|
This website covers several of my creative bases. What can be found here are ideas about music education advocacy, research and curricula-- especially supporting creativity and composing in the K-12 classroom, no matter the type, a webquest and materials for providing opportunities to compose with children, and materials that I have presented at conferences. But first, about my point of view.
I spent my twenties with great productivity composing, songwriting, and performing, producing new artists, music theatre, and concerts, representing composers, and building music tech companies in the Southern California music industry. I also worked with composer advocacy groups to improve conditions for working composers. On vacation in my late twenties, I visited the University of Oregon and saw Suzuki music students on the front steps of the music school. I packed up my office and my family, we moved to Oregon, and I have never left academia since that moment. Teaching, composing, and research in music are in my genetic code.
During my undergraduate work in music composition in the early 1990s at University of Oregon, I met Dr. John McManus (1971). I was working with young composers and he shared with me ideas he had developed as a professor of music education at University of Oregon for composing in band and orchestra classrooms. I learned much from his materials, still have them. I was less interested in his product-oriented goals, always having been much more interested in what students do of their own accord, with natural creativity, by their own process. This point of view continues for me some 25 years later.
Since my graduate work, I have continued to present sessions at California Music Educators Association conferences about developing composing opportunities for K-12 students and students in teacher education programs. Simple ideas have worked the best, most focused on teacher process, and my work highlights what teachers already know and can do related to composing and Content Standard 4. Teachers are often surprised at what they already have in their toolkit, and this is the point of that work.
The purpose of this paper is to highlight three areas that have been introduced to music education about composing in K-12 classrooms and to communicate my interests in the natural creativity of both teachers and students for composing music. A brief literature review organizes some of the voices, such as Peter Webster, about composing related to K-12 music education environments. Other studies related to creativity and composing in teacher education are included.
Three Main Ideas
Three main ideas have been presented to American music education about composing and K-12 students. These have supported a permanent place and role in comprehensive music education (as defined by Bennett Reimer) for composition. These include:
1) Composing supports the development of a complete musician.
2) All kids are creative and can compose music and there are many ways to support this creative process.
3) Process and product need different support mechanisms in music education classrooms.
At the graduate level, my introduction to music education research began with John Kratus. Chosen from a pre-selected group of articles by my professor for review, I was excited to find people thinking about composing and creative processes with K-12 students.
The obvious impact of years of efforts leading up to the National Standards (1994) laid the groundwork for further research and study from a variety of perspectives—composing by specialization (band, choral, instrumental, orchestra, and special programs such as GATE, and music therapy), creativity, testing of creativity and composing ability, technology, and ways to meet Content Standard 4 – Composing & Arranging. I read everything I could find on creativity, composing, and survey development. What appeared to be missing in the literature was focus toward the non-composer music educator. I also knew this from years of conversations with music teachers who, for a variety of reasons, felt challenged by the idea that they should include composing opportunities in their lesson plans even though there is a long history of composers, composing and music education (see Table 1):
Table 1. Overview of Composition-related Programs and Symposia (1942-1980)
|
YEAR
|
PROGRAM
|
FUNDING SOURCE
|
|
1942-1954
|
Widening Horizons for Music Education; Music Education Advancement; Music In American Education
|
MENC
|
|
1959-1962
1963-1973
|
Contemporary Music Project- (Young Composers Project, 1959-1962) –Developed initially to place composers in the public school system with students participating in composition and emerging composers getting experience writing for different ensemble types. Founders: Norman Dello Joio, composer, and Robert Werner, music educator. Northwestern University – Seminar on Comprehensive Musicianship (1965) changed the direction of the CMP to broader inclusion of composition and improvisation, listening and analysis, and performance.
|
Ford Foundation
|
|
1959-1969
|
Professional-in-Residence Program- Replaced Contemporary Music Project. Placement of composers and performers in the community.
|
Ford Foundation & MENC
|
|
1969-1973
|
Comprehensive Musicianship Program- Focused on comprehensive musicianship versus fragmented learning. Students active in performing, composing, analysis, and evaluation of compositions as “total musician.”
|
Ford Foundation & MENC
|
|
June 17-28, 1963
|
Yale Conference- Symposium emphasizing broader repertory, small ensembles, composing, advanced students, community outreach. Questioned current music education curricula.
|
U.S. Office of Education
|
|
1964-1970
|
Julliard Repertory Program- Emphasis on improvement of repertory available for elementary school music programs. Product published by Canyon Press totaled 4 elementary instrumental collections and 8 elementary choral collections.
|
U.S. Office of Education
|
|
1965-1972
|
Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program- Alternative music education based on spiral curriculum. Exploration of musical concepts through, not just singing, but total musicianship: listening, performing, composing, conducting, evaluating. Problem-solving method of learning composition, students began with current skill level of playing an instrument. Founder: Ronald Thomas-Manhattanville College
|
U.S. Office of Education
|
|
1967
|
Tanglewood Conference- Symposium emphasizing evaluation of the importance of music in society and education. Recommendations included that music should be in the core curriculum. Also noted inner-city problems.
