Jinyi Shao- Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
The violin has long been a prominent instrument in music education, but challenges remain in sustaining student interest and optimizing learning efficacy. This systematic review explores effective educational strategies that can enhance student interest and performance in violin learning. After searching relevant databases, 19 articles were identified, of which 9 met the study’s inclusion criteria. This review identifies several gaps in current violin teaching practices, including the predominance of traditional teacher-centered instruction and the limited effectiveness of learning outcomes. To address these gaps, the studies included in this review highlight a range of innovative strategies, such as teaching-equipment innovations, personalized learning methods, and motivational techniques. Findings suggest that combining traditional and modern teaching methods can significantly improve learning outcomes. This review summarizes recommendations for educators to enhance their teaching methods and foster a more engaging and effective learning model for violin learners.
Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/8eahv.
Introduction
As a stringed instrument originating in 16th-century Italy, the violin has evolved into one of the most essential instruments in classical music (Hutchins, 1983). Its bright tone and rich expressiveness make it irreplaceable in orchestral and chamber music and solo performances. By the early 1930s, more than 50 blues violinists had made recordings (Lieberman, 2002), including notable figures such as Lonnie Johnson, Eddie Anthony, and Andrew Baxter, who contributed significantly to the early development of blues fiddle performance. This means that not only did the violin shine in classical music but later in the 20th century, it was also fused with the blues and added a distinctive tone and expressiveness to the blues style. In addition to classical and blues traditions, the violin has long held a central role in folk, country, and various world music genres, demonstrating its versatility and cultural significance across diverse musical traditions.
The integration of violin instruction into formal music education curricula has expanded globally. In many Western education systems, school-based music programs include opportunities for instrumental learning and, in some cases, string-instrument or orchestral studies. In England, for example, the National Curriculum for Music makes music compulsory at key stages 1–3 and requires pupils to learn and perform on musical instruments as part of classroom music (Department of Education, 2021). Research on local authority music provision further suggests that the violin is among the most frequently taught instruments in these services (Hallam et al., 2005). Similarly, several countries, such as Japan and China, include violin instruction as part of their compulsory or optional music curriculum, allowing students to gain early exposure to this classical instrument at the initial stages of their musical education (Zeng, 2025). In China, however, access to violin education during the early or initiation stage is strongly shaped by regional disparities. As reported by Zeng (2025), the demand for violin study far exceeds the available resources in the state educational infrastructure, with specialized violin schools concentrated mainly in major metropolitan areas such as Beijing and Shanghai. Consequently, beginners in many regions do not have equal opportunities to receive formal early-stage violin instruction within primary or secondary schools, and many must rely on private tuition instead.
This popularization approach, which starts from basic education, not only cultivates students’ musical literacy but also provides an early talent-identification pathway for students who show interest or aptitude in further specialized music training (e.g., entry into conservatories or specialist arts schools) (McPherson, 2016). In addition to school education, international violin competitions and performances have become increasingly prosperous, the most representative of which include world-class competitions, such as the Menuhin International Violin Competition and the Tchaikovsky International Music Competition. These high-level artistic platforms not only enhance the status of the violin in the global music world but also provide significant opportunities for young performers to display their talents and exchange their skills. Institutions such as the Juilliard School in the United States and the Conservatoire de Paris in France have set systematic violin teaching standards and trained many outstanding performers and educators (Rafikov, 2024). This complete system from basic education to professional training ensures the inheritance and development of the violin art, which has always maintained its vitality in Western music culture. The popularity of the violin is also skyrocketing in Asia, especially in countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. Parents in these countries generally emphasize their children’s music education and regard learning a musical instrument as an essential way to cultivate artistic sensibility and support cognitive development (Luo and Liu, 2024). Many Asian countries have innovated violin teaching methods. One is the Suzuki Method invented by Japanese violinist Shinichi Suzuki, a systematic education model that has achieved remarkable results, with many Asian students winning international competitions (Rafikov, 2024).
