1111111!WINWIIHIHWIWIMWNW 141 618 __THS ..- _, H. r L ‘4 .I }{-\h ‘ ' r. : I h’n:fl I m I “51692ij8?! C‘LCLG l --7~ ,1." “(‘7' q -- «500/ This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMPOSITIONAL EXPERIENCES OF HIGH SCHOOL INSTRUMENTALISTS TO MUSIC SELF-EFFICACY presented by Clinton A. Randles has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the M. Mus degree in Music Education Major/Professor's Signature MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution - m--—._.— .‘A- 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 lProj/Acc8Pres/ClRC/DaleDue.indd THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMPOSITIONAL EXPERIENCES OF HIGH SCHOOL INSTRUMENTALISTS TO MUSIC SELF-EFFICACY By Clinton A. Randles A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF MUSIC School of Music 2006 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMPOSITIONAL EXPERIENCES OF HIGH SCHOOL INSTRUMENTALISTS TO MUSIC SELF-EFFICACY By Clinton A. Randles The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between compositional experiences of high school instrumentalists and music self-efficacy. To answer the research questions, data were collected and analyzed using Pearson product- moment correlations and stepwise multiple regression. Subjects were 77 high school band students enrolled in a public high school. Music self-efficacy was measured by utilizing the Self-Esteem of Musical Ability scale (SEMA) and a researcher-devised questionnaire. The major results are as follows: 1. Music self-efficacy is a stable characteristic. 2. Although music self-efficacy is a stable characteristic, an analysis of the change between pre-treatment SEMA scores and post-treatment SEMA scores and change in compositional experience over the 12-week treatment period suggests that composition experience had a significant affect on SEMA 1 (Self-Perception of Music Ability). 3. The strongest predictor of music self-efficacy of the factors utilized in this study was composition experiences. Although music self-efficacy is a stable characteristic, change in composition experiences were significantly related to change in music self-efficacy over a period of 12 weeks. Teaching implications include giving students in-class opportunities to compose music. Cepyn'ght by CLINTON A. RANDLES 2006 To my wife, Sarah, who is my inspiration. Thank you for giving my life direction, for being willing to tell me when I am too intense, for encouraging my wandering mind, and for being the best teacher I have ever known. To my daughter, Pearl, who is my love. May you live passionately, putting God first, being enthralled with discovering the world around you. To my son, Calvin, who is my confidence. May you live boldly, putting God first, heroically impacting the world by your service. To my son, Henry, who is my laughter. May you live in happiness, putting God first, finding joy in the simple things of life. To my parents who have supported me throughout my life. May you find your “house on the hill” in the lives of the people you have loved. Thank you. July 28, 2006 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee. Dr. Cynthia Taggart, thank you for being a great teacher, for responding to my e-mails, and for giving me an introduction to the world of music education research. Dr. Mitchell Robinson, thank you for being a fine editor, for giving me a broader understanding of music teaching methodologies, and for being a role model of the kind of professor that I desire to be. Dr. Wesley Broadnax, thank you for your superior understanding of music teaching, for your expertise in the area of instrumental conducting, and for your example of the importance of student performance and involvement in music making outside the large ensemble school setting. Dr. Kratus, you have inspired my teaching in ways that you might never fully know. You have deeply affected my perception of music teaching from the philosophical level to daily interactions with students. Your experience with creative music making is unique and refieshing. During the past three years, with you as my mentor, I have completed two research projects, towards which I feel great pride. Thank you for your time and talent. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 The Self-Worth Theory ....... 1 Music Self-Efficacy .......................................................................... 2 Music Composition ........................................................................... 2 Music for Life ................................................................................. 3 Purpose and Problems ........................................................................ 5 CHAPTER II — REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................... 7 The Nature of Composing ................................................................... 7 Two Models of the Process of Composition .............................................. 9 Composition as an elective Class ......................................................... 14 Music Self-Efficacy ........................................................................ 15 CHAPTER III — METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 17 SEMA ........................................................................................ 17 Experimenter-Devised Questionnaire ................................................... 18 Research Format ............................................................................ 20 CHAPTER IV — RESULTS ........................................................................ 25 Pre-Treatment Data Correlations ......................................................... 26 Post-Treatment Data Correlations ........................................................ 28 Correlation of Listening Preferences to Composition Experiences .................. 3O Correlation of Listening Preferences to Music Self-Efficacy ........................ 30 Stability of Music Self-Efficacy .......................................................... 32 Correlations among Change in Composition Experience and Change in SEMA Scores ................................................................. 33 The Strongest Predictors ofMusic Self-Efficacy.........................................34 Summary ..................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER V — SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS ..................... 37 Summary of Major Findings .............................................................. 38 Implications for Music Education ......................................................... 4O Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................ 43 vi APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 44 Appendix A — Student Background Questionairre ..................................... 44 Appendix B — Self-Esteem of Music Ability Scale (SEMA) ........................ 47 Appendix C — Parent Consent Form ..................................................... 51 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 55 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Model of Student Compositional Processes ......................................... 13 2. Pre-Treatment Data Correlations ..................................................... 27 3. Post-Treatment Data Correlations ..................................................... 29 4. Correlation of Listening Preferences to Composition Experience ............... 30 5. Correlation of Listening Preferences to Music Self-Efficacy ..................... 31 6. Stability of Music Self-Efficacy ...................................................... 32 7. Correlations among Change in Composition Experience and Change in SEMA Scores .............................................................. 33 . Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis Indicating the Strongest Predictors of Music Self-Efficacy ..................................................................... 35 viii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION “A child’s perceptions about the adequacy of his or her performance in relation to other students is believed to have ...important effects on career choice, choice of education specialization, and even on the avocational use of a school subject or area of learning” (Bloom, 1976, p. 149). Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1977) and Covington’s Self- Worth Theory (1984) also promote cognitive self-appraisal as the pivotal factor that determines an individual’s choice of activities, effort expenditure, and persistence.” (Austin, 1990, p. 20) “Unless music is to be taught into a state of oblivion, educators must realize that one of the prime functions in teaching music is to assist the student in the development of a point of view, rather than to force one upon him for adoption.” (Sherman, 1971a, p. 22) The Self-Worth Theory Self-efficacy is a person’s personal perception of his or her level of ability or acceptance in any given area. A theory of the nature of self-efficacy has been developed by Covington (1984). “The self-worth theory assumes that a central part of all classroom achievement is the need for students to protect their sense of worth or personal value. Perceptions of ability are critical to this self-protective process, since for many students the mere possession of high ability signifies worthiness” (Covington, 1984, p. 5). Feelings of acceptance are at the core of human existence. As in all areas of human existence there are various degrees of feelings of acceptance both positive and negative that are drawn from an individual’s experiences in many types of involvement. Feelings both positive and negative can elicit different responses from individuals. When combined, these feelings leave an imprint on an individual’s self-efficacy. Music Self—Efficag/ Music self-efficacy is a person’s appraisal of the “adequacy of his or her performance in relation to other students” (Austin, 1990). Austin, based on theories regarding self-efficacy and achievement (Bandura, 197 7; Covington, 1984), asserts that positive self-efficacy in any area may be the pivotal factor in determining whether an individual chooses to continue participating in that area. A person’s perception of their performance or the significance of their performance in an activity more than their actual performance may powerfully influence an individual’s decision as to the value of their time and energy as pertaining to that activity. If this is true, which factors relating to musical activity more positively influence music self-efficacy? Music Composition Composition as a creative form of music making puts the composer in the role of creator, making musical decisions and imposing ownership on the product of his or her efforts. The act of creating music places authority for how the music should sound on the individual who is composing. The balance