University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Composing in groups: creative processes of third and fifth grade students

(USC Thesis Other)

Composing in groups: creative processes of third and fifth grade students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

COMPOSING IN GROUPS: CREATIVE PROCESSES

OF THIRD AND FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS

by

Lisa A. Crawford

A Dissertation presented to the
FACULTY OF THE THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
Music Education

August 2016

ii

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dr. Beatriz Ilari, Committee Chair
Assistant Professor, Music Education
Music Teaching and Learning Department
Thornton School of Music
University of Southern California

Dr. Peter Webster
Vice Dean of Division of Scholarly and Professional Studies, Scholar-in-Residence
Music Teaching and Learning Department
Scholarly and Professional Studies
University of Southern California

Dr. Dennis Hocevar
Professor of Clinical Education
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

© 2016 Lisa A. Crawford

iii

ABSTRACT

Composing in groups: Creative processes of third and fifth grade students

Music education has long included creative music activities and provided opportunities to
compose in foundational learning environments. As the use of varying technologies increases in
foundational learning, it is unclear how composing with acoustic rhythm instruments compares with
technology-mediated applications when considering pedagogy and children's creative processes in
third and fifth grades. It is also unclear what differences of application technology-in-composition
lesson plans require when considering composing at different grade levels or if there are gender
differences when composing at these levels.
This experimental study, with a between-subjects factorial design, was completed in three
phases. In the first phase, participants were tested on the Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation
(IMMA) (Gordon, 1986). In the second phase, children were invited, in groups of four by grade
levels three and five, to compose with acoustic rhythm instruments or a graphic notation computer
program, Hyperscore. Participants' compositional processes were observed using a researcher-
constructed protocol, the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG) (Crawford,
2016). The third phase tested all participants using the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music
(MCTM) (Webster, 1994). Additionally, variables of grade level and gender were tested.
Results showed that third grade participants scored higher than fifth grade on the IMMA.
Third grade scored higher composing with Hyperscore while fifth grade participants scored lower.
No statistically significant correlations were found between gender and IMMA scores, however,
male participants composing with acoustic instruments scored higher on the MCTM while female
participants scored higher on the MCTM after composing with Hyperscore. Additionally, there were
no statistically significant correlations between the test scores for the IMMA, CIQCG and MCTM,

iv

indicating that musical aptitude, musical composition process, and creative thinking are three
separate areas in which music educators may focus.
Implications of this study for music education indicated that while technology may be a well-
received tool for compositional work in classrooms, acoustic instruments were also well received by
the third and fifth grade students in this study. These findings further indicate a strong need for
development of close observation of composing opportunities in music classroom groups. Creative
processes may be observed with greater understanding through use of the Crawford Index of Quality
for Composing Groups.

Keywords: composing with technology, Hyperscore, composing with traditional acoustic
instruments, children, creative process, music composition, Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation, Measure of Creative Thinking in Music, Crawford Index of Quality for Composing
Groups

v

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to all who listen to the music children compose,
but especially to those who help children compose it.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to the children who participated in this study without whom this work
would not exist.
This dissertation could not have been completed without the support of my professor and
dissertation committee Chair, Dr. Beatriz Ilari. Few music education researchers are as clear as
she about how to present scholarly ideas and her editing expertise was noteworthy. What a joy it
has been to work with her, how much I have learned from her, and I hope to continue my work
with Dr. Ilari in the future.
The assistance of Dr. Peter Webster and so importantly, his lifelong study of creativity
with young people has long been as close as breathing. His efforts on behalf of this project
guided the statistical analysis that will stay with me throughout my career. That I was able to
work with him for this project has been a remarkable experience and blessing. I am deeply
appreciative of Dr. Dennis Hocevar whose lifelong study of creativity and statistical analysis
assisted me so greatly with this study. I am also grateful to my principal, Dr. Robert Briggerman
for his kind support of this project.
My deepest gratitude is given to Kelly, my precious daughter Elicia, Nathan, and my
dearest granddaughters Kylee and Lyla. To my parents, Pauline and Dr. Darrell Crawford, my
music educator father whose mentorship has supported me musically throughout my life, thank
you for your support of me and this work. To Dr. Christine D’Alexander, thank you for your
friendship, best fun and laughter ever, and for supporting my thinking in such a scholarly way.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures..........................................................................................................................xii
Preface ................................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Need for the Study ................................................................................................................... 3
Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 5
Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................. 6
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 8
Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................ 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9
Definitions of creativity and their applications in music education .......................................... 9
Measurement of creativity, intelligence, and tests of musical aptitude ................................... 20
Measurement of creativeness ................................................................................................ 25
Composing and music teacher education ............................................................................... 29
Creativity and composing processes of young children ......................................................... 31
Composing in groups ............................................................................................................ 41
Composing and technology ................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................. 48

viii

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 50
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 50
Study Design ......................................................................................................................... 51
School Setting ................................................................................................................... 51
Instruments Used.................................................................................................................... 51
Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (Gordon) .......................................................... 51
Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (Crawford) .......................................... 52
Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster) ............................................................ 53
Participant Selection and Timeline for Study .......................................................................... 54
Sample Description and Treatment Conditions ....................................................................... 56
Phase One: Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (IMMA) ............................................. 57
Phase Two: Composing Treatments and Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups... 59
Composing Group A – Acoustic Instruments ..................................................................... 61
Acoustic Instrument Room Arrangement ........................................................................... 61
Composing Group B - Hyperscore..................................................................................... 63
Hyperscore Room Arrangement ........................................................................................ 64
Hyperscore Screenshots .................................................................................................... 67
Chapter Three Tables ............................................................................................................. 70
Inter-judge Reliability of Composing Treatment Scores ..................................................... 70
Phase Three: Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) ............................................. 73
Composing Group C - Control ........................................................................................... 78
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 80

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND RESULTS ...................................... 82
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 82
Analysis of the Data .............................................................................................................. 83
Question 1 ............................................................................................................................. 83
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 83
Composing Groups and Grade ..................................................................................... 83
Composing Groups and Gender ................................................................................... 86
Results for Question 1 ....................................................................................................... 88

ix

Question 2 ............................................................................................................................. 88
MCTM Scores by Composing Groups and Grade .............................................................. 88
MCTM Scores by Composing Groups and Gender ............................................................ 90
Results for Question 2 ....................................................................................................... 92
Question 3 ............................................................................................................................. 93
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 93
Results for Question 3 ....................................................................................................... 97
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 98

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .................... 99
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99
Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 99
Connecting Theory and Practice: A Proposed Conceptual Framework ................................. 105
Conclusion and Implications ................................................................................................ 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 113

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix A: Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research ................................................ 130
Appendix B: Assent Form to Participate in Research .......................................................... 133
Appendix C: IRB Approval Letter for this study ................................................................. 134
Appendix D: Observations of All Composing Treatment Groups ........................................ 137
Appendix E: Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster) ......................................... 149

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Alignment of National Standards for Music Education, National Core Arts
Standards, and Common Core………………………………………………..….17
Table 2.2. Creativity Lenses and their Domains……………………………………….…....19
Table 2.3. Standardized Measures of Musical Aptitude…………………………….………21
Table 3.1. Factors of Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster, 1994)……………53
Table 3.2. Three Phases of the Current Study……………………………………………….55
Table 3.3. IMMA Scores by Composing Groups A, B, and C and by Grade and Gender….57
Table 3.4. IMMA Score Frequency for Third and Fifth Grades………………………….…58
Table 3.5. Means of IMMA Scores by Grade Level…………………………………….…..59
Table 3.6. Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups………………………...……60
Table 3.7. Inter-judge Reliability of Composing Treatment Scores (Third and Fifth Grades)
when using Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups…………………71
Table 3.8. Means of Acoustic vs. Hyperscore Group Composing Scores…………………..72
Table 3.9. Two-way ANOVA of Group Composing Scores by Acoustic and Hyperscore
Groups……………………………………………………………………….…...72
Table 3.10. IMMA Scores Compared to MCTM Means by Composing Groups…………….74
Table 3.11 MCTM Scores Overview by Grade and Gender…………………………………76
Table 3.12. Inter-item Correlation Matrix of Four Judges' MCTM Scoring………………....77
Table 3.13. Inter-judge Reliability for MCTM Scoring – Musical Originality………………77
Table 3.14. Inter-judge Reliability for MCTM Scoring – Musical Syntax…………………..78
Table 3.15. Correlations between MCTM Scores of Control Group C, GATE Participation,
and Gender……………………………………………………………………….79
Table 3.16. Correlations between Fifth Grade, GATE Participation, and Gender…………...80
Table 4.1. Means of Composing Group Scores by Grade…………………………………..84
Table 4.2. Two-way ANOVA between Composing Group Scores and Grade……...….…..86

xi

Table 4.3. Means of Composing Group Scores by Gender.…………………………………87
Table 4.4. Two-way ANOVA between Composing Group Scores and Gender…………….87
Table 4.5. Means for MCTM and Composing Group Scores by Grade…………………….89
Table 4.6. Two-way ANOVA between MCTM Scores and Grade…………………………90
Table 4.7. Means of MCTM and Composing Groups Scores by Gender………………..….91
Table 4.8. Two-way ANOVA between MCTM and Composing Group Scores, and
Gender……………………………………………………………………………92
Table 4.9. Correlations between MCTM, Composing Group, and IMMA
Scores (Total Sample) ……………………………………………………….......93
Table 4.10. Correlations between Third Grade Participants' MCTM, Composing
Groups, and IMMA Scores………………………………………………..……..94
Table 4.11. Correlations between Fifth Grade Participants' MCTM, Composing
Groups, and IMMA Scores…………………………………………………....…95
Table 4.12. Correlations between Third and Fifth Grade Male Participants'
MCTM, Composing Groups, and IMMA Scores…………………………….….96
Table 4.13. Correlations between Third and Fifth Grade Female Participants' MCTM,
Composing Groups, and IMMA Scores…………………………………….……97

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model……………………………….…..…........11
Figure 2.2. Webster’s Model of Creative Thinking Process in Music ……………………......15
Figure 3.1. Group A – Room Arrangement for Acoustic Instrument Composing Treatment...62
Figure 3.2. Group A – Acoustic Rhythm Instrument Composing Treatment Script…....……..63
Figure 3.3. Group B – Room Arrangement for Hyperscore Composing Treatment………..…65
Figure 3.4. Group B – Hyperscore Composing Treatment Script…………………..............…66
Figure 3.5. Hyperscore Melody Window Screenshot…………………………………...….....67
Figure 3.6. Hyperscore Melody Window – Inserting Sounds Screenshot………………….....68
Figure 3.7. Hyperscore Melody Window – Multiple Voices Simultaneously Screenshot…....69
Figure 3.8. Hyperscore Sketch Window for Compositional Development Screenshot…….....70
Figure 4.1. Interaction of Composing Group Scores Acoustic or Hyperscore by Grade….......85
Figure 5.1. Crawford Conceptual Framework of Musical Productivity Types of Young
Composers..............................................................................................................106

xiii

PREFACE
While earning my undergraduate degree in composition, parents called, unexpectedly,
asking if I would work with their children whom they described as composers. Following these
conversations, parents would bring their children to my home in the hopes that there might be
someone to work with their child compositionally. These children had most often been
composing with acoustic instruments such as the piano, learning computer programs for notation,
and composing parts. Each of these families appeared to hold limited value for their in-school
music teacher and music program to assist their children with compositional learning.
I understood these young composers and songwriters well because I, too, had begun
composing at the age of six. As was true for me, these children were following their natural,
instinctive musicality by composing music. Having found the piano and being able to work with
chords by age three and having begun piano lessons at the age of four, I received no assistance
with my own composing anywhere during my private lessons, general music or band, from
elementary through high school. I learned to arrange music on my own, checked out books from
the library, and asked questions when I had them. For me, attending college followed a
successful career in Hollywood writing and producing commercial music for film, television,
songs, marketing projects, and also, founding a boutique agency for representing emerging
composers for film.
In 1991, I was invited to work with the Suzuki School associated with my university. The
program was long running and well-established. My job was to develop a composition and music
theory program for K-12 Suzuki strings and piano students. My work with these children
included inviting them and grouping them for development of four-part strings compositions that
they could perform in their concerts. Students in these composition classes had at least three

xiv

years of experience on their instruments, extraordinary ear training skills, and remarkable
abilities to notate their ideas in Western notation. Some of the most remarkable scores I have
heard from elementary-level students came from the Suzuki group.
Several years later, I taught at a private K-12 music school. Teaching individual students
again, children with composing and song writing interests took piano and composition lessons
with me. Their pieces were creative, much longer than I had previously encountered, and their
compositional interests seemed to echo what they knew of the music industry and commercial
music. These were strong musicians, and, music listeners.
A few years later, I entered graduate school intending to study and write about young
composers. I earned a music teaching credential. My thesis invited music education professors
to discuss their experiences with presenting K-12 and music students in music teacher education
programs opportunities to compose (Crawford, 2004). The results were indicative of a
profession interested in the topic yet relatively few with time to invest, as well as, limited
knowledge of who and when to teach what. My response to the findings of my thesis was to
develop clinics for conferences. Foundational learning was where I found myself working and I
began teaching elementary general music offering students a variety of opportunities to compose.
I developed materials for both music educators and students to use in classrooms and, while there
is nothing more engaging for me than working with the entire fifth grade to develop a
composition or song to perform, I had to transform my teaching methodologies into lesson plans.
Over a period of eight years in public schools, presenting opportunities to compose, and
developing materials to support these projects, I began to notice recurring student types. These
included students who 1) possessed a natural ability to compose (as I had seen early on in my
work as a piano teacher and in the Suzuki School), 2) exhibited ability to compose after being

xv

invited to compose, 3) enjoyed composition projects but exhibited no further inclination to
compose, 4) had little to no interest in composing, and, a more recent addition to this list, 5)
composed at a higher level, with greater interest, or with interest where there was none prior,
when finding a particular instrument that was appealing. See Chapter Five for the conceptual
framework I propose.
What I have come to value greatly is student-centered compositional teaching
experiences. Activity with creating music is one of the best ways to learn about it. My interest
has always been students' process, but often I am amazed by students' musical outcomes, referred
to as “product” by the music education profession. I am interested in how music educators
develop composing projects for groups of students with different types of abilities, and how
these collaborations are designed, utilized, and modified differently over time, by different
groups. I am also interested in what creates successful group experiences. And, for more than
thirty years, my own compositional work has included using notation and recording software, so
I want students to be capable, no matter their story, of using technology, well-equipped to
manage technology as it changes our learning environments and our musical world at its current
fast pace.
What made student process and product remarkable with the students I have observed?
Creative thinking was clear and communication was uniquely mature, perhaps related to
experience. Students' ideas were also unique, novel and fresh, had originality, and presented
logical syntax. Aspects of musicality, related to creativeness, included the way these kids worked
together, were not shy about communicating with each other, and how much they thoroughly
enjoyed the process.

xvi

Interestingly, not one student has ever seemed to question if they could compose and
there is often joy in the compositional process. This is the foundation of my dissertation, that
composing is possible for any student, that there are ways teachers may observe the quality of
students' process when composing, and that there are different student types to consider when
working compositionally with children. This is true whether a teacher composes or does not, or
has, or has not worked compositionally with children, but may in the future. The ability to
compose as a child exists and is something the music education profession may need to more
consistently embrace.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

You c an’ t give a child musical knowledge until he has had musical experiences. The
best learning is that which cultivates and refines o ne ’ s emotions, and you c an’ t reach a
c hil d’ s emotions through a page of printed signs. He must feel something first.
Satis Narrona Coleman, 1917, p. 50.

Providing opportunities to compose has long been found in music education classrooms.
Even though inconsistent, there are those who have greatly benefitted our profession by their
example of providing opportunities to compose with students at the K-12 level over time.
For example, in 1895, Satis Narrona Coleman began developing opportunities for
children, which she called “creative music” (Volk, 1996). With an ethnomusicological
perspective, Coleman (1922) studied Native American instruments as well as other instruments
from around the world. Coleman developed a number notation system and, working with very
young children aged two to four, provided instruction for creating music on instruments students
made themselves and composed with. Using an improvisational approach, Coleman believed
children should be engaged by musical activities for fostering lifelong music making (Boston,
1992). From 1917 to 1942, Coleman taught music and wrote numerous publications about her
work; her experiments were completed in public schools and through the Association for
Childhood Education (see Southcott, 2009).
Throughout the twentieth-century, textbooks designed for music teachers have included
chapters related to creative music projects and composing with children (Campbell & Scott-
Kasner, 1995; Harrison, 1983; Pierce, 1959; Reimer, 1970; Snyder, 1957; 1962; Timmerman,
1958; Wright, 1941). More recently, texts such as Music outside the Lines (Hickey, 2012) and
Composing Our Future (Kaschub & Smith, 2013) have been published to support music teaching

2

and learning. Chapters found in these volumes include focused elements of study across
disciplines. Other examples include Koops’s (2013) chapter on composing in middle school
instrumental ensembles, Strand’s (2013) work on composing in choral settings, and Dammers’
(2013) discussion of composing with technology.
In recent decades, for some, “creating” music at the elementary level has come to include
engagement of children musically in context with the development of creative thinking (Randles
& Webster, 2013). While offering opportunities to compose independently, materials, research,
and newly revised standards (National Core Arts Standards, 2014) support the relevance of
composing and creativity within the music classroom for both independent and group activities.
While opportunities for children to compose as a part of creative musical learning may
provide potential for their musical development, some have argued, over time, for the use of
more descriptive terms when discussing creativity (Webster, 1990). With concern for educational
undertones that prefer convergent thinking (i.e., one correct answer), Webster noted that we may
actually, as a profession, be confused through superlative knowledge and subjective definitions
of creative thinking in music as to what creativity really is. Webster proposed that performance
opportunities do not equal creativity, that creative work may appear chaotic, and that more time
is required in teacher education programs for developing creative music teaching strategies with
and for educators.
To complicate matters, the pervasiveness of new technologies touching children’s lives

3

and the roles these play in music education classrooms is also changing the educational
landscape. Dorfman (2013) contends that:
We must understand that technology is not just a set of toys, nor is it just a set of
teaching tools. Rather, technology is an important means by which we can teach
music—introduce its concepts, reinforce them, provide experience, provide practice,
assess and evaluate achievement, structure aesthetic interactions, and do all the
educational activities that make learning music a distinct, artful pursuit. (p. 4)

As the development of iPad, MOOC
1
, and Blackboard
2
applications increase and virtual
environments expand, disciplined study of differences in the composing process in classrooms
associated with online tools, technology, and computer programs as compared with elementary
acoustic instruments may be urgently needed. However, few studies to date involve observation
of elementary students' creative process through composing using different tools (i.e., acoustic
rhythm instruments and computer technologies) or comparison of these.
The thrust of this experimental study was to determine quantitatively if there were
differences between groups composing in terms of creative process, and to determine the role of
music aptitude and creative thinking dimensions, grade, and gender. To support the need for
greater understanding of differences in the creative process of third and fifth grade students,
participants worked in groups of four with acoustic rhythm instruments or technology in a
composing treatment.
Need for the Study
Recent empirical studies have highlighted the importance of music composition in
sociocultural contexts of creative and collaborative process (e.g., Wright, 2010), yet little has

1
MOOC is an acronym for massive open online course on the Internet
2
Blackboard is a Course Management System (CMS) used in many universities

4

been discussed in terms of children’s composing experiences in groups using acoustic
instruments and/or technology in elementary schools, and more specifically, in third and fifth
grades. There may be questions, as well, about the meaning of "collaborative". While an
abundant number of studies have investigated K-12 students composing, researchers have yet to
examine children’s group composing experiences using acoustic instruments frequently found in
elementary music classrooms and technology. This may hold significance as school districts
increase the use of technology in classrooms at the elementary level.
It is also unclear what group-related skills in elementary-level group-based composing
exist or may be developed in the process of composing projects at the elementary level. This is
rather important, given that classrooms are collective, social, and cultural environments. Further
study is needed to consider ways in which the development of creative process and creative
thinking may occur in foundational music learning regardless of the tools that are used, who is in
the room, or the culture of the music classroom. Finally, a thorough examination of divergent
thinking at the elementary level, as related to the process of compositional tasks, is currently
needed for the development of pedagogy for both individual and group composing using
technology in music teacher education programs.

Rationale

As educators become increasingly interested in digital devices and virtual environments,
and mobile device applications become more available in education settings, the potential for
using these technologies with children in composition and creative musical activities also
increases. There is, then, a clear need to understand how the incorporation of new technologies
in composing experiences where foundational learning occurs compares with composing

5

experiences using traditional musical instruments long used in general music education,
particularly with respect to children’s creative process.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was three-fold. First, the study sought to investigate how
composing with acoustic rhythm instruments and a graphic technology-mediated program,
Hyperscore, (see https://Hyperscore.wordpress.com/about/) impacted third and fifth grade
students’ compositional process as measured by a researcher-constructed observational protocol,
Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG). Second, the study aimed to
examine how composing with acoustic rhythm instruments and a graphic technology-mediated
program, Hyperscore, impacted the scores of third and fifth grade students on Webster’s (1994)
Measure of Creative Thinking in Music. Finally, the researcher was also interested to learn if
there were any significant correlations between children’s music aptitude as measured by the
Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (Gordon, 1986) and creative thinking in music as
measured by the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music by grade and gender.

Research Questions

This study addressed the following questions:
1. a. Using the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group process
scores for the two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-
mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?

6

2. a. Using the Webster Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group scores for the
two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?

3. a. Are there statistically significant relationships between (a) group process scores for
the two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-mediated)
(b) music aptitude scores as measured by the Gordon Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation (IMMA), and (c) creative thinking (MCTM) scores?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these relationships?

Definition of Terms
The following definitions were used for this study:

Active musical learning: Learning through goal-oriented activity, either in groups or alone.
Composing/composition: The process of writing music.
Convergent thinking: thinking process that leads to one “correct” answer.
Creative process: is a balance of imagination and analysis and purposeful generation of new
ideas directly asserted by the thinker. Creative process is the undertaking of making
something with elements of structural models that prepare, observe, incubate, reflect, and
verify in a loop format that ends with a novel outcome. Creative process requires a drive
to action and implementation of new ideas as they are generated.
Creative music: Exploratory musical opportunities for creating music with, or without,
guidelines for specific outcomes of completed tasks.
Creative thinking: The process of developing unique or novel ideas.

7

Creativity: The generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropriate,
useful, or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable social group.
Creativity as mini-c: Some scholars make a distinction between types of creativity such as
Beghetto and Kaufman's (2007a, 2007b) "mini-c" which can be defined as the creativity
inherent in the learning process as when children discover something for the first time.
Critical thinking: The process used to reflect on, access, and assess our own and others'
questions, assumptions, points of view, and perspectives. The Socratic Method,
supporting inquiry and discussion amongst individuals, encourages critical thinking.
Divergent thinking: Thinking process that leads to multiple possible correct answers
Formal learning: Type of learning that is intentional, systematic, and delivered by a teacher.
Group process: The many ways in which a group works together to accomplish a defined
outcome. Groups may, or may not, be collaborative, yet still work well together.
Group work: Students working together in a group small enough so that everyone can
participate in completion of a task that has been clearly assigned.
Informal learning: Type of learning that may be unintentional and with no set objective in terms
of learning outcomes.
Measurement of creativity: A way to assess and measure creative activity. Here, this concept is
used to refer to measurement approaches that consider individuals, groups, or cultures, as
well as, creative process or creative thinking.
Sociocultural theory: A cross-field theory that identifies how behavior is affected by both social
and cultural surroundings. Also implies the construction of knowledge through social
aspects of activity.

8

Technology: Digital devices or tools such as computers, computer software, apps (i.e.,
applications) mobile devices, tablets, MOOCs, that may be used in the process of
composing music.
Assumptions
Due to the current status of music education in many California schools, it is assumed
that most participants in this study will have had limited to no music composition training prior
to taking the IMMA, composing treatments, or administration of the MCTM measure in this
study. It is also assumed that, as reliable measures, the IMMA and MCTM are valid tests for
measuring music aptitude and creative thinking of students who may be inexperienced with
opportunities to compose.
Delimitations
This study does not intend to measure musical achievement, musical talent, or musical
ability, but to observe children’s creative process. Given the sample size and the particularities of
music education in elementary schools in California, generalization of findings to the population
at large should be considered with caution. Rather, the study aims to contribute to the ever
growing body of knowledge on composing at the elementary level (i.e., particularly in grades
three and five), and to the discussion of students' use of acoustic instruments and computer
technology in elementary music education teaching and learning.

