__.———
___—_—
___—.
———_
__—.d
.__—————-
——
_——.
___——
__————
_—_——
—_——
__—_
___——

____——
____——
___—_

146
290
TH _

 

 

LIBRARY

 

Michigan State
\ . Universuty
f; '3 5’5 *—

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF MUSIC APTITUDE AND
IMPROVISATION READINESS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT
IMPROVISATIONS

presented by

DAVID S. TOWNSEND

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Music Education
Music

 

 

/ [Major Professor’s Signature
Z7944 21 ZOO/K

I

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

(r. ‘c—q ‘

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProjIAcc8-Pres/ClRC/DateDue indd

PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF MUSIC APTITUDE AND IMPROVISATION
READINESS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT IMPROVISATIONS
By

David Scott Townsend

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC
Department of Music Education

2005

ABSTRACT

PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF MUSIC APT ITUDE AND IMPROVISATION
READINESS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT IMPROVISATIONS

By
David Scott Townsend

The purpose of this research was to investigate the nature of creative thinking in
music by examining relationships between music aptitude, improvisation readiness and
the quality of student improvisations. High school choir members were given the
Advanced Measures of Music Audiation (AMMA), the Harmonic Improvisation
Readiness Record (HIRR), and the Rhythm Improvisation Readiness Record (RIRR).
They then received instruction in harmonic improvisation during choir for eight weeks.
After instruction, HIRR and RIRR were administered once again. The teacher also
recorded each student improvising. Independent judges then rated these improvisations
using researcher-designed rating-scales. Music aptitude was found to be the best predictor
of successful harmonic improvisation. The improvisation readiness records were also
highly predictive. Further evidence was established for the nature of HIRR and RIRR as
music aptitude tests. The rating-scales were reliable for measuring both convergent and

divergent thinking aspects of harmonic improvisation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. John Kratus for his pioneering research in the ﬁeld of
musical creativity. I would also like to thank him for his valuable insights and helpful
guidance throughout this study. I would like to thank Dr. Cynthia Taggart for opening my
eyes to the possibilities of teaching creative thinking in music, and for introducing me to
and instructing me in the methods of quality research. I would also like to thank Dr. Judy
Palac for her beneﬁcial suggestions and careful editing.

I would like to thank my parents, Dr. Rick Townsend and Mrs. Linda Townsend,
for introducing me to music, educating me in music, and modeling the kinds of musical
creativity that I hope to pass on to my children. Finally, I would like to thank my wife,
Judi, for her supportive, understanding commitment to my higher education, and for her

continuing love and sacriﬁce that have made it possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Creative Thinking .................................................................................................... 1
Composition and Improvisation ............................................................................... 4
Music Aptitude and Audiation ................................................................................. 7
Purpose and Problems .............................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER TWO
RELATED RESEARCH
Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) ............................................... 11
Measures of Musical Divergent Production (MMDP) ........................................... 14
Test of Ability to Improvise (TAI) ........................................................................ 15
HIRR and RIRR Studies ........................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Subjects .................................................................................................................. 21
Design .................................................................................................................... 22
Procedures .............................................................................................................. 23
Criterion Measures ................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Criterion Measures ................. 33
Intercorrelations of Subtests .................................................................................. 36
Correlation of Improvisation Scores and Other Criterion Measures ..................... 39
Stepwise Regression Analysis ............................................................................... 41
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Research Summary ................................................................................................ 43
Discussion of Data Analysis .................................................................................. 45
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 47
Connections with Previous Research ..................................................................... 51
Considerations for Music Education ...................................................................... 53
Suggestions for Teaching Improvisation ............................................................... 55
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................ 57
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 59

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Criterion Measures:
Comparison of Present Study Results with Test Manuals ................................................. 34
Table 2

Subtest Intercorrelations Generated in this Study .............................................................. 37
Table 3

Subtest Intercorrelations Reported in Test Manuals .......................................................... 37
Table 4

[PT Intercorrelations .......................................................................................................... 38
Table 5

Correlations Between IPT Scores and Scores from Other Criterion Measures ................. 40
Table 6

Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis ......................................................................... 41

Chapter One
Introduction

More than 50 years have passed Since psychologist J. P. Guilford included aspects
of creative thinking in his deﬁnition of intelligence (Webster, 1987a). The music
education profession has witnessed curriculum development with creative thinking as a
primary focus for over 30 years. In the late 1960’s, music educators from all levels of
teaching met at Manhattan College in Purchase, New York. The outcome of this and
other such meetings of the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project (MMCP) was a
music curriculum that included critical, reflective, and creative musical experiences for
students (Pogonowski, 2001). Pogonowski notes, “the creative-thinking process was the
essence of the MMCP” (p. 26). The inclusion of improvisation and composition in the
National Standards for Music Education adopted by the Music Educators National
Conference is an evidence of the legacy of MMCP (National Arts Education
Associations, 1994).
Creative Thinking

What does creative thinking involve, and how does it apply to music? Webster
(1987a) has developed a conceptual model of creative thinking in music that includes
aspects of Guilford’s work. This model describes the interplay between divergent and
convergent thinking. Guilford’s concepts of divergent production and convergent
production are the basis of this model. Simply stated, divergent production is the result of
using information to respond in a variety of ways to a given problem. Convergent
production is the result of using information to arrive at a single, desired answer to a

problem (Guilford, 1967).

Webster (1987a) describes the thought processes leading to divergent and
convergent production as follows:

Divergent thinking involves the generation of many possible solutions to a given

problem—a kind of personal brainstorming. Convergent thinking, on the other

hand, involves the weighting of those several possibilities and “converging” on

the best possible answer. (p. 165)

Webster (1987a) also describes how divergent and convergent thinking function
in the creative process. Individuals use their imagination and understanding of the
materials being developed during divergent thinking to generate many possibilities. There
comes a point in the creative process, however, when individuals must decide which
possibilities they will choose and how they will arrange those possibilities. During this
stage in the creative process, convergent thinking is the predominant form of cognition.

Guilford further reﬁned his concept of divergent production. As a result of factor
analysis, he identiﬁed four unique factors (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971).

1. Fluency is the production of multiple answers from the same given

information, in limited time.

2. Flexibility is the production of shifts of meaning in response to the same given

information.

3. Elaboration is the production of detail or complexity of information, above

that called for in response to given information.

4. Originality is the production of responses rare in the population to which the

subject belongs, novel, or remotely associated with the given information.

In the last 25 years, some music educators have described these factors in musical
terms and have used them to form objectives for instruction and to evaluate musically
creative responses (Auh, 1997; Gorder, 1980; Kratus, 1990; McPherson, 1993; Webster,
1979). Students have created music and their products were evaluated for each of the
divergent production factors. Auh, Gorder, Kratus, and McPherson also include musical
expression as a ﬁfth dimension of musical creativity. They refer to this dimension with
terms like musical expressiveness, music sensitivity, or musical quality.

Another common approach to music curriculum in recent years is the structuring
and evaluating of musically creative responses in terms of convergent thinking skills.
Music educators evaluate student compositions and improvisations based on the tonality,
meter, tonal and rhythm patterns, melodic patterns, pitch range, and expressive devices
used in the response (Auh, 1997; Brophy, 1999; Gorder, 1980; Gordon, 2001; Kratus,
1994). Auh, Gorder, and Kratus have also combined divergent and convergent thinking
concepts in evaluating musically creative responses.

A recent development in the measurement of creative thinking in music is the
application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for measuring creativity in
music (Hickey, 2001). The technique is based on the idea that professionals in a ﬁeld are
able to recognize creativity in that ﬁeld without breaking it down into highly deﬁned
components. When using this technique, judges give creative works ratings based on their
own subjective ideas of creativity. Creativity is not divided into convergent or divergent
factors. A creative work is evaluated as a whole on a scale ranging from not very creative

to highly creative, and the judges’ own deﬁnition of “creative” serves as the criterion.

Research establishing the reliability of measuring musical creativity in this manner is still
in its early stages.
Composition and Improvisation

When musicians hear the words “musical creativity,” they may think of
composing, improvising, or creatively interpreting music through conducting or
performance. Although creative analysis of music or creative listening to music could be
included in the list of creative musical activities, most of the research in musical
creativity has focused upon composition and improvisation. What are composition and
improvisation, to what are they related, and how are they different?

According to the New Harvard Dictionary of Music, composition in its broadest
form is “the activity of creating a musical work; the work thus created” (Randel, 1986, p.
182). In a study involving relationships between composition and various other factors,
Webster (1979) deﬁnes composition as “the organization of sounds and silence through
symbols yielding a symbolized sound structure that can be aurally realized by others” (p.
229). Kratus (1990, 1994) does not require that music be “symbolized” or “realized by
others” to be composition, just that it is repeatable by the composer or other performers in
its original form. Kratus (1994) makes a distinction between compositional products that
are “ﬁxed, replicable sequences of pitches and durations, and compositional processes
[which are] the ﬂuid thoughts and actions of the composer in generating the product” (p.
116). Studies have shown that composition is signiﬁcantly related to music aptitude,
music achievement, informal musical experience, self-concept as musicians, age, and

academic achievement (Auh, 1997; Kratus, 1994; Laycock, 1992).

Improvisation is “the creation of music in the course of performance” (Randel,
1986, p. 392). Webster (1987a) broadly deﬁnes improvisation as “the transmission of
sound structures that are actually conceived by the performer at the time of performance”
(p. 162). In one study involving improvisation, Azzara (1993) writes, “improvisation
means that an individual has internalized a music vocabulary and is able to understand
and express musical ideas spontaneously. Improvisation is to music what Speaking is to
language” (p. 329). When improvising with melody and harmony, Gordon (1998)
observes that improvisation may take three forms.