of power is different when an individual performs music. When performing music written by other composers, an individual has an obligation to the composer to make the music sound like he or she intended, within certain guidelines. Sherman (1971a) suggests that music education, by not including composition as a central part of the music curriculum, is in danger of not giving students a personal “point of view.” Positive self-efficacy in any given area suggests personal ownership of the materials and modes of expression within that area (Randles, 2005). The nature of composition is one of “natural discovery by the student” (Sherman, 1971b). Because composition directs the responsibility of learning from teacher to student, the effect of experiences in composition on student music self-efficacy may be particularly valuable to music educators. The creative act of composition has become a popular topic among the music education community. MENC has included composition as one of the National Standards, and many states, including Michigan, have included composition as an educational goal. I have chosen to focus this quantitative study on examining the effects of composition on student music self-efficacy among high school students participating in band. Music for Life A topic that has been under much scrutiny by the high school band community for some time now is student retention (Anthony, 1974; Brown, 1985; Klinedinst, 1991; Kruth, 1974; Mercer, 1970; Rawlins, 1979; Weerts, 1992; Zdzinski, 1992). How can students be retained in music programs from grade level to grade level? What can teachers do to ensure that their students stay in band all the way through high school? Most importantly, what can teachers do to ensure that their students make music a part of their lives for the entirety of their lives? A look at the way high school band is structured in, light of how general education is structured, reveals a difference in ideology between the two settings. General education embraces cooperative learning and student empowerment, while the high school band community is in many respects continuing, as has been the tradition, with regimentation of musical learning centered around the director (Chang, 2004; Chin, 2004; Chiu, 2004; Kuech, 2004). Even the way rehearsal halls are set-up, with the director raised on a platform, and students centered in relation to the director’s podium, serves to illustrate this point. In this environment, the director is the focal point. He or she is the person who controls the re-creation of sound. This gap in ideology between general education and music education is one of the reasons for the reported decline in music enrollment over the past twenty years (Tsisserev, 1997). Most school music ensembles are structured so that musical activity can be engaged actively in by a large number of people in a period of about an hour under the direction of one person. Students receive corrective suggestions from a director. When the director tells them to enter, they enter. When they are prompted to play softly, they play softly. They are told when to go faster and when to slow down. This kind of instruction may lead to fine performances, but may not lead to students’ feeling actively involved in the music making process. Viewed in light of the trend of education towards cooperative learning and other methods of student-guided learning, the “band/choir/orchestra” model of learning is different. This difference needs to be explored. Since the goal of cooperative learning is to put students in control of their learning by having them create projects in groups and present them to their peers, music composition as a creative act that transfers the power of learning from teacher to student can be seen as a valuable parallel between the school music environment and the school environment at large. Purpose and Problems Composition as a creative act does for the musician something that performance, a re-creative act, does not (Ernst, 1993). In the director-centered world of high school music performance ensembles, little time is allocated for students to create their own music from themselves. Most learning in these music courses takes place through the performance of music. Opportunities to compose music within this setting might expose students to new ways of music making that could enhance their music self-efficacy. With enhancement of music self-efficacy, and the increased role of music within the context of students’ lives that accompanies positive music self-efficacy, students might choose music in cases in which they might not have otherwise. The idea of retention and students’ enjoying music for a lifetime might be closely related to their music self- efficacy. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships among selected factors... concerning students’ involvement with music including composition experiences and music self-efficacy. The specific problems for this study are as follows: 1. What relationships exist between selected factors (grade, gender, private lessons, school music activity, home music activity, number of parents with a history of involvement in school music, level of satisfaction with school music experience, and feelings of personal contribution to music learning within the school music environment) including composition experiences and music self- efficacy? 2. How are listening preferences related to composition experience and music self-efficacy? How stable is music self-efficacy over time? What is the relationship between change in music self-efficacy and change in the amount of composition experience? Which of the selected factors including composition experiences are the strongest predictors of music self-efficacy? Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Nature of Composing Composition as a creative act is unique in the way that it requires an individual to think. Composition requires individuals to draw from their previous experiences with music, to analyze what is important musically at a particular moment, and to synthesize those musical ideas into the creation of something new. In having to search from all possible answers (a synthesis of a composer’s personal global experiences with music) in order to come up with an answer or answers (musical solutions to questions of which musical experience to draw fiom in a given situation within a given composition), composers engineer and construct their compositions from the vast number of possibilities. Composition as a creative act has been said to: teach us divergent rather than convergent thinking, develop craftsmanship and the ability to apply aesthetics, introduce us to perceptions and understandings we could not acquire in any other way, provide us with insight and wisdom that enlighten our understanding, making it deeper and more comprehensive, facilitate human communication within and across cultures, and help us define who we are and articulate our own special sense of being (Fowler, 1993). Composition is a highly personalized language through which individuals can express themselves (Kratus, 1994a). This idea of personalization is key to understanding what makes composing as a creative endeavor so unique and vital to the area of music education. Tsisserev noticed a positive correlation between compositional instruction and positive student enthusiasm, creativity, and enrollment (1997). He further states that: I can definitely say that no musical experience enables me to achieve a deeper state of personal involvement, self-exploration, self-discovery and self-expression than the act of composition. Composition is the tool that allows me to access my creative and highly personalized depths (p. 21). Schoenberg suggests that the act of composition is a channel into the pleasure that is inherent to the “art” of music (1965). Just as when an artist takes the knowledge of form and medium and creates, the composer takes the knowledge of form and vocabulary and creates. This type of gathering and synthesizing of knowledge is a higher order of thinking than recreating music, the later being typically the only experience of most students of music. Kabalevsky (1984) writes: Nothing else students do in the classroom (with the exception of creative writing) stimulates the kinds of thinking skills and creative powers composition does. When students compose, they must think like composers, they must decide what to do in terms of dynamics, tonality and texture. They must decide how they want the audience to feel when they hear their piece. When students compose they become more aware of themselves, their strengths and weaknesses, their vulnerabilities, their perceptions and their musical knowledge, and the wielding power that comes with it. (p. 138). According to Kabalevsky, the power of composition is something that music students need to experience. The power that comes from composing is certainly a change from the seemingly low position music students assume in the typical music performance setting. Kassner (1994) asserts: Nothing else kids do in the classroom stimulates the kinds of thinking skills and creative powers composition does. Even though their finished compositions may not be great, the process they went through to create that music is beneficial to them. When students compose, they must think like composers, they must decide what to do in terms of dynamics, tonality, and texture. They must decide how they want the audience to feel when they hear a certain section of their piece. When students compose, they achieve a powerful, heady feeling. Nothing else can compare to it. You may think you don’t have time to introduce your kids to composition. But since kids perform better when they are encouraged to compose, you don’t have time not to do it (p. 98). This last statement is the central theme to this study. There may be creative ways of inserting compositional activities into the classroom setting, inserting other classes into the school day, or making computer lab environments open in the evening that would add compositional activities to the collective experience of music students. Two Models of the Process of Composition There are a variety of models designed to show the compositional process. I have chosen to consider two of these models, those of Kratus (1989) and Kennedy (2002). Kratus (1994b) summarizes the work that has been done in the area of teaching creativity (composition and improvisation) in music education. He establishes first that composition is both a product, a final audible experience that can be consumed by people, and a process, a progression of events that make-up and lead to a finished product. Kratus asserts that it is the process of composition that most directly relates to what is important to music educators. Kratus has described the compositional process (1989). He found four main compositional processes: exploration, development, repetition, and silence. In this model, students begin by exploring their musical medium. Students try a variety of different sounds and combinations of sounds without the goal of reviewing previous ideas. Exploration leads to the process of development, during which students revise their musical ideas. In development, some part of the musical idea stays the same, while other parts change. Sometimes melodies change while rhythms stay the same or vice versa. Development then leads to repetition, during which ideas are repeated or rehearsed. Repetition is a “testing and verifying process” (p. 131). The final process of this non- linear model of the act of composition is silence. Silence is the process by which aspects of sound are audiated and musical ideas worked through. Kratus conducted another study to determine how limiting the number of options for students involved in composition, tone bars on an Orff xylophone, would affect the way they worked through the compositional process (Kratus, 1994c). He discovered that the more bars added to the Orff xylophone, the more exploration 3 child engaged in before moving on to the process of development. The results of this study suggest that, if moving children into development stage is the instructor’s goal, teachers should put fewer bars on the xylophone. 