9

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter examines the study of creativity particularly in regards to children ’s
compositional work. The areas considered in this chapter should not be viewed as complete
overviews of all of the study to be found in each area, but offers a structure for music teaching
and learning related to compositional context. This structure is reviewed through the following
eight areas: (1) definitions of creativity and their applications in music education; (2)
measurement of creativity, intelligence, and tests of musical aptitude; (3) measurement of
creativeness; (4) composing and music teacher education; (5) creativity and composing process
of young children; (6) composing in groups; (7) composing and technology; and (8) development
of an observation protocol through lenses of creativity researchers.

Definitions of Creativity and Their Applications in Music Education
An increase in the study of creativity, particularly in the beginning to mid-twentieth
century, resulted in a large body of knowledge with some seminal ideas that continue to be
influential today (Sawyer, 2012). Even though creativity continues to be a rigorously studied
concept, differing approaches to definitions abound. Merriam-Webster (2016) defines creativity
as “…the ability to make new things or think of new ideas.” The Oxford Dictionary (2016), in
turn, defines creativity as “…the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the
production of an artistic work.” Whereas the first definition suggests that ability is required, the

10

second posits that imagination is required. Many definitions imply that creativity is related to
artistic work.
Sawyer (2012) described research involving creativity as waves with particular foci. For
example, the first wave studied creators’ personalities (p. 4) during the 1950s and 1960s. The
second wave of the 1970s and 1980s studied the cognitive approach involved with creative
behavior and the mental processes involved. Sawyer marks the 1980s and 1990s as a
sociocultural approach, the third wave, complementing the second wave with a focus toward
creative social systems such as what is considered by this study.
Definitions of creativity have been subject to interpretation, and are often considered in
terms of concepts such as process (i.e., what is experienced by a composer during the work of
composing) and product (i.e., compositional outcome of composing, and the word used by the
music education profession to identify and discuss it). In addition, creativity may be related to
other terms such as child and adult, individual and group, and applications of psychology,
science, social science, and education (Isaksen, S., Murdock, M., Firestein, R., & Treffinger, D.,
1993; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2006, 2010; Lau, S., Hui, A., Ng, G., 2004; Runco, 2007;
Sternberg, 1999). For example, Wallas (1926) suggested that there are four stages in the creative
process: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Rhodes (1956; 1961) identified
four paradigms to describe foundational elements of creativity in his seminal model, namely,
person, process, press (environment), and product.
Guilford (1956; 1967), through his study of creativity, favored the notions of divergent
and convergent thinking as part of his structure of intellect model. This model included three
dimensions: contents, products, and operations (see Figure 2 .1). Using a three-dimensional cube,
this approach aimed at representing the behavioral aspects of creating (1) content, (2) the

11

systems involved in products, and (3) all related cognitive influences of operations. Representing
multiple components of intellect, Guilford’s model represents, understandably, the complexity of
defining creativeness in context with the notions of intelligence.

Figure 2.1
Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(Figure taken from inside cover).

Beghetto and Kaufman (2007a), in turn, defined three components of creative ideas, with
the aim of clarifying what is and what is not creative. For them, a creative idea must represent
something different, new, or innovative. Second, a creative idea must be of high quality. Third,

12

the creative idea must be appropriate to the task at hand. In a later work on the essentials of
creativity assessment, Kaufmann, Plucker, and Baer (2008) proposed a link between cognitive
ability and creativity. Other scholars have also considered cognitive abilities as part of creativity,
with some of the rationale resting on the notion that tests of cognitive abilities, including IQ
tests, often include both divergent and convergent thinking processes.
Beghetto and Kaufman (2007b) (see also Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009) interpreted
creativity using identifiers of big C (eminence), little c (every-day), and mini-c (novice, or,
without judgment of others) in discussions of what creativity looks like. The authors proposed
that:
…novelty and meaningfulness…need not be original or (even meaningful) to others [to
be creative]. The judgment of novelty and meaningfulness that constitutes mini-c
creativity is an intrapersonal judgment [which] distinguishes mini-c creativity from other
forms of creative expression…. Eminence (Big-C) and everyday (little-c) rely on the
judgment of others… [from the perspective of] interpersonal and historical…novelty,
appropriateness, and lasting impact (p. 73).

Beghetto and Kaufman also made clear that mini-c “…highlights an important relationship
between learning and creativity” that removes some judgment (p. 73). In other words:
Including mini-c helps address gaps in how creativity is represented in prevailing models
and theories of creativity. Specifically, the inclusion of mini-c creativity offers an
additional unit of analysis for creativity researchers interested in studying the creative
potential and development of children and novices. (p. 78)

Additionally, mini-c may be used when identifying beginning efforts of children when given
opportunities to compose.
In a literature review of creativity, Hennessy & Amabile (1987) suggested that “while
creativity relates to both product and process, it is the distinguishing characteristics of product
that some define as creativity” (p. 7). In an earlier work, Amabile (1983) had postulated a

13

comprehensive theory of creativity that included intrinsic motivation and social-environmental
influences. She believed that these largely affected one ’s creativeness. Considering consensual
assessment techniques, Amabile (1982) raised the point that, in addition to personality
characteristics, intelligence affects the expressiveness of creativity. Amabile ’s research provides
important connections for this study:

To articulate a theoretical model of creativity, it is necessary to make some assumptions
about the nature of observers' responses when they call something creative. The
theoretical framework to be presented here is based in a conceptual definition of
creativity that comprises two essential elements: A product or response will be judged as
creative to the extent that (a) it is both a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or
valuable response to the task at hand and (b) the task is heuristic rather than algorithmic.
(p. 360)

Importantly, Amabile’s understanding of the creative process was related to cognitive and
motor operations leading to “…an acceptable response or product in the…endeavor” (p. 360)
using both “…formal and informal observation” (p. 361). These ideas are important to the
current study because the observations of students' work are heuristic in nature.
Sternberg (1985) identified creativity as a psychological construct of implicit and explicit
theories. As a guide to observe the creative process, explicit theories, historically focused
toward intelligence, were based on “…data collected from people performing tasks [and]
presumed to measure psychological functioning” (p. 607). Explicit theories, Sternberg
suggested, defined by many from Guilford (1950) to Amabile (1983), reflect the layperson's

14

conception of how they view something in their own mind, and “…have played the major role in
conceptualizing creativity” (p. 608).
Runco (2004) reviewed creativity research of the 1980s and 1990s, and arrived at a
definition of creativity as the development of the origin of ideas that are useful or influential.
In his own words:
Creativity is usually tied to original behavior, and indeed, originality is necessary for
creativity, but it is not sufficient…. Creativity is a syndrome or complex and flexibility is
a part of it. The flexibility of creative persons is what gives them the capacity to cope….
The view of creativity implies that it is reactive…often is a reaction to problems or
challenges. (p. 658)

Taking a slightly different angle, Sawyer (2012) considered creativity and the challenges
associated with defining it by stating that:
…to explain creativity, we first need to agree on what it is…. Psychologists argue over
the definitions of intelligence, emotion, and memory; sociologists argue over the
definitions of group, social movement, and institution…. Creativity researchers can be
grouped into two major traditions of research: an individualist approach and a
sociocultural approach. (p. 7)

Sawyer's individualist and sociocultural definitions work well for the purpose of this
dissertation as related to children composing music. Whereas the individualist creativity “is a
new mental combination that is expressed in the world” (p. 7), a sociocultural creativity “is the
generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropriate, useful, or valuable
by a suitably knowledgeable social group” (p. 8).
Webster (1977) has written about creative thinking and children’s thinking processes in
music for nearly four decades. Webster proposed conceptual bases for creative thinking (1987)
that endorsed the four stages of creative thinking: preparation, incubation, illumination, and
verification, as found in the earlier work of Wallas (1926). According to Webster (2002a), the

15

process begins with intention and moves through divergent and convergent thinking processes to
the outcome of creative products (see Figure 2.2). Throughout his academic career, Webster has
considered not only models for creative thinking in music but a measurement that examines
creative thinking through his Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (1994; 2002b).

Figure 2.2

Webster's Model of Creative Thinking Process in Music

16

Randles and Webster (2013), drawing in part from Webster’s (2003) model, offered the
following definition:
Creativity in music refers to the divergent and convergent thought processes enacted
both in solo and ensemble, that lead to musical products that are both novel and useful,
within sociocultural contexts, manifested by way of specific modes of musicianship or
combinations of modes that can include improvisation, composition, performance,
analysis, and listening. (p. 1)

Their definition, related to “modes of musicianship” (p. 2), reflects philosophies of Reimer
(1970; 2003) who called for composing in K-12 classrooms in order for students to explore
musicianship more fully. Through decades of influence, notions that Reimer and others
frequently discussed can be found within the National Standards for Arts Education, Music
(Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994), Common Core (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010) and the new National Core Arts Standards (2014). The new music standards implement
the anchor, "Creating" with modes of generating and conceptualizing, developing, refining, and
completing [making] artistic work (see Table 2.1). These are deeply based in the contact humans
have with music and the music teaching and learning process, and connect well with Glover’s
(2002) suggestion that the "…impact of music itself feeds back into the making process" stating:
The development of the skills associated with the processes of evolving music is central
in learning to compose more effectively. A major part of any teaching of composing is
helping pupils to become aware of the processes they use, to develop the skills they can
use in these and extend or adapt their composing strategies in order to realize their ideas
more successfully. (p. 32)

17

Table 2.1
Alignment of National Standards for Music Education, Common Core, and National Core Arts
Standards

National Standards for
Music Education
(1994)
Common Core
(2010)
New National Core Arts
Standards (NCAS)
(2014)
Philosophical Foundations
and Lifelong Goals
Arts Discipline
Enduring Understandings
Essential Questions
Performer (Singing and
Playing)
Improviser
Composer
Arranger
Listener
Theorist (Analyzing,
Describing)
Psychologist
Philosopher
Neuroscientist
Educational Theorist
Historian
Ethnomusicologist
Anthropologist
Sociologist
Arts as:
Communication

Creative

Personal Realization

Culture-History Connectors

Means to Well-Being

Community Engagement
Performing

Creating

Responding

Connecting

Clearly, many approaches to understanding creativity exist. Over the course of this
study, a compilation was created of researchers' creativity lenses and related terms. Researchers
and their creativity-related terms have led in historical study and further development of
understanding creativity in the fields of education and psychology (see Table 2.2). These

18

assisted with the development of an observation protocol for observing creative process of young
composers while they composed. Over time, researchers have shaped models and theories of
creativity to fit with 21
st
century thinking. For example, Glăveanu (2013) transformed Rhodes’
four Ps of creativity into current cultural norms called the “Five As”: Person-Actor, Process-
Action, Press-Audience/Affordances (environment), and Product-Artifact.

19

Table 2.2

Creativity Lenses and Related Terms

Researcher Lens Related Terms
Wallas
(1926)
Creative process Preparation Incubation Illumination Verification
Guilford
(1956)
Structure of Intellect
Model
Creativity not
independent from
intelligence)

Contents Products Operations
Rhodes
(1961)
Four Ps of Creativity Person Process Press
(Environment)
Product
Torrance
(1972)
Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking
Ability
Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration
Vaughan
(1973)
Developmental
Sequence of Musical
Creativity
Acquisitional-
Procreative
Combinational
Different
contexts of
acquisitional
stage)
Developmental
Distinguishing
between
productivity
and creativity
Synergistic -
Creative product
functions within
the context of the
requirements of
society;
Evaluation
Amabile
(1983)
Componential
Framework
(Components of
Creativity)
Motivation
Task
presentation
Preparation
Response
generation
Response
validation
Outcome
Webster
(1989)
Measure of Creative
Thinking in Music
Extensiveness Flexibility Originality Syntax
Kratus
(1990)
Creativity
Measurement
Originality Fluency Flexibility Elaboration
Burnard &
Younker
(2008)
Defining
characteristics of
collaborative music
composition through
Activity Theory
Tool use Rules Division of
labor
Ethnographic
observation

20

Measurement of Creativity, Intelligence, and Tests of Musical Aptitude
There is a distinction between aptitude (measured by perception) and creativeness
(measured by production) (see musical aptitude, Oxford Music Online, 2016). Particularly in the
first half of the twentieth century, measurement of musical aptitude was a premier focus of
research for scholars such as Seashore (1919a; 1919b), Larson (1938), Thorndike (1921),
Kwalwasser (1927; 1928), Glover, Ronning, and Reynolds (1989), and Stanton (1928; 1935) (see
Table 2.3 for measures of musical aptitude). These scholars devised tests for measuring musical
abilities which continue to be influential to this date. Included in conceptualizations of creativity,
the measures are divided into two groups:
(a) Tests and measurements of musical capacities…independent of training; (b) tests and
measurements of musical abilities…dependent upon capacity and training. Capacity
means undeveloped, innate, native talent, receptive powers, i.e., potentiality for
development; ability denotes acquisition of knowledge, skills, and techniques, i.e.,
development of a capacity. (Harvard Dictionary of Music Online,
2016)

The study of creativity has been directly linked to studies of cognitive abilities and
intelligence. A task force of the American Psychological Association (1995) proposed a
definition of intelligence as follows:
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt
effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of
reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual
differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's
intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged
by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this
complex set of phenomena.

Intelligence has been studied in conjunction with creativity, due in part to the substantial
influence of Binet and Simon (1919), whose original definition of intelligence was described

21

Table 2.3

Standardized Measures of Musical Aptitude

Date Author Standardized Measure Musical Aptitude – Abilities Measured
1919/
1939
Carl Seashore

Measures of Musical
Talents
Sensory Test: Discrimination of pitch, intensity, time,
consonance, rhythm, tonal memory

1924 Jacob
Kwalwasser
and G. M. Ruch
Test of Musical
Accomplishment
Knowledge Tests: musical symbols and terms, recognition
of syllable names from notation, detection of pitch errors in
the notation of a familiar melody, knowledge of pitch or
letter names of bas and treble clef, time signatures, note
values, rest values, and recognition of familiar melodies
from notation (Grades 4-12)
1926 Jacques W.
Conrad
Conrad Instrument Talent
Test

Tempo, rhythm, harmony, tone recognition, and talent
(No data reported on reliability and validity
[and]…Conrad's battery could not be considered as a
carefully constructed and standardized music aptitude test.
(Comeau, 2009, p. 127)
1927 Jacob
Kwalwasser
and Peter
Dykema
Kwalwasser-Dykema (KD) Tonal memory, discrimination of: quality, intensity, feeling
for tonal movement, time, rhythm, pitch, melodic tastes
1934/
1954

R. M. Drake Musical Aptitude Tests First test to measure musical memory through comparison
of two-measure melodies; 1954 revision- Form A for
students with less than five years of training and Form B for
students with more than five years of training.
1939/
1957
Herbert Wing

Standardized Tests of
Musical Intelligence
Test for potential success with an instrument and with band
participation
1942 E. Thayer
Gaston
Test of Musicality Perceptual responsiveness to musical structures (Grades 4-
12)
1966 Arnold Bentley

Measures of Musical
Abilities
Pitch discrimination, tonal memory, chord analysis,
rhythmic memory

1965 Edwin Gordon

Musical Aptitude Profile
(MAP)
Rhythmic, tonal, and musical sensitivity to phrasing,
balance, and style
1979 Edwin Gordon

Primary Measures of
Music Audiation (PMMA)
Rhythmic and tonal perception of students (Grades K-3)
1982 Edwin Gordon

Intermediate Measures of
Music Audiation (IMMA)*
Rhythmic and tonal perception (Grades K-6)

22

through four terms: comprehension, inventiveness, direction, and criticism (see also Sternberg,
2000, p. 30; Wolf, 1969). Guilford (1956) continued Binet's work with his structure of intellect
model. Guilford's point of view was that creativity could not be separated from intelligence. The
emergence of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1968), which grew from the
conceptualizations of Guilford, were non-musical, divergent thinking tests which emphasized
commonly understood factors of creativity by the 1960s, namely, fluency, flexibility, originality,
and elaboration.
Sternberg (1985) developed a cognitive approach to intelligence more than in prior
psychometric formulations. His Triarchic Theory of Intelligence examined how well humans
manage environmental changes in their lives through three components: componential (e.g., parts
or elements), experiential (e.g., as related to experiences within an environment), and practical
(e.g., what actions or, results of actions). These components also highlight how individuals
manage cognition, define what is familiar or unfamiliar, and fit elements of experience into
context. Interest in measuring creativity, in its many aspects and domains, found strong support
in the variety of early studies of creativity in general (Mackinnon, 1962) who studied the
relationship of intelligence to creativity and found it unrelated, as related to work environments
(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996), and systems (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).
Many studies, in turn, influenced the movement of intelligence testing toward divergent thinking,
which became the basis for tests of intelligence and aptitude.
In the 1970s and 1980s, however, more common were studies that evaluated and
critiqued creative thinking measures. Hocevar and Bachelor (1989) developed a taxonomy of

23

creativity measurements. With more than 100 sources, they divided creativity measurements
into eight categories, or, inventories:
(1) Tests of divergent thinking; (2) attitude and interest; (3) personality; (4)
biographical; (5) ratings by teachers, peers, and supervisors; (6) judgments of
products; (7) eminence; and (8) self-reported creative activities and achievements.
(p. 53)

In their analysis, Hocevar and Bachelor noted that the correlations of studies would be higher if
there was no measurement error suggesting that:
…judges seem only to be able to establish some overall opinion that influences all of
their judgments…. [and] fail to discriminate creativity from other related
constructs…. researchers cannot assume that the creativity construct has discriminant
validity, particularly when subjective judgments are involved. (p. 61)

Hocevar and Bachelor further stated that the two types of reliability most useful to creativity
research are internal consistency and interjudge reliability.
Unsurprisingly, creativity and intelligence have also been linked with musical aptitude as
defined by O'Neill and Sloboda:
Musical aptitude refers to a person's innate ability to acquire skills and knowledge
required for musical activity, and may influence the speed at which learning can take
place…. It is an issue closely related to that of intelligence and IQ, and was pioneered by
the work of Carl Seashore. While early tests of aptitude, such as Seashore's The
Measurement of Musical Talent, sought to measure innate musical talent through
discrimination tests of pitch, interval, rhythm, consonance, memory, etc., later research
found these approaches to have little predictive power. (Grove Music Online, 2016)

24

Carl Seashore's Measures of Musical Talent (1919b) and the Kwalwasser-Dykema (1930)
are two of the most well-known tests of musical aptitude. Comparing these two tests, Whitely
(1932) suggested that Seashore's test was:
…developed to measure the innate musical capacity of the individual, while the
Kwalwasser-Dykema was said to tap into the original capacity of the individual …[or] an
index of a student ’s musical status at the time of testing based on responses to pitch,
intensity, time, memory, and rhythm. (p. 733)

These tests, along with the many others, have influenced the works of later researchers, including
their attempts to define the relationship between musical aptitude and creativity.
Rainbow (1965), for example, developed a pilot study to examine the constructs of
musical aptitude and investigated fourteen variables that were generally investigated in tests: 1)
pitch discrimination, 2) tonal memory, 3) rhythm, 4) musical memory, 5) academic intelligence,
6) school achievement, 7) gender, 8) age, 9) musical achievement, 10) musical training, 11)
home enrichment, 12) interest in music, 13) participation in music by family (relatives), and 14)
socio-economic background (p. 3-4). Defining musical aptitude as “potential talent in music” (p.
4), Rainbow further identified aptitude:
As with other forms of learning, high aptitude does not necessarily mean high
achievement will result, but it does indicate that under favorable conditions, high
achievement is possible. A person who possesses a high level of aptitude for music will
have an exceptional awareness for musical sound. This awareness, or talent, manifests
itself in the manner in which a student is readily able to grasp…relate and organize ideas
presented through the media of music. (p. 4)

Rainbow used this perspective from which to evaluate the Seashore Measures of Musical Talent,
and the Drake Musical Memory Test.
As noted earlier, Whitely (1932) compared Seashore ’s Measures of Musical Talent to the
Kwalwasser-Dykema test. Highlighting the importance of shorter components and clearer

25

construction of the Kwalwasser-Dykema test as compared to the Seashore test, Whitely
discussed the importance of providing opportunities for imagination and variety. As well,
greater validity and reliability of the Kwalwasser-Dykema was found even though this particular
test had fewer items within each section than the Seashore test. According to Whitely, the
drawback of the Kwalwasser-Dykema test was the fact that it was potentially more challenging
for younger participants than their older counterparts. In any case, these tests set the stage for
more study of this type and development of observation and inventory protocols.
During the 1960s, Edwin Gordon first developed the Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP), a
precursor measure to the well-established Primary and Intermediate Measures of Music
Audiation still used today. Gordon was interested in learning sequences (1980; 2003). Walters
(1991) suggested that the development of Gordon's work occurred through challenges related to
lack of reliability with the early MAP measure, as often was the case with aptitude measures that
were presented to elementary students. Then, the Primary and Intermediate Measures of Music
Audiation (1986; 1990) were Gordon's “…inquiry into the nature of the young child's music
aptitude” (p. 68).
Measurement of Creativeness
Measurement of creativeness or, how creative a student or a student's effort is, has been
considered in several ways and differs from aptitude. Kiehn (2003) considered measurement of
creativity through development of an instrument measuring elementary students' improvisational
work. DeLorenzo (1989), and others (Burnard, 2004; Webster, 2002) have considered
measurement of creativity through the process of problem-solving. Auh (1997) studied
predictability of creativity and found it to be supported through informal musical experiences.

26

Mid-twentieth century researchers considered creative thinking and creativity through
music measurements. Vaughan and Myers (1971) developed a musical, nonverbal test, of
creative thinking (p. 338) to learn if musical experiences resulted in improved performance.
Vaughan and Myers examined musical processes related to creative thinking of 60 fourth and
fifth grade students by studying if musical experiences improved performance on a nonverbal
test of creative thinking. They also wanted to understand if there were relationships between
musical ability and aptitude. In their study, Vaughan and Myers devised tasks that required no
formally learned musical skills following focus on improvisational format rather than a final
compositional product. For a period of three months, 32 fourth graders were given a general
music class, which included singing, ear training, and concert music listening. The experimental
group of 28 fourth and fifth graders were given activities aligned with creative thinking, such as,
rhythmic improvisation, development of themes, ear training using 20
th
century music, and use
of general music instruments by students, their use chosen by the students. Fluency, flexibility,
originality, and elaboration were considered through the activities. Outcomes included gains in
elaboration and a slight gain by the experimental group in originality with no relationship
between musical aptitudes for any of the four activities. In this study, the authors requested a
more comprehensive measure of creativity. In a subsequent study, Vaughan (1973) presented a
theoretical framework that suggested yet another developmental sequence of creativity:
acquisitional, combinatorial, developmental, and synergistic followed by evaluation with the
knowledge of redefining creativity for oneself. This theoretical framework continues to be
useful to researchers.
Hocevar (1979) considered the broad range of criteria of creativity considering the
measurement of creativity. Hocevar examined ten techniques for measuring creativity on the

27

basis of reliability, discriminant validity, dimensionality, and convergent validity, and concluded
that creative activities were most successfully measured through self-reporting or observation.
These ten categories included tests of divergent thinking, attitude and interest, personality, and
biographical inventories, teacher and peer nominations, supervisor ratings, judgments of
products, and eminence and self-reported activities and achievements. Hocevar suggested that
measurement of creativeness was problematic as experts and non-experts often disagree, yet
presented evidence that, often in studies, inter-judge reliability was moderately high. Hocevar
suggested that rather than using predictors, asking or observing participants would be useful even
though rarely used. Hocevar recommended "a simple and straightforward inventory of creative
achievement and activities as most defensible" (p. 29).
During the 1980s, Webster (1988; 1990) offered a new perspective to the field of music
education projecting the importance of considering creative thinking when measuring creativity
in music. Webster discussed the challenge:
The study of creative thinking in music involves a complex combination of cognitive and
affective variables, often executed at the highest levels of human thinking and feeling….it
becomes quickly apparent why this field has not attracted more music researchers and why
many feel the topic is hopelessly impregnable (Webster, 1990, p. 421).