First, one may perform a variation of a melody without giving attention to the

underlying existent or implied harmony. Second, musicians may perform a

melody over a series of harmonic patterns, otherwise called harmonic

progressions. Third, musicians may improvise harmonic patterns to an old or new

melody. (p. 9)

Research has shown that improvisation is signiﬁcantly related to music
achievement, imitative ability, playing by ear, singing, mental rehearsal, composing,
playing from memory, age, ﬁgural creativity, IQ, and certain personality traits (Brophy,
1999; Madura, 1996; McPherson, 1995; Swanner, 1985; Webster, 1979). Studies that
used sound improvisations to measure creative thinking in music have found no
signiﬁcant relationships between music aptitude and musical creativity (Baltzer, 1990;
Hickey & Webster, 1999; Schmidt & Sinor, 1986; Swanner, 1985; Webster, 1987a).
However, studies that used tonal, rhythmic, and harmonic improvisations of students
have found signiﬁcant relationships between music aptitude and quality of improvisation

(Gordon, 1998, 2001; Jessen, 1991; Webster, 1979).

The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (Randel, 1986) contrasts composition and
improvisation. “The term [composition] is most often used in opposition to
improvisation, implying an activity carried out prior to performance or a work whose
features are speciﬁed in sufﬁcient detail to retain its essential identity from one
performance to another” (p. 182). The speciﬁcations of composition being pre-planned
and replicable are consistent with music educator’s deﬁnitions as stated earlier. Kratus
(1990) notes the following:

Improvisation is sometimes referred to as “simultaneous composition,” but it is

not a type of composition. Instead, composition can be thought of as “reflective

improvisation,” because time to reﬂect and change musical ideas is an integral

part of the process. (p. 36)

If composition is really an extension of improvisation, then music educators
should sequence creative activities to include experiences with improvisation as a
readiness for experiences with composition. This concept leads one to wonder whether
improvisation is also a readiness for other musical activities.

In a study using improvisation as a teaching tool, Azzara (1993) found that
students involved in improvisation activities score higher on instrumental performance
achievement measures than students not involved in improvisation activities. Just as
speaking language in conversation prepares an individual to better understand written
language, improvisation prepares a musician to more fully bring meaning to music
notation. Gordon (2003) also discusses outcomes of improvisation instruction:

When a teacher provides students with the skill to create and to improvise their

own music, music becomes the property of the students themselves, and this

should represent the ultimate goal of all teachers. In a word, students who learn to
create and to improvise music through audiation [see deﬁnition below] become
critical listeners, not amateur critics. (p. 40)
Azzara (1993) explains why improvisation has connections to so many other areas
of music and musicianship:
Like an individual’s contribution to conversation, improvisation in music is
generated from an internal source. Improvisation skill allows students to express
musical thoughts and ideas from that internal source, with meaning. When
thought of in this light, improvisation is at the heart of musical expression and is
fundamental to all types and levels of music instruction and curriculum. Teaching
students to improvise promotes their acquisition of higher-order music thinking
skills. Asking students to improvise as a part of instrumental music instruction
would reasonably increase a student’s ability to manipulate mentally the
structures of music with purpose and meaning. (p. 330)
Music Aptitude and Audiation
As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, researchers have examined the
relationship between musical creativity and music aptitude. Music aptitude is “a measure
of a student’s potential to learn music” (Gordon, 2003, p.41). Gordon makes a distinction
between music aptitude and music achievement. When music educators seek to measure
what students have already learned in music instead of their potential to learn music, they
are dealing with music achievement. Through years of research and teaching music to
children, Gordon has developed music aptitude tests for students in pre-kindergarten

through college. These tests measure students’ tonal aptitude, rhythm aptitude, and in the

case of the Musical Aptitude Proﬁle, musical sensitivity. Gordon has also developed a
readiness test for improvisation that shows preliminary evidence of being an aptitude test
for harmonic and rhythmic improvisation (2001).

Since an individual’s potential to audiate music is a part of Gordon’s conception
of music aptitude, an understanding of the term “audiation” is necessary. When one
audiates music, they mentally hear and syntactically understand music whether or not the
sound is physically present (Gordon, 1998). In the cases of composition and
improvisation, an individual may audiate music that has never before existed as physical
sound. Audiation differs from aural perception in that it does not rely on sound being
physically present. Audiation differs from inner hearing in that it is not just imagining
sound; it requires that musical meaning be added to the sound. It is hearing musical sound
in a context of musical syntax (Gordon, 2003). Gordon uses the analogy that “audiation is
to music what thought is to language” (1998, p. 9).

References to the concept of audiation are found among composers and
improvisers. For example, composers describe the ability to think in sound as being an
important part of the composition process (Kratus, 1994). Fine jazz musicians can “hear
the changes” in their minds ahead of time and improvise accordingly (Gordon, 1988).
Someone who is harmonizing “by ear” audiates the chords and rhythm patterns ahead of
time and improvises a harmony part to ﬁt the chord changes and rhythms of the melody.

It seems reasonable that researchers would ﬁnd a signiﬁcant, positive relationship
between students’ potential to audiate and their musically creative responses. Yet, the
results of studies to date seem to disagree with each other. It is possible that current tests

of music aptitude measure audiation potential as it relates to convergent production, but

not divergent production. As a result, these music aptitude tests do not signiﬁcantly
correlate with musical creativity tests based on divergent production. It is also possible
that current music aptitude tests measure audiation potential as it relates to some kinds of
musically creative activities, but not to others. It is more likely, however, that the
discrepancy is caused by the deﬁnition of a “musically creative response” in some tests of
creative thinking in music. If a student’s music aptitude is measured in terms of tonality
and meter, but a student’s musical creativity in measured in terms of largely random
sound responses, there is little wonder that the two scores do not signiﬁcantly correlate.
Purpose and Problems

The purpose of this research is to investigate the nature of creative thinking in
music by gaining information about the relationships between music aptitude,
improvisation readiness and the quality of student improvisations. A more complete
understanding of the readiness required for successful harmonic and rhythmic
improvisation may enable music educators to teach improvisation more effectively. The
speciﬁc problems of this study are as follows:

1. To develop a reliable criterion measure that uses both convergent and divergent

production factors for evaluating student improvisations.
2. To examine relationships between music aptitude and the quality of student
improvisations for evidence of predictive validity.
3. To examine relationships between improvisation readiness and the quality of

student improvisations for evidence of predictive validity.

4. To examine relationships between Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Record
(HIRR) and Rhythm Improvisation Readiness Record (RIRR) scores before

and after instruction for further validation of the tests as music aptitude tests.

10

Chapter Two
Measuring Musical Creativity

During the past 20 years there have been numerous studies using improvisation to
measure creative thinking and production in music. Some researchers have designed their
own criterion measure for evaluating student improvisation. Others have used a
previously designed measure. This chapter will describe and analyze representative
studies and their criterion measures in terms of their design, effectiveness, and results.
Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM)

Webster (1987a) designed the MCTM to measure creative thinking in music. The
measure is appropriate for 7- to 10-year-old children. Students use a “Nerf” ball to play
tone clusters on a piano. They also use a microphone with reverberation and a set of ﬁve
wooden resonator blocks. Students are given experimentation time with the instruments.
They are then asked to create sound improvisations to depict frogs or singing robots.
Students are also asked to use the instruments to depict a story and to create a piece of
music with a beginning, middle, and end using all of the instruments.

Student responses are evaluated according to the divergent factors of musical
extensiveness [ﬂuency], musical ﬂexibility, musical originality, and musical syntax
[elaboration]. Webster (1987b) deﬁnes these factors as follows:

1. Musical Extensiveness - the actual clock time (in seconds) involved in a

musical response.

2. Musical Flexibility - the extent to which a child can freely move from one

extreme to another with one of the three musical parameters: low to high, soft

to loud, fast to slow.

ll

3. Musical Originality - the extent to which the child manipulates musical

phenomena in a unique fashion.

4. Musical Syntax - the extent to which the child manipulates musical phenomena

in a logical and inherently musical manner, with attention to the shaping of the
whole response and not just a single part. (p. 264)

Musical Extensiveness and Musical Flexibility are measured objectively by
watching videotape of the session. Musical Originality and Musical Syntax are measured
subjectively using rating scales. Recently, the measure has been revised to include a
MIDI keyboard and computer for administering the test and recording data (Hickey &
Webster, 1999). The rating scales for Musical Originality and Musical Syntax have been
revised as well. Reliability coefﬁcients for the Musical Originality and Musical Syntax
factors are reported at .78 and .69 respectively (Webster, 1987b). Content validity and
construct validity have been supported by panels of musicians, some factor analysis, and
by the use of widely accepted factors of divergent thinking. Test-retest reliability and
predictive validity have not yet been studied. Studies using MCTM consistently show
little or no relation between creative thinking in music and music aptitude (Baltzer, 1990;
Hickey & Webster, 1999; Schmidt & Sinor, 1986; Swanner, 1985; Webster, 1987a,
1987b).

Webster (1987b) uses the fact that music aptitude scores and MCTM scores have
no correlation or negative correlation as evidence of inverse concurrent validity for the
measure. While this is one interpretation, there are other options that need consideration.
In the music aptitude tests correlated with MCTM, responses to sets of rhythm patterns,

tonal patterns, or musical phrases determine the music aptitude of an individual.

12

Therefore, for musical creativity test scores to positively correlate with music aptitude
scores, the musical activity and evaluation would probably have to include tonal and
rhythm patterns organized into tonality and meter.

The activities in MCTM have students improvise with elements of music such as
tempo, dynamics, pitch, timbre, and form. A child does not necessarily need to use the
elements of melody, rhythm, or harmony to receive a high score. The child does not even
really have to audiate tonally, rhythmically, or harmonically to receive a high score.
Student responses need not be in a tonality or meter. In fact, most of the activities are
designed to produce sound improvisations devoid of musical syntax. It is not surprising
that MCT M scores do not positively correlate with music aptitude scores. Undoubtedly,
the test measures some aspects of creative thinking, but whether or not it measures
creative thinking in music is debatable.

When Kratus (1994) examined the compositional processes and products of
students and compared them to their music aptitude scores, both positive and negative
relationships appeared. Music aptitude correlated positively with the process of
development and silent reﬂection. It also correlated positively with compositions that
were tonally and metrically cohesive, demonstrated developed rhythm patterns, and were
more limited in pitch range. Music aptitude correlated negatively with extended use of
exploration and the use of a wide pitch range. Students with less developed audiation
skills used more of their time exploring the keyboard and had products that were less

musically structured and cohesive.

l3

Measures of Musical Divergent Production (MMDP)

Gorder (1980) designed a criterion measure to assess ﬂuency, ﬂexibility,
originality, elaboration, and musical quality in the improvisations of students in school
instrumental programs. A listing of musical content categories was developed to help
evaluate the improvisation responses. “It included 78 divisions of nine content areas:
melodic, rhythmic, pulse/meter, tempo, style, dynamic, timbral, expressive device, and
form” (p.36). The divergent production factors were deﬁned in musical terms as follows:

1. Musical Fluency — the production of musical ideas or phrases (content) from
given music information.

2. Musical Flexibility — the production of ideas or phrases that are scored for
shifts in content character.

3. Musical Elaboration — the production of musical ideas or phrases that are
scored for the detail or complexity of content characteristics employed.