10 Most of the research involving high school-aged students has been qualitatively oriented. One such study by Kennedy (2002) sought to investigate the compositional practices of high school students in hopes of generating ideas that could be used to help promote the implementation of better compositional practices in high school music programs. Kennedy cites the festival tradition of high school ensembles, so often driven solely by performance ideals, as a major reason for the lack of composition teaching. Another contributing factor that she uncovers is the hesitation of music teachers to attempt compositional projects with their students, because they view composition as an uncharted territory of music that is too mystical to be presented in an organized and sequential fashion. Kennedy evaluated and analyzed the compositional practices of four high school- age students, two of whom were advanced instrumentalists who were well-versed in jazz improvisation and preparing for college theory entrance exams. The other two were novices, one of which was involved in a garage band and enrolled in a computer music course. They each were given two assignments. The first was to set a short poem for voice and acoustic instrument. The other assignment was meant to be somewhat open- ended. Students were free to create in their own idiom, with their own instrumentation, and were free to structure the composition to their own specifications. All four participants in this study placed an importance on listening to other music during their compositional process. Each reported having huge CD Collections that they used to provide a stimulus and inspiration for their composition. The idea of students using pre-existing music as a platform for their own creative development is not a new idea. Swanwick (1988) calls this phase of students’ musical development the “idiomatic” 11 stage. This stage is characterized by composing “pieces that strongly resemble existing influential models” (p. 79). In Kennedy’s study, student composers had little difficulty generating ideas when it came to their compositions. Examples of student transcripts from this study show a progression of thought, ideas, and introspection. It is clear that these students demonstrated a high degree of proprietorship in the music-composition process. Most of the time that students spent working on their composition projects could be labeled exploration and improvisation. The craftsmanship of the explorations and improvisations of the two more experienced instrumentalists were much more advanced than the two students with less musical training. All four participants expressed a dislike for notation and preferred recording their compositions at the end of the compositional period rather than handing in the notation for their compositions. Kennedy found that existing models of compositional processes were beneficial in interpreting the stages of student composition. She used these models to assist her in providing students with input that helped move them closer to meeting their compositional goals. Table 1 is a graphical representation of the compositional process used by Kennedy (2002) in her study. 12 Table 1- Model of Student Compositional Processes Model of Composition Activity Teacher Input Stage 1 “Setting the Stage”-Individual Teachers expose students to a soundscape sets the stage for wide variety of musical genres composition and styles. Stage 2 “Thinking Time”-Roughing out ideas in Teachers offer searching your head. questions to guide student’s thinking time. Stage 3 Inspiration-Students will continue Little teacher interference adding to their personal soundscape. Some music or thought will trigger the next stage. Stage 4 “Exploratory Phase”-Improvisatory Little teacher interference and/or consciously reproducible Stage 5 “Finish Off”-Sometimes hurriedly Teacher provides assistance in crafting and revising their compositions. or or or Stage 5 “Development”-Creation or refinement Teacher provides assistance in of ideas crafting and revising their compositions. Teachers could use “process listening sessions where teacher, self-, and peer evaluation can occur. Stage 6 “Finish Off”-Completion of ideas in the Further teacher assistance. form of an original musical piece. Kennedy concludes that composition as a personal creative act is a process that every composer approaches differently. Although each individual approaches composition differently, Kennedy was successful in categorizing various stages of composition and approaching the act of teaching composition as facilitating students within these stages. Her success suggests that composition can in fact be taught in a classroom setting and can be approached from an objective standpoint theoretically and methodologically. A number of elements are common to both compositional models, Kratus and Kennedy. Both contain an improvisatory or exploratory stage, as well as a development stage. Both models acknowledge students needing to process information in silence, or by 13 audiating (internally hearing). Kennedy’s model goes further in giving suggestions for teacher input during each successive stage. Composition As an Elective Class In a qualitative study, Van Ernst (1993), seeking to discover a model for the teaching of composition to students, presented composition as a part of the music curriculum at the high school level. This study is the outgrowth of a semester-long course in composition offered at the high school at which the researcher teaches. As the title of the study, “A Study of the Learning and Teaching Processes of Non-Naive Music Students Engaged in Composition” suggests, the fourteen participants aged 15-16 who were involved in the study had previous training in music. Each student played an instrument and was a member of a school ensemble. Over the course of the semester, students were engaged in daily lessons that focused on teaching the basic components necessary to compose music. Students were first given a compositional task that was either structured, suggested, or open-ended. They then were given many choices. Students had the option of either working alone, in pairs, or in small groups. Instrumentation could be: one’s own instrument, an instrument played by another class member, classroom instruments played by any grouping of individuals, or any school ensemble. Time was measured by in-class time, evidence of out-of-class time, and written indication of the number of working sessions. The form of the composition was sometimes prescribed by the instructor and sometimes left to the students. Many musical elements were discussed during the teacher’s instructional portion of the class. These musical elements were expected to be evident in the 14 compositions of students. The results of the study showed that students used a wide variety of working methods. Van Ernst (1993) explains that students “certainly gained in confidence over the semester course, and their compositions appeared to become more sophisticated in content and form” (p. 35). Because students were able to elect this class, it was not a requirement of the high school instrumental music experience. The study does not address the role of composition as a possible promoter of students’ music self-efficacy. One could assume from some of the student responses that the assignment had a positive effect on their sense of ownership of their music (Van Ernst 1993, p. 32). However, a different approach to the organization of the study might prove better at uncovering the extent to which composing affects students’ sense of ownership in music. Music Self-Efficacy A number of researchers have examined the relationship of music self-concept or the more specific area of music self-efficacy of a variety of different age levels as it relates to a number of variables (Austin, 1988, 1990; Austin & Vispoel, 1998; Greenberg, 1970; Sanders, 2000; Sanders & Browne, 1998; VanderArk, 1989). The most closely related research has been conducted by Austin. Austin has explored the relationship of music self-efficacy to participation in school and out-of-school music activities of fifth and sixth grade students (1990). Although the results of his study do not specifically affect this study, Austin’s methodology, more specifically his music self-esteem measure does. Austin used the Self-Esteem of Music Ability scale developed by Schmitt (1979). The SEMA was shown 15 to have an alpha-reliability of .92 when used in a study involving 153 7th-grade students (Austin & Vispoel, 1998). Austin has further divided the SEMA into three sub-categories of music ability, desire to make music, and beliefs about recognition they receive from others for their music accomplishments (Austin & Vispoel, 1998). Austin has suggestions for further improving the scale and making it more efficient (personal communication, March 16, 2005). The current version of the SEMA was used in a study by Randles (2005). This study looked at the relationship of music self-esteem to gender, parent experience in school music, level of satisfaction with music instruction, perceived level of personal contribution to music learning, and out-of-school music activities among 9th through 12th grade music students. Randles showed that SEMA scores were significantly related (p<.0006) to student level of satisfaction with music instruction, and significantly related (p<.0001) to student perceived level of personal contribution to music learning. These findings support the view that self-esteem, personal ownership of learning, and increased “point of view” are interwoven forces that could be a pivotal factor in students choosing to be involved with music. 