By consistently clarifying his points of view and thoughts on topics outside the general research
domain, rather than defining solutions, Webster offered music teachers ample opportunities to
learn about creativity with their students. His work was influential in many areas of music
teaching and learning, including young children's process of composing music. In 1994, Webster
published the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music or MCTM
3
, an instrument that aims to

3
The current study is guided by Webster's points of view of creative thinking during the
composing process. Much of his work on the topic of composing considers creative thinking and

28

identify creative musical thinking of children between the ages of six and 10. The MCTM,
which is thoroughly discussed in Chapter Three, includes ten tasks completed by students
individually and measures creative thinking skills through four factors: extensiveness, flexibility,
originality, and syntax.
Webster (1992b) recommended that there was a need for more study of children's music-
making that focused on creative process. Webster and Hickey (1995) considered techniques of
rating scales for assessing children's compositions.
While measurement of students' compositional work may be related to a finished product,
some have considered observation of process as a means to understand the development of
students' creativeness. Still others have examined the construct of whether creativity can truly be
measured at all.
Piffer (2012) asked the question, “Can creativity be measured? ”, through confronting the
uncertainty of definitions found in the beginning of this chapter with recommendations for new
possible tools to consider for creativity measurement. Piffer considered the three dimensions of
creativity as novelty, usefulness, and impact, and used them as a defining framework while
questioning measurement of creative process. While his conclusions suggest that defining
students' creativity is indirect, Piffer also recommended that tests should measure creativity of a
person or product rather than predictive measure.
To summarize, creativity has been studied in conjunction with intelligence and musical
aptitude. From Seashore (1919a) to Webster (1990) and Allsup (2014), music teaching and
learning has gained much from almost a century of study of measurement of creativeness. There

Hickey and Webster (2001) write about creative thinking in music and discuss creative process
in several contexts.

29

are strong arguments throughout for learning more about creativity in order to provide access for
students to work more closely with imagination, problem solving, spontaneity, communication,
and leadership in music education environments of all types, classrooms, and technology labs.
These ideas also lend well to the study of composing and music teacher preparation.

Composing and Music Teacher Education
The experience of providing opportunities for students to compose may be met with
resistance and anxiety, particularly when music educators have little or no experience
compositionally. One response to this challenge may be to develop opportunities within
coursework for not only formal constructs of working with lesson plans for composing with
children but requiring pre-service music teachers to compose music more informally on their
own followed by coming together to share with one's cohort. In this way, music teachers learn
about the many possibilities of working with K-12 students, but both formally and informally,
learn about themselves as composers and their relationship to music.
But this is not a new idea. Kennedy (2007) developed a program between Rutgers University
and Holland Brook School with the purpose of providing those in pre-service fieldwork a place to
work in collaboration with university teacher educators and fifth grade student groups
compositionally. Kennedy presented her study in three sections, (1) what was learned from
observations of teachers, (2) what was learned from observations of children, and, (3) children's
observations.
Pre-service teachers confirmed that team-teaching was challenging, but this was overcome as
systems between pre-service and in-service teachers became better determined. Differences in early-
career teaching styles, such as formal and informal structures, posed challenges as well. Pre-service
teachers who had completed a broader range of foundational coursework were more comfortable in

30

their teaching process. And, team-teaching with other pre-service teachers was noted as appearing to
be different than the master teacher's teaching (Kennedy, 2007).
Findings in the Kennedy study centered around observations of fifth grade students centered
toward musical abilities of children, group work, and composing. The issues of leading and
following presented some challenges, on- and off-task students, and the idea of comfort as time went
on that seemed to improve the group composing process but also the compositions. The observations
of pre-service teachers suggested that process was greatly examined; students experimented,
brainstormed, revised, finalized, and rehearsed in preparation for a performance.
In Kennedy's study, fifth grade students were asked to write reflections following their three-
meeting experience. They were also invited to discuss new knowledge about composing. Some
children identified with composers being any age and all could compose, and there was much work
involved with the variety of ways one can compose. Teachers and students gained from the
development of the Holland Brook Project, especially in learning about composing and working in
groups while developing musical skills and even ensuring elementary music programs are valued and
essential.
Crawford (2004) surveyed 97 accredited NASM institutions to examine music education
professors' attitudes about inclusion of composition in pre-service music teacher education
coursework. Forty-nine respondents expressed limited experience, if any, with composing and
expressed relatively little to no instruction in the area of compositional work with pre-service
teachers or as a pre-service teacher. Yet, while suggesting they were uncomfortable with presenting
composing tasks, respondents felt capable of teaching composition. Overall, respondents stated that
there was little time for these experiences in coursework in their institutions.
Strand (2006) examined music teachers' use of composition in public school classrooms and
why composing tasks were used or not and to learn if music teachers held a definition for providing

31

opportunities to compose. Approximately 88% of 339 music educators responded that they used
composing tasks in elementary music classrooms more frequently than higher grade levels. Only
5.9% of respondents stated that they used composing tasks frequently. And, as in the Crawford
(2004) study, respondents said time was too limited or that they felt uncomfortable. In the Strand
(2006) study, no significant correlations were found between length of teaching experience, years in
a school, or used of standards. Additionally, no definition of composing was found in the responses
of this study.
Definitions, pedagogies, and experience appear to be fundamental to challenges facing
composing and music teacher education. Fundamentally, there are several types of students who
may be found in every music classroom. A greater focus for changing how we teach providing
opportunities to compose may exist within student types. As can be found in the discussion in
Chapter Five, a framework is presented that suggests different types of students who compose.
Using this framework as a beginning to develop discourse and pedagogy may assist with
development of coursework that aspires to assist with building creativity and composing processes
of young children.

Creativity and composing processes of young children
“I have yet to meet a child who could not or would not compose when asked…”
(Hickey, 2012, p. 3)

Since the 1950s, discussions of creativity in music education research have considered a
variety of perspectives about why it is important to provide opportunities for young children to
compose. These include teaching children to think creatively (Torrance, 1972; Webster, 1988),
considerations related to process and product (Hickey, 2003), and, as a road toward a broader
understanding of music (Reimer, 2003).

32

Relationships between creativity and composing with young children include
experimental and historical studies from the fields of education, philosophy, sociology, and
psychology and each has influenced music education research. Within the domain of music
education, studies on creativity have also focused on creativity as creative thinking (Webster,
1990; 2002a), reconstructing creativity in music education for teachers (Humphreys, 2006),
improvisation and jazz (Sarath, 2013), and development of musical creativity (Burnard, 2015).
Upitis (1989; 1990; 1992), for example, considered the challenge of developing facility
with young children for notation and has considered how children may be engaged with
composing through movement, improvisation, writing stories, and making instruments. Music
education research has examined various aspects of how creativity relates particularly to
providing children with opportunities for children to compose. Studies that assist with
understanding how this has been examined are discussed ahead.
When considering composing in childhood, researchers have examined the natural and
informal musical tendencies of children for composing music. Doig (1941; 1942a) discussed
results of two studies of young children's composing efforts. While Doig's first study (1941)
invited children to compose a song based on a given poem, the second study (Doig, 1942a)
requested children to write a song on a topic of interest to them. Participants, ages six through
12 composed songs in groups during a period of one morning each week. Each composition was
analyzed and, while there were similarities in the structure of the pieces and groups of different
ages did, there also was a strong correlation of musical learning with language learning. In
examining Doig’s work, Bennett (1975) offered a checklist for “ …specific components of an
improvisational approach to teaching musical composition … ” (p. 208) and communicated
concern about Doig's findings (1942a; 1942b). These related to students' compositional

33

procedures as compared to “ …the way music is really composed ” (p. 206) are also found in his
point of view about group composition activities in teacher education programs.
In a longitudinal study of 15-20 pre-school children aged two through six, Moorhead and
Pond (1942a; 1942b) observed children’s musical experiences, individually and in groups,
through testing modules. Emergent findings, via observation, included two types of vocal
chants, imitation and variation, a wide range of sounds that were played (and perceived as “not
random”), and polyphonic improvisation during short training periods. One of their discussions
points was the impetus of children for being what they called a “maker”:
What seems to me to be a major and destructive misconception is the notion that musical
creativity in early childhood originates from a compulsion for self-expression. The
compulsion that I observed was for being a maker, an inventor of sound shapes, and for
creating linear movement and enjoying the patterns that simultaneously moving lines of
sounds could produce. Additionally, the children exhibited an instinctive and ingenious
facility for devising and sustaining spontaneous polyrhythms and sometimes baffling
complexity and for enjoying their seemingly effortless repetition. (p. 40)

Pond (1980; 1981; 2014) further stated that his job was to observe “…the spontaneous
creativity of indoctrinated normality…rather than specialized genius” (p. 39). Pond also noticed
that children “invented ” music for every ritual or celebrated experience and noted that “a young
child is able to savor a single sound as a unique experience ” (p. 41). That is, there is a fair degree
of spontaneity in young children ’s music making linked to composing.
Taking a different perspective, Swanwick & Tillman (1986) defined composition in a
study of children aged three to nine in the following way:
We define ‘composition ’ very broadly and include the briefest utterances as well as more
worked out and sustained invention. Composition takes place when there is freedom to
choose the ordering of music, without notational or other forms of detailed performance
instruction. Others may prefer to use the terms improvisation, invention or 'creative
music' …the advantage of this approach is that we are observing relatively undirected
musical processes rather than products of polished performances. (p. 311)

34

In their study, children were recorded, individually or in small groups of two to three, using
rhythm and barred instruments to develop patterns during the course of ten meetings.
Compositions (n = 745) made by forty-eight children were collected and recorded over a period
of four years. The recordings were analyzed and evaluated by age, with the aim of
understanding musical development in young children ’s perception and production of music.
An important outcome of Swanwick and Tillman's work was their group of implications
for music teaching and curricular design. The researchers were able to develop an overview of
three important areas for classroom music through analysis of the compositional work of the
children: (a) general curriculum planning with much attention to challenges with music teaching
that is "arbitrary" and without universally shared intentions, (b) individual development and
knowledge by the teacher where students are in the music learning process regarding their
musical aptitude and knowledge, and, (c) the role of the teacher, with introduction of musical
activities as being central to the delivery of music teaching. It is worth commenting that while
these authors provided students with opportunities to compose, this expression was not used in
their work.
One finds the phrase “providing opportunities to compose” possibly for the first time in
the work of Levi (1991). The author examined original compositions of 22 children, ages seven
and eight, who composed independently over a period of eight consecutive weeks. Presented
similarly to writing exercises in their classrooms, when returning to continue their compositions,
students could revise their previous work or begin a new score. With a variety of notation styles,
Levi analyzed scores and found growth in motivic development over the course of the study.

35

Even though most students could not use traditional notation, they were able to come up with
ways to represent their compositions.
Paynter (2000) developed a preK-12 experiential program of study focused on creativity
called Empirical Composition, which directed teachers toward engaging students in the
compositional process. Within this work, Paynter discussed the provision of opportunities to
compose in K-12 classrooms, including: "How do we know when it's right?" (p. 20), issues
concerning musical meaning (p. 22), knowledge as dilemma (p. 26), and consideration of
"necessity" as the basis for the music making of composers (p. 25). Paynter also suggested that
“…to help pupils to get better at composing is to encourage them to think about the essentially
musical process, not as abstract rules, but directly in relation to what they themselves create" (p.
7), and argued that:
…when anyone has tried putting sounds together and is pleased with the results, enough
to remember them, then the teacher can start to teach by asking questions about what is
presented …Where are these musical thoughts leading? What are the possibilities? Why
should I choose that path rather than any other? How do I know when this piece is
completed? (p. 8)

Paynter further identified many of the ramifications of presenting children with
opportunities to compose. With consideration for the evaluation of student work through fixed
criteria (p. 5) to the necessity designated by administrators to show progression through the
music curriculum, Paynter identified that creativity, of itself, is essentially an outcome of
composing in the general music classroom and “should be at the heart of all affective areas of the
curriculum” (p. 5). His consideration of composition as an intuitive act was also aligned with
much consideration of musical thinking and how teachers may respond. Paynter added that:
the word 'composing' means 'positioning [things] together', and when anyone has tried
putting sounds together and is pleased with the results, enough to remember them, then
the teacher can start to teach – mainly by asking questions about what is presented. (p. 8)

36

He also considered student influences, musical preferences, and what students believe music "is"
in relationship to composing music. The role of the music teacher, then, is to focus on decisions
young composers make while prompting for where a child's composing is leading.
Paynter (2000) analyzed two pieces, one by three ten-year-old girls, the other a piece by
Robert Schumann. Full analyses of children ’s compositions are few and this study provided
important details and insights through a surprising discussion of context, the non-musical part of
composing, and, idea, the outcome of thinking about and around context …entirely musical and
may be a sudden revelation (p. 10). Paynter's ideas in making progress with composing provide
important frameworks for evaluating compositions by young children. The work also states that
context (also found in Webster's MCTM) is what comes of musical ideas, which is something
that is highlighted in the text as a "sudden revelation" (p. 10). Additionally, Paynter discussed
the use of silence in the piece written by the three ten-year-olds as having purpose, and describes
in detail how these decisions worked for the piece and conversations with the composers of the
piece. Underlying these descriptions is the notion that there is some forward thinking before
children actually begin to compose. This may be where improvisation sets the stage for the ideas
that will be selected to move an original composition forward.
Well-known for empirical work with composition, collaboration, and creativity, Barrett
(1996) studied 137 compositions by 137 students, aged five to 12, from kindergarten through
sixth grade. Students' compositional outputs were examined in one school over a period of three
months. Through student reflections and discussions on their process and completed projects,
Barrett concluded that, discussing process and product are actually one way through which
students demonstrate learning. Barrett’s study identified that, through careful examination of the

37

creative processes of child participants engaged in musical “work”, researchers could learn much
about young children's thinking processes.
In another study, Barrett (2006) chose to observe the process of an eminent composer-
teacher to better understand how composition is taught. Barrett interviewed the composer and
two university student participants in the beginning the study. The composer was videotaped
while working with students during six meetings of one hour each. Interviews were again
conducted following the meetings. Through this study, Barrett identified five rationales for
inclusion of composition in K-12 music curricula: (a) the development of music cognition, (b),
the promotion of a deeper understanding of theory and practice of music, (c) training
opportunities for beginning composers, (d) opportunities to guide students to greater sensitivity
and appreciation of contemporary music, and (e) the provision of a means to explore creative
experiences. Barrett also identified twelve teaching strategies. These included (1) extended
thinking and provided possibilities, (2) referenced work to and beyond tradition, (3) set
parameters for identity as a composer, (4) provoked the student to describe and explain, (5)
questioned purpose, probed intention, (6) shifted back and forth between micro and macro levels,
(7) provided multiple alternatives from analysis of student work, (8) prompted the student to
engage in self-analysis, (9) encouraged goal setting and task identification, (10) engaged in joint
problem finding and problem solving, (11) provided reassurance, and (12) gave license to
change. Additionally, Barrett found that the composer defined himself as following a “mentor-
model”, or one which aims to draw out the student’s voice and develop his or her identity of

38

composer by providing reassurance, and giving license to change ideas through creative
collaboration. This led Barrett to conclude that:
…an emergent feature of the combined analysis of the data was the role of cooperation
and collaboration in the teaching and learning process. This was evident in those
instances where the composer-teacher and student-composer engaged in problem-finding
and problem-solving ….Whilst the teaching and learning relationship between an eminent
composer-teacher and a student-composer is inherently imbalanced in terms of
experience, power, skills, and understanding, I suggest that these relationships include
collaborative as well as cooperative processes. (p. 213)

It is interesting to note that the concept of problem solving, as identified in Barrett ’s
writing, has also been noted by scholars as an important process-oriented aspect of composing in
groups. It has also been used as a methodology for studying how teachers present opportunities
to compose. Unsurprisingly, Barrett’s study (2012) is in synchrony with the historical
development of composition as a musical skill developed in music classrooms around the world
(Green, 2008; Hickey, 2012; McPherson, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2012).
Berkley (2004) conducted a study that examined how teachers work compositionally with
students through the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). There is no
composition curriculum for the GCSE, which is an exam most often taken over two years at the
age of sixteen. Two hundred and fifty-one students, who attended eleven schools and worked
with fourteen different teachers, took part in the study. Berkley focused on teachers’
understanding of composing and how these influence their music classrooms. Data were
collected through classroom observations once a week for the course of one year using
Bernstein’s (1996) framework for coding knowledge. Assessments made by the teacher of
compositional work were reviewed. Both students and teachers were formally interviewed to
explore the relationship between teacher and student. Results included a better understanding of
developing music composition opportunities as problem-solving that effectively “…recognizes

39

the instability and opportunity inherent in the understanding of composing” (p. 258). Berkley
acknowledged limited resources for teachers' roles in teaching composition with K-12 students
and called for a coherent composing pedagogy.
Smith (2004) examined compositions of upper elementary students created under various
conditions. Twelve fourth grade recorder students completed six videotaped composing tasks,
observed the videotapes, and discussed what they were doing while composing. Their products
were rated by four judges with findings indicating that compositions without imposed structures
were ranked lower than structured tasks (e.g., a poem task), which were considered of higher
quality. It did not appear that the amount of time spent composing or previous instrumental or
choral experience increased compositional quality. However, of three types of compositions,
auditory, visual, or kinesthetic, the kinesthetic style pieces received higher rankings.
In a series of well-known studies, Kratus (1989; 1990; 1994; 2001) studied the
compositional processes and strategies used by elementary children. In the earliest study (1989),
Kratus examined students “making up a song” on a Casio keyboard within a ten-minute time
frame. Two independent judges evaluated compositions of 60 children, aged seven, nine, and
eleven, to learn about their abilities to replicate songs that they had composed. As in the current
study, Kratus’ findings suggested that, as children grew older, their creative instincts shifted
from process to product. Kratus also found that children's creative process, more so than
product, should be analyzed and that curricula should assist with expressive objectives for
children rather than focus on objective outcomes.
Aiming to gain insight into the compositional efforts of young children Kratus (1993),
compared improvisatory composing experiences of children and adults. Considering historical
studies and personal accounts of jazz musicians’ development, Kratus submitted that a child's

40

approach to creativity differs from the models in teacher toolkits and when immersed in the
composition act, children may be more involved in the process rather than in product in the
beginning stages of improvisation.
Following his substantial studies on children’s creativity, Kratus (2012) arrived at four
questions related to the pedagogy of composition that are central to music education: the role of
composition in the school music curriculum, the role of the teacher, the role of the environment,
and the role of assessment (p. 380). Relating back to Rhodes' (1961) foundational elements of
creativity, (i.e., person, process, press, and product), Kratus (2012) submitted the educational
value especially of person, process, and product with definitions:
Person: Learning to compose can develop the personal traits of students, encouraging
them to be original, accept ambiguity, and solve problems alone and with others; Process:
Teaching students the processes of composition enables students to compose on their own
and with others, and composition is a satisfying form of music making in its own right;
and Product: When students compose they manipulate musical sounds, developing
sensitivity to musical characteristics such as form, texture, and timbre. (p. 380)

Hickey (2013) has written with much emphasis about what can be learned from
composition-related research and K-12 students' compositional learning. Hickey's work has
included vast development of compositional ideas including the child as musician related to
technology (Hickey, 1997), assessment rubrics (Hickey, 1999, 2001a, 2002), creativity in the
general music classroom (Hickey, 2001b), and creative thinking in music (Hickey & Webster,
2001). Hickey (2003) has also edited an important work, possibly the first of its kind, which
invited educators to consider compositional processes, creativity thinking, identity, feedback and
encouragement of revision and extension in children’s composing.
To conclude, we are at the very beginning of understanding the process of children
working compositionally in classrooms. No matter the method used, individually or in groups,

41

children have been observed, over time, in their variety of processes of composing with different
tools and different lesson plans. The concept of creativity has sometimes been at the center of
these studies and discussions, but there is much work to be done in order to best support
compositional work in elementary school music. As well, there continues to be limited research
about composing in groups, no matter the tools presented for children's use. And this is
particularly true when considering group compositional work in classrooms, as seen ahead.

Composing in groups

Because general music classes, especially at the elementary level, are short in length and
may contain 25 – 35 students or more, composing together in groups can be a valuable method
for working with students so that all may experience the opportunity of creative music
experiences and composing. Definitions about group work or collaboration are many and
numerous studies with differing ideas about what it is, and which nuances of group work create
the most effective option in the music classroom (Cangro, 2015; Cohen, 1994; Sawyer, 2003;
2007).
Music education researchers have provided valuable resources in support of group
composing for both research and practice. Webster (1992b), for example, suggested that there is
great potential in compositional group work in music classrooms. Some have studied what
specifically creates successful group composing experiences for elementary students
(Cornacchio, 2008; Glover, 2002), while others have developed pedagogical materials
connecting creativity and composing in groups (Kaschub & Smith, 2009). Yet, while group
composing is one method of offering a composing opportunity, it is often unknown whether

42

students will be “collaborative ”, an idea greatly connected to the pedagogy of composition
(Berkley, 2004; Cangro, 2015; Hewitt, 2008; Levi, 1991; Wiggins, 1990, 2005, 2007).
Hindson, Barbeler, and Blom (2007) studied the ways in which music teachers may
present opportunities to compose with elementary, secondary, and college students. Through
their study, the authors developed a pedagogy for use by teachers with little experience with
composing called the Music Composition Toolbox that focused on creativity and originality of
beginning students. While the text appears more advanced than beginning music learners might
use, it may be an example of pedagogical teaching materials so needed by our profession.
In an earlier study, Blom (1999) used ethnographic methods to study the processes of
students composing. The author introduced minimalist composing ideas to students at the
elementary level, ages nine and ten. Using the phrase “composition by committee ”, classes
composed together with two teachers in order to understand the processes of not only the
students but that the teachers imposed. In six lessons, one teacher working with elementary level
students performed two of their pieces, one successfully, the other less so. This study allowed,
not only for examination of children's creative process and decision-making in their class, but
also the two teachers' experiences with leading students from composing a new piece from pre-
existing minimalistic material (p. 27) to performance of students' original works. Overall, this
study generated more knowledge about what teachers need when working with young children in
compositional activities, especially when moving from individual to group composing
opportunities.
Burland and Davidson (2001) investigated how groupings of elementary children based
on friendship affected group musical composition. Eleven-year-olds (n = 59) participated in this
study and their composing sessions were videotaped. The researcher observed the interactions of

43

randomly assigned groups to understand quality of interactions: friendship, non-friendship,
matched intelligence, mixed intelligence, and random (p. 48), and their impact on children ’s
composing work. Findings indicated that friendship increased participants' interaction and
enjoyment in the composing project while both friend and non-friend groups experienced no
increase or reduction in the quality of the products created.
MacDonald and Miell (2000) also examined the importance of social aspects of
composing in groups from the perspective of friendship and age (N = 40) when composing in
pairs in music classrooms. Considering process in collaborative work, this study examined both
process and product while examining the element of “interaction ” while composing. The authors
found that communication is enhanced when children are composing with friends, possibly due
to previously established patterns of interaction. This is not to say that non-friends cannot work
well together, but it is just an indication that they must first develop a pattern of interaction. It
follows that collaborative work may take longer to occur as groups adjust to initiating
suggestions with unknown partners during compositional work. When students are already
successful with transactive communication, they are able to initiate and elaborate on each others ’
ideas (p. 365). Students may also be unafraid to challenge one another when working with
friends as opposed to working with strangers.
In a follow up study, Miell, Mitchell, and MacDonald (2002) examined the processes and
products of children working compositionally in groups, with age as a variable of interest.
Results confirmed that non-friend 8-year-olds had much less transactive dialogue than both older
children and same age children who were paired with friends. In sum, friends were more capable
of quickly establishing what the authors termed a “joint productive activity ” (p. 160).