|
MENC
|
|
1968-1970
|
GO Projects (Goals & Objectives)- Emphasis of music as part of core curriculum and that all students had a right to music education taught by a music specialist. Performance festivals, workshops, lesson plans, presentations at conferences, newsletters were used to draw attention of the goals and objectives to teachers, administrators, and parents.
|
MENC
|
|
1969
|
Composition Workshop for Teachers & Composers; Kansas State Teachers College- Based on the hypothesis that original music composition study increases undergraduate’s level of benefit in music education program. Participating composers: Ingolf Dahl and Grant Beglarian.
|
U.S. Office of Education
|
|
1970-1972
|
IMPACT Project- Emphasis on developing an arts curriculum of music, art, dance, and drama for elementary and junior high levels.
|
U.S.O.E , MENC
|
|
1980s
|
Music In Education – Music learning through computers and software. Integrated concept emphasizing aural skills, notation, and performance.
|
Yamaha
|
Source: (Crawford, 2004)
My thesis topic began to take form. I developed a survey instrument to invite faculty to discuss their perceptions of providing creative opportunities to compose in their experience of both K-12 classrooms and teacher education programs. This proved to illuminate a sense of discomfort among many faculty who were willing to share their feelings, experiences, and excitement. What the study told me was that the place to work on creativity and composing was in music teacher education programs in order to invigorate, not only competence and proficiency, but reduced inhibition.
Lois Harrison (1983) was the music education department chair at University of the Pacific before Ruth Brittin, and like John McManus, spent a part of her career at University of Oregon. She developed a widely used textbook similar to Pat Campbell's Music in Childhood (1995). These texts have been widely used by music education teacher education programs and credentialing coursework and both have chapters dedicated to creating music.
Prior to the release of the National Standards, several texts were published about matters of composing with K-12 students. This Too is Music (Upitis, 1990) and Composition in the Classroom: A Tool for Teaching (Wiggins, 1990). Upitis again published another book, Can I Play You My Song? (1992) focused toward the question of notation. Nearly ten years following the introduction of the National Standards, Hickey (2003) published Why and How to Teach Music Composition: A New Horizon for Music Education, a collection of essays from those who had developed studies involving creativity or composing and another, Music Outside the Lines: Ideas for Composing in K-12 Music Classrooms (2012).
The issue of creativity came up for me early in my undergraduate work. Remember those students I saw on the front steps of the U of O School of Music? I was invited by the Suzuki School to teach piano and composition with their students in the year-round school, forums, and summer camp. I have saved those students' compositions because they were so extraordinary. Here were kids with an amazing level of proficiency with their instrument who could easily access collaborative composing. Each year, we completed composition projects and students performed their compositions to rooms where you could have heard a pin drop. Some of the most exciting experiences of my life, I have never found that environment replicated. This was creativity at a high point, without composition "training" required. Or were these different learners with great facility with their instruments? The simplicity of the opportunity was the "nut" of its success. The teacher had skill with kids. The kids had skill with instruments. Both were automatically and authentically open to original creative work. Also, musical magic happened.
Related Literature
Numerous studies consider music composition, teaching, and creativity and there are numerous studies to serve as a foundation:
- Dennis Hocevar, 1977, Studies in the Evaluation of Tests of Divergent Thinking: (1) Fluency as the Confounding Factor in the Measurement of Originality; (2) the Development of a Criterion Measure of Creativity with Emphasis on Activities and Accomplishments; and (3) the Relationship of Ideational Fluency and Verbal Intelligence to Creative Activities and Accomplishments (Cornell)
- Peter Webster, 1977, A Factor of Intellect Approach to Creative Thinking in Music (Eastman)
Hocevar chose to evaluate tests that measure creative thinking from the perspective of ideational fluency and originality, important to understanding, even measuring, the creative thinking process, and hoped to answer the question of whether ideational fluency had anything to do with real-world creativeness. Hocevar was also interested in whether one could predict creativity from ideational fluency tests more accurately than a traditional intelligence test. (see pp. 1-2)
Webster chose to identify significance between factors of creative thinking ability in music and selected musical and non-musical variables in students aged 14-18. There were four aims of the study: 1) establish a set of valid and reliable criteria measures for the assessment of potential creative thinking ability in the modes of composition, improvisation, and analysis abilities, 2) investigate relationships between those criteria and selected measures of musical ability, general creative ability, and general intelligence, 3) investigate relationships between those criteria and variables of grade level, age, sex, performance medium, and years of piano study, and 4) investigate interrelationships between the criteria themselves. Webster was also interested in predictability. Webster used Pfeil and Vaughan musical creativity measures as well as developed his own. (see pp. vi-vii, 235)
Creativity is as well-researched as it is illusive. Every time someone says to me, "Why haven't we done composing and creative music in music education before?" I use Snyder's Creating Music with Children (1957) and Lasker's Teaching Creative Music in Secondary Schools (1971). These contain black and white photos of kids and teachers in the 1940s-1960s in composition-focused programs. Another off-beat text I find useful in talking with teachers is Kolodny (1999) from the issue of creativity and inhibition. Another is Koestler's Act of Creation (1964) that never fails to answer powerfully challenging questions about intrinsic motivations and creativity. Focused toward creativity study and learning mid-twentieth century are Kagan (1967) and Taylor (1964). These texts include essays from everyone from Torrance to Mednick to Leary.