16 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY Following the research practices of Kennedy (2002) and Ernst (1993), this study sought to examine music composition in the high school instrumental music setting. Kennedy’s study (2002) focused on the role of students’ listening to other music when involved with composition. She did not focus solely on the experiences of students who were involved in school music programs. She also did not purpose to explore the relationship between student self-efficacy and compositional experiences. Van Ernst (1993) sought to examine the teaching and learning processes of non- naive music students engaged in composition. Her findings suggest that, because of the differences in compositional approaches of students, accommodations should be made for students’ different working styles and preferences. The Van Ernst study and the Kennedy study helped shape this study. EBA/IA The present study followed a quantitative design that focused on students’ music self-efficacy scores as measured by SEMA, a music-specific self-efficacy measure that has been used by Austin to reliably measure music self-esteem (1990). SEMA (Self Esteem of Music Ability) scale was originally developed by Schmidt (1979). SEMA l7 contains 43 items, 12 being negatively phrased. Based on factor analysis of results for a large sample, Austin found it possible to reliably create three subscale scores in addition to a composite score for the entire measure (2005). Subscale l is Self-Perception of Music Ability and contains 17 items. Subscale 2 is Support or Recognition fi'om Others and contains 18 items. Subscale 3 is Personal Interest or Desire and contains 8 items. From Austin’s suggestions, a newly revised SEMA was drafted. See Appendix B to view the form of SEMA used in this study. Students marked items according to whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, agreed, or strongly agreed with the statements in question. Student responses were scored from 1 to 4 on the strength of their response (4 being the strongest response). Items negatively phrased were scored in reverse to reflect the negative strength of their response. Here is a sub-scale breakdown: Subscale #1 (Self-Perception of Music Ability; 17 items) Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,10, 12,17,18, 21, 24, 28, 31, 32, 36, 43 Note: Items 4, 10, 24, 28, 31, and 32 are negatively phrased — scoring should be reversed. Subscale #2 (Support or Recognition from Others; 18 items) Items 8, 9,11,13,14,]5,16,19, 22, 27, 29, 30, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 Note: Items 8, 16, 19, 40, 41 are negatively phrased — scoring should be reversed. Subscale #3 (Personal Interest or Desire; 8 items) Items 7, 20, 23, 25, 26, 34, 35, 39 Emerimentor-Devised Questionnaire The student background questionnaire contained questions about student involvement with various aspects of music (Appendix A). Question I asked students about their involvement with private lessons on their band instrument. Possible answers 18 ranged from “I do not take lessons on my instrument” to taking lessons for “more than one year.” Answers were coded from 0 to 3, based on student answers, 0 being “I do not take lessons on my instrument” and 3 being “more than one year.” This numeric value was used in data analysis. Question 2 asked students about their experience composing music. Possible answers ranged from “none at all” to “I have written and recorded a lot of music.” Answers were coded from 0 to 4, based on student answers, 0 being “none at all” and 3 being “I have written and recorded a lot of music.” This numeric value was used in data analysis. Question 3 asked students about their participation in the various school music performing ensembles. Possible answers included band, jazz band, pep band, show choir, and choir. Students were given a number based on the amount of different music activities they were involved in. Student involvement generally ranged from 1 to 4. Question 4 asked students about their involvement in music outside of the school setting. Possible answers included no involvement, piano lessons, guitar lessons, garage band participation, and other. Students were given a number based on the number of different activities they selected. Student involvement ranged from 0 to 4. Question 5 asked students about their parents’ involvement with music while they (parents) were in high school. Students had to indicate whether neither parent, one parent, or both parents were involved in school music programs during their high school years. Students were given a number from 0 to 2 based on their responses, 0 indicating that neither parent was involved, 1 indicating that a single parent was involved, and 2 indicating that both parents were involved in music during their high school years. 19 Question 6 asked students about their listening preferences. Answers included classical, country, jazz, pop, raggae, rap, rock, and other. Data were recorded in two different ways. One way was by totaling the number of responses that each student selected. Student values ranged from 1 to 8. The second way of data collection for this question involved indicating either 0 or 1 for each listening preference. A 0 or 1 provided a numerical yes or no for purposes of analytical comparison, 0 being no, 1 being yes. It was then possible to figure correlations for each listening preference. Question 7 asked students about their satisfaction level with band. Answers ranged from “not satisfied” to “very satisfied.” Answers were coded from 0 to 3, 0 being not satisfied, 3 being “very satisfied.” This numeric value was used in data analysis. Question 8 asked students about their feelings of personal contribution to their learning in band. Answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Answers were coded from 1 to 4, 1 being “strongly disagree,” 4 being “strongly agree.” This numeric value was used in data analysis. Research Format This study was conducted at a moderately sized rural high school of 800 students, located in a town of approximately 6,000 people, a suburb of a city of approximately 800,000 people in the Midwest United States. Students were from a primarily middle class background and were approximately 90% Caucasian and 10% Hispanic/African- American. There were 77 participants. All participants were members of a single high school band, collectively representing grades 9-12, not divided by ability. Band met 20 either 2 or 3 times a week based on an alternating block schedule for a period of 1 hour and 30 minutes. The researcher in this study was the assistant high school band director. Before the study could be conducted, each student and a parent were required to read and sign consent and assent forms that explained their participation in the project. The research process conformed with guidelines established by the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. Outlined in the consent form were the purpose of the study, beginning date, possible benefits from participation in the study, a detailed description of what students would be asked to do, alternative activities for those students who did not wish to participate, and a statement declaring that if students did not wish to participate in the study they could withdraw at any point without suffering any penalty. The study began when all of the students either stated that they were not going to be a part of the study or turned in a consent form agreeing to participate in the study. Each band member was then given SEMA (as a preliminary measure of music self-efficacy) as well as an experimenter-devised questionnaire. Students spent approximately 15 minutes completing both the questionnaire and SEMA. SEMA scores were then totaled and categorized into the three sub-categories of music self-efficacy: self-perception of music ability, support or recognition from others, and personal interest or desire. Pearson product-moment correlations were analyzed for relationships'of selected factors to SEMA. For a period of 12 weeks, students were given opportunities to compose music on three computer music stations located in a room adjacent to the band room. Students were allowed to use the programs Garageband, a music sequencing sofiware application, and 21 Finale, a notation software application, on an Apple iMac computer. The composition assignment was open-ended. Students were to create music using one or both of these programs. They typically chose one or the other; however, a few started on Garageband and finished by notating their work with Finale. Students worked by themselves during the class sessions. Some students chose to collaborate with other students out of class. Several students commented that some of the ideas they came up with during class turned into ideas they used at home with fiiends. The researcher gave feedback about student work when necessary and desired by students. Six students were selected at the beginning of each rehearsal to go back and work at the computer stations for a period of 45 minutes per session. Students were generally given 1 to 3 sessions total of the treatment. Students were recorded on a sheet that kept track of the amount of sessions they had been allowed to compose. Students were then selected according to who had the least amount of composition time. Some students were allowed more time if they were finishing up an idea from a previous session. At the beginning of each rehearsal, the six students who were to compose that day were given a brief demonstration of how to work with the programs Garageband and Finale by using Yamaha MIDI keyboards attached to iMac GS computers. Three students then began working. Forty-five minutes later, without being prompted, the three students who had not yet composed made their way back to the computers and the three students who had already had time to compose joined the band in the rehearsal. During periods before concerts or festivals, one or two days, composition activity ceased as students attention was focused on the upcoming performance. 