44

St John (2006) studied the interactions of nine boys and three girls aged four to six in a
private music center for 75 minutes over a period of 15 weeks. Although this study did not
examine group composing directly, it provided important clues concerning children ’s group
music-making. Sessions were videotaped and observed by the researcher, who examined how
musical interactions contributed to music learning through inclusion of singing, movement, and
instrument-playing activities. St. John provided descriptive narratives of the children's
experiences of "playing off each other" as well as how children positioned themselves in the
group. The study found that young children personalized their learning experiences when
encountering ways to engage with musical materials for their own enjoyment. Children in this
study relied upon peers as a way to become involved and create knowledge through shared
experiences. This finding suggests that both verbal and non-verbal interactions play a role in
collaboration early in musical experiences.
The studies described in this section engage educators in thinking about what may be
expected when providing children with opportunities to compose in groups. Findings from these
studies are promising, yet there is still much to uncover in terms of the provision of specific
research-based tools or pedagogy for working compositionally with students at the elementary
level.
Composing and Technology

Composing opportunities for children are increasingly found connected to technology in
K-12 classrooms, however, Webster (1998) wrote about his concern for the use of technology in
classrooms as a “time saving ” device rather than a support system for music learning. Webster
also discussed his ideas about technology's support of the creative thinking process and
advocated for the use of technology as a medium to support children thinking in sound.

45

Considering the daily use of technology by children in classrooms decades later, this may still be
an important consideration; that technology be used with specific purpose with well-defined
instructional methods. Webster's extensive writing includes many aspects of technology-related
topics (1989b; 1992a; 1998; 2002b; 2007; 2012a), creative thinking and assessment (1992b),
composing (2012b), and intelligence (2013). Creative thinking processes are also discussed by
Seddon and O'Neill (2003), Syverud (1992), Watson (2011).
Lipscomb, Hickey, Sebald, and Hodges (2003) developed a study to gain a clearer
understanding of instructional methods for technological tools and providing students with
opportunities to compose and an objective of understanding levels of creative process. Fifth
grade classes completed composition tasks along with the researchers in a technology laboratory
for 30 minutes weekly, over a period of ten weeks. Eighty-six compositions were then evaluated
for creativity using Lomax ’s (1976) cantometrics. Used in ethnomusicology, cantometrics is a
coding system for analyzing songs through 36 style elements such as tempo or range and divided
into nine areas: differentiation, ornamentation, orchestra organization, vocal cohesiveness, choral
organization, noise-tension level, energy level, rhythm, and melody. Children's compositions
were analyzed by two independent evaluators, as it is customary to use more than one judge in
analyses based on cantometrics. Findings indicated that fifth grade students were capable of
composing music, although there were variations in quality. Through-composed pieces were
evaluated as “more different ”, that is, were presumably identified as being more creative. The
researchers concluded that cantometrics could be a useful resource when studying creative
processes of different age groups.
Other studies have examined differing contexts related to creativity and composing when
using technology at the elementary level (Finney and Burnard, 2009; Huang and Yeh, 2014;

46

Hyun, 2005). Hewitt (2008), for example, worked with pairs of students aged 10 and 11 who
were asked to compose melodies on computers. Hewitt was interested in understanding
"transactive communication" (i.e., initial communication is given an immediate response) of
pairs of students when making compositional decisions. Contrary to other studies, Hewitt’s
work suggested that musical expertise and friendship did not influence student communication.
Transactive dialogue, or, communication that moved the project forward, in turn, increased with
music experience, although it did not reach statistical significance.
Younker (2000) studied the thought processes and strategies of students when they were
composing with technology. Nine students, ages eight, 11, and 14 composed independently.
Younker highlighted a broad range of developmental patterns of elementary and middle school
students when composing including how to begin composing, the actual sounds of the keyboard
and interaction students had with these, differences in the use of the keyboard across grade
levels, and use of known material in a new composition.
While there is little study of elementary students’ uses of music technology, there are
comparatively more studies related to music technology and composing with secondary and
tertiary students. As Ruthmann (2006) contended “…researchers in music education know
relatively little about learning and teaching in technology-infused environments” (p. 2).
Ruthmann investigated the experiences of compositional teaching and learning in a music
laboratory environment to better understand the challenges of developing pedagogy that exists in
a limited fashion in classrooms revealing some of the challenges associated with providing clear
instructions when working with students within creative musical experiences.
A research project carried out by Jennings (2005) examined how students interacted with
Hyperscore, the computer program used for composing in this study. Jennings, who assisted with

47

the development of Hyperscore, worked with ten children, aged nine to eleven, who used
Hyperscore for up to ten fifty-minute meetings for five weeks. Participants were videotaped as
they composed one piece that lasted between two and four minutes. The author solely offered
instructions to participants about what to compose, with very little guidance or input. Jennings
analyzed one case and found the child’s compositional processes to be similar to the ones
described by expert composers, in which levels of compositional detail were shifted from focus
on large sections to small, and in-between sections. Jennings also found that even though the
participant had extensive aural skills but little formal musical knowledge, he was able to
complete a composition.
Mota, Goncalves, Oliveira, Sousa, Calheiros, and Ribeiro (2007) also reported on an
exploratory study of using Hyperscore in general music in Portugal. Three classes of 26 students
in each, aged ten to 13, worked independently with a computer (i.e, with Hyperscore) and
headphones – one per child. The researchers noted that students were highly engaged with the
task and while they worked alone, communicated with each other collaboratively. They also
increased their music vocabulary following the use of Hyperscore. The researchers noted the
strong appeal of the program for children.
Not challenging to learn and fun to use, Hyperscore is a useful support system for
beginning opportunities to compose, as shown by earlier studies (e.g., Mota et al, 2007). Yet
more studies are clearly needed to investigate potential outcomes of using Hyperscore on
children ’s creative thinking in music individually and in groups. As will be seen in Chapter
Three, Hyperscore was selected for this study because it does not require knowledge of music
notation, allowing for greater student beginning efforts with group composing tasks.

48

Chapter Summary
This chapter considered eight areas of research related to the study of compositional work
young children do in groups in music classrooms. Fundamentally, the review included:
 Definitions of creativity and their applications in music education
 Measurement of creativity, intelligence, and tests of musical aptitude
 Measurement of creativeness
 Composing and music teacher education
 Creativity and composing process of young children
 Composing in groups
 Composing and technology
 Development of an observation rubric through lenses of creativity researchers

As discussed in this chapter, defining creativity is difficult yet, sustaining its application to
young children when given opportunities to compose is fundamental.
Composition, as a creative task, is a complex endeavor. Decades have been spent
researching the constructs of creativity from a psychological perspective, creativity and
intelligence, and creativity and aptitude. Measuring creativeness is perhaps the fundamental
aspect of this study within the compositional process of children in foundational learning
environments.
A rubric was constructed over the course of this study for the observation of group
process when composing. It was also of interest to learn if there were statistically significant
differences between the factors of grade level and gender for all questions for this study. The
Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation and Measure of Creative Thinking in Music were used
to understand the statistically significant results and correlations of these with a composing
treatment.

49

Children may be naturally drawn to composition but even when not, are very capable of
doing it. Children may also successfully compose individually, with peers, or both. Composing
in groups has much potential in music classrooms but may be underexplored, particularly where
technology is concerned. However, whether technology or acoustic instruments are used may
not matter. It may be the nature of the process presented by the music teacher, and experienced
by the child, that may be most significant when considering a child's musical learning.

50

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter presents the methods employed to answer the stated research questions. An
experimental between-subjects factorial design was used to answer most of the research
questions. Measures of correlation were also employed.

1. a. Using the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group process
scores for the two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-
mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?
2. a. Using the Webster Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group scores for the
two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?
3. a. Are there statistically significant relationships between (a) group process scores of
all participants in Groups A and B, (b) music aptitude scores as measured by the
Gordon Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (IMMA), and (c) creative thinking
(MCTM) scores?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these relationships?

Dependent measures in this study included: (1) the Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation (Gordon, 1986), (2) a researcher-constructed measure called the Crawford Index of
Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG), and (3) Measure of Creative Thinking in Music
(MCTM) (Webster, 1994). Independent variables included: (1) composing treatment groupings

51

(Acoustic Instrument, Computer Instrument (Hyperscore software), and a non-contact Control
Group, (2) grade, and (3) gender. IMMA scores were used in a preliminary way to evaluate the
equivalency of groupings.
Study Design
School Setting
One medium-sized elementary school site (678 students in total enrollment) from a
suburban school district and identified as a “bedroom community ” near Los Angeles, California
served as the location for this study. The school district is comprised of lower middle to upper
middle income levels. The student ethnicities in the site used for the study were as follows: 54%
white, 22% Hispanic, 11% Asian, and 3% black. The site selected was this author's first year of
employment for this school district. The site administrator and district administrators negotiated
entrance into this site, for the purposes of completing this study. The Institutional Review Board
of USC approved all study materials and procedures (see Appendix A).

Instruments Used
Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (Gordon)
Gordon (1990) defined music aptitude as " …a measure of a student's potential to learn
music ” (p. 4). As noted in Chapter Two, Gordon is the creator of the music aptitude tests titled
Primary Measures of Music Audiation (PMMA) and Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation
(IMMA). According to Walters (1991), these were Gordon's “…inquiry into the nature of the
young child's music aptitude” (p. 68). More specifically, the IMMA is a two-part tonal and
rhythmic test devised for children in grades one through six. Children are required to listen to

52

two sets of recordings of sound patterns with forty pairs each (i.e., rhythmic and melodic) for
approximately 40 minutes. After each pair of patterns is heard, children must determine if the
two sound patters are “the same ” or “different ” and mark their responses on a score sheet. The
researcher then scores each test to determine the number of correct responses per subtest.

Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (Crawford)

The Crawford Index of Quality of Composing in Groups (CIQCG) was developed by the
author to examine the quality of participants' process when composing in groups. The rubric
contains five sub-sections and applies rating scales of one to five for each sub-section (see Table
3.6).
Stratified random sampling (Creswell, 2009) was used to select groups referred to herein
as Groups A, B, and C. Following completion of the IMMA, students were randomly assigned
to two composing treatment groups: Group A – composed with acoustic rhythm instruments,
Group B – composed with a graphic computer program, Hyperscore. Group C – Control group
participants took the IMMA and MCTM however, used as a control, did not participate in a
composing treatment.
Group A (n = 16) was comprised of four subgroups with four participants in each: two
groups of Group A and Group B for both third and fifth grade. Participants in group A
composed music with acoustic rhythm instruments (e.g., bells, drums, sticks, shakers, and found
objects). To do so, they took part in meetings of up to 45 minutes each and chose to return for
further composing time until they felt their compositions were completed.

53

Group B (n = 16) was comprised in the same way. All participants composed in groups of
four participants using Hyperscore and took part in meetings of up to 45 minutes each choosing
to return for further composing time until they felt their compositions were completed.
Group C (n = 16) or the control group, comprised of third grade (n = 8) and fifth grade
students (n = 8), did not receive any composing treatment prior to taking the MCTM.

Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster)
The Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster, 1994) was completed by all
participants (N = 48). The design of the measure comprises four factors: musical extensiveness,
musical flexibility, musical originality, and musical syntax, with a variety of different tasks
within each factor (see Figure 3.1).
Table 3.1

Factors of the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster, 1994)

Musical
Extensiveness

The amount of clock time involved in the creative tasks
Musical
Flexibility
The extent to which the musical parameters of "high"/"low" (pitch);
"fast"/"slow" (tempo) and "loud"/"soft" (dynamics) are manipulated

Musical
Originality

The extent to which the response is unusual or unique in music terms and
manner of performance
Musical
Syntax
The extent to which the response is inherently logical and makes "musical
sense"

Webster (1994) developed the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) for
children aged six to ten. The MCTM is divided into three parts, namely, exploration,

54

application, and synthesis with a total of ten tasks. The MCTM was administered individually to
students and takes about twenty to forty-five minutes to complete. Materials included in the
MCTM are a round sponge ball, woodblocks or temple blocks with five different pitches, two
mallets, and a piano. Additionally, line drawings, three pieces of blank paper, and a video/sound
recorder are also used. Sessions were videotaped for subsequent analysis and scoring. The
administrative dialogue for researchers to use with participants is clearly presented in Webster's
Administrative Guidelines (1994), the full content of which may be found in the Appendix of
this study (see Appendix E).
The MCTM progresses from a game-like introduction to increasingly difficult
improvisatory tasks that require creative or, divergent thinking. The approach of the MCTM is
that there are no wrong answers. Scoring of the videos is aided by a scoring sheet that is
provided with the MCTM materials. There are four factors integral to the MCTM that Webster
identified from the areas of composition, music education, and psychology including musical
extensiveness, musical flexibility, musical originality, and musical syntax. Factor scores were
computed separately from the scores of these four areas and then standardized using SPSS.

Participant Selection and Timeline for Study
All third and fifth grade students attending the school were invited to take part in the
study via invitation letters that were distributed to their parents or legal guardians with the
permission and assistance of the site administrator and classroom teachers. Students volunteered
to participate in the study by returning a signed permission form from their parent/legal guardian
(Invitation to Participate in a Research Study-Parental Permission, see Appendix B). When
students reported for the first meeting, they signed a Student Assent to Participate (see Appendix

55

C). Demographic information concerning student grade level, gender, and prior musical
experience were also collected from all students by way of a simple questionnaire.
All meetings of the three phases (see Table 3.2) of the current study (administration of
Gordon ’s IMMA, composing treatments, and administration of Webster ’s MCTM) took place at
the elementary school in the music classroom, during regular school hours. The researcher
prepared the testing area in the music room at the selected school site prior to the arrival of
students for each meeting. A texted script provided Groups A and B with an overview and
instructions for the composing tasks, as discussed below. The researcher participated in the
treatments as a timekeeper only, but was available to answer questions if needed. A detailed
description of procedures for each of the composing treatments is presented below.

Table 3.2

Three Phases of the Current Study

Phase 1 a. Students completed
assent to participate in
this study
b. Students completed
Intermediate
Measure of Music
Audiation (IMMA)
c. IMMA scores
analyzed for parity
of scores and
elimination of
outliers

Students randomly selected for composing treatments and control, Groups A, B,
and C
Phase 2 Participants completed Composing treatment – Composing Index of Quality for
Composing Groups (CIQCG) - Group A (acoustic instruments) and Group B
(Hyperscore) (Group C acted as Control Group and did not compose)

Phase 3 Participants in all groups completed Measure of Creative Thinking in Music
(MCTM)

56

During Phase I, students took the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA) by
Gordon, (1986). Because more students wished to participate than the number needed (N = 48),
the IMMA was used to learn the range and distribution of students' scores and to determine if
there might be outliers scores that would affect the study. Sixty-four students volunteered to be a
part of the study. Thus, eliminating very high and very low-scoring students, students with
IMMA scores closest to the mean were selected to become participants in the subsequent phases.
While students who achieved extreme scores on the Gordon measure were not selected to
take part in the remainder of the study, they were informed they could participate at a later time,
if they were interested. No students requested this. Students not selected to take part in the
composing treatment were also notified that they could participate in the event of dropouts,
however, no participant ever dropped out from the study.
To control for threats to validity in this study, the treatment and control groups
experienced the same environmental conditions in the same environment. Participants were also
asked not to discuss their involvement in the study until all data were collected.

Sample Description and Treatment Conditions
The selected sample of forty-eight participants was randomly grouped for the two
treatment conditions and the control group. Group A (n = 16) and Group B (n = 16) composed
with different tools in groups of four participants. Group A composed with acoustic instruments
and Group B composed with a graphic computer program, Hyperscore. Group C (n = 16) did
not compose but took the MCTM. The Control Group was used to determine if the mean scores
of the MCTM and IMMA were different, between the two treatment groups, and a third group of
children, but was not used for any of the main research questions in this study.

57

Phase One - Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (IMMA)
Phase 1 of this study tested all students who volunteered (N = 67) to be a part of this
study using the IMMA. Selecting the needed forty-eight participants from scores closest to the
mean and then randomly grouping them in Groups A, B, and C, Table 3.3 describes the scores
received for the IMMA by composing groups by grade and gender.

Table 3.3

IMMA Scores by Composing Groups A, B, and C and by Grade and Gender

Male Grade A B C
3 75 25 75
3 40 75
5 50 15 10
5 60 50 50
5 70 75
5 60
Female Grade A B C
3 30 75 20
3 75 25 40
3 40 75 75
3 80 30 30
3 75 60 30
3 40 40 50
3 40
5 15 25 40
5 70 25 40
5 50 50 50
5 60 60 75
5 30 25
5 10

58

IMMA scores were examined by grade. Outcomes of the IMMA score frequencies were
between 10 and 80 for the participants in this study. The mean score of participants (N = 48)
who took the IMMA was 47.60 (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4

IMMA Score Frequency for Third and Fifth Grades

IMMA
Scores

Frequency

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid 10 2 4.2 4.2
15 2 4.2 8.3
20 1 2.1 10.4
25 5 10.4 20.8
30 5 10.4 31.3
40 8 16.7 47.9
50 7 14.6 62.5
60 5 10.4 72.9
70 2 4.2 77.1
75 10 20.8 97.9
80 1 2.1 100.0
Total 48 100.0

Third grade participants (n = 24) scored higher on the IMMA with a mean of 50.83 on the
IMMA. Fifth graders (n = 24) scored a mean of 44.37. Participants (n = 15) earned scores of
40-50 on the IMMA while others (n = 10) earned a score of 75 while remaining participants
scored between 10 and 80 creating a large standard deviation (see Table 3.5).

59

Table 3.5
Means of IMMA Scores by Grade Level
Grade Mean Std. Deviation N
3 50.83 21.196 24
5 44.37 20.658 24
Total 47.60 20.961 48

Phase 2: Composing Treatments and Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups

This study was designed to examine the effects of group composing treatments using an
observation protocol (see Table 3.6). acoustic rhythm instruments or Hyperscore to compose. In
this section, the two composing treatments are described.

60

61

Composing Group A – Acoustic Instruments
Students entered the testing area following a schedule provided to classroom teachers via
email. When arriving for the first meeting, students received a scripted verbal introduction with
instructions. (See Figure 3.2). A brief demonstration of the acoustic instruments to be used for
the composing task was given by the researcher.
Students composed with acoustic instruments for up to 35 minutes followed by one or
two verbal hints to think about completion of their work for the meeting. Students completed
their projects in up to four, 25 – 45-minute meetings.
Group A participants selected from a variety of non-pitched instruments for their
composing activity. These included drums of several types, tom toms with mallets, rhythm sticks
of several types, non-pitched bells, bongos, rain sticks, cymbals, cluster bells, triangles, sand
blocks, whistles, a large tone block with mallet, maracas, tambourines, claves, and miscellaneous
found objects.

Acoustic Instrument Room Arrangement
Four tables were placed at the center of the classroom workspace and instruments,
organized by type, were placed on the tables. Each table (see Figure 3.3) was photographed as a
way to ensure that the same instruments would be made available for each composing group on
subsequent meetings. Students were able to select any instruments made available to them when
developing their compositions. Space in front of the tables allowed for arrangement of instruments
on the floor for exploration, rehearsal, and performance.

62

Figure 3.1
Group A - Room Arrangement for Acoustic Instrument Composing Treatment

63

Figure 3.2
Group A - Acoustic Rhythm Instrument Composing Treatment Script

1. Introduction: Welcome to the first part of our composing session. Today, you will have the opportunity, as
a group, to create a musical composition. All of these instruments can be used by you to make your own
choices as a group about your composition.
2. I want you to forget I am here. I will let you know when you need to begin to think about finishing your
work but you have a good amount of time before that happens so you don't have to feel rushed. You will
still have more time when I ask you to begin to finish.
3. You may want to think of a title for your piece. I might suggest you think of a theme before you begin.
You might also want to have a beginning, a middle, and ending sections in your piece.
4. Whatever you compose today, I know it will be your best work and I am looking forward to listening to it
when it is finished.
5. This means you have to agree on how it will sound and remember how to play it when you are finished.
You may use the paper and pencils on the table to create your score. A score is the notation that
reminds you how to perform your piece.
6. Please look at the instruments.
a. You may choose any instrument.
b. You may also decide you want a different instrument.
c. You may want to play more than one instrument or more than one instrument at a time.
7. One thing you might want to remember. You may choose to have silence in your composition. In other
words, you may make many choices as you compose your piece.
8. Now it's your turn. If you have any questions, let me know because I will be right over here.
9. One more thing, please wait to speak about your experiences today until the study is completed. You
may meet again or until you feel your composition is completed.
10. Any questions?

Composing Group B – Hyperscore
Designed by Seymour Papert (1980; 1991), Mary Farbood, and Egon Pazstor at the MIT
Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hyperscore is a non-notational (i.e., graphic) music
composition computer program that engages students through mapping complex musical
concepts visually (see Farbood and Ludwig, 2002; Farbood, Kaufman, & Jennings, 2007). Papert
has long considered children and technology (1980), and constructionism (1991) as methods for
developing creativity and new ways to learn.

64

Hyperscore has specific instrument modules within the program. In this study,
participants were given the option of selecting from any of the non-pitched instruments in the
Percussion Kit for their compositions. Groups could hear their pieces via a sound system
connected to the computer as they composed.
As explained above, participants assigned to Group A composed and notated a score
using general classroom acoustic instruments in groups of four. Musical scores were notated
with paper and pencil provided by the researcher. Children assigned to Group B composed a
piece using Hyperscore, also in groups of four. Their compositions were saved as computer
files.
Students entered the testing area and received a scripted verbal introduction with
instructions (see Figure 3.5). Students were given a simple overview of the Hyperscore
computer program and the elements of the work space on the computer screen. The researcher
demonstrated how to place the first workspace block in the screen and how to find the voices
available to participants for their composition. The researcher demonstrated use of the
composing tool and how the drawing feature identified how the color-coded parts might work
when creating a score.

Hyperscore Room Arrangement
The classroom computer was used for the main work space for participants in Group B.
Child participants used the attached keyboard and mouse. A white screen was utilized for greater
visibility of each subgroup (n = 4) of participants; however, this proved to be a distraction more
than an assist and was discontinued. (See Figure 3.4). Participants were invited to compose for
up to 35 minutes followed by reflection and provision of one or two verbal hints on the

65

completion of their work during the meeting. Students completed their projects in up to four
meetings of 25-45 minutes.

Figure 3.3

Group B – Room Arrangement for Hyperscore Composing Treatment

66

Figure 3.4

Group B - Hyperscore Composing Treatment Script

1. Introduction: Welcome to the first part of our composing session. Today, you will have the opportunity, as
a group, to create a musical composition. I will show you how the program, called Hyperscore, works and
then you will make all of your own choices as a group about your composition.
2. I want you to forget I am here. I will let you know when you need to begin to think about finishing your
work but you have a good amount of time before that happens so you don't have to feel rushed. You will
still have more time when I ask you to begin to finish.
3. You may want to think of a title for your piece. I might suggest you think of a theme before you begin.
You might also want to have a beginning, a middle, and ending sections in your piece.
4. Whatever you compose today, I know it will be your best work and I am looking forward to listening to it
when it is finished.
5. This means you have to agree on how it will sound when you are finished.
6. Please look at the computer monitor. Hyperscore instructions:
a. To choose your first instrument, you will click on the MELODY WINDOW.
b. Next, Click on INSTRUMENTS to select your first Instrument. You may select from the following
groups of instruments: 1) percussion, 2) sound effects, and 3) synth effects.
c. Click on the DROPLET tool to add your sounds.
d. Add the Instruments that you want in your composition.
e. Click on the SKETCH WINDOW tool.
f. Select the PEN TOOL and try a stroke in the Sketch Window.
g. Your strokes color matches with the MELODY WINDOW.
h. You will be able to go back and change instruments any time you like.
i. You can drag the METRONOME tool to change how fast or slow you want the composition to
be.
j. (Close out of everything and open one MELODY WINDOW). Ok, now it's time for you to try it. I
will open your first MELODY WINDOW. (Demonstrate.) Now I will select an Instrument.
(Demonstrate). I will add it to sound this way. (Demonstrate). I will add a second MELODY
WINDOW. (Demonstrate). I will select a second Instrument. (Demonstrate). Now I'm going to
open a SKETCH WINDOW. (Demonstrate). I think it would be fun to put this voice here
(Demonstrate) and the second voice like this (Demonstrate). Ok. Let's press Play. (Listen).
What do you think? (Clear screen).
7. One thing you might want to remember. You may choose to have silence in your composition. In other
words, you may make many choices as you compose your piece.
8. You may want to play more than one instrument or more than one instrument at a time.
9. Now it's your turn. If you have any questions, let me know because I will be right over here.
10. One more thing, please wait to speak about your experiences today until the study is completed. We will
meet three more times.
11. Any questions?