As an instrument with a long and expressive history, the violin has an excellent reputation and popularity worldwide. However, significant challenges remain in the education and development of violin performance, including unequal access to qualified instruction, limited adoption of contemporary pedagogical approaches, and insufficient integration of technology-enhanced learning. These factors continue to impact learning effectiveness and student engagement, and they constrain the further advancement of violin teaching within modern music-education systems. Learning the violin usually requires long periods of practice and concentration, which can be a significant challenge for unmotivated beginners. Many students find it difficult to see noticeable progress in the early stage of learning, leading to a gradual decline in learning interest. In addition, traditional violin teaching methods are often based on technical training, a lack of fun and creativity, and are difficult to stimulate students’ intrinsic motivation (Çit, 2023). Second, enhancing and assessing learning outcomes is also an important issue. The learning outcomes of the violin are usually difficult to quantify, and many students feel that their progress is slow or even stagnant in the learning process. This phenomenon affects students’ confidence in learning and increases their learning pressure. In addition, both Western and traditional teaching methods have certain limitations (Budiawan and Aulia, 2022). Traditional violin teaching approaches tend to be teacher-centred and place excessive emphasis on technical training and accurate score reproduction, while giving comparatively limited attention to the development of musicality, emotional expression, artistic thinking, and students’ individual learning needs (Xiao et al., 2025). Although this teaching method can produce skilled players, it often fails to stimulate students’ intrinsic motivation, defined as engaging in learning out of genuine interest or inherent satisfaction rather than external pressure or reward (Deci and Ryan, 2013).
Despite its established role, challenges persist in violin education, particularly concerning student motivation and the effectiveness of instructional methods in achieving desired learning outcomes. Sustaining long-term interest and facilitating consistent progress among diverse learners requires ongoing examination and refinement of pedagogical approaches.
Research on music education methods and student engagement has gradually increased in recent years. Still, no systematic literature is devoted to exploring and improving violin learning through innovative teaching strategies (e.g., technology integration and autonomy development). According to a recent systematic review of Suzuki-based instruction (Liu et al., 2024), many critiques highlight that Suzuki pedagogy, much like other traditional, technique-oriented approaches, relies heavily on imitation and rote learning. This emphasis on performance skills provides limited opportunities for students to develop musical thinking, autonomy, or independent artistic expression. As noted in the review, rote-based instruction may facilitate technical proficiency, but it can restrict learners’ musical perception and expressive development. This fragmentation underscores a significant gap in the literature and highlights the need for a systematic review that synthesizes diverse pedagogical approaches to identify pathways for more holistic, student-centred violin education.
This systematic review addresses this need by exploring and synthesizing existing literature on strategies designed to enhance student engagement and improve performance in violin learning. It examines traditional and innovative teaching techniques to provide educators with actionable insights for optimizing their instructional practices.
Method
Study design
This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009) to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and a structured approach to literature identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. In accordance with PRISMA, the review process included (1) a predefined search strategy, (2) explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) independent screening and verification by two researchers, and (4) full documentation of reasons for exclusion at each stage. The complete screening process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), which details the number of records identified, screened, excluded (with reasons), and the final studies included in this review.
Figure 1. The PRISMA flow diagram.
Search strategy
To identify literature relevant to this systematic review, a comprehensive search was conducted using Google Scholar and ProQuest, which are extensive academic databases. The following keywords were used in the search: “violin,” “music education,” “teaching method,” and “performance.” These keywords were chosen to capture research related to violin education, student engagement, and autonomous learning approaches. The search was limited to the period between 2003 and 2025 to ensure the inclusion of recent and relevant research. The initial search was conducted by one researcher, and the screening and validation of the studies were independently performed by two researchers to ensure reliability. Articles were included for the current analysis if they met the following criteria:
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Articles retrieved from the initial search were screened for inclusion based on the following criteria:
1. Publication type: Included studies must be published in peer-reviewed academic journals to ensure methodological rigor and research quality.
2. Research focus: Studies were required to specifically address violin education, or string instrument education, where the violin was a primary focus, examining strategies to enhance student interest, autonomy, or learning outcomes.
3. Participant population: Included studies must involve students participating in violin or broader music education programs. Research focusing exclusively on other instruments or non-music-related interventions was excluded.
4. Study design: Eligible articles needed to report on intervention-based research, employing experimental or quasi-experimental designs that evaluated specific instructional strategies. Theoretical papers, case studies lacking empirical data, and reviews were excluded from the primary analysis.
Results
The PRISMA flow chart process for this systematic literature review is diagrammatically represented in Figure 1. Non-peer-reviewed materials such as theses, books, images, and posters were excluded at the initial screening stage. Nineteen keyword-related studies were identified through a comprehensive search of Google Scholar and Proquest. First, 15 were initially screened by excluding literature unrelated to the study topic based on the title and abstract. Second, studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (e.g., non-experimental design or not focusing on violin education) were excluded by further assessment through full-text reading, leaving 12. Finally, a final screening was conducted based on the quality of the studies and the rigor of the experimental design, and nine papers (Kesendere, 2022; Lei et al., 2021; Abeles, 2004; Lee and Leung, 2020; McPhail, 2010; McPhail, 2013; Kupers et al., 2017; Colprit, 2003; Daly, 2022) were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for this review (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics and key findings of studies included in the review.
