) analyze
Pe

25
26
27 music; (6) read and write music; and (7) create and compose music. Yet when asked about their
28
er

29
perceptions regarding broad, overall goals for an ideal music program, principals ranked
30
31
32 developing creativity at the top.
Re

33
34 In the more recent past, many have written about “reconceptualizing” music curriculum
35
36
to fit postmodern and culturally-diverse times (Barrett, 2005; Dunbar-Hall, 2005; Hanley &
vi

37
38
39 Montgomery, 2005). How—if at all—have current teachers “reconceptualized” the music
ew

40
41 curriculum? It is long overdue to determine if teachers’ music program goals have morphed over
42
43
44 the past century to reflect changing times.
45
46 The focus of this investigation was on American elementary music programs and their
47
48 curricula through analysis of elementary music teachers’ responses to a national survey
49
50
51 identifying music program goals and content standards. Research questions guiding this study
52
53 included:
54
55
56
1. What are the primary goals of current elementary music programs?
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 6 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 5

1
2
3
2. What are the important content standards by grade level addressed in current American
4
5
6 elementary music programs?
7
8 METHODOLOGY
9
10
11
Participants (N = 963) at the time of this study were sampled from current elementary
12
13 music teachers in the United States using a snowball sampling technique. Snowball sampling
14
15 involves participants dispersing the survey to other participants fitting the criterion: currently
16
17
18 teaching elementary school music in America. Initial contact was made with 726 state music
Fo
19
20 education association board members with the request the survey be emailed to elementary
21
22 music teachers in their state. The cover letter for music teachers also contained the request they
r
23
24
send it to other elementary music teachers from their state.
Pe

25
26
27 Participants were divided by their regional divisions, corresponding to MENC's six
28
er

29
geographic divisions of the United States (listed with their accompanying states): Eastern (CT,
30
31
32 DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT); North Central (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, NE,
Re

33
34 OH, SD, WI); Northwestern (AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY); Southern (AL, FL, GA, KY, LA,
35
36
MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); Southwestern (AR, CO, KS, MO, NM, OK, TX); and Western (AZ,
vi

37
38
39 CA, HI, NV, UT). A total of 963 participants had completed the survey after six weeks, at which
ew

40
41 time the online survey link was disabled. There were 127 participants from the Eastern region,
42
43
44 280 from the North Central region, 133 from the Northwestern region, 156 from the Southern
45
46 region, 121 from the Southwestern region, and 146 from the Western region. Incomplete surveys
47
48 were included in final count because each survey item required independent analysis.
49
50
51 The first part of this investigation pertained to music teachers’ primary goals for their
52
53 music programs. This item was constructed in a completely open-ended manner; the researcher
54
55
56
desired that participants write goals in their own words, which were then coded by the researcher
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 7 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 6

1
2
3
and a peer-reviewer. This question was purposely open-ended as the researcher did not want to
4
5
6 influence participants’ responses by requesting they select from a list of possible goals, although
7
8 other studies have utilized such a design (e.g., Abril & Gault, 2005 and Abril & Gault, 2006).
9
10
11
The researcher then tallied the frequency of those themes and reported frequency data.
12
13 In the second part of this investigation, participants rated their perceived importance of
14
15 music content standards by elementary grade level. These items involved participants rating the
16
17
18 importance of various content standards divided by grade level categories. Content standards
Fo
19
20 rated by participants were selected from the National Standards, various state standards, and
21
22 suggestions from pilot test participants. Selection of content standards included the following
r
23
24
criteria: (1) standards appeared in multiple lists of elementary music standards; (2) standards
Pe

25
26
27 could be objectively measured; and (3) pilot test participants agreed the content standards were
28
er

29
appropriate for elementary music students. Survey space was provided for participants to provide
30
31
32 additional musical objectives they deemed important and appropriate for elementary students to
Re

33
34 demonstrate.
35
36
Participants rated the content standards using a three-point Likert-type scale. The
vi

37
38
39 researcher computed frequency distributions and offered conclusions regarding content standards
ew

40
41 considered most important nationally for the elementary grade levels.
42
43
44 RESULTS
45
46 Teachers’ Goals for their Elementary Music Programs
47
48 This investigation concerned elementary music teachers’ goals for their music programs
49
50
51 and their perceived importance of music content standards by grade level. Regarding
52
53 participants’ (N = 963) articulated program goals, 21 different goals emerged. The researcher did
54
55
56
not explore statistical differences by geographic region for this survey item due to the complexity
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 8 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 7

1
2
3
of the resulting contingency table—which would have been 6 x 22—and the lack of necessary
4
5
6 cell frequencies for robustness. Many cells contained less than five participants, so calculations
7
8 would have been inappropriate and potentially misleading. Each region’s data, however, are
9
10
11
presented separately in the frequency table (Table 1).
12
13 The top four goals accounted for 50% of all responses. The most common goal for
14
15 elementary music programs—listed by 17.24% of participants nationally—was to foster a
16
17
18 lifelong love of music. The second most-frequently listed goal was to increase students’ music
Fo
19
20 appreciation, including appreciation of different types of music (15.16%). Following these top
21
22 two were two behavioral goals related to music skills: gain foundational skills (8.62%) and read
r
23
24
music/increase music literacy (8.10%). The remaining 17 goals accounted for the other 50% of
Pe

25
26
27 responses, with each goal ranging from 6.13% to 0.52% of total responses (see Table 1).
28
er

29
In addition to the top four aforementioned goals, most participants listed student-oriented
30
31
32 goals. These goals included students participating in activities (5.19%), singing (4.98%),
Re

33
34 building musicianship (2.39%), gaining performance skills (2.18%), expressing oneself through
35
36
music (1.97%), creating independent musicians (1.97%), maximizing students’ musical
vi

37
38
39 potentials (1.25%), improving listening skills (1.14%), and exposing students to music (0.62%).
ew

40
41 Other participants listed non-student-oriented goals, meaning goals not specific to student
42
43
44 learning. These goals were categorized under acquiring specific materials or resolving
45
46 scheduling issues (6.13%). Teachers’ responses for this category included acquiring textbooks,
47
48 more funding, or increased instructional time with students. This goal was the fifth most-listed
49
50
51 goal among participants for their music programs.
52
53 Participants also articulated goals that were not specifically musically-oriented. Some
54
55
56
participants listed their desire to involve students in activities (5.19%), provide students with
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 9 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 8

1
2
3
opportunities to be successful (2.70%), integrate lessons with other areas of the curriculum
4
5
6 (2.39%), provide students with a well-rounded education (1.97%), create a positive classroom
7
8 atmosphere (1.35%), and develop students’ discipline (0.52%).
9
10
11
Thirteen responses (accounting for 1.35% of total goals) were categorized as
12
13 “miscellaneous” because the goal appeared only once among the 963 participants; each of these
14
15 goals categorized under miscellaneous accounted for 0.001% of total responses. These
16
17
18 miscellaneous goals—in the participants’ own words—included: to build a "can do" attitude so
Fo
19
20 that students choose to stay in school, and stay away from drugs, crime and eventually jail;
21
22 teaching kids to be open to new things, and that anything's possible; to develop respect for
r
23
24
oneself, each other, the teacher, and the instruments; to teach students how to become caring,
Pe

25
26
27 environmentally conscious, self-disciplined members of the community so that they may
28
er

29
contribute to society through their respect, knowledge, and understanding of history and culture;
30
31
32 and to give the classroom teachers a break.
Re

33
34 Teachers’ Perceived Importance of Various Elementary Music Content Standards
35
36
The second area explored in this investigation of American elementary music programs
vi

37
38
39 was music teachers’ perceived importance of various content standards by grade level. The
ew

40
41 content standards covered observable behaviors related to pitch, rhythm, musicality, music
42
43
44 history, and instrumental timbre. Participants rated each content standard as not important,
45
46 moderately important, or very important for each grade level.
47
48 The data for each content standard are presented in Table 2, which includes the
49
50
51 percentage of participants indicating each rating; also included is whether or not each standard
52
53 met criteria for importance for the specific grade level. Standards rated as moderately or very
54
55
56
important by at least 50% of participants were classified as important objectives for the grade
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 10 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 9

1
2
3
level to demonstrate (when a standard met this criterion, it was noted with an asterisk near the
4
5
6 applicable grade level in Table 2). Standards rated as very important—the highest rating—by at
7
8 least 50% of participants were classified as essential objectives for the grade level to demonstrate
9
10
11
(when a standard met this criterion, it was noted with a double-asterisk near the applicable grade
12
13 level in Table 2).
14
15 Since this investigation did not include an exhaustive list of all musical objectives
16
17
18 students should demonstrate in elementary school, participants had the option to include
Fo
19
20 additional objectives they felt should have been included in the survey. Because many content
21
22 standards were listed by only a small number of participants, only those additional content
r
23
24
standards added by 10 or more participants (roughly 1% of the entire sample) are presented
Pe

25
26
27 below: use solfege, including hand signals; indentify intervals; identify direction of pitches and
28
er

29
melodies; echo melodic patterns; move with pitches; sight read pitches; tune instruments/voice
30
31
32 and identify when someone is out of tune; compose/improvise; move to the beat and rhythms,
Re

33
34 including body percussion; improvise rhythms; participate in multiple-part rhythm compositions;
35
36
perform more complex rhythms (for example, triplets, dotted rhythms, syncopation, and
vi

37
38
39 hemiolas); connect history and culture to music, including composers’ lives and the purposes of
ew

40
41 music; and perform on instruments or voice.
42
43
44 DISCUSSION
45
46 Teachers’ goals and content standards represent an important component of any
47
48 elementary music curriculum. The first part of this investigation pertained to music teachers’
49
50
51 primary goals for their music programs. Based on responses, participants differed in their
52
53 interpretations of the word “goal.” To some participants, this term meant student-oriented goals,
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 11 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 10

1
2
3
such as musical goals the students should demonstrate. To others, goals referred to teacher- or
4
5
6 program-oriented needs, such as funding issues and scheduling desires.
7
8 Out of the 21 different goals articulated from participants, the top four goals for
9
10
11
elementary music programs—which accounted for 50% of total responses—were to foster
12
13 students’ lifelong love of music (17.24%), to increase students’ appreciation of different types of
14
15 music (15.16%), to have students gain music foundation skills (8.62%), and for students to read
16
17
18 music (8.10%). The remaining 17 categories accounted for the other half of responses (see Table
Fo
19
20 1), and consisted of a mixture of student-oriented, teacher-oriented, concrete, and abstract
21
22 objectives. For each region individually, the top two goals (though not necessarily in the same
r
23
24
order) were the same as the top two goals nationally: foster lifelong love of music and increase
Pe

25
26
27 music appreciation of different types of music.
28
er

29
It is interesting to compare current elementary music goals with past music goals.
30
31
32 Through the mid 1920s, elementary music specialists emphasized singing and music
Re

33
34 appreciation. Current programs have shifted away from the singing emphasis, with just under 5%
35
36
of teachers indicating it as their main goal. Fostering music appreciation, however, was still the
vi

37
38
39 second-most popular goal, with over 15% of participants considering it their music programs’
ew

40
41 top priority.
42
43
44 Clark (1921) suggested the music curriculum contributed to the seven progressive goals
45
46 of education. Of these goals, only two were included by current teachers. Just over 6% of
47
48 participants wished to share the beauty of music with students and some participants in the
49
50
51 miscellaneous category alluded to development of ethics. Many participants also responded that
52
53 it was a priority for students to acquire musical skills; participants desired that students gain
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 12 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 11

1
2
3
foundational skills (8.62%), music reading skills (8.10%), performance skills (2.18%), and
4
5
6 listening skills (1.14%).
7
8 The goals of the “new music instruction” during the 1950s—including socializing music
9
10
11
and including every child in music—were fairly abstract and similar to many of the responses
12
13 found in the “miscellaneous” category from this investigation, (Mark & Gary, 2007, p. 326). Of
14
15 the goals emphasized during the 1950s, the only one articulated by current music teachers was
16
17
18 correlating music with other educational areas, noted by 2.39% of participants as their primary
Fo
19
20 goal. For the most part, many goals listed during the 1950s as part of the new wave for music
21
22 instruction no longer resonate—or at least are not articulated—with current elementary music
r
23
24
educators.
Pe

25
26
27 In Logan’s study (1967), the majority of respondents reported the most important goal of
28
er

29
their music instruction was for students to appreciate music. This is still the primary goal for
30
31
32 many teachers today, with over 15% of participants indicating it as their main goal. The second
Re

33
34 most important goal from Logan’s study was to provide a “happy, cooperative group activity” (p.
35
36
291); although not as prevalent in the current investigation, this goal was similar to combining
vi

37
38
39 participants’ goals of involving students in activities (5.19%) and creating a positive atmosphere
ew

40
41 (1.35%).
42
43
44 The first two goals articulated by the National Assessment of Educational Progress
45
46 (NAEP, 1981) were also reiterated with the current participants: (1) value music, and (2) perform
47
48 music. Based on current participants’ top two goals—fostering love of music and music
49
50
51 appreciation—teachers still prioritize valuing music. Current participants also valued the process
52
53 of creating and performing music and demonstrating expressive qualities, which were also
54
55
56
articulated in NAEP’s goals. The only goal included by the NAEP that was not written in by
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 13 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 12

1
2
3
current participants was NAEP’s fifth goal—identifying and classifying music historically and
4
5
6 culturally. Teachers may still value this outcome, but no participants listed this goal as a priority
7
8 for their elementary music programs.
9
10
11
Since the development of the National Standards for Music Education in 1994, these
12
13 standards have been used to evaluate overall goals for music programs. From a list of the
14
15 National Standards, Abril and Gault (2006) discovered principals felt it was most important for
16
17
18 students to listen to music and relate music to other academic areas, but least important for them
Fo
19
20 to create music. Only 1.14% of elementary music teachers participating in this present
21
22 investigation specifically listed listening as their main goal. Listening, however, certainly
r
23
24
comprises an element of fostering music appreciation, which was the goal listed by over 15% of
Pe

25
26
27 participants. Unlike the principals in Abril and Gault’s study, teachers in the current study highly
28
er

29
valued creating music.
30
31
32 In addition to teachers’ perceptions concerning the National Standards, Abril and Gault
Re

33
34 (2006) also sought principals’ perceptions regarding broad, overall goals for an ideal music
35
36
program. These broad goals were slightly more in tune with current music teacher’s goals; both
vi

37
38
39 sets of results included fostering lifelong learning, continued involvement in music, self
ew

40
41 expression, and music integration with other subjects.
42
43
44 Current music teachers’ primary goals are not substantially different from goals
45
46 articulated over the past century. Although few goals are now unmentioned by educators as a top
47
48 priority, teachers still highly value music appreciation and demonstrating musical skills. One
49
50
51 notable change throughout the past century, however, has been the increase in music-oriented
52
53 goals as opposed to social goals of music education.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 14 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 13

1
2
3
Just as vital to the music curriculum as goals are the specific behavioral content
4
5
6 standards. Participants’ perceptions of various content standards allow researchers to interpret
7
8 which standards are considered important and valuable in current elementary music programs.
9
10
11
For Kindergarten and first-grade students, teachers perceived foundational skills as important. It
12
13 was considered very important that students in these grades can identify high and low pitches,
14
15 maintain a steady beat with music, and echo rhythmic patterns. These basic skills allow young
16
17
18 students to develop their ears and coordinate their bodies with music.
Fo
19
20 These important Kindergarten and first-grade standards also align with musical cognition
21
22 research. Researchers have found that pitch discrimination is largely an innate skill appropriate
r
23
24
for young children to demonstrate (Thompson & Schellenberg, 2006). Maintaining a steady beat
Pe

25
26
27 with music is correlated with early physiological motions, such as walking, heart rates, and
28
er

29
sucking rates of newborns (Fraisse, 1982). The ability to echo rhythmic patterns mirrors the
30
31
32 ability to mimic speech patterns, which is also a cognitively appropriate skill for young children
Re

33
34 (Patel & Daniele, 2003).
35
36
As students age, they are cognitively able to perform more complex musical tasks
vi

37
38
39 (Colwell, 2006). In addition to the standards for Kindergarten and first-grade students, teachers
ew

40
41 rated additional standards as very important for second- and third- grade students. Participants
42
43
44 considered it very important that second- and third-grade music students could demonstrate the
45
46 same standards as the younger students, but also match pitch with a reference pitch, maintain a
47
48 steady beat independent of music, and tap/clap a notated rhythm. These standards are slightly
49
50
51 more complex than those included for Kindergarteners and first-graders. The important leap
52
53 from the younger grade levels to second and third grades was participants’ inclusion of notated
54
55
56
rhythms for these grade levels. Cognitive research findings—following the theories of Piaget and
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 15 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 14

1
2
3
Bruner—indicated that between ages six and eight, children can successfully group together
4
5
6 rhythms and decipher notated rhythms—not necessarily standard musical notation (Gembris,
7
8 2006).
9
10
11
For the older elementary students—grades four through six—the majority of participants
12
13 rated over half of the content standards as very important. All standards rated as very important
14
15 for the younger grades levels were included for the fourth- through sixth-grade students as well.
16
17
18 The additional standards unique to these older elementary students included those emphasizing
Fo
19
20 musical notation, composing, and describing aural examples. The additional standards included
21
22 in the older grades are more abstract and symbolic, as opposed to the concrete behaviors
r
23
24
expected from the lower grades. Given that these standards are more cognitively complex than in
Pe

25
26
27 the younger grades, teachers may have reserved these standards for the older students who are
28
er

29
more capable of that symbolic thought (Piaget, 1953).
30
31
32 Coupled with current cognitive research pertaining to musical development, content
Re

33
34 standards deemed essential by practicing elementary music teachers may be interpreted as
35
36
appropriate priorities for current music achievement tests. To establish construct validity, music
vi

37
38
39 achievement test designers should align items with standards deemed appropriate and important
ew

40
41 by elementary music teachers nationwide. Further research endeavors are needed to determine
42
43
44 teachers’ perceptions concerning the objectives listed by participants.
45
46 Although this survey data was representative of music teachers’ perceptions, conclusions
47
48 cannot be stated concerning thoroughness or time committed to each content standard during
49
50
51 their teaching. Wang and Sogin (1997) were among the first researchers to compare elementary
52
53 music teachers’ perceived classroom activities with observed classroom activities; they found
54
55
56
self-reported times dedicated to each activity were much higher than observed times. This may
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 16 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 15

1
2
3
indicate that teacher’s perceived importance of certain standards may not fully reflect the amount
4
5
6 of time dedicated to teaching these concepts within the classroom. Results did indicate, however,
7
8 what teachers deemed important for elementary students to know. Assumptions can then be
9
10
11
made pertaining to what teachers focused on within their music lessons.
12
13 This study may also represent a step toward developing accurate assessments and
14
15 evaluations of modern American music programs. In order to accurately create music
16
17
18 achievement measures, researchers must establish what content is appropriate to include in tests
Fo
19
20 and identify the goals of current elementary music programs. As no universally-accepted
21
22 elementary music curriculum exists, it is necessary to obtain data directly from music teachers
r
23
24
across the United States.
Pe

25
26
27 The National Standards are general goals and guidelines, but do not provide teachers with
28
er

29
concrete, behavioral objectives for different elementary grade levels. In the current study, the
30
31
32 researcher endeavored to list standards with specificity and asked that these standards be rated by
Re

33
34 grade level. Previously, research studies had not utilized the same design, so to validate findings
35
36
discovered in this investigation, replication and variations of this study are highly encouraged.
vi

37
38
39 Now that we are approximately half-way through the journey toward 2020, how close are
ew

40
41 we to attaining goals articulated in Vision 2020: Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music
42
43
44 Education (Madsen, 2000)? According to the final goal listed in the “Housewright Declaration”
45
46 of Vision 2020, the full actualization of each goal requires the identification and removal of
47
48 issues detrimental to progress in music education. Continued research at all levels of music
49
50
51 education are necessary to identify and remove potential obstacles on the path toward 2020. This
52
53 investigation comprises one additional piece in the puzzle and allows readers to acquire a current
54
55
56
snapshot of goals and standards in American elementary music programs.
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 17 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 16

1
2
3
REFERENCES
4
5
6 Abril, C. R., & Gault, B.M. (2005). Elementary educators’ perceptions of elementary general
7 music instructional goals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 164,
8 61-70.
9
10 Abril, C. R., & Gault, B.M. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school: The principal’s
11
12 perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54 (1), 6-20.
13
14 Arts Education Partnership. (2008). Arts Education State Policy Database Results. Retrieved
15 February 5, 2009, from http://www.aep-arts.org/database/
16
17 Barrett, J. R. (2005). Planning for understanding: A reconceptualized view of the music
18 curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 91 (4), 21-25.
Fo
19
20
21 Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers' and music specialists' perceived ability to implement the
22 National Standards for Music Education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47 (2),
r
23 111-123.
24
Pe

25 Clark, F. E. (1921). Music in education. Music Supervisors’ Journal, 8 (2), 20-22

26
27 Colwell, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). MENC handbook of musical cognition and development. New York:
28
Oxford University Press.
er

29
30
31 Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National Standards for Arts
32 Education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.
Re

33
34 Dunbar-Hall, P. (2005). Colliding perspectives? Music curriculum as cultural studies. Music
35 Educators Journal, 91 (4), 33-37.
36
vi

37
38
Elliot, D. J. (1995). Music Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
39
ew

40 Fraisse, P. (1982). The psychology of music. New York: Academic Press.

41
42 Gembris, H. (2006). The development of musical abilities. In R. J. Colwell (Ed.), MENC
43 handbook of musical cognition and development (pp. 124-164). New York: Oxford
44 University Press.
45
46
47
Glenn, M. (1929). Creative education in music. Music Supervisors’ Journal, 15 (5), 15-21.
48
49 Growman, F. (1985). The emergence of the concept of general music as reflected in basal
50 textbooks: 1900-1980 (Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1985).
51 Dissertation Abstracts International, A 46/05, 1222. (UMI No. 8515035)
52
53
54
Hanley, B., & Montgomery, J. (2005). Challenges to music educator: Curriculum
55 reconceptualized. Music Educators Journal, 91 (4), 17-20.
56
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 18 of 21

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 17

1
2
3
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards.
4
5 American Educational Research Journal, 38 (2), 289-318.
6
7 Logan, J. C. (1967). An analysis of in-service teacher evaluations of their preparatory curriculum
8 in elementary classroom music. Journal of Research in Music Education , 15 (4), 289-
9 292.
10
11 Louk, D. P. (2002). National Standards for Music Education: General music teachers' attitudes
12
13 and practices (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2002). Dissertation
14 Abstracts International, A 63/02, 485. (UMI No. 3042585)
15
16 Kalamazoo Public Schools. (1953). Resource Guide in Music. Kalamazoo, Michigan: N.P.
17
18 Madsen, C. K. (Ed.). (2000). Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music
Fo
19
20
education. Reston: Music Educators' National Conference.
21
22 Mark, M. L. (1986). Contemporary music education (2nd ed.). New York: Schirmer Books.
r
23
24 Mark, M. L., & Gary, C. L. (2007). A history of American music education (3rd ed.). Reston,
Pe

25 Virginia: MENC.
26
27 Morgan, H. N. (Ed.). (1955). Music in American Education. Washington, D.C.: Music Educators
28
National Conference.
er

29
30
31 National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981). Music 1971-79 Results from the Second
32 National Music Assessment. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States.
Re

33
34 Runfola, M., & Rutkowski, J. (1992). General music curriculum. In R. J. Colwell (Ed.),
35 Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 697-709). New York:
36
Schirmer Books.
vi

37
38
39 Patel, A. D., & Daniele, J. R. (2003). An empirical comparison of rhythm in language and music.
ew

40 Cognition, 87, B35-B45.

41
42 Phillips, N. R. (2008). Music standards implementation and the relationship to fourth grade
43 Florida comprehensive assessment test scores from 2004 to 2006 (Doctoral dissertation,
44
45
University of Central Florida, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69 (06). (UMI
46 No. 3319266)
47
48 Piaget, J. (1953) The origins of intelligence in children. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
49
50 Thompson, W. F., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2006). Listening to music. In R. J. Colwell (Ed.),
51 MENC handbook of musical cognition and development (pp. 72-123). New York: Oxford
52
University Press.
53
54
55 Wang, C. C., & Sogin, D. W. (1997). Self-reported versus observed classroom activities in
56 elementary general music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45 (3), 444-456.
57
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 19 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Elementary Music Goals and Standards 18

1
2
3
Table 1. Elementary music teacher’s primary goals for their music programs.
4
5 North North- South-
6 Region Eastern Central western Southern western Western Total
7 Foster lifelong love of 23 47 31 26 26 13 166
8 music 18.11% 16.79% 23.31% 16.67% 21.49% 8.90% 17.24%
9 Increase appreciation
10 of different types of 15 49 19 25 19 19 146
11 music 11.81% 17.50% 14.29% 16.03% 15.70% 13.01% 15.16%
12 Gain foundational
13 skills (rhythm, general 12 21 12 12 14 12 83
14 understanding 9.45% 7.50% 9.02% 7.69% 11.57% 8.22% 8.62%
15
Read music, Increase 7 26 12 8 6 19 78
16
music literacy 5.51% 9.29% 9.02% 5.13% 4.96% 13.01% 8.10%
17
18 Share the beauty, joy,
enrichment, and fun of 13 8 3 11 12 12 59
Fo
19
20 music 10.24% 2.86% 2.26% 7.05% 9.92% 8.22% 6.13%
21 Acquire
22 material/schedule 7 22 8 6 9 7 59
requests 5.51% 7.86% 6.02% 3.85% 7.44% 4.79% 6.13%
r
23
24 Involve students in 5 17 11 5 5 7 50
activities 3.94% 6.07% 8.27% 3.21% 4.13% 4.79% 5.19%
Pe

25
26 8 15 5 10 5 5 48
27 To sing 6.30% 5.36% 3.76% 6.41% 4.13% 3.42% 4.98%
28 Offer successful 4 7 3 2 3 7 26
er

29 opportunities 3.15% 2.50% 2.26% 1.28% 2.48% 4.79% 2.70%

30 Build, foster 2 8 2 4 2 5 23
31 musicianship 1.57% 2.86% 1.50% 2.56% 1.65% 3.42% 2.39%
32
Re

33 Integrate music with 0 8 3 4 0 8 23

34 other curricular areas 0.00% 2.86% 2.26% 2.56% 0.00% 5.48% 2.39%
35 Gain performance 1 6 2 3 2 7 21
36 skills 0.79% 2.14% 1.50% 1.92% 1.65% 4.79% 2.18%
vi

37 Allow for expression 4 6 3 3 1 2 19

38 through music 3.15% 2.14% 2.26% 1.92% 0.83% 1.37% 1.97%
39
ew

40 Create independent 3 5 2 6 3 0 19
41 musicians 2.36% 1.79% 1.50% 3.85% 2.48% 0.00% 1.97%
42 To provide a well- 1 4 6 5 2 1 19
43 rounded education 0.79% 1.43% 4.51% 3.21% 1.65% 0.68% 1.97%
44 4 5 1 1 2 3 16
45 Unsure of their goals 3.15% 1.79% 0.75% 0.64% 1.65% 2.05% 1.66%
46 Create positive 3 2 0 3 2 3 13
47 atmosphere 2.36% 0.71% 0.00% 1.92% 1.65% 2.05% 1.35%
48 0 1 4 4 1 3 13
49 Miscellaneous 0.00% 0.36% 3.01% 3.01% 0.83% 2.05% 1.35%
50 Maximize musical 2 1 2 6 0 1 12
51 potential 1.57% 0.36% 1.50% 3.85% 0.00% 0.68% 1.25%
52 Improve listening 4 3 1 1 0 2 11
53 skills 3.15% 1.07% 0.75% 0.64% 0.00% 1.37% 1.14%
54 2 1 0 0 1 2
Expose students to 6
55 music 1.57% 0.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83% 1.37% 0.62%
56
0 2 1 0 1 1 5
57 0.00% 0.71% 0.75% 0.00% 0.83% 0.68%
Develop discipline 0.52%
58
59
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
 Journal of Research in Music Education Page 20 of 21

Table 2. Music teachers’ perceived importance of content standards related to pitch.

1 * Content standard rated as moderately or very important by majority of participants; considered an important behavioral
2 objective for this grade level.
3 ** Content standard rated as very important by majority of participants; considered an essential behavioral objective for
4 this grade level. (Note: No asterisk indicates content standard was rated as not important by the majority.)
5 Very Moderately Not
6 Content Standard Grades Important Important Important
7
Identify higher or lower pitches by sound K-1** 74.86% 23.18% 1.96%
8
9 2-3** 86.47% 13.11% 0.42%
10 4-6** 89.92% 7.72% 2.36%
11 Identify higher or lower pitches on a staff K-1 9.89% 36.02% 54.10%
12
13 2-3* 41.67% 55.42% 2.92%
14 4-6** 90.81% 8.40% 0.79%
15 Match pitch with a given reference pitch K-1* 44.93% 46.76% 8.31%
16
2-3** 72.58% 25.35% 2.08%
17
18 4-6** 87.50% 11.46% 1.04%
Fo
19 Draw high or low notes on a staff K-1 4.49% 23.31% 72.19%
20
2-3* 26.07% 59.78% 14.15%
21
22 4-6** 70.53% 25.95% 3.52%
r
23 Name specific pitches on treble clef staff K-1 1.98% 12.43% 85.59%
24 2-3* 19.33% 57.72% 22.95%
Pe

25
26 4-6** 79.27% 19.56% 1.17%
27 Name specific pitches on bass clef staff K-1 0.14% 4.36% 95.50%
28 2-3 2.78% 18.50% 78.72%
er

29
4-6* 22.43% 45.24% 32.33%
30
31 Draw specific pitches on treble/bass clef staff K-1 1.69% 8.43% 89.89%
32 2-3* 9.29% 46.19% 44.52%
Re

33 4-6* 44.94% 42.99% 12.08%

34
35 Identify notated melodies from aural examples K-1 3.23% 19.69% 77.07%
36 2-3* 14.86% 51.67% 33.47%
vi

37 4-6* 38.15% 50.39% 11.46%

38
39 Transcribe aural melodies K-1 0.42% 5.49% 94.08%
ew

40 2-3 2.37% 27.89% 69.74%

41 4-6* 13.99% 44.58% 41.44%
42
Maintain a steady beat with music K-1** 82.56% 16.88% 0.56%
43
44 2-3** 96.92% 3.08% 0.00%
45 4-6** 98.82% 1.05% 0.13%
46
Maintain a steady beat independent K-1* 47.00% 42.29% 10.71%
47
48 of music 2-3** 75.18% 20.73% 4.09%
49 4-6** 88.34% 8.34% 3.31%
50 Echo rhythmic patterns K-1** 70.34% 27.97% 1.69%
51
52 2-3** 92.04% 7.96% 0.00%
53 4-6** 93.33% 6.27% 0.39%
54 Identify values of whole, half, quarter, K-1 6.53% 33.66% 59.80%
55
and eighth notes/rests 2-3* 44.04% 52.73% 3.23%
56
57 4-6** 93.67% 5.54% 0.79%
58 Tap/clap a notated rhythm K-1* 17.77% 44.99% 37.24%
59
2-3** 62.40% 36.21% 1.39%
60
4-6** 93.34% 6.14% 0.52%
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme
Page 21 of 21 Journal of Research in Music Education

Table 2 continued. Music teachers’ perceived importance of content standards related to pitch.
1
Identify number of beats in given time K-1 1.70% 15.01% 83.29%
2
3 signatures 2-3* 19.72% 61.54% 18.74%
4 4-6** 77.09% 21.34% 1.57%
5 Compose measures in different time K-1 0.71% 6.50% 92.80%
6
7 signatures 2-3* 7.27% 46.29% 46.43%
8 4-6* 39.95% 50.00% 10.05%
9 Identify notated rhythms from aural K-1 5.09% 27.72% 67.19%
10
examples 2-3* 27.87% 54.20% 17.93%
11
12 4-6** 60.39% 33.86% 5.75%
13 Transcribe aural rhythms K-1 3.70% 17.09% 79.20%
14
2-3* 17.63% 48.24% 34.13%
15
16 4-6* 41.82% 41.29% 16.89%
17 Describe and compare musical phrasing of K-1 6.05% 36.14% 57.82%
18 passages 2-3* 18.02% 63.95% 18.02%
Fo
19
20 4-6** 50.96% 44.95% 4.10%
21 Identify differences in dynamic markings K-1* 19.60% 43.23% 37.18%
22 2-3* 44.19% 50.71% 5.10%
r
23
4-6** 80.48% 18.86% 0.66%
24
Pe

25 Determine articulations of musical passages K-1 2.32% 25.22% 72.46%

26 (e.g., accented, legato, staccato) 2-3* 12.25% 60.54% 27.21%
27
4-6** 51.94% 43.79% 4.27%
28
er

29 Discriminate between major and minor K-1 3.03% 18.30% 78.67%

30 chords 2-3* 10.53% 48.93% 40.54%
31 4-6* 36.57% 52.79% 10.64%
32
Re

33 Discriminate between major and minor K-1 2.73% 27.63% 69.64%

34 melodies 2-3* 14.02% 55.52% 30.45%
35 4-6* 41.25% 50.80% 7.96%
36
Choose words one might use to describe K-1* 23.19% 51.59% 25.22%
vi

37
38 aural excerpts 2-3* 40.71% 51.86% 7.43%
39 4-6** 61.87% 32.67% 5.47%
ew

40
Identify instruments playing in aural K-1* 18.85% 60.29% 20.86%
41
42 examples 2-3* 49.72% 47.44% 2.84%
43 4-6** 76.76% 21.91% 1.33%
44 Identify how many different lines of music K-1 1.29% 10.50% 88.20%
45
46 are being played in excerpts 2-3* 5.68% 46.31% 48.01%
47 4-6* 23.77% 56.04% 20.19%
48 Identify instruments of different K-1* 13.24% 53.09% 33.67%
49
ensembles/families 2-3* 45.67% 51.91% 2.41%
50
51 4-6** 84.33% 14.87% 0.80%
52 Identify composers of various selections K-1 2.01% 17.67% 80.32%
53
2-3* 8.51% 50.92% 40.57%
54
55 4-6* 24.77% 56.69% 18.54%
56 Identify different musical genres by sound K-1 4.95% 34.21% 60.84%
57 2-3* 15.83% 60.29% 23.88%
58
59 4-6* 42.88% 47.31% 9.81%
60
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrme