This review follows the Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines for searching, appraising, summarising, and discussing literature on complex topics (Wong et al., 2013). The approach is grounded in six guiding principles: pragmatism, pluralism, historicity, contestation, reflexivity, and peer review. Given the diversity of theoretical and methodological perspectives found in research on our topic, the pluralistic and pragmatic nature of the meta-narrative approach provided a semi-structured framework that balances interpretation with systematic searching, appraisal, and synthesis (Greenhalgh et al., 2011). Rather than prioritising certain methods over others, we embraced the richness of this diversity and appraised each research source within its respective research tradition (Greenhalgh et al., 2018).

Through extensive discussions over the years with music educator colleagues, in-service and pre-service generalist teachers, and music pedagogy researchers—alongside our own teaching experiences—we formed the view that music teaching among generalist teachers is a complex phenomenon. Additionally, an initial ‘territory mapping exercise’, involving unstructured and informal literature searches (Wong et al., 2013), revealed several papers underscoring this complexity. As we familiarised ourselves with how various authors conceptualised generalists’ musical competence, it became evident that both a pragmatic review methodology and a suitable theoretical framework were necessary to account for the expanding array of concepts related to musical competence. This realisation led us to adopt the theoretical framework of Kunter et al. (2013a) and the meta-narrative methodology.

Following the preliminary search phase, we conducted systematic searches for peer-reviewed literature using specific search strings, supplemented by informal searches and double-sided snowballing. Systematic searches included multiple combinations of relevant terms (see Table 1) using the ‘advanced search’ functions in Scopus (Elsevier), ProQuest, and Web of Science (Clarivate). We also experimented with informal search strings in less advanced search engines such as Google Scholar, Research Rabbit, and various catalogues of doctoral theses.

The search process further benefited from double-sided snowballing (Contandriopoulos et al., 2010), which involved examining references within papers (prospective snowballing) and identifying later studies that cited them (retrospective snowballing) (Conn et al., 2003). Thus, the ‘snowball’ of potential literature kept growing until it reached its limit. Our literature searches were continuously informed by our theoretical framework, a growing body of appraised literature, and iterative meetings within the research team (Wong et al., 2014).

When a potential candidate for our meta-narrative emerged from either the snowballing or the systematic searches, it was appraised based on the following criteria:

Is the source empirically and theoretically relevant to our research objective?

The initial appraisal involved scanning abstracts and titles. If a source appeared potentially relevant, we conducted an in-depth reading to further check for its relevance to our review. To confirm peer-review status, we verified journals for proper external peer-review, ISSN identifications, academic editorial boards, and authorship guidelines, using the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and Publishers (Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, 2024). For publishers not listed in the Norwegian registry, we manually searched and appraised the publishers. While peer-review is not necessarily a hallmark of ‘quality’ and may be considered as a multi-modal, biased, and diverse process in academia (Tennant and Ross-Hellauer, 2020), we trusted the publisher’s reported peer-review. Nevertheless, we maintained a personal record, emphasising sources with higher perceived impact and quality in our synthesis. Research sources from publishers with non-peer-reviewed, unclear or ambiguous peer-review processes were excluded. In line with meta-narrative review methodology (Wong et al., 2013), appraisal was conducted qualitatively, with emphasis on each study’s relevance, contribution, and credibility, rather than through numerical quality scoring. This approach enabled us to evaluate studies within their respective contexts and to integrate insights across diverse research traditions.

A few exceptions to the inclusion criteria were made. The majority of our corpus consists of empirical research, but three conceptual papers not involving generalist teachers directly were included for their high quality and relevance (see Supplementary material—Refs. 26, 31, 124). Additionally, seven seminal papers from before 1995 were included for their impact and high relevance to our research topic (see Supplementary material—Refs. 46, 91, 92, 171, 202, 208, 230). Additionally, after consulting colleagues and reviewing Nordic journals in music education, we included research written in Norwegian and Swedish (see Supplementary material—Refs. 18, 19, 41, 50, 102, 117, 119, 156, 218, 225, 227, 234), as no relevant studies in Danish were found. These sources were added primarily in order to supplement the existing Nordic literature available in English.

Although the review process is presented somewhat linearly (see Figure 2), there was overlap and continual revisitation among phases as they gradually informed each other during the emerging findings. To tackle a complex and extensive body of literature, reflexivity is recommended, which involves continuous reflection, both individually and collectively as a team (Wong et al., 2013). The combined efforts of four researchers, each contributing complementary methodological and theoretical expertise in ECEC and primary music education, were essential for maintaining a rigorous review process and making sense of the data. To strengthen analytical rigour, we engaged in iterative synthesis and team-based cross-checking, with all four authors reviewing and refining interpretations at different stages. Iterative meetings and discussions within the ‘inner circle’ facilitated ongoing refinement of our methodological process, literature appraisal, synthesis, and analysis. Additionally, the project was presented to an external audience on two formal occasions (Nguyen, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2024), during which discussions and feedback from a collective of music pedagogy researchers were invited. Moreover, informal conversations with teachers, students and expert educators/researchers revealed new insights, which further informed the review process.

Unlike traditional narrative inquiries, which collect stories through interviews, observations, and texts, we synthesised and analysed ‘stories’ conveyed by the appraised and included literature (n = 249). We treated every research source as an individual and unique perspective on our research topic (Polkinghorne, 1995). To capture the essence of each study, we divided the research among team members based on areas of expertise. Each team member conducted in-depth readings and extracted key elements, including background and contextual data, the theoretical framework, methodological details, main findings, discussions, and implications. These data were then catalogued and categorised in the knowledge and reference manager Citavi (Version 6, Swiss Academic Software GmbH, Wädenswil, Switzerland), resulting in detailed summaries ranging from 500 to 2,000 words, depending on each source’s complexity. Citavi enabled us to aggregate, categorise, and thematically organise the data, resulting in a comprehensive overview for further analysis and discussion. The empirical data analysis phase spanned approximately 12 months, involving continuous and iterative individual and collective sessions.

Our analysis and interpretation of the narrative data were guided by abductive reasoning, which involved reflecting on empirical findings through the lens of our theoretical framework and preconceptions (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2017). Additionally, following Riessman’s (2008) guidelines, we conducted a thematic narrative analysis to interpret patterns, themes, commonalities, and discrepancies across the corpus (Wong et al., 2014). Reflexivity, described by Wong et al. (2014) as the continuous process of individual and team reflection on emerging findings (p. 6), was crucial in our effort to ensure that our meta-narratives accurately and truthfully represented the corpus (Riessman, 2008, pp. 186–187). To transparently present and discuss the meta-narratives, we reference studies using a numbered system alongside author names. Readers can consult our Supplementary material “Comprehensive Overview of Meta-Narratives and Corpus” for the complete list of references with additional details.

Our analysis identified a diverse corpus with a range of methodological and theoretical approaches represented across qualitative, quantitative, and a smaller subset of mixed-methods studies (see Table 2). Key features included a strong representation of Western contexts (e.g., Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and North America) and a balanced representation of both ECEC and primary generalist teachers. Qualitative studies exhibited a range of specified and unspecified methodological approaches, with case studies being the most common choice. Interviews were the most common data-gathering method, followed by observations and textual sources (e.g., open-ended surveys, and reflection diaries). The quantitative research, largely cross-sectional, was primarily based on self-reported surveys and was complemented by quasi-experimental studies investigating the effects of various teacher-training approaches. Most authors contributed one or two papers, though certain researchers—such as Bautista, De Vries, Ehrlin, Joseph, and Russell-Bowie—were more prominently represented.

Our synthesis indicates that when personal and contextual factors have been positively stimulated, generalist teachers gain confidence, motivation, skills, and autonomy to teach music effectively, leading to frequent, diverse, and high-quality music teaching (see Supplementary material—Refs. 25, 70, 100, 120, 148, 158, 202, 227). For instance, several competent ECEC generalists have supported children’s emotional, social, and musical development through a rich variety of music activities, earning praise for creatively exploring music’s multifaceted nature (see Supplementary material—Refs. 45, 119). Similarly, Barry and Durham (Ref. 25 in Supplementary material) found that pre-service ECEC pupils who participated in a summer practicum of practical, music-related activities managed to integrate music into the curriculum and use it to bridge cultural boundaries.

Singing and movement activities have been more common in ECEC settings and lower primary grades, often designed as a way of reinforcing socio-emotional/academic development and scaffolding routines, such as cleaning up, lining up, meals, and nap time (see Supplementary material—Refs. 94, 102, 117, 156, 218, 228). In-service ECEC teachers have reported these types of activities to be well suited and useful in providing children with meaningful music experiences (see Supplementary material—Ref. 136). While many ECEC teachers have found singing activities valuable, we observe a discrepancy in perceived competence: some studies have indicated that singing is an area of low confidence (see Supplementary material—Ref. 177), whereas others have reported it as a strength for generalists (see Supplementary material—Ref. 76). Despite some positive cases, we identify a prevalent trend of generalist teachers lacking the competence and confidence needed for effective music teaching, resulting in limited musical repertoires and teaching strategies (see Supplementary material—Refs. 9, 136, 189, 193, 245). For example, Phuthego (Ref. 189 in Supplementary material) found that in-service primary generalists relied primarily on simple singing activities, with limited instrumental and broader musical competencies.

As children progress to higher grades, curricular demands increase, requiring teachers to have more specialised musical knowledge to deliver more in-depth music content (e.g., composition, improvisation, instrumental instruction). Our corpus has indicated that teachers with higher formal musical training—often specialists—are more likely to teach at secondary levels, while generalists with less training are more common in primary grades and ECEC (e.g., see Supplementary material—Ref. 226). Activities involving singing, movement, and listening—especially when accompanied by CDs, Spotify, YouTube, and other multimedia sources—have been more frequent among teachers with less musical expertise, potentially because “they feel they can carry these out in some capacity” (see Supplementary material—Ref. 245, p. 13). Several authors have reported a heavy reliance on CDs and other multimedia sources (see Supplementary material—Refs. 63, 140, 170, 184, 193–194), which, in some cases, have been used as mere background music (see Supplementary material—Refs. 44, 45, 140, 193). Killian and Wayman (Ref. 140 in Supplementary material) reported that 70% of music used by in-service primary generalists was background music, with only 20.3% of teachers singing themselves. Most authors have criticised this reliance as a ‘crutch’ for compensating insecurities, emphasising instead the value of meaningful interactions in music-making (see Supplementary material—Ref. 187). Conversely, Poulter and Cook (Ref. 191 in Supplementary material) highlighted a preference among primary generalists for live interaction through music over multimedia reliance. This indicates a discrepancy within our corpus: while some generalists demonstrate sufficient competence to engage in live music-making, others rely heavily on multimedia.

We also observe a division across the literature regarding whether generalist teachers engage in child-oriented or teacher-directed music teaching. Many studies of in-service ECEC generalists have shown an inclination towards exploratory music activities, involving sound-makers, singing, movement, improvisation, and spontaneity, which foster children’s creativity and agency (see Supplementary material—Refs. 50, 56, 61, 79, 117–120, 183, 218, 235). Spontaneous and free-play activities have typically involved child-centred exploration with instruments and movement (see Supplementary material—Ref. 117), whereas singing activities have tended to be more structured, focusing on the repetition of a traditional song repertoire (see Supplementary material—Refs. 102, 117–118). For example, Valerio and Freeman (Ref. 235 in Supplementary material) observed pre-service teachers learning to adapt music activities based on children’s spontaneous musical expressions, promoting “interactive music-making between participants and the children” (p. 62). On the other hand, in-service ECEC generalist teachers have sometimes been criticised for relying too heavily on children’s preferences, lacking initiative to engage in music activities themselves (see Supplementary material—Ref. 218). Some in-service ECEC teachers have faced challenges with free-play music activities, finding them chaotic and difficult to manage (see Supplementary material—Ref. 14), which has led to a reluctance to allow instrument access during free play (see Supplementary material—Refs. 81, 193, 228). This hesitancy has also been observed in primary school settings, where generalists sometimes prefer structured, teacher-directed activities to maintain control, particularly when they lack confidence in their music subject knowledge (see Supplementary material—Ref. 245).

Feeling inadequately prepared by ITE programmes, many generalist teachers have expressed the need for more professional development in music (see Supplementary material—Refs. 26, 28, 30, 40, 71, 74, 79, 83, 91, 101, 103, 136, 153, 158, 184, 189, 198, 200, 236, 246). This has been exemplified by many pre-service teachers criticising their programmes as “too short, overly theoretical or abstract, and lacking practical opportunities” (see Supplementary material—Ref. 31, p. 3). Similarly, in-service ECEC teachers have indicated that their most useful music skills were often “learned through external sources, such as in-service workshops or colleagues,” rather than through their ITE programmes (see Supplementary material—Ref. 136, p. 380).

In response to these needs, we have identified several training programmes that have focused on practical hands-on activities aimed at building music-teaching competence (see Supplementary material—Refs. 36, 51–52, 62, 95, 105, 107, 121, 123, 125–135, 137, 169, 178–179, 182, 194, 207, 209, 213, 215–216, 231, 233, 240). These training programmes have included specific learning strategies, such as collaboration and mentoring (see Supplementary material—Refs. 40, 52, 75, 77, 197, 237), observation and field experience (see Supplementary material—Refs. 30, 52, 62, 95–96, 106, 112, 124, 137, 153, 183, 191), Kodály and Orff approaches (see Supplementary material—Refs. 66, 121, 197), digital technology and e-learning (see Supplementary material—Refs. 30, 113–114, 130, 162, 190, 207), indigenous and internationalised approaches (see Supplementary material—Refs. 75, 126, 135, 229, 239), reflection (see Supplementary material—Refs. 69, 75, 137, 152, 154, 179, 235), informal music-making and creativity (see Supplementary material—Refs. 99–100, 215, 237), body mapping (see Supplementary material—Ref. 97), and neuroscientific research (see Supplementary material—Ref. 52). These methods have reportedly fostered a stronger musical self-concept and teacher identity among generalists. Studies have shown that such training can successfully provide generalists with adequate preparation, increasing their responsibility (see Supplementary material—Ref. 36), willingness (see Supplementary material—Ref. 229), and intention (see Supplementary material—Ref. 165) to teach music effectively.

Programmes that provide hands-on, practical training have allowed generalists to develop concrete skills relevant to teaching, such as singing (see Supplementary material—Refs. 178, 179, 212), or playing instruments like the ukulele (see Supplementary material—Refs. 57, 101, 170, 187, 209), especially when these skills were reinforced through context-specific and professionally relevant field experience (see Supplementary material—Refs. 40, 134). Authors have often reported an increase in teaching confidence when sufficient practical music and music-teaching competencies have been gained. In this regard, field experiences have been particularly effective, especially when teachers have received positive responses from the children they taught (see Supplementary material—Refs. 108, 154, 182, 197, 235), indicating that positive feedback is a significant source of self-efficacy (see Supplementary material—Ref. 240). Similarly, in-service primary generalists have reported increased confidence after successfully implementing newly learned composition techniques in their classrooms (see Supplementary material—Ref. 233).

Collaborative efforts among generalist teachers have been widely praised as effective forms of teacher training, with modelling, mentoring, feedback, and practical field experiences identified as key components. These efforts have included teamwork and collaboration among pre-service teachers (see Supplementary material—Refs. 40, 75, 77, 128–129, 137, 154, 175, 215) and in-service teachers (see Supplementary material—Refs. 69, 182, 196), between in-service and pre-service teachers (see Supplementary material—Refs. 107, 191), and between generalists and specialists (see Supplementary material—Refs. 121, 124, 165, 187, 225). Several authors have also highlighted the benefits of mutual partnerships between ITE and schools/ECEC institutions (see Supplementary material—Refs. 106, 154, 183, 236). For example, Poulter and Cook (Ref. 191 in Supplementary material) reported mutually beneficial learning outcomes for both pre-service and in-service generalist teachers when discussing and interpreting children’s responses to music lessons. Similarly, generalist and specialist teachers have been shown to benefit greatly from each other’s strengths in music teaching. For example, primary generalists have found in their secondary music peers high levels of artistry and creativity, while secondary music specialists have found in their primary generalist peers a strong understanding of children and clear planning for learning (see Supplementary material—Ref. 124). Moreover, studies have reported that ideal partnerships between musicians and in-service primary teachers resulted in long-term positive effects on musical confidence and competence when the teachers engaged in informal, inclusive music-making (see Supplementary material—Ref. 187). Additionally, Green (Ref. 95 in Supplementary material) reported that specialist in-service teachers supported pre-service teachers by tactfully encouraging experimentation with music teaching and idea-sharing.

Observation of experienced teachers has been highlighted as a valued form of training. Through video-mediated peer observation, in-service generalist teachers with limited musical backgrounds have benefited from observing practical, realistic teaching scenarios, rather than learning through textbooks, lesson plans, and curricula (see Supplementary material—Ref. 30). Wong et al. (Ref. 246 in Supplementary material) similarly reported that observing experienced teachers—live or through video—was a highly valued form of learning. In another context, although online resources have been found to be helpful, Joseph (Ref. 130 in Supplementary material) indicated a preference for live, interactive music-making among pre-service primary generalist teachers. Finally, reflection has been recognised as an effective tool for competency development, as it has enabled teachers to gain insights and confidence through reflecting on their own observations, teaching, and field experiences (e.g., see Supplementary material—Refs. 69, 75).

One notable finding across the literature is the lack of consensus on what constitutes a ‘generalist’ or ‘specialist’ teacher, with formal qualifications for each role varying across countries. Generally, we observe that music specialists are educators with extensive training in both musical proficiency and pedagogy, often teaching music as a standalone subject to multiple classes (see Supplementary material—Refs. 10, 98, 101, 242). In contrast, generalist teachers are typically described as educators with broad pedagogical training but little or no formal music education. They are usually responsible for teaching music alongside other subjects (see Supplementary material—Refs. 10, 20, 98, 131) and often “integrate music into other content areas as they see fit” (see Supplementary material—Ref. 98, p. 75). Our synthesis indicates that generalists form a diverse group. While many lack formal music training and struggle to teach music confidently (see Supplementary material—Refs. 49, 70, 78–79, 200, 242, 245), others—driven by personal interest—have pursued additional musical training outside their initial teacher education and demonstrate higher levels of competence (see Supplementary material—Refs. 29, 45, 66, 89, 99, 105, 110, 149, 242, 245). Some generalists have even been considered ‘hidden specialists’ who deliver high-quality music teaching without formal credentials, and in one unique case, as an uncertified ‘paraprofessional’ teacher (see Supplementary material—Ref. 242).

Although generalists and specialists are often discussed in binary terms, this distinction may be overly simplistic. Given the diversity within both groups—particularly among generalists—it may be more productive to view teacher competence as a continuum rather than a fixed trait tied to certification. In light of this broader perspective, the literature also suggests a third group: performers with limited or no formal teacher training, who often work as visiting musicians or in artist-in-residence roles (see Supplementary material—Refs. 37, 41, 68, 187). A lack of prioritisation in specialist teacher training and hiring in the arts may partly explain why artists are increasingly involved in music education (Bamford, 2006).

Although music in ECEC and primary settings is predominantly taught by generalists (see Supplementary material—Refs. 64, 70, 178, 226, 228), a few studies—particularly in primary education—have reported a higher prevalence of specialists (see Supplementary material—Refs. 29, 242). The occurrence of music specialist positions have been linked to whether institutions prioritise music or marginalise it due to crowded curricula and limited financial resources. There is also an ongoing debate about who should be teaching music, with the literature highlighting both advantages and limitations of using specialists and generalists (see Supplementary material—Refs. 44, 70, 124, 204).

While specialist teachers are generally favoured for providing in-depth and varied music instruction, the literature also acknowledges certain challenges (see Supplementary material—Refs. 39, 84, 150, 168). For example, specialists with extensive musical backgrounds have often emphasised individual, performance-oriented activities, viewing music learning as a “technical procedure involving the systematic mastery of a set of skills” (see Supplementary material—Ref. 124, p. 69), which may limit opportunities for a more inclusive and student-centred approach to music education. Biasutti (Ref. 39 in Supplementary material) found that generalists were more inclined to support student-led, informal music learning—an approach considered highly beneficial for both teachers and children (see Supplementary material—Refs. 50, 99)—in contrast to the more teacher-centred methods of specialists. Additionally, specialists have reported higher stress levels related to classroom management, possibly due to less pedagogical training compared to generalists (see Supplementary material—Ref. 150), underscoring the trade-off between musical expertise and pedagogical versatility. When generalists are confident and competent in music, they tend to excel in classroom management and in integrating music with other subjects (see Supplementary material—Refs. 8, 20, 47, 131). However, as previously mentioned, the prevailing pattern suggests that many generalists lack the competence to teach music adequately, prompting several authors to advocate for greater use of specialist teachers (see Supplementary material—Refs. 49, 65, 70, 78, 232, 242–243, 245). In fact, generalists themselves have acknowledged that they cannot effectively cover the music curriculum without relying on specialists (see Supplementary material—Refs. 49, 70, 103–104, 116, 190).