This literature review combed through nine experimental research papers on violin teaching and grouped them into four main categories based on research focus (see Table 1). These categories are as follows: (1) technology-assisted teaching, (2) collaborative and interactive teaching, (3) autonomous and reflective teaching, and (4) creative teaching approaches. These categories were defined inductively, according to the types of interventions and pedagogical strategies identified in the included studies. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified the studies, and any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached, ensuring the reliability and validity of the categorization process.
Technology-assisted teaching
Research on technology-assisted violin instruction demonstrates that digital tools and structured video resources can enhance both technical performance and learner engagement. Kesendere (2022) compared a video-assisted teaching group with a traditional face-to-face group over 12 weeks and found that students receiving multi-camera, high-definition demonstrations achieved significantly better technical outcomes, including improved bow control, fingering accuracy, intonation, rhythmic stability, fluency, and score reading.
In addition to these performance gains, students in the video-supported group demonstrated higher levels of interest and classroom engagement. They arrived early, stayed after class to practice, and showed greater confidence and autonomy in organizing their learning. These results suggest that technology-enhanced instruction supports not only technical development but also positive motivational and behavioral patterns that contribute to more sustained learning.
Similarly, Lei et al. (2021) examined how social media platforms support instrumental learning through interviews with eight violin and piano teachers. The findings showed that platforms such as YouTube and Facebook expanded traditional instruction by offering students easily accessible resources, including video demonstrations, tutorials, and interactive discussions. Teachers reported that students often imitated techniques observed online and used the material to personalize their interpretations, which appeared to strengthen motivation and encourage creative exploration. However, because the data were derived solely from teacher perspectives, the study provides limited insight into students’ own experiences or potential challenges, such as exposure to low-quality models or information overload.
Collaborative and interactive teaching
Research on collaborative and interactive approaches shows that social connection and shared musical experiences can enhance students’ engagement in instrumental learning. Abeles (2004) reported that students involved in school–orchestra partnership programmed demonstrated higher interest, stronger motivation, and greater willingness to pursue music-related pathways than those in non-partnership schools. Similarly, Lee and Leung (2020) found that motivation among studio-based learners increased when teaching supported autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Together, these findings indicate that socially rich and interactive learning environments play an important role in fostering students’ interest and motivation in violin study.
Autonomous and reflective teaching
Studies on autonomy-supportive and reflective teaching show that one-to-one instrumental learning benefits from student agency, metacognitive development, and responsive teacher–student interaction.
McPhail (2010) demonstrated through action research that video-based reflection can improve teaching balance and increase student engagement.
McPhail (2013) further showed that incorporating student choice, diagnostic–strategic practice, and reflective dialogue enhances autonomy, ownership, and self-regulation.
Kupers et al. (2017) found that effective learning emerges when teachers provide adaptive scaffolding that supports autonomy, whereas directive patterns lead to reduced engagement.
Overall, these studies indicate that autonomy-supportive and reflective approaches strengthen students’ self-regulation and engagement in violin learning.
Creative teaching
Daly (2022) showed that Dalcroze Eurhythmics—using movement, improvisation, and embodied exercises—enhances learners’ musical understanding, creativity, and autonomy.
Colprit (2003) found that clear, targeted teacher verbal cues in Suzuki lessons effectively support students’ expressive and creative performance attempts.
Discussion
As highlighted in the reviewed studies, integrating innovative pedagogical approaches in violin education presents compelling implications for enhancing student engagement, fostering deeper learning, and improving outcomes. This discussion synthesizes key findings concerning technology-assisted, collaborative, autonomous/reflective, and creativity-focused teaching methods. It moves beyond mere description to critically evaluate their applicability, inherent limitations, theoretical underpinnings, and potential for broader, equitable implementation within contemporary music education contexts.
Technology-assisted teaching
Technology integration into music education, particularly in violin teaching, has shown significant potential to enhance learning outcomes, increase student engagement, and optimize teaching efficiency. Kesendere (2022) and Lei et al. (2021) have highlighted the transformative role of technology, such as video-assisted learning and social media, in modernizing traditional approaches to music education.
One of technology’s most frequently cited contributions in violin education is its ability to increase student engagement and interest. Kesendere (2022) findings suggest that multi-angle video-assisted teaching can provide students with a more immersive learning experience. By delivering high-fidelity visual information, learners can observe, understand, and imitate the playing techniques more precisely, thus effectively enhancing the learning effect (Aksoy, 2015). This aligns with principles of observational learning (Bandura, 1977), where detailed visual models facilitate skill acquisition. Multi-angle instructional videos reduce ambiguity in technique and align with Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011), which suggests that well-organized visual information lowers extraneous cognitive load and enables more efficient motor learning.
Although effective, these methods are not universally applicable, and their success depends on learner characteristics and contextual factors. Video-assisted learning might benefit self-directed learners who can learn efficiently in a structured, repetitive environment. In contrast, interactive platforms, such as Facebook groups, may appeal more to extroverted individuals who derive motivation from group activities (Gazit, 2021). At the same time, Lei et al. (2021) noted that novices often have difficulty self-assessing the quality of content, highlighting a crucial need for developing digital literacy and critical evaluation skills alongside instrumental technique (Middaugh, 2019). Teachers must therefore assume a curatorial role, guiding students to screen resources to avoid false modelling. Younger “digital natives” are more comfortable with social media tools than older learners (Autry and Berge, 2011). Kesendere’s study participants (18–25 years old) acquired skills quickly due to their familiarity with video tutorials (Kesendere, 2022).
In contrast, traditional learners may not be able to adapt to electronic technology or may perceive the approach as lacking a human touch, such as immediate corrective feedback, embodied demonstration, emotional attunement, and adaptive scaffolding—provides nuanced guidance that digital platforms may not yet replicate. In addition, both studies focused on specific regions (Hong Kong, China, and Turkey), limiting generalizability. For example, Lei et al.’s participants benefited from high internet coverage, whereas learners in resource-poor areas may face technological barriers (e.g., unstable internet) that exacerbate educational inequalities (Warschauer, 2003).
To advance the field, future studies should adopt a mixed-methods approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Quantitative measures—such as students’ performance scores, movement analyses from video recordings, and logged practice durations—can provide objective data on technical proficiency. Equally important, qualitative data derived from interviews or focus groups can offer insights into students’ subjective experiences, including their motivations for using short-form videos and perceived changes in anxiety after repeated viewing of their own practice footage. This comprehensive approach is essential for elucidating both the mechanisms and outcomes of technology-enhanced music education. There is also a need to develop and critically evaluate emerging artificial intelligence tools in teaching technology, such as apps providing real-time intonation feedback (Pardue and McPherson, 2019), which could personalize learning but also risk over-emphasizing technical perfection at the expense of musicality. Virtual reality platforms may be able to simulate ensemble playing scenarios and alleviate the isolation felt in purely virtual environments. Collaborative and interactive approaches can potentially revolutionize violin education, especially when personalized adaptations are made. Video-assisted instruction improves technical accuracy through multisensory reinforcement, while social media motivates with community interaction. However, their effectiveness is moderated by the learner’s personality, age, digital literacy, socioeconomic status, and cultural background. To achieve equitable outreach, educators must balance technological innovation with inclusivity-screening content for novices, bridging the technological divide, and combining digital tools with humanistic instruction. As the field evolves, embracing hybrid models and interdisciplinary research (e.g., incorporating insights from Human–Computer Interaction and educational psychology) will be key to unlocking the potential of these pedagogies.
Collaborative and interactive teaching
The two studies presented in this review, Abeles (2004) and Lee and Leung (2020), highlight the critical role of collaborative and interactive pedagogies in enhancing the effectiveness of violin learning. Abeles focuses on the impact of orchestra-school collaborative projects on students’ interest in instrumental learning. Meanwhile, Lee and Leung provide an in-depth analysis of the motivational factors of Hong Kong violin studio learners through Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Both studies suggest that collaborative and interactive teaching strategies can significantly improve violin learners’ learning experiences and outcomes.
Abeles (2004) conducted a 1-year study examining the impact of three orchestra–school partnership models on elementary students’ interest in instrumental music, where interest refers to students’ affective curiosity, enjoyment, and willingness to explore music, rather than their behavioral participation. By contrast, engagement refers to sustained, observable involvement in musical activities, such as regular practice or active class participation. Participants were second- through fourth-grade students from both partner and non-partner schools. Partnership activities included in-school performances, classroom visits by professional musicians, and collaborative teaching between orchestra members and school music specialists. Student interest in music as a career was assessed using the Vocational Choice Survey, with results indicating that students in partner schools were significantly more likely to choose music as a career than their peers in non-partner schools. The study’s rationale drew on career choice literature and Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2002), which posits that exposure to role models and positive performance experiences can foster occupational interest. The findings also align with Self-Determination Theory, suggesting that interaction with professional musicians promoted relatedness and competence, thereby enhancing motivation. However, the study primarily measured interest rather than long-term engagement or skill acquisition and did not fully control for potential confounders, such as socioeconomic status or pre-existing music program differences.