67

Hyperscore Screenshots
What follows are screen shots of the introductory process given to participants
demonstrating the use of the computer program Hyperscore. The screen shots were taken from
this author's computer and represent instructions for beginning use of the program for
participants.

1. Participants were given a brief overview of how Hyperscore works through a simple
script (see Figure 3.5). First, participants were shown an empty Melody Window and the
droplet icon that allows the composer to enter sounds from the instrument bank.

Figure 3.5
Hyperscore Melody Window Screenshot

68

2. Participants were instructed on how to use the basic features of the program including
creating additional Melody Windows, playback and selection of instruments, inserting
sounds (see Figure 3.6), and use of the metronome.
Figure 3.6
Hyperscore Melody Window – Inserting Sounds Screenshot

69

3. Participants were invited to make several Melody Windows and how to fit multiple
voices simultaneously on the same screen (see Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7
Hyperscore Melody Window – Multiple Voices Simultaneously Screenshot

70

4. Participants were shown how to use the Sketch Window (see Figure 3.8) for
compositional development and how to save their projects.
Figure 3.8
Hyperscore Sketch Window for Compositional Development

Chapter Three Tables
Chapter Three includes tables that are not related to answering the three questions
proposed by this study. Findings for the questions may be found in Chapter Four.

Inter-judge Reliability of Composing Treatment Scores
Inter-judge reliability for CIQCG scores is displayed in Table 3.7 showing the score
outcomes for each sub-section and scores provided by two judges.

71

Table 3.7

Inter-judge Reliability of Composing Treatment Scores (Third and Fifth Grades) when using
Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups

Composing
Treatment
Groups
Composing
Group Scores
(Judge 1)
Total Score Composing
Group Scores
(Judge 2)
Total Score

Third Grade

Acoustic: 1A3 (1-4) 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 7 1, 2, 2, 1, 1 7
Acoustic: 2A3 (5-8) 3, 4, 4, 3, 4 18
Hyperscore: 1B3 (9-12) 4, 5, 5, 5, 5 24
Hyperscore: 2B3 (13-16) 5, 4, 4, 4, 3 20

Fifth Grade

Acoustic: 1A5 (1-4) 4, 4, 4, 5, 4 21
Acoustic: 2A5 (5-8) 3, 4, 3, 3, 2 15
Hyperscore : 1B5 (9-12) 4, 3, 3, 4, 4 18
Hyperscore: 2B5 (13-16) 4, 5, 4, 5, 5 23 4, 4, 4, 5, 5 22

Third grade participants scored higher (22.29) than fifth (20.14) using Hyperscore. Fifth
grade participants scored much higher (18.00) than third grade (9.20) using acoustic instruments.
Fifth grade scored better (19.00) than third (16.83) overall in group composing scores.
Table 3.8 shows the mean differences of the composing group scores between the
acoustic instrument (Group A) and Hyperscore (Group B) groups. The mean differences, (M
Acoustic = 14.25 and M Hyperscore = 21.25) were highly statistically significant (see Table
3.9).

72

Table 3.8
Means of Acoustic vs. Hyperscore Group Composing Scores
Composing Groups Mean Std. Deviation N
Acoustic 15.25 5.385 16
Hyperscore 21.25 2.463 16
Total 18.25 5.124 32

Table 3.9

Two-way ANOVA of Group Composing Scores by Acoustic and Hyperscore Groups

Source
Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 288.000
a
1 288.000 16.426 .000
Intercept 10658.000 1 10658.000 607.871 .000
Composing Groups 288.000 1 288.000 16.426 .000
Error 526.000 30 17.533

Total 11472.000 32
Corrected Total 814.000 31
a. R Squared = .354 (Adjusted R Squared = .332)

73

Phase Three: Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM)
IMMA and MCTM scores were compared to learn if there were any statistically
significant results. Composing group scores are included in this comparison to understand if
those who scored high on the IMMA also scored high on group composing scores, but especially
as related to the MCTM (see Table 3.10). While there were no statistically significant
correlations between IMMA, composing group, and MCTM scores, this Table shows that the
Control Groups who scores closest to the IMMA mean (47.60) scored higher on the MCTM than
composing groups in that range.

74

Table 3.10

IMMA Scores Compared to MCTM Means by Composing Groups

IMMA Scores Composing Groups MCTM Means Std. Deviation N
10
Acoustic -.0854 . 1
Control .5977 . 1
Total .2561 .48300 2
15
Acoustic .9017 . 1
Hyperscore -.7584 . 1
Total .0716 1.17389 2
25
Hyperscore -.8521 .16558 4
Control -.4897 . 1
Total -.7796 .21641 5
30
Acoustic -.7152 .79862 2
Hyperscore -1.0262 . 1
Control .1036 .68432 2
Total -.4499 .74023 5
40
Acoustic -.2435 . 1
Hyperscore -.5935 . 1
Control .1683 .62388 4
Total -.0273 .58104 6
50
Acoustic .8523 1.14268 2
Hyperscore -.5337 .29664 2
Control .8981 1.29593 3
Total .4760 1.12616 7
60
Acoustic -.3549 .91847 2
Hyperscore .7520 .90299 2
Total .1986 .98050 4
70
Acoustic -.4757 . 1
Hyperscore -.2285 . 1
Total -.3521 .17478 2
75
Acoustic -.3710 1.13779 3
Hyperscore .5710 .60605 2
Control .5513 1.02502 4
Total .2482 .98961 9
Total
Acoustic -.1117 .88792 13
Hyperscore -.3169 .74611 14
Control .3925 .85369 15
Total .0000 .86645 42

75

MCTM scores were examined by composing groups A, B, and C, grade level, and
gender. Table 3.11 provides an overview of MCTM scores by composing group. Fifth grade
acoustic and third grade control groups scored highest on the MCTM.

76

Table 3.11
MCTM Scores Overview by Grade and Gender

Composing
Group
Grade Gender
MCTM
Means
Std. Deviation N
Acoustic Third Grade
M -.7467 . 1
F -.4725 1.04 4
Total -.5273 .909 5
Fifth Grade
M .9775 .965 2
F -.1283 .629 6
Total .1481 .823 8
Total
M .4027 1.20 3
F -.2660 .782 10
Total -.1117 .887 13
Hyperscore Third Grade
M -1.0172 . 1
F .0159 1.00 6
Total -.1317 .994 7
Fifth Grade
M -.4370 .282 3
F -.5509 .460 4
Total -.5021 .368 7
Total
M -.5820 .370 4
F -.2108 .845 10
Total -.3169 .746 14
Control Third Grade
M 1.0355 . 1
F .0708 .718 6
Total .2086 .750 7
Fifth Grade
M .5898 1.56 3
F .5317 .602 5
Total .5535 .954 8
Total
M .7012 1.29 4
F .2803 .679 11
Total .3925 .853 15
Total Third Grade
M -.2428 1.11 3
F -.0856 .881 16
Total -.1104 .888 19
Fifth Grade
M .3017 1.12 8
F -.0210 .696 15
Total .0912 .856 23
Total
M .1532 1.09 11
F -.0544 .785 31
Total .0000 .866 42

77

Following instructions in the administrative guidelines of the Webster measure, four
judges evaluated Musical Originality and Musical Syntax factors of the MCTM. The following
tables present statistical correlations of interrator reliability overall, Musical Originality, and
Musical Syntax (see Tables 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14).

Table 3.12

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix of Four Judges' MCTM Scoring

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4
Judge 1 1.000 .762 .446 .404
Judge 2 .762 1.000 .555 .500
Judge 3 .446 .555 1.000 .412
Judge 4 .404 .500 .412 1.000

Table 3.13

Inter-judge Reliability for MCTM Scoring – Musical Originality

Mean Std. Deviation Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
Judge 1 23.44 105.863 .680 .734
Judge 2 21.50 105.467 .790 .668
Judge 3 18.19 148.962 .560 .792
Judge 4 23.13 139.583 .511 .808

78

Table 3.14

Inter-judge Reliability for MCTM Scoring – Musical Syntax

Mean Std. Deviation Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
Judge 1 15.06 35.129 .650 .753
Judge 2 15.94 61.529 .564 .733
Judge 3 14.69 60.096 .726 .681
Judge 4 16.94 61.263 .582 .727

Composing Group C – Control
Control Group C included the participants who took the IMMA and the MCTM, but did
not participate in any composing treatment. Correlations were performed to understand the
Control group scores in this study. It is important to note that, half of the fifth grade scores in the
control group, all females, (n = 4) were involved with the Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE) program for fourth and fifth graders in their school site. Therefore, no third grade
participants in this study participated in GATE.
Each of the composing groups had one GATE student and one group had zero GATE
students. If the scores of fifth grade participants on the MCTM are considered (see Table 3.14),
some of the highest scores of the MCTM factor, Originality, are found from the control group.
Possibly, this result was related to the variety of learning experiences afforded students in GATE
programs such as science fairs and camps, math and writing projects, or, for example, building
Ozobot maps, and working with extra coding resources. In other words, comfort with new
experiences may have carried into participants' work with the MCTM in this study.

79

There were no statistically significant correlations (see Table 3.15) between MCTM
scores of the Control Group (Group C) participants and gender. In this study, there were nine
fifth grade participants who were male (n = 9), and sixteen who were female (n = 16). No
correlations were found between MCTM scores and gender, however, there were significant
correlations found between gender and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE). However,
participants in this study included two fifth grade GATE students who were male (n = 2) and five
fifth grade GATE students were female (n = 5).
Table 3.15

Correlations between MCTM Scores of Control Group C, GATE Participation, and Gender

GATE MCTM Gender
GATE Pearson Correlation 1 .089 .775
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .833 .024
N 8 8 8
MCTM Pearson Correlation .089 1 .023
Sig. (2-tailed) .833 .957
N 8 8 8
Gender Pearson Correlation .775
*
.023 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .024 .957
N 8 8 8
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

80

When MCTM scores were correlated between fifth grade participants, GATE
participation, and gender, no correlations were found (see Table 3.16).
Table 3.16
Correlations between Fifth Grade, GATE Participation, and Gender
Gender GATE MCTM
Gender Pearson Correlation 1 .005 -.107
Sig. (2-tailed) .971 .502
N 48 48 42
GATE Pearson Correlation .005 1 .252
Sig. (2-tailed) .971 .108
N 48 48 42
MCTM Pearson Correlation -.107 .252 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .502 .108
N 42 42 42

Summary
Forty-eight participants (24 third graders, 24 fifth graders) took part in this three-phase
study. In phase one, all participants were tested with Gordon's Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation (IMMA). As there were more students wishing to participate in the study than the
researcher required, upon analysis, outlier scores were removed yielding forty-eight participants.
For phase two, participants were randomly assigned to three composing groups: two
experimental groups (herein known as composing treatment groups) and a control group.
Participants composed in groups of four either with acoustic instruments found in many
elementary classrooms or Hyperscore, a graphic notation music computer program. Scoring was
completed for Groups A and B through observation by the researcher using an original protocol,

81

the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG). Participants in Group C, the
control group, did not participate in phase two in the composing treatment.
Finally, for phase three of this study, all participants were tested with Webster's Measure
of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM).

82

CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA & RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate if there were differences in the observed
creative process of group participants composing with two different types of tools, acoustic
rhythm instruments and a graphic technology-mediated program, Hyperscore. The author was
also interested to learn if individual participants' scores of the Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation (IMMA) or the creative thinking scores of the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music
(MCTM) correlated, in any way, with the group creative process scores of the Crawford Index of
Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG).
This study addressed the following questions:
1. a. Using the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group process
scores for the two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and
technology-mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?
2. a. Using the Webster Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) as the
dependent variable, are there statistically significant differences in group scores
for the two treatment conditions (acoustic rhythm instrument and technology-
mediated)?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these comparisons?

83

3. a. Are there statistically significant relationships between (a) group process scores
of all participants in Groups A and B, (b) music aptitude scores as measured by
the Gordon Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (IMMA), and (c) creative
thinking (MCTM) scores?
b. Do the factors of gender and grade level play a role in these relationships?

Analysis of the Data
This chapter presents results for each research question that formed the basis for phase
three of the study. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Version 22) was
utilized for the statistical analysis of all data presented here. Four judges scored the MCTM and
two judges scored composing groups. The inter-judge scores may be found in Chapter 3 (Tables
3.7. 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13). Chapter Four presents analyses and findings for each study question.

Question 1

Findings

Composing groups and grade. Using group composing scores as the dependent variable
from the CIQCG observation protocol, a two-way factorial ANOVA was completed to
understand if there were statistically significant differences between means for Group A
(acoustic rhythm instruments) and Group B (Hyperscore) participants and by grade levels. It is
clear from Table 4.1 that Hyperscore participants did far better overall for both grades. While
fifth grade participants did better than the third grade group under the acoustic instrument
condition, they scored lower with Hyperscore. This may indicate the Hyperscore application

84

was more effective with the third grade than fifth grade participants. Figure 4.1 displays the
interaction between the composing treatment by third or fifth grades.

Table 4.1

Means of Composing Group Scores by Grade

Grade Comp Group Mean Std. Deviation N
Third Grade Acoustic 12.50 5.880 8
Hyperscore 22.00 2.138 8
Total 17.25 6.506 16
Fifth Grade Acoustic 18.00 3.207 8
Hyperscore 20.50 2.673 8
Total 19.25 3.130 16
Total Acoustic 15.25 5.385 16
Hyperscore 21.25 2.463 16
Total 18.25 5.124 32

85

Figure 4.1

Interaction of Composing Group Scores Acoustic or Hyperscore by Grade

A two-way ANOVA was performed (see Table 4.2) to understand if there were
statistically significant findings: (a) for differences between composing group mean scores for
groups A and B, (b) for differences between grade level, and (c) for an interaction effects
between grade and gender as suspected from Figure 4.1. Both main effects and interaction were
found to be significant. Partial Eta squared data reported by SPSS indicated strong effect sizes
for the group effect and less so for both grade and the interaction.

86

Table 4.2

Two-way ANOVA between Composing Group Scores and Grade

Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model 547.877
a
3 182.626 17.569 .000 .696
Intercept 7938.47
2
1 7938.472 763.679 .000 .971
Comp Group A &
B
379.735 1 379.735 36.530 .000 .614
Grade 72.567 1 72.567 6.981 .015 .233
Comp Group *
Grade
196.076 1 196.076 18.862 .000 .451
Error 239.086 23 10.395
Total 9571.00
0
27
Corrected Total 786.963 26

a. R Squared = .696 (Adjusted R Squared = .657)

Composing group and gender. Cell means for composing group scores and gender may
be found in Table 4.3.

87

Table 4.3
Means of Composing Group Scores by Gender
Gender Comp Group Mean Std. Deviation N
Boys Acoustic 14.33 7.024 3
Hyperscore 20.75 3.202 4
Total 18.00 5.774 7
Girls Acoustic 14.70 5.851 10
Hyperscore 21.40 2.459 10
Total 18.05 5.558 20
Total Acoustic 14.62 5.824 13
Hyperscore 21.21 2.577 14
Total
18.04 5.502 27

Through examination of Table 4.4, all cells seem to be consistent with, again, group
differences, but no large differences between composing group scores and gender.
Table 4.4
Two-way ANOVA between Composing Group Scores and Gender
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 295.046
a
3 98.349 4.598 .012
Intercept 6468.596 1 6468.596 302.445 .000
Comp Grp 219.634 1 219.634 10.269 .004
Gender 1.320 1 1.320 .062 .806
Comp Grp * Gender .102 1 .102 .005 .945
Error 491.917 23 21.388
Total 9571.000 27

Corrected Total 786.963 26

a. R Squared = .375 (Adjusted R Squared = .293)

88

Results for Question 1
To summarize findings for Question 1, composing group means did suggest a statistically
significant difference in favor of the Hyperscore group. Data on the role of grade showed a
significant difference as well, in favor of the older fifth grade participants, but the result was
complicated by a significant interaction between grade and group with the third graders out-
performing the fifth graders in terms of the Hyperscore grouping. And, gender correlations did
not yield statistically significant results. Implications are presented in Chapter 5.

Question 2

MCTM Scores by Composing Groups and Grade
MCTM scores were used as the dependent variable to understand if there were significant
differences between MCTM scores by composing group and grade (see Table 4.5). Fifth grade
participants who composed with acoustic instruments in Group A scored the highest mean on the
MCTM (.1481) and third grade participants who composed with acoustic instruments in Group A
scored the lowest (-.5273). Fifth grade participants who composed with Hyperscore in Group B
(-.5021) scored a higher mean overall (-.1553) than third grade participants (-.2965).

89

Table 4.5

Means for MCTM and Composing Group Scores by Grade

Composing Group Grade Mean Std. Deviation N
Acoustic Third Grade -.5273 .90957 5
Fifth Grade .1481 .82356 8
Total -.1117 .88792 13
Hyperscore Third Grade -.1317 .99499 7
Fifth Grade -.5021 .36899 7
Total -.3169 .74611 14
Total Third Grade -.2965 .93933 12
Fifth Grade -.1553 .71429 15
Total -.2181 .80817 27

A two-way ANOVA was performed between MCTM scores and grade to understand if
there were statistically significant differences (see Table 4.6). Results indicated that there were
not significant differences between group and grade. No interaction was found between
composing groups and grade for MCTM.

90

Table 4.6

Two-way ANOVA between MCTM Scores and Grade

Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model 2.168
a
3 .723 1.122 .361 .128
Intercept 1.680 1 1.680 2.609 .120 .102
Grade .152 1 .152 .237 .631 .010
Composing Groups .106 1 .106 .165 .689 .007
Grade * Composing
Groups
1.791 1 1.791 2.780 .109 .108
Error 14.814 23 .644
Total 18.266 27
Corrected Total 16.982 26

a. R Squared = .128 (Adjusted R Squared = .014)

MCTM Scores by Composing Groups and Gender
MCTM scores were used as the dependent variable to understand if there were significant
differences between MCTM scores by group and gender. Cell means are reported in Table 4.7.
Male participants who composed with acoustic instruments in Group A scored the highest mean
(.4027) on the MCTM and higher than females on the MCTM overall (-.1600). However, male
participants who composed with Group B Hyperscore had the lowest MCTM scores (-.5820).
Female participants who composed with acoustic instruments in Group A scored much lower
(-.2660) than males on the MCTM but higher on the MCTM after composing with Hyperscore
(-.2108).

91

Table 4.7

Means of MCTM and Composing Group Scores by Gender

Composing Groups Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Acoustic Boys .4027 1.20715 3
Girls -.2660 .78276 10
Total -.1117 .88792 13
Hyperscore Boys -.5820 .37060 4
Girls -.2108 .84533 10
Total -.3169 .74611 14
Total Boys -.1600 .91185 7
Girls -.2384 .79342 20
Total -.2181 .80817 27

92

MCTM scores were used as the dependent variable in a two-way ANOVA test to learn if
there were statistically significant findings for composing group and gender for MCTM (see Table
4.8). No significant results for main effects or interaction were found.
Table 4.8

Two-way ANOVA between MCTM and Composing Group Scores and Gender

Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.383
a
12 .615 .897 .570
Intercept .530 1 .530 .772 .394
Gender .141 1 .141 .205 .657
Comp Grp Scores 5.432 6 .905 1.320 .311
Gender * Comp Grp Scores 3.093 5 .619 .902 .507
Error 9.599 14 .686
Total 18.266 27
Corrected Total 16.982 26

a. R Squared = .435 (Adjusted R Squared = -.050)

Results for Question 2
Question Two wanted to understand if there were statistically significant differences in
group process scores and the MCTM, grade, and gender. MCTM and composing group scores
were not found to correlate even though fifth grade acoustic Group A participants scored higher
on the MCTM and a higher mean overall. No statistical significance was found between
composing groups and grade or gender for the MCTM.

93

Question 3
Findings
Correlations were calculated to determine if there were statistically relationships between
process scores, MCTM, and IMMA for those subjects in the treatment groups. While group
composing scores were somewhat related to MCTM scores (r = .34), no statistically significant
correlations were found between the test scores in this study for the total sample (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9

Correlations between MCTM Scores, Composing Group Scores, and IMMA Scores (Total Sample)

Scores IMMA MCTM
Composing Process

Pearson Correlation .022 .342
Sig. (2-tailed) .904 .081
N 32 27
IMMA Pearson Correlation .259
Sig. (2-tailed) . .191
N 27

Tables 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 display similar correlations tables broken down by
grade and gender. Results show no significant differences when studied separately for grade and
gender.

94

Table 4.10

Correlations between Third Grade Participants' MCTM, Composing Groups, and IMMA Scores

MCTM
Group
Composing
IMMA
MCTM Pearson
Correlation
1 .388 .534
Sig. (2-tailed) .212 .074
N 12 12 12
Group Composing Pearson
Correlation
.388 1 -.126
Sig. (2-tailed) .212

.698
N 12 12 12
IMMA Pearson
Correlation
.534 -.126 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .074 .698

N 12 12 12

95

Table 4.11

Correlations between Fifth Grade Participants' MCTM, Composing Groups, and IMMA Scores

MCTM
Composing
Groups
IMMA
MCTM Pearson
Correlation
1 .237 .018
Sig. (2-tailed) .396 .951
N 15 15 15
Composing
Groups
Pearson
Correlation
.237 1 .377
Sig. (2-tailed) .396

.166
N 15 15 15
IMMA Pearson
Correlation
.018 .377 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .951 .166

N 15 15 15

96

Table 4.12

Correlations between Third and Fifth Grade Male Participants' MCTM, Composing Groups,
and IMMA Scores

MCTM Composing Groups IMMA
MCTM Pearson Correlation 1 .161 .253
Sig. (2-tailed) .730 .584
N 7 7 7
Composing Groups Pearson Correlation .161 1 -.461
Sig. (2-tailed) .730 .298
N 7 7 7
IMMA Pearson Correlation .253 -.461 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .584 .298
N 7 7 7

97

Table 4.13

Correlations between Third and Fifth Grade Female Participants' MCTM, Composing Groups,
and IMMA Scores

MCTM
Group
Composing
IMMA
MCTM Pearson Correlation 1 .410 .261
Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .267
N 20 20 20
Group Composing Pearson Correlation .410 1 .141
Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .553
N 20 20 20
IMMA Pearson Correlation .261 .141 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .267 .553
N 20 20 20

Results for Question 3

To summarize findings for Question Three, no statistically significant relationships were
found between the Intermediate Measure of Music Aptitude, the composing treatments
(Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups), or the Measure of Creative Thinking in
Music.

98

Summary

To summarize, Hyperscore composing groups, both male and female participants, scored
higher overall than acoustic instrument groups in the composing treatment in this study. Both
main effects and interaction were found to be significant between composing group mean scores,
grade level, and gender, however, no large difference occurred between composing group scores
overall and gender.
When compared with MCTM scores, the fifth grade acoustic instrument composing
groups scored highest on the MCTM while third grade acoustic instrument composing groups
scored the lowest. Also, no interaction was found between composing groups’ MCTM scores
and grade. While there were no statistically significant outcomes of composing groups and
gender, male Hyperscore participants scored the lowest on the MCTM while female Hyperscore
participants scored highest.
Group composing scores were somewhat related to MCTM scores but not statistically
significant. No correlations were found between the three measures used in this study.