The history of creativity, as a studied discipline, is thoroughly examined in a collection of essays about understanding and recognizing creativity (Isaksen, et al, 1993). A text I must yet read is Eysenck (1995) along with many others on my desk not included yet for this paper. Handbooks related to creativity (most all cite Hocevar) include Sternberg (1999), Runco [his writing is remarkably extensive] (1997; 2007), and Kaufman & Sternberg (2010). Runco advances creativity study through another text on research and development (2007). Connecting culture context to creativity is found in Lau, et al (2004).
On the music education side, Hickey (2002) writes an overview of creativity research in music alongside three other arts disciplines—dance, theater, and fine art. In this chapter, she presents a working definition of creativity and establishes the beginning of creativity research as the 1950s. By the 1970s, creativity was considered greatly from the perspective of thinking. Prior to this, Hickey cites, children's creative music composition was established by Doig (1941-1942), and the longitudinal studies of Moorhead & Pond (1978). Not by any means a complete list but those who have been important to me, American researchers who have studied composition and creativity include Staufer (2002), Allsup (2003), and Kratus (1989). Azzara's (2002) overview of improvisation research is exquisite. Connecting creativity to collaboration in music are Sawyer (2003) and Amabile (1982), (see also Hennessey and Amabile, 1987).
What I have discovered more recently in the literature is the question of intelligence and creativity in thinking thinking in both teaching and learning and as related to compositional process. Some of the most important studies in music education related to creativity, creative thinking and how it happens, and composing come from years of work from Webster (2002; 2013). Burnard (University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education) (2012a; 2012b) also writes about creativity in teaching and compositional process. There is Kratus' extraordinary research output of course; even a dissertation from one of Kratus' students (Auh, 1995) considers predictability of musical creativity in compositions of upper elementary students.
Global discussion of creativity and composition are found from many purviews.
Australia: Blom (1999), Barrett (2006)
England: Swanwick and Boyce-Tillman (1986), Sloboda (1988), Paynter (2000), and Burnard (2012ab)
Canada, Upitis (1990, 1992); Kennedy (2007)
Current Directions
This paper represents some of my main influences over the past fifteen years. However, beyond the scope of this paper are numerous dissertations, books, book chapters, and articles over time as well as unpublished resources of many who have studied creativity and composing concepts both separately and together. And there are new places to explore. A search of Ulrichsweb produced The Journal of Creative Behavior, Creative Education, Creativity Research Journal, and Digital Creativity.
My interests, while always focused on teacher education, have moved toward consideration of different learner types (both teachers and students) and how this challenges the creative process in virtual-digital environments. Two music education researchers involved with technology I follow closely are Ruthmann (2007; 2008; endless articles of interest) and Tobias (2010; 2013) (also see Barrett and Tobias, 2010). While they maintain professional blogs, they also publish related to my interests. Currently, virtual-digital composing experiences are being navigated through study of experiential test programs (see Ruthmann, Play with Your Music, Google Community with 1,694 members and growing). Work with students grades one through five is forefront for me.
I am excited by the MIT Media Lab and Lifelong Kindergarten. As creativity at the elementary level is of primary interest to me, I am concerned with approaches to beginning learning. Where some are shifting from product-oriented to process, I am trying to be more considerate of product. No matter the tools (and some exciting ones are on the horizon, incoming…) the three ideas I began this paper with will still be true:
1) Composing supports the development of a complete musician.
2) All kids are creative and can compose music and there are many ways to support this creative process.
3) Process and product need different support mechanisms in music education classrooms.
I propose that, each of these being true, students still work differently with opportunities to compose. As do teachers in providing opportunities to compose. Beyond the issue of inhibition, I would like to understand more about why. We can say that technology will change things. In some ways, this is quite true. But not all are drawn to technology in the way we might think. And not all are going to be interested in using technology to make music. I say this even after having discovered a prototype keyboard called The Seaboard (2014) which plays notes between the standard piano keys and looks like a rubber mat/wet suit. Reliance on technology is not necessarily, however, the only direction I have considered over the years. There is also collaboration and innovation as affected by creativity.
The home I grew up in had a music room with a grand piano that my parents purchased instead of new family car. In my experience, some students compose because it just comes out of them and they can't not compose music. Some students become extremely interested in composing after being invited to compose while others appear to have no interest in composing after having been provided with opportunities. Some students exhibit ability, others do not, after being invited to compose. Recently, I have added another segment to the population I will study—those who exhibit ability to compose, with a particular instrument. I say this because I was playing chords on the piano at age three and writing music by age seven.
Aside from any genetic coding, what if I had never had that piano?
(c) Lisa A. Crawford
|