Lee and Leung (2020) conducted an in-depth interview with 13 studio-based violin and piano learners in Hong Kong to explore the factors influencing their motivation. The study was guided by Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), a subtheory of SDT, which posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential for maintaining intrinsic motivation. Interviews revealed that relatedness and competence were significant to participants, as they reported higher levels of motivation when they had the opportunity to interact with peers and engage in group performance. This study was designed to gain a detailed understanding of the motivational factors that influence studio learners. The researcher used semi-structured interviews to allow participants to express their experiences and perspectives in their own words. This approach efficiently captured the nuances of students’ motivation and specific learning environment challenges. The study found that many students lacked autonomy in their learning process as their program was often determined by external factors such as parental pressure or school requirements. However, those who had the opportunity to learn collectively and collaborate on music reported higher satisfaction and motivation. The underlying mechanism behind the positive effects of interactive teaching is related to the concept of autonomy in SDT. When students could participate in collaborative music production and interact with their peers, they felt a greater autonomy over their learning, enhancing their intrinsic motivation. In addition, the study emphasized the role of competence, as students involved in group performance reported greater confidence in their abilities and greater motivation to continue learning. While insightful, the small, context-specific sample (Hong Kong studio learners) limits the direct transferability of findings to other educational settings (e.g., school-based programs, different cultural norms). Furthermore, the study relies on self-reported motivation, which may not always correlate directly with observable behaviors or learning outcomes.
Both studies suggest that collaborative and interactive teaching methods can significantly improve violin learning in music education. Educators can create a more stimulating and supportive learning environment by allowing students to interact with professional musicians, participate in group performances, and engage in peer learning. These approaches improve students’ technical skills and foster a deeper connection to the instrument and the musical community. However, these studies also emphasize the need for a balanced approach considering the cultural and contextual factors influencing student motivation. For example, a highly competitive and examination-oriented culture in Hong Kong tends to undermine students’ autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Further research is needed to explore the optimal balance and integration of collaborative activities within diverse cultural and institutional contexts.
Autonomous and reflective teaching
The reviewed studies collectively highlight the potential of autonomy-supportive and reflective pedagogical approaches to enhance violin learning outcomes in music education. McPhail’s action research (McPhail, 2010; McPhail, 2013; Kupers et al. 2017) longitudinal mixed-methods analysis provide critical insights into the mechanisms underlying effective teaching strategies, raising questions about their generalizability and contextual limitations.
These studies suggest that practices that support autonomy, such as allowing students to select meaningful choices in repertoire, scaffolding metacognitive strategies (e.g., self-monitoring, goal setting), and providing informational, non-controlling feedback, can increase student engagement and skill development (Reeve, 2009). McPhail’s (2010) “practice mode” (focusing on technical skills) and “performance mode” (focusing on musical expression) help to balance structured learning with creative exploration. This approach aligns with the idea that students need both technical training and opportunities for self-expression to remain motivated to learn (Lee and Durksen, 2017). Kupers et al. (2017) found that lessons characterized by contingent scaffolding and mutual responsiveness were associated with higher student engagement, greater instructional contingency, and the emergence of “optimal attractor states,” whereas directive, teacher-dominated patterns resulted in reduced engagement and stagnated progress. This resonates with Vygotsky (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where optimal learning occurs with tailored support, in which learning is optimized when instructional support stays slightly ahead of students’ current performance while being gradually withdrawn. The evidence suggests that autonomy-supportive and reflective approaches can foster meaningful learning gains, although their effectiveness varies with student age, autonomy disposition, cultural context, and the teacher’s ability to flexibly adjust support.
The effectiveness of these approaches may depend on the student’s age, personality, and learning style. McPhail’s (McPhail, 2013) study of a 15-year-old student suggests that autonomy-supportive approaches are practical with adolescents as they struggle with learning motivation. However, Kupers et al. (2017) found that younger children (5–6 years old) with low autonomy required more structured instruction, whereas children with high autonomy thrived in an interactive environment. This suggests that personality traits, such as extraversion or assertiveness, may influence how students respond to autonomy support methods. For example, extroverted students may benefit more from collaborative activities, whereas introverted students may prefer individual, self-paced tasks (Bouchareb, 2024). Therefore, a nuanced, individualized approach to fostering autonomy is crucial, rather than a one-size-fits-all application.