4. Musical Originality — the production of musical ideas or phrases that are scored
for the use of musical content characteristics rarely used by the population to
which the subject belongs.

5. Musical Quality — the production of musical ideas or phrases that appeal to
musicians’ musical sensitivity. (p. 35)

Students were asked to improvise as many phrases as they could in a limited time.

The basis of student improvisations were two different musical motives, an incomplete
series of pitches that began and ended on the resting tone, and an incomplete series of
pitches with a melodic contour Shape included. The items were notated on a musical staff

and the students could sing, whistle, or play their improvisations on a familiar instrument.

14

Responses were tape-recorded. The main study included 40 high school instrumentalists
and 40 junior high school instrumentalists.

Reliability coefﬁcients for the divergent thinking factors were moderately high,
ranging from .70 to .90. However, the only factor with a range of interjudge reliability
above .80 was Musical Fluency (.90-1.00). Content validity was obtained through
interviews with professional musicians. Correlations for concurrent validity were
examined in relation to teacher ratings of students’ musical creativity. Results were
mixed. Construct validity for the factors of the MMDP were examined in relation to each
other and to other musical tests through factor analysis. MMDP did not show signiﬁcant
correlations with music aptitude, music achievement, age, musical training, or musical
experience.

The MMDP is a mix of convergent and divergent thinking factors. Students
improvised using musical content and were evaluated on both their convergent and
divergent products. Gorder deﬁned Guilford’s divergent thinking factors logically in
terms of musical responses. Gorder (1980) reported that the scoring procedures were
complicated and needed reﬁnement. It is possible that reﬁning the scoring procedures
would make the measure even more reliable and help to make conclusions even more
meaningful.

Test of Ability to Improvise (TAI)

McPherson (1993) developed TAI to measure the improvisation abilities of high
school instrumentalists. One hundred one high school instrumentalists improvised in
response to seven different items. Improvisation activities included improvising a closing

phrase, improvising a melody to a set rhythm pattern and key, improvising a musical

15

motive, improvising a melody over an accompaniment, and improvising freely in a style
or mood. Aspects of convergent production and divergent production were used to
evaluate the ﬁve different kinds of Student improvisations. Interviews with professional
musicians led to a criterion measure that included ﬁve-point rating scales using four
evaluating criteria:

1. Instrumental Fluency — Hesitant and labored to spontaneous and conﬁdent.

2. Musical Syntax — Illogical to logical.

3. Creativity — No uniqueness to marked uniqueness.

4. Musical Quality — Unappealing to appealing. (McPherson, 1995, p. 149)

Each of the evaluating criteria used a ﬁve-point rating-scale. Judges listened to
the taped improvisations twice. The ﬁrst time they evaluated the instrumental ﬂuency and
musical syntax dimensions. The second time they evaluated the creativity and musical
quality dimensions. Student responses were given a score of 1 to 5 for each of the criteria
and then combined for a total score. Interjudge reliability correlations were acceptable
(.71 to .94) for the 4 evaluative criteria and high (.89 to .97) for the composite scores on
each individual item. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using the
multitrait-multimethod approach. Results of the analysis satisﬁed each of the validity
criteria.

TAI demonstrates many positive characteristics. It includes a variety of musical
improvisation activities and evaluates them in both convergent and divergent terms. It
measures speciﬁc musical improvisation traits as well as musical creativity traits. The
evaluative criteria are stated simply and accurately enough to be used reliably by

different judges. One improvement to TAI could be the use of a continuous rating-scale

16

with speciﬁc criteria instead of just a number range for each of the four evaluating
criteria. A rating-scale including speciﬁc criteria with each number gives more
information about where the student is in each criterion and how to sequence instruction
more effectively for further improvement.

Results of the study include positive relationships between improvisation ability
as measured by TAI and a variety of factors. Although music aptitude was not examined,
McPherson (1993) reports signiﬁcant positive correlations between TAI scores and
performance proﬁciency, experience in singing, mental rehearsal, playing another
instrument, and frequency of improvising. The concept of mental rehearsal is strongly
tied to the concept of audiation and could, therefore, suggest that music aptitude and
improvisation ability as measured by TAI are related.

Harmonic Improvisation Readiness Record (HIRR) and Rhythm Improvisation
Readiness Record (RIRR) Studies

In the last few years, Gordon (2001) has conducted several studies aimed at
establishing the concurrent validity of HIRR and RIRR. More recently, he has also
examined the predictive validity of HIRR and RIRR for harmonic improvisation. Since
the measure seemed to possess characteristics of both music aptitude tests and music
achievement tests, post-publication research was also necessary to determine the exact
nature of the measure.

In one such study, 33 students in college music theory and music history courses
were administered HIRR, RIRR, and the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation
(AMMA). Then, the students listened individually to six songs. After each song was

played twice, students responded with their own song that was like that song, but not an

17

imitation of that song. Student responses were recorded and evaluated with two different
ﬁve-point continuous rating-scales. The harmonic rating-scale included the following
categories and did not consider keyality or voice quality:

1. Student sings without a sense of tonality.

2. Student sings in the appropriate tonality but without implied harmonic changes
beyond tonic function.

3. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with some implied harmonic changes.

4. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with all implied harmonic changes.

5. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with all implied harmonic changes and
with musical melodic contour. (p. 22)

The rhythm rating-scale included the following categories and did not consider

rapidity of tempo:

1. Student sings without a consistent tempo and/or in the appropriate meter.

2. Student sings in a consistent tempo and in the appropriate meter.

3. Student sings in the appropriate meter with some duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes.

4. Student sings in the appropriate meter with all duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes and without extending or shortening the
melody.

5. Student sings in the appropriate meter with all duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes and with musical style. (p. 22)

Results of the study Showed that while HIRR and RIRR are somewhat related to

AMMA, they are more related to each other. The correlation of the combined HIRR and

18

RIRR scores with the combined harmonic and rhythm rating-scale scores was .91. The
composite AMMA scores only related to the combined harmonic and rhythm rating—scale
scores with a correlation of .50. Therefore, even though music aptitude as measured by
AMMA has a high relationship to harmonic improvisation, HIRR and RRR have a much
higher relationship with one another and are not measuring the same thing as AMMA.

Another recent study (Gordon, 2001) involving HIRR and RIRR established
evidence for predictive validity as well as evidence that the measure is a music aptitude
test. Students in specially chosen instrumental music classes from two high schools were
administered HIRR, RIRR, and AMMA at the beginning of the semester. The teachers
did not know the results of the tests until after the semester was completed. There were
22 students in one class and 21 in the other. Throughout the semester, the students all
received instruction in jazz harmonic improvisation. Their teachers used different
methodologies and designed their own three-point rating-scales for evaluating student
improvisation at the end of the semester. After instruction for the semester, the students
were administered HIRR and RIRR again. They also took the IPT.

Test scores from the second administration of HIRR and RIRR were not
signiﬁcantly different from the ﬁrst administration scores. Results of this study showed
that HIRR and RIRR scores were not signiﬁcantly altered with practice and training.
Gordon (2001) reports that HIRR and RIRR are music aptitude tests and that “they
account for approximately 55% of the reason or reasons why students learn successfully
to improvise harmonically” (p.56). Comparing scores from the ﬁrst administration of the

measure to improvisation performance scores at the end of the semester also established

19

longitudinal predictive validity for the measure. Since the research used few students in a
limited setting, more studies are needed to verify the predictive validity of the measure.

Again, correlations between HIRR and RIRR scores and improvisation
performance scores were high. The correlations between HIRR and RIRR were low as
well as the correlations between each of them and AMMA. AMMA demonstrated lower
predictive validity for harmonic improvisation than either HIRR or RIRR.

The studies described in this chapter leave several questions for one considering
the subject of creativity in music. Would creative responses in music correlate more
strongly with music aptitude if they were limited to creative responses in tonality and
meter? Would creative responses in music correlate more strongly with music aptitude if
the measure of improvisatory responses was adequately reliable? Would including
descriptions along with each number in a measure of creative musical response increase
the information gained by that measure? Would a further study that measures the quality
of student improvisations sustain the preliminary evidence of predictive validity for
HIRR and RIRR? Finally, would such a study support or detract from the evidence that

HIRR and RIRR are music aptitude tests?

20

Chapter Three
Methodology

The study described in this chapter was designed to examine the previous
questions and to help provide answers to those questions. The individuals who partook in
this study are described. Then, a general overview of the study is included, followed by a
detailed description of the study’s teaching procedures and criterion measures.

Subjects

The individuals involved in this study were high school choir students from
Freedom Farm Christian School (FFCS). Fifteen students were male and fourteen were
female. All were Caucasian, and tended to be from a lower to middle socio-economic
status. The students participated in improvisation instruction during choir warm-ups
throughout the fourth quarter of their school year. The students were in the ninth through
twelfth grades. This study used the test scores of the twenty-nine choir students who
completed all activities and testing and who granted me consent to use their test scores
and improvisations.

Most of the students from FFCS have received a few years of elementary general
music instruction through the seventh grade. Some had been members of the band since
the sixth grade. While some had previously experienced harmonic improvisation in band,
they had not yet received instruction in vocal improvisation.

The music director at FFCS teaches band, choir, and general music classes K-12
and emphasizes the development of audiation skills throughout the music program.
However, many of the students in high school choir this particular year were new to the

school and were still developing basic audiation skills and vocal technique.

21

Design

The students took the Advanced Measured of Music Audiation (AMMA) at the
beginning of the school year in August 2003. This test determines an individual’s ability
to audiate tonal and rhythmic aspects of music. The students took the Harmonic
Improvisation Readiness Record (HIRR) and the Rhythm Improvisation Readiness
Record (RIRR) in March 2004. These tests determine an individual’s ability to hear
harmonic changes in music. They test the ability to hear when the harmonies change, and
which harmonies are used.

During late March, April, and May, I instructed the students in harmonic
improvisation twice a week using methods outlined in the improvisation curriculum,
Creativity in Improvisation (Azzara, Grunow, & Gordon, 1997). At the end of the school
year, all of the students took HIRR and RIRR a second time. I also administered a
researcher-designed harmonic improvisation performance test (IPT) after instruction in
harmonic improvisation had ceased for the semester. The test measured both convergent
and divergent aspects of their harmonic improvisations.

In this study, relationships between students’ scores on the AMMA and the IPT
were examined for predictive validity. Relationships between the scores of the ﬁrst
administration of HIRR and RIRR and the IPT were also examined for predictive
validity. Relationships between the scores from the ﬁrst administration of HIRR and
RIRR and the second administration of HIRR and RIRR were examined to further

validate the tests as music aptitude tests. The IPT was examined for reliability.

22

Overview of the Procedures

At the beginning of the year, I administered AMMA to all music students. Fourth-
quarter choir classes began with the administration of HIRR and RIRR. Since AMMA,
HIRR, and RIRR are standardized tests, I administered them according to the directions
in the test manual. Then, I chose class activities that sequentially lead the students
through harmonic improvisation skill development. I followed the general guidelines for
improvisation instruction outlined in the improvisation curriculum, Creativity in
Improvisation (Azzara, Grunow, & Gordon, 1997). Class activities were sequenced in a
manner consistent with the IPT.

Five to ten minutes of class time were set aside twice a week to devote to
improvisation instruction. The improvisation activities were familiar to some choir
students because they had experienced similar instruction in band the last few years.
Sixteen of the students were members of both band and choir. However, this was the ﬁrst
time any of the students tried to improvise vocally.

As preparation for improvisation activities, the students learned many songs in a
variety of meters and tonalities. First they learned the melody of a song until they could
sing it without me. Next they learned the “root melody” for that song. The root melody is
the chord roots or the bass part in root position for a song. When students were
comfortable singing the melody and root melody separately without my help, I split them
into two groups. One group would sing the melody while the other group sang the root
melody using a neutral syllable or solfege syllables. The groups were divided in many

ways to help them develop the skill of singing different music from those around them. >

23

The students were also taught simple chord progressions in major and minor
tonalities to sing as a class. This helped them to gain more vocal independence and
develop their harmonic awareness. When they were ready, the students could then
substitute an alternate chord tone for pitches of the root melodies they had previously
learned. Now I could sing melodies while the class harmonized, or part of the class could
sing a melody while the rest of the class harmonized. I indicated which chord the choir
should sing by a hand gesture. For example, if the phrase used a I-IV-V7-I chord
progression, I would hold up one ﬁnger, then four, then ﬁve, then one. After the students
were familiar with singing the harmony part, the hand gestures were no longer necessary
for that song.

Preparation for improvisation activities also included echoing different tonal and
rhythm patterns without, and then with tonal and rhythm solfege. These activities allowed
students to gradually build a vocabulary of tonal and rhythm patterns from which to
improvise. When the students had learned many tonal and rhythm patterns, they were
asked to improvise just rhythms or just pitches. For instance, after the class had echoed
many rhythm patterns in duple meter, I might ask volunteers to make up a duple meter
rhythm pattern of their own. A similar process took place with improvising pitches. After
the class echoed many tonal patterns in major, I might sing the pitches of a tonic pattern
and ask if anyone could think of another order for those pitches. Gradually, after students
were comfortable improvising rhythm and tonal patterns separately, they were ready to
combine them in harmonic improvisation.

Harmonic improvisation activities were designed to lead students into the ability

to improvise their own music to given chord progressions. I used five basic levels of

24

activities to build harmonic improvisation skills. Level one was simply singing the root
melody on each macrobeat. In the second level, students improvised rhythm patterns to a
root melody using a neutral syllable. The difference between this step and the rhythm
improvisations they had previously experienced was that now they were improvising
rhythms in a given meter while singing the correct pitches of a root melody. This activity
was usually done as a class with each student singing the same pitches as their neighbor,
but with different rhythms than their neighbor. I would sing the root melody along with
the improvising class and show with a hand Sign when to change to the next pitch.

Level three focused on tonal improvisation. The students again sang the root
melody on a neutral syllable, but this time instead of improvising rhythms, the students
sang different chord tones on each macrobeat. For instance, if a major tonality root
melody started with four macrobeats of “Do,” a student might now sing, “Do, Mi, So,
Mi.” At the same time, another Students might choose to Sing, “Do, So, Mi Do.” As one
might imagine, this level was particularly difﬁcult for students to master and took a lot of
preparation and review of tonal patterns for each chord function.

Those students who could improvise successfully at level three were challenged
to continue on to level four. In level four, students were asked to combine their rhythm
and tonal improvisations. They were instructed to continue changing chord tones, but to
improvise different rhythm patterns on the chord tones as they did so. Their
improvisations now began to sound more like countermelodies.

The ﬁnal step of the improvisation sequence was to add non-harmonic tones to
the improvisation. Students were instructed to sing pitches that were outside of the given

chord in between the macrobeats. Their tonal improvisations now included singing

25

diatonic passages instead of only singing arpeggiated patterns. At the same time, students
were also challenged to continue improvising rhythmically. At this point, they were
improvising true countermelodies. The ﬁve steps are summarized below:

I. Sing root melody pitches on macrobeats.

2. Improvise rhythms on root melody pitches using neutral syllables.

3. Change chord tones on each macrobeat.

4. Change chord tones while improvising rhythms.

5. Add non-harmonic tones to improvisation.

Few of the students were able to complete all ﬁve levels in one quarter, but they
had a good foundation for improvisation instruction in future years. Each of the ﬁve
levels can be used with a song. Once the students know a melody and the accompanying
root melody, they can improvise together at any or all of the ﬁve levels simultaneously.
This allows for tremendous individualization within a single class. Students are able to
improvise at the level with which they are comfortable.

At the end of instruction, I administered the IPT to the students. Recordings were
made of the student improvisations in accordance with normal classroom procedures.
Recording performances has two distinct advantages over in-class evaluation. Since each
student improvisation was to be evaluated using four different rating scales, the
recordings allow me to replay Student performances as many times as needed. The
recording procedure also allows me to evaluate the improvisations outside of class.

The students also took HIRR and RIRR at the end of instruction to see if any
progress had been made in their ability to audiate harmonic changes in music. I was

curious to see how these test scores reﬂected a quarter of improvisation instruction. Since

26

this was an introductory experience in vocal improvisation for the students, neither the
scores from HIRR and RIRR nor the quality of the students’ harmonic improvisations
were used to determine class grades. I Simply focused on learning from this experience to
improve improvisation instruction in the future.

Criterion Measures

Gordon (1989) designed the AMMA to provide teachers with an effective tool for
determining a student’s potential to achieve in music. The AMMA measures an
individual’s ability to audiate the tonal and rhythmic aspects of music. The test manual
includes norms for junior high, high school, or college students. According to Gordon
(1989), an individual’s music aptitude accounts for up to 65% of the reason he or she
achieves in music. Therefore, knowing a student’s music aptitude enables a teacher to
more effectively individualize instruction to the needs of that student. By knowing the
music aptitudes of a class of students, a teacher can also plan instruction more effectively
according to the strengths and weaknesses of that class.

The test takes approximately 20 minutes to administer and consists of 30
questions. Directions for the test are included on the CD and example questions are given
before the main test begins. For each question, two musical phrases are played on the
piano. The student indicates on an answer sheet whether the phrases are the same,
different due to a tonal change, or different due to a rhythm change. Answer sheets may
be hand scored or sent to the publisher for machine scoring. The three scores generated
are a tonal aptitude score, a rhythm aptitude score, and a composite score. Raw scores
from the test can be converted into percentiles for junior high, high school, college non-

music majors and college music majors. The instruction manual includes a description of

27

music aptitude, a rationale for the test, directions for administering and scoring the test,
suggestions for interpreting and using the results, and technical data for the test.

The test manual reports split-halves reliability coefﬁcients of .84 for high school
students. The manual also reports intercorrelations between the rhythm and tonal sub-
tests from .72 to .78 and discusses implications of that data. A section covering the
subjective and objective validity of the measure concludes the manual.

Gordon (1998) designed HIRR and RIRR to measure student’s readiness for
harmonic improvisation. An individual must be able to audiate both what the chord
changes are and when they occur to successfully improvise within a harmonic
progression. HIRR measures students’ ability to tell whether two harmonic pattern are the
same or different. RIRR measures students’ ability to tell whether two time patterns
(harmonic rhythms) are the same or different.

HIRR consists of 43 harmonic patterns performed in various tonalities. The
patterns are all performed in the same simple rhythm. The test takes 17 minutes to
administer. The recording includes directions and practice items. Students listen to pairs
of harmonic patterns and mark a column for “same,” a column for “not same,” or if they
are not sure they choose the question mark column. The harmonic patterns have been
researched to determine easy, moderate, and difﬁcult patterns to audiate. The relative
difﬁculty of pairs of harmonic patterns has also been determined through research.

RIRR takes 20 minutes and consists of 40 pairs of recorded time patterns. The
same simple melodic line accompanies each pair of time patterns. The time patterns are
chord roots with a whole note, a dotted whole note, a half note, or a quarter note time

value. When pairs of time patterns are different, it is because the length of one of the

28

chord roots has changed. Directions and practice exercises are included on the recording.
After listening to two time patterns, students mark a column for “same,” a column for
“not same,” or if they are not sure they choose the question mark column.

Raw scores for each test are converted into percentile ranks, and both scores are
recorded on a student record sheet to aid the teacher in planning instruction. There are no
composite scores or percentiles for the combining the scores of the two tests. The
instruction manual contains a section with suggestions for how to adapt improvisation
instruction to the needs of students with different levels of improvisation readiness.

The test manual reports split-halves reliability coefﬁcients for grades 3 through
12. Reliability coefﬁcients for high school students are reported as .87 for HIRR and .80
for RIRR. Some aspects of concurrent validity and longitudinal predictive validity for the
tests have already been discussed in Chapter 2. Aspects of content and construct validity
are discussed in detail in the test manual.

The other criterion measure that was administered to the students was the
researcher-designed IPT. I administered this test individually. The students were already
familiar with the test activity because they practiced it as a class activity before the
individual tests began.

Once the student was ready to begin the harmonic improvisation test, I sang the
roots to a I-IV-V7-I progression in major tonality together with the student. The roots
were sung on macrobeats with the chord changes occurring after every fourth macrobeat.
Next, I asked the student to improvise a melody in major tonality and duple meter to go
along with that progression. The student improvised using neutral syllables. After the

student completed the activity, the process was repeated for major tonality/triple meter,

29

minor tonality/duple meter, and minor tonality/triple meter. In minor, the student
improvised to a i-iv-V7-i progression. I accompanied student improvisations on the piano
by playing the chord roots in the bass on each macrobeat and the chords in the treble on
each microbeat. An audio recording was made of student improvisations for later
evaluation.

Three independent judges used these recordings to evaluate the student
improvisations. The judges were music teachers with a background in teaching audiation
skills, singing, and improvisation. Two were elementary music teachers in a local public
school district. One was student teaching in elementary music, band, and choir at the time
of this study. All three judges improvise themselves.

The judges used four ﬁve-point continuous rating—scales to measure the
convergent and divergent production of each improvisation. The ﬁrst two were taken
from Gordon’s (2001) research to determine the nature of HIRR and RIRR. These two
can be considered convergent criteria because they measure whether the improvisations
are musically correct as deﬁned by the instructions for the activity. They are measuring
the correct or incorrect aspects of a response.

I designed the last two rating scales for this study. These two can be considered
divergent criteria because they measure the musically creative characteristics of the
improvisations. They measure to what degree a student went beyond a simply correct
response and improvised in a ﬂexible, ﬂuent, elaborate, and original manner.

The rating-scale for measuring the convergent productions of tonality, proper
harmonic changes, and musical melodic contour was as follows:

1. Student sings without a sense of tonality.

30

2. Student Sings in the appropriate tonality but without implied harmonic changes
beyond tonic function.

3. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with some implied harmonic changes.

4. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with all implied harmonic changes.

5. Student sings in the appropriate tonality with all implied harmonic changes and
with musical melodic contour. (Gordon, 2001, p. 22)

The rating scale for measuring the convergent productions of tempo, meter,

proper time durations, and musical style was as follows:

1. Student sings without a consistent tempo and/or the appropriate meter.

2. Student sings in a consistent tempo and in the appropriate meter.

3. Student sings in the appropriate meter with some duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes.

4. Student sings in the appropriate meter with all duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes and without extending or shortening the
melody.

5. Student sings in the appropriate meter with all duration changes coinciding
with implied harmonic changes and with musical style. (Gordon, 2001, p. 22)

The rating-scale for measuring the divergent production factors of ﬂuency and

elaboration was as follows:

1. Student sings root melody or responds out of tonality and/or meter.

2. Student sequences a musical motive while staying within the given chord

progression.

31

3. Student sequences more than one musical motive while staying within the
given chord progression.
4. Student develops a musical motive while staying within the given chord
progression.
5. Student develops more than one musical motive while staying within the given
chord progression.
The rating scale for measuring the divergent production factors of ﬂexibility and
originality was as follows:
1. Student repeats root melody or responds out of tonality and/or meter.
2. Student improvises by singing chord tones other than roots or by changing
rhythm patterns.
3. Student improvises by singing chord tones other than roots and by changing
rhythm patterns.
4. Student improvises with chord tones other than the root in each chord function
and uses at least four different rhythm functions.
5. Student improvises with non-harmonic tones while staying within the given
chord progression or uses more than four rhythm functions.
Three judges listened independently to each student improvisation and assigned it
a score for each of the four rating scales. Since each student performed four
improvisations, each judge recorded sixteen scores for each student, four scores for each
of the four criteria. I then combined these scores into a convergent production score, a

divergent production score, and a total improvisation score.

32

Chapter Four
Results

Four kinds of data analysis helped to produce the results of this study. Test scores
from this study were used to generate means, standard deviations, and reliability
coefﬁcients for the criterion measures. Intercorrelation coefﬁcients indicated the degree
of similarity between the subtests. Scores from the music aptitude and improvisation
readiness tests were correlated with improvisation performance scores for evidence of
predictive validity. A stepwise regression analysis gave evidence for which tests or
subtests were the best predictors of successful improvisation.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of Criterion Measures

After scores were collected from my improvisation performance test (IPT), I
correlated them according to judge to determine the interjudge reliability of the test. The
judges were labeled judges A, B, and C. Upon examination of the three sets of scores, it
became evident that Judge B was not clear about the deﬁnition I was using for a “musical
motive” and therefore scored the improvisations quite differently from the other two
judges. Judge B was dropped from the data analysis and a combined score from Judges A
and C was generated. I calculated means, standard deviations, and interjudge reliability
coefﬁcients for IPT using scores from judges A and C.

The means, Standard deviations, and reliability coefﬁcients for each of the
criterion measures used in this study are reported in Table l. The ﬁrst set of means,
standard deviations, and reliabilities for each criterion measure was calculated using
scores from this study. The second set is drawn from the AMMA test manual (Gordon,

1989, pp. 40-44) and HIRR and RIRR test manual (Gordon, 1998, p.48). Data from the

33

AMMA is reported for the Tonal Subtest (AMMA — R), the Rhythm Subtest, (AMMA —-
R), and the combined Composite (AMMA — C) score. HIRR - 1 and RIRR — l were the
ﬁrst administration of the tests, while HIRR — 2 and RIRR — 2 were the second
administration of the tests. The Harmony Rating Scale (IPT — H), Rhythm Rating Scale
(IPT — R), Fluency and Elaboration Rating Scale (IPT — FE), and Flexibility and
Originality Rating Scale (IPT — FO) have no prior means, standard deviations, or

reliabilities reported for this harmonic improvisation activity.

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefﬁcients for Criterion Measures:
Comparison of Present Study Results with Test Manuals

 

 

 

 

 

Present Studv Test Manuals

Criterion Measure Mean SD r Mean SD r
AMMA — T 24.3 4.53 - 23.8 4.37 .81
AMMA — R 26.6 4.40 - 26.8 4.03 .82
AMMA - C 50.9 8.43 - 50.6 7.91 .84
HIRR — 1 31.3 5.09 .86 28.1 5.90 .87
HIRR — 2 32.2 4.47 .65 28.1 5.90 .87
RIRR — 1 33.2 5.57 .85 27.4 5.02 .87
RIRR — 2 33.2 4.3 .79 27.4 5.02 .87
IPT — H 3.9 .97 .79

IPT — R 4.0 .85 .67

IPT — FE 2.7 1.11 .76

IPT - PC 2.8 1.18 .79

 

34

The means I calculated for the AMMA were similar to those reported by the test
manual (Gordon, 1989, p.40). The split-halves reliabilities reported by the AMMA test
manual were quite high (.81-.84). I was not able to generate split-halves reliabilities due
to lack of access to original answer sheets at the time of data analysis.

The means I calculated for both HIRR (31.3-32.2) and RIRR (32.8-33.2) were
higher than those reported in the test manual (HIRR 28.1, RIRR 27.4) (Gordon, 1998,
p.51). However, when I compared means for the ﬁrst administration of the tests to means
from the second administration of the tests using a T-test, neither the HIRR
administrations (t=l.04, df=28, p>.05) nor the RIRR administrations (t=.40, df=28,
p>.05) showed signiﬁcant differences. Standard deviations for both HIRR and RIRR
narrowed from ﬁrst administration to second administration. Once again, split-halves
reliabilities as reported in the test manual were high (.87). Split-halves reliabilities
generated in this study were consistent with those reported in the test manual on the ﬁrst
administration (HIRR .86, RIRR .85), and somewhat lower on the second administration
(HIRR .65, RIRR .79). All split-halves reliabilities in this study and in the test manuals
are Spearman-Brown corrected.

Interjudge reliabilities for IPT were within an acceptable range (.67-.79), but were
not as high as the split-halves reliabilities of the other criterion measures. The rhythm
rating scale (.67) was not as reliable as the other rating scales and may need further
examination for use with this improvisation activity. Even so, interjudge reliabilities were

considered to be high enough for the purpose of this study.

35

Intercorrelations of Subtests

One trend that appeared in the data analysis was the moderately high
intercorrelations between various subtests. Gordon (1989) has reported “high
intercorrelations” between the AMMA Tonal and Rhythm subtests for high school
students (p. 44). This phenomenon is attributed to the nature of the test. Since there is
only one test administered, the Tonal and Rhythm subtests are products of the scoring
procedure. Gordon classiﬁed a question as a tonal question if two musical phrases in a
question are different tonally. If they are different rhythmically, it is a rhythm question. If
the two musical phrases are the same, the question is classiﬁed as both a rhythm question
and a tonal question, thereby allowing twenty tonal questions and twenty rhythm
questions from a thirty-question test. However, since the intercorrelations are lower than
the reliabilities of either subtest, the subtests are measuring some, though not all, unique
aspects of music aptitude.

Gordon (1998) reported relatively low intercorrelations between HIRR and RIRR
in the test manual (p. 58). The manual also reports low intercorrelations between HIRR,
RIRR, and the subtest of AMMA. However, data from this present study suggests
moderately high intercorrelations among many of the music aptitude and improvisation
readiness subtests. Table 2 Shows the intercorrelations for AMMA, HIRR, and RIRR as
generated in this study. Table 3 shows the intercorrelations for AMMA, HIRR, and RIRR

as reported in the test manuals.

36

Table 2
Subtest Intercorrelations Generated in this Study

AMMA—T AMMA—R HIRR—l HIRR—2 RIRR—1 RIRR—2

AMMA — T 1.0 .76 .38 .25 .63 .54
AMMA — R 1.0 .52 .38 .58 .62
HIRR — l 1.0 .36 .52 .47
HIRR — 2 1.0 .36 .52
RIRR — 1 1.0 .68
RIRR — 2 1.0
Table 3

Subtest Intercorrelations Reported in Test Manuals

AMMA — T AMMA — R HIRR RIRR

AMMA — T 1.0 .74 .28 .21
AMMA — R 1.0 .26 .24
HIRR 1.0 .32
RIRR 1.0

The intercorrelation of AMMA subtests in this study (.76) was consistent with the
data reported in the test manual (.74). Intercorrelations between the AMMA — T subtest
and HIRR in this study (.25-.38) were also consistent with the test manual (.28). All of
the other intercorrelations in this study were higher than those reported in the test

manuals.

37

The intercorrelation of the AMMA — T subtest and RIRR was .63 for the ﬁrst
administration and .54 for the second. The intercorrelation of the AMMA — R subtest and
HIRR was .52 for the ﬁrst administration and .38 for the second. The intercorrelation of
the AMA — R subtest and RIRR was .58 for the ﬁrst administration and .62 for the
second. These intercorrelation coefﬁcients indicate that the scores from these subtests
have from as little as 16% to as much as 40% in common with each other.

Table 4 shows the intercorrelation coefﬁcients between the four rating-scales used
in IPT. The Convergent Production score is a combination of scores from the Convergent
Production rating-scales (IPT - H and IPT - R). The Divergent Production score is a
combination of scores from the Divergent Production rating-scales (IPT — FE and IPT -

FO).

Table 4
IPT Intercorrelations

IPT — H IPT — R IPT — FE IPT — FO Convergent Divergent

IPT — H 1.0 .93 .80 .66 .98 .75
[PT — R 1.0 .82 .74 .98 .80
IPT — FE 1.0 .88 .83 .97
IPT — FO 1.0 .71 .97
Convergent l .0 .79
Divergent 1.0

38

The data in Table 4 indicates high intercorrelations among scores generated by
IPT rating-scales. The correlation coefﬁcients approaching 1.0 are expected between a
score (e. g. IPT — H) and a composite score containing that score (e. g. Convergent).
However, all of the individual rating-scales also intercorrelated highly with each other.
The data indicate that IPT - H and IPT — PC, the rating scales with the lowest
intercorrelation (.66), still have 44% in common with each other. The Convergent rating-
scales had very high intercorrelations (.93), as did the Divergent rating-scales (.88).
Correlation of Improvisation Scores and Other Criterion Measures

After comparing similarities and differences of the music aptitude and
improvisation readiness subtests, I correlated scores from the AMMA and the ﬁrst
administration of HIRR and RIRR with different sets of IPT scores. I then examined
scores from the four rating-scales alone, paired them into Convergent Production scores
(IPT Convergent) and Divergent Production scores (IPT Divergent), and combined them
into a Total Improvisation score (IPT Total). Each of these scores were then correlated
with AMMA, HIRR — 1, and RIRR - 1 scores to examine the predictive validity of the
measures for successful student improvisation. Table 5 shows the results of these

correlations.

39

Table 5

Correlations Between IPT Scores and Scores from Other Criterion Measures

 

IPT Scores AMMA — T AMMA — R AMMA - C HIRR — 1 RIRR — 1
[PT — H .76*** .64*** .74*** .63*** .69***
IPT — R .70*** .61*** .69*** .54** .54***
IPT — FE .72*** .63*** .71*** .38* .65***
IPT — F0 .62*** .62*** .66*** .35* .50**
IPT Convergent .74*** .64*** .73*** .60*** .63***
IPT Divergent .68*** .64*** .70*** 38* 59*“
IPT Total .75*** .68*** .76*** .50** .64***

 

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

All AMMA, HIRR, and RIRR scores correlated signiﬁcantly with all
combinations of improvisation scores. AMMA scores correlated very highly with all
improvisation scores. RIRR scores also correlated highly with all improvisation scores,
but not as highly as AMMA scores. HIRR scores, although correlating signiﬁcantly
(p<.05) with each improvisation score, did not correlate as highly with scores from the
divergent rating-scales. In every instance, the AMMA Tonal and Composite scores
correlated more highly with the improvisation scores than did either HIRR or RIRR
scores. Generally, RIRR scores correlated more highly with the improvisation scores than
did HIRR scores. Also, in every case except the Flexibility and Originality rating scale,
scores from the AMMA Tonal Subtest correlated more highly with improvisation scores

than did scores from the AMMA Rhythm Subtest.

40

Stepwise Regression Analysis

The next part of data analysis examined the relationships between IPT scores and
scores from the other criterion measures to see which criterion measures were the best
predictors of success in harmonic improvisation. I entered scores from the AMMA,
HIRR, and RIRR as predictor variables in a stepwise regression analysis. AMMA Tonal,
Rhythm, and Composite scores were entered as separate variables. HIRR and RIRR
scores were also entered as separate variables. The last predictor variable was a
composite score for improvisation readiness (HIRR + RIRR) generated by combining
HIRR and RIRR scores. IPT scores were the criterion variables. Table 6 shows results

from the stepwise regression analysis.

 

 

 

Table 6
Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis
Variables r R R2 R2 Change
IPT — H

HIRR + RIRR .76 .76 .58

AMMA — T .60 .85 .73 .15
[PT — R

AMMA — T .70 .70 .48

HIRR - l .42 .76 .58 .10
IPT - FE

AMMA — T .71 .71 .51
IPT - FO

AMMA — C .65 .65 .43
[PT Convergent

AMMA — T .74 .74 .55

HIRR + RIRR .51 .82 .68 .13
IPT Divergent

AMMA — C .70 .70 .49
[PT Total

AMMA - C .76 .76 .57

41

Surprisingly, only once was an improvisation readiness score the highest predictor
of successful harmonic improvisation. The combined HIRR and RIRR score was the best
predictor of success for the Harmony rating-scale. The only other variable that increased
the predictive ability of the combined HIRR and RIRR score was the AMMA - T score.
Together they predicted 73% of the variance in the IPT — H score.

The highest predictor for most rating-scales or groups of rating-scales was the
AMMA. When a second step entered into the regression, it was usually HIRR, which has
the lowest correlation with AMMA scores. Though the AMMA — C and AMMA —- T
scores alternated as the highest predictor variable for each IPT score, in actuality, they
were almost interchangeable. This trait was due to the high correlations between AMMA
— C and AMMA — T. When I removed one variable from the regression, the other entered
the regression ﬁrst every time as the most predictive variable.

The criterion measures were able to account for more than 40% of the variance on
every rating-scale or combination of rating-scales. The criterion measures were more
predictive of Convergent Production scores than Divergent Production scores. Combined
AMMA — T and HIRR + RIRR scores accounted for 68% of the variance for the
Convergent Production scores. Combined AMMA — T and HIRR scores accounted for
58% of the variance in scores from the Rhythm Rating scale. The AMMA — C score was
the best overall predictor of success in harmonic improvisation. It accounted for 57% of

the variance in the IPT Total score.

42

Chapter Five
Discussion
The data analysis yielded many results that were helpful in drawing conclusions
regarding the problems of this study. After a brief review of the purpose, problems, and
the study design, this chapter presents a discussion of the data analysis, conclusions of
this study, and suggestions for music educators. Since teaching vocal improvisation may
be new to some, I also report some practical insights gained during the teaching process.
The chapter closes with recommendations for further research.
Research Summary
The purpose of this research was to investigate the nature of creative thinking in
music by gaining information about the relationships between music aptitude,
improvisation readiness and the quality of student improvisations. A better
understanding of these subjects may lead to more effective improvisation instruction.
The speciﬁc problems of this study were as follows:
1. To develop a reliable criterion measure that uses both convergent and
divergent production factors for evaluating student improvisations.
2. To examine relationships between music aptitude and the quality of
student improvisations for evidence of predictive validity.
3. To examine relationships between improvisation readiness and the quality
of student improvisations for evidence of predictive validity.
4. To examine relationships between Harmonic Improvisation Readiness

Record (HIRR) and Rhythm Improvisation Readiness Record (RIRR)

43

scores before and after instruction for further validation of the tests as
music aptitude tests.

I designed this study to address these problems using 29 members of the high
school choir at Freedom Farm Christian School. Before instruction, each student
completed a music aptitude test, the Advanced Measures of Music Audiation. They also
completed an improvisation readiness test, HIRR and RIRR. Choir students then
experienced systematic instruction in harmonic improvisation during warm-ups for eight
weeks.

After the instruction period, each student improvised for me in major and minor
tonalities and in duple and triple meters. 1 recorded these improvisations. They also
completed HIRR and RIRR once more. Later, three independent judges evaluated the
recorded improvisations using the Improvisation Performance Test (IPT) rating-scales.

The harmonic improvisation activity used in this study and the four rating-scales
used to evaluate that activity constitute IPT. The Harmony rating-scale and the Rhythm
rating-scale come from an earlier study and measure the convergent production aspects of
harmonic improvisation. I designed the Fluency and Elaboration rating-scale and the
Flexibility and Originality rating-scale for this study. They measure the divergent
production aspects of harmonic improvisation. I generated means, standard deviation, and
reliability coefﬁcients for the criterion measures in this study using data from this study.
Acceptable interjudge reliability for IPT was evident after correlating scores from the
rating scales.

I then correlated scores from the AMMA with scores from IPT to examine for

evidence of predictive validity. HIRR and RIRR scores were also correlated with [PT

44

scores to examine for evidence of predictive validity. Next, I correlated scores from the
ﬁrst administration of HIRR and RIRR with scores from the second administration of
HIRR and RIRR to see if those scores would change signiﬁcantly due to instruction and
practice in harmonic improvisation. Finally, a stepwise regression analysis helped to
clarify which criterion measures were the best predictors of successful harmonic
improvisation as determined by IPT scores.

Discussion of Data Analysis

When I generated means using data from this study, one glaring difference from
the data reported in the test manual for HIRR and RIRR appeared. The mean scores of
the students in this study were much higher than those reported in the manual. Examining
the population in this study offers one explanation for this discrepancy. The students in
this study were all participants in the school music program. Many had experience with
instrumental improvisation before the study began. This select, musical population would
be expected to score higher on an improvisation readiness test than would the general
population. It is interesting, however, that the students did not score higher on the
AMA than did the general population their age.

When I generated standard deviations using data from this study, one puzzling
trait emerged. While the standard deviations for the AMMA and for the ﬁrst
administration of HIRR and RIRR in this study were similar to those reported in the test
manuals, the standard deviations for the second administration of HIRR and RIRR were
somewhat smaller. This would be expected if the means were signiﬁcantly higher in the

second administration, but they were not. Students who did poorly on the test the ﬁrst

45

time tended to do better the second time, but many of the students with the highest scores
the ﬁrst time did not score as highly the second time.

One observation may help to explain this pattern. The students who did well the
ﬁrst time did not seem to be as motivated to take the test a second time. The second
administration was given during exam week, and students had other pressing concerns.
Nine students were seniors and were graduating that weekend. One student whose scores
plummeted on the second testing had stayed up most of two consecutive nights before the
test. Some of these circumstances could have also been responsible for the lower
reliability coefﬁcients generated from the second testing. It is also possible that the
narrowing standard deviations could be attributed to a simple regression toward the mean
on the second testing.

As stated earlier, many of the criterion measures in this study had moderate to
high intercorrelations. The intercorrelations between the AMMA subtests and RIRR
indicated that they have up to 40% of the variance in common. The intercorrelations
between HIRR and RIRR showed that they have up to 30% in common. It is curious that
these intercorrelations are so much higher than those reported in the test manuals. It may
be that a more homogeneous population is once again the reason. It stands to reason that
the more similar members of a population are in knowledge and intelligence, the more
likely they are to score in a Similar manner on a group of tests.

IPT subtests also had high intercorrelations for this improvisation activity.
Perhaps the four rating-scales used in IPT should be combined into two rating-scales. It
seems that little additional knowledge is gained by evaluating the performances using

four rating scales. The two convergent rating-scales could be combined into one rating-

46

scale and the two divergent rating-scales could be combined into a second rating-scale.
However, the Harmony rating—scale and the Flexibility and Originality rating-scale
demonstrated many unique aspects, having only 44% in common between their scores.
Another possibility would be to keep the four rating-scales separate, but to try modifying
the Rhythm rating-scale and the Fluency and Elaboration rating-scale so that they
measure unique aspects of harmonic improvisation.

Conclusions

The development and use of IPT in this study demonstrate that it is possible to use
a criterion measure including both convergent and divergent production factors to
reliably evaluate student improvisations. While the measure should continue to be reﬁned
for ease of use and higher interjudge reliabilities, it demonstrated that creative thinking in
music as demonstrated by harmonic improvisation is measurable. This study also
demonstrated that measuring creativity in music is possible in a high school choral
setting.

Some of the most useful conclusions of this study come from the correlations
between IPT scores and the other criterion measures. Successful harmonic improvisation
as measured by [PT correlates signiﬁcantly with both music aptitude as measured by the
AMA and improvisation readiness as measured by HIRR and RIRR. That may indicate
that the musical thought processes measured by music aptitude and improvisation
readiness tests are similar to the thought processes required for successful harmonic
improvisation. Scores from both music aptitude and improvisation readiness tests given
before instruction correlated signiﬁcantly with improvisation performance scores

generated after instruction. Therefore, AMMA, HIRR, and RIRR all have predictive

47

validity for the quality of student improvisation as measured by IPT. These tests have
predictive validity for creative thinking in music.

The stepwise regression analysis sheds further light on this subject. When
compared to each other, HIRR and RIRR were both effective in predicting success in
harmonic improvisation, but RIRR was more successful. Surprisingly, AMMA scores
predicted success in harmonic improvisation more effectively than did either HIRR or
RIRR scores. The AMMA Composite score was the best overall predictor of success on
IPT. A combination of AMMA and HIRR + RIRR scores most effectively predicted
success on the convergent production rating-scales the best, but AMMA Composite
scores alone were once again the best predictor of success on the creative thinking rating-
scales.

In previous studies (Gordon, 2001) that found HIRR and RIRR the best predictors
of successful improvisation, different improvisation activities and rating-scales were
used. The combined HIRR and RIRR score in this study most effectively predicted the
results of one of those rating scales used in previous studies, the Harmony rating-scale.
The other rating-scale used previously, the Rhythm rating scale, rendered such little
variation of scores in this study that it did not offer information as conclusive as the other
rating-scales.

Another conclusion of this research concerns the nature of HIRR and RIRR. In
this study, the tests continued to function as music aptitude tests. When considering
whether a test is measuring aptitude (potential to achieve) or achievement (learned
knowledge and skills), one must consider various factors. Do test scores signiﬁcantly

change over time due to instruction and practice? Does the test have the ability to

48

accurately predict success in related ﬁelds? Does the test share characteristics with other
known aptitude or achievement tests? Every test exists somewhere on a continuum
between a pure aptitude test and a pure achievement test. A test is predominantly a music
aptitude test if it accurately predicts success in musical activities and its scores are not
subject to practice and training over time. It may also Show high relationships with other
known music aptitude tests. Four results of the data analysis lend themselves readily to
the discussion about the nature of HIRR and RIRR.

The test scores were stable despite instruction and practice in harmonic
improvisation over time. Even though the students received instruction in harmonic
improvisation, their scores did not change signiﬁcantly between the ﬁrst and second
administrations of the tests. RIRR was especially stable, with almost exactly the same
mean on the second administration as the ﬁrst. HIRR scores were higher on the second
administration, though not signiﬁcantly. It would be interesting to see if the mean would
have risen signiﬁcantly if so many of the students scoring highly the ﬁrst time had not
scored lower the second time. Even though 60% of the students raised their scores on the
second administration, a couple of students that dropped signiﬁcantly due to external
factors largely affected the mean.

Concerning the predictive ability of HIRR and RIRR, the ﬁrst administration of
each test before instruction correlated signiﬁcantly with the quality of student
improvisations after instruction. Thus, both measures had predictive validity for harmonic
improvisation. HIRR was able to account for 25% of the reason students succeeded in

harmonic improvisation, and RIRR'was able to account for 41%. Although the AMMA

49

accounted for 58% and was the best predictor of harmonic improvisation success, both
HIRR and RIRR did exhibit predictive validity for harmonic improvisation.

In this study, HIRR and RIRR also shared some traits in common with a known
music aptitude test. HIRR correlated signiﬁcantly with both AMMA subtests, although
they only had from 14 to 27% in common with one another. RIRR, however, correlates
more highly with both AMMA subtests. RIRR and AMMA subtests demonstrated up to
40% in common with one another. In fact, RIRR correlated more highly with the AMMA
subtests in this study than it did with HIRR. That was why RIRR scores never added to
the predictive ability of the AMMA in the stepwise regression analysis. The tests were
too similar and the AMMA was the better predictor of the two.

This result is understandable when the types of test questions are considered. In
the AMMA, students compare sets of two melodies. In RIRR, students compare sets of
two time patterns (a series of chord roots). Students may tend to hear these time patterns
as melodies with longer note values and process them Similarly to the melodies in the
AMA. In HIRR, students compare sets of two Short chord progressions. These
progressions are three chords long and they start and end with a tonic chord. There is
nothing melodic about the progressions and it stands to reason that students would
process these very differently.

There is one discrepancy mentioned before that suggests a difference in nature
between the AMMA and HIRR and RIRR. The students in this study had a mean on the
AMMA consistent with a more diverse group of high school students, yet their means on
HIRR and RIRR were much higher than the heterogeneous population used for the test

standardization. In fact, their means for HIRR and RIRR were similar to those of college

50

music majors or professional music educators (Gordon, 1998). Since many of the
students had experienced instrumental improvisation previously in hand, one could
attribute these unusually high means to the tests measuring music achievement. If this
were the case, it would stand to reason that the scores would continue to rise signiﬁcantly
during the study. They did not.

Another possibility is that the tests are simply measuring different kinds of music
aptitude. In 1958, “it was discovered that music aptitude is multidimentional” (Gordon,
1998, p. 75). The AMMA measures only certain tonal and rhythmic dimensions. HIRR
and RIRR could be measuring other dimensions. Researchers have found that dimensions
of music aptitude measured thus far are developmental up to age 9 (Gordon, 1989).
Although Gordon reports means for HIRR and RIRR scores are stable in children as
young as second grade, it could be that the dimensions measured by these tests are
developmental at a younger age. The students in this study had grown up hearing part-
singing in church and at school. This could have helped to develop their ability to audiate
chord changes and to discern when they change. One could say that this developing
ability to process chord changes is a music achievement trait, but if this were the case,
means for HIRR and RIRR should have risen signiﬁcantly during instruction. Therefore,
the issue of higher means on HIRR and RIRR does not necessarily discredit the test as
music aptitude tests.

Connections with Previous Research
The results of this study inform many questions that arose out of previous

research in musical creativity. Questions regarding the nature of HIRR and RIRR have

51

been addressed in this chapter. Those concerning other measures of musical creativity
will be considered at this time.

After examining Webster’s (1987a) Measures of Creative Thinking in Music, I
wondered if creative responses in music would correlate more strongly with music
aptitude if they were limited to creative responses in tonality and meter. This study
demonstrated that not only do they correlate highly, but music aptitude as measured by
the AMMA was also the single greatest predictor of successful improvisation. AMMA
scores accounted for 58% of the reason students succeeded in harmonic improvisation.
These results coordinate with results reported by Kratus (1994) showing that audiation
and certain aspects of composition are highly correlated.

After examining Gorder’s (1980) Measures of Musical Divergent Production, I
wondered if creative responses in music would correlate more strongly with music
aptitude if the measure of improvisatory response were adequately reliable. Once again,
this study demonstrated in the afﬁrmative. IPT attained high enough interjudge reliability
to allow for high correlations between creative musical responses and music aptitude.

After examining McPherson’s (1993) Test of Ability to Improvise (TAI), I
wondered if including descriptions along with each number in a measure of creative
musical response would increase the information gained by that measure. The rating-
scales used in the TAI contained one verbal description followed by the numbers one
through ﬁve. While IPT rating scales contained verbal descriptions for each number, the
interjudge reliabilities were not as high as those in the TAI were. The form of rating scale

in IPT is more useful for communicating with and instructing students, but the

52

information gained from a research perspective would be greater if the reliability
coefﬁcients were higher.
Considerations for Music Education

This study afﬁrms the connection between music aptitude and creative thinking in
music. If a teacher or school district wishes to have Students achieve the greatest possible
success in musical creativity, they should use a music curriculum from the earliest ages
that emphasizes audiation development. Since music aptitude is developmental from birth
to age 9, educators should give special attention to educating parents about the
importance of musical immersion at a young age. Music should be as large a part of the
curriculum as possible during preschool and the early school years. Music teachers
working with these students should have a background in leading students into and
through musical audiation levels. Time spent on developing audiation at a young age is
like investing musical currency. It is a necessary readiness for students to have success in
musically creative activities throughout their lives.

This study demonstrates that successful improvisation instruction is possible in a
high school performance group setting. Although vocal improvisation was a little
awkward at ﬁrst for many of the choir students, following the procedures outlined in this
study alleviated much of their apprehension. The fact that many of the improvisation
activities can occur simultaneously at levels comfortable to each individual student was
both comforting and stimulating for the students. Though I did not ask Students to
improvise in front of the group unless they were comfortable throughout the semester, it
was evident when they improvised for me that each student had attained the ability to

improvise correctly and creatively at some level.

53

Another important aspect of this study for music educators is the fact that I was
able to design and use reliable rating-scales to evaluate both the correctness of
improvisations and the creativity of improvisations. Evaluating creative thinking in music
does not have to be a completely subjective matter. Musical improvisations can be
objectively measured and evaluated by a teacher and could constitute part of a course
grade. Just as many teachers include the performance of written music as a graded
assignment in class, an improvisation performance could be included as part of a more
complete musical evaluation process.

The fact that there are currently standardized tests available that can predict
success in musical improvisation is also useful for music educators. While AMMA was
the best predictor of successful improvisation in this study as indicated by the stepwise
regression analysis, HIRR and RIRR also demonstrated signiﬁcant predictive ability.
These tests are not intended to exclude individuals from music groups or improvisation
activities. They are useful for planning the type of instruction a class will require to
succeed in improvisation instruction.

For classes that score lower on these measures, more time will be needed for
improvisation readiness activities such as teaching tonal and rhythm patterns in various
tonalities and meters and teaching songs and root melodies by rote. Once the class has a
large vocabulary of songs, root melodies, tonal patterns, and rhythm pattern in various
meters and tonalities, they will have the readiness to proceed through the different
improvisation levels outlined in this study. Classes with lower scores on the standardized

tests will also need to spend more time learning to sing independently of others.

54

Ostinatos, rounds, group chord progressions and any other activity that helps students to
be able to sing separate parts from those around them are valuable.

Classes with higher scores on these tests will move more quickly through the
levels of improvisation. They will require less time learning to sing independently of
those around them. They will beneﬁt from moving beyond tonic, dominant, and sub-
dominant harmonic functions more quickly. They will beneﬁt from moving beyond
macrobeat, microbeat, and division rhythm functions more quickly. They will be more
able to attempt solo improvisations in class. They will probably enjoy improvising more
than other classes and will see the improvising time as fun and motivational. Of course
personality types also play into these responses, but I have observed classes with high
improvisation readiness demonstrate these characteristics.

Most importantly, knowing individual test scores for students on the AMMA,
HIRR, and RIRR can assist the teacher in individualizing instruction. Those that score
highly on these tests may be expected to progress more quickly through the curriculum
and achieve a greater degree of quality in improvisation. If a student’s scores are lower
on the music aptitude tests, the teacher can be ready to provide alternate instruction that
will help the student achieve.

Suggestions for Teaching Harmonic Improvisation

The following are some suggestions for teaching improvisation using the method
outlined in this study. Vocal improvisation leaves a student vulnerable in a personal way
that other singing does not. The younger students are when they ﬁrst experience
improvisation, the less they tend to be intimidated. If students in high school will be

improvising for the ﬁrst time, the teacher should put much thought into how vocal

55

improvisation will be introduced. Students understand the analogy of musical
improvisation being like conversing with spoken language. Teachers can explain that
improvising is making up music to go along with the music of others, and that it is one of
the best ways to express one’s thoughts and feelings through music.

Teachers should not press for individual solo responses until the students are
conﬁdent. It is better to ask for volunteers or call on students that have been improvising
well during group activities. It helps greatly to have other students singing the chord
progression or someone playing the chord progression on a piano while they improvise at
ﬁrst. When improvisation occurs in music, there is usually a group playing or singing
along with the soloist. The ability to move beyond this step and improvise over an
audiated chord progression without accompaniment takes a much higher level of
audiation and social conﬁdence.

Students tend to improvise rhythms on a learned root melody much more easily
than they improvise chord tones other than the root. A group should practice moving
around to different chord tones for each function individually before combining them.
For instance, even though an individual knows that the chord tones in major tonic are
DO, MI, and SO, and can sing them, it is challenging for them to sing one chord tone
while others around them are singing a different chord tone. They tend to gravitate to the
pitches heard around them. Having the group practice improvising tonal patterns one
chord function at a time is crucial to their success. Once they are comfortable
improvising tonal patterns in individual chord functions, they are ready to move on to

changing chord tones on each macrobeat within a progression.

56

One mistake teachers may make when teaching instrumental improvisation is to
let the students proceed to a higher improvisation level on their instruments before they
have success with that level vocally. If students can sing it correctly, the teacher may
assume they are audiating it correctly. If a students memorize that tonic function has DO,
MI, and SO and ﬁgure out which keys go with those three pitches, they may or may not
be audiating those pitches. Improvisation of pitches then becomes more of a technical
exercise than a musically creative experience. With true improvisation, the performer is
able to audiate what they are about to play or sing before they perform it. It is this kind of
improvisation that holds so much value for other musical activities.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study generated many questions for further research. Some involve the
improvisation readiness tests. Would another study with a Similar methodology, but a
different age group yield similar results? Would a Similar study undertaken over a longer
period further validate HIRR as a music aptitude test, or would the mean signiﬁcantly
rise if the length of instruction increased? Do HIRR and RIRR have signiﬁcant
intercorrelations with any standardized music achievement test? If so, are they higher or
lower than their intercorrelations with AMMA? Would scheduling the second
administration of HIRR and RIRR at a less stressful or busy time of year yield different
results?

Other research questions involve IPT. Would the rating-scales in IPT achieve
reliability coefﬁcients above .80 if the procedure for explaining the measure to the judges

were more thorough? Would having students improvise without accompaniment yield

57

different results? How would writing different Harmony and Rhythm rating-scales
speciﬁcally for this activity chance the results?

Some correlations run in other musical creativity studies might yield valuable
results in this study. Do years involved in music, playing a harmonic instrument such as
the guitar or piano, or taking private music lessons correlate with or predict success in
music improvisation? Do age, general intelligence, gender, personality type, or primary
learning style signiﬁcantly correlate with successful music improvisation?

As researchers and educators gain a deeper understanding into the nature of
creative thinking in music, they will be able more effectively model and teach students to
experience creative music making for themselves. Thinking creatively in music allows
individuals to move beyond simply being a technician or artisan. It allows them to

become artists.

58

REFERENCES

Auh, M. (1997). Prediction of musical creativity in composition among selected variables
for upper elementary students. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music
Education, 133, 1—8.

Azzara, C. D. (1993). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary
instrumental students’ music achievement. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 41(4), 328-342.

Azzara, C. D., Grunow, R. F., & Gordon, E. E. (1997). Creativity in Improvisation.
Chiccago: GIA.

Baltzer, S. W. (1990). A factor analytic study of musical creativity in children in the
primary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(07), 2306A.

Brophy, T. S. (1999). The melodic improvisations of children ages 6 through 12; A
developmental perspective [Abstract]. Bulletin for the Council for Research in
Music Education, 142, 77—78.

Gorder, W. D. (1980). Divergent production abilities as constructs of musical creativity.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 28, 34-42.

Gordon, E. E. (1989). Advanced measures of music audiation [Test Manual]. Chicago:
GIA.

Gordon, B. E. (2003). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns. Chicago:
GIA.

Gordon, E. E. (1998). Harmonic improvisation readiness record and rhythm
improvisation readiness record [Test Manual]. Chicago: GIA.

Gordon, E. E. (2001). Test validity and curriculum development: Three longitudinal
studies in music (GIA monograph series). Chicago: GIA.

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

Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Hickey, M. (2001). 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), 235-244.

59

Hickey, M. & Webster, P. (1999). MIDI-based adaptation and continued validation of the
Measures of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) [Abstract]. Bulletin for the
Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 93-94.

Jessen, P. M. (1991). The effect of audiation on elementary students’ rhythm
improvisations. Masters Abstracts International, 31(04), 1460.

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

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.

Laycock, R. P. (1992). The relationship of musical experience, musical aptitude, self-
concept, age, and academic achievement to the musical problem solving abilities
of high school students. Dissertation Abstracts International. 53(08). 2728A.

Madura, P. D. ( 1996). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary
instrumental students’ music achievement. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 44, 252—267.

McPherson, G. E. (1993). Evaluating improvisational ability of high school

instrumentalists. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 119,
11-20.

McPherson, G. E. ( 1995). The assessment of musical performance: Development and
validation of ﬁve new measures. Psychology of Music, 23, 142-161.

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

Pogonowski, L. (2001). A personal retrospective on the MMCP: A Manhattanville Music
Curriculum Project participant reﬂects on its innovative initiatives in light of
current curriculum theory. Music Educators Journal. 88(1), 24-27.

Randel, D. M. (Ed.). (1986). The new Harvard dictionary of music. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Schmidt, C. P. & Sinor, J. (1986). An investigation of the relationships among music
audiation, musical creativity, and cognitive style. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 34(4), 160- 172.

Swanner, D. L. ( 1985). Relationships between musical creativity and selected factors,
including personality, motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence as

60

measured in third grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International. 46(12),
3646A.

Webster, P. R. (1979). Relationship between creative behavior in music and selected
variable as measured in high school students. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 27, 227-242.

Webster, P. R. (1987a). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In J. C. Perry &
J. W. Perry (Eds.), Application of research in music behavior (pp. 158-174).
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Webster, P. R. (1987b). Reﬁnement of a measure of creative thinking in music. In C.

Madsen & C. Prickett (Eds.), Application of research in music behavior (pp. 257-
271). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

61