99

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

This chapter discusses the results of the experimental study described in Chapters Three
and Four, followed by the presentation of a conceptual framework for teachers and researchers
working with child composers that emerged. The chapter ends with implications for music
education research and practice through this empirical study.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to observe participants in third and fifth grades as they
composed using two types of instruments (i.e., acoustic rhythm and technology-mediated) in
groups of four. More specifically, this study investigated the relationships between student
composing group scores, musical aptitude (Gordon, 1986), and creative thinking in music
(Webster, 1994).
Third grade and fifth grade students from one medium-sized school in a suburban school
district took part in this experimental between-subjects factorial design study. All students
completed Gordon ’s Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation (IMMA) at the beginning of the
study. More students volunteered than were needed and high and low outlier scores were
removed providing the forty-eight students needed.
As a next step, stratified random sampling was utilized to place students into three
groups. Students were randomly assigned to two composing groups A and B, and the control

100

group, C. Group A composed with acoustic rhythm instruments, Group B composed with a
graphic computer program, Hyperscore. Group C participants took the IMMA and MCTM
however, did not participate in the phase two composing treatment.
Results indicated that third grade participants scored higher on the IMMA than those in
fifth grade. This finding could be explained in at least two ways. Although there is an idea that
musical skills develop with age, Gordon (1986) and others (Zimmerman, 1986) have argued that
musical aptitude reaches a plateau at around age ten. Grade differences in IMMA scores found
here could be a reflection of learning plateaus. Alternatively, the contrasting scores of third and
fifth graders could be related to the relatively small sample size in the current study. It is
possible that some of these differences would disappear with a larger sample size.
Interestingly, IMMA scores held no correlations to any of the other measures in this
study. That is, children ’s abilities to compare tonal and rhythmic patterns accurately did not
correlate, nor predict, their creative process when working in a group composing experience, nor
scores for creative thinking in music. In fact, one low-scoring IMMA student scored extrememly
high on the MCTM. This is consistent with previous studies (Kiehn, 2003; Webster, 1988)
reinforcing the notion that musical aptitude may be completely separate from creative processes
and creative thinking and, therefore, non-predictive. Likewise, no significant gender differences
were found for the IMMA scores. Although earlier research has suggested that boys tend to score
higher in improvisatory studies of elementary-level participants (Kiehn, 2003) while girls score
higher in music testing (Wright, 2001), this was clearly not the case here.
Worth comment, an interesting grade level difference emerged. In the researcher's
observations of the groups while they were composing, most students appeared to be equally

101

comfortable with both acoustic instruments and Hyperscore. While fifth grade participants
scored higher overall in the composing treatments, there was a grade level difference with regard
to acoustic vs. Hyperscore scores. While third grade participants scored higher when composing
with Hyperscore, fifth grade participants scored higher when composing with acoustic
instruments. The outcome of third grade students scoring higher than fifth graders when
composing with Hyperscore may be related to increased use of personal digital assistants (PDAs)
from an earlier point in participants ’ lives, perhaps beginning at age two or three.
The school that participated in the current study was under district mandates to involve
students in weekly coding projects, daily use of Google Chrome, consistent use of iPad carts, and
use of personal digital notebooks for all grade levels. Consequently, one can speculate that the
comparatively larger familiarity with technology of third graders as opposed to their fifth grade
peers may have impacted their motivation for using Hyperscore. In other words, it was a natural
activity. This is merely speculative and merits further examination, and researchers are only
beginning to look at the equation of test scores and PDAs as related to public schools. It is
possible that in the past five years alone, with the increase of home and classroom use of
technology, there may be a shift in how all human beings work with technology from both the
perspective of interest and achievement.
The researcher's observations of composing groups further suggest that third grade
participants had greater organizational skills for the group computer workspace and greater
"sharing of space" for new ideas, inclusion of all in the group, along with a higher capacity for
successful intergroup communication than their older peers. Fifth grade composing groups, in
turn, appeared to be much more concerned about being quiet, studious, and serious about the

102

project, and most groups (with the exception of one acoustic instrument group) were not as
verbal about completing a first-rate piece of music. That is, fifth graders appeared to more aware
of themselves; how they related to the Hyperscore tool may have been more related to being
observed by the researcher with a video recorder than younger peers. On that note, third grade
groups did not seem to care much about demonstrating their capabilities with Hyperscore, but
fifth grade groups did.
These differences between third and fifth grade participants may be explained both
developmentally and culturally. Eccles (1999) identified the conscious changes children make in
their learning style, such as an increase in self-reflection, through early learning experiences.
This partly explains how fifth graders were more “schooled ” than their third grade peers. Once
again, further substantiation is required of these substantiations.
This study also interrogated whether there were correlations between the composing
groups scores and the MCTM. While male participants composing with Hyperscore scored the
lowest on the MCTM and highest when composing with acoustic instruments, female students
scored higher on the MCTM who had composed with Hyperscore. This finding contradicts
earlier research suggesting that boys have more interest in technology than girls (Kiehn, 2003;
Legg, 2010) and may be a demonstration of increased training of all students in elementary
classrooms on a daily basis.
The MCTM scores were highly inter-correlated, with third grade participants scoring
higher on the MCTM factor scores than their fifth grade peers. While there were no statistically
significant correlations between the MCTM, CIQCG, or grade, (see Chapter Four) there was a
significant correlation between CIQCG scores and MCTM factors of Originality and Syntax with

103

third grade participants; syntax represents Webster's (1994) way of identifying children's ability
to organize musical ideas. Once again, these findings reinforce the notion that grade should not
be viewed as the determining factor when examining children’s creative processes, no matter the
type. Children should be given opportunities to work with projects that support the development
of musical skills such as composing and improvising, and creative thinking. Opportunities to
compose may be extremely important for musical growth, especially in foundational learning at
the elementary level.
Another significant correlation of interest was found between group composing scores
and Musical Flexibility for both third and fifth graders. In Webster's measure, the Flexibility
factor is the total time a student spent responding to the measure questions. It is interesting to
note that some students responded with forty-five seconds of musical responses total throughout
their MCTM responses while others responded with a total time of up to nine minutes and fifty
seconds of response time. This finding aligns with earlier studies (Burnard & Younker, 2008;
Ohman-Rodriguez, 2004; Wiggins, 2005) suggesting that comfort makes a difference in the
output of students' compositional work.
Although this study counted on a well-defined workspace, consistency of expectations for
every meeting, and elements of familiarity in the same classroom with the same tools that
participants could count on, individual differences in student responses in the MCTM still
emerged. These are consistent with the idea that there are marked individual learner differences
in group settings (Eccles, 1999).
Finally, this study also examined whether there were statistically significant correlations
between both group composing process scores, IMMA scores, and MCTM scores. While no

104

statistical significance was found between the three measures, including by grade or gender, a
low correlation was found between the CIQCG and MCTM. This may be due to focus on
musical exploration in both measures. In both measures, children are invited to create music and
the improvisatory nature of the composing treatment and the MCTM may have some
commonality, therefore, this finding does not come as a surprise. Future studies conducted with
different populations and larger sample sizes could probe further the relationships between both
measures.
To summarize, the variables of gender and grade produced several interesting findings.
First, it was surprising that boys did not have predominantly higher scorers than girls in any of
the measures. Furthermore, girls scored higher when composing music using Hyperscore. This
contradicts earlier studies, suggesting that male students have greater leadership skills, greater
access to technology, and greater creativity than females (Armstrong, 2011; Charles, 2004).
Furthermore, Comber, Hargreaves, and Colley (1993) suggested that male students had greater
facility and opportunity with technology than girls and therefore educators would have an
important responsibility to ensuring girls had equal access to technology. As technology has
become a tool used in every classroom, female students may be engaged at the same or at an
even higher level than their male counterparts, as seen in the present study. Technology,
especially as found in this study appears to not only be useful, but also serves as a source of
motivation. Grade, in turn, should not be viewed as completely deterministic, particularly where
composing tasks and creative thinking are concerned. That age and grade level may be of lesser
relevance to work with creative music-making or composing in music classrooms than
previously thought is an important consideration for future work. A thorough examination of
divergent thinking at the elementary level, as related to compositional tasks and levels of

105

communication between participants at different grade levels, may hold important segues to
development of creative effort.
This study's results may need to be replicated in similar contexts and with greater
numbers of students. Perhaps development of a fifteen-week section of meetings would add
greatly to the elements measured in this study in three or four visits.

Connecting Theory and Practice: A Proposed Conceptual Framework
The purpose of this study was to observe how participants in grades three and five would
undertake two different types of composing experiences. Experience with students, all unique, as
they compose helps to understand whether there are similarities in students or “student types ”
with relation to creative process during composing experiences in elementary classrooms.
Observation of child participants in this study led to the development of an exploratory
conceptual framework that other educators may find useful.
Compositionally speaking, in a same classroom, we may find different types of students.
Awareness of types of students found in the music classroom as regards composition, offers a
clearer understand of student engagement and interest during composing opportunities. This, in
turn, may be useful when developing lesson plans or projects for young children. A conceptual

106

framework was developed for this study highlighting different types of young composers we
may find in classrooms. Children:
 may have little to no interest in composing;
 may have not composed spontaneously on their own, but may exhibit the ability to
compose after being invited to compose;
 may enjoy composing projects, but exhibit no further inclination to compose;
 may appear to possess a “natural” ability to compose;
 compose with interest (or greater interest) where there was none prior.

Students may navigate between more than one characteristic over the course of time.
Figure 5.1

Crawford Conceptual Framework of Musical Productivity Types of Young Composers

Possesses a
natural ability
to compose

May enjoy
composing
projects but
exhibits no further
inclination to
compose

Exhibits
ability to
compose after
being invited
to compose

Little or no
interest in
composing

Composes with
greater interest, or
with interest where
there was none prior,
when student finds
particular instrument
(acoustic or
technology) appealing

107

Aside from describing five types of student composers, the proposed conceptual
framework takes into consideration three interrelated sources that influence the lives and
experiences of young composers, as they work in groups. First, is the person, which refers to the
characteristics of the individual who comes to the group with prior experiences of learning,
music and communication. Second, is style, or approach to not only working in a group but one's
personal likes and dislikes with music. As musicians in the world, children may not have
uncovered what this is by third or fifth grade, but even so, bring in a personal musical style to a
group. Finally, there is environment. As Bronfenbrenner (1979) has argued, children are often
raised in one type of environment and schooled in another. Humans also spend a considerable
amount of time in others. The different environments in which children navigate, influence who
they are and how they conduct themselves; as well as expectations – theirs and from others.
Taken together, these factors directly impact children’s ways of being in the world, including
their musical experiences.
The proposed conceptual framework may be useful for defining the many social
behaviors that perform a role in group music making, including group composing opportunities.
The inner workings of leading and following that connect with exploration of creative process
may be found within and beyond the observation process. More work is clearly needed to
examine this when composing in groups in elementary classrooms, and with greater numbers of
participants. Even if this may seem removed from the compositional experience, as the nature of
classrooms are reliant on working efficiently with time and space, a clear understanding of what
educators might communicate, or how instruction might occur during the process of composing
is warranted. This conceptual framework is a model provided by this author leaves for future
educators and researchers to apply and test.

108

Conclusion and Implications
The 40
th
Anniversary edition of Smithsonian Magazine (Monmaney, 2010) highlights
forty things we should all know about the next 40 years. Beyond technological expansion, there
is focus on the artist's place in society, brain scans to help us better understand children in 21
st

century education, and a redefinition of composers and composition. According to the authors,
“Composers will no longer be the only people who are capable of composing” (p. 97). This
statement suggests that there is an emerging modification to the definition of “composer” and,
consequently, call for a change in how music educators view the act of composing. While some
may still believe that composers are only those who write music following years of musical
training and study, this assertion has been and will continue to be challenged.
Currently, in the most recent Music Educators Journal, a special section about
composing represents some of the long-time writers from the field of music education on
creative work and compositional subjects of interest to this study. From Webster's (2016)
discussion of twenty-five years of creative thinking study to Jorgenson's (2016) article on the
joy, pleasure, and celebration found through composing, the subjects of technology, process vs.
product, songwriting, and popular music continue. As compared by earlier works, many of
which are found in this study (Barrett, 1995; Burnard & Younker, 2010; Coulson and Burke,
2013; Doig, 1942b; Finney, 2012; Paynter, 2000; Ruthmann and Herbert, 1999; Seddon &
O'Neill, 2003), there is still much study to be done on the subject of creative process.
In this study, participants were assigned to compose a piece of music with tools they were
assigned in a group they were randomly assigned to be a part of. What they did next was
completely their choice, and unrelated to any previously assigned framework. Some researchers

109

have viewed group composition as an approach. Understandably, this may be true as we initiate
opportunities to compose at the elementary level where some students have limited musical
experience, some have none, and still others take private lessons garnering them greater
experience all together. In sum, fifth graders, third graders, and even younger students, may be
very capable of compositional exploration as demonstrated by the results of the present study, no
matter what they are assigned to do, or the tools they are assigned to use.
Fifth grade participants had a higher level of interest in studiousness, perhaps a different
type of focus that was not seen in the third grade groups, but one that reflects an important aspect
of composing as students get older. The ability to connect ideas, an even greater concern for
how one “looks”, may constitute an important aspect of composing, and is, perhaps, one of the
major developmental differences between fifth grade students and their younger peers (for a
discussion see Eccles, 1999).
This study offered participants an opportunity to compose without restrictions, with the
exception of a suggestion to include a beginning, middle, and end to the work, and, to consider
the use of silence. Participants may have thought they were accomplishing this, but there was no
discussion of either, except in one fifth grade group that was using acoustic rhythm instruments.
Perhaps the concepts did not seem to apply, in their minds, or to their work. This fact in itself
reinforces the purpose of studying composition processes as opposed to simply focusing on final
products. Fewer restrictions at an earlier stage are perhaps more beneficial to students’
compositional processes. As children get older, restrictions may serve a different purpose.
Furthermore, stepping back and not intervening is an approach that teachers may wish to
consider when working with students at all grade levels.

110

Another issue of central importance is the nature of interactions between students in
group composing. Leadership roles may change over the course of time. For example, one third
grade group of participants composing with acoustic instruments, three females traded off as
"directors" and the male participant stayed in the background. As composing progressed,
leadership became more constant amongst all members of this group. Another example of
student interactions when composing in group settings is as follows. In a fifth grade Hyperscore
group, a male participant was rarely removed from the mouse at the computer. He managed
most of the exploration during the group’s first meeting until another participant said he could
"go next". The male participant originally on the mouse became unengaged without control and
returned to the mouse in the second visit. The researcher removed the chairs in front of the desk
and noted this gave all students equal access to the mouse. They completed their composition
rapidly by truly listening closely to all members’ ideas with all voices guiding the process.
In other words, higher communication levels during individual and group process led to
higher scores in the composing treatment. When participants had more established musical
knowledge, they often served as “early leaders” in the composing process. This does not mean,
however, that these participant’s ideas were not rejected or, at least, questioned. Consistently in
one fifth grade Hyperscore group, a male participant rejected a female leader's ideas. As well,
the other members of the group noted that the other two were making decisions that they were
not part of. Interestingly, fifth graders spoke more openly about this type of communication than
did third grade groups.
Additionally, it was noteworthy that “jobs” were designated in some groups. Some
students were “notaters” of the scoring process, while others were “discoverers” of sounds.
Sometimes there was one overall leader; commonly there was someone in charge of “correcting”

111

the compositional choices being made. In only one group were the challenges so great, where
communication was never well-established, and where no leader came forward, and, no
participant understood what their job was, and the composition was not achieved, or at least to
the opinion of the group. These observations, which are relevant for music education, are also
consistent with notions of communities of practice and legitimate peripheral participation
(Wenger, 2000).
Technology played an important role in children’s composing processes, yet composing
with acoustic instruments was equally engaging. This may be an indicator that composing
opportunities must begin very early and music teachers should not shy away from providing
opportunities to compose, no matter the instruments used, acoustic and technology-mediated.
Teachers may also find relief that it is clear composing with acoustic instruments in the music
classroom is still a vital option, especially if there is no access to computer technology. As well,
music educators may be interested in the outcome of successful experiences of group composing
opportunities found in this study where one-on-one teaching is nearly impossible in elementary
music education.
While this author is a composer, and is comfortable presenting opportunities to compose,
the first work to be done by music educators who have yet to compose, is to develop
compositional experiences that produce a feeling for that aspect of musicianship for oneself.
Developing weekly session time may be translated into opportunities to compose with students.
Music teachers who begin to do this may find themselves becoming active composers,
songwriters, and producers of music.

112

To conclude, while there is some study of creativity as applied to K-12 music education,
decades of study of the measurement of creativity related to intelligence and aptitude, studies
related to creativity and composing processes of young children, and study of creativity and the
use of technology, there is little study of how creativity is found through composing in general
music in K-5 classrooms. Few studies have observed or measured the process of children when
they compose together in groups. Without this type of study, how does our profession know
where to begin in developing skill with creative process? The answer is to begin composing
music, even if it hasn't been explored before, and to research it in systematic ways.
In order to have a clearer connection with children’s creative processes when composing,
it is necessary to consider the nature of children’s musicality. For example, whether students are
tested to understand their musical aptitude, observed to understand their creative process, or
measured to understand their level of creativity in musical thinking, students generally exhibit
specific characteristics in their compositional abilities. No matter what instruments are used or
tasks presented, children's musicality unfolds, as they are natural music makers. Opportunities to
compose may be less common in some schools than others, but when they happen with
consistency, they may provide necessary opportunities for students to develop their own
musicality, to experiment, to express emotions of many types, and to learn to communicate more
fully.

113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allsup, R. E. (2014). A place for music education in the humanities. Music Educators Journal,
100(4), 71-75.

Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.

Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376.

Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Comprehensive, Coordinated Psychological
Services for Children, American Psychological Association. Board of Professional
Affairs, & Psychology in the Schools Program. (1995). Comprehensive & coordinated
psychological services for children: A call for service integration. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.

Armstrong, V. (2011). Technology and the gendering of music education. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Company.

Auh, M. (1995). Prediction of musical creativity in composition among selected variables for
upper elementary students. (Unpublished dissertation, Case Western Reserve University)

Barrett, M. (1995). Children composing: What have we learnt? In Honing the Craft: Improving
the Quality of Music Education. Conference Proceedings of the Australian Society for
Music Education, 10th National Conference. Bloomsbury, London: Artemis
Publishing.

Barrett, M. (1996). Children's aesthetic decision-making: An analysis of children's musical
discourse as composers. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 37-62,

Barrett, M. (2006). 'Creative collaboration: An 'eminence' study of teaching and learning in
music composition. Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research, 34(2),
195-218.

114

Barrett, M. (2012). Preparing the mind for musical creativity: Early music learning and
engagement. In O. Odena (Ed.). Musical creativity: Insights from music education
research. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007a). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case
for" mini-c" creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. (2007b). The genesis of creative greatness: Mini-c and the
expert performance approach. High Ability Studies, 18(1), 59-61.

Bennett, S. (1975). Learning to compose: Some research, some suggestions. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 9(3), 205-210.

Berkley, R. (2004). Teaching composing as creative problem solving: Conceptualizing
composing pedagogy. British Journal of Music Education, 21(3), 239-263.

Bernetein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique.
London: Taylor and Francis.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1919). The development of intelligence in children. Vineland, New
Jersey: Publications of the Training School.

Blom, D. (1999). Composition by committee: Introducing new stylistic ideas through class
composing activities at middle primary school level. Presented at Australian Society for
Music Education, University of Sydney, July 1999.

Boston, S. C. (1992). Satis N. Coleman (1878-1961): Her career in music education.
(University of Maryland College Park, Dissertation)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2001). Investigating social processes in group musical
composition. Research Studies in Music Education, 16(1), 46-56.

Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2004). Problem-solving and creativity: insights from students’
individual composing pathways. International Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 59-76.

115

Burnard, P. (2015). Activating diverse musical creativities: Teaching and learning in higher
music education. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2010). Towards a broader conception of creativity in the music
classroom: A case for using Engeström's activity theory as a basis for researching and
characterizing group music-making process. In R. Wright Sociology and Music
Education, 165-191. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Campbell, P., & Scott-Kassner, C. (1995). Music in childhood: From pre-school through the
elementary grades. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

Cangro, R. (2015). Student collaboration and standards-based music learning: A literature
review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, DOI:
10.1177/8755123314568794.

Charles, B. (2004). Boys’ and girls’ constructions of gender through musical composition in the
primary school. British Journal of Music Education, 21(3), 265-277.

Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review
of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.

Coleman, S. N. (1917). Children and music—A heretic's views on the present system of
teaching. The Musical Observer, (September 1917), 50-62.

Coleman, S. N. (1922). Creative music for children: A plan of training based on the natural
evolution of music including making and playing of instruments – Dancing – Singing –
Poetry. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Comber, C., Hargreaves, D., & Colley (1993). Girls, boys and technology in music education.
British Journal of Music Education, 10(2), 123-134.

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts
education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Cornaccio, R. A. (2008). Effect of cooperative learning on music composition, interactions, and
acceptance in elementary school classrooms. (Unpublished dissertation. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon)

116

Coulson, A., & Burke, B. (2013). Creativity in the elementary classroom: A study of students’
perceptions. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 428-441.

Crawford, L. (2004). Leadership in curricular change: A national survey of collegiate faculty
perceptions regarding music composition in teacher training. (Unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of the Pacific)

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 313-335.
creativity. (2016). Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/creativity.
creativity. (2016). Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/
definition/american_english/creativity.
Dammers, R. (2013). Capitalizing on emerging technologies in composition education. In M.
Kaschub and J. P. Smith Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach
composition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

DeLorenzo, L. C. (1989). A field study of sixth-grade students' creative music problem-solving
processes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 188-200.

Doig, D. (1941). Creative music: I - Music composed for a given text. The Journal of
Educational Research, 35(4), 263-275.

Doig, D. (1942a). Creative music: II - Music Composed on a given subject. The Journal of
Educational Research, 35(5), 244-255.

Doig, D. (1942b). Creative Music: III - Music composed to illustrate given musical problems.
The Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 241-253.

Dorfman, J. (2013). Theory and practice of technology-based music instruction. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2),
30-44.

Farbood, M. & Ludwig, T. (2002). Hyperscore [computer software]. New York: Worth.

117

Farbood, M., Kaufman, H., & Jennings, K. (2007). Composing with Hyperscore: An intuitive
interface for visualizing musical structure. International Computer Music Conference.

Finney, J., & Burnard, P. (2009). Music education with digital technology. London: Continuum
International Publishing Group.

Finney, J. (2012). Creativity, culture and the practice of music education. In C. Philpott and G.
Spruce, (Eds.) Debates in music teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A's framework. Review of
General Psychology, 1, 69-81.

Glover, J. (2002). Children composing, 4-14. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Glover, J., Ronning, R., & Reynolds, C. (1989). Handbook of creativity. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.

Gordon, E. E. (1986). Intermediate measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

Gordon, E. E. (1990). Music aptitude and related tests: An introduction. Chicago, IL: GIA
Publications.

Gordon, E. (2003; 1980). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, patterns. Chicago, IL:
GIA Publicaions.

Green, L. (2008). Group cooperation, inclusion and disaffected pupils: Some responses to
informal learning in the music classroom. Presented at the RIME Conference 2007,
Exeter, UK. Music Education Research, 10(2), 177-192.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267-293.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

118

Harrison, L. (1983). Getting started in elementary music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hennessey, B., & Amabile, T. (1987). Creativity and learning. Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association.

Hewitt, A. (2008). Children's creative collaboration during a computer-based music task.
International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 11-26.

Hickey, M. (1997). The computer as a tool in creative music making. Research Studies in Music
Education, 8(1), 56-70.

Hickey, M. (1999). Assessment rubrics for music composition. Music Educators Journal. 85(4),
26-34.

Hickey, M. (2001a). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the
creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 49(3), 234-244.

Hickey, M. (2001b). More or less creative? A comparison of the compositional processes and
products of “highly creative ” and “less creative children composers. Paper presented at
the Second International Research in Music Education Conference, University of Exeter
School of Education, UK.

Hickey, M. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theater, and dance. In R. Colwell
and C. Richardson (Eds.) The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hickey, M. (Ed.). (2003). Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music
education. Reston, VA: MENC.

Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hickey, M. (2013). What pre-service teachers can learn from composition research. In M.
Kaschub and J. P. Smith (Eds.), Composing out future: Preparing music educators to
teach composition. New York: Oxford University Press.

119

Hickey, M., & Webster, P. (2001). Creative thinking in music. Special focus: Composition and
Improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 88(1), 19-23.

Hindson, M., Barbeler, D., & Blom, D. (2007). Music composition toolbox. Marrickville,
Australia: Science Press.

Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the creative behavior inventory. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, April 16-19, 1979.

Hovevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique fo measurements used in the study
of creativity. In J. Glover, R. Ronnings, & C. Reynolds, (Eds.) Handbook of Creativity.
New York: Plenum Press.