Self-supportive and reflective teaching methods can improve violin instruction by increasing student engagement and skill development. However, their success depends on a complex interplay between the student’s age, personality, prior knowledge, cultural background, and the teacher’s skill in implementation. Teachers must be flexible and adapt their teaching methods to meet individual needs. While these methods are not one-size-fits-all solutions, they offer a promising approach to enhancing music education, especially when combined with ongoing teacher training focused on diagnostic assessment and adaptive teaching, and further research employing larger, more diverse samples and longitudinal designs.
Creativity teaching
Creative teaching in violin pedagogy encompasses approaches that foreground exploration, expressive experimentation, and embodied musical understanding. Colprit (2003) and Daly (2022) suggest that incorporating creativity-focused pedagogical approaches in violin teaching provides essential insights into improving learning outcomes through innovative teaching strategies. Although their methodologies differ substantially, together they highlight the pedagogical value of integrating creative processes into violin teaching and offer complementary perspectives on how creativity can support learning in both structured and exploratory environments.
Colprit’s (2003) study analyzed 48 Suzuki violin and cello lessons taught by 12 expert instructors, focusing on how verbalized targets (physical actions vs. musical outcomes) influenced student performance. Over 3 months, teachers worked with students aged 5–17 at varying skill levels (Suzuki Books 1–3 and 4+). The study revealed that students achieved greater success when teachers articulated goals as physical directives (e.g., “move the bow faster”) rather than abstract musical outcomes (e.g., “play louder”). This aligns with motor learning theories, where explicit, actionable feedback enhances kinesthetic memory and technical precision (Villa et al., 2025). For beginners, translating abstract musical concepts into physical actions may require cognitive scaffolding and reduce cognitive load (Sweller, 1988), which concrete instructions provide. Advanced students, however, demonstrated improved adaptability when teachers shifted toward musical outcome descriptions, suggesting that prior technical mastery allows for higher-order interpretive thinking and the automation of fundamental motor skills frees cognitive resources for expressive goals. However, defining “success” solely based on the immediate achievement of the verbalized target might oversimplify the learning process, potentially neglecting aspects like problem-solving or developing intrinsic understanding.
Daly’s Arts Practice Investigation (Daly, 2022), conducted over a multi-year period, employed Dalcroze Eurhythmics (DE)—a method integrating rhythm, movement, and improvisation—to explore creativity and autonomy in violin pedagogy. Daly’s autoethnographic approach involved devising two performances: a DE-informed interpretation of Ysaÿe’s solo violin sonata and an original multidisciplinary piece. Through daily rehearsals, movement-based exercises (e.g., mapping phrases in physical space, improvising harmonic soundscapes), and post-performance focus groups, Daly found that DE fostered embodied learning, reducing performance anxiety and enhancing interpretative depth. By decoupling technical practice from the instrument and emphasizing somatic awareness, DE encourages students to internalize music holistically, bridging the gap between physical action and artistic intent. This resonates with theories of embodied cognition, suggesting that physical engagement deepens understanding and expression (Sowa, 1999). While providing rich, personal insight, the autoethnographic methodology inherently limits objectivity and generalizability. The findings primarily reflect the researcher’s experience and may not be directly transferable to students with different backgrounds or learning preferences.
The effectiveness of these approaches is context-dependent. Colprit’s research suggests that beginners benefit most from physical instructions because they lack the technical basis for interpreting abstract feedback. In contrast, while transformative for her practice, Daly’s approach to DE raises questions about its applicability to different groups of learners. For example, extroverted students may excel in DE’s interactive and action-driven environment. In contrast, introverted learners may find the approach too stressful—a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. Similarly, Suzuki’s structured approach (the focus of Colprit’s research) may be suitable for students who perform well with explicit instruction. In contrast, the flexibility of DE may appeal to students bound by traditional pedagogy.
However, both approaches share a common strength: adaptability; the teachers in Colprit’s study naturally shifted from physical to musical objectives as students’ levels increased, while the principles of DE (rhythm, improvisation) could be adapted to suit individual needs. This flexibility suggests that creative teaching is not exclusive to a specific group of people, but that differentiated instruction is needed to accommodate learners’ developmental and psychological characteristics. Crucially, creativity is multifaceted (e.g., improvisation, composition, interpretation) and different approaches may foster different aspects (McPherson, 2016).
