Music Streaming in the P–12 Music Classroom: A Scoping Review

Abstract

The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize literature regarding audio streaming in the P–12 music classroom by identifying the varied uses, recommendations for equitable access, and gaps in the knowledge base. A total of 23 publications met the criteria for inclusion. Ensemble and general music classrooms in elementary, middle, and high school contexts were represented in the literature with exemplification of concepts, genres, styles, and techniques evident as the most common usage. YouTube, Spotify, and Pandora were frequently referenced as streaming platforms. Authors cited inexpensive or free platforms and ubiquity of access most frequently when referencing equity and streaming. Most authors made no reference to potential access impediments. I identified gaps in the literature, including the uses of streamed music in jazz classrooms, performer compensation, diversity of content, barriers to student access, potential solutions to equitable access issues, and music perception differences for those with limited access.

Keywords

access equity internet access music streaming P–12 music Spotify YouTube

The advent of audio recording allowed a broader range of audiences to hear music in venues that had not been traditionally associated with music performances (Bridges & Wagner, 2019). Among these venues were public schools. Millard (2005) described the inventors of early analog sound recorders and how their drive to market audio recordings to schools influenced later generations of musicians:

Edison and the other inventors thought that there were great opportunities for recorded sound in music education, and they sold special machines and records to schools. Some band leaders of the swing era, such as Woody Herman, heard their first jazz on records in high school, but many more picked it up by casual listening. (p. 250)

Educators responded to this push for audio recordings and players in schools by using phonographs and radio recordings in their classrooms (Bathurst, 1943; Nickerson, 1947). Eventually, publishers designed entire music education-specific curricula to incorporate recorded sound as phonographs and other analog playback devices became increasingly ubiquitous (Himes, 1960; Stone, 1922).

With several advances in magnetic tape-recording technology, such as the Dolby Noise-Reduction System, audio cassette sales began to increase as sales of phonographs gradually declined (Millard, 2005). The year 1984 was the first in which more cassette tapes were sold in the United States than phonograph records, including extended plays (EPs), long plays (LPs), and vinyl singles (Recording Industry Association of America, n.d.). Accordingly, music educators began increasingly using audio cassettes instead of phonographs as part of their in-class and at-home curricula (Kersten, 1993; Sims, 1990). As computing became more advanced and technologies like pulse code modulation and digital audio sampling came into existence (Bridges & Wagner, 2019), the compact disc, or CD, became common, overtaking the magnetic cassette tape as the highest-sold format by quantity in the United States in 1995 (Recording Industry Association of America, n.d.).

Like analog recording and playback formats, digitally based formats like the CD found their way into use by music educators and their students (Dorfman, 2008; Koops & Kuebel, 2018). Unlike prior analog formats, however, the CD burner, optical computer drives, and digital compression schemes allowed listeners in the era of digital audio to easily remove, or “rip,” audio from CDs and store them on their computers in digital file formats. The proliferation of these audio files led to the rise of portable MP3 players and a variety of proprietary software that allowed users to directly download sound files from various companies’ servers (Millard, 2005). Like the physical analog and digital formats that preceded them, audio file distribution software such as the iTunes store and the Zune marketplace found their way into music educators’ curricula (Ajero, 2009; Martin, 2014).

More than 50% of the revenues accrued by U.S. recorded music since 2016 has been generated by music streaming, including subscription-based services, ad-supported streaming, and on-demand streaming services (Recording Industry Association of America, n.d.). Unlike prior digital formats, music streaming services do not generally provide users with an audio file that can be reproduced or freely exchanged. Instead, they rely on digital information sent in a stream via the internet from a remote server to a user’s computer, browser, or mobile device. To accommodate limitations in internet bandwidth, each audio file is compressed remotely and decompressed at the destination using software schemes called coder-decoders (commonly referred to as codecs). These codecs are designed, in the case of lossy codecs commonly used in streaming, to discard information considered extraneous or beyond perception (Sterne, 2012). Lossy codecs often remove high and low frequencies or soft sounds masked by louder sounds as a means of saving data, though these codecs will remove perceptible sound if data limitations are stringent. Codec selection and the extent of data removal is often contingent upon connection strength, with more information and, therefore, audio quality lost when a user’s internet connection suffers (Tortosa et al., 2014).