22 When confronted with technical questions dealing with how to navigate the programs, students would oftentimes ask one another. When they could not figure out a problem, they would find me. Some students would come to class and plead for time on the computer stations even when they were given time the class session before. At those times, I had to make a decision whether to allow that person to continue at the expense of another student having a chance to work. I would have the student show me what they wanted to do and what they were thinking. I would then give suggestions for them to consider. If I thought they were sincere in their desire to accomplish a musical goal, I would allow them to work. I rarely denied an eager composer. The composition experiences went smoothly. Students entered and exited the band room in a way that did not distract other students from learning. Students composed on computer stations with headphones, therefore, the computer room was always silent as while the students composed. There were never found misusing their composition time. Other teachers commented on the intensity with which students worked on their compositions. Students would oftentimes share what they worked on with me after class. Students seemed to enjoy these experiences thoroughly. Some asked what programs I would recommend for their particular listening/compositional style. I was impressed with the wide variety of sounds that students used in their compositions. Using three computer stations with six students composing per class session seemed to work well. The high school music staff (3 teachers) did not notice students leaving and entering. At the end of the 12-week period, students were given SEMA and the researcher devised questionnaire once again. Over the course of the 12 weeks, many students received composition time. However, approximately 20 students did not. These 23 numbers were recorded by the post-treatment SEMA scores. Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to determine the extent of relationships among selected factors and SEMA. SEMA scores were analyzed over time. Change was measured for all of the SEMA measures as well as for selected factors. Research findings are discussed in detail in the following chapter. Some of the musical products were presented at a live performance, for those students who so desired to showcase their work. Performing students’ work proved to be another promoter of student ownership in the music making process. Recordings were produced and made available to participants. Recordings (compositional product) proved to be an additional promoter of positive music self-efficacy. 24 Chapter 4 RESULTS Five research questions were raised in this study: (a) what relationships exist between selected factors including composition experiences and music self-efficacy?, (b) how are listening preferences related to composition experience and music self efficacy?, (c) how stable is music self-efficacy over time?, (d) what relationships exist between change in music self-efficacy and change in composition experiences?, and (e) which of the selected factors including composition experiences are the best predictors of music self-efficacy? Music self-efficacy was assessed before and after students were given composition experiences within the school music setting. Accompanying the music self- efficacy assessment was a questionnaire that asked for levels of selected factors including degree of composition experience. To answer these questions, statistical analysis of the data and results are reported in this chapter. This chapter consists of the following: (a) correlations of selected factors including degree of composition experience to music self-efficacy scores for three sub- categories and total scores of data collected before in-class composition experiences were provided, (b) correlations of selected factors including degree of composition experience to music self-efficacy scores for three sub-categories and total scores of data collected after in-class composition experiences were provided, (c) correlation of listening preferences to composition experience, ((1) correlation of listening preference to music self-efficacy, (e) correlation of pre-treatment music self—efficacy scores to post-treatment 25 scores for three sub-categories and total scores, (f) correlation of change in music self- efficacy for three sub-categories and total scores to change in degree of composition experience, and (g) stepwise multiple regression indicating strongest predictors of music self-efficacy for three sub-categories and total. Pre—Treatment Data Correlations Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to determine the extent of relationships of ten selected factors, including composition experiences, to three sub- categories of music self-efficacy scores and a total music self-efficacy score. The level of significance was set at .05. These correlations are reported in Table 2. The following significant correlations were found: (a) between sub-category SEMA 1 scores (Self- Perception of Music Ability) and grade level, composition experiences, school music activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting; (b) between sub-category SEMA 2 scores (Support or Recognition from Others) and composition experiences, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting; and (c) between sub-category SEMA 3 scores (Personal Interest or Desire) and grade level, composition experiences, school music activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting, and the number of different listening styles the student reported. There were also significant relationships between SEMA Total scores and grade level, composition experiences, school music 26 activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting. The variables with the Table 2 Pre-Treatment Data Correlations SEMA 1 SEMA 2 SEMA 3 SEMA Total Grade .36** .18 .17 .28* Gender -.05 -.05 -.Ol -.05 Private Lessons .22* .14 .11 .17 Comp. Experience .59*** .37*** .47*** .51*** S. Music Activity .37*** .14 .28* .30** H. Music Activity .35** .3 l ** .31** .36** # P. w/ Hist. of S. Music .18 .ll .03 .13 Satisfaction Level .43*** .53*** .54*** .53*** P. Contribution .36** .38*** .42*** .40*** Listening # .06 .13 .24* .14 *p< .05; **p< .0]; ***p< .001 Note. Sample subject fl=77. highest correlations to SEMA scores were composition experiences, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting. The highest correlation (0.59, p<.001) was between composition 27 experiences and SEMA 1 scores. All categories of SEMA were significantly related (p<.001) to composition experiences. Degree of student private lesson experience was significantly related (p<.05) to only SEMA l. Post-Treatment Data Correlations Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to determine the extent of the relationships of nine selected factors, including composition experiences, to three sub-categories of music self-efficacy scores and a total music self-efficacy score. The level of significance is set at .05. These correlations are reported in Table 3. The following significant correlations were found: (a) between sub-category SEMA 1 scores (Self-Perception of Music Ability) and grade level, composition experiences, school music activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting; (b) between sub-category SEMA 2 scores (Support or Recognition from Others) and composition experiences, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting; (0) between sub-category SEMA 3 scores (Personal Interest or Desire) and grade level, composition experiences, school music activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting. There were also significant relationships between SEMA Total scores and grade level, composition experiences, school music activity, home music activity, satisfaction of school music experience, and perception of personal contribution to learning in the school music setting. The variables with the highest correlations to the SEMA scores where 28 composition experience and satisfaction of school music experience. The highest correlation (0.53, p<.001) was between composition experiences and SEMA 1, SEMA 3, and SEMA Total scores. Table 3 Post-Treatment Data Correlations SEMA SEMA l SEMA 2 SEMA 3 Total Grade .37*** .19 .21 .30" Gender -.10 -.15 -.08 -.12 Private Lessons .13 .06 .11 .11 Comp. Experience .53*** .39*** .53*** .53*** S. Music Activity .41*** .18 .31** .33** H. Music Activity .36** .30** .36** .37*** # P. w/ Hist. of S. Music .15 .09 -.O4 .09 Satisfaction Level .43*** .38*** .43*** .45*** P. Contribution .28* .26* .36** .32** *2< .05; **2< .01; ***p< .001 Note. Sample subject E=77. Degree of private lesson activity was not significantly related to music self-efficacy scores in any of the categories. 29 Correlation of Listening Preferences to Composition Experiences Pearson product-moment correlations were used to calculate the extent of the relationship of various listening preferences: classical, country, jazz, pop, reggae, rap, and rock to degree of composition experience (see Table 4). Results show significant Table 4 Correlation of Listening Preferences to Composition Experiences Listening Pref. Composition Experiences Classical .34** Country -. 1 3 Jazz .36** Pop -. 19 Reggae .20 Rap -. l 2 Rock -.02 *2< .05; **2< .01; ***2< .001 Note. Sample subject _l}J_=77. relationships between listening to classical music (.34, p<.01) and composition experiences and listening to jazz music (.36, p<.01) and composition experiences. Correlation of Listening Preferences to Music Self-Efficacy Pearson product-moment correlations were used to calculate the extent of the relationship among various listening preferences: classical, country, jazz, pop, raggae, rap, and rock, and music self-efficacy as measured by SEMA (see Table 5). Results show 30 significant positive relationships among the listening preferences of classical (.28, p<05) and jazz (.26, p<.05) styles and significant negative correlations for listening to pop (-.26, p<.05) and rap music (-.3 7, p<.01) and SEMA l (Self-Perception of Music Ability). Results show significant positive correlations among the listening preferences of classical (.30, p<.01) and jazz (.27, p<.05) styles as well as a significant negative correlation for Table 5 Correlation of Listening Preferences to Music Self-Efficacy Listening Style SEMA l SEMA 2 SEMA 3 SEMA Total Classical .28* .30** .36** .33** Country .01 -.05 -.O4 -.02 Jazz .26* .27* .33** .30" Pop -.26* -. l 7 -.ll -.20 Reggae .11 .09 .15 .12 Rap -.37** -.22* -.14 -.28* Rock -.00 .04 .05 .02 *2< .05; **2< .01; ***p< .001 Note. Sample subject fi=77. listening to rap music (-.22, p<.01) and SEMA 2 (Support or Recognition from Others). Results show significant positive relationships among the listening preferences of classical (.36, p<.01) and jazz (.33, p<.01) styles and SEMA 3 (Personal Interest or Desire). Results show significant positive relationships among the listening preferences of classical (.33, p<.01) and jazz (.30, p<.01) styles as well as a significant negative correlation for listening to rap music (-.28, p<.05) and SEMA Total. 31 Stability of Music Self-Efficacy Pearson product-moment correlations were used to calculate the extent of the relationships between pre-treatment SEMA scores and post-treatment SEMA scores as a measure of the stability of the SEMA scores over time. The treatment period lasted twelve weeks. Data for these correlations can be found in Table 6. Table 6 Stalflity of Music Self-Efficacy SEMA 1 .87*** SEMA 2 .73*** SEMA 3 .86*** SEMA Total .86*** *p< .05; **p< .0]; ***p< .001 Note. Sample subject fl=77. The data shows high correlations between pre-treatment and post-treatment scores for each category of SEMA. These findings would suggest that self-efficacy in music is a stable characteristic. 32 Correlations among Change in Composition Experience and Change in SEMA Scores Pearson product-moment correlations were used to calculate the extent of the relationships between change in composition experiences and change in SEMA scores. Results of this analysis can be found in Table 7. A high correlation was found between composition experiences and SEMA l (Self-Perception of Music Ability). Similar correlations were not found for SEMA 2 (Support or Recognition from Others), SEMA 3 (Personal Interest or Desire), or SEMA Total. Findings suggest that although music self- efficacy was found to be significantly stable over the 12-week treatment period, it was not completely stable. A Pearson product-moment correlation would have to indicate a correlational value of 1 for music self-efficacy to be considered completely stable (no change occurring in SEMA scores over the treatment period of 12 weeks). Since the correlational values were not 1, there was some change in SEMA scores over this time period. Change in SEMA 1 scores over the 12-week time period were significantly related to change in compositional experience. Table 7 Correlations Among Change in Composition Experience and Change in SEMA Scores SEMA l .35** SEMA 2 -.O9 SEMA 3 -.l 1 SEMA Total -.06 33 *2< .05; **2< .01; ***p< .001 Note. Sample subject E=77. The Strongest Predictors of Music Self-Efficacy Stepwise multiple regression analyses were computed to answer the fourth research question regarding the best predictors of music self-efficacy (see Table 8). An analysis of each of the SEMA sub-categories as well as the SEMA Total indicates that, among the variables studied, composition experiences are the strongest predictor of music self-efficacy. Degree of private lesson experience and amount of school music activity were not a significant predictor of music self-efficacy. 34 Table 8 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis Indicating the Best Predictors of Music W1 Stepwise R2 Prediction Stepwise Variable Cor. M. Cor. Incre Expression R2 R ment SEMA 1 Composition Experience 3.09 .53 .53 .28 Grade Level 2.00 .37 .62 .38 .10 Listening to Rap -4.46 -.37 .67 .45 .07 Sat. of Music Experience 2.23 .43 .70 .49 .04 SEMA 2 Composition Experience 1.22 .39 .40 .22 Sat. of Music Experience 1.67 .38 .47 .22 .06 SEMA 3 Composition Experience 1.29 .53 .53 .28 Perception of Contribution 1.81 .36 .59 .35 .07 Home Music Activities 1.87 .36 .64 .41 .06 Listening to Jazz 1.73 .33 .67 .45 .04 SEMA Total Composition Experience 5.69 .53 .53 .28 Sat. of Music Experience 4.73 .45 .60 .36 .08 Home Music Activities 6.26 .37 .63 .40 .04 Listening to Rap -7.63 .28 .66 .43 .03 Perception of Contribution 5.27 .32 .68 .46 .03 35 Summary This study sought to answer five research questions regarding composition experience and music self-efficacy. Below is a summary of the research results as they relate to the research questions. Music self-efficacy, as measured by SEMA, is a stable characteristic. The correlation of pre-treatment SEMA data and post-treatment SEMA data taken at the beginning and ending of the 12-week treatment period suggest this finding. Both pre- treatment SEMA data and post-treatment SEMA data show the highest correlations to SEMA scores occurring with the factor of composition experiences. Although music self- efficacy is a stable characteristic, an analysis of the change between pre-treatment SEMA scores and post-treatment SEMA scores and change in compositional experience over the 12-week treatment period suggests that composition experience had a significant affect on SEMA l (Self-Perception of Music Ability). Through stepwise multiple regression analysis, it was discovered that the strogest predictor of music self-efficacy of the factors utilized in this study was composition experiences. 36 Chapter 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS The primary purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between compositional experiences of high school instrumentalists and music self-efficacy. Relationships between music self-efficacy and the variables of grade, gender, amount of private lesson study, amount of school music activity, amount of home music activity, number of parents who were involved in school music in high school, satisfaction level of school music experience, feelings of personal contribution to school music environment, amount of different listening style preferences, and listening style preferences on an individual basis were also examined. To answer the research questions, data were collected and analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlations and stepwise multiple regression. The final chapter of this thesis begins with a summary of the major findings. The next section discusses several aspects of the findings in terms of implications for music education. The final section gives suggestions for further research. 37 Summary of the Major Findings This study sought to examine five research questions regarding the relationship of composition experiences to music self-efficacy. The four research questions and answers to the questions found in this study are presented below. First, what relationships exist between selected factors including composition experiences and music self-efficacy? This study revealed significant positive relationships between music self-efficacy and composition experiences, satisfaction with school music environment, feelings of personal contribution to learning within the school music environment (pre-treatrnent assessment), home music environment (post-treatment assessment), and number of different listening style preferences (pre-treatment assessment). The strongest of these relationships was that between SEMA and composition experiences (0.59 pre-treatment, 0.53 post-treatment). Second, how are listening preferences related to composition experiences and music self-efficacy? There was a significant positive relationship between amount of composition experiences and listening preferences for classical and jazz music. Students who were composing music tended to listen to classical and jazz styles. This finding might have something to do with the association of classical and jazz styles to the act of composition itself. “Composers” in the traditional sense write music within these genres. There were significant positive relationships between music self-efficacy and listening preferences for listening to classical and jazz music. There were significant negative relationships between music self-efficacy and listening to rap and pop music. This finding may be the result of students associating their own music making experience 38 within the school setting (concert and jazz band) with the music they listen to outside of school. This power of association with the school music setting may be why the listening styles of pop and rap music are significantly negatively related to music self-efficacy among this student population. Third, how stable is music self—efficacy over time? Music self-efficacy was found to be stable over time. Twelve weeks passed from the time of pre-treatment assessment to the time of post-treatment assessment. Scores for all areas of SEMA were significantly related (p<0.001). Fourth, what is the relationship between change in music self-efficacy and change in compositional experience? There was a significant positive relationship (p<0.01) between change in musical self-efficacy (SEMA 1 - Self-Perception of Music Ability) and change in compositional experience. This finding in conjunction with the above- mentioned stability of SEMA scores over time indicates that composition experiences have the ability to affect the very stable characteristic of student music self-efficacy. The more composition experiences the students had during the twelve weeks, the higher their self-esteem as musicians. Fifth, which of the selected factors including composition experiences are the strongest predictors of music self-efficacy? Results of stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that composition experiences were the strongest predictor of music self-efficacy. Other factors serving as significant predictors of music self-efficacy include satisfaction of school music environment, feelings of personal contribution to learning in school music environment, and amount of home music activities. These factors are statistically significant (p<0.05) predictors of music self-efficacy and accounted for 49% 39 of the variance in SEMA 1, 22% of the variance in SEMA 2, 45% of the variance in SEMA 3, and 46% of the variance in SEMA Total. Compositional experiences dominated the list of best predictors of music self-efficacy (r2 = 0.28, 0.22, 0.28, 0.28 respectively). All other predictors made up no more than r2 = 0.21 (SEMA 1) in any given category. Implications for Music Education The results of this study suggest that experiences in composing music was positively related to the music self-efficacy of a group of 77 high school band students. The students who composed music within the setting of the high school instrumental music class felt significantly better about their abilities as musicians than they did before they were given this opportunity. During this period of twelve weeks, when students were given opportunities to compose music by utilizing computer music stations, a number of things happened. I saw students completely engrossed in creating their own melodic and rhythmic ideas. They were free to explore their own ideas, with their favorite types of sounds, in their favorite styles. They watched and listened intently as the computer played back their musical thoughts. They scrolled through choices of instrument sounds looking for just the right sounds for their pieces. They brought in other students to hear their recorded work after school. One student brought in her entire family to listen to her composed song. This student had her sister add a harmony vocal part. While students were working at these stations, I would periodically check in on them. Very rarely did they even notice me entering the room. They were too engrossed in 40 what they were doing, the choices they were able to make with sound, and how their pieces would progress. An older colleague of mine who does not understand completely how the computers work and how students are creating music made the comment that he had never seen these same students into music like they were when they were composing. He made the comment that we could probably fit another three computers on the wall on the other side of the room. This comment helped me to understand the impact that these compositional experiences were having on the musical culture of this high school. Music education as a profession would be wise to take