Although the existing studies provide valuable insights, their limitations affect the generalizability of the findings. First, the sample is biased: the Colprit study focused only on Suzuki teachers, whereas Daly’s auto-ethnographic design limits external validity. In addition, the Suzuki pedagogy emphasizes imitation and repetition, which may fundamentally differ from Dalcroze’s (DE) exploratory philosophy. Second, both studies lacked longitudinal data and captured only short-term effects, failing to reveal the long-term benefits of creative teaching, such as the continued development of student creativity or career satisfaction. Finally, the studies neglected the role of individual student differences, such as how personality traits, learning styles, or cultural backgrounds, affect their acceptance of different teaching methods.
To address these shortcomings, future research could take the following directions for improvement: first, adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data from qualitative interviews to explore in depth students’ subjective experiences—for example, how movement practice in DE can boost confidence or how physical instructions can alleviate learning frustration; second, conduct a comparative study of pedagogical approaches by comparing Suzuki, DE and traditional methods in student groups of different ages, skill levels and personality traits, to clarify the optimal matching pattern between specific teaching methods and learner traits, thus providing empirical evidence for personalized music education.
Furthermore, future research should examine how creative practices—such as improvisation, movement-based exploration, and expressive problem-solving—can be integrated into typical lesson formats in ways that support technical development while maintaining feasibility for teachers in diverse instructional settings.
Limitations
It is important to acknowledge several limitations inherent in this review. First, although the search strategy was structured and systematic, it relied on selected databases and specific keyword combinations. While aiming for breadth, the reliance on specific databases and keywords may inadvertently exclude relevant studies not indexed in these databases or described using different terminology. This potential selection bias means that the reviewed literature might not fully represent all research conducted on innovative violin pedagogy.
Second, the individual studies discussed often have their limitations, such as small sample sizes, specific cultural contexts (e.g., Hong Kong, Turkey, New Zealand, and the Netherlands), short durations, or reliance on particular methodologies (e.g., self-report, observation, autoethnography), which affect the generalizability of their findings, as noted within each section.
Conclusion
This review synthesizes findings across four key areas of pedagogical innovation in violin education. The evidence suggests that each approach holds significant potential, yet none offers a universal solution. Technology can enhance engagement and provide flexible learning resources, but requires careful curation and attention to digital equity. Collaborative and interactive methods foster motivation through relatedness and competence, particularly when adapted to cultural contexts. Supporting learner autonomy and reflection promotes deeper engagement and skill development, although effectiveness varies with learner characteristics and requires skillful, adaptive teaching. Creativity-focused approaches, like emphasizing physical directives or incorporating embodied methods like Dalcroze Eurhythmics, can enhance technical precision and expressive depth, but must be tailored to developmental stages and learning preferences.
Further research is needed. This includes conducting more longitudinal studies with larger, diverse samples, employing rigorous mixed-methods designs, undertaking comparative studies of different pedagogical models, and investigating the practicalities of integrating these innovations into varied educational settings (e.g., private studios, schools, community programs). Exploring the interplay between different approaches and individual learner differences remains a critical area for investigation.
Fostering effective and engaging violin learning requires a flexible, evidence-informed, and student-centered pedagogical approach that embraces innovation while remaining critically aware of contextual factors and individual needs.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
JS: Formal analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Project administration, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Software, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Validation, Resources.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abeles, H. (2004). The effect of three orchestra/school partnerships on students' interest in instrumental music instruction. J. Res. Music. Educ. 52, 248–263. doi: 10.2307/3345858
Aksoy, Y. The efficiency on video-supported teaching on amateur violin training. Necmettin Erbakan University (Turkey) Konya, Turkey: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 2015
Autry, A. J., and Berge, Z. (2011). Digital natives and digital immigrants: getting to know each other. Ind. Commer. Training 43, 460–466. doi: 10.1108/00197851111171890
Bouchareb, A. (2024). Increasing introverted EFL learners’ engagement through the flipped classroom instructional model. Laghouat, Algeria: Diss Laghouat University.
Budiawan, H., and Aulia, N. U. (2022). Violin teaching in Sanggar Merah Putih: case study of Budi Yuntono's teaching style. Gondang: Jurnal Seni dan Budaya 6. doi: 10.24114/gondang.v6i2.35692
Çit, U. (2023). The role of mental practice and technology in traditional violin teaching and le. Int. J. Eurasia Soc. Sci.
Colprit, E. J. (2003). Teacher verbalization of targets in Suzuki string lessons. Bull. Counc. Res. Music. Educ., 49–61.