Some authors have criticised the reliance on visiting specialists to relieve generalist teachers, arguing that it can inadvertently absolve generalists of responsibility for music education and discourage the integration of music across other subject areas (see Supplementary material—Refs. 64, 68, 98, 103, 187, 208). The presence of a specialist may lead generalists to see music as outside their remit—either because they feel sidelined or willingly relinquish responsibility. As a result, De Vries (Ref. 64 in Supplementary material) notes that when music is taught solely by a specialist—often in a separate space and as a discrete subject—children may miss out on experiencing music as an integrated, everyday part of classroom life. As a middle ground, several authors have proposed a collaborative approach in which specialists and generalists complement one another’s strengths while mitigating their weaknesses (see Supplementary material—Refs. 10, 65, 89, 98, 103, 116, 121, 165, 217–218). Specialists could provide in-depth and diverse musical experiences, while generalists focus on integrating music into other subject areas.

Despite studies being published in peer-reviewed journals, there is noticeable variation in quality. A prominent issue is the absence of a clearly stated theoretical foundation (n = 134). While doctoral dissertations often include theoretical frameworks, many journal articles prioritise empirical findings, literature reviews, and contextual information over foundational theory, potentially limiting conceptual depth.

We also noted inconsistencies in methodological transparency, particularly among studies that claimed to use multiple methods without clarifying whether they had fully implemented a mixed-methods approach. For instance, the critical process of triangulating data sources—central to mixed-methods research—is often inadequately explained. Among the qualitative studies, 75 lacked a clearly defined methodological approach, frequently presenting loosely defined data interpretations rather than a systematic analytical framework. In contrast, studies employing established methodologies (e.g., phenomenology, narrative inquiry, or grounded theory) tended to demonstrate greater rigour and transparency.

The quantitative studies also faced notable challenges, including low response rates, non-representative sampling (often due to small or convenience-based sampling), and a lack of a priori sample size estimations. Another issue was the frequent reliance on newly developed, ad hoc measurement instruments, even when validated instruments were available. Additionally, most of the quantitative studies used only descriptive statistics (n = 38) or basic analyses, such as t-tests and ANOVA, when more advanced statistical methods could have accounted for potentially influential covariates. Experimental research was particularly limited, with only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) and 37 quasi-experimental studies, just five of which included a control group. Moreover, none of them provided follow-up measurements, and the predominance of cross-sectional studies further limits longitudinal insights. Although our corpus covers many potentially successful training approaches, it generally lacks long-term evaluations of their effectiveness due to the scarcity of follow-up studies.

The meta-narrative methodology’s pragmatic and pluralistic stance presents both strengths and weaknesses. The diversity of research studies may complicate direct comparisons and generalisations due to differences in theoretical underpinnings, participant demographics, study contexts, and methodological rigour. Another limitation lies in our corpus’ geographical skew, as it predominantly represents Western contexts, which limits the generalisability of our findings and potentially overlooks educational practices relevant in non-Western settings.

Despite these limitations, we have synthesised and discussed several key issues that policymakers, educators, and researchers should critically evaluate when shaping approaches to music education and the role of generalist teachers. Looking ahead, future research should address the geographical imbalance of the current corpus, which is predominantly situated in Western contexts. Broader representation of underexplored regions would provide a more comprehensive understanding of generalist music teaching across diverse educational systems. Methodologically, future studies could strengthen the evidence base by adopting more rigorous and transparent designs across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research. In particular, greater use of longitudinal approaches could shed light on the long-term impact of professional development and training initiatives, offering insights into how these efforts translate into sustained music-teaching practices. Future work would also benefit from stronger theoretical anchoring, as drawing on established frameworks can provide greater conceptual depth, enrich interpretation, and facilitate comparisons across studies. Finally, greater conceptual clarity is needed, particularly in how constructs such as “competence,” “confidence,” and “music teaching efficacy” are defined and operationalised, in order to improve comparability across research. Moving forward, ensuring that generalist teachers are well-equipped to teach music should remain an important consideration in both teacher training and educational policy.