advantage of the technology that is available for music creation. By simply giving students some time to explore their own musical ideas, students can be provided with a very real outlet for personal expression in music that can last a lifetime. The personal computer has changed the way information including music is created, stored, and accessed. A composition created with the program Garageband can be created and burned to a CD in a matter of minutes. The same composition can be created and sent to an Apple iPod in less time than it takes to burn a CD and accessed anywhere the listener desires it to be. Students can share their music with an endless audience of listeners via online publication in the time it takes to send an e-mail message. Musical works can be created and then shared via Podcast, an auditory broadcast that is available for free download on Apple’s i Tunes, an on-line marketplace for music. A blending of the technological possibilities of the popular music culture, such as those previously mentioned, within the arena of school music would change the way students viewed their school music experience. Well-intentioned school music teachers have existed apart from the advances in popular culture for some time now. 41 Compositional experiences that utilize the advances in modern information production and transmission could revitalize the school music programs of our day. The more overlap that exists between a world culture that values music in all of its current forms, such as iPod, iTunes, and mp3s, and the world of school music that students are involved with on a day to day basis, the more chance music educators have to present a love of music to students that will last a lifetime. The results of this study imply that composing experiences have a more salient impact on high school students’ beliefs in their musical abilities than do school ensemble experiences. The compositional experiences that were available to students of this study were very easily implemented. Students who were composing did not have to be prompted as to when they were to go to the computer stations to work. Students kept close track of time. They did not want to miss any opportunity to compose during class. A short demonstration of how to start the computer program Garageband and how to add and play instruments was all it took to get students started. They themselves guided their discovery of music. This self-guided discovery is the real beauty of composing, something that makes a significant positive difference with music self-efficacy. Rehearsals were not interrupted by students leaving the room to compose. Very rarely did we as teachers notice students being gone, as only three students at any given time were out of the room. During the course of the treatment period the high school band put on two concerts and received straight Division-I ratings at District Band Festival. We will host the upcoming State Band Festival. Performance standards were upheld. Composition time did not affect the performance quality of our band. 42 Composition activities, when done well, will increase student interest in band, and seem to help students understand and perform their music on a higher level. Suggestions for Further Research The results of this study suggest that the relationship between composition experiences and self—efficacy in music is worthy of further study. A longitudinal study examining the long-term affect of compositional experiences on student music self- efficacy within the high school instrumental music setting would be worthwhile. Do more students choose the school music program because of opportunities they are given to create? Do music self-efficacy scores continue to raise as students receive more compositional instruction and experiences? Do more students choose to study music at the college level as a result of being given experiences to compose within their school music setting? How many students will pursue out-of—school music composition after being given the opportunity to compose within the school setting? What would be the impact of starting a composition class for non-traditional students of music on the school music community? These questions are certainly worth exploring. It is the realm of creativity that music education has most neglected in practice in recent years. The latest advances in media manipulation have presented a huge opportunity for music educators to seize creative opportunities for their students in meaningful ways that could change the value of themselves as music makers (students and educators alike) for a lifetime! 43 Appendix A Student Background Questionnaire 44 Student Back round uestionnaire Student Number Grade 9_ 10___ ll__ 12__ Male_ Female__ Date of Birth Instructions: Check the correct response (3) for each of the following statements. 1. I have taken lessons on this instrument for the following length of time: I do not take lessons on my instrument 1 — 5 months 6 — 12 months more than 1 year 2. I have the following experience composing: none at all minimal some but never shared with anyone I have recorded some of my own music I have written and recorded a lot of music 3. I participate in the following music activities within school: band show choir __jazz band choir __ pep band more than one choir (not including show choir) 4. I participate in the following music activities outside of school: piano lessons other (describe) guitar lessons none garage band 5. My parents were involved with band or choir in high school: one parent both parents neither parent 6. I enjoy listening to the following styles of music: classical raggae country rap jazz rock pop other (describe) 7. I would describe my level of satisfaction with band/choir as: very satisfied satisfied 45 minimally satisfied not satisfied 8. I feel like I personally contribute to my learning in band/choir: strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 46 Appendix B Self-Esteem of Music Ability scale (SEMA) 47 SEMA DIRECTIONS: This survey includes statements about your musical ability. Some of these statements may be true for you; others may not. Respond to each statement by circling: SD — if you strongly disagree D —- if you disagree A —— if you agree SA — if you strongly agree SAMPLE I like to hear myself sing. SD D A SA ITEMS: I am the best musician in my SD D A SA family. 1. I can read music well. SD D A SA 2. I know music well enough to help others learn it. SD D A SA 3. I can write my own music. SD D A SA 4. Leading others in singing or playing would be difficult SD D A SA for me. 5. I can play or sing difficult rhythms. SD D A SA 6. I could win a music contest. SD D A SA 7. I am glad when asked to sing or play for others. SD D A SA 8. Music teachers often embarrass me. SD D A SA 9. My parents expect a lot from me in music. SD D A SA 10. I usually feel uncomfortable when I am around music. SD D A SA 11. I feel good when my parents notice my progress in SD D A SA music. 12. 1 really believe I’m talented in music SD D A SA 13. My parents believe I can learn to play or sing really SD D A SA well. 14. Teachers notice my progress in music. SD D A SA 15. My friends really like my playing or singing. SD D A SA 16. My music teachers don’t expect much of me. SD D A SA 48 17. I come from a musical family. 18. I could lead the class if my music teachers asked me to take their place. 19. Kids laugh at me when I make mistakes in music. 20. I’d be glad if teachers asked me to play or sing for programs. 21. I believe I could become a professional singer or player. 22. Kids notice my progress in music and give me credit for what I can do. 23. Music is all right for others but not for me. 24. I will not be good enough to be in choir or band in college. 25. I enjoy playing for others. 26. I expect a lot of myself in music. 27. People my age admire my musical ability. 28. I have a rough time learning in music class. 29. I find myself helping my friends with their music. 30. I am glad my family likes to listen to me perform. 31. Music is harder for me than for other kids. 32. I am not able to make progress in music. 33. At least one member of my family says I am really good in music 34. I would like to have a professional career in music. 35. Usually I enjoy practicing music. 36. I like it when music teachers give me hard music to learn. 37. If my friends chose a music leader, they would probably pick me. 38. Other students sometimes ask me to play or sing with them. 39. I expect to play or sing in performing groups after high 49 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD U UUUUUUUUUU U > > >>>>>>>>> SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA school. 40. No one pays much attention to my musical activities at home. 41. I don’t have even one friend who would say 1 am any good in music. 42. My teacher thinks I can do well in music. 43. Compared with other students, I think I am talented. 50 SD SD SD SD SA SA SA SA Appendix C Parent Consent Form 51 The Relationship of Compositional Experiences of High School Instrumentalists to Music Self-Efficacy Parents of Coopersville High School Band Students, Mr. Clint Randles, a music teacher at Coopersville Area Public Schools, is completing a Masters degree at Michigan State University and is asking your permission to involve your student in a research study starting November 21, 2005. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of compositional experiences of high school instrumentalists to music self-efficacy. It is hoped that the results of this study will add to the body of knowledge that exists regarding composition as it relates to individuals perception of themselves as musicians. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. Students will be given the attached self-esteem of music survey. They will then be given opportunities to compose music on computer music stations. After being given opportunities to compose music during two sessions of 45 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes total), students will take the music self-esteem inventory again. This data will then be examined for correlations. Student’s composed music will not be graded or evaluated and so will not effect their grade for the class in any way. This project will not be a part of the regular classroom activities. The other students of the class will be engaged in a normal band rehearsal while a few students per day are composing at computer stations. If your student opts out of this activity, they simply do what they normally do every other day in band. Nothing will change for them if they do not wish to 52 participate. Your student will not suffer any penalty for refusing to participate in this study. There is no cost for participation in this study. Benefits to this study include experiences creating music and the knowledge of how to use computer based music creation software. Participation in this study is voluntary. Students may choose not to participate in this study or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions, please contact Clint Randles: 198 East St., Coopersville. MI 49404, by phone: (616) 997-3344, or by e-mail: crandles@coopersville.kl2.mi.us. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your student’s rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research Protections, (517)355- 2180, fax (517)432-4503, e-mail irb@msu.edu, mail 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047. 53 Consent Form for Participation in The Relationship of Compositional Experiences of High School Instrumentalists to Music Self-Efficacy study Student’s Name Student’s Signiture Your Signiture below indicates your student is voluntarily agreeing to participate in this study. Your Signature 54 REFERENCES Anthony, J. (1974). Student perception of factors related to discontinuance from Iowa Public School band programs in districts of 10,000 or more students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Austin, J. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, motivation, achievement, and attitude of elementary band students. Journal of research in Music Education, 36(2), 95-107. Austin, J. (1990). The relationship of music self-esteem to degree of participation in school and out-of-school music activities among upper-elementary students. Contributions to Music Education. 1 7, 20-31. Austin, J., Vispoel, W. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in classroom music: Relationships among attributional beliefs, self-concept and achievement. Psychology of Music, 26, 26-45. Austin, J. (2005). (personal communication, April 18, 2005) Bamberger, J. (1977). In search of a tune. In Perkins, D., & Leondar, B., (eds.). The Arts and Cognition, pp. 284-319. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear: How children develop musical intelligence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Barrett, M. (1997). Invented notations: A view of young children’s musical thinking. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 2-14. Brinkman, DJ. (1995). The effect of problem-finding and creativity style on the musical compositions of high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Brown, J .D. (1985). The Gemeinhardt report 11. Elkhart: The Gemeinhardt Company. 55 Bunting, R. (1987). Composing music: Case studies in the teaching and learning processes. British Journal of Music Education. 4(1), 25-52. Carlin, J. (1997). Music preferences for compositions by selected students aged 9-15 years. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 9-13. Chang, C. (2004). Constructing a streaming video-based learning forum for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13(3), 245-263. Chin, P. (2004). Epistemological appropriation in one high school student's learning in cooperative education. American Educational Research Journal. 41(2), 401-417. Chiu, M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal. 41 (2), 365-399. Colley, A., Banton, L., Down, J ., & Pither, A. (1992). An export-novice comparison in musical composition. Psychology of Music. 20, 124-137. Covington, M.V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20. Czikszentrnihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Davidson, L., & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: The developmental path f tonal thinking. In Sloboda, J .A., (ed.). Generative Processes in Music, pp. 260- 285. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DeLorenzo, LC. (1989). A field study of sixth grade students creative music problem solving processes. Journal of Research in Music Education. 3 7, 188-200. Emmerson, S. (1989). Composing strategies and pedagogy. Contemporary Music Review, 3, 133-144. Emmons, SE. (1998). Analysis of musical creativity in middle school students through composition using computer-assisted-instruction: A multiple case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, New York. Erkunt, H. (1998). Computers as cognitive tools in music composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. Ernst, B.V. (1993). A study of the teaching and learning processes of non-naive music students engaged in composition. Research Studies in Music Education, 1, 22-39. 56 Folkestad, G., Lindstrom, B., & Hargreaves, DJ. (1997). Young people’s music in the digital age. Reasearch Studies in Music Education, 9, 1-12. Fowler, C. (1993, January). Strong arts, strong schools. Speech presented at Biannual conference of the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, San Francisco, CA. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: HarperCollins. Greenberg, M. (1970). Musical achievement and the self-concept. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(1), 57-64. Gromko, J .E. (1996). In A child’s voice: An interpretive interaction with young composers. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 128, 37-51. Henry, W. (1995). The effects of pattern instruction, repeated composing opportunities, and musical aptitudes on the compositional processes and products of fourth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Hickey, M. (1997). The computer as a tool in creative music. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 56-70. Hickey, M. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theater, and dance. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning : A project of the music educators national conference (pp. 398-415). New York, NY: Oxford. Hoffman, K., Hedden, S.K., & Mims, R. (1990, November). Music compositional processes in children aged seven through nine years. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Orff—Schulwerk Association, Denver. Kennedy, M. (2002). Listening to the music: Compositional processes of high school composers. Journal of Research in Music Education. 50(2). 94-1 10. Klinedinst, R. (1991 ). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 225-23 8. Kratus, J. (1989). A time analysis of the compositional processes used by children ages 7 to 1 1. Journal of Research in Music Education, 3 7(1), 5-20. Kratus, J. (1991). Characterisation of the compositional strategies used by children to create a melody. Canadian Music Educator, Special ISME Research Edition. 33 , 95-103. Kratus, J. (1994a, December). How do children compose? Teaching Music. 2(3). 57 Kratus, J. (1994b). The way children compose. In H. Lees (Ed.), Musical connections:tradition and change. Proceedings of 21 5’ world conference of the international society of music education (pp. 128-140). Tampa, FL: ISME. Kratus, J. (1994c). The effect of different types of melodic materials on children’s musical compositions. Unpublished manuscript. Kruth, EC. (1964). Student dropout in instrumental music in the secondary schools of Oakland, California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford. Kuech, R. (2004). Collaborative and interactional processes in an inquiry-based, informal learning environment. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 39(1), 30-41. Ladanyi, KS. (1995). Processes of musical composition facilitated by digital music equipment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. Levi, R.G. (1992). A field investigation of the composing processes used by second grade children creating original language and music pieces. Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. DAI 52, 2852A. Mercer, R]. (1970). The band director’s brainbank. Northfireld: The Instrumentalist Co. Randles, C. (2005). The relationship of music self-esteem to gender, parent experience in school music, level of satisfaction with music instruction, perceived level of personal contribution to music learning, and out-of-school music activities among 9th through 12th grade music students. Unpublished manuscript. Rawlins, L.D. (1979). A study of the reasons for students dropping out of the instrumental music program of the Lincoln, Nebraska, Public Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Robinson, N.G. (1995). An examination of the influence of visual feedback and reflection time on the pitch and duration characteristics of 9-year-olds ’ musical compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Sanders, P. (2000). Music self-concept, music aptitude, and music background of non— music majors. Contributions to Music Education, 27(2), 9-21. Sanders, P., Browne, L. (1998). Music self-concept of non-music majors. Contributions to Music Education. 25(1), 74-86. 58 Schmitt, M. (1979). Development and validation of a measure of self-esteem of music ability. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 5357A-5358A. (University Microfilms No. 80-09164) Schoenberg, A. (1965). Letters. New York. Seals, K.A. (1990). A cross-sectional investigation of the melodic composition abilities of elementary and junior high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(11), 3510A. Sherman, R. (1971a). Creativity and the condition of knowing in music. Music Educators Journal, 58, 18—22. Sherman, R. (1971b). Creativity and the condition of knowing in music part 2. Music Educators Journal, 58, 59-61. Smith, W.H. (1998, April). A process analysis of high school novice musician’s initial composing experiences. Paper presented at the National Biennial In-Service Conference of MENC: The National Association for Music Education, Pheonix, AZ. Stauffer, S.L. (1999, February). Beginnings of the composition process among children and adolescents. Paper presented at the Desert Skies Music Symposium, University of Arizona, Tucson. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, education. London, UK: Routledge Press. Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1994). The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305-339. Tsisserev, A. (1997). An ethnography of secondary school student composition in musicw study of personal involvement within the compositional process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Canada. VanderArk, S. (1989). The effect of participation in a musical theatre production on the self-concept, attitude towards music and music class, and creative thinking skills. Dissertation Reviews, 82-86. Weerts, R. (1992). Research on the teaching of instrumental music. Schirmer Books: New York. Wiggens, J .H. (1993). The role of peer interaction in musical learning in a general music classroom. Paper presented at the Symposium on Research in General Music, Tucson, AZ. 59 Wilson, S.J., & Wales, R]. (1995). An exploration of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43(2), 94-1 11. Younker, B., & Smith, W. (1996). Comparing and modeling musical thought processes of expert and novice composers. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 128, 25-36. Zdzinski, SF. (1992). Relationship among parental involvement, music aptitude, and musical achievement of instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(2), 114-125. 60 S” N“ Am ml HI