Daly, D. K. (2022). Creativity, autonomy and Dalcroze eurhythmics: an arts practice exploration. Int. J. Music. Educ. 40, 105–117. doi: 10.1177/02557614211028600
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Department of Education. National Curriculum in England: Music Programmes of Study: UK Government (2021). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-music-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-music-programmes-of-study
Gazit, T. (2021). Key motivations for leading Facebook communities: a uses and gratifications approach. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 73, 454–472. doi: 10.1108/AJIM-11-2020-0379
Hallam, S, Rogers, L, and Creech, A. (2005). Survey of local authority music services 2005. London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London.
Hutchins, C. M. (1983). A history of violin research. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73, 1421–1440. doi: 10.1121/1.389430
Kesendere, Y. (2022). Performance, impact and recommendations for video-assisted violin education. J. Interdiscip. Art Educ. 3, 123–141.
Kupers, E., van Dijk, M., and Van Geert, P. (2017). Changing patterns of scaffolding and autonomy during individual music lessons: a mixed methods approach. J. Learn. Sci. 26, 131–166. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1259624
Lee, J., and Durksen, T. L. (2017). Dimensions of academic interest among undergraduate students: passion, confidence, aspiration and self-expression. Educ. Psychol. 38, 120–138. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1342770
Lee, C. K., and Leung, B.-W. (2020). Factors in the motivations of studio-based musical instrument learners in Hong Kong: an in-depth interview study. Int. J. Music. Educ. 38, 400–414. doi: 10.1177/0255761420926663
Lei, S. Y., Chiu, D. K., Lung, M M.-w., and Chan, C. T. (2021). Exploring the aids of social media for musical instrument education. Int. J. Music. Educ. 39, 187–201. doi: 10.1177/0255761420986217
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. Career Choice Dev. 4, 255–311.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700.
Lieberman, J. L. (2002). A brief history of jazz violin. Am. String Teach. 52. doi: 10.1177/000313130205200411
Liu, X. C., Wang, I. T., and Wong, K. Y. (2024). A systematic review of experimental research on the effectiveness of the Suzuki music teaching method in instrumental instruction. SAGE Open 14:21582440241297265. doi: 10.1177/21582440241297265
Luo, T., and Liu, X. (2024). Shaping habitus and “good” lifestyles: music education of Chinese immigrant families in the UK. SAGE Open 14. doi: 10.1177/21582440241271169
McPhail, G. J. (2010). Crossing boundaries: sharing concepts of music teaching from classroom to studio. Music. Educ. Res. 12, 33–45. doi: 10.1080/14613800903568296
McPhail, G. J. (2013). Developing student autonomy in the one-to-one music lesson. Int. J. Music. Educ. 31, 160–172. doi: 10.1177/0255761413486407
McPherson, G. (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development : Oxford University Press.
Middaugh, E. (2019). More than just facts: promoting civic media literacy in the era of outrage. Peabody J. Educ. 94, 17–31. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2019.1553582
Pardue, L. S., and McPherson, A. (2019). Real-time aural and visual feedback for improving violin intonation. Front. Psychol. 10:627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00627,
Rafikov, M. Cross cultural perspectives on violin pedagogy in global higher education. International Conference on Adaptive Learning Technologies. (2024)12.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educ. Psychol. 44, 159–175. doi: 10.1080/00461520903028990
Sowa, J. (1999). Review of philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought by George Lakoff and mark Johnson. Basic books 1999. Comput. Linguist. 25, 631–634.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
Sweller, J. (2011). “Chapter two - cognitive load theory” in Psychology of learning and motivation. eds. J. P. Mestre and B. H. Ross, vol. 55 (San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press), 37–76.
Villa, S EF, Weiss, Y, Welsch, R, and Kosch, T. (2025). Understanding the influence of electrical muscle stimulation on motor learning: Enhancing motor learning or disrupting natural progression? Yokohama, Japan.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press.
Xiao, G., Khositditsayanan, N., and Kengkaew, C. (2025). The development of a performance teaching manual for the violin concerto. Int. Educ. Stud. 18, 78–91. doi: 10.5539/ies.v18n4p78
Keywords: learning outcome, music education, pedagogy, student interest, violin
Citation: Shao J (2026) Enhancing learning outcomes in violin music education: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 10:1683580. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1683580
Edited by:
Kelly Jakubowski, Durham University, United KingdomReviewed by:
Davys Espíndola Moreno, University of Aveiro, PortugalCastellary Macarena, University of Almería, Spain
Copyright © 2026 Shao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jinyi Shao, c2hhb2p5MjAyNUBvdXRsb29rLmNvbQ==