Internet access is not equitable in the United States. According to a report by the Federal Communications Commission (2021), 4.4% of Americans do not have at-home access to broadband capable of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. The authors of this report also found that areas without terrestrial broadband access (e.g., DSL, cable, and fiber connections) had lower per capita income, median household income, and higher household poverty rates than those areas with access to broadband (Federal Communications Commission, 2021). Internet access in rural and Tribal America is also notable, with 22.3% of Americans in rural areas and 27.7% of Americans in Tribal lands lacking coverage from fixed broadband, as opposed to only 1.5% of Americans in urban areas (Federal Communications Commission, 2020). Taken together, these findings suggest that equitable access to high-fidelity streaming music can be contingent on location and income.

Additional research into how music educators are using and advocating for streaming music in their curricula is needed to better inform current practice in the field. In addition, knowledge of what gaps in the literature regarding usage and recommendations for access to streaming media can be used to further inform future research in the field. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize literature regarding audio streaming in the P–12 music classroom by identifying the varied uses, recommendations for equitable access, and gaps in the knowledge base.

Method

Proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), scoping reviews are a methodological framework that allows researchers to examine the extent and nature of research activity in a field, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review, summarize and disseminate research findings, and identify gaps in the existing literature. Levac et al. (2010) further clarified that scoping reviews are designed to “map” the breadth and depth of a field without assessing the quality of the included sources. Furthermore, these scoping reviews require an analytical reinterpretation of the literature.

Given the emergent nature of pedagogy and research involving streaming music and music education, I selected a scoping review as the framework for this review. Following the precedent set forth in music therapy research by Gooding and Langston (2019) and Howlin and Rooney (2020), I designed the current study to identify gaps in the existing literature and make recommendations for guiding further research. Scoping reviews involve six stages, the last of which is optional (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). In keeping with prior scoping reviews in music research (Gooding and Langston, 2019; Howlin and Rooney, 2020), I implemented the first five stages: (1) identifying research questions, (2) identifying relevant sources, (3) selecting the sources, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results.

Stage 1: Identifying Research Questions

The aim of this research study was to identify gaps in the research and pedagogy regarding the use of streaming music technology in the P–12 music classroom. The following research questions guided this investigation:

In what ways have P–12 music educators in the United States been using streaming music in their classrooms and curricula?

What recommendations have been made regarding equitable access to streaming music resources for P–12 students?

What are the gaps and limitations in the literature of music education regarding streaming music usage in the P–12 classroom?

Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Sources

I chose multiple online databases and search engines (JSTOR, SAGE Journals, Google Scholar) for their access to music education journals. The specific search terms I used in the primary database search included “streaming OR stream,” and I screened results to include sources from 1990 to present to limit results to the time in which the internet was active. To account for instances in which proprietary eponyms (brand names used in place of generic terms) were used in the literature, I performed separate searches using the search terms “Spotify OR Apple Music” to represent two of the most popular music streaming websites by global market share (Mulligan, 2022). I also performed separate searches using “YouTube OR Vimeo” to account for instances in which authors used proprietary eponyms and in which user-uploaded video streaming software was used by the authors as a listening platform. I selected these websites because they were the top-two-ranked user-uploaded video streaming websites by page visits (Similarweb, 2022). In instances where specific journals could not be screened for search inclusion, the Boolean operator AND was included with search terms “music education AND music classroom.” I conducted comprehensive database searches between July 1, 2022 and September 1, 2022. As the field of music education includes an abundance of both practitioner and research articles that inform educational practice, both types of publication were included for the purposes of this study. Articles retrieved during this database search were published in American Music Teacher, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, The Choral Journal, Contributions to Music Education, Jazz Education in Research and Practice, Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, Journal of Music Teacher Education, Journal of Research in Music Education, Music Educators Journal, Philosophy of Music Education Review, and Update: Applications of Research in Music Education.

Stage 3: Source Selection

I screened titles and abstracts for a list of relevant sources and then removed any duplicates. I assessed the publications, then used the following requirements to determine eligibility criteria:

The publication gave specific recommendations regarding streaming music usage.

Authors referenced or inferred P–12 music education settings in the United States.

Recommendations were substantive and not cursory in nature.

References to proprietary eponyms or streamed music clearly indicated audio streamed via the internet.

I considered authors’ recommendations to be specific when the streaming resources were given an explicit use (e.g., “we suggest presenting the [listening activity] to students in the form of a YouTube video”; Beach & Bolden, 2018). Likewise, I considered any recommendations to be substantive and non-cursory when the authors advocated for streaming directly as part of their publication. I excluded any texts with incidental references to videos, songs, and other media hosted on streaming sites used to supplement the author’s work. The search process is presented graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study Selection Flowchart.

Stage 4: Charting the Data

I reviewed publications meeting the inclusion criteria and then entered information on authorship, publication year, purpose statement, grade levels referenced, classroom type, recommended streaming music applications, referenced platforms, and references to equitable access into a spreadsheet. I then organized the data from this spreadsheet by author’s last name and entered it into two tables: one reflecting streaming music applications used in P–12 music education research and another reflecting streaming music platforms and equitable access recommendations in P–12 music education research.

Stage 5: Results

Streaming Music Applications

A total of 23 publications met inclusion criteria. Papers were published between 2009 and 2020 with 13 (56.52%) published after 2015. Most of the publications were intended for any grade level included in the P–12 criteria, with the majority (n = 14, 60.87%) specifying P–12 contexts, followed by secondary school (n = 5, 21.74%), middle school (n = 2, 8.7%), and high school (n = 1, 4.35%). Six (26.09%) of the publications were choir-specific, five (21.74%) were band-specific, four (17.39%) were generally targeted at ensembles, four (17.39%) included all music subjects, three (13.04%) did not specify subject, and one (4.35%) was focused on jazz classrooms.

Regarding the uses of streamed music in the classroom, 19 (82.61%) of the authors mentioned using streamed music to exemplify musical concepts, genres, styles, or techniques; six (26.09%) mentioned using streamed music to search for new repertoire; five (21.74%) mentioned using streamed recordings of student performance to expand audiences; two (8.70%) mentioned using streamed music as a social reward; and one (4.35%) mentioned using streamed recordings of student performances as post-concert reflections. Some of the authors’ recommendations for using streaming to exemplify musical concepts, genres, styles, or techniques included playing recordings of some of the seminal figures in the history of Jazz for students (Jeppesen, 2017), using video lessons on students’ instruments to supplement face-to-face instruction (Hanson, 2018), and using recordings to guide listenings on a Hip-Hop lesson (Beach & Bolden, 2018). Authors who cited using streaming platforms for repertoire search have discussed screening works of a potential composer (Copeland, 2009), sharing repertoire via social media groups (Brewer & Rickels, 2014), or finding performances by similar groups to narrow potential repertoire choices (Redden-Liotta, 2012).

When discussing expanding audiences for student performances, authors discussed the elimination of geographical constraints on performance attendance (Clauhs, 2018), establishing dedicated channels for student performance (Doebele, 2012), and potential legal concerns surrounding shared performances (Drummond, 2015). For social reward, Callahan (2016) advocated the use of music-related and nonrelated videos to encourage student laughter, whereas Hirokawa (2020) created a submission form wherein students could share performance-related videos to watch as a group. Albert (2015) recommended using uploaded recordings of students’ performances as a take-home assignment wherein students provided self-critique for their own group performances. Table 1 includes detailed information on all publications included in this portion of the review.

Table 1.

Streaming Music Applications in P–12 Music Education Research.

Author (year)	Purpose	Grade level or audience	Classroom type	Recommended use(s)
Adams (2016)	Gives information on planning the curriculum around the varied roles adult music users inhabit: converser/evaluators and finders/sharers	Secondary school	All music	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Albert (2015)	Gives information on the benefits and drawbacks on music educators using social media in face-to-face classrooms	Secondary school	Ensembles	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Post-concert viewing and reflection
Beach & Bolden (2018)	Gives information on the critical literacy framework and how it can be implemented in music classrooms	Secondary school	Band-specific General music	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Brewer & Rickels (2014)	A content analysis of interactions within the Band Directors Group on Facebook	Secondary school	Band-specific	Repertoire search
Callahan (2016)	Gives information on recruiting and retaining middle school males in choir programs	Middle school	Choir-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Social reward
Clauhs (2018)	Gives information on beginning band rehearsals for the school year away from beginning with performance and toward broader musical understanding	Elementary	Band-specific	Expanding audience via distribution of recordings
Copeland (2009)	Gives information on accessible technology choir directors could use in their classrooms to improve productivity and connect with students	P–12	Choir-specific	Repertoire search Expanding audience via distribution of recordings Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Crappell et al. (2015)	Gives information on multimedia music and provides recommendations for the music classroom	High school	Not specified	Expanding audience via distribution of recordings
Doebele (2012)	Gives information on the use of cloud-based computing in choral classrooms	P–12	Choir-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Expanding audience via distribution of recordings
Dorfman (2016)	Four-case study in which participant teachers in schools where students are given computers required to be used in all subjects described their experience and expressed concern with those computers	P–12	All music	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Drummond (2015)	Gives information on copyright law and fair use practices as they relate to music teachers	P–12	Ensembles	Repertoire search Expanding audience via distribution of recordings Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Furby (2013)	Gives information on and recommendations regarding individualized assessment practices in the choral ensemble	P–12	Choir-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Hanson (2018)	Exploratory study designed to assess the value of beginning instrumental music tutorials shared on YouTube	P–12	Band-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Hirokawa (2020)	Gives information on and recommendations from the author’s experience leading a summer music camp in the Choral Village format during the pandemic in 2020	Secondary school	Choir-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Social reward
Jeppesen (2017)	Gives recommendations on methods for contextualizing, humanizing, and giving students means to connect and empathize with jazz music and important figures in jazz	P–12	Jazz-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Repertoire search
Kirk (2010)	Gives information on and recommendations for music-listening, playing, and music-related resources teachers can provide for students over term breaks	P–12	Not specified	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Kirk (2013)	Gives information on recommendations for transitioning to digital music catalogs for directors	P–12	Not specified	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles Repertoire search
Redden-Liotta (2012)	Gives information on and recommendations for finding repertoire using digital and online resources	P–12	Choir-specific	Repertoire search
Riley (2013)	Gives information on and recommendations from reflections pre-service teachers recorded after using iPads in their practicum and student-teaching placements.	P–12	All music	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Smeltz (2012)	Gives information on and recommendations for a strategic approach to teaching practicing based on a survey of 89 adult musicians and research in the field.	Middle school	Band-specific	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Weiger (2020)	Review of Literature on blended learning and flipped lesson models and their roles in performance-based classrooms.	P–12	Ensembles	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Whitaker et al. (2014)	A content analysis of videos tagged “music education” on YouTube with recommendations given.	P–12	All music	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles
Yoo (2020)	Research-to-resource article giving information on and providing recommendations for using technology in performing ensemble programs	P–12	Ensembles	Exemplars of musical concepts/styles

Streaming Music Platforms and Equitable Access Recommendations

Regarding specific streaming platforms, the majority of authors mentioned YouTube (n = 16, 69.57%), followed by Spotify (n = 5, 21.74%), and Pandora (n = 4, 17.39%). Two authors (8.70%) did not specify. Each of the other streaming platforms mentioned (TeacherTube, AllMusic, Red Hot Jazz Archive, Amazon Cloud Player, Rhapsody, Mog, Classical Archives, SiriusXM, Songza, Vimeo, and Last.fm) occurred in only one article (4.35%). Articles in which authors referenced provisions for or benefits to equity stemming from streaming music access were represented as follows: 10 (43.48%) did not make any recommendations regarding equitable access, seven (30.43%) referenced cheap or free access to music streaming, five (21.74%) referenced the ubiquity of streaming music platforms, two (8.70%) referenced streaming audio being used to broaden audiences for student performances, two (8.70%) referenced downloading streamed content to account for lack of student internet access, two (8.70%) referenced streaming audio being used to allow student access to larger audiences, and one (4.35%) referenced the availability of loaned student hardware.

Author-referenced impediments to streaming audio accessibility were more varied and mentioned less frequently than the provisions for or benefits to student access. Fourteen of the authors (60.87%) made no mention of potential impediments to accessibility. Three (13.04%) authors referenced lack of student internet access at home, and another three (13.04%) referenced lack of student hardware. School filter policy, low school bandwidth, cost, lowered audio quality, and advertisements for nonpaying users received two (8.70%) references each in the reviewed articles. Cell phones serving as the primary internet access point, social stigma surrounding using school resources, copyright fees for posted recordings, potential for data caps on student internet connections, compatibility issues with older hardware, and lack of representation in accessed content were each referenced once (4.35%). One author (4.35%) referred to potential impediments to student access but did not specify what those impediments were. More detailed information on all publications included in this review is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Streaming Music Platforms and Equitable Access Recommendations in P–12 Music Education Research.

Author (year)	Streaming platform referenced	Referenced provisions for accessibility	Referenced impediments to accessibility
Adams (2016)	YouTube Spotify	Cheap or free access Ubiquity of platform	N/A
Albert (2015)	YouTube	N/A	School filter policy Lack of student internet access Cell phone serving as primary internet connection Lack of student hardware access Social stigma around school resource use Low school bandwidth
Beach & Bolden (2018)	YouTube	Ubiquity of platform	N/A
Brewer & Rickels (2014)	Spotify	N/A	N/A
Callahan (2016)	Spotify	N/A	N/A
Clauhs (2018)	TeacherTube	Broadens audience for student performance	Copyright fees for posted recordings
Copeland (2009)	YouTube	Broadens audience for student performance	N/A
Crappell et al. (2015)	YouTube	Downloaded content to account for student access	Lack of student hardware access
Doebele (2012)	Pandora	Access to broader variety of music Cheap or free access Ubiquity of platform	Lowered audio quality Advertisements for nonpaid users Cost
Dorfman (2016)	Not specified	N/A	N/A
Drummond (2015)	YouTube	N/A	N/A
Furby (2013)	YouTube	N/A	N/A
Hanson (2018)	YouTube	N/A	Referenced, but not specified
Hirokawa (2020)	Not specified	N/A	N/A
Jeppesen (2017)	Spotify YouTube AllMusic Red Hot Jazz Archive (defunct)	Cheap or free access	N/A
Kirk (2010)	Pandora	Cheap or free access	N/A
Kirk (2013)	Amazon Cloud Player (now Amazon Music) Spotify Rhapsody (now Napster) Mog (defunct) Classical Archives SiriusXM Pandora Songza (defunct)	Access to broader variety of music Cheap or free access Ubiquity of platform	Lack of student internet access Potential for data caps Cost Lowered audio quality Advertisements for nonpaid users Compatibility issues with older hardware
Redden-Liotta (2012)	YouTube Vimeo Last.fm (no longer a streaming service) Pandora Spotify	N/A	N/A
Riley (2013)	YouTube Last.fm (no longer a streaming service)	Ubiquity of platform	Low school bandwidth School filter policy
Smeltz (2012)	YouTube	Cheap or free access	N/A
Weiger (2020)	YouTube	Downloaded content to account for student access Availability of school hardware	Lack of student internet access Lack of student hardware access
Whitaker et al. (2014)	YouTube	N/A	Lack of representation in content
Yoo (2020)	YouTube	Cheap or free access	N/A

Discussion

In this scoping review, I provided a synthesis of the available information in music education literature regarding educators’ uses of streaming music in their classrooms, as well as the recommendations being made regarding equitable access to streaming music resources. I included a total of 23 publications in this review, with the majority of the articles (n = 13) published after 2015. Although references to defunct streaming platforms were found in the literature (Jeppesen, 2017; Kirk, 2013; Redden-Liotta, 2012; Riley, 2013), many of the cited benefits and detriments of these platforms are common in more widely used streaming services.

Many of the recommendations made by authors in the literature were not directed toward specific age groups (Copeland, 2009; Doebele, 2012; Dorfman, 2016; Drummond, 2015; Furby, 2013; Hanson, 2018; Jeppesen, 2017; Kirk, 2010, 2013; Redden-Liotta, 2012; Riley, 2013; Weiger, 2020; Whitaker et al., 2014; Yoo, 2020). As the music subjects and grade levels are somewhat evenly distributed in the literature, indications are that streaming music is used by teachers and students relatively ubiquitously in music education settings. One possible exception is jazz classrooms, with the only reference to jazz or jazz-centered classrooms occurring in Jeppesen’s (2017) article on humanizing the seminal figures in jazz. It is interesting to note that, although outside the purview of data collected for this review, Jeppesen indicated that streaming music services do not adequately pay recording artists for access to their music. Researchers may wish to investigate the ways in which educators in jazz settings use streamed audio and the ways in which performers are compensated by streamed services for their performances.

Music educators’ and researchers’ recommendations featured in this review included the frequent advocacy for using streaming to exemplify styles, concepts, and techniques. These uses included exposing students to contrasting styles of music (Adams, 2016; Beach & Bolden, 2018; Callahan, 2016; Doebele, 2012; Furby, 2013; Hirokawa, 2020; Jeppesen, 2017; Kirk, 2010; Riley, 2013; Weiger, 2020; Yoo, 2020) and providing models for techniques or demonstrations of musical concepts (Albert, 2015; Dorfman, 2016; Hanson, 2018; Smeltz, 2012). Repertoire search (Brewer & Rickels, 2014; Copeland, 2009; Drummond, 2015; Jeppesen, 2017; Kirk, 2013; Redden-Liotta, 2012) and uploading performances to streaming platforms to give those unable to attend concerts access (Clauhs, 2018; Copeland, 2009; Crappell et al., 2015; Doebele, 2012; Drummond, 2015) were two other commonly cited reasons for using streaming music as part of the music education curriculum. Conversely, other researchers have cited the lack of diversity in content marketed toward music educators (Whitaker et al., 2014) and the breadth in the quality of available streaming models for beginning instrumentalists (Hanson, 2018). In addition, the lack of at-home access to high-quality internet experienced by many families with school-age children (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022) may limit access to uploaded video of student performances to streaming services. Researchers may wish to investigate the extent to which content diversity, quality, and at-home access impact the streaming music that students and their families are exposed to.

Although music educators seemed relatively equipped to make recommendations regarding the use of streaming music in the classroom, a large portion (43.48%) did not make any recommendations regarding equitable access to the streaming platforms cited. This finding could be due to the perceived ease of access to the most-commonly cited service used to stream music, YouTube, which is free but features advertisements to offset the cost of hosting video and audio. The references in the literature to cheap or free access (Adams, 2016; Doebele, 2012; Jeppesen, 2017; Kirk, 2010, 2013; Smeltz, 2012; Yoo, 2020) and ubiquity of platform (Adams, 2016; Beach & Bolden, 2018; Doebele, 2012; Kirk, 2013; Riley, 2013) would seem to support this conclusion. Interestingly, the authors of two sources (Crappell et al., 2015; Weiger, 2020) made references to downloading streamed media sources to account for equitable student internet access, effectively circumventing several potential equity issues such as digital compression, pauses for buffering, or lack of access that can be inherent in lower quality internet connections. Researchers and educators should include recommendations for offsetting barriers to equity in addition to providing recommendations for using streaming music in the classroom.

The majority of the articles featured in this review (n = 14, 60.87%) included no references to potential impediments to student-accessed streaming music. Given the data on inequity in student internet access (Federal Communications Commission, 2020, 2021; National Center for Education Statistics, 2022), cautions regarding equitable access to streaming music in music education settings are both warranted and underrepresented in the literature. Future research and practice in music education regarding streamed music should be presented with information on potential sources of inequity in student access, as well as potential solutions to combat this inequity.

References to school filter policies (Albert, 2015; Riley, 2013), cost, lowered audio quality, and advertisements for nonpaying users (Doebele, 2012; Kirk, 2013) all indicate a fundamentally different listening experience for students dependent on school resources to access streaming music. In addition, Albert (2015) posited that there is an additional social stigma attached to student usage of school resources. Music educators should be advised that although advertisement-funded streaming, high codec compression, and loaned school resources can give students in families with low socioeconomic status access to music recordings available on streaming platforms, the experience for these students is not the same as for students with financial resources to circumvent these barriers.

The few studies included in this scoping review (n = 23) indicate that the knowledge base regarding streamed audio in music education is also somewhat small. This is due in large part to the burgeoning nature of music streaming in education, both with regard to research and pedagogy. The current review serves not only to expound on the ways in which this relatively nascent format is used currently in P–12 contexts but also to highlight gaps in the field that can be addressed in future literature.

Conclusion

Streaming audio has become the primary means by which music educators share recorded music in their classrooms and curricula. Systematic investigations on how streaming music is used in these settings are still emerging, but the information found in the articles sourced in this review suggest that streamed music can be found in most music education settings and in all grade levels. Streamed music is used most frequently to typify a variety of techniques, styles, and genres for students, though it is also commonly used to host student performances and as a means of searching for repertoire in ensemble settings. Recommendations regarding equitable access to streamed music largely center around the ubiquity of the available streaming platforms and the low or free cost associated with their use. Authors whose articles in this review referenced streaming audio in music education settings did not specify any potential barriers to student use and those that did point to a fundamentally different listening experience for students without the resources to access the high-speed internet, hardware, and subscription costs commonly associated with streaming music. Several gaps in the literature have been identified, including the uses of streamed music in jazz classroom settings, performer compensation by streamed audio services, the diversity of streamed music content, barriers to student access in both home and school settings, potential solutions to equitable access issues, and the differentiated ways in which students with access barriers perceive streamed music.

Implications for Music Teaching and Learning

Many educators have made recommendations for instructional uses regarding the increasingly broad spectrum of streaming services and platforms. Unfortunately, cautions regarding equitable access to these resources and mentions of potential barriers to student access are infrequent in the literature. Given the impact that regional and economic factors have on at-home internet availability, educators must be prepared to make recommendations for their own students with respect to equitable access to streaming resources. Although the impacts of low bandwidth can be myriad, alternative methods of access such as availability of downloadable files not subject to variable lossy compression and school-based subscription to streaming services should be considered, when possible.

Educators must also consider the ways in which students of varied social and economic backgrounds interact with different platforms and how these factors can impact viewing and listening experiences. Many authors cited the ubiquity of resources such as Spotify, YouTube, and Amazon Music, all of which offer different multimedia experiences for those who pay a subscription fee. Advertisement-based revenue, lowered audio quality, and decreased file access can all effect students unable to pay a subscription fee, resulting in a different experience when compared with students in families with greater income. Care should be taken when recommending a streaming service to students, particularly if the service is generally accessed using a subscription fee.

Teachers and students alike must also be aware that content diversity and musical model quality are increasingly large issues in many streaming platforms. Many platforms, such as YouTube and Spotify, employ preference-driven algorithms to increase audience engagement by recommending content similar to media that has been viewed previously. These algorithms can create an increasingly homogeneous environment for listeners and viewers who are provided with less breadth in choice when interacting with the streaming service. In addition, many of these resources are not curated for quality, an implication which can be particularly troubling as students seek out additional instruction to supplement in-class learning. As such, care must be taken to ensure that students are exposed to music and instruction from a variety of sources and that listening activities are intentionally student- and teacher-directed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Corey Sullivan

References

Adams

M. C.

(2016). Educating the music user. Music Educators Journal, 103(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116651117

Ajero

(2009). Switching to digital musical scores in the digital age. American Music Teacher, 58(5), 58–59.

Albert

D. J.

(2015). Social media in music education: Extending learning to where students “live.” Music Educators Journal, 102(2), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115606976

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Bathurst

E. G.

(1943). Phonograph records as an aid to learning in rural elementary schools: A handbook for teachers and supervisors. The University of the State of New York.

Beach

Bolden

(2018). Music education meets critical literacy: A framework for guiding music listening. Music Educators Journal, 105(2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432118808580

Brewer

W. D.

Rickels

D. A.

(2014). A content analysis of social media interaction in the Facebook Band Directors Group. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 201, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.201.0007

Bridges

C. R.

Wagner

M. J.

(2019). About music: Critical listening skills (1st ed.). Kendall Hunt.

Callahan

(2016). Mission impossible? (How to recruit and retain junior high male chorus members). The Choral Journal, 56(10), 97–99.

10.

Clauhs

(2018). Beginning band without a stand: Fostering creative musicianship in early instrumental programs. Music Educators Journal, 104(4), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432118768383

11.

Copeland

(2009). Technology for the 21st-century choir. The Choral Journal, 50(5), 22–30.

12.

Crappell

Jacklin

Pratt

(2015). Using multimedia to enhance lessons and recitals: Part I. American Music Teacher, 64(6), 10–13.

13.

Doebele

(2012). Music in the cloud for the modern choral director. The Choral Journal, 53(5), 91–95.

14.

Dorfman

(2008). Technology in Ohio’s school music programs: An exploratory study of teacher use and integration. Contributions to Music Education, 35(1), 23–46.

15.

Dorfman

(2016). Music teachers’ experiences in one-to-one computing environments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416649947

16.

Drummond

(2015). Understanding copyright and fair use in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 102(2), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115611233

17.

Federal Communications Commission. (2020). 2020 broadband deployment report. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2020-broadband-deployment-report

18.

Federal Communications Commission. (2021). Fourteenth broadband deployment report. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/fourteenth-broadband-deployment-report

19.

Furby

V. J.

(2013). Individualized assessment in the choral ensemble. Music Educators Journal, 100(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113507041

20.

Gooding

L. F.

Langston

D. G.

(2019). Music therapy with military populations: A scoping review. Journal of Music Therapy, 56(4), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thz010

21.

Hanson

(2018). Assessing the educational value of YouTube videos for beginning instrumental music. Contributions to Music Education, 43(1), 137–158.

22.

Himes

E. G.

(1960). A guide for using phonograph records in all phases of the basic music program of the sixth grade (Publication no. 1564233932) [Master’s thesis, University of Southern California]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

23.

Hirokawa

(2020). Lessons from summer camp. The Choral Journal, 61(3), 53–58.

24.

Howlin

Rooney

(2020). The cognitive mechanisms in music listening interventions for pain: A scoping review. Journal of Music Therapy, 57(2), 127–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thaa003

25.

Jeppesen

(2017). Humanizing the deities of jazz. Music Educators Journal, 103(4), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432117697799

26.

Kersten

(1993). A/V alternatives for interesting homework. Music Educators Journal, 79(5), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/3398458

27.

Kirk

(2010). Music on the fly . . . or in the car . . . or at the beach: Technology to keep skills sharp over summer breaks. American Music Teacher, 59(5), 40–42.

28.

Kirk

(2013). The 21st century audio library: Dusty shelves be gone! American Music Teacher, 62(5), 60–63.

29.

Koops

L. H.

Kuebel

C. R.

(2018). Observations of and perspectives on musical enjoyment in the preschool classroom. Contributions to Music Education, 43(1), 59–76.

30.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

31.

Martin

(2014). iRehearse: The iPad and the choral rehearsal. The Choral Journal, 54(7), 63–67.

32.

Millard

A. J.

(2005). America on record: A history of recorded sound (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

33.

Mulligan

(2022, January 18). Global streaming music subscription market, Q2 2021. Midia Research. https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/music-subscriber-market-shares-q2-2021

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Children’s Internet access at home. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cch/home-internet-access

35.

Nickerson

P. S.

(1947). The use of radio and sound equipment in secondary school instruction: A handbook for the guidance of secondary school teachers in the use of radio and sound equipment in classroom instruction (Publication no. 301826810) [Doctoral dissertation, New York University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

36.

Recording Industry Association of America. (n.d). U.S. recorded music sales volumes by format. https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

37.

Redden-Liotta

C. J.

(2012). WWWhere did you find that piece? Finding repertoire in the digital age: A guide to online resources for choral directors. The Choral Journal, 52(7), 47–51.

38.

Riley

(2013). Teaching, learning, and living with iPads. Music Educators Journal, 100(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432113489152

39.

Similarweb. (2022, July). Top websites ranking for streaming & online TV in United States. https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/united-states/category/arts-and-entertainment/tv-movies-and-streaming/

40.

Sims

W. L.

(1990). Sound approaches to elementary music listening. Music Educators Journal, 77(4), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3397880

41.

Smeltz

(2012). Reframing student practice to facilitate lifelong, joyful musicianship. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432112463248

42.

Sterne

(2012). MP3: The meaning of a format. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1131dh6

43.

Stone

K. E.

(1922). Music appreciation taught by means of the phonograph: For use in schools. Scott, Foresman.

44.

Tortosa

Jiménez

J. M.

Diaz

J. R.

Lloret

(2014). Optimal codec selection algorithm for audio streaming. In 2014 IEEE Globecom workshops (pp. 237–242). https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2014.7063437

45.

Weiger

E. A.

(2020). Flipped lessons and the secondary-level performance-based music classroom: A review of literature and suggestions for practice. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320953629

46.

Whitaker

J. A.

Orman

E. K.

Yarbrough

(2014). Characteristics of “music education” videos posted on YouTube. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 33(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314540662

47.

Yoo

(2020). Research-to-resource: Use of technology to support 21st century skills in a performing ensemble program. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123320953435