1

An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk

Dr. Cecilia Chu Wang and Dr. David W. Sogin

School of MusicUniversity of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506-0022

cecilia.wang@uky.edu

sogin@uky.edu

Paper Submitted for Presentation at the MENC National Conference

Minneapolis, MN, 2004

2

An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe the current body of research literature pertaining to

Orff Schulwerk (OS). Research articles and writing from journals, dissertations, theses, and

conferences papers were classified into fifteen categories identified to cover all areas related

to research in Orff Schulwerk. Important findings were reported to provide an overall

perspective of Orff Schulwerk research. Over half of the research studies were completed in

1990 and later, indicating that much attention has been given to OS research in recent years

as more teachers have received OS training and practiced OS. All methods of research as

well as a spread of research categories are represented in the literature, with an increase in

qualitative inquiry in more recent research. Recommendations from the authors, along with

the fifteen categories provide a means for designing and evaluating future research in OS.

The sources for further reference are made available in an extensive list of bibliography.

3

An Update of Research Studies in Orff Schulwerk

Carl Orff was born in 1895 in Munich, Germany. In 1924 he and Dorothee Gunther, a

dancer, founded the Guntherschule where improvisation was a major part of the program.

Guild Keetman joined the school in 1926 where music were taught with dance and

gymnastics; and percussion instruments, African xylophone and recorders were used in

instruction. In 1928, Karl Maendler began to develop xylophones and later metallophones

specifically to create the combination of timbres for the Orff ensemble. In 1931, the first

volume titled “Orff Schulwerk—Elementare Musikubung” was published. While Carl Orff is

known to many for his compositions, his compositions were greatly influenced by his own

teaching. His most famous work, Carmina Burana, was premiered in 1937. Much has been

written about Orff’s life and his musical works. To music educators, Carl Orff was known as

a teacher, pedagogue, and writer all of which culminate in his five-volume work Music for

Children (Orff & Keetman, 1950). Orff Schulwerk has spread worldwide and reached North

America in the early 1950’s.

Research about the Schulwerk did not begin until the late sixties. There have been several

major studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It is in the last ten years that we see more consistent

output by researchers specifically devoted to the impact of Orff Schulwerk (denoted as OS

from here on) in teaching and learning. The purpose of this paper is to describe the current

body of research related the Schulwerk. The studies presented here are limited to those found

by computer data bases available to the authors, they have to relate to Orff Schulwerk

directly and must be considered to be based on a systematic method of investigation.

4

Research studies using Orff Schulwerk only in a tangential way or writings of position papers

have not been included here. Furthermore, only studies deemed relevant to MENC

membership are included. Unintended omissions are inevitable and the authors believe that

the inclusions here are representative of the literature as a whole.

Procedure

Data for this article come from journals, dissertations, theses, and conference papers. The

research reports embody all methods of empirical research, namely historical, philosophical,

descriptive (case studies, surveys, etc.) and experimental in method. They represent both

quantitative and qualitative/ethnographic studies, and mainly field research. We will attempt

to present the body of Orff Schulwerk research in music education in specific themes or

categories designed for this purpose. These categories came about as a result of integrating

components important to the Orff Schulwerk and those identified for music education

research (Radocy, 1998). As a consequence, fifteen categories were considered. They are

listed in the order indicating highest occurrence to least occurrence, but without any intention

to denote the importance of the topic. The number following the term denotes the number of

studies belonging to that category used for this paper. The assignment of category is based on

the main focus of the research and only one category is assigned to each research study. Most

studies follow easily into their category although a few studies are comprehensive in nature

and thus could fall into more than one categories.

The categories are as follows: 1) Curriculum/Assessment—11, 2) Effect of OS on Music

Knowledge/Skills—9, 3) Teacher/Student Characteristics—4, 4) Influence of OS on

Attitudes/Preferences—4, 5) Contributions of Organization/Individual—4, 6)

Creativity/Improvisation—4, 7) Pedagogic process/Settings—3, 8) Relating OS to

5

Language/Other curricula subjects—2, 9) OS and Theoretic/Philosophical Inquiries—2, 10)

OS Teacher Training—2, 11) Learning and development/Diverse learners—2, 12)

Instruments/Recorders in OS—2, 13) Relating OS to Movement/Arts—1, 14) OS

Research/Research Methods—1, 15) American Music/World Music/Teaching Materials—0.

In the following paragraphs, we will give a brief explanation and provide research sample(s)

for each category. Details will be presented for selected studies in the hope to give a good

perspective of research pertaining to Orff Schulwerk.

The Curriculum/Assessment category applies to all studies that examine curriculum or

assessment issues. This category includes studies by Addo (1990), Calusel (1998), Chang

(1991), Chin (1993), Daigneault (1993), Kubitsky (1998), Lyne (1991), Madden (1984),

Shamrock (1988), Tsisserev (1993), and Woody and Fredrickson (2000). Several of these

studies examined how Orff Schulwerk can be applied in cross-cultural settings, other relate

Schulwerk to existing or create new curriculum models. Shamrock’s work is very

comprehensive and it provides real-life examples of OS in three different Asian cultures

(Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand) with different language systems. Her insight is significant in

the understanding the adaptation of OS materials with cultural factors in mind. In general,

researchers here find that OS can enhance learning when incorporated into the curriculum.

The next most researched category consists of nine studies that investigated the effect of

OS on some form of music knowledge or skills such as singing (Muse, 1994), rhythmic or

pitch accuracy, and audiation (Hudgens, 1987), musical sensitivity (Olson, 1964) or music

achievement based on standardized music tests (Hensley, 1981). Researchers here tend to use

the experimental method of research, employing two or more teaching methods as treatment

groups, designating the Schulwerk approach as the experimental group and a traditional

6

method as control. The Kodaly and/or the Dalcroze approaches would make up the other

treatment groups. Besides the four studies mentioned above, other studies that fall into this

category include those by Flohr (1981), Siemens (1969), Glasgow & Hamreus (1968), and

Shank and Rashley (2001). Here the results regarding the effects of OS varied, some studies

indicated that OS increased musical learning, yet other studies, especially those with short

instructional span, found no significant differences. At the same time, no adverse effect has

been reported anywhere. One difficulty is that the treatment labeled Orff Schulwerk as well

as that labeled Traditional or other method of instruction varied from study to study.

A study titled “Orff-Schulwerk: Design for Creativity” based on the project “Creativity

and Participation in Music Education” in the Bellflower Unified School District in California

(1968) is also listed under this category. This project is unique due to its extensiveness and at

such an early stage of OS research. The project spanned the duration of at least two years,

involved 325 first and second grade students, and 23 classes in secondary schools. While

creativity was the main dependent variable, the project also addressed curriculum

development, assessment of student behaviors, attitude, reading, as well as the effect of OS

on children of different race. It utilized both quantitative measures in creativity scores,

reading scores, behavior checklists, as well as qualitative data obtained by means of field

observations by administrators and teachers, discussions, and other performance-based

assessments. In the Bellflower study, students receiving Schulwerk instruction increased in

seven out of nine areas related to creative expression.

The first two categories comprised of about forty percent of all research studies

considered here. There are four studies in each of the next four categories. Hamilton (1999),

Martin (1992), Munsen (1986), and Wang and Sogin (1997) investigated Teacher and

7

Student Characteristics. All examined time use related to teacher and student activities, and

student/teacher interaction. Martin’s study is a replication of Munsen’s in a different setting.

The first three studies used the ethnographic method of observations, and teacher or student

behaviors were observed mainly during activities involving improvisation. They found that

much teacher/student interaction goes on in the Orff classroom and that students are excited

about learning. The study by Wang and Sogin utilized the quantitative measures of time

analysis and found that teachers consistently over-estimated the proportion of time they spent

per activity.

Research on the Influence of OS on Attitudes/Preferences included studies by Barker

(1981), Bondurant-Koehler (1995), Mckoy (1998), and Mishenhelter (2001). These studies

used quantitative analyses to investigated if relationship exists between OS and self concept

(Barker), music listening preference (Bondurant-Koehler, Mckoy), and perception of

teaching ability and anxiety (Mishenhelter). Barker’s subjects were with learning disabilities

and significant differences were found at the p < .05 level of the pre-post testing on the Piers-

Harris Children's Self Concept Scale. Results for Bondurant-Koehler and Mckoy indicate

that other variables besides OS would influence listening preference. Mishenhelter found that

his college students perceived slightly better teaching ability after participation in an OS

workshop but no change in anxiety.

There are again four studies classified as Contributions of Organization or Individual.

These studies are important because they present the history of Orff Schulwerk in America in

a cohesive and comprehensive manner. The work by Patricia Osterby (1988) Orff Schulwerk

in North America 1955 – 1969 provided in extraordinary details the leaders and their

thoughts culminating to the formation of AOSA. De Lois Wimmer’s work (1993) The

8

Organization of American Orff Schulwerk Association from 1968 - 1980 and its influence

upon Music Education in America traced the work of the American Orff-Schulwerk

Association (AOSA) from its beginning (1968) through its expansion until 1980. Weisert-

Peatow (2002) focused on the leadership of AOSA and extended the coverage to 1998. The

study by Orrell (1995) detailed the influence of Grace Nash on music education in the United

States. These are all qualitative studies showing the rich history of Orff Schulwerk in the

United States, and of Canada to a great extent.

Research with focus on Creativity and Improvisation comprises of the work by Beegle

(2001), Amchin (1995), Brophy (1998), and Flohr (1980, 1981). Beegle interviewed three

teachers before and after oberving their teaching three improvisation lessons, and analyzed

the pedagogic process in guiding children’s improvisation and relate improvisation to the

music curriculum. Flohr (1980) explored and described how pre-school children improvise.

The studies by Amchin, Brophy, and Flohr (1981) were experimental in design in studying

children’s ability to improvise in an OS setting. Brohpy studied children ages 6-12 and found

a clear developmental trend demonstrated in children’s improvisation, with a great increase

between ages 8 and 9. Amchin’s study did not yield significant difference in fourth and fifth

graders’ creative thinking after 23 weeks of improvisation instruction but students showed

increased music aptitude and interest.

There are three studies in the next category of Pedagogic process/Settings. Price and

Harding (1998) found that teachers who were trained in OS did not use time in music

teaching differently than those not trained. Sogin and Wang (1990) investigated whether the

amount of Orff training has influence on the perception of a music lesson and found none.

However teachers rated the time spent on musical activity consistently lower than those

9

events that are considered general teaching techniques. Wang and Sogin (2003) documented

student activities and teacher behaviors observed in 24 elementary general music classes

conducted by five exemplary teachers of OS and found that these teachers used modeling

extensively and that there are more music-making activities than reported in other general

music research.

Each of the next five categories has two research studies in its classification. Two

categories have one study each and one category has no study found. They are reported here

by name as follows: Relating OS to Language/Other curricula subjects (Kelley, 1981;

Whitehead, 2001), OS and Theoretic/Philosophical Inquiries (Jaccard, 1995; Snell, 1980),

OS Teacher Training (McDowell, Abril, & Frego, 2002; Robbins, 1994), Learning and

development/Diverse learners (Grant, 1991; Persellin, 1999), Instruments/Recorders in OS

(Sogin & Wang, 2002; Velasquez, 1990), Relating OS to Movement/Arts (Moore, 1984), OS

Research/Research Method (Wang & Sogin, 1995), and American Music/World

Music/Teaching Materials—0. The last categories has not found a matching research study

here, however this category denotes some important media in OS teaching and this topic

appears often in non-data-based articles. The authors feel that listing all the categories here

might be useful by providing a complete research agenda in Orff Schulwerk for future

researchers.

Conclusion

The amount of research related to Orff Schulwerk has increased significantly in the last

ten years. The methodologies used in these research studies also seem to follow the trend of

the music education research practice in general. For instance, there has been an increase of

ethnographic studies using qualitative techniques. Among the studies noted in this article, 21

10

studies can be classified as qualitative and 30 quantitative. Some recent qualitative research

studies also included some quantitative measures and vice versa.

The analysis of these works on Orff Schulwerk in the Classroom suggest that much

greater care must be taken in defining the variables used in conducting the research,

specifically "Orff Schulwerk". Also, different researchers use a variety of definitions when

using Orff Schulwerk as an independent variable. Comparisons cannot be made across

studies when this is the case. On the other hand, more recent research indicates that the

researcher or the teacher tends to have more formal training in Orff Schulwerk and that more

stringent criteria were met in designating a teacher as Schulwerk-trained. In earlier research,

a teacher with Level I OS training was denoted as Orff-certified while in later studies Level 3

is more typical. If researchers can better define "Schulwerk" then clearer patterns will evolve

from the literature and better information can be used in the decision making process.

In a related manner, many researchers tend to use Orff in conjunction with other

curriculums such that it is difficult to say what the effect of Orff Schulwerk, if any, has on

the dependent variable when there is such cross pollination of curriculum ideas. This other

curriculums traditionally have been those of Kodaly, Dalcroze, and Comprehensive

Musicianship. However, the current literature also suggests comparing OS with other

approaches such as by Rolland, Suzuki, Gordon, and other instructional methods. The

literature also shows strong interest in examining OS in cross-cultural settings.

After three decades of research and teaching and learning in Orff Schulwerk, we can now

define the approach much better. We now know that true Schulwerk classrooms should be

filled with music making and movement activities. We know the approach is student-

centered and that they provide many ideas for active learning. We now have a wealth of

11

music materials suitable for OS classes, and for wider range of age groups. We know that

Orff Schulwerk is process-oriented and that Orff Schulwerk is not complete until students

have experienced the four phases of pedagogic process: imitation, exploration, literacy, and

improvisation. Using Orff instruments per se, or teaching songs by rote alone, or using chants

and body percussion without understanding the teaching process is not Orff Schulwerk. The

body of OS research indicates that more studies addressed the OS curriculum content and its

effect on music skills than other categories mentioned above. Thus, when reading some of

the research listed here, one still needs to decide if the results truly reflect the effect of Orff

Schulwerk. For future studies using Orff Schulwerk as a curriculum treatment, we suggest

using curriculum guidelines provided by Frazee & Kreuter (1987), Steen (1992). The book

by Saliba (1991) and by Warner (1991) also provide good examples of Schulwerk activities

for children.

Finally, we hope that the fifteen research categories mentioned in this study provide some

way to look at Orff Schulwerk as a whole. We would like to see more research immediately

to focus on the pedagogic process and on improvisation. We would like to see a continuing

increase of Orff Schulwerk research, covering each of the fifteen categories.

12

Reference

Addo, A. O. (1990). A Survey Of Music Teaching Strategies In Ghanaian ElementarySchools As A Basis For Curriculum Development. (Masters Thesis, The University Of British Columbia). Masters Abstracts International, 30, No. 04. 0986.

Amchin, R. A. (1995). Creative Musical Response: The Effects Of Teacher-StudentInteraction On The Improvisation Abilities Of Fourth- And Fifth-Grade Students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University Of Michigan). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, No. 08A, 3044.

Barker, C. S. (1981). Using Orff-Schulwerk As A Method To Enhance Self ConceptIn Children With Learning Disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, No. 05A, 2026.

Beegle, A. C. (2001). An Examination Of Orff-Trained General Music Teachers' UseOf Improvisation With Elementary School Children. (Masters Thesis, University Of St. Thomas (St. Paul) Masters Abstracts International, 40, No. 02, 287.

Bellflower Symposium. (1968). Orff Schulwerk: Design for Creativity: A report of the project “Creativity and Participation in Music Education”. (EASA Title 3 Report). Bellflower, California: Bellflower Unified School District. (ERIC ED 053 153).

Bondurant-Koehler, S. (1995). The Effect Of Selected Modes Of Music Instruction OnChildren's Music Preference. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, No. 08A, 3044.

Brophy, T. S. (1998). The Melodic Improvisations Of Children Ages Six ThroughTwelve: A Developmental Perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, No. 09A, 3386.

Chang, Hwei-Hwei (1991). A Status Report And Suggestions For ImprovingElementary Music Education In The Republic Of China. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, No. 04A, 1245.

Chin, J. (1993). Curriculum For Introducing Chinese Instruments In Grades Four Through Six. (Masters Thesis, California State University, Los Angeles). Masters Abstracts International, 32, no. 01.27.

Clausel, S. L. S. (1998). Applications of Cambourne's model of literacy learning and theOrff-Schulwerk music method to the development of a curriculum model for Mississippi music education, K-1. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59-10A, 3768.

Daigneault, D. J. (1993). A survey of recommended procedures and teaching methodsfor building and maintaining a wind and percussion instrumental music education

13

program grades six through twelve. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-09A, 3362.

Flohr, J. W. (1980). Musical improvisation behavior of young children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 5355A.

Flohr, J. W. (1981).Short-term music instruction and young children’s developmental music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 219-223.

Frazee, J. & Kreuter, K. (1987). Discovering Orff. New York: Schott.

Glasgow, R. B. and Hamreus, D. G. (1968). Study to determine the feasibility of adapting the Carl Orff approach to elementary schools in America. (Final Report). Monmouth, Oregon: Oregon College of education. (ERIC ED 020 804).

Grant, T. W. (1991). The Effect Of Orff Schulwerk Instruction On MemoryDevelopment In Children Ages Ten To Eleven. (Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, No. 06a, 2061.

Hamilton, H. J. (1999). Music Learning Through Composition, Improvisation AndPeer Interaction In The Context Of Three Sixth Grade Music Classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, No. 07A, 2420.

Hensley, S. E. (1981). A study of the musical achievement of elementary students taughtby the Memphis City Curriculum Guide and students taught by the traditional approach. (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42-11A, 4757.

Hudgens, C. K. K. (1987). A Study Of The Kodaly Approach To Music Teaching AndAn Investigation Of Four Approaches To The Teaching Of Selected Skills In First Grade Music Classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of North Texas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, No. 03A, 0556.

Jaccard, J. L. (1995). A conceptual model for literature-based musical education.(Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56-11A, 4312.

Kelley, L. L. (1981). A Combined Experimental And Descriptive Study Of The EffectOf Music On Reading And Language. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Pennsylvania). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, No. 03A, 1076.

Kubitsky, I. (1998). Ewe Children's Music From Ghana, West Africa, In The Classroom(Masters Thesis, San Jose State University). Masters Abstracts International, 36, No. 05, 1214.

14

Lyne, J. K. (1991). Beginning Strings Class Instruction: Practice And Theory.(Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, No. 06A, 2063.

McDowell, C; Abril, C.; and Frego, D. (2002). Motivation Factors of music educatiorsattending an Orff Schulwerk Summer training workshop. Paper presented at the 2002 national convention of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Mckoy, C. L. (1998). The Effect Of Two Instructional Approaches On Fourth-Grade Students' Preferences For Indigenous Folk Music Of Ghana. (Doctoral dissertation,).Dissertation Abstracts International, 60,No.02A, 0372.

Madden, James A., Jr. (1984). Zoltan Kodaly And Carl Orff: Implications For ProgramDevelopment In Elementary Instrumental Music Education. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, No. 01A, 0072.

Martin, M. A. (1992). An Examination Of The Orff-Schulwerk Approach To MusicEducation In A Public Elementary School: A Replication Study. (Doctoral dissertation, The University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, No. 08A, 0153.

Mishenhelter, D. (2001). An Investigation of University Students’ Perceptions ofPersonal Teaching Ability and Anxiety Before and After an Orff-Schulwerk Workshop. Paper presented at the 2001 national convention of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association, Cincinnati, OH.

Moore, J. L. S. (1984). Rhythm And Movement: An Objective Analysis Of TheirAssociation With Music Aptitude (Orff Schulwerk, Weikart Movement). (Doctoral dissertation, The University Of North Carolina At Greensboro). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 05a, 1328.

Munsen, S. C. (1986). A Description And Analysis Of An Orff-Schulwerk Program OfMusic Education. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, No. 09A, 3351.

Muse, M. B. (1994). A Comparison Of Two Methods Of Teaching Singing To PrimaryChildren An Attempt To Determine Which Of Two Approaches To Teaching Singing Is More Effective. (Masters Thesis, University Of Louisville ). Masters Abstracts International, 33, No. 01, 0030.

Olson, R. G. (1964). A Comparison Of Two Pedagogical Approaches Adapted To TheAcquisition Of Melodic Sensitivity In Sixth Grade Children: The Orff Method And The Traditional Method. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, No. 02A, 0500.

15

Orff, C. & Keetman, G. (1950). Music for Children, 5 volumes. Mainz, Germany: Schott Musik International.

Orrell, M. S. (1995). The Work Of Grace C. Nash In Music Education In The UnitedStates, 1960-1990, And Her Influence Upon Members Of The American Orff-Schulwerk Association In The States Of Arizona And Colorado. (Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Houston). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, No. 12a, 4694.

Osterby, P. M. (1988). Orff Schulwerk In North America, 1955-1969 (United States,Canada). (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, No. 01A, 0094.

Persellin, D. (1999). The effect of Orff-based music instruction on spatial-temporal task performance of young children. Texas Music Educators Association Research.

Price, H. & Hardin, L. (1988) Elementary school teachers comparative use of class time: Teachers who are versus those who are not Orff Schulwerk certified. Paper presented at the 1988 national convention of Music Educators National Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Radocy, R. (1998). Personal perspectives on research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 342-350.

Robbins, J. (1994). Levels of learning in Orff SPIEL. Bulletin ofr the Council for Research in Music Education, 123, 47-53.

Saliba, K.K. (1991). Accent on Orff: An Introductory Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shamrock, M. E. (1988). Applications And Adaptations Of Orff-Schulwerk In Japan,Taiwan And Thailand . (Doctoral dissertation, University Of California, Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts International, 0031.

Siemens, M. T. (1969). A comparison of Orff and traditional instructional methods in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, 272-285.

Snell, C. A. (1980). The Philosophical Basis Of Orff-Schulwerk. (Doctoraldissertation, University Of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, No. 04A, 1470.

Shank, J., and Rashley, B. (2001). The effect of musicing on recognition of musicconcepts by college students. Paper presented at the 2001 national convention of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association, Cincinnati, OH.

16

Sogin, D. W. and Wang, C. C. (2002). A descriptive analysis of the recordercomponent of an Orff-Schulwerk teacher-training course. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American Orff-Schulwerk Association Las Vegas, November 6-10.

Sogin, D. W. and Wang. C. C. (1990). An analysis of the perceptions of Orff-trainedteachers on an elementary music lesson. Paper presented at the 1990 world congress of the International Society for Music Education, Helsinki, Finland.

Steen, A. (1992). Exploring Orff: A Teacher’s Guide. New York: Schott.

Tsisserev, A. (1993). An Analysis Of The Music Education Methodology Of DmitryKabalevsky And A Comparison With Those Of Zoltan Kodaly And Carl Orff. (Masters Thesis, The University Of Manitoba (Canada). Masters Abstracts International, 35, No. 02, 0399.

Velasquez, V. (1990). Tuned idiophones in the music education of children: The history of Orff instruments. The Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education, 11, 93-109.

Wang, C. C. and Sogin, D.W. (1995). A research perspective of Orff Schulwerk in the classroom. Paper presented at the Orff 100 International Conference of Music and Dance, Melbourne, Australia.

Wang, C. C. and Sogin, D.W. (1997). A comparative study of self-reported versus observed classroom activities in elementary general music.” Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 444-456.

Wang, C. C. and Sogin, D. W. (2003). An examination of the teacher-student interaction in the Orff-Schulwerk process. Research Perspectives in Music Education.

Warner, B. (1991). Orff-Schulwerk: Applications for the Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weisert-Peatow, H. S. (2002). Leadership In The American Orff-Schulwerk Association, 1968--1998: (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle University 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, No. 05A,

Whitehead, B. J. (2001). The Effect Of Music-Intensive Intervention On MathematicsScores Of Middle And High School Students. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, No. 08A,

Wimmer, D. L. (1993). The Organization Of The American Orff SchulwerkAssociation From 1968-1980 And Its Influence Upon Music Education In America. (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Houston). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, No. 03a, 0857.

17

Woody, R., and Fredrickson, J. (2000). A partnership project integrating computer technology and Orff Schulwerk. General Music Today, 13, 8-11.