Huang, C., & Yeh, Y. (2014). Graphical interface-based automated music composition use
among elementary school students. Musicae Scientiae, 18(1), 84-97.

Humphreys, J. T. (2006). Toward a reconstruction of ‘creativity’ in music education. British
Journal of Music Education, 23(3), 351-361.

Hyun, E. (2005). A study of 5- to 6-year-old children's peer dynamics and dialectical learning in
a computer-based, technology-rich classroom environment. Computers & Education,
44, 69-91.

Isaksen, S., Murdock, M., Firestein, R., & Treffinger, D. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding and
recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.

Jennings, K. (2005). Hyperscore: A case study in computer mediated music composition.
Education and Information Technologies, 10(3), 225-238.

Jennings, K. (2007). Composing with graphical technologies: Representations, manipulations,
and affordances. In J. Finney and P. Burnard Music education with digital technology.
New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Jorgensen, E. R. (2016). Another perspective: The joyous composer. The Music Educators
Journal, 102(3), 71-74.

Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical
thinking. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

120

Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2013). Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach
composition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity.
Review of general psychology, 13(1), 1.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, , Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the
consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 2(2), 96-106.

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kaufman, J., & Sternberg, R. (2006). The international handbook of creativity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Kaufman, J., & Sternberg, R. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Kennedy, M. (2007). Principal themes: The Holland Brook Project: Introducing composition to
grade five students. Canadian Music Educator, 49(1), 29-33.

Kiehn, M. (2000). A study of the development of music creativity in elementary school students.
(Dissertation, University of Colorado)

Kiehn, M. T. (2003). Development of music creativity among elementary school students.
Journal of research in Music Education, 51(4), 278-288.

Koops. A. (2013). Facilitating composition in instrumental settings. In M. Kaschub, & J. Smith,
(Eds.), Composing our Future: Preparing Music Educators to Teach Composition. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Kratus, J. (1989) A time analysis of the compositional processes used by children ages 7 to 11.
Journal of Research in Music Education. 37(1), 5-20.

Kratus, J. (1990). Structuring the music curriculum for creative learning. Music Educators
Journal, 76(9), 33-37.

121

Kratus, J. (1993). Growing with improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 35-40.

Kratus, J. (1994). Relationships among children's music audiation and their compositional
processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 115-130.

Kratus, J. (2001). Effect of available tonality and pitch options on children's compositional
processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(4), 294-306.
Kratus, L. (2012). Nurturing the songcatchers: Philosophical issues in the teaching of music
composition. In W. D. Bowman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music
education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kwalwasser, J. (1927). Tests and measurements in music. Boston, MA: C. C. Birchard and Co.

Kwalwasser, J. (1928). Tests and measurements in music. Psychological Bulletin, 25(5), 284-301.

Kwalwasser, J., & Dykema, P. (1930). Manual of directions for Victor Records. New York: Carl
Fischer.

Larson, W. (1938). Practical experience with music tests. Music Educators Journal, 24(5),
pp. 31+68+70+74.

Lau, S., Hui, A., & Ng, G. (2004). Creativity: When east meets west. River Edge, New Jersey:
World Scientific Publishing Co.

Legg, R. (2010). 'One equal music': An exploration of gender perceptions and the fair assessment
by beginning music teachers of musical compositions. Music Education Research, 12(2),
141-149.

Levi, R. (1991). Investigating the creativity process: The role of regular musical composition
experiences for the elementary child. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(2), 125-136.

Lipscomb, S. D., Hickey, M. Sebald, D., & Hodges, D. (2003). The creative music project: A
cantometric analysis of fifth grade student composition. XXXX: Texaco Corporation.

Lomax, A. (1976). Cantometrics: An approach to the anthropology of music. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Extension Media Center.

122

MacDonald, R. A., & Miell, D. (2000). Creativity and music education: The impact of social
variables. International Journal of Music Education, (1), 58-68.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American psychologist,
17(7), 484-495.

McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking
musical ability, development and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miell, D., Mitchell, L., MacDonald, A. R. (2002). An investigation of children's musical
collaborations: The effects of friendship and age. Psychology of Music, 30(2), 148-163.

Monmaney, T. (2010). 40 things you need to know about the next 40 years. Smithsonian
Magazine, 41(4), 25-128.

Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1942a). Music of young children: I. Chant. Santa Barbara, CA:
Pillsbury Foundation.

Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1942b). Music of young children: II. General observations.
Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation.

Mota, G., Goncalves, D., Oliveira, A., Sousa, A., Calheiros, F., & Ribeiro, H. (2007).
Composing with Hyperscore in general music classes: An exploratory study.
International Symposium on Performance Science.

musical aptitude. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.libproxy2.
usc.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/42574pg6#S42574.6.

National Core Arts Standards. (2014). Music. Retrieved 2/1/2016 from
http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

Ohman-Rodriguez, J. (2004). Music from inside out: Promoting emergent composition with
young children. Young Children 59(4), 50-55.

123

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY:
Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corp.

Paynter, J. (2000). Making progress with composing. British Journal of Music Education, 17(1),
5-31.

Pierce, A. (1959). Teaching music in the elementary school. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

Piffer, D. (2012). Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and
general directions for future research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 258-264.

Pond, D. (1980). The young child's playful world of sound. Music Educators Journal, 66(7), 39-
41.

Pond, D. (1981). A composer's study of young children's innate musicality. Bulletin for the
Council for Research in Music Education, 68, 1-12.

Pond, D. (2014). The young child's playful world of sound. Music Educators Journal, 100(3),
45-48.

psychology of music, music ability. Retrieved September 7, 2015 from Grove Music Online.

Rainbow, E. L. (1965). A pilot study to investigate the constructs of musical aptitude. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 13(1), 3-14.

Randles, C., & Webster, P. R. (2013). Creativity in music teaching and learning. In Encyclopedia
of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, p. 420-429. New York:
Springer New York.

Reimer, B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall

Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision. New York:
Pearson.

124

Rhodes, M. (1956). The dynamics of creativity: An interpretation of the literature on creativity
with a proposed procedure for objective research. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Arizona State University, Tempe)

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Beta Kappen, 42, 305-310.

Runco, M. (1997). The creativity research handbook. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657-687.

Runco, M. (2007). Creativity-theories and themes: Research, development, and practice.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Ruthmann, A., & Hebert, D. G. (1999). Music learning and new media in virtual and online
environments. In G. McPherson and G. F. Welch, Oxford Handbook of Music Education.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ruthmann, A. (2006). Negotiating learning and teaching in a music technology lab: Curricular,
pedagogical, and ecological issues. (Dissertation, Oakland University)

Sarath, E. (2013). Improvisation, creativity, and consciousness: Jazz as integral template for
music, education, and society (Electronic Resource). Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press.

Sawyer, K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Philadelphia, PA:
Perseus Basic Books.

Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd Ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Seashore, C. E. (1919a). The psychology of musical talent. New York, NY: Silver, Burdett & Co.

Seashore, C. E., (1919b). Manual of instructions and interpretations for Measures of Musical
Talent. New York: Stoelting Co.

125

Seddon, F., & O'Neill, S. (2003). Creative thinking processes in adolescent computer-based
composition: An analysis of strategies adopted and the influence of musical training.
Music Education Research, 5(2), 7-36.

Smith, J. P. (2004). Music composition of upper elementary students created under various
conditions of structure. (Dissertation, Northwestern University)

Snyder, A. M. (1957). Creating music with children. New York: Mills Music, Inc.

Snyder, A. M. (1958). Creating music with children. Music Journal, 16(1), 36.

Snyder, A. M. (1962). Music in our world. New York, NY: Mills Music, Inc.

Southcott, J. (2009). The seeking attitude: Ideas that influenced Satis N. Coleman. Journal of
Historical Research in Music Education, 31(1), 20-36.

Stanton, H. M. (1928). Seashore measures of musical talent. Psychological Monographs, 39(2),
135-144.

Stanton, H. M. (1935). Measurement of musical talent: The Eastman experiment. Studies in the
Psychology of Music, Vol. II. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627.

Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1995). Music and the mind machine: The psychophysiology and
psychopathology of the sense of music. Klingenmunster, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

Sternberg. R. J. (2000). Handbook of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

St. John, P. A. (2006). Finding and making meaning: Young children as musical collaborators.
Psychology of Music, 34(2), 238-261.

Strand, K. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 154-167.

126

Strand, K. (2013). Guiding composition in choral settings. In M. Kaschub and J. Smith,
Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Swanwick, K. & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of children's
composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305-339.

Syverud, S. (1992). Technology for teaching: Composing with synthesizers. Music Educators
Journal, 78(9), 70-74.

tests and measures of musical capacities. Retrieved 2/1/2016 from Harvard Music Online.

Thomas, R. B. (1964). Learning through composing. Music Educators Journal, 50(4), 106-108.

Thorndike, E. L. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium—I. The Journal of
Educational Psychology, 12(3), 124-127.

Timmerman, M. (1958). Let's teach music in the elementary school. Evanston, IL: Summy-
Birchard Publishing Co.

Torrance, E. P. (1968). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press, Incorporated.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 3-7,
1972.

Upitis, R. (1989). The craft of composition: Helping children create music with computer tools.
Psychomusicology, 8(2), 151-162

Upitis, R. (1990). This too is music. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Upitis, R. (1992). Can I play you my song: The compositions and invented notations of children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Vaughan, M., & Myers, R. E. (1971). An examination of musical process as related to creative
thinking. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 337-341.

127

Vaughan, M. (1973). Creative behavior: Energy levels and the process of creativity. Music
Educators Journal, 59(8), 34-37.

Volk, T. M. (1996). Satis Coleman's "Creative music". Music Educators Journal, 82(6), 31-
33+47.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: J. Cape. (Republished in 2014 by Solis Press,
Kent, England)

Walters, D. L. (1991). Edwin Gordon's music aptitude work. The Quarterly Journal of Music
Teaching and Learning, 2(1-2), 64-72.

Watson, S. (2011). Using technology to unlock musical creativity. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Webster, P. R. (1977). A factor of intellect approach to creative thinking in music. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Rochester)

Webster, P. R. (1987). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In C. Peery (Ed.), Music
and child development (pp. 158-174). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Webster, P. R. (1988). Creative thinking and music education. Design for Arts in Education,
89(5), 33-37.

Webster, P. R. (1989a). Preface. Psychomusicology, 8(2), 67.

Webster, P. R. (1989b). Composition software and issues surrounding its use in research settings
with children. Psychomusicology, 8(2),

Webster, P. R. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 21.

Webster, P. R. (1992). Custom-designed software in the arts: The educator as expert. Design for
Arts in Education, 93(6), 37-44.

Webster, P. (1992). Research on creative thinking in music: The assessment literature. In R.
Colwell, (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning, 266-279. New
York: Schirmer Books.

128

Webster, P. R. (1994). Measure of creative thinking in music (MCTM): Administrative
guideline. Retrieved 1/11/2014 from www.peterrwebster.com.

Webster, P. R. (1998). Young children and music technology. Research Studies in Music
Education, 11, 61-76.

Webster, P. (2002a). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In T. Sullivan, & L.
Willingham, (Eds.), Creativity and music education, p. 16-33.

Webster, P. R. (2002b). Creativity and music Education: Creative thinking in music: Advancing
a model. Creativity in Music Education-Research to Practice: CMWA Biennial Series.

Webster, P. R. (2002c). Historical perspectives on technology and music. Music Educators
Journal, 89(1), 38+43+54.

Webster. P. R. (2007). Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning: 2000-
2005. International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, 4(2/3). 115-130.

Webster. P. R. (2012a). Key research in music technology and music teaching and learning.
Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 16, 1311-1330.

Webster, P. (2012b). Children as creative thinkers in music: Focus on composition. In S.
Hallam, I. Cross, and M. Thaut The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Webster, P. R. (2013). Music composition intelligence and creative thinking in music. In M.
Kaschub and J. P. Smith Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach
composition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Webster, P. R. (2016). Creative thinking in music, Twenty-five years on. Music Educators
Journal, 102(3), 26-32.

Webster, P. R., & Hickey, M. (1995). Rating scales and their use in assessing children’s music
compositions. The Quarterly, 6(4), pp. 28-44.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),
225-246.

129

Whitely, M. (1932). A comparison of the Seashore and Kwalwasser-Dykema music tests.
Teachers College Record, 33(8), 731-751.
Wiggins, J. (1990). Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching. Reston, VA: MENC.
Wiggins, J. (2005). Fostering revision and extension in student composing. Music Educators
Journal, 91(3), 35-42.
Wiggins, J. (2007). Compositional process in music. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook
of research in the arts.
Wolf, T. H. (1969). The emergence of Binet's conceptions and measurement of intelligence: A
Case history of the creative process. Part II. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences, 5(3), 207-237.
Wright, F. (1941). Elementary music education: Theory and practice. New York, NY: C. Fisher.
Wright, R. (2010). Sociology and music education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Younker, B. A. (2000). Thought processes and strategies of students engaged in music
composition. Research Studies in Music Education, 14, 24-39.
Zimmerman, M. P. (1986). Music development in middle childhood: A summary of selected
research studies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 86, 18–35.

130

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research
University of Southern California
Flora L. Thornton School of Music
Music Education Department
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0851

COMPOSING IN GROUPS: CREATIVE THINKING PROCESSES
OF THIRD AND FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS

Your third/fifth grade child attending School Elementary is invited to participate in a research
study conducted by Lisa Crawford, under the direction of faculty advisor, Dr. Biatriz Ilari at the
University of Southern California.

Your child's participation is voluntary. Please read the information below, and ask questions
about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to allow your child to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss
participation with your family or friends. If you decide to allow your child to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form and your child will be asked to sign an assent form. You will be
given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of my study is to understand more clearly the following three questions:

1. Are there significant differences between the sub-scores and total scores of the Measure of
Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) of children who undergo two distinct forms of group
composition (computer-based versus acoustic instruments)?

2. Are there gender differences in children’s sub-scores and total scores in the MCTM
following the different treatments?

3. Are there grade differences in children’s sub-scores and total scores in the MCTM following
the different treatments?

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

131

STUDY PROCEDURES

Third and fifth grade students are invited to participate in this study. If your child volunteers to
participate in this study, he or she will be asked their grade level, gender, and prior musical
experience and to participate in some or all of the following:

Measurement of student potential for musical achievement (Intermediate Measure of Music
Audiation, Edwin Gordon). This takes 30 – 40 minutes and is a listening experience.
Depending upon your child's score, s/he may be invited to participate in another activity in one
of three groups of four students to create a piece of music using a computer program or, acoustic
classroom instruments. The children will be randomly assigned, much like tossing a coin, to
groups of four in the same grade level and will work together three times for up to an hour and a
half, or until their composition is completed. Your child will be videotaped; if you do not wish
to allow your child to be videotaped, or your child doesn’t want to be video-taped, he/she will
not be able to participate in the study.

Measurement of creativity of each student (Measure of Creative Thinking in Music, Peter
Webster); this is anticipated to take approximately 30 minutes for individual students to
complete.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks in this study. Your child may not enjoy giving up after school
time.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your child may not directly benefit from his/her participation in this study. It is hope that this
study will help researchers understand the importance of musical composition and the creative
collaboration of children.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California's Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data/information from the video-tape will be transcribed by the researcher and/or a
professional transcription company and then destroyed. The data, including tapes, transcripts,
and measures, will be stored on a password protected computer and/or in a locked office. All

132

identifiable data will be stored separately from identifiable data. The data will be destroyed three
years after the study has been completed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child's participation is voluntary. His or her refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time
and your child may withdraw his/her assent, and discontinue participation without penalty. You are
not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in the research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your child's alternative is to not participate in this study; his/her grades will not be affected,
whether or not s/he participates in this study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator: Lisa Crawford, (310) 863-6422, lisa.crawford@usc.edu or the Faculty Advisor: Dr.
Beatriz Ilari, (213) 821-5513, ilari@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree that my child may participate in
this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Student who will participate: ____________________________ Grade ___________

Name of Parent of Participant

Signature of Parent of Participant Date

133

APPENDIX B: Assent Form to Participate in Research
University of Southern California
Flora L. Thornton School of Music, Music Education Department

ASSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

COMPOSING IN GROUPS: CREATIVE PROCESSES
OF THIRD AND FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS
Dear Student,
I am completing a study about kids who write music together. I would like to learn more about
how you think creatively when you compose music together in groups. One way to learn about
this is to do a research study; the people doing the study are called researchers.

Your school, Lee Elementary, has told me I may talk to you about my study. You also can talk
this over with your mom, dad, or caregiver. It’s up to you if you want to take part, you can say
“yes” or “no”. No one will be upset with you if you don’t want to take part.

If you do want to take part, you will be asked to compose music with three other students in your
grade. You will work with musical instruments or a computer music program. There will be a
video camera to support the work but you might not even notice that it is in the room.

Researchers don’t always know what will happen to people in a research study. Most of our time
together will be working together right after school, but you might not like working after school.
Your group will work together three times.
Your answers will not be graded. Only I will see your work.
If you have any questions, you can ask the researcher.
If you want to take part in the study, please write and then sign your name at the bottom. Your
parents will complete a consent form for you to participate. You can change your mind if you
want to. You can tell me anytime. I hope you will want to be a part of this study. Thank you!

Lisa Crawford
____________________________________
Name of Participant
____________________________________ _________________________
Participant’s Signature Date
____________________________________
Name of person consenting
____________________________________ _________________________________
Signature of person consenting Date

134

APPENDIX C: IRB Approval Letter for this study

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099
Exempt - Flex

Date: Nov 05, 2014, 08:47am
Principal Investigator: Lisa Crawford
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Faculty Advisor: Beatriz Ilari
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Co-Investigators:

Project Title: Composing in Groups and Creative Processes
USC UPIRB # UP-14-00590

The iStar application and attachments were reviewed by UPIRB staff on 11/5/2014 .
The project was APPROVED.
The study has been reviewed and determined to qualify for exemption under the USC
Human Research Protection Program Flexibility Policy. The study is not subject to 45
CFR 46 including informed consent requirements and further IRB review, unless there
is modifications to the study that increase risks to subjects or the funding status
changes.
Funding Source(s):
No Funding Sources
If there are modifications that increase risk to subjects or the funding status of
this research is to change, you are required to submit an amendment to the IRB
for review and approval.

135

The following documents were reviewed and approved:
Certified Parental Permission Form, dated 11-04-2014
Certified Child Assent Form, dated 11-04-2014

Minor revisions were made to the application (sections 9.2, 10.2, 10.3.1, 22.1, 22b,
24.1, 24.8, 24P.6, 26.2, 26.5, 26.5.1, 26.7, 27.1, 27.2, 28.4 & 28.4.1), assent and
parental permission forms by the IRB Administrator. The IRBA revised documents
and instruments/measures have been uploaded into the relevant iStar sections. If
revisions are made to the application, and changes are required to the documents,
please create an amendment, at which time the IRBA revised documents will become
available to the study personnel. All current changes must be accepted using the track
changes feature in Microsoft Word and the changes saved. The study personnel can
then revise the documents, including the date in the footer. The PI/study staff revised
documents must then be uploaded into iStar using the "upload revisions" function;
thereby replacing the obsolete documents. Please do not remove the obsolete version
from the application.

The finalized documents are available under the 'documents' tab in the iStar
application.
Researchers are reminded that school personnel cannot conduct any study related
activities unless they are listed in section 2.1 or 2a and are CITI compliant. This
includes the consent process and/or collecting/analyzing data.

Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register
with clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The
ICMJE will not accept studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to
enrollment, despite the fact that these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as
defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For support with registration,
go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan (jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323 442-
2825).
To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in
the study workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab.

Researchers are reminded that some schools require permission to conduct research
even if the research is exempt from IRB review.

136

Sincerely,
RoseAnn Fleming, CIP
Funding Source(s):
No Funding Sources

This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using the
"reply" address. A response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have further
questions, please contact your IRB Administrator or IRB/CCI office.
The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified recipients only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify istar@usc.edu and delete this
message.

137

APPENDIX D: Observations of All Composing Treatment Groups

1A3-(1-4)

Visit 1 Students begin by individually exploring instruments. After about 8 minutes of
this, the researcher reminds the group of the instructions to compose—write a piece
of music. Six minutes later, exploration of instruments continues. Several minutes
more go by and the researcher speaks again to the group about how all participate
in notating on the paper. Students as about instrument names. Several minutes
more and a student asks what to call an instrument (egg shaker; fish block-guiro).
The researcher stopped answering questions about instrument names. The
researcher invited one student (male) to stand up and participate with the others.
Super odd interactions with each other; never saw it again in any other group.
Visit 2 This is my first group of Section II. I worried that, because of their interaction
style, the composing Section II without assistance from a teacher might be
worthless. The other groups proved to be very different than this group today.
Today, with no changes in their style of working together, low-level
communication techniques, no excitement at all, and missing creativity with the
task, this group is the same as Day 1 and I wonder if they will finish their
composition.
During visit 2, there was an improvement; the group began to get a definite
groove. Participant 1A3-4 imposed directions to participant 1A3-2 who put his
head back in frustration. Participant 1A3-2 served as director during the second
meeting.
The researcher stops the video and invited the group to talk together, have
conversation. You are a group composing. I think you can go farther than
exploring instruments. Would you like to communicate anything to me? [No
replies] The interaction increased. They began talking together. The independent
instrument exploration continues. Participant 1A3-1 is challenging for the other
participants to work with.
Now we are finding that groove again. Participant 1A3-1 joins with the group.
Participants look to me for approval; researcher smiles but says nothing.
Thoughts as they are working: no use of pitched instruments was good
especially for this group because it relieved the responsibility for participants to be
concerned with developing melody. For this group, it would have been even more
challenging!
Visit 3 Participant 1A3-4 is absent today but I still allow the group to work together. I
know they will return again anyway. The researcher gave a warm welcome and
reviewed the project parameters. This was unnecessary for other groups.
Participant 1A3-1 still works today with the same drum as the prior two visits.
1A3-2 asks 1A3-1 if she still likes that drum.

138

Communication is better today. Each student does well with individual
instruments and they find a groove. Rehearsal however, is individual rather than
group.
Collaboration is very very limited in this group. No leader, however 1A3-1
exhibits some leadership today in the absence of 1A3-3.
This group, without any form of a composition, is still exploring instruments
today. Their group process is very challenged; they are extremely quiet every
meeting.
There is no sense of urgency in this group to complete a composition. The
tendency for quiet is overwhelming for me. Have rarely observed this tension.
1A3-2 becomes the leader today. He makes comments about the group's behavior
and begins to write ideas on the score paper.
I am thinking about evidence of creative thinking, even in this challenged
group.
The researcher announces that the group has completed half of their time.
Video off. I ask if they have notations on their score representing what you will
play in your composition. Do you need a new piece of paper? The researcher
attempts to reboot the workings of the group. With explanation of what a score is,
the researcher gives 7 minutes to complete the score. OF course they do not finish,
and a fourth visit is scheduled.
Visit 4 The group chooses to communicate today very quietly. However, the group is
working "together". Fully collaborative today. 1A3-1 is again choosing very quiet
communication/interaction. 1A3-4 begins working on a new piece of score paper.
There is less "trying" of instruments with no visible reason which actually
wasted time in prior meetings, but not today. This group does not know what to do.
15 minutes in and disagreements begin. These guys are back to the way they
began—off focus. 1A3-3 displays positive leadership. 1A3-1 displays off-topic
leadership. Conversation becomes about disagreements, so getting nothing done.
Researcher reminds group this is their last meeting. Students are reminded to
speak so the camera can hear what is being said. Very direct communication from
me—no reason to whisper. Be LOUD! You may ask for help after disagreements
but you must figure out what to do. This is your project. This actually changes
their interaction and helps.
No composition is completed.

139

2A3-(5-8)

Visit 1 The group begins with exploration of instruments. So thankful to see their
interaction and so much more talking than group 1A3. Working together on a
rhythm begins after about five minutes.
The group determines they need to work on the middle now.
From the beginning, participant 2A3-6 self-determines as leader. 2A3-5 is not
participating and no one invites him. The researcher asks 2A3-6 to assist 2A3-5.
Ideas come from all three participants (girls) except 2A3-5; they understand the
task at hand. 2A3-5 seems less clear about process. 2A3-6 asks everyone to "try
it". Actually really cool piece (in beginnings). So much further along than group
1A3 ever reached—is this because no one took a true leadership role?
2A3-6 develops a cool rhythm that everyone works off of.
Notation is the challenge; how to make this more interesting in script.
Leadership amongst the three girls becomes more evenly spread out. 2A3-5 not
talking to the girls – is this shyness?
Rehearsal phase continues. Researcher reminds group that 10 minutes remain
and they may wish to think about notation again.
This is an improvisation group. They try, omit, add.
Process of this group is to verbally communicate, others respond, try, decide.
A new rhythm is introduced.
Visit 2 The group begins with exploration of instruments. The researcher stops the video
and reviews the strategic direction from the script.
Communication increases.
The meeting considers previously selected rhythms from first visit.
Visit 3 The researcher begins with the idea that I'd like you to complete your project today.
The group is greatly collaborative today. They are working on performance
today!
Highly communicative group with lots of suggestions. Lots of "oh I missed
that".
2A3-7 reviews how score works and number of times something happens. Then
there is complete silence. Then she says "places". Also counts off for beginning.
As rehearsal and working on performance continues, 2A3-6 says "no more
changes, no more changes". 2A3-8 suggests "this should be done". No one
disagrees with her.
Very organized with instruments and having fun!
Organization of the score is very strong. 2A3-7 and 2A3-8 are both directors.
2A3-5 still remains held back today. 2A3-6 puts forward new ideas. 2A3-7 says
"okay everyone-places".

140

Number of instruments is quite nice. What is originally chosen seems to stay in
the score. Score sounds the same every time it is performed. "Yay! We know the
whole song! Yay!
2A3-7 says, "Last time- make it the best time".
Students ask who they will perform the piece for.
2A3-6 wants to make a change in the score - all girls directors – 2A3-5 still
quiet.
Performance is on video.

141

1B3-(9-12)

Visit 1 Students seem happy to be working together and learning a new program.
Working together on white board is time consuming because interactive is fun.
Visit 2 Participation and collaboration are effective tools for this group. There is little
imitating, but lots of leading and initiating.
Quite even discussion from each group member. Comments are made when
someone attempts to control another—"let him do what he wants" and "sounded
good - better in the end".
This group is experiencing a much fuller experience with the technology thant
acoustic instrument groups have so far. They are enjoying exploring what the
technology actually does.
They have strong organizational skills of their workspace.
Evidence of creative thinking is all about the creating.
Communication level is extremely high and is maintained throughout the
meeting. "I haven't had a turn to touch it."
Impact of the environment is interesting to observe as students discuss the
difficulty in creating straight lines in the score.
Students are challenged by having to choose one composition. The group
decides on one, but it is hard to do,
This group wrote three scores and they want to perform 2 of the 3.
"Want to dance to it – come on!"
1B3-10 very proud and says, "I particularly made that by myself".
Lots of discussion of what sounds horrible and performance choices.
Composition/s are completed. What a great group!

142

2B3-(13-16)

Visit 1 Group 2B3 works for a full hour today in their first visit. They are a very quiet
group.
This group is explorative in a different way than fifth graders. This group needs
no more instruction than fifth graders.
This is the most creative group of "Bs" so far! They are playful with the
program. The group has understanding of how to do tasks with the program [such
as make work area larger or smaller]. Finding great enjoyment with making
squiggly lines.
This is the first group to explore the program beyond the researcher's
foundational instructions of the script.
Visit 2 Change to the workspace has included removal of chairs in front of desk and
computer. Working well. This group is now working on the Smart Board only.
All four members are working together. Sometimes there is goofing off with
improved access.
New road to navigate that may take too much time. Asked students if they
thought they were focused on the white board rather than their composition. They
agreed. So sent them back to focus on composition.
These are "getting along" type people. They are talking together well.
There is evidence of creative thinking through theirs being the "coolest" work I
have hear so far.
Their focus has turned to precision and how that makes the piece come off.
Visit 3 Participation and collaboration remain high. There is strong group process, for
example, trying a sound, choice of how to make it work, verbal identification of a
rhythm, discussion of how what will work.
Interaction with the technology tool through investigation of enlarging the
screen and interest in using the Elmo/white board/Smart Board screen.
Evidence of creative thinking is also found in the group's choices of designing
elements of their composition.
In the future with this program, a larger screen would be helpful [not possible
with this computer].
The group reached a point when everything stopped. Research stopped the
video and helped group return to the work area and sound source to continue
forward movement.
I think this is an incomplete score but the most this extremely creative group
could do for now.

143

1A5-(1-4)

Visit 1 Fifth graders are well-prepared for sound design as an experience that is creative
and positive. Also, one male much better at working with three females than third
graders so far.
This group is amazingly focused. Individual participation is collaborative,
leading, initiating, creative thinking, communicative, and participatory.
This group has a "notator" while others "discover" sounds
1A5-4 is most commonly the leader in this group. 1A5-1 often initiates
"corrections".
Half way through this one-hour meeting, the group attempts a performance.
1A5-4 expresses light frustration.
This group places the students they will use for performance on the floor, away
from tables holding instruments.
1A5-4 gives instructions; other members of the group do not seem compelled to
disagree
Highly collaborative group with 1A5-4 as the director. Accomplished musician
and performer.
Additional organization of instruments for better performance
Return to exploring more instrument sounds.
1A5-4 asks, "What do we want to name this thing?"
All, "We're not done.
1A5-4 says, "we're not done?"
Group begins to perform final work.
Visit 2 Group returns with careful review of earlier notation to organize instruments.
After 1A5-4 gets things going, there is even distribution of leadership.
Further exploration of instruments.
"Rehearsal" is understood to be very important by this group.
There are differences of opinion more commonly today. For example, "You
wrote it, so you know what you're doing."
A final rehearsal appears to be occurring. Questions include some improv,
notation, length.
Piece seems nearly complete.
Visit 3 Eager re-entry into organizing instruments for rehearsal and performance.
Immediate into rehearsing sections and organizing precision.
Noticing third version of observation protocol is much easier now than version
2.
1A5-1 is notating during this third visit to finalize the score.

144

Imitating seems to follow what one student likes.
Especially in this third visit, 1A5-4 is leading and initiating, especially in
organizing the rehearsal and solidifying the final score. This has been true for all
visits. All seem responsive to 1A5-4 leadership. Even though students were
grouped by random selection, all four of these students are form the same class.
The impact of the environment for A groups is about plenty of space.
Movement has not been considered (so far) in the compositional approach.
There is some separation today between 1A5-2 and 1A5-3 & 1A5-1 and 1A5-4.
Several things about communication. 1A5-1 rejects 1A5-4's counting off idea.
1A5-2 asls 1A5-4 "why" about issues in the composition organization. 1A5-4
checks in with 1A5-1 to see if he needs more help with score notation. 1A5-1
rejects another one of 1A5-4's ideas.
1A5-3 notes that 1A5-1 and 1A5-4 have made decision about the score that they
are not a part of. There is no resolution or even an attempt to resolve this.
1A5-4 asks, "Want to run through it now?" 1A5-3 says, "No. We haven't don
the ending chie thing." 1A5-4 pushes several more times then says, "Ok, we have
two minutes to run this through twice." 1A5-2 says, "It doesn't take a minute to run
through it."
Performance #1 is really strong! Also, probably best notation of all groups.
Very strong focus toward doing this well, correctly, etc.

145

2A5-(5-8)

Visit 1 While this group immediately displays great communication. Participation,
collaboration, imitating, creative thinking, and great communication, there are
interesting characteristics in the individual participants: 2A5-7 is the quietest and a
follower. 2A5-6 is very on-task. 2A5-8 is somewhat of a goof-off. And 2a%-5
only wants to work on the drums and has the lowest collaborating style with
endless playing of the same rhythm.
Having noticed this, participation is strong. However, the collaborative
strengths as demonstrated by Group 1A5 are not a part of this group. I wonder if
the key to this group work is the strong leadership 1A5-4 created for her group that
produced excellent collaborative spirit and environment.
Additional new instrument sounds are introduced in rhythm with what is already
happening.
Collaborative atmosphere continues but when one person does not take a
leadership role, what happens? Several minutes go by and what develops is a
groove – making music together using repeated rhythm and performing different
rhythms together
A leader appears! 2A5-6 becomes a conductor. In their excitement, they decide
on the name of their piece, "African Line Beat"!
Visit 2 Today there is further exploration of instruments. 2A5-5 and 2A5-7 are most
active but I wonder if this is playing vs working?
Accidentally put out a box of ethnic instruments and these are engaging for
students.
2A5-6 organizes who will notate score.
2A5-5 and 2A5-7 continue playing drums.
2A5-5 provides leadership via ideas about how to arrange three sounds.
Another 15 minutes of group exploring sounds and trying more instruments. 2A5-5
continues to play his same drum rhythm,- is this boredom? Vs taking a leadership
role in composing the piece and performing it? He had asked at the beginning if he
could be in the technology group but I stayed to the random selection. At one point
he plays with mallet on 2A5-8's hand
2A5-6 takes leadership of hwo should notate and presents ideas for how to
proceed next.
2A5-6 appears hooked in with 2A5-5 and adds a second part to what 2A5-5 has
continuously repeated,
2A5-8, not a "tryer" on instruments, stops 2A5-5 from endlessly playing his
drum rhtyhm. She is collaborative with 2A5-5 while the two others have been
much less involved.

146

2A5-5 responds that this is why they should have written everything down in the
first meeting. Continues with his repetition of the drum and rhythm.
Visit 3 Today the researcher invites the group to see if they might finish their composition.
Today is about rehearsal. This group is much less challenged by self that the
third graders and much more verbal.
The actual completed piece is repetitious, short, but goes on and on with one
segment. I consider it an interesting approach with their strong interlocking
rhythms.

147

1B5-(9-12)

Visit 1 Quiet group but collaborative. Their exploration of the program is faster than I had
imagined. Time goes much faster with technology What is this??? Fun??? Or???
Very quiet students. 1B5-9 handles entry and most exploration.
More than half way through this first hour, sti8ll the group is very quiet but
explorative.
Strange to observe more sounds [melody windows] are not added at the same
time. A few minutes later, the group clears their page. 1B5-9 is the first on the
mouse and stays on the mouse, but 40 minutes through the hour, tells 1B5-10 that
he can go next.
Researcher shifts group to no chairs providing students with ability to move
around. All are sooooo quiet. Absolutely no goofing off.
1B5-10 is unengaged without control of the mouse. He reintegrates himself by
standing with 1B5-10 and 1B5-11 (two females).
Visit 2 1B5-9 once again on the mouse.
Researcher removes all chairs and says, "all students have equal access to the
mouse." This works and students change around, shift positions, try ideas.
15 minutes in they ask what to do when they are finished. Researcher explains
they may go back to class when they feel their composition is completed.
This group is fascinating. And interesting. They behave differently—get to
hear everyone's ideas, not just using their own ideas. This was good.
Future of other group work projects—make students comfotable as this gave
them such a different perspective and developed confidence for others in the grup
who were slower to leadership.

148

2B5-(13-16)

Visit 1 This is a very quiet group.
Even trade-off with the mouse.
Researcher told this group they could talk, laugh, communicate in their own way.
This group has developed the best sounding drum track ever--- someone should
be a music producer.
This is the most fun of ALL the groups. 1 mouse is a challenge for them. How
to change that?
Visit 2 Second visit, no chairs for even access to mouse.
All eyes are on the computer all the time.
Excellent flow, participation, collaboration, initiating.
Even involvement with suggesting ideas.
Imitation not really a part of the Hyperscore experience.
Ideas are tried and used.
All seem very comfortable.
Lots of interactive try out--- many colors on same palette.
Sections are different for computer program than acoustic instruments.
Not as directed to "complete an awesome piece".
These guys have a lot of fun together with the program.
2B5-14 very much the director but each member of the group has their leading
and initiating moments.
I keep thinking about how this experience affects the future of group work. Hel
with communication with others? Some very distinct instructions could be given
rather than the researcher keeping out of the way. Can make music out of any
sound. The practice of work, as a group.
Visit 3 No notations really for the third visit.
They complete their piece.
Interesting experience for me.

149

APPENDIX E: Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (Webster)

Measure of Creative Thinking in Music
Text and Directions
Procedures for Administration

Procedures for administration follow. The suggested text is in boldface type and general
directions are in regular type face. As the tasks are described, note that some are scored (see
Scoring Summary) and some are not. The text for those tasks that are scored are indicated in
italics.

It is extremely important that the administrator's tone of voice and reinforcement remarks be
consistent from person to person. It may be necessary to practice on a few individuals and study
the video tapes to make sure that you are consistent. Also remember to avoid providing "models"
of how you want the child to respond, except in those cases where indicated.

Warm-Up

Hi. We are going to play some games. Let me show you some things which we will be using.
Have a seat here in front of your keyboard. Let's all speak into our mics. Hello. My name is
________. What is your name? (child responds) How old are you? (child responds) Now try
making sounds in the mic that are not words. It can be anything! (child responds) Can you think
of another sound? (child responds)

If the child hesitates, the administrator may need to give an example of a sound to get things
started. The sound supplied should be short and as plain as possible, perhaps a whistle or a
clicking sound. Did you hear that echo?

Ok! Now let's look at these temple blocks. Take the mallet and hit them. (child responds) Hit all
of them many times! (child responds)
Good. Now try making some sounds by playing the piano with your sponge ball! (child
responds) I bet you've never played the piano this way before! Try playing several places on the
keyboard.

150

Part I Exploration

Let's try playing a game. Pretend that you are outside when it begins to rain. You are sitting on
the ground next to a metal bucket when the raindrops just begin to fall. Can you make sounds on
the temple blocks that would sound like raindrops in the bucket? (child responds)
Now pretend that you are next to the bucket during a raging thunderstorm. What would the rain
in the bucket sound like then? (child responds)

The hope here is to have the children produce slow, then fast raindrop sounds on the temple
blocks. It may be necessary to work with some children for a moment to get them to demonstrate
their understanding of this, although most will do it automatically. For those that need a little
help, try to be as non-directive as possible.

Task 1
Now let's pretend that you are sitting next to the bucket for the whole storm. The
raindrops begin to fall and little by little the storm begins to gather and get stronger until the
rain is coming down quickly and heavily. What would that sound like? (child responds)

Let's play a game with the piano now. Use the sponge ball and show me how the piano would
sound if it talked in a low, “growly” voice. (child responds)

How would it sound if it talked in a high, squeaky voice? (child responds)

Task 2
Now suppose that you were going for a ride on a magic elevator. When you get onto the elevator
your voice will be very low and gruff and then as the elevator goes up the floors your voice gets
higher and higher and squeakier and squeakier. How would that sound on the piano with the
sponge ball? (child responds)

Place the sponge ball next to the child and turn attention to the microphone. Now let's play a
game with the microphone. Pretend you hear a truck that is very far away. Can you make a sound
in the mic with your voice that would sound like the truck? (child responds)

Now let's pretend that the truck is right in front of your house. What would it sound like then?
(child responds)

Task 3

151

Now pretend that you are listening to the truck coming at you from very far off. First you just
hear it in the distance and then it gets closer until it is right in front of you. Can you make some
sounds into the mic with your voice that would sound like that truck? (child responds)

Part II Application

Now let's pretend that you are a robot from another world! Can you make some
robot sounds into the mic with your voice? Don’t use words like you and I might use,
because comes from another world. Try making some high, squeaky sounds and then some
low, growly sounds. (child responds)

Good. Now try making some loud sounds and then some very soft robot sounds.
(child responds)

Now can you make some fast and slow robot sounds? (child responds)

Task 4

Gee, I like those robot sounds. Now, I wonder if we could make up a robot song!?! I
want you to pretend that you are the robot and that you are singing a song in the shower!! Now,
don’t use words, because your robot does not know any words like you and I use, just use sounds
like what a robot might use from another world! You may use any of the sounds you just made,
or make up some new ones. You may put them together in any way you like to make up your
song. You can have high robot sounds or low sounds, fast or slow, or loud or soft. Now, I want
you to think about your song and when you think you're ready, then go ahead and sing it! (child
responds)

As with other tasks which are similar to this that follow, it is important to (l) remind the child of
the musical parameters and (2) allow time to think through the music before beginning.

The administrator should move to the rear and to the side of the child during performance so that
the child will not be tempted to seek approval from the administrator for the various parts of the
composition.

After this task is completed, move to the temple blocks. There should be two mallets placed by
the blocks. The administrator should take one and the child the other. At the conclusion of the
block tasks, the mallets should be returned to their place. In future tasks that might use the
blocks, the child should be allowed the opportunity to use both mallets if desired.

152

Task 5
Let's play a game now with the temple blocks. In this game, we are going to talk to each other on
the blocks. You are to listen as I play first. When I stop, it will be your turn to play to me. You
do not have to play the same thing that I play. You may play something different if you want to.
You can make sounds that are high or low, loud or soft, or fast or slow. Are you ready?

OK. Listen to me, then you play.

(child responds after each stimulus)

There are six stimulus patterns in all. Each pattern is 3 pulses in duration, with a fourth beat of
silence during which time the administrator should point to the child to cue him/her to begin the
response. The administrator should choose in advance which blocks are going to be played for
each stimulus pattern and keep that consistent for all children measured. A variety should be
chosen. Notated patterns and relative dynamic and tempo levels are indicated below for each
stimulus:

153

154

Task 6

OK! Now you play some sounds to me and I will play some back to you. You can play
anything you like. (child responds)

The administrator should imitate the child's pattern as closely as possible. Allow for seven
interchanges.

Task 7

Now move to the piano and the sponge ball. (Show the picture of the frog jumping.)

What is happening in this picture? (child responds) Can you show me with your hand the way a
frog moves? (child responds)

Using this sponge ball on the piano, can you make up some frog music that begins soft and little
by little, gets louder and louder? (child responds)

Now can you make some smooth, rolling sounds with the ball? (child responds)

Great! Now it's time to make some more frog music! I would like you to make up a
piece of music that has jumpy sounds and smooth sounds, soft and loud sounds, and fast and
slow sounds. Feel free to use all the keys on the piano and to make your piece as long as you
want. Now think about your frog music for awhile and when you think you're ready, I would like
to hear it. (child responds)

The administrator should move to the rear and to the side of the child during performance so that
the child will not be tempted to seek approval from the administrator for the various parts of the
composition. After this task is finished, proceed immediately to the concluding set of tasks by
placing the first space picture on the piano music stand.

155

Part III Synthesis

Boy, I liked your frog music. Now, we are going on a trip to outer space. I am going
to show you some pictures that you might see. Look at this picture, first. (Show the space
creatures picture.) Look at this picture of outer space creatures.

Task 8

Can you think of some sounds that they might make? Use your voice in the mic to make
up as many sounds as you can. (child responds)

The administrator should always stand behind the child during the time of response, both in this
task and those that follow. This discourages the child from looking to the administrator for
approval for the sounds produced. The response is over when the child turns around and
acknowledges completion. Put up the picture of stars in space.

Can you use your voice in the mic and the sponge ball on the piano to make some
sounds that go with this picture? (child responds)

Put up the space battle scene.

Here is a big space battle! Using your voice in the mic, the sponge ball on the piano and the
temple blocks, can you make some sounds that go with this picture? (child responds) Thank
you! I really liked your sounds!

Arrange the pictures in the following order: (l) space ship taking off, (2) space creatures,
(3) star scene, (4) space battle, and (5) space ship crashing.

Task 9

Now let's make a sound story out of these pictures. Let's imagine that we take off, talk to
some outer space creatures, fly through space, get into a space battle and then crash.

(Administrator should point to each picture as this is explained.)

156

Now, I'm going to close my eyes so that I cannot see the pictures. I want you to tell me this story
using sounds. Pretend that you are in this space ship and that you are telling me this story
through the music you make. You can use any of the instruments that we have been using. You
can make high sounds and low sounds, fast and slow, high and low. It can be as long as you
want. Now I want you to think about your sound story and when you think you are ready, I will
give you a count down.

(Administrator should wait until the child is ready.)

Are you ready to take off? OK, here is your count down, 5...4...3...2...1...blast off! (child
responds)

OPTIONAL:

You might want to record the space story and have the child listen to their work while pointing to
the pictures. This might help when rating syntax, however this does add more time to the
administration of the measure. If you decided to add the recording, see the directions that follow.
Otherwise, go on to Task 10.

Administrator should turn on the cassette tape recorder in order to record the sound story. This
should be done without the child knowing it if possible.

Great! That was quite a sound story! Now I recorded your story on tape. Let's go back and listen
to it. As you listen, I want you to point to the picture that fits with the sounds that you make.

(Administrator should now re-wind tape and play the story back. Child responds by pointing.)

Task 10

Now, I have one more game for you. We don't need the pictures because you are going
to make up your own story with sounds. The only thing I ask is that it have a beginning, a
middle, and an end.

(Administrator should put up the three blank pieces of paper as this is said.)

You can use all the instruments in any way you want. Remember, you can use high sounds and
low sounds, fast and slow, and loud and soft. It can be as long as you want. Just remember that it

157

should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Now think about the music you would like to
make and when you are ready, let me know.

Once the child indicates readiness, the administrator should let the child begin.

OPTIONAL

You may want to record this composition on video recorder as well, asking the child to listen to
their music and point to the blank pieces of paper. If so, do the following. Otherwise, skip to the
last “thank you. ”

Now let's go back and listen to this. As you listen, point to the section that you are in, whether it
is the beginning, middle or end.

(Administrator should now re-wind tape and play the story back. Child responds by pointing.)

Thank you very much. I enjoyed your music!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Music education has long included creative music activities and provided opportunities to compose in foundational learning environments. As the use of varying technologies increases in foundational learning, it is unclear how composing with acoustic rhythm instruments compares with technology-mediated applications when considering pedagogy and children's creative processes in third and fifth grades. It is also unclear what differences of application technology-in-composition lesson plans require when considering composing at different grade levels or if there are gender differences when composing at these levels. ❧ This experimental study, with a between-subjects factorial design, was completed in three phases. In the first phase, participants were tested on the Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation (IMMA) (Gordon, 1986). In the second phase, children were invited, in groups of four by grade levels three and five, to compose with acoustic rhythm instruments or a graphic notation computer program, Hyperscore. Participants' compositional processes were observed using a researcher-constructed protocol, the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups (CIQCG) (Crawford, 2016). The third phase tested all participants using the Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) (Webster, 1994). Additionally, variables of grade level and gender were tested. ❧ Results showed that third grade participants scored higher than fifth grade on the IMMA. Third grade scored higher composing with Hyperscore while fifth grade participants scored lower. No statistically significant correlations were found between gender and IMMA scores, however, male participants composing with acoustic instruments scored higher on the MCTM while female participants scored higher on the MCTM after composing with Hyperscore. Additionally, there were no statistically significant correlations between the test scores for the IMMA, CIQCG and MCTM, indicating that musical aptitude, musical composition process, and creative thinking are three separate areas in which music educators may focus. ❧ Implications of this study for music education indicated that while technology may be a well-received tool for compositional work in classrooms, acoustic instruments were also well received by the third and fifth grade students in this study. These findings further indicate a strong need for development of close observation of composing opportunities in music classroom groups. Creative processes may be observed with greater understanding through use of the Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

Student and director perception of non-musical outcomes in suburban school band programs

PDF

Chronic eye disease epidemiology in the multiethnic ophthalmology cohorts of California study

Asset Metadata

Creator Crawford, Lisa A. (author)

Core Title Composing in groups: creative processes of third and fifth grade students

School Thornton School of Music

Degree Doctor of Musical Arts

Degree Program Music Education

Publication Date 07/29/2016

Defense Date 03/29/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Children,composing with technology,composing with traditional acoustic instruments,Crawford Index of Quality for Composing Groups,creative process,Hyperscore,Intermediate Measure of Music Audiation,Measure of Creative Thinking in Music,Music Composition,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ilari, Beatriz (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Webster, Peter (committee member)

Creator Email lacrawfo@usc.edu,lisacrawfordmusic@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-287211

Unique identifier UC11281324

Identifier etd-CrawfordLi-4679.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-287211 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CrawfordLi-4679.pdf

Dmrecord 287211

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Crawford, Lisa A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA