Major dilemma

Sean Tait, K-6 PYP music teacher at AOBA-Japan International School, explores the best way to teach a C-major scale

The names Kodály and Orff are synonymous with music education and the theories of both educators are used in music classrooms around the world.

Zoltán Kodály was a Hungarian educator and composer who came to prominence working with the famous composer Béla Bartók. His theories on music education are centred around singing and rote learning folk/children’s songs before moving on to notation/dictation, hand signing whilst singing the solfege syllables (originally created in England by John Curwen) and using rhythm duration syllables to assist in memorising and notating music (originally created in France by Jacques Chevé).

Kodály synthesised many existing systems and created a teacher training programme that is still very influential in music schools today.

Carl Orff was a German educator and composer whose education system is based on rhythm, movement and playing various untuned and tuned percussion instruments. Starting with untuned percussion and rhythm, the student progresses to tuned percussion and improvising, until finally being able to create their own compositions using the tools they have learned. There is an emphasis on playing and performing on instruments throughout the Orff system as opposed to signing and notation for the Kodály method.

I had been working with a Year One class at an International School in Japan for approximately a year. We had been using several methods of singing and reading the C Major Scale drawn from Kodaly and Orff, and I was curious to investigate which methods the children themselves felt were most effective.

During regular class time, students could confidently demonstrate their ability with the C Major Scale whilst comfortably in their Zone of Proximal Development. Taking cues from peers and teacher, they could sing, hand sign, and play the C Major Scale on various instruments. This research project was designed to explore the possibility of removing those scaffolds and evaluating the understanding of students via recall and performance.

I organised a series of individual interviews where students could demonstrate the C Major Scale using Curwen Hand Signs, recall of various notational schemes, and by playing on instruments. I collected feedback on which method they felt had been the most effective, and their opinion on why.

A great deal of the question/answer and demonstration sessions produced results in line with my expectations, but their opinions and insight into why they were able to display understanding from the different methods was not as I had anticipated.

Research Questions and Tasks:

Kodály: Recall, singing and hand signing.

1. Starting on Do please sing an octave to the next Do using the hand signs as well

2. Starting on C please sing an octave to the next C using the hand signs as well

3. Starting on 1 please sing an octave to 8 using the hand signs as well

4. Starting on Red please sing an octave to the next Red using the hand signs as well

5. What is another name for Yellow?

6. What is another name for Ti?

7. What is another name for 4?

8. What is another name for G?

Qualitative Question 1 – Which method did you find the easiest to remember and why did you think this was the case?

Qualitative Question 2 – Which method did you like the best and why did you think this was the case?

Orff: Instrumental performance

1. Play the C Major scale on the Xylophone. Play Red, F, 7 and then La. 2. Play the C Major scale on the Desk Bells. Play Red, F, 7 and then La.

3. Play the C Major scale on the iPad using the Prodigies Bell App. Play Red, F, 7 and then La.

Qualitative Question 1 – Which instrument did you find the easiest to play and why did you think this was the case?

Qualitative Question 2 – Which instrument did you like to play the best and why did you think this was the case?

All interviewees were confidently able to demonstrate the C Major Scale with the Curwen Hand Signs, Solfege (Do, Rei, Mi, Fa, So, La, Ti, Do), Numeral Notation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), and Colour Coding (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Teal, Purple, Pink and Red). There was some hesitancy for the Letter Names (C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C) from two of the students, but both were able to slowly work their way through. I had anticipated this could be the most difficult as it was not designed to be as easy to remember as the others, and we had only just started talking about this notation in class. The Solfege system is widely used in Japan, making this more familiar and therefore more easily demonstrated by the students, and the numbering system and colour coding were both designed to be child friendly.

Moving on to the next section, all students were able to successfully demonstrate the ability to change between the notation systems. In music classes we often talked about how there are several words for the same object; for example, there are many ways to articulate ‘apple’ if we use different languages. We had explored that this concept also applies to music as it is basically another language. This meant that students were comfortable with there being several names for the same note/pitch. Some of the changes were a little more difficult than others, but the students were able to navigate this by themselves using the Curwen Hand Signs, Solfege and/or Number Notation.

All the students agreed that Number Notation was the easiest to remember as they were “just numbers and easy” (Student T), and there was a consensus that Letter Names were the hardest “because they should start at A and not C, because that’s hard to remember” (Student H). All students agreed that “starting at C was ok” (Student T), but then having to remember “there is no H, so we go back to A” (Student K) was not the easiest thing to remember. The participants also expressed they liked Colour Coding best because it was fun and assigning colours “felt like they were playing a rainbow” (Student L). None of them mentioned Solfege or the Curwen Hand Signs as being particularly easy or difficult, but all defaulted to them when trying to work out another name for notes.

All interviewees were excited to play on instruments and showed an enthusiasm and confidence when using all three of the instruments available. Each participant was able to proficiently play the C Major Scale and change between the notation systems more quickly and accurately than they could with hand signing and singing. Having the instruments really helped participants to focus and there were minimal hesitations and self-corrections when changing between the notation systems. Letter Name recall/demonstration was still the slowest, but these were performed much more confidently than without the support of the physical instruments.

All students agreed that the iPads were the easiest to play as they required the least effort. They also stated, “it was easy to play fast” (Student T) on the iPads and to “think about rhythm more” (Student K). Due to the ease of physically playing the iPad they were able to concentrate on the notation and timing. However, they all chose either the detachable xylophone or the desk bells as their preferred instrument as they “were fun to play” (Student H), “easy to make louder” (Student T) and “were real instruments” (Student L).

Implications & conclusions

The interview project was aimed at seeing which methods were modelled correctly to inform both teaching practice and preparation, and to gain an understanding of opinions regarding which methods they thought made the learning process easier and more engaging.

All students were able to use the four methods of notation (Solfege, Letter Names, Numbers and Colours) for the C Major Scale whilst singing and hand signing, with the letters proving the most difficult. As previously stated, I contend this was due to letter names being the least child friendly notation and the method we had only recently started in class. I was impressed that interviewees could work their way through the scale by referring to different notation and/or hand signs. This showed an understanding of the interchangeability of the different approaches and students were able to correctly correlate a known system with one they were not as confident with to produce the required answer. Although students took longer on letter names, all were able to work through the scale using other notation for support, rather than relying on a more confident peer or the teacher.

It was interesting and informative to hear that all students surveyed preferred Number Notation. I had predicted Solfege would be the most popular as it is commonly used throughout Japan, but each student stated they found numbers were the easiest to remember. The participants also defaulted to numbers and/or hand signs when trying to work out alternative names for notes, which indicated this may be the easiest for students to converse in. It was also interesting that all students stated they liked Colour Notation the best. I had not expected a consensus on the qualitative questions, but the fact there was clearly indicated patterns and preferences in the students’ preferred method of learning and understanding.

Once each student switched to the use of instruments, they were much more confident in demonstrating the various methods of notation and were also able to interchange between notation with greater ease. It became apparent they were often using Numbers to move around the instruments when changing between notations. I had expected that having the instruments would aid notation memory and students demonstrated that this was the case, being able to recall quicker on all three of the instruments (detachable xylophones, desk bells, and iPads) than they were with singing and hand signs. Students also displayed more facility with alternating notations, which indicated that having an instrument allowed the students to demonstrate their understanding more fluidly than they were able to vocally or with hand signs.

I had expected iPads to be the most popular, but not for the reasons expressed by the students. I had not considered the effort and coordination that was needed to play the detachable xylophones and desk bells, and the students stated they were able to concentrate on the notes and rhythm on the iPads rather than the physicality of playing the instruments. The ease of playing the iPad app allowed them to focus on other musical concepts, and this was something I would take into consideration when planning future lessons.

Before conducting the interviews, I knew the students could demonstrate their understanding using singing, hand signs and instruments in a group situation where they were firmly in their Zone of Proximal Development. During the individual interviews the scaffolding was removed, and each interviewee demonstrated the ability to recall and play the C Major Scale via various methods.

Our regular classes had focused on several notations, and the students were able to switch between these as needed and reference other methods to enhance their performance. As much of the learning that takes place in classes is informal, it was very useful to see that these concepts had been internalised and could be demonstrated via performance in a formal situation.

Due to the space limitations and lack of instruments, I had to rely on technology to help in teaching and performing. Whilst I had expected students to state they enjoyed making music with the iPads, I was intrigued to learn this was due to the ease of playing these as an instrument. My belief that a mixture of singing, hand signs and instruments (which in turn is a mix of guiding principles of Orff and Kodály music teaching) is an effective teaching method was reinforced; however, moving forward I am incorporating more technology into my lessons – not for its novelty value, but as a valid method of performing and learning.