, WWW
. .n ,M
, www.mw

3

(mi: (91.5... n
' -“'\ _‘.I.Z.

4n

{ .. m? .,

u...»

.. , 13m;
hwy} . , . a.»

 

:- ( .UV
flan”!
d

1 L. .

‘ .1. \n. :1. u.

“nfimflnmw‘uw an.

, gm»

w

my

.5,“

.w n
«“3 a
fir: .

75'
2“

fl .
'9-

‘!I :3.
"3- ‘ .

a

V

f

‘ .u'
.“

, a.
”w" gmwm
iv.

I ‘ V .rqmtuw..mn+mé‘w~..
, flNn ‘ , . : m... ”kiln“? “hum

. x
r

y .

.1.
.mvwanr. I A. W . 2

 

gaping... .
V kid? Suit: .

\\\\\\\:m \\\l Ii; \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\

\\\\

W,“

“as \\\

’2

I ..

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
The Effects of Pattern Instruction, Repeated

Composing Opportunities, and Musical Aptitude on the
Compositional Processes and Products of Fourth-Grade
Students

presented by

Warren Henry

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

—Bh..D~— degree in .msu—Edmat ion

Major pro ssor

Date 4/7/95

 

' MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

‘ mud [ML—whim!
. w 5011835301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW3“... .l .. - .. ... ....

 

THE EFFECTS OF PATTERN INSTRUCTION, ‘
REPEATED COMPOSING OPPORTUNITIES,
AND MUSICAL APTITUDE ON THE
COMPOSITIONAL PROCESSES AND
PRODUCTS OF FOURTH-GRADE STUDENTS

.by

Warren Henry

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Music

1995

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF PATTERN INSTRUCTION,
REPEATED COMPOSIN G OPPORTUNITIES,
AND MUSICAL APTITUDE ON THE
COMPOSITIONAL PROCESSES AND
PRODUCTS OF FOURTH-GRADE STUDENTS

By

Warren Henry

The purpose of this study was to determine how four intact classes of fourth-
grade students' (N=64) processes and products are affected by music aptitude and
different instructional methods. Each student's music aptitude was measured using the
Intermediate Mamie: othsic Aptitude. One class received repeated composing
opportunities and pattern instruction; another received repeated composing
opportunities; the third received pattern instruction; the fourth served as the control
group. At the end of the 12-week period, students were individually recorded
composing an original song. Two independent judges analyzed each composing
process for the presence of exploration, development, repetition, and silence. Another
pair of judges analyzed the compositional product for its cohesiveness, pattern use, and
extensiveness. In addition, they rated the students' ability to replicate their song. The
data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (p < .05).

The class that received pattern instruction and repeated composing opportunities
used significantly less exploration than all other groups. High aptitude students used
significantly less exploration than low aptitude students. The class that received
repeated composing opportunities and pattern instruction, and the class that received
pattern instruction used significantly more development than the control group. The
class that received pattern instruction used significantly more repetition than the class

that received repeated composing opportunities and the control group. No significant

differences were found in students' use of silence. The group that received pattern
instruction used significantly more time to compose than any other group.

No significant differences were found for metric cohesiveness, developed
rhythmic pattern, repeated melodic pattern, developed melodic pattern, or length of
finished product. Significant interactions among treatment groups and aptitude were
found for tonal cohesiveness, repcated rhythmic pattern, range, and replication.
Students with low aptitude who received repeated opportunities to compose were less

able to replicate their songs than students in all other groups.

Copyright by
Warren Henry
1995

To my mother and father.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to extend my appreciation to Dr. Robert Erbes, Dr. John Kratus, Dr.
Judith Palac, Dr. Theodore Johnson, Dr. Michael Largey, and Dr. Richard Laurence
for serving on my doctoral committee.

Most importantly, I wish to extend my appreciation and gratitude to my
dissertation advisor, Dr. Cynthia Taggart, whose constant support, guidance, and
patience throughout this project deepened my understanding of what it means to be a
teacher.

vi

Chapter

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CREATIVITY AND ITS ROLE IN MUSIC EDUCATION.

Introduction. . .

The Creative Process.

The Creative Product . .

Effects of the Creative Process on the Creative Product
Purpose and Problems

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Creative Process Studies .
Creative Product Studies .
Music Aptitude Studies
Effect of Instruction Studies .
Conclusions

METHOD .

Sample
Design of the Study .
Analysis of the Data .

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Reliability of Aptitude Measure .
Process Analysis . .
Interjudge Reliability.
Analysis of Data .
Exploration Results
Development Results .
Repetition Results .
Silence Results .
Length of Composing Period Results

Process Interpretations

vii

Page

11
15
16

19

48
48
48
55
57
62

62

67

69
71
72
73

74

ProductAnalysis.. .........77

Interj udge Reliability. . . . . . 77
Intercorrelation Between Product Variables. . . . . 78
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Metric Cohesiveness Results. . . . . . . . . 80
Tonal Cohesiveness Results . . . . . . . . . 82
Repcated Melodic Pattern Results . . . . . . . 85
Developed Melodic Pattern Results . . . . . . . 86
Repeated Rhythmic Pattern Results . . . . . . . 87
Developed Rhythmic Pattern Results . . . . . . 91
Replication Results . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Range Results. . . . . . . . 96
Length of Compositional Product Results . . . . . 98
Product Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . 102
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Purpose and Problems . . . . . . . . . . 102
Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Compositional Process . . . . . . . . . . 106
Compositional Product . . . . . . . . . . 108
Implications . . . . . . . . . . 109
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . 110
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A. Parental Letter and Permission Slip . . . . . . . . 113
B. Human Subjects Approval Form . . . . . . . . . 114
C. Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation Test Sheet . . . 115
D. Rhythm Seating Chart . . . . . . . . . . . 116
N
E. Tonal Seating Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
F. Tonal Unitl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

G.Rhytthnit1.............119

viii

H. Compositional Process Evaluation Sheet. . . . . . . 122
I. Compositional Product Evaluation Sheet . . . . . . 123

REFERENCES................124

ix

Table

>0?°>‘9‘.U‘PP’P

NNr—tv—o—sr—sr—tr—Ar—tv-Av—sr—t
prwsawewwt—p

LIST OF TABLES

Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation Reliabilities .
Means and Standard Deviations Norms

Item Difficulty and Item Discrimination: Tonal Subtest

Item Difficulty and Item Discrimination: Rhythm Subtest .

Reliability for Aptitude Test .

Interj udge Reliability for Compositional Process .
ANOVA for Exploration .

Fisher' 3 PLSD for Exploration

ANOVA for Development .

Fisher' s PLSD for Development .

. ANOVA for Repetition

Fisher' s PLSD for Repetition .

. ANOVA for Silence

ANOVA for Length of Composing Period

. Fisher's PLSD for Length of Composing Period .
. Interjudge Reliability for Compositional Product .
. Correlation Matrix for Compositional Product

ANOVA for Metric Cohesiveness .

. ANOVA for Tonal Cohesiveness .

Cell Line Chart for Tonal Cohesiveness .

. ANOVA for Repeated Melodic Pattern

Page
5 1
63

65

67
69
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
73
78
79
81
83

85

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

ANOVA for Developed Melodic Pattern .
ANOVA for Repeated Rhythmic Pattern .

Cell Line Chart for Repeated Rhythmic Pattern .

ANOVA for Developed Rhythmic Pattern
ANOVA for Replication

Cell Line Chart for Replication

ANOVA for Range

Cell Line Chart for Range .

ANOVA for Length of Compositional Product

xi

87
88

92
94

‘95

96
97
98

Figure

PWNP‘S‘PPP

t—tr—nr—AHH
#mN—‘P

LIST OF FIGURES

Compositional Product Rated High for Metric Cohesiveness. . .
Compositional Product Rated Low for Metric Cohesiveness I
Compositional Product Rated High for Tonal Cohesiveness
Compositional Product Rated Low for Tonal Cohesiveness
Compositional Product Rated High for Repeated Melodic Pattern .
Compositional Product Rated Low for Repeated Melodic Pattern .
Compositional Product Rated High for Developed Melodic Pattern
Compositional Product Rated Low for Developed Melodic Pattern
Compositional Product Rated High for Repcated Rhythmic Pattern
Compositional Product Rated Low for Repeated Rhythmic Pattern.

. Compositional Product Rated High for Developed Rhythmic Pattern .
. Compositional Product Rated Low for Developed Rhythmic Pattern. .
. Compositional Product Rated High for Replication

. Compositional Product Rated Low for Replication .

xii

81
81
82
82
85
85
86
86
87
88
91
91
92
93

CHAPTER I
CREATIVITY AND ITS ROLE IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Introduction

How can we ensure the pursuit of meaning in musical studies? The key is
creative involvement. The crea ti 1e process must accompany all, and
especially the earliest, study of musical inlbnna tion. Disco very and
understanding of meaning flow most naturally fiom the experience of using
and manipulating inlbrmation. (Castaldo, I 969, p. 38)

Getting in vol "9d with music by actually manipulating the materials . . . into
formally organized shapes can reveal a great deal to the student. (Benson,
1973, p. 40)

Products are the artifacts of droughts. (Rhodes, 1961)

Creativity is one of the most complex of human firnctr'ons. (Trefiinger, 1986,
p. I 6)

For nearly a century, education, particularly in the arts, has explored the
phenomenon of creativity. Mirsic education saw evidence of interest in creativity as
early as 1922 with the publication of Satis N. Coleman's Creative Music lbr Children.
She believed that exploration, improvisation, and composition should precede the
instruction of musical notation. This was radical thinking when one considers the
pedantic "drill” philosophy of music education during the 1920's.

Creative activities in education are finally receiving some attention, now that
one of the trends in education is focused on the development of creative and critical
thinking skills. In 1994, the National Committee for Standards in the Arts published
the Mrtional Standards [hr Arts Education. Included in the new curriculum is the

development of creative skills: ”The curriculum for every student should include

2

improvisation and composition. Many students gain considerable information about
music and acquire rudimentary performing skills, but too few have ample opportunities
to improvise and compose music. Teachers who lack these skills tend to assign them a
low priority" (1994, p. 4).

Creative and critical thinking are both higher-level thinking skills. Creative
thinking is generative, and critical thinking is evalutive. However, the two are related.
"Evaluation is a primary goal of critical thinking, and music is evaluated in cognitive
and affective ways that are informed by experience. . . Like critical thinking, creative
thinking is higher-level thinking with a specialized purpose -- the focus on something
new” (DeTurk, 1989, p. 21, 27). Although these two terms seem to be specialized as
they relate to music, they are both complementary in nature (DeTurk, 1989).

Hitz (1987) states that "if children are to grow cognitively, they must encounter
problems, have opportunities to solve these problems for themselves, and experience
the consequences of their decisions. Knowledge is constructed as children solve
everyday problems they encounter" (p. 12). Cleall (1983) further states that ". . .
without the creative experience, there results intellectually deficient pupils . . . " (p.46).

When presented the challenging task of creating, children are faced with
divergent questions that enhance problem solving skills (Hitz, 1987). Whereas
convergent tasks are designed to solicit a single answer, divergent tasks allow for
several possible answers (Webster, 1990). As children create, they explore, make
critical judgments, shape ideas, and revise their work in order to produce a finished
product. Davidson (1990) states that ”the process of revision plays an important role in
the development of judgment. By being confronted constantly with the results of past
choices, a student must constantly reevaluate the nature of the problem and the
appropriateness of the solution" (p.51). He further states that "making choices,
evaluating them, and shaping them are central activities in the arts. From this

perspective, revisions are the footprints of thought" (p.49).

3

Unfortunately, in the past, creative activities have not been an integral part of
education. In A Place Called School, Goodlad (1984) found that almost no attention
was given to higher order thinking skills when teachers posed questions to their
students. Almost all questions could be categorized at the lowest level of Bloom' 5
taxonomy (knowledge); few questions were asked that elicited responses of reasoning,
problem solving, or opinions. He also found that nearly 70% of instruction was
through lecture. Seven years later, Levi (1991 b), stated that "educators have been slow
to recognize both how much children can learn when they create and what can be
discovered about children from their original work" (p.2).

The Pillsbury Foundation School of Santa Barbara (1937-1948) demonstrated
early interest in children's creativity. The goal of the school was to discover natural
forms of children' s musical expression and "determine a means of developing their
musical creativity” (Shelley, 1981, p. 27). Philosophically, the founders of the
Pillsbury Foundation School believed that children were inherently creative, and
creativity would emerge at its own rate. This type of thinking reflected the ideas of
philosophers who helped pave the way for more progressive education before the
1950's: Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Mason (Wilson, 1981). Ironically, "although the
School was created in harmony with educational philosophies typical of its time, it was
nevertheless ahead of its time; the Pillsbury Foundation School came and went when
the music education profession was not ready for the information it offered” (p. 15).

Music education missed yet another Opportunity to assume a prominent role for
creativity and critiml thinking in education. Nearly 50 years ago the Music Educators
National Conference (MENC) addressed the issue of creativity. In the 1947 Msic
Education Source Book, MENC stated two future goals related to creativity. MENC
believed that music educators should: (a) understand and encourage the process of
creativity in each child on a daily basis as a means of expression, and (b) evaluate the

discriminative ability as the child experiences the creative process in order to nurture

4

this discriminative ability and evaluate the methods used (Richardson, 1983). Sadly,
Richardson states that she was ”unable to identify a single musical creativity study
undertaken during the eleven years following the MENC statement" (p.4).

Examples of this dichotomy between professional philosophy and professional
practice are numerous. Regelski (1981) and Reimer (1989), two prominent music
educators, both advocate creativity in music education. However, Ainsworth (1970),
Goodlad (1984), Levi (1991a), Ling (1974), Sherman (1971), and Webster (1987) have
stated that creative musical activities are rarely employed. Oehrle (1984), in a study of
elementary music textbooks in this country and England, cited the inconsistency
between the relative absence of genuine creative activities and the philosophical
endorsement of such activities.

. Schmidt and Sinor (1986) suggest that this "situation may be attributable to
several factors, among which has been incomplete knowledge of the creative process
and lack of adequate means of measurement and evaluation of divergent musical
behavior” (p. 161). Davidson and Welsh (1988) and Levi (1991b) support Schmidt and
Sinor' s explanation. If creativity is to be given any attention, teachers must understand
the creative process in order to establish appropriate expectations for students and
implement appropriate pedagogical practices; process in addition to product must be
investigated.

The Creative Prom
Researchers and theoreticians have been investigating the nature of the creative
process. The existence of four stages in the creative process was suggested as early as
1926 in Wallas’ The Art of Thought. After much dialogue with creative thinkers,
Wallas (1926) proposed the following stages of the creative process: (a) preparation --

the time when problems are considered, (h) incubation - time away from active

5

consideration of the problem, (c) illumination -- the moment of insight, and (d)
verification - the time when solutions are tested and refined.

The research literature generally supports Wallas' theory (Balkin, 1990). For
example, J. P. Guilford and E. P. Torrance attempted to minimize the ellusive nature
of creativity by refining and standardizing its definition and by establishing criteria for
evaluation (Richardson, 1983, p. 4). Guilford's taxonomy of creativity includes three
categories (content of thought, kinds of operations, and products), all of which are a
part of his Structure-of-Intellect (SI) model. Balkin (1990) calls this '"the creativity
equation,‘ C=3P" (p.29). The P's stand for Person, Process, and Product.

Richardson (1983) provides a succinct summary of the five steps comprising the
process component of Guilford' s taxonomy of creativity:

Step one is an awareness of the problem or cognition of implication. In step

two the problem is structured or understood in terms of the kinds of

information needed for its solution. This step involves cognition of

relations and systems. Step three involves the divergent and convergent

production of ideas for the solution. Step four is evaluation of both the

conception of the problem and the suggested solutions. Step five occurs when

the information is stored in the memory for later use. (p. 5)

Torrance built his theories of creativity on Guilford' s research and subsequently
developed his Tests of Creatire Thinking, a test that measures an individual's creative
potential. As a result of his research, Torrence defined the creative process as
follows:

. . . the process of sensing gaps or disturbing missing elements; forming ideas

or hypotheses concerning them; testing these hypotheses; and

communicating the results, possibly modifying and restating the hypothesis.

(Torrance, 1966, p. 19)

6

Creativity in music often takes the form of composition. In order to investigate
the compositional processes of music, it is important to note the distinction between
composition and composing. According to Kratus (1989):

the word composition refers to both process (the activity of composing) and

product (the resulting music) . . . A composition, when referring to a product,

is a unique sequence of pitches and durations that its composer can

replicate. A composition reflects closure on a compositional problem. If

one cannot replicate an original melody, then it can be inferred that there is

no closure, and the music does not exist as a composed product. When

referring to a process, composition is the act leading to the production of a

unique, replicable sequence of pitches and durations. (p. 7-8)

Another distinction must be made between composition and improvisation.
Both are creative activities, and both involve the creative processes similarly described
by Guilford and Torrance (problem finding, idea generation, modification of ideas, and
evaluation of tentative solutions). However, composition involves reflection and
revision before the product is considered finished. Improvisation may be a part of the
compositional process, but considered in isolation, improvisation does not involve
revision and is not replicable; it is more of an immediate stringing of events (Kratus,
1989; Pressing, 1988; Webster, 1992).

Much of early research on the creative process was directed toward the adult
population. Results of this research support the model: preparation, incubation,
illumination, and verification. Bennett (1976) investigated the process of musical
creation through extensive interviews with eight professional composers of classical
music. He found that they all followed similar steps in the creative process: germinal
idea, sketch, first draft, elaboration and refinement, final draft copying, and revision.
Evidence of the four stages of creative development previously mentioned are apparent

in Bennett' 3 conclusions: germinal idea = preparation; first draft = incubation;

7

elaboration and refinement = illumination; final draft and revisions = verification
(Kratus, 1989).

Sessions (1970) found that adult composers proceeded through four stages of
composition: subconscious (improvisation), conscious (development of ideas), working
(parts become a whole), and assessment. Again, Kratus (1989) links these four stages
to preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification.

Bennett (1976) cites Grat‘ s assessment of the adult creative process. Graf
postulates that composers move through four stages. The first stage, productive mood,
is reflected by improvisation or possibly other variables, such as the seasons of the
year. The second stage, musical conception, sees the emergence of musical motives or
themes. A sketchis then produced before the actual composing process expands the
ideas.

Research on children's compositional processes is in its infancy. As recently as
1989, Kratus stated that although there is literature that ”offers some insight into adult
compositional processes, there is no published research to suggest that children
compose in a similar manner” (p. 6). Investigating children's compositional processes
poses some interesting challenges. A common approach to process assessment is
examination of composers' sketchbooks; the general population of children does not
have these. Another @proach involves interviews with composers. Children,
however, are unlikely to be able to discuss meaningfully their compositional processes;
even adult composers are notoriously unreliable at doing so (Perkins, 1981).

Kratus (1989) pioneered a technique to study children' s compositional processes
by audio-taping children composing during 10-minute sessions. He created a process-
analysis measure by dividing the composing session into 120 intervals of 5 seconds
each. Independent judges subsequently listen to students' composing sessions and
categorize each 5-second interval as involving one of four categories labeled as

exploration, repetition, development, or silence. Unlike the models established by

8

Guilford (1950), Torrance ( 1966), and Wallas ( 1926) [preparation, incubation,
illumination, and verification], the four categories identified by Kratus do not occur in
strict sequence; each process eategory can be used throughout the compositional
process, freely moving from one to another. However, Kratus' process model still
reflects the models established by Guilford (1950), Wallas (1926), and Torrance
(1966): exploration = preparation; development and silence = incubation and
illumination; repetition = verification.

Kratus and others ( Hoffman, 1992; Hoffman, Hedden, & Mims, 1991) have
employed this compositional-process measure to study how time spent in exploration,
repetition, development, and silence affects the compositional product. Additionally,
these studies have investigated how other variables (i.e. , instruction, aptitude, age)
affect the ways in which children use exploration, development, repetition, and silence
as they compose. For example, Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims (1992) and Kratus
(1989) found that as children get older, less compositional time is spent exploring, and
more compositional time is spent developing and repeating musical ideas.

Other literature exists regarding the relationship of age to the creative process.
Dacey (1989) suggests that there are peak periods of creative growth across the
lifespan. He states two major points of view on creativity: psychoanalytic and
humanist. The psychoanalytic school believes that creativity must be fostered during
the first five years of development; "if creative attitudes and ability are not inculeated
in the child during this period, there is no hope of them later" (p.226). The humanist
school, to which Dacey belongs, behaves that creativity can be fostered regardless of
age. According to Dacey' s theory, adolescence should be a very creative period.
However, this is inconsistent with a study by Hassler (1991) who found that in
adolescence ”children who display creative musical behavior early often lose the ability
to compose in the course of puberty" (p.62).

9

An important consideration for creative activities is equipping students with the
necessary tools with which to be creative. Davidson and Welsh (1988) found that
college students composed differently according to their level of musical development.
They state that "the definition of a task like writing a melody is very different for
musicians at different levels of cognitive development. We see that these differences
play an important role not only in the definition and goals of the task, but also in the
strategies employed and in the quality of the results" (p.284).

This information is also applicable to children. Henle (1975) suggests the
importance of "creative tools" for creativity. She states the following:

Another factor making for individual differences in creativity is said to be the

number of associations 3 person has: "The greater the number of

associations that an individual has to the requisite elements of a problem,

the greater the probability of his reaching a creative solution" [quote not

identified]. In other words, the more items in your fishbowl, the more likely

you are to find the one needed for a creative combination. (p.798)

If students have a broad knowledge base with which to make creative decisions, then
they can evaluate and revise their work with more meaning and more musicianship
(Davidson, 1990).

Gordon (1993) states that a child's degree of creativity is incumbent upon a
vocabulary of tonal and rhythmic patterns and an understanding of different tonalities
and meters. The patterns become "vocabularies“ (Gordon, 1993, p. 94) that children
can use within a musical context; children are able to experience the patterns in a
musical context as they relate to the harmonic framework and rhythmic framework in
which the pattern occurs. "The larger the student' s vocabulary of tonal patterns and
rhythm patterns, the better he will be able to make decisions and choose appropriate
tonal patterns and rhythm patterns from his 'audiation dictionary' that will contribute to

the artistry and syntax of the music that he is creating and improvising" (p. 96).

10

Gordon' s Learning Theory is similar to the stages of language development proposed
by Gagné (Jordan-DeCarbo, 1986); the child acquires language skills by first listening,
followed by babbling, imitating, putting meaning to words, combining words into
meaningful thoughts, and finally reading and writing. Music development, like
language development, depends on aural stimuli.

Others have also compared music development and language development.
Bennett (1975), after discussing the stages of language development, states: " Young
children cannot explain the rules of grammar they have so cleverly deciphered and
learned to use; but they can operate on the basis of these rules, which matters most" (p.
207). He further adds: ”. . . how much more interesting life would be if one could
also 'speak' musically - at the very least to one's self, and maybe also with other
people” (p. 207 ).

Gordon's extensive research culminated in a highly sequential learning theory in
which when to teach is emphasized rather than what to teach (Walters, 1989). His
approach takes students through the following stages of musical development:

D . . . 1 E
1. Aural/ oral 1. Generalization

2. Verbal Association 2. Creativity/Improvisation
3. Partial Synthesis 3. Theoretical Understanding.
4. Symbolic Association

5. Composite Synthesis

What children are taught in the discrimination level can be applied in the
creativity/ improvisation level; students are given the necessary ”tools" with which to be
creative. Gordon (1993) states, "It would be difficult to overestimate the importance
of teaching tonal patterns and rhythm patterns at the aural/oral and verbal association
levels of discrimination learning as preparation for developing creativity/ improvisation
skill in inference learning" (p. 96). This is supported by Davidson (1990), who
suggests that when children compose, they can draw from their aural knowledge and

ll

”evaluate their work on the basis of a fuller representation, and, if necessary, can
revise it to better match the melody they have in mind" (p.49).

Critical to Gordon's learning theory is a knowledge of students' musical
aptitude. Music aptitude can be defined as one' s potential to learn music. Aptitude is
not synonymous with ability or talent, which confound potential to achieve with
achievement itself. A student' s music aptitude level is used to determine not the
general content that a student learns, but rather the la we] ofdifliculty of the specific
content of music instruction (Gordon, 1993). For example, all students are taught
rhythm patterns, but the number and difficulty of patterns that students are expected to
master vary for each individual, based on their music aptitude. ”The role of music
aptitude in inference learning is more important than it is in discrimination learning.
The higher a student' s tonal and rhythm developmental and stabilized music aptitudes,
the more successfully he will be able to engage in inference learning" (p. 94). Logic
would infer, therefore, that students with higher aptitudes would be more likely to
compose differently than students with lower aptitudes; students with higher aptitudes
would be more likely to produce a more successful compositional product than students
with lower aptitudes. However, there is conflicting research regarding the relationship
between aptitude and creativity. Swanner (1985) and Vaughan and Meyers (1971)
found no relationship between aptitude and creativity; Kratus (1994b) reported a

positive correlation between aptitude and creative keyboard composition.

The Creative Product
According to Rhodes (1961), ”When an idea becomes embodied into tangible
form it is called a product. Each product of a man's mind or hands presents a record
of his thinking at some point in time" (p. 309). Besemer and Treffinger (1981) further
add: ”Metaphorically, the creative product may be thought as a manifest 'brain—child.‘
. . . Products are a tangible result of the creative process" (p. 159). Therefore,

12
investigation into the nature of creativity must include careful study of product as well
as process.

Establishing criteria for evaluating creative products can be hindered by
subjectivity. Barron, Gaines, Lee, and Marlow (1973) found that, when two teams of
judges rated art products, interjudge reliability was high for the objective criteria but
was significantly negatively correlated when they were asked to rate for merit, a
subjective criteria. This seems to suggest that specific criteria are needed to remove the
subjective dimension from product evaluation. "If there really is a group of
characteristics which contribute [sic] to the creativeness of a product, then it must be
possible (albeit difficult) to identify those qualities, to measure the extent of their
presence in a product and ultimately to train people to develop their abilities to make
their products more creative" (Besemer and Treffinger, 1981, p. 160).

According to Colley, Banton, Down, and Pither (1992), product evaluation of
musical composition is difficult to evaluate because there are not ”explicit goals
containing a set of subroutines which either accomplish their purpose or fail" (p. 125).
Reitman (1965) characterizes composition as an ill-structured problem in which there
are numerous solutions and few constraints. There may be some constraints in
composition (length, tonality, meter), but many other choices exist, all of which are
affected by the decisions of the composer. Voss, Greene, Post, and Penner (1983)
investigated how students approached solutions to political science problems (ill-
structured) and physics problems (well-structured). They found a high degree of
agreement for solutions to the physics problems and a low degree of agreement to the
political science problems. ”In composition as in political science there is no 'correct'
solution and often no obvious explicit reference upon which to base judgements of
quality" (Colley, Banton, Down, and Pither, 1992, p. 125).

Just as models of the creative process have been established by Guilford (1950),
Torrance (1966), and Wallas (1926), some models for evaluating the creative product

13

have been developed. Brogden and Sprecher ( 1964) set four criteria for product
evaluation:

1. novelty (unusualness),

2. appropriateness of the solution (to both the problem and to the

solutions' various parts),

3. transformation ( the ability of the product to actually create new

forms rather than to merely improve upon pre-existent ones), and

4. the power of ”condensation" of the product, the combined economy

and elegance of the solution which is not simply "right" but " just
right. "

Another evaluation for the creative product was designed by Besemer and
Treffinger (1981). Through a review of literature of more than 90 sources, they
grouped criteria for product evaluation into 14 general categories, which were
subsequently classified into three general dimensions: (a) Novelty - transformational,
germinal, and original, (b) Resolution - valuable, useful, adequate, appropriate, and
logical, and (c) Elaboration and Synthesis - elegant, organic, attractive, well-crafted,
complex, and expressive. They concluded their review by stating problems with
product evaluation: ”Often the problems have semantic bases: problems in definition,
aspects of originality, the perceptions of those other that [sic] the creator of the product
and the practical administration of a measuring instrument" (p. 173).

When applied in a musical context, the creative product is the result of
improvisation, composition, or performance (Kratus, 1990; Webster, 1990). "As
students improvise, compose, and perform music creatively, their understanding of
musical elements and musical organization increases. Another term for musical
organization is musical syntax. Meter and tonality are examples of syntax, and when a
student composes a song in duple meter, it is an indication that he or she has learned
syntax for meter" (Kratus, 1990, p. 37). Therefore, it is important to evaluate musical

l4

creative products for metric and tonal cohesiveness, because this will show the degree
to which the student understands musical syntax.

According to Kratus (1990), "analysis of musical products could include a
description of how musical elements such as form, timbre, the use of tonality, texture,
rhythm, meter, and dynamics are used" (p. 34). Kratus' (1994a, 1994b) research on
children's musical compositions has included a measure for the creative compositional
product for which judges rate the product for metric and tonal cohesiveness, percentage
of pattern use, extensiveness (range and length), and replication.

Hickey and Webster (1994) investigated assessment scales used for evaluating
children' s musical compositions. Their review of literature revealed a myriad of
techniques used to evaluate compositional products. They found that rating scales were
most commonly used for product evaluation. "A content analysis of these rating scales
for children' s composition used in previous research studies revealed two types of item
design: (1) open-ended, implicit, and (2) explicit criteria definitions. Items also fell
into two content categories of 'musical characteristics' and more 'global
considerations” (p. l). The purpose of the study was to compare inter-judge reliability
of the two types of item design in the rating of children' s compositions. They state,
”Our overall intent was to provide better information about (1) the content and design
of rating scales, (2) interjudge reliability of rating scales, and (3) concurrent validity of
rating scales with the global constructs of ”craftsmanship,” ”creativity," and "overall
aesthetic value" (p. l).

Hickey and Webster constructed two separate composition rating forms based on
the design of items from rating scales of previous studies. One form used only implicit
items; the second form used only explicit items. They selected ten fifth-and sixth-grade
children' s compositions from a pool of 24 compositions. Four independent judges
rated the compositions using the two types of forms. They also chose the two "best"

and two ”worst" compositions for craftsmanship, creativity, and overall aesthetic value.

15

All ratings were used for statistical analysis. Results showed high interj udge reliability
for both types of forms.

Effects of the Creative Process on the Creative Product

Research has shown that the creative process and the creative product are
closely linked (Delorenzo, 1989; Hoffman, 1991; Kratus, 1989, 1994a). Any
investigation into compositional creativity should include these two components,
because "bowchildren compose music affects what they compose" (Kratus, 1995, p.
118). One way in which the creative process and product are linked is by age. Kratus
(1989) investigated how children, ages 7 to 11, spent their time composing. He found
that children use different strategies to compose as they get older; repetition and
development are employed more with older children. Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims
(1991) also found that older students spend more time in development and repetition
than younger students.

Kratus (1994a) investigated how the tempo at which children compose affects
the final product. He found that ”those children who began composing with a slower
tempo tended to compose music that was shorter and more cohesive, tonally and
metrically. The children who began composing at a faster tempo tended to compose
longer, less structured music" (p. 5).

Finally, Kratus (1991) used a rating process to determine if children's
compositions were ”high-success” or "low-success.” Of the 60 songs in the study, 10
were designated as "high-success” and 10 were designated as ”low-success. " Each
composition was analyzed for composing strategies (identified by Kratus) used during
the compositional process. He found that the difference between ”high-success" songs
and ”low-success” songs resulted from how children used exploration, development,
repetition, and silence as they composed. ”In other words, the success of the product
appears to be dependent upon the nature of the process” (p. 102). Delorenzo (1989)

16

found that students who spend more time developing and repeating ideas will create
better finished products because they spend their decision-making on musical
considerations.

Continued research into creativity will enable educators to gather more
information that could serve as a basis for establishing curricular and pedagogical
guidelines for the music classroom. "By encouraging our children to think
imaginatively about sound and by capturing this imagination in the form of products
that others can share, we can increase their musical understanding, deepen their
aesthetic sensitivity, and uncover new ways for them to understand the subtleties of

humanness" (Webster, 1990, p. 2]).

Purpose and Problems

Dewey (1933) proposed that reflective thinking should be encouraged by
education, and research has found that children have an innate curiosity for exploring
and creating music (Moorehead & Pond, 197 8). However, the literature suggests that
creative activities, particularly composing, have not secured a firm foundation in most
music curricula.

According to Castaldo (1969), subjects such as theory, solfege, or instrument
playing .

are taught as if they reach ends, not means, so that playing a clarinet is taken

to mean that one has studied music. Actually, the only tangible result may be

the development of a kind of physical prowess, an ability to read notes, or to

react quickly to the stimuli of musical symbols, but this does not guarantee an

understanding. (p. 37)
Giving children the opportunity to produce their own music can provide insight into
music's structure, symbol system, and aesthetic import, concepts that pose difficult
challenges for even the most gifted teachers. In fact, Azzara (1993) found that students

17

from an improvisation curriculum showed significantly higher achievement levels on
their instrument than students who received instruction without an improvisation
emphasis, suggesting that creative approaches to music education can improve music
achievement.

The following chapter will examine studies that have taken the first steps toward
finding answers about children's compositional processes. The limited research in this
area has begun to offer some insight into the child's creative domain. However,
continued research is needed if creativity is to become an integral part of music
education.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the creative processes and products of
children' s keyboard compositions. The study is intended to provide pedagogical
implications for creative activities in the general music classroom.

The specific problems of the study are as follows:

1. To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on
the processes of fourth-grade children's composing.
Specifically, how long does it take children to compose a
song, and how much time is spent in exploration,
development, repetition, and silence during their
compositional processes?

2. To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on
the tonal cohesiveness and metric cohesiveness of
fourth-grade children's compositions.

3. To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitmle on
the melodic and rhythmic pattem-use in fourth-grade

children' s compositions.

18

4. To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on
the extensiveness (range and length) of fourth-grade
children' s compositions.

5. To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on
the ability of fourth-grade children to replicate their
finished compositional product.

Students involved in this study will not have had any prior pattern instruction; the

students will also have not had any formal keyboard instruction.

A.“ __._ -_4 ~ .g

CHAPTERII

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This study will focus on the effect of instruction on musical creative process and
product. Additionally, it will investigate the effect of music aptitude on the creative
processes and products of children. Therefore, the literature that is directly related to
this study falls into four categories. They are the following: (1) studies of creative
processes of children' s musical compositions, (2) studies of creative products of
children' s musical compositions, (3) studies of the effects of musical aptitude on the
creative process and product of children's musical compositions, and (4) studies of the
effects of instruction on the creative process and product of children' s musical
compositions. This review of literature comprises a discussion of each of those

categories of study.

Creative Proceas Studies

During the 1940's, the Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music
Education published Msic of Young Children, a series of four studies, three of which
were written by Moorehead and Pond, and the fourth was written by Moorehead and
Wight (Moorehead and Pond, 1978). Additionally, a recording (78 rpm) was produced
called "Recordings of Spontaneous Music. " This represents one of the initial and most
influential efforts toward the understanding of children's creative processes. According
to Wilson (1981), these publications and recordings asked "the profession to recognize
the complexity of children' s musical creations and they challenge(d) educators to
compare this view of children's musicality with the prevailing practice of beginning
children' s music education with a simplified version of adult harmonic music" (p. 19-
20).

19

20

The studies at the Pillsbury Foundation involved pre-school children ranging in
age from one and one-half to eight and one-half. The number of children involved at
the school averaged between ten and twenty, depending on the school' s enrollment.
Children were provided with a myriad of musical instruments on which they would
predominantly explore and improvise. Teachers facilitated the activities; they also kept
meticulous notes based on their observations. They found that children did not
improvise randomly; children "have an innate apprehension of the function of formal
procedures when sounds are being structured" (Pond, 1981, p. 11). Research has
found that improvisation/ exploration is a critical component in the creative process.
Perkins (1981) stated that ”a pattern of exploration in the early stages of narrowing
down and readiness to revise earlier decisions in the later stages is characteristic of
creating" (p. 187). This is supported by the models of the creative process developed
by Guilford (1967), Torrance (1988), Wallas (1926), and Webster (1987).

The Pillsbury study, despite its valuable contributions to musical creativity,
presents linritations as they relate to this study. Children improvised and explored in an
environment that was atypical of environments found in schools then and today. "By
any standard of comparison it was a most unusual nursery school, . . . even now as
then" (Wilson, 1981, p. 13). Because the study was conducted during World War 11,
some children remained in the school for weeks or months; others remained in the
school for as many as two years. This inconsistency causes one to accept the data
cautiously. Furthermore, the students' average age was primarily three and four;
children aged eight and nine years of age will be the focus of this study. Nevertheless,
the data gathered by the Pillsbury School relating to children' s exploration and
improvisation serves as a valuable foundation on which to base future studies.

Kratus (1989) investigated the use of exploration, development, repetition, and
silence by children composing a melody. He found a preponderance of exploration in

7-year—olds' creative processes. The subjects (N =60) were 10 boys and 10 girls for

21

each age group (ages 7, 9, and 11). The children were given 10 minutes to compose a
song on an electric keyboard. The restrictions, beginning the song with middle C and
using only the white keys, helped the students begin the task. This is consistent with
Regelski's (1988) suggestions for creativity in the classroom: ”If too much free choice
is allowed . . . students can quickly become lost, waste time or lose interest for lack of
guidance” (p. 294). The song had to be played successfully twice at the end of the
period in order to be considered composed. If a student was unable to play the song
the same way twice, it indicated that the student was exploring/ improvising and not
composing; composition requires a finished product. Although Kratus was not
investigating improvisation, children's improvisational processes could be examined in
future research.

Judges then listened to tapes of the children' s 10-minute compositional period
and labeled the children' s behavior every 5 seconds (120 intervals) as being one of four
activities: exploration, development, repetition, or silence. These terms are defined as
follows:

£15m - - The music in a 5-second interval sounds unlike music played in
earlier 5-second intervals. No specific references to music played earlier
can be heard.

Development - - The music in a 5-second interval sounds similar to, yet
different from, music played in an earlier 5-second interval. Clear
references to music played earlier can be heard in the melody, the
rhythm, or both.

m - - The music in a 5-second interval sounds the same as music
played in an earlier 5—second interval.

Silence - - No music is heard in a 5-second interval. (Kratus, 1989, p. 9)

22

Interjudge reliability was correlated between the judges' ratings and the researcher' s
ratings for exploration, repetition, development, and silence. The coefficients were
high, ranging from .76 to .98, suggesting high agreement among judges.

Judges marked their observations on a form containing 120 numbered blanks.
As the judges listened to each student's lO—minute composing period, they marked an E
(exploration), D (development), R (repetition), or S (silence) at the end of each 5-
second interval. If more than one process was heard in a 5-second interval, the judge
selected the process that predominated during that interval.

Seven-year-olds used more exploration than 9-and ll—year olds, suggesting that
there are developmental differences in children's strategies for composing music. As
children grow older and their musical syntax develops, the use of exploration
diminishes and the use of development and repetition increases, thus their
compositional processes become more similar to the processes used by adult
composers. Kratus noted that subjects exhibited preparation, incubation, and
verification during their creative processes but not illumination. He also stated that
“subjects did not suddenly shift from using exploration to development to repetition.
Rather, they intermingled processes, with one process and then another tending to
predominate at various times” (p.17).

Kratus noted, that the ”7-year—old subjects had no difficulty in generating
musical ideas on a keyboard, as shown by their infrequent use of silence. The problem
that many 7-year—olds encountered was that they did not or could not develop and
review their musical ideas" (p. 18). He concluded that because of the different
approaches used to solve a compositional problem, the students (7-, 9-, and ll-year-
olds) who were able to replicate their songs, thus confirming a composed product, may
be more product oriented; those that could not replicate their songs tended to be more
process oriented. He did not note, however, what the common link might be between

23

the students (7-, 9-, and ll-year-olds) who were able to replicate their songs. Is it
possible that the majority were high aptitude students?

In a later publication, Kratus (1991) analyzed the compositions of the subjects in
his 1989 study in order to characterize the musical decisions used by the successful
composers as compared to the students with the least successful compositions. Success
was determined by the rating of two dimensions of each student' 5 song: Craftsmanship
and Replication. Two independent judges, music teachers pursuing graduate degrees in
music education, rated the tapes. Kratus defined and rated craftsmanship and
replication as follows:

Craftsmanship: Assign the first song in each pair of songs a number from 7 to

1 with . . .

7 = the song forms a cohesive whole and makes interesting use
of melodic and rhythmic patterns.
1: the song appears to have no structure, with seemingly
random pitches and rhythmic durations.
W: Assign eachpairofsongsanumberfrom7to 1, with...
7 = the repetition ofthe song is the same as the original
1= none of the repetition of the song is the same as the original.
(p. 98)
To determine the success of the song, both judges' combined ratings of Craftsmanship
and Replication were totaled. Success ratings, therefore, could range from 4 to 28.
Subjects whose compositions received a score between 24 and 28 were designated as
high-success songs; subjects-whose compositions received a score between 4 and 7
were designated as low-success songs. There were ten high-success songs and ten low-
success songs, creating a total of 20 songs to be used for further analysis.

Kratus then recorded another set of tapes that included all twenty songs in

random order. Each subject' s song was played and followed by the lO—minute

24

composing period in which the song was created. Three independent judges listened to

each song and its corresponding composing period. They characterized each subject's

composing strategies by using the following definitions:

Stepping movement:

Skipping movement:

Changing pitch of pattern:

Transposing pattern:

Extending pattern:

Repeating pitch:

Repeating whole song:

Speaking:

Silence:

exploration of new musical material using
adjacent scale steps.

exploration of new musical material using
intervals larger than a step.

development of a pattern by changing one
or more pitches of an established pattern,
while keeping the rhythm constant.
development of a pattern by shifting the
contour of an established pattern up or
down the scale, while keeping the rhythm
constant.

development of an established pattern by
adding notes to the end of the pattern.
one or more consecutive repetitions of a
pitch.

one or more consecutive repetitions of the
whole song.

subject asks a question or makes a
statement.

subject stops playing the keyboard for 10

seconds or more. (p.99)

”For the purposes of this study, a compositional strategy was considered to be present

in a 2—minute interval if at least two of the three judges rated it as being present" (p.

99).

25

Kratus found that there were definite similarities and differences between the
groups creating high-success and low-success compositions. For example, both groups
explored in the early stages of composition, and repetition of patterns was common as
both groups composed. Students creating high—success compositions used step/ skip
movement early in their exploration, but it decreased with each passing minute;
patterns were developed, and transposition was used infrequently. Low-success
students explored for a longer period of time and did not develop musical patterns as
frequently as high-success students.

Results of this analysis " suggest that successful songs are the product of certain
compositional strategies, and that these strategies are quite different from those used to
produce unsuccessful songs. In other words, success of the product appears to be
dependent upon the nature of the process” (p. 102). It would be of interest to know
how many students in each age group were categorized as having successful
compositions and what processes the successful compositions had in common. If there
were some successful compositions of 7—year—old children, age may not be the
determining factor that differentiates the composing strategies of children. If all ages
were represented in the successful composition group, further research is warranted to
determine what characteristics they hold in common. It is possible that all the
successful students had high musical aptitude. The present study intends to explore the
effects of aptitude on the compositional processes and products of children' s musical
compositions.

In a later study, Kratus (1994a) examined the compositional process as it was
affected by the tempos used by children during compositional opportunities. He found
that the tempOs uwd in the first minute of composition affect the tonal cohesiveness,
metric cohesiveness, and length of the resulting compositions. The subjects (age 9,
N=40) were asked to compose a song in 10 minutes. Some restrictions were applied:

subjects had to begin their composition on middle C, and they were able to used only

26

17 white keys on the keyboard - G below middle C to B two octaves above middle C.
The recorded sessions were then analyzed for tempo during the lst minute, 5th minute,
and 10th minute, each being rated as slow, medium, or fast. Judges then rated each
composition for tonal cohesiveness and metric cohesiveness.

Kratus found that students who composed at slower tempos ”tended to compose
music that was shorter and more cohesive, tonally and metrically. The children who
began composing at a faster tempo tended to compose longer, less structured music”
(p.5). These results are supported in an earlier study by Kratus (1989). Packard
(1973) found the same to be true of the artistic creation process in children. Children's
artwork tended to be rated higher (more successful) when produced at a slower rate.

Kratus (1994a) supplies a possible explanation for his results:

It may be that a child who begins composing too rapidly will not leave enough

time to reflect on the creative decisions made, and thus produce a less cohesive

song. An alternative possibility is that a child who does not know how to
compose a cohesive song will begin composing impulsively because he does

not know what else to do. (p. 6).

Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims (1991) conducted a study similar to Kratus'
(1989) study. They used the same methods of data analysis that Kratus used in his
study. However, the composing environment and subjects differed from those of the
Kratus study in several ways: (1) Kratus' subjects were 7-, 9-, and ll-year-olds;
Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims' subjects were second-, third- and fourth-grade students
(ages 7 to 9), (2) Kratus' compositional period was 10 minutes; Hoffman, Hedden,
and Mims' compositional period had no lirrritations, and (3) students in Hoffman,
Hedden, and Mims' study were provided a text on which to base their composition:
”Will you buy some food today? Any kind will do."

One of the questions asked in this study was ". . . given an open-ended

situation, how much time would second, third, and fourth graders use in creating their

27

compositions?" (p. 1). Data revealed that students composed their songs in an average
of 115.3 seconds, or slightly less than two minutes. For each grade level, the
composing process lasted different lengths of time: second grade, 58.67 seconds, third
grade, 98.89 seconds, and fourth grade, 118.33 seconds. These data suggest that
students need less than two minutes to create a composition, implying that the inclusion
of keyboard compositional experiences in the general music classroom would not
necessarily have to preclude or replace other curricula. Future research should
consider the length of the composing period.

DeLorenzo (1989) investigated the problem-solving processes of sixth-grade
students in a general music class setting. This study differed from many other studies
because its environment was a natural classroom setting rather than individual interview
situations. The research involved one intact sixth-grade general music class at each of
four different schools. The researcher videotaped one to three different creative
activities at each school and analyzed the children' s processes on a total of 16
videotapes. She found the following:

. . . four interrelated characteristics of creative musical problem solving

emerged as a framework for interpreting students' musical decision making

process. In the 16 tapes analyzed, these four characteristics seemed to guide the
musical decision-making processes of all students observed: (a) perception of
the problem structure - the openness with which students perceived the creating
task, (b) search for musical form - the degree to which students allowed the
musical events to determine the form of the music, (c) capacity to sense musical
possibilities -- the depth to which students developed and shaped musical events,
and (d) degree of personal investment - the level of absorption and intensity

with which students engaged in the creating process. (p. 193)

Results of this study suggest that the structure of the problem ("the quality of
choice given the problem solver within the parameters of the problem" [p. 195]) has a

28

relationship to the creativeness of the problem-solving process and resulting product.
"When students used preexisting structural forms, . . . their decision making centered
less on musical content and more on the operational aspects of performance" (p. 196).
In other words, providing children text as a basis for composing music seems to draw
students away from the musical content of their compositions. She also found that
exploration depends on the ability to evaluate its expressive import, and that the more
control students have over musical decisions, the more they will exhibit interest and
participation in the finished product. These results would suggest that Hoffman,
Hedden, and Mims' (1991) study, if they had not provided their student composers a
text on which to compose, might have shown different results. More time might have
been spent in exploration (Grade 2: 65.6%; Grade 4: 14.5%) and less time in
development and repetition (Grade 2: 25.9%; Grade 4: 61.2%).

Interestingly, creative processes seem to be similar regardless of the creative
medium. Levi (1991b) investigated the compositional processes of children involved in
both musical and written language sign systems. Second grade students (N=6) were
provided many opportunities to compose musical works and literary works. Unlike
Kratus, Levi did not set any time limitations or choice limitations for the compositional
process. All composing sessions were videotaped and analyzed according to a process
model constructed by the researcher. Five process stages were observed for both
domains (language and music) of composition: exploration, focus, rehearsal,
composing, and editing. Results showed that the process of composition was similar
for both language and music domains. The exploration, focus, and rehearsal phases of
Levi's study are germane to the present study.

Levi noted that exploration occurred throughout the creative process for both
young authors and young composers. ”At times, particularly when engaging in major
revisions of pieces, children returned to the exploration phase after having composed

sections of their pieces, searching for new patterns that might catch their ears and

29

provide effective material” (p. 293). Levi also found that exploration served different
purposes in the language domain and the musical domain. Whereas the young
composers used exploration to develop the piece they were working on, the young
authors used exploration to develop ideas that they would use in the future.

"The focus phase of the composing process signifies a shift from process to
product-orientation” (p. 313). During the focus phase, students selected an idea that
would begin to give the piece structure. Levi observed that children composing in the
language domain and the musical domain pursued ideas that were ultimately not
included in their final product; the phase was "multidimensional” (p. 314) and
determined the manner in which compositions emerged. Levi states:

The understandings about what constitutes a piece vary depending upon the

experiences students bring to composing (emphasis by the author). Of

importance here is the acknowledgment of the children' s perspectives. What
they produce when asked to compose an original piece is shaped both by the
distinctions made by investigators and teachers and by the children's

understandings of what constitutes a piece. (p. 314)

The rehearsal phase was characterized by divergent thinking. Students
developed motives in the musical domain; they discussed their ideas in an interview in
the language domain. Levi notes that the students' audiation skills were still
developing and that ”they considered how an idea that they heard in their inner hearing
actually sounded when realiwd on an instrument. The children spoke to ideas as heard
in their heads that they then checked by playing" (p. 315). In the present study, the
aptitudes of most children will have stabilized, and their audiation skills will be more
refined than those of the students in Levi's (1991a) study. How children use the
pattern instruction with their audiation skills will be an important area of examination
in this study.

30

This review shows that the compositional processes of children are similar
regardless of the medium in which the child is composing. Age and musical ”tools"
are among the variables that affect the compositional process. However, important
questions are raised from this section of the review: Is the compositional process
affected by musical aptitude? Would a curriculum based on tonal and rhythm pattern

instruction provide the necessary tools with which to create “successful” songs?

Creative Product Studies

One of the earliest investigations into children' s compositions was conducted at
the Cleveland Museum of Art and reported in a series of three articles by Doig (1941,
19423, and 1942b). The study investigated the compositional products of children with
no compositional training using three methods: creating music for a given text,
creating music for a given subject or theme, and creating music to illustrate a given
musical problem. Students, ages 6 through 16, composed in similar age groups by
singing or whistling their ideas to the teacher who acted as a transcriber; other teachers
observed and made written records of the activities. The data collected in this study,
therefore, reflect composing characteristics of groups of children who are similar in age
rather than the composing characteristics of individuals.

Doig (1942a) reported that ”both older and younger children showed a strong
tendency to prefer scalewise melodies, but the older children used all three types,
namely scalewise, chordal and combinations of the two, while younger children
scarcely used any except scalewise melodies” (p. 354-355). Interestingly, Doig
(1942b) notes that the groups of 8-year-olds were unable to complete the assigned task
until a model was provided, suggesting that there are disparate composing
characteristics with each increasing age group. This would imply that creative
activities warrant different approaches in different grades; the pre-school and primary

aged children may need more time with creativity/improvisation readiness activities,

 

31

whereas the upper elementary grades may be developmentally ready for actual
composing activities.

Data of a 1986 study by Kratus support the Doig (1941, 1942a, 1942b) report.
Kratus examined the rhythmic and melodic motives in songs composed by children
aged 5 to 13. The study examined five types of motive use in order to determine how
each type was used by children of different ages and whether there were significant
developmental differences in the use of each type. Eighty children, aged 5, 7, 9, 11,
and 13, participated in the study; four schools were used to avoid the effect of a single
music curriculum.

Subjects, composing on a hand-held electronic keyboard, were required to begin
their piece on the pitches C-D-E. "Providing an opening three-note motive not only
helped subjects get started, it also provided the subject with a ready-made motive which
could be repeated or developed, if he wished" (p. 2). Additionally, the students were
allowed to use only the white keys of the instrument, which ”would facilitate the
compositional process by limiting the musical choices at the subject's disposal" (p. 2).
Students had ten minutes to compose their songs; at the end of the ten minute period,
each song was recorded on a cassette recorder.

The songs were examined by two judges for five types of motivic use: melodic
motivic repetition, same direction melodic motivic development, different direction
melodic motivic development, rhythmic motivic repetition, and rhythmic motivic
development. The resulting melodic data suggest the following: (a) children may
already understand that music is made up of repeating melodic patterns before they
enter school, (b) how to vary melodic patterns may develop during the elementary
years, and (c) a logical learning sequence for composition would be melodic motivic
repetition, same direction development, and different direction development. The
resulting rhythmic data suggest the following: (a) an understanding of repeating

 

32

rhythmic patterns may develop during the elementary years, and (b) before age 13,
children may not understand variation in rhythmic patterns.

Kratus (1986) notes the possible effects of developmental variables in this study.
Playing a keyboard requires refined motor skills, skills that are significantly different in
terms of development between 5 and 13 year-olds. Consequently, the results need to
be considered cautiously.

Another view of children' s compositions was provided by Swanwick and
Tillman (1986). Their study investigated the compositions of 48 children, aged 3 to
15. Children were asked to compose songs on pitched and unpitched instruments
during interviews; the final composition was a vocal song. Similar to the Kratus
(1985) study, this study found that melodic and rhythmic repetitions begin to appear
between ages six and eight. The older children demonstrated development of melodic
ideas that were not present in the younger children' s compositions.

Hedden (1992) investigated the compositional products of children in second,
third and fourth grade. Students in the study received music instruction from an Orff
specialist; the curriculum employed many creative and improvisational activities. The
study (N =27) required children to compose a song on a keyboard during an individual
interview with the researcher. The song had to use the following text: "Will you buy
some food today? Any kind will do." The songs were audio taped and judged by two
judges. They labeled every five-second interval of the students' compositions as being
in one of four categories (as defined and established by Kratus [1989]): exploration,
development, repetition, or silence. Additionally, the compositional product was rated
by two different judges for its melodic and rhythmic cohesiveness (as defined and
established by Kratus [1991]).

Hedden found that the number of highly rated compositions was significantly
greater for the fourth grade students; " . . . one composition by a second grader
appeared in the group of higher-rated compositions, and no compositions by fourth

33

graders were in the lower-rated group" (p. 6). Hedden suggests that the older students
were more successful because they spent more time during the compositional process in
development and repetition. Additionally, most of the students with higher-rated
compositions were able to replicate their songs with no errors; of the children writing
lower-rated compositions, only two of the nine could replicate their songs exactly.
Implications would suggest that the more time students spend in development and
repetition, the more likely they will produce a melodically and rhythmically cohesive
compositional product. It may be that these characteristics are due to developmental
differences. However, research is needed to ascertain whether specific instruction
would affect students' compositional processes and products, regardless of age.

This review of children' s compositional product studies suggests that product is
affected by the age of the child; children in their early years (5—7-year-olds) tend to
explore/ improvise more whereas older children (9-11-year-olds) appear to be more
capable of creating a finished product. For this reason, fourth grade students will be
used in this study. The review of children' s compositional products also suggests that
melodic pattern development and rhythmic pattern development evolve differently.
This study will investigate whether specific pattern instruction, melodic and rhythmic,
will affect the compositional product in terms of use of melodic and rhythmic patterns
and in terms of metric and tonal cohesiveness. Additionally, the review of literature in
this section suggests that the compositional product may be affected by limited technical
ability on the keyboard. Students in this study who have had more than a year of piano

instruction will be omitted to avoid spurious results.

Music Aptitude Studies
There is a paucity of research investigating the effect of musical aptitude on
creativity, particularly relating to children' s compositions. Furthermore, the available
data are conflicting (Kratus, 1994b; Vaughan, 1977). Kratus ( 1994b) states that ”the

34

apparent conflict between the empirical research with children and the reports of
composers may be related to the way musical creativity is conceived of and measured
in the research" (p. 116). Since previous research has shown that musical aptitude does
affect musical achievement (xlfiqehrberg; 1984; Zdzinski, 1991), it would seem to follow
that musical aptitude would also affect the compositional creative process and product
in music.

Vaughan and Myers (1971) conducted a study to investigate the effects of a
training program on musical creativity and the relationship between musical aptitude
and creative thinking ability. The study involved two classes of fourth grade students.
The control group was taught in a conventional manner (primarily involved in
convergent thinking); the experimental group was engaged in the creative training
program (encouraging divergent thinking). Both classes were taught by Vaughan twice
a week for three months. The following tests were administered: (1) Torrence Tests
of Creative Thinking ('I'I'CT), figural form B (pre- and posttests), (2) Henmon-Nelson
Tests of Mental Ability-IQ ('I'MA), (3) Bentley' 3 Measures of Msical Abilities
(MMA), (4) Vaughan-Myers Test oflwrsical Creativity (TMC), and (5) Cunnington
and Torrance's ”Sounds and Images.”

The control group engaged in conventional general music classroom activities
for the duration of the study: singing, ear training, and listening. The experimental
group engaged in ”activities designed to show that there is a parallel in musical process
for every factor in creative thinking (fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration) and
that many more associated dynamics can find their musical counterparts in
improvisation of rhythms, thematic development, counterpoint, dissonance, and so on"
(p. 338). This study differs from the other studies discussed in that no technical skills
were required; much of the instruction involved formal listening and improvising on

classroom instruments.

35

Using analysis of covariance, the pretest scores on TI‘CT, TMA, and MMA
were correlated with the posttest scores on TTCT. Vaughan and Myers collected found
no relationship ”between musical aptitude and the various factors in creative thinking
[fluency, flexibility, originality, and e1aboration]" (p. 341).

Using Webster's Measure of Creatire Thinking in Music (MCTM), version II,
Swanner (1985) investigated the relationships between musical creativity, personality
traits, motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence with children in first
through third grades. Data were collected using Gordon's Primaryllkasures of Mirsic
Audiation (PMMA) and the Early School Personality Questionnaire. Gordon (1986)
measures aptitude by a student' s ability to audiate: ". . . the level of one's music
aptitude is commensurate with how well one audiates (hears and feels music for which
the sound is not physically present)” (p. 3). Results revealed that gender, cognitive
intelligence, and musical aptitude were not related to scores on the MCTM—II.

Schmidt and Sinor (1986), in a similar study with second grade subjects, found
significant negative correlations between the MCTM-II composite as well as two of the
four subscores (flexibility and syntax) and PMMA-Rhythm. Additionally, Baltzer
(1990) and Josuweit (1991) found a significant negative correlation between rhythm
audiation and fluency.

Much of the research investigating the relationship between musical aptitude and
creativity (Baltzer, 1990; Josuweit, 1991; Schmidt and Sinor, 1986; Swanner, 1985)
involves Webster's (1987) MCTM. The instrument consists of ten activities that elicit
creativity through ”the inritation, on temple blocks, of a growing rainstorm; the
imitation, with a Nerf ball on a piano, of an ascending elevator; and improvisations,
with the voice through a microphone, of truck music and robot songs” (Baltzer, 1988,
p. 234). The activities are videotaped and judged on musical extensiveness (time, in
seconds, of a musical response), flexibility (freely moving from one extreme to

another, i.e., high to low), originality (unique use of sounds), and syntax (shaping of

36

ideas in relation to the whole response). MCTM appears to measure a child' 5 creative
use of instruments to simulate a given situation or place (sounds of rain, outer space,
etc.), but it does not appear to measure a child's creativity within a musical context.
Furthermore, MCTM does not measure creative composition; students are engaged in
activities that solicit improvisational responses. ‘

Kratus (1994b) also suggested that many of the aptitude studies found in the
literature ( Baltzer, 1990; Josuweit, 1991; Schmidt and Sinor, 1986; Swanner, 1985)
using MCTM did not measure the effect of aptitude on musical composition. He
states:

. . . the trait measured by the tests (Josuweit, 1991; Webster, 1987b) should not

be confused with the ability to compose. Tasks on the tests are largely

improvisational and offer subjects little, if any, time to reflect upon or revise
their responses, as would be the case in composition. Furthermore, scoring
systems on the tests reward divergent thinking, which is the generation of
multiple and diverse responses, over convergent thinking, which results in the
selection of a single, most appropriate response. Composition requires both

types of thought. (p. 116-117)

Other studies found in the literature suggest a significant positive relationship
between aptitude and compositional ability. Laycock (1992) investigated the
relationship between the quality of high school students' (ages 15 to 18) musical
compositions and those students' musical experience, musical aptitude, self-concept,
age, and academic achievement. Subjects consisted of 56 high school students
attending a suburban high school. Gordon's Msical Aptitude Profile (MAP) was
administered to determine each student' 8 aptitude. Individually, students were given a
minimum of 10 minutes and a maximum of 20 minutes in which to compose an original
song on an upright piano. The song had to be monophonic in nature. Students were
required to begin their piece on middle C (indicated by a sticker on that key), and they

37

were only allowed to use the white keys of the piano; students were alone during the
compositional process. When their composition was completed, the student was
required to play the song twice for the researcher; both performances were audio-taped.
Immediate replication of the composition indicated that the student had composed rather .
than improvised.

Analysis of the compositional product employed the same constructs used by
Kratus (1985). The songs were analyzed by the researcher and two independent
judges. A seven-point Likert-type scale was used by the judges to rate tonality, meter,
cohesiveness, originality, complexity, motive development, phrasing, and replication.
Data suggested that the compositions of students with high musical aptitude were most
likely to receive high ratings for tonal, metric, and phrasal aspects of their
compositions. Laycock concluded by stating: ”By correlating the MAP composite
scores with the musical characteristics, it was shown that aptitude, indeed, was
significantly related to musical achievement in the form of composition" (p. 109).

Some of the students involved in this study had previous keyboard experience.
Laycock (1992) stated, "There Were a number of students who, having had previous
keyboard experience, used chord progressions, utilizing both hands. In most cases,
when questioned about their procedure, they expressed a need to hear some type of
harmony. . ." (p. 64). Logically, it is possible that students with previous keyboard
experience would be likely to produce higher rated compositions than those without
keyboard experience, regardless of their musical aptitude scores. Knowing exactly how
the compositions of students with and without keyboard experiences were rated, and
their respective aptitude scores, would provide valuable information about the effect of
keyboard experiences on the compositional product and the effect of aptitude on the
compositional product.

Kratus (1994b) provides evidence that supports a positive relationship between
musical aptitude and the compositional process and product. Subjects were 40 9-year-

38

old, third-grade children from a school that provided a varied music curriculum but
lacked composing or improvising opportunities. Students were administered Gordon's
Intermediate Lleasures ofMirsic Audiation (IMMA). They then were engaged in
compositional activity on an individual basis. Students began by imitating patterns
performed by the researcher to get them used to performing on the keyboard; they
included melodic movement by steps, skips, and repeated notes. Then, students were
given ten minutes to compose an original song. A clock was placed near the students
to let them know how much time had elapsed during the compositional process. As in
previous studies (Kratus, 1989, 1991 , 1994), students were required to begin on middle
C, marked with a red dot, and they were restricted to the white keys, from G below
middle C to B two octaves above middle C.

Four judges analyzed the compositional process and product of each student' s
song. Process was analyzed by examining the student' s use of exploration,
development, repetition, or silence, as defined in the Kratus (1989) study. The
compositional product was analyzed by its cohesiveness, pattern use, and extensiveness.
These terms were defined as follows:

Was - the degree to which the pitches in a composition are

constructed around a tonal center or centers. (7=very strong tonal

cohesiveness, 1=no tonal cohesiveness)

Wests - the degree to which the durations in a composition

are constructed of regularly occurring accented and unaccented beats.

(7 =very strong metric cohesiveness, 1=no metric cohesiveness)

Mckfiifiattem - two to seven pitches that form a distinct pitch pattern that is

perceived as a unified whole.

Wm - a melodic pattern that is identical to a
previously occurring melodic pattern. (Y=pattem exists,

N=pattem does not exist)

39

Dam—Modem - a melodic pattern that is similar to,

yet different from, a previously occurring melodic pattern. In most
cases, the rhythm is held the same, the melody changes, and the melodic
contour is similar. (Y=pattem exists, N=pattem does not exist)

Rhythmic Mm - two to seven durations that form a distinct

durational pattern that is perceived as a unified whole.

Repeated Rhythmic Mm — a rhythmic pattern that is identical

to a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. (Y=pattem exists,

N=pattem does not exist)

Developed Rhfihmig Pagm - a rhythmic pattern that is similar

to, yet different from, a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. In most

cases, the melody is the same or similar and the rhythm changes.

(Y=pattem exists, N =pattem does not exist) [Kratus, 1994b, p. 121]
Results of this study found "a link between audiation and some aspects of creative
musical behavior. Audiation was found to be related to the ways in which 9-year-old
children compose and to the musical characteristics of their compositions” (p. 12).
Similarly, DeLorenzo (1989) suggested that creative activities of students who were
unable to ”think in sound” (p. 196) remained more of a physical activity than a musical
activity. ”Whereas some students became locked into repetitive hypnotic patterns,
others seized the opportunity to develop, transform, and shape a particular sound event
or chain of events into an expressive musical idea" (p.196).

Interestingly, Kratus found that "subjects spent a mean of 63% of the
composition time in exploration. By contrast, only 40% of the time spent by 9-year-
olds in a previous study (Kratus, 1989) was in exploration" (p. 10). The mean IMMA
scores in the Kratus (1994b) study were lower than those in Gordon's (1986) third-
grade standardization sample. It is possible that more time was spent in exploration

because of a lower aptitude average for these subjects as compared to the subjects in his

40

1989 study. Additionally, the subjects in the 1994 study employed a wider pitch range
for their compositions than the subjects in an earlier study (Kratus, 1986). Use of a
wide pitch range is characteristic of younger children (5-7 year-olds). It is also
possible that the use of wider pitch ranges could be a result of the subjects' below
average IMMA scores.

Aptitude can be summarized as one' 3 potential to learn (Gordon, 1986). There
are few, if any, areas of education that are designed specifically to address individual
needs according to students' aptitudes. However, Gordon (1986) states, "With valid
measures of music aptitude, a teacher is able to adapt instruction effectively and
efficiently to the individual musical differences among children and to make decisions
and offer suggestions about giving children special music instruction" (p. 3).
Therefore, any study investigating how aptitude affects students' music learning would
make significant contributions to music education. Currently, studies that investigate
musical aptitude as it relates to children' s compositional processes and products are
limited; more research is needed. Furthermore, conflicting data from the studies
reviewed underscore the need to continue investigations into the effects of aptitude on

children' s compositional processes and products.

Effect of Instruction Studies

The learning experience can be said to include three components: curriculum,
teacher, and student. An effective teacher will use appropriate instructional techniques
in order to present curricula effectively and maximize student learning. Research
investigating the effects of instructional techniques, therefore, is a worthwhile
endeavor. The present study is intended to investigate the effects of instruction on the
creative processes and products of children' s musical compositions.

Several researchers have found that creative approaches to music education can

increase students' creativity (Bradley, 1974; Madsen, 1977; Vaughan and Meyers,

41

1971). The effect of a creative curriculum was studied by Bradley (1974). A
comparison of pretest and post-test scores of fourth grade students in a creative-based
curriculum revealed a significant gain on aural perception and visual perception tests.
The study involved seven fourth-grade classes over a one-year period: one class acted
as the experimental group, five classes acted as the control group, and one additional
class was used to determine the reliability of the test instrument. Student instruction
for the creative-based (experimental) group was based on the thesis that students are
more likely to be motivated and more likely to comprehend concepts in a curriculum
based on composition, performing, and listening. Students learned through discovery
and creative experiences, using twentieth-century techniques as a point of departure.
”Commencing with the four essential dimensions of sound, each concept was further
developed until a conceptual understanding of rhythm, melody, tone color, texture, and
form was gained by subjects participating in the study" (p. 237). The control groups
received traditional music instruction. The focus was "mainly on singing throughout
the year, although teachers paid lip service to reading development. Listening activities
appeared to be minimal and mostly casual in natrue. However, . . . the classroom
teachers insisted that a usual program of music instruction was in progress . . ." (p.
238).

All students were administered a pretest and post-test consisting of two parts.
Part A tested visual recognition and perception of music (staff, symbols, note values,
etc.); Part B tested aural acuity (timbre, rhythm patterns, pitch levels, etc.). The
significant gains in aural and visual recognition for the experimental group suggests that
creative activities effectively enhance students' musical learning. Bradley (1974)
concluded by stating that ". . .music educators should seriously consider developing
and testing suitable pedagogical routines to further aid the classroom teacher in the

pursuit of effective and efficient methodology" (p. 240).

42

Madsen ( 1977) compared creative-based music classes with traditional text
book-focused music classes and found that students taught through creative methods
tended to be more creative. Subjects were seventh-grade general music students. The
experimental group, which was taught using a creative-based curriculum, used an open
classroom setting. Students explored, improvised, and created songs with indirect
guidance from the instructor. Madsen found that ”creative students improved their
academic abilities and enjoyment of music" (p.539A). Additionally, the students'
creativity improved and their cognitive and affective growth occurred simultaneously.
Results of this study show the positive effects of creativity in the classroom.

Vaughan and Myers (1971) also investigated the effects of a creative-based
curriculum. The experimental group consisted of a class of 28 fourth- and fifth-grade
students; the control group consisted of a class of 32 fourth- grade students. The
experimental group' s creative-based curriculum ”consisted of activities designed to
show that there is a parallel in musical process for every factor in creative thinking . ..,
and that many more associated dynamics can find their musical counterparts in
improvisation of rhythms, thematic development, counterpoint, dissonance, and so on”
(p. 338). The control group's instruction included singing activities, ear training, and
listening.

Both groups were administered pre-tests and post-tests of the Torrence Tests of
creative Thinking ('l'I‘CT). Comparing the post-test scores of the two groups revealed
significant gains for the experimental group on the 'l'I‘CT. Both groups were also
administered the Vaughan-Myers Test of Msical Creativity at the conclusion of the
study. Again, the experimental group surpassed the control group, suggesting that
specific instructional techniques can affect the creative thinking of children. Vaughan
and Myers (1971) concluded by stating "the impact of curricular content upon both the
learner and teacher is an intriguing area of study and one that demands future research
and thinln'ng on the part of all concerned” (p. 37).

43

The effect of different instructional approaches was also mentioned in
DeLorenzo' s (1989) qualitative investigation of sixth-grade students' creative problem-
solving processes. She observed creative activities in four schools, all of which "had
music programs that included sustained music problem-solving activities” (p. 192).
Three used creative activities as the culmination of a unit of study; the remaining
school employed creativity in most of the learning experiences. A11 creative activities
were videotaped and subsequently analyzed by the researcher. DeLorenzo noticed that
children approached composing differently, depending on how the musical task was
presented. She noted:

When students used preexisting structural forms, such as a matrix or story line,

their decision making centered less on musical content and more on the

operational aspects of performance. These students spent most of the total work
time practicing their piece with little time talking or thinking about the musical
substance of the piece. In contrast, when students allowed the musical material
to determine the form of the composition, they demonstrated increasing concern

for the musical relevance of each sound gesture. (p. 196)

The students' behavior, therefore, suggested that the compositional process and product
are affected by the instructional techniques provided by the teacher.

Seminal work has been done investigating the effects of repeated composing
opportunities, an area of exploration for the present study. Moorhead and Pond (1978)
found that repeated opportunities to explore rhythm instruments changed the manner in
which children explored. Children' 8 initial experiences with the instruments was
described as uninteresting, possibly due to lack of mallet experience. With each
increasing opportunity, children displayed more interest in tonal and rhythm pattern
development and musical form. Moorhead and Pond stated that the instrumental
experiences "led to growth in understanding timbre, pitch, vibration, rhythm, tonal
relationship, and melody“ (p. 117).

44

A 1990 study by Reinhart investigated the effect of repeated keyboard
composition experiences on the tonal structure of fifth—grade students' compositions.
Subjects (N =37) were provided one opportunity per week to compose for five weeks;
songs were composed on an individual basis with the researcher present. Compositions
from the first, third, and fifth experience were analyzed by the researcher and three
independent judges. Significant differences were found in the subjects' ability to
replicate their compositions after repeated experiences. However, no significant
difference was found in the tonal structure of the compositions between the first and
final composing experience.

These results may reflect a short treatment period; perhaps the students were not
provided enough opportunities over the five-week period to develop their tonal syntax.
Also, if students were to be taught tonal patterns to employ in their compositions, the
tonal structure might have been affected. Furthermore, a more conducive environment
in which to nurture creativity, as employed in a study by Ievi (1991a, 1991b) might
have affected the tonal structure of the subjects' compositions.

Levi's (1991a) study provided repeated composing opportunities for second-
grade students. The study differed from Reinhart' s (1990) study in that the students
composed in a social setting in the context of their classroom. Students worked on Orff
xylophones and composed original musical compositions; no time limits were set.
Students performed for one another in weekly performing sessions. When the
compositions were completed, students were asked to notate their pieces.

Using the product analysis developed by Kratus (1985), the composing products
were analyzed. Ievi (1991a) found an increase in the use of melodic motives for each
composing opportunity, showing that regular composing experiences positively affects
the compositional process. He stated that this study marks only the beginning of
curricular impacts on the composing process and product, and he concluded by asking

45

“How do compositions compare to those by children of comparable age who haven't
been given regular opportunities to compose?” (p. 135).

Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims (1991) studied the compositional processes of
students who had been instructed in improvisatory and creative activities since
kindergarten; students in this study were labeled ”browledgeable. " The subjects for
this study comprised 27 randomly selected students from second, third, and fourth
grade. The study closely followed the analysis procedures used in the Kratus (1989)
study. Students were asked to compose a song. The compositional period was
administered differently from that of the Kratus (1989) study in several ways: (a)
students were allowed to used only ten white keys; (b) students had to make up their
song to fit the words, ”Will you buy some food today? Any kind will do;" (c) Kratus
used students aged 7, 9, and 11; this study used subjects in grades 2, 3, or 4 (ages 7-9);
and (d) students had no time limitations for the compositional period.

Tapes were evaluated on a blind basis; judges did not brow whether the
composition was created by a second, third, or fourth grader. The judges evaluated
student' 3 use of exploration, development, repetition, or silence. In order to
investigate the effects of creativebased instruction, student compositional processes
(labeled 'knowledgeable") in this study were compared to the compositional processes
(labeled “naive” to represent students who had not received improvisatory and creative
activities) in the Kratus (1989) study. Data suggested that there were differences
between the "knowledgeable" and "naive" students' use of time during the
compositional process. However, because of the differences between the two studies, it
is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. It seems surprising that this study
attached a text to the compositional activity if its goal was to compare ”knowledgeable”
to "naive" students' compositional processes. Adding text provided rhythmic and
phrase structure, removing that dimension from the compositional process. It is not

surprising, therefore, that these students used less exploration. DeLorenzo (1989)

46

suggested that adding a text to the compositional process tends to draw children's
attention away from the musical content of the piece. However, differences between
the two groups do suggest that creative instruction may affect the manner in which
children compose.

The studies reviewed in this section demopstrate that creative approaches to
music education affect a child's musical creativity (Bradley, 1974; Madsen, 1977;
Vaughan and Myers, 1971). However, except for the Hoffman and Hedden (1991)
study, no studies exist that investigate the effects of specific types of instruction on the
creative process and product of children's compositions. If creativity is to be included
in music curricula, more research is needed on which to base pedagogical methods.

Conclusiom i

It is clear that the information provided as a result of the previous studies on
musical creativity is not enough to supply music educators with the necessary
biowledge to set comprehensive curricular goals and objectives for the creative
development of children. More research is needed for many unanswered questions. i
What is the effect of aptitude on compositional processes? Will a child with established
tonality1 compose differently than a child without established tonality? What is the
common link between a 7 year-old and an 11 year-old who both create successful
compositions? Does the ability to sing on pitch affect the compositional process and
finished product?

A conspicuously small number of studies have investigated creative
compositional processes and products within the context of an actual music classroom
setting ( DeLorenzo, 1989; Levi, 1991a, 1991b). The majority of studies have
investigated children' s compositions during individual composing sessions (Kratus,

 

1Establishedtonalityisdefinedastheabilitytosingtherestingtorreafterhear'ingaser'iesof
tonicanddominanttonalpatterns(Gordon, 1993).

47

1986, 1989, 1991, 1994a, 1994b; Reinhart, 1990). The studies have provided
important caveats for providing children creative experiences. However, the review of
literature suggests a need for more research directed toward children' s compositional
processes and products that is more easily applicable to a traditional, music-education
setting.

Research investigating the effects of specific curricular strategies that are
creative in nature appears to be nonexistent in music education research. All of the
researchers reviewed have observed and studied children' s compositional processes and
products; few have studied how children' s compositions are affected by a specific
instructional treatment.

In summary, this research project will investigate several aspects of children's
compositional processes and products. The present study will diflér from most
research in two unique and important ways:

1. Subjects' compositional processes and products will be analyzed for

the effects of repeated keyboard composing opportunities in a natural
classroom setting.

2. Subjects' compositional processes and products will be analyzed for the

effects of specific instructional techniques.
In addition, the effects of music aptitude on the compositional process and the
compositional product will be investigated. This study is designed to take the initial
steps in addressing these significant needs.

CHAPTERIII

METHOD
This chapter will present a description of the research setting, the subjects
participating in the study, the research design, and the method used to collect and
analyze the data. Explanations for the procedures used in the project will be given.

Sample

Subjects for this study comprised four intact, fourth—grade classes. The classes
contained 21 , 22, 22, and 23 students, for a total of 88 students. The classes were
from the same public elementary school, comprising kindergarten through fifth grade
students of diverse ethnic backgrounds. For the sake of validity, only students who had
no previous composing experience or keyboard experience were included in the
analysis (previous keyboard experience was defined as a minimum of one year of
private piano lessons). Children with keyboard experience might have had an
advantage over children without keyboard experience, which could have cauwd
spurious results. Therefore, 24 of the 88 students were not included in the analysis for
this study, leaving a total of 64 subjects. All 88 students, however, participated in all

classroom activities.

Procedure
Students in the school received two, thirty-minute general music classes per
week. During the course of the study, all treatment occurred during those music-class
periods. The instruction, which was normally provided by a music specialist hired by
the school district, was provided by the researcher. The researcher was trained to teach
the curriculum to be used in this study. In addition, every effort was made by the

researcher to teach concepts from the fourth-grade music curriculum for that school.

48

49

A cover letter and a permission slip was sent to the parents of each student the
week before school began (see Appendix A). The letter was sent by the Assistant
Superintendent for Instruction for the Okemos Public School District explaining that a
research project would be conducted in the elementary school. Parents were required
to return a permission slip notifying the researcher and the school of their permission to
involve their children in the project. Additionally, the researcher received approval
from Michigan State University' s Committe on Research Involving Human Subjects
(see Appendix B).

The students received instruction from the beginning of school (September 1,
1994) until their Thanksgiving vacation (November 21 , 1994), a total of 12 weeks
comprising 24 thirty-minute music classes. During the first week of instruction,
students were administered the Intermediate Measures of Msic Audiation (IMMA) as a
measure of each student's musical aptitude. Gordon's (1986a) IMMA is ”designed to
be used with children in grade one, grade two, grade three, and grade four" (p. 1).

The test is administered in two parts: tonal and rhythm. The tests do not require
students to have short—term or long-term memory. Students are required to listen and
react to immediate impressions of two patterns. "The quality of one's formal
achievement in memory is dependent upon how well one can derive immediate
impressions and make intuitive responses in audiation“ (p. 8). IMMA, despite its use
of the word "audiation, " measures the best indication of the child's aptitude. Gordon
(1986a) explains,

As the quality of the musical environment changes, the way each child

audiates those impressions and responses fluctuates until he is approximately

nine years old. The fluctuations result from the continuous interaction between

a child's innate capacities and his environment. Because stabilized music

aptitude becomes the actual measure of one' 3 potential for achievement in music

in later years, and because music aptitude does not stabilize until age nine, these

50

tests are called measures of music audiation rather than measures of music

aptitude. Before age nine, the degree to which a child can audiate immediate

impressions and give intuitive responses at any given time is the best indication

of the level at which his music aptitude will stabilize at age nine. (p. 8-9)

There are 40 questions in each subtest of IMMA. Each test item consists of two
audio-taped patterns; they are either the same pattern or two different patterns.
Students do not need to know how to read a language or music, or brow numbers in
order to answer the questions; they are simply asked to draw circles around pictures of
faces for the response they choose. Two identical happy faces indicates that the
patterns are the same; one happy face and one sad face indicates that the patterns are
different. Each test question is identified by picture references (see Appendix C).

Each subtest is approximately 12 minutes long; with the taped directions and
practice examples, each subtest lasts approximately 20 minutes. The two subtests
should be administered on separate days, no longer than two weeks apart. For this
study, the researcher administered the tonal test on the second day of class and the
rhythm test on the third day of class.

The reliability coefficients and the standard error of measurement for IMMA are
shown in Table 1. According to Gordon (1986), " . . . the split-halves coefficient
(derived from only one administration of each test) is more influenced by the
homogeneity of test content, and the test-retest coefficient (derived from two
administrations of each test) is more influenwd by physical and psychological changes
in the child and by different environmental conditions" (p. 89). The reliabiltiy
coefficients are high and the standard error of measurement is low, indicating that

IMMA is a reliable measure.

51

 

Table 1
Intermediate Akasures ofllfirsic Audia tion Relra bilities
Grade 4
Tonal Rhythm Composite
Split-Halves .72 .70 . 80
Test-Retest with .85 .83 .90
Raw Scores
Test-Retest with .86 .84 .76
Criterion Scores
Standard Error of 1.1 1.3 1.5

Measurement

 

Gordon (1986) has also shown IMMA to be a valid measure. In his manual he
offers subjective and objective evidence of the validity of IMMA. Discussions on
content validity, criterion-related validity, congruent validity, and longitudinal
predictive validity demonstrate the validity of IMMA.

Of the four classes in this study, three received an instructional treatment and
one served as a control group. Group A received repeated keyboard compositional
opportunities and tonal and rhythm pattern instruction. The pattern instruction was
performed orally and on the keyboards. Group B received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities but no pattern instruction. Group C received tonal and
rhythm pattern instruction, and Group D served as the control group.

Group A and Group C received tonal and rhythm pattern instruction according
to Gordon' s Music learning Theory, a method identified by the Music Educators
National Conference as one of six major approaches to music education (Shehan,

1986). Gordon's learning theory is structured according to levels of learning:

52

Dig'mination Inference

l. Aural/ oral 1. Generalization

2. Verbal association 2. Creativity/ improvisation
3. Partial synthesis 3. Theoretical understanding

4. Symbolic association
5. Composite synthesis

Each level in the discrimination level builds upon the learning that has taken place in
the previous level. Inference learning occurs during all levels of discrimination as well
as after the discrimination learning. When this theory is applied, formal pattern
instruction begins at the aural/oral level after children have moved out of tonal and
rhythm babble.

According to Gordon (1993), people are in a music babble stage until they can
sing in tune and move with a consistent tempo. Most children move out of the babble
stage between the ages of five and seven, after which time they are ready for formal
music instruction. Therefore, because the subjects of this study were approximately 9-
years-old, pattern instruction began at the aural/oral level of the learning sequence.

At the aural/oral level, children develop "a sense of meter, a sense of tonality,
and the beginning of a vocabulary of rhythm patterns and a vocabulary of tonal
patterns" (Walters, 1989, p. 16). Success at the aural/oral level serves as the
foundation for all subsequent levels of learning.

Students in this study echoed tonal and rhythm patterns according to Gordon's
Jung) Right In Tonal Register Book (1990) and Rhythm Register Book (1990). The
register book comprised 21 units. The researcher taught Tonal Unit 1 and Rhythm
Unit 1 during this study. The register book contained specific patterns (labeled easy,
medium, or difficult) and directions telling how students should respond to the patterns.
Tonal and rhythm patterns were selected and categorized according to difficulty from
Gordon's (1976) Tonal and Rhythm Patterns: An Objective Analysis. Each unit

contained one to three sections; each section included one to three criteria.

53

Additionally, each unit contained a seating chart in which to place students' names and
their aptitude scores (Appendix D and Appendix E). Students were expected to sing
difficult, medium, or easy patterns depending upon their aptitude score (high, medium,
or low). In this manner, students received instruction according to their individual
potential. According to Gordon (1990), when 80% of the class has achieved its

, potential on a criterion, the instructor can move to the next criterion in the register
book.

Tonal pattern instruction followed the sequence outlined in Gordon's Junm
fight In Tonal Register Book 1. Tonally, students echoed major tonic and dominant
patterns using a neutral syllable (”bum"). Students heard a pattern and were asked to
echo only the first pitch; they heard different patterns and were asked to sing the
resting tone; they were also asked to sing the complete pattern. Minor tonic and
dominant patterns were also included in the instruction (see Appendix F). For this
study, all of Tonal Unit 1 was completed.

Rhythm pattern instruction followed the sequence outlined in Gordon' s Jump
fight In Rhythm Register Book 1; students echoed rhythm patterns in duple or triple
meter (see Appendix G). At the aural/ oral level, students echoed rhythm patterns using
a neutral syllable ("bah”) that was performed by the researcher using the same neutral
syllable. Students were asked to keep the macro beatl simultaneously with their heels
as they patted the micro beat2 and echoed rhythm patterns. Rhythm Unit 1 was
completed during this study.

Each class period for Group A and Group C began with pattern instruction.
Students echoed tonal patterns during the first week of instruction and rhythm patterns

 

l Amacro beatisdefinedasthelargest unit ofpulseinwhich music isfelt (Jordan, 1989).
2Amicrobeatisdefinedasmenamraldivisionofdremacrobeatinsimpleorcompormdmeteraordan,
1989).

54

during the second week of instruction. Subsequent weeks continued alternating
between tonal and rhythm pattern instruction.

Pattern instruction was also echoed using keyboards (Group A). The music
classroom was provided with 19 small, battery operated keyboards, 17 of which
included a set of headphones. Engaging an entire class in pattern performance or
composing activities without headphone sets would have created an environment not
mnducive to learning. Headphone sets provided students the opportunity to hear their
work clearly without outside distractions. Providing students the opportunity to echo
patterns on the keyboard allowed them to experience the patterns in a visual and tactile
manner. It was hoped that this would enable students to experiment with and use the
patterns while they composed. To facilitate performance of tonal patterns on the
keyboard, tonal pattern instruction was sung with middle C as the tonal center for
major tonality and A just below middle C for minor tonality. Therefore, tonal patterns
were performed in the same key both vocally and on the keyboard. This required
transposing the tonal pattern instruction published in Tonal Book 1, Unit 1 to the key of
C major.

Groups A and B of this study received repeated opportunities to compose on an
electronic piano keyboard. Students were asked to spend nine minutes creating a song
during each class period; they were not mught formally. Rather, they were allowed to
explore, improvise, and become familiar with the keyboard instrument without
guidance as they composed. Students were restricted to use of the white keys of the
keyboard. According to Regelski ( 1981) restrictions during creative activities are more
likely to keep students on task and interested. If students finished composing early, the
researcher asked them to try to improve the piece during the remaining time.

During the composing period, the researcher monitored students' progress and
asked them to play their songs. At the end of each composing period, several students
were asked to play their songs for the class. This helped keep the students accountable

55

for their work and ensured their staying on task. An environment of support and
encouragement was fostered during the solo performances.

Group D served as the control group. The instruction for this class consisted of
traditional general music activities: singing, listening, and moving. Content of the
instruction was planned by the researcher to include musical concepts that are
traditionally taught in fourth-grade in the school district. These types of activities were
also a part of the instruction for Groups A, B, and C, only to a lesser extent, because a
portion of their class time was spent in pattern instruction, keyboard composing, or
both.

Design of the Study
The treatment groups were structured as follows:

Group A: Pattern instruction.
Weekly keyboard compositional activities.

Group B: No pattern instruction.
Weekly keyboard compositional activities.

Group C: Pattern Instruction.
No keyboard compositional activities.

Group D: No pattern instruction.
No weekly compositional activites.

Pattern instruction required approximately ten minutes of the 30—minute
instructional period; compositional activities, provided during each class, required

approximately ten minutes of the 30-minute instructional period. Therefore, time was

allotted for each group as follows:
Group A: 10 nrinutes of pattern instruction
10 minutes of composing activities
10 minutes of traditional music activities

Group B: 10 nrinutes of composing activities

56
20 minutes of traditional music activities

Group C: 10 minutes of pattern instruction
20 minutes of traditional music activities

Group D: 30 nrinutes of traditional music activites

After the 12 week instructional period, each student (N=64) was asked to
compose a song. Each subject's final composing opportunity was completed
individually with the researcher present. This study differed from previous studies in
that the students had known the researcher for three months and had established a
positive rapport with him. Students were provided with a Yamaha Porta-Sound PSS-
470 keyboard. The keyboard had a total of 59 mid-size keys. Students were restricted
to the following parameters when composing: (a) they must begin their composition on
middle C, and (b) they must use only the white keys between G below middle C and C
two octaves above middle C. The researcher marbd middle C with a colored sticker
and the highest and lowest white key with stickers of another color. Subjects were
asked to work for at least five minutes and no longer than ten mintues.

Subjects in Groups C and D were first engaged in a series of imitative exercises
that required subjects to play steps, skips, and repeated notes on the keyboard. The
purpose of these exercises was to familiarize the students with the keyboard and make
them more comfortable for their composing experience. They were then read the
following instructions:

Your project today is to make up a song on the keyboard. Your song will be a

brand-new song, one that no one has ever heard before. You may use only the

white keys for your song. The keys you may choose from are from the lowest
marked key to the highest marked key. Your song music begin on C, the key
with the red mark. You will have 10 minutes to make up your song; you must

work for at least five nrinutes. When you are finished, I will ask you to play

57

your song two times for me. Be sure you can remember your song so that you

can play it the same way two times. Do you have any questions?

Subjects in Groups A and B were read the following instructions:

Today is your last day to compose a song for me. In a minute I am going to ask
you to compose a song in a similar way to how we composed songs in music
class. Your song may not be the same as one of the songs you composed for
me in our previous classes; it must be brand-new. This song may only use the
white keys between the two blue marked keys. Your song must begin on the
key marked with the red sticker [middle C]. You will have 10 minutes to make
up your song; you must work for at least five minutes. When you are finished,
I will ask you to play your song two times for me. Be sure you can remember
your song so that you can play it the same way two times. Do you have any

questions?

These directions are similar to the directions that Kratus (1989) used when he asked his
subjects to compose. All final composing opportunities were audio-taped for analysis.

Analysis of the Data .
The composing process was analyzed using the same process used in the Kratus

studies (1989, 1991, 1994a). The audio-tapes of each student' s final composition were
analyzed by two independent judges, both of whom were qualified music educators.
One judge was completing a Master's Degree in Music Education; the other judge was
pursuing a Ph.D. in Music Education. Both judges had completed a Bachelor of Music

in Music Education.

58

To study the compositional process, the ten—minute final composing session was
divided into 120 intervals of five seconds each. Each interval was categorized as
described in the Kratus (1994a) study:

Exploration - The music in a 5-second interval sounds unlike music played in

earlier 5-second intervals. No specific references to music played earlier can be

heard.

Mm; - The music in a 5-second interval sounds similar to, yet

different from, music played in an earlier 5-second interval. Clear

references to music played earlier can be heard in the melody, the

rhythm, or both.

mm - The music in a 5-second interval sounds the same as music played

in an earlier 5—second interval.

511% - No music is heard in a 5-second interval. (p. 9)

Judges recorded their analyses on printed forms, marking each 5-second interval
with an "E" (exploration), "D” (development), "R" (Repetition), and "S" (Silence).
Judges timed the 5-second intervals with a stop watch. If more than one category was
heard during a five second interval, they chose the category that predominated. A copy
of the process evaluation sheet can be found in Appendix H.

Judges were trained by the researcher. The researcher and the two judges
analyzed three excerpts of students' compositional processes. Ratings were compared
and discussed. After the two independent judges completed ten process analyses, the
researcher totaled the number of observed 5-second intervals of exploration,
development, repetition, and silence for each subject. The correlation between the
totals for each judge was used as an indicator of reliability.

Product evaluation followed the procedure used in the Kratus ( 1985, 1994a)
study. Each student' s composition was rated for its cohesiveness and replication on a

seven point Likert-type scale. Kratus (1995) defined these terms as follows:

59

Icnflflghesileness - the degree to which the pitches in a composition are
constructed around a tonal center or tonal centers. (7 = very strong tonal
cohesiveness, 1=no tonal cohesiveness)

Metric Cghesileness - the degree to which the durations in a composition

are constructed of regularly occurring accented and unaccented beats.

(7 = very strong metric cohesiveness, 1=no metric cohesiveness)

Repligtim - the degree to which the students are able to replicate their songs.

(1 = unable to replicate, 7 =able to perfectly replicate)

The means of the two judges' ratings were used for analysis. The judges also
rated the compositional product for the percentage of each composition using patterns,
following the same procedure used in the Kratus (1995) study. Each student's
composition was rated for its pattern use on a 10-point Likert-type scale. These terms
were defined as follows:

% of Melodic Eagern - two to seven pitches that form a distinct pitch

pattern that is perceived as a unified whole.

Wm - a melodic pattern that is identical to a
previously occurring melodic pattern. (0% =no repeated melodic
patterns, 100% =all repeated melodic patterns)
Wm - a melodic pattern that is similar to,

yet different from, a previously occurring melodic pattern. In most
cases, the rhythm is held the same, the melody changes, and the melodic
contour is similar. (0% = no developed melodic patterns, 100% =all
developed melodic patterns)

W - two to seven durations that form a distinct durational

pattern that is perceived as a unified whole.

60
W - a rhythmic pattern that is identical

to a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. (0% =no repeated
rhythmic pattern, 100%‘=all repeated rhythmic patterns)
Develgm Rhythmic Pattern - a rhythmic pattern that is similar
to, yet different from, a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. In most
cases, the melody is the same or similar and the rhythm changes.
(0% =no developed rhythmic patterns, 100% =all repeated rhythmic
patterns) [unpublished]
The means of the two judges' rating were used for analysis.

The composed song's extensiveness (range and length) was measured by the
researcher because it did not require subjective rating. This information was obtained
through analysis of the audio recordings. A copy of the product evaluation sheet can
be found in Appendix I.

The following questions of this study were answered by the researcher by using
two-way analysis of variance (treatment by levels of music aptitude):

1. The effect of instruction and aptitude on the processes of fourth-grade
children's keyboard composing. Specifically, how long does it take
children to compose a song, and how much time do children spend in
exploration, development, repetition, and silence during the
compositional process?

2. The effect of instruction and aptitude on the tonal cohesiveness and
metric cohesiveness of fourth-grade children' s keyboard compositions.

3. The effect of instruction and aptitude on pattem-use in fourth-grade
children's keyboard compositional products.

4. The effect of instruction and aptitude on the extensiveness (range and
length) of fourth-grade children' s keyboard compositions.

61

5. The effect of instruction and aptitude on the ability of fourth-grade children
to replicate their finished keyboard compositional product.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this chapter is to report the results of the data analysis and
interpret those results. The chapter is divided into several sections: reliability of
aptitude measure, process results and interpretations, and product results and

interpretations.

Reliability of Aptitude Measure

Students' aptitude was measured using Gordon's Intemrediate Measures of
Msic Aptitude (IMMA). Each student received a raw score for tonal aptitude and
rhythm aptitude (the highest possible being 40 for each student) and a raw score for
composite aptitude (the highest possible being 80). Students then received a percentile
rank for their tonal, rhythm, and composite scores according to the Intermediate
Measures of Music Audiation Percentile Norms (Gordon, 1986b). Table 2 shows
means and standard deviations for the norm sample as reported in the IMMA manual
and the mean scores and standard deviation for the subjects in this study. The mean
scores are similar to, but slightly lower, than those reported in the manual; the tonal
mean differs from the norm by .8, rhythm differs by .9, and composite differs by 1.8.
The standard deviations are smaller than those reported in the manual.

62

63
Table 2

Mews and Standard Deviations Mums

 

 

Tonal Rhythm Composite
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Norm Sample 35.2 3.03 33.6 3.50 68.8 5.48
Study 34.4 2.55 32.7 3.14 67 4. 64

 

Item difficulty and item discrimination were calculated for each test item. The

item difficulty indices for the tonal and rhythm subtests were similar to those reported

by Gordon (1986). The item discrimination indices were dramatically different than

those reported in the manual. Whereas the majority of the test items fell between .11-

.30 for the norm sample for both the tonal and rhythm subtests, the majority of the test

items in this study fell between .00 - .10 for the tonal subtest and .00 - .20 for the

rhythm subtest. Following are summaries of those results for each subtest (Tables 3

and 4) .

Table 3
Item Difi'iculty and Item Discn'mina tion

 

 

Tonal Subtest

Item Difficulty Item Discrimination

# of Items # of Items

Norms Sample Study Norms Sample Study
Diff. level Disc. level
.00-.10 0 1 .00-. 10 4 30
.11-.20 1 l .11-.20 10 7
.21-.30 l 0 .21-.30 14 1
.31-.40 1 2 .31-.40 9 O
.4l-.50 0 1 .41-.50 3 1
.51-.60 1 0 .51-.60 0 1
.6l-.70 l 0 .6l-.70 0 O
.71-.80 l l .71-.80 O O
.81-.90 2 4 .81-.90 0 0
.91-l.00 32 30 .91-1.00 0 0

 

65
Table 4

Item Difliculty and Item Discnimina tion
Rhythm Subtest

 

 

Item Difficulty Item Discrimination
# of Items # of Items
Norms Sample Study Norms Sample Study

Diff. level Disc. Level

.00-.10 0 0 .00-. 10 1 l9
.11-.20 0 0 .11-.20 20 14
.21-.30 O 0 .21-.30 11 7
.3l-.40 1 O .31-.40 8 0
.4l-.50 0 2 .41-.50 0 0
.51-.60 5 4 .51-.60 O 0
.61-.70 1 3 .6l-.70 0 0
.71—.80 4 5 .71-.80 0 0
.81-.90 7 8 .8l-.90 0 O
.91-1.00 22 18 .91-1.00 0 0

 

66

Based on item difficulty and discrimination levels, the test was split into two
equivalent halves. Using those halves, the researcher calculated split-halves reliability.
Table 5 shows the corrected split-halves reliability coefficients for the aptitude
measure. All reliabilities were lower than those reported in the test manual. However,
reliability for the rhythm subtest was dramatically lower than the reliability of the
norms sample. Reliabilities in the Kratus (1994b) study were also lower than the
norms scores reported by Gordon, possibly because the subjects in his study "were less
diverse in age and musical experience than were Gordon' s sample” (p. 122). The same
reasons may hold true for the present study. Also, the students in this study who
received piano instruction for one year or more were removed from the final data
analysis. Many of those students were higher aptitude students. The result was less
variability and therefore less reliability.

 

 

Table 5
Reliability lbr m4
Study Norms Sample
Tonal . 63 . 72
Rhythm .20 . 70
Composite .57 , .80
Process Analysis
Inte ' R l' ili

Subjects (N =64) were asked to compose for a minimum of five minutes and a
maximum of ten minutes and were audio-recorded during their final composing session
with the researcher. Each subject's composing processes during this session were
analyzed subsequently by two independent judges. The judges listened for the use of

exploration, development, repetition, or silence. Their analysis was recorded on

67

printed forms (see Appendix F), by marking an "E” (exploration), ”D" (development),
"R“ (repetition), or ”S" (silence) in the blank for each 5-second interval. The
researcher totaled the number of observed 5-second intervals of exploration,
development, repetition, and silence for each judge' s rating sheet.

Interj udge reliability for the process rating was computed by the researcher by
correlating the number of E's, D's, R's, and 8's of the two independent judges (see
Table 6). The reliabilities were extremely high, which is consistent with other studies
that have employed this method of compositional process analysis (Hoffman, Hedden,
and Mims, 1991; Kratus, 1989, 1991, 1994b).

 

 

Table 6

Interjudge Reliability for Process

Rating I
Exploration .94
Development .90
Repetition .96
Silence .99

 

Angysis of Data
This study investigated the effect of instruction and aptitude on the process of
children's keyboard composing as defined by the amount of time that children spent
using exploration, development, repetition, and silence. (The instructional groups were
as follows: Group A - repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern
instruction [K,P]; Group B - repeated keyboard composing opportunities [K]; Group C
- pattern instruction [P]; Group D - control group [C].) The mean of the judges'

ratings for each subject exploration was computed; these figures were used for

68

subsequent analysis for exploration. The same procedure was used for development,
repetition, and silence.

Students were categorized as either high aptitude or low aptitude. Normally,
when assigning students to high and low aptitude groups, those students scoring below
the 50th percentile would be included in the low group, and those scoring at the 50th
percentile and above would be included in the high group. However, many high-
aptitude students were not part of the final analysis because they studied piano.
Balance between high and low aptitude students in each treatment group had to be
achieved by changing the traditional dividing point between high and low aptitude.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, low aptitude students were those with a
composite percentile rank of 0%-39% , and high aptitude students were those with a
composite percentile rank of 40%-100%.

Wanda:

The mean and standard deviation for exploration were 27.16 and 22.46,
respectively. Process data were analyzed through two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), treatment by levels of music aptitude. Table 7 shows the ANOVA results
for Exploration. There was a significant difference (p < .05) among the treatment
groups' use of exploration. Table 8 shows the results of Fisher' s PLSD for the effect
of instruction on exploration. The class that received repeated keyboard composing
opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly less exploration than any of the

other groups.

69

 

 

Table 7
ANOVA Table for Emloration

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 5972.964 1990.997 4.997 *
Aptitude Category 1 1042.410 1042.410 2.616
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 3016.348 1005.449 2.523
Residual 56 22313.972 398.464
* p < .05
Table 8
Fisher '3 PLSD for Exploration

Efléct: Treatment Category

 

 

_ MD CD

KP,K -23.667 14.555 *
KP,P -19. 131 14.250 *
KP,C -17.982 13.153 *
K,P 4.536 15.402
K,C 5.684 14.393
P,C 1.148 14.085
* p < .05

Mte: KP = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

Evelgpment Results

The mean and standard deviation for development were 11.56 and 11. 82,

respectively. Tables 9 and 10 show the ANOVA results for Development. There was

a significant difference (p < .05) among treatment groups in the use of development.

The class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern

70

instruction used significantly more development than the control group. Additionally,
the class that received only pattern instruction used significantly more development than

the control group. There were no significant differences between aptitude groups.

 

 

Table 9
AWVA Table rbr Development

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 1 119.989 373. 330 2. 838*
Aptitude Category 1 88. 311 88. 31 1 .671
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 332.361 110.787 .842
Residual 56 7366.262 131.540
* p < .05
Table 10
Fisher '3 PLSD lbr Derelopment

Eflect: Treatment Category

 

MD CD
KP,K 3.235 8.362
KP,P -2.683 8.187
KP,C 7.599 7.557*
K,P -5.918 8.849
K,C 4.364 8.270
P,C 10.282 8.092*

 

*p<.05

Mte: KP = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportuities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

71

Repetition Results
The mean and standard deviation for repetition were 28.39 and 22.67,

respectively. Tables 11 and 12 show the ANOVA results for Repetition. There was a

significant difference (p < .05) among treatment groups' use of repetition. The class

that received pattern instruction used significantly more repetition than the control

group or the class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities.

 

Table 11
AADVA Table for Repetition

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 5156.559 1718.853 3.954*
Aptitude Category 1 449.405 449.405 1.034
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 3083.015 1027.672 2.364
Residual 56 24345.462 434.740

 

*p<.05

Table 12

72

Fisher 's PLSD for Repetition

Ehéct: Treatment Category

 

 

MD CD

KP,K 14.643 15.203
KP,P -7.258 14.884
KP,C 10.949 13.738
K,P -21.901 16.088*
K,C -3.694 15.034
P,C 18.207 14.712 *
* p < .05

Abte: KP = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

Silence Results
The mean and standard deviation for silence were 8.04 and 16.89, respectively.

No significant differences were found among treatment groups' or aptitude groups' in
the use of silence (see Table 13).

 

Table 13
AADVA Table lbr Silence

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 901.466 300.489 1.003
Aptitude Category 1 14.275 12.275 .048
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 215.898 71.966 .240
Residual 56 16775.384 299.560

 

*p<.05

73
Length 9f Cgmmsing Psrigfi Results

The mean and standard deviation for the length of the composing period were
369.91 and 142. 87, respectively. Significant differences were found between the
treatment groups for the length of the composing period (see Tables 14 and 15). The
class that received pattern instruction took significantly more time to compose a song

than any other group.

Table 14
AAOVA Table lbr length of Composing Period

 

 

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 168087.268 56029.268 2.927*
Aptitude Category 1 12307 .067 12397 .067 .643
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 32458.469 10819.490 .565
Residual 56 1071945888 19141.891
* p < .05
Table 15

Fisher 's PLSD lbr Length of Composing Period
Edéct: Treatment Category

 

MD CD
KP,K 37.756 100.878
KP,P -112.l67 98.764*
KP, c -4.061 91.162
K,P 449.923 106.751*
K,C -41.818 . 99.759
p,c 108.105 97.621*

 

*p<.05

Mite: KP = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

74

Process Interpretations

Some of the results showed significance for the effect of instructional treatment.
However, none of the process results were significant for the effect of aptitude.
Several reasons might explain this. Twenty-four students were removed from the final
analysis because they had received a year or more of private piano instruction. Many
of those were high aptitude students. Therefore, the aptitude scores included in the
final data analysis were lower and less varied, causing low reliabilities for the IMMA.
It is difficult to find significance with low reliability.

Music aptitude results also might have been different if it had been possible to
label high and low aptitude students differently. In this study, each aptitude group
contained not only high or low aptitude students, but also many students of average
aptitude. As a result, the groups did not clearly represent only students with high
aptitude and students with low aptitude; there were students in each group who were
similar to one another. It is possible that this obscured aptitude findings in the
analysis.

The results also might have been different if the treatment period had been
longer. Music aptitude may have had more of an effect over time as students began
achieving at higher levels. Also, pattern instruction was so different from what the
students were used to that it took approximately two weeks to accustom the students to
the pattern instruction! teaching process. The twelve-week treatment period provided
only enough time to acclimate the students to pattern instruction and complete Rhythm
Unit 1 and Tonal Unit 1. However, a longer treatment period would have allowed the
students to learn more patterns, perhaps causing different results for aptitude for the
group that received pattern instruction.

The class that received repeated opportunities to compose and pattern instruction
used significantly less exploration than the class that received only pattern instruction.

75

It is possible that the students in the pattern instruction class needed to initially explore
and familiarize themselves with the keyboard, after which time they were able to
develop and repeat ideas.

The class that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities spent much
of the final composing period exploring. The results for this group might have been
different if the researcher had taught composing during the instructional period rather
than allowing students to compose without guidance. Perhaps the lack of pattern
instruction, resulting in a lack of musical vocabulary with which to compose, caused
them to spend too much time during their composing sessions exploring, which has
been shown by Kratus (1991) and Hedden (1991) to be detrimental to the quality of the
compositional product.

Another reason that pattern instruction alone yielded more exploration than the
class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern instruction
may be that some of the students in this study were not out of tonal or rhythm babble;
some were unable to maintain an even micro/ macro beat pattern, and some were unable
to sing the resting tone after hearing a series of tonic/dominant patterns. For these
students, pattern instruction was probably not appropriate, and therefore not effective.
Additionally, students not out of tonal or rhythm babble were most likely less effective
during the composing session than students who were out of tonal or rhythm babble.
Students who are still in tonal babble cannot hear the relationships among the sounds
that they make and cannot use tonal patterns in syntax. Students who are still in
rhythm babble cannot keep a consistent tempo and cannot use rhythm patterns in
syntax. In both cases, the compositional process would be affected. Therefore, the
results in this study might have been different if the treatment period had been longer
so that students had had the opportunity to emerge from tonal or rhythm babble before

beginning pattern instruction.

76

The class that received pattern instruction used significantly more repetition than
the control group and the class that received repeated keyboard composing
opportunities. Possibly, the class that received pattern instruction focused on specific
rhythm patterns or tonal patterns that were familiar as a result of instruction to facilitate
their composing, thus explaining their significant use of repetition during the
composing session. Also, it is possible that the class that received repeated keyboard
composing opportunities in combination with pattern instruction might not have needed
to repeat their composing ideas as frequently as the class that received pattern
instruction because of their experience on the keyboards, which provided them
opportunities to practice patterns orally and on the keyboards.

No significant differences were found among treatment groups in the use of
silence. It is possible that the low aptitude students may have used little silence during
their compositional processes because they did not have the audiation skills to
remember their work while they were composing. High aptitude students might have
used more silence so that they could audiate their work and make critical judgments.
Because low aptitude students' audiation skills are low, they used little silence during
the compositional process.

The class that received pattern instruction took significantly more time to
compose a song than any other group. The results of the study might have been
influenced by the group's lack of keyboard opportunities coupled with their newly
acquired "music vocabulary” from the pattern instruction. In other words, this group
may have had ideas with which to compose but lacked the facility on the keyboard to
apply these ideas efficiently toward a finished product. Therefore, they needed more
time at the keyboard before they were satisfied with their performance of their finished
product. The classes that had received repeated opportunities to compose were already
familiar with the process of composing and the use of the keyboard. The control group

might have used less time than the class that received pattern instruction because the

77

control group did not have the tools (patterns) or keyboard facility with which to

compose.

Product Analysis

Inte 'ud e Reliabili
Two independent judges rated the final compositions for cohesiveness (tonal and

metric), pattern use (repeated melodic pattern, developed melodic pattern, repeated
rhythmic pattern, developed rhythmic pattern), and replication. The judges' scores
were correlated to obtain interjudge reliability (see Table 16). The reliability for metric
cohesiveness found in this study (.77) is comparable to what Kratus (1994b) reported in
his study (.80); reliability for tonal cohesiveness found in this study (.87) was also
comparable to what Kratus reported (.90). No comparison can be made to other
studies for the reliabilities of repeated melodic pattern, developed melodic pattern,
repeated rhythmic pattern, or developed rhythmic pattern, because the measure used in
this study is different fiom that of Kratus' published studies. The reliabilities for tonal
and metric cohesiveness are acceptable. However, the reliabilities for pattern use are
not particularly high, with that of developed rhythmic pattern being considerably lower
than acceptable.

78

 

 

Table 16

Interjudge relr'a bility

Compositional Product Analysis

Rating r
Metric Cohesiveness .77
Tonal Cohesiveness . 87
Repeated Melodic Pattern .64
Developed Melodic Pattern .51
Repeated Rhythmic Pattern . 60
Developed Rhythmic Pattern . 31
Replication .91

 

In ' n V '

Table 17 shows the intercorrelation between product variables. There are many
significant correlations between tonal cohesiveness and metric cohesiveness and other
product variables. Therefore, it is possible that the variables were not sufficiently
discrete. The results show some high correlations between metric cohesiveness and
tonal cohesiveness, showing that the compositions that were metrically cohesive were
also likely to be tonally cohesive. Additionally, the students who were able to replicate
their finished product probably produced a tonally cohesive composition.

Compositions that received high ratings for developed rhythm pattern were likely also
to be metrically cohesive. Finally, replication is less likely as students' compositional
products lengthen.

79
Table 17

Correlation Matrix rbr Compositional Product

 

Ton. Met. RMP DMP RRP DRP Repl. Rng. Length

Coh. Cob.
Torr. Coh. 1
Met. Coh. .53* l
RMP .07 .28* 1
DMP .23 .32* -.02 1
RP .26* .50* .48* .41* 1
DRP .48* .62“ .08 .28* .33* 1
Repl. .52* .351 .03 .22 .18 .25 1
Rng. -.39* -.34* -.11 -.06 -.24 -.29* -.23 1
Length —.39* -.15 .12 -.07 -.09 -.17 -.52* .39* 1

 

*<.05

Mte: Ton. Coh. = Tonal Cohesiveness; Met. Coh. = Metric Cohesiveness; RMP =
Repeated Melodic Pattern; DMP = Developed Melodic Pattern; RRP = Repeated
Rhythmic Pattern; DRP = Developed Rhythmic Pattern; Repl. = Replication; Rng. =
Range.

80

Analysis of Dm

The means of the judges' scores for metric and tonal cohesiveness, pattern use,
and replication were used for analysis. The extensiveness (range and length) of the
final compositions, because it could be objectively determined, was established by the
researcher and subsequently used for analysis. A two-way analysis of variance,
treatment by levels of music aptitude, was used to answer the following questions as
they relate to compositional product:

1. The effect of instruction and music aptitude on the tonal cohesiveness and

metric cohesiveness of children' s compositions.

2. The effect of instruction and music aptitude on the use of repeated rhythmic

patterns and developed rhythmic patterns.

3. The effect of instruction and music aptitude on the use of repeated melodic

patterns and developed melodic patterns.

4. The effect of instruction and music aptitude on the extensiveness (range and

length) of children' s compositions.

5. The effect of instruction and music aptitude on students' ability to replicate

their song.

Welds

The judges rated each compositional product on metric cohesiveness. Metric
cohesiveness was defined as the degree to which the durations in a composition were
constructed of regularly occurring accented and unaccented beats (Kratus, 1994b).

Figures 1 and 2 show representative compositional products that received high
and low ratings for metric cohesiveness. These musical examples, and all subsequent
musical examples, represent the closest possible representation of what the students
composed. Tonally, the composition examples are accurate, because all work was done
on a keyboard with fixed pitches. However, the rhythms used by some of the students

81

could not be accurately transcribed to fit traditional Western notation. Therefore, the

musical examples presented in this study represent the closest approximation of

students' rhythms and meters.

 

Figure l. Compositional product rated high for metric cohesiveness.

 

Figure 2. Compositional product rated low for metric cohesiveness.

The mean for metric cohesiveness was 2.75, and the standard deviation was
1.44. Table 18 shows the ANOVA for metric cohesiveness. There were no significant

differences.

Table 18
AAOVA Table tbr Metric Cohesiveness

 

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 5.135 1.712 .842
Aptitude Category 1 1.471 1.471 .724
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 11.483 3.828 1.884
Residual 56 1 13.779 2.032

 

*p<.05

82
W

The judges rated each compositional product on tonal cohesiveness. Tonal
cohesiveness was defined as the degree to which the pitches in a composition were
constructed around a tonal center or centers (Kratus, 1994b). Figures 3 and 4 show
representative compositional products that received high and low ratings for tonal

cohesiveness.

 

Figure 3. Compositional product rated high for tonal cohesiveness.

 

Figure 4. Compositional product rated low for tonal cohesiveness.

The mean was 4.18, and the standard deviation was 1.74 for tonal cohesiveness.
Table 19 shows the ANOVA results for tonal cohesiveness. There was significant
interaction between treatment and aptitude for tonal cohesiveness. Post-hoe analysis
revealed that students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional
opportunities and pattern instruction and high aptitude students in the class that received
repeated keyboard compositional opportunities composed with significantly more tonal
cohesiveness than high aptitude students in the pattern instruction class. Additionally,
the low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional
opportunities created products significantly less cohesive than those of all other groups
(see Table 20).

83
Table 19

AWVA Table lbr Tonal Cohesiveness

 

DF SS
Treatment Category 3 14.416
Aptitude Category 1 7.769
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 23.808
Residual 56 147 . 807

MS

4. 805
7.769
7.936
2.639

F
1.821
2.943
3.007*

 

*p <.05

Table 20
Cell line Chart lbr Tonal Cohesiveness
Grouping Variables: (Treatment Category, Aptitude Category)

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 L . l . l
5.5 " '
5 - O . 1-
I . I
4.5 ‘ '-
.g 4 " O . . 1-
2 3.5 ' ‘ l-
3 ' .
2 5 " l -
d . p
2 "‘ .
1 h
1.5 . . . a j , f
I .1 I ..r I .1 I .1
a’ o.’ x‘ x' a: a" 0' d
x a:
Treatment Group
p < .05

Mite: H = High aptitude students; L = Low aptitude students; KP = Class that
received repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern instruction; K = Class
that received repeated keyboard composing opportunities; P = Class that received
pattern instruction; C = Control group.

85

Re t Mel 'c m Re ults
The judges rated each compositional product for use of repeated melodic

patterns. Repeated melodic pattern was defined as a melodic pattern that was identical

to a previously occurring melodic pattern (Kratus, 1995b). Figures 5 and 6 show

representative compositional products that received high and low ratings for repeated

melodic pattern.

 

Figure 5. Compositional product rated high for repeated melodic pattern.

 

Figure 6. Compositional product rated low for repeated melodic pattern.

The mean was 15.94, and the standard deviation was 13.60 for repeated
melodic pattern. Table 21 show the ANOVA for repeated melodic pattern. There

were no significant differences for use of repeated melodic pattern.

Table 21
ANOVA Table lbr Repeated Melodic Pattern

 

DF SS
Treatment Category 3 835.938
Aptitude Category 1 15. 702
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 675.432
Residual 56 9916.696

MS
278.646
15.702
225.144
177.084

1.574
.089
1.271

 

*p<.05

86

Devel i m R ult
The judges rated each compositional product for use of developed melodic
pattern. Developed melodic pattern was defined as a melodic pattern that was similar
to, yet different from, a previously occurring melodic pattern. In most cases, the
rhythm is held the same, the melody changes, and the melodic contour is similar
(Kratus, 1994b). Figures 7 and 8 show representative compositional products that

received high and low ratings for developed melodic pattern.

 

Figure 7. Compositonal product rated high for developed melodic pattern.

 

Figure 8. Compositional product rated low for developed melodic pattern.

The mean was 10, and the standard deviation was 9. 34 for developed melodic
pattern. Table 22 shows the ANOVA for developed melodic pattern. There were no

significant differences for the use of developed melodic pattern.

87
Table 22

AWVA Table lbr Developed Melodic Pattern

 

 

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 188.914 62.971 .689
Aptitude Category 1 31.989 31.989 .350
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 149.372 49.791 .545
Residual 56 5119.464 91.419
* p < .05
R Rh thmi P rn R 1

The judges rated each compositional product for use of repeated rhythmic
pattern. Repeated rhythmic pattern was defined as a rhythmic pattern that was identical
to a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. Figures 9 and 10 show representative
compositional products that received high and low ratings for repeated rhythmic

patterns.

 

Figure 9. Compositional product rated high for repeated rhythmic pattern.

88

 

Figure 10. Compositional product rated low for repeated rhythmic pattern.

The mean and standard deviation for repeated rhythmic pattern was 19 and
12.02, respectively. A significant interaction (Table 23) was found between treatment
groups and aptitude for use of repeated rhythmic pattern.

Table 23
AWVA Table for Repeated Rhythmic Pattern

 

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 780.788 260.263 2.127
Aptitude Category 1 72.669 72.669 .594
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 1196.066 398.689 3258*
Residual 56 6853.610 122.386

 

*p <.05

Post-hoc analysis revealed the following: .

1. Students with high aptitude in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities and low aptitude students in the class that received both
repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly
more repeated rhythmic patterns than students in the control group.

2. Low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly more repeated

89

rhythmic patterns than the low aptitude students who received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities.

3. High aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities used significantly more repeated rhythmic patterns than
high aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional
opportunities and pattern instruction, low aptitude students who received repeated
keyboard compositional opportunities, and low aptitude students who received pattern
instruction.

4. High and low aptitude students in the class that received pattern instruction
used significantly more repeated rhythmic patterns than high aptitude students in the
control group (see Table 24).

90
Table 24

Cell line Chart ibr Repeated Rhythmic Pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

4o . . l . a . a .
as- _
30- _
d I
g” 25q _
20' .-
15‘ -
10" 1-
4 I

5 ' V ‘7 . f v T f

I -' :1: ..1 :1: .1 :1: .1

g Q :1" x" a: a." o o

TreatmentGroup
p < .05

Abte: KP = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

91
W
The judges rated each compositional product for use of developed rhythmic

pattern. Developed rhythmic pattern was defined as a rhythmic pattern that was similar
to, yet different flour, a previously occurring rhythmic pattern. In most cases, the
melody is the same or similar and the rhythm changes (Kratus, 1994b). Figures 11 and
12 show representative compositional products that received high and low ratings for

developed rhythmic pattern.

    

0-

Figure l l. Compositional product rated high for developed rhythmic pattern.

 

Figure 12. Compositional product rated low for developed rhythmic pattern.

The mean was 3.44, and the standard deviation was 4.79 for developed rhythmic
pattern. Table 25 shows the ANOVA for developed rhythmic pattern. There were no
significant differences for deve10ped rhythmic pattern.

92
Table 25

AADVA lbr Deteloped Rhythmic Pattern

 

DF SS
Treatment Category 3 49. 660
Aptitude Category 1 .152
. Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 120.973
Residual 56 1251.161

MS
16.553
. 152
40.324
22.342

.741
6. 803E-3
1 . 805

 

*p<.05

Replicatien Results
Figures 13 and 14 show representative compositional products that were rated

high and low for replication.

 

Figure 13. Compositional product rated high for replication.
(A = first performance; B = second performance)

93

 

0

Figure 14. Compositional product rated low for replication.
(A = first performance; B = second performance)

94

The mean and standard deviation for replication was 4. 67 and 1.67,
respectively. There was a significant interaction (Table 26) between treatment and

aptitude for students' ability to replicate their finished product.

 

 

Table 26
AAUVA Table for Replication

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 24.848 8.283 3.896*
Aptitude Category 1 13.252 13.252 6.233*
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 23.462 7.821 3.679*
Residual 56 119.055 2.126
* p < .05

Because there were significant interactions, it is innapropriate to discuss the main

effects individually. Post-hoe analysis revealed the following:

1. The high aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities and pattern instruction were significantly more able to
replicate their finished product than the high aptitude students in the class that received
pattern instruction.

2. The low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities were significantly less able to replicate their finished
product than all other groups (see Table 27).

95

Table 27
Cell Line Chart for Replication

Grouping Variables: Treatment Ca tcgory and Aptitude Category

 

 

6.5 I l l l I l I l
1

6'1
5.5:
5.1

4.5 "

I I j I' V ‘ U I 1 ' '

4-
1
3.5“
at
3-

2.5 “

Rating

 

 

 

I
x‘

P,H‘

K,L-
P,L.
C,H'
C,L<

KP,H‘
KP, L.

Treatment Group

 

*p< .05

Abte: KP = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

96
Rangeit‘m—ults

There was a significant interaction for range between treatment and aptitude (see
Table 28).

 

 

Table 28
ANOVA Table for Range

DF 88 MS F
Treatment Category 3 328.026 109.342 2.492
Aptitude Category 1 48.515 48.515 1.106
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 736.500 245.500 5595*
Residuals 56 2413.155 43.876
* p < .05

Post-hoe analysis revealed the following:

1. The low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities and pattern instruction and the high aptitude students in the
class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities used a significantly
narrower range than all other groups.

2. The high aptitude students in the control group used a significantly narrower
range than low aptitude students who received repeated keyboard compositional
opportunities, low aptitude students in the control group, and high aptitude students
who received pattern instruction.

3. The high aptitude students in the repeated keyboard compositional activities
and pattern instruction used a significantly narrower range than low aptitude students in

the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities (see Table 29).

97
Table 29

Cell line Chart for Range
Grouping Variables: Treatment Category, Aptitude Categozy

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 I I I I A L I L
24+ -
22‘ ..
q . D
20" .-
. . , L
18‘ -
o h
on 4 ..
5 16 I O p
14- ' -
d . p
12" ..
10: Q '
a- ‘- .

6 ' ' T— I v j r

I .1 I .1 I ..l I ...l

a." a" x’ x“ a: a: o o’

x x
TreatmentGroup
*p < .05

Note: KP = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern
instruction; K = class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities; P =
class that received pattern instruction; C = control group.

98

Len f m si 'onal Produc Resul
The mean and standard deviation for length of compositional product was 27. 78
and 38.83, respectively. No significant differences were found for the length of the
compositional product (see Table 30).

Table 30
AAOVA for Length of Coupositional Product

 

 

DF SS MS F
Treatment Category 3 6320. 859 2106.953 .2401
Aptitude Category 1 29.040 .020 .8883
Treat. Cat. x Apt. Cat. 3 6672.308 2224.103 1.524
Residual 55 80282.994 1459.691
* p < .05
ct In tion

Three explanations for the results of the study that were discussed in the process
interpretations also apply to product interpretations. First, if the treatment period had
been longer, the results of the study might have been different. Twelve weeks was
enough time to find significant differences, but if more time had been possible, this
study might have shown different results for both process and product. Second, the
aptitude measure was found to have low reliability when used with this sample; it is
diffith to find significance with low reliabilities. Third, some of the students in this
study may not have been out of tonal babble, rhythm babble, or both. Students who
are still in tonal babble cannot hear the relationships among the sounds they make and
cannot use tonal patterns syntactically. Students who are still in rhythm babble cannot
keep a consistent tempo and cannot use rhythm patterns syntactically. In both cases,
the compositional product would be affected. Therefore, the results in this study might
have been different if the treatment period had been longer so that students had had the

99

opportunity to emerge from tonal or rhythm babble before beginning pattern
instruction.

N 0 significant differences were found for metric cohesiveness. Significance
may have been found if students in the pattern instruction class had been provided time
for pattern instruction on the keyboards. Two of the four groups had extensive
keyboard experience as a result of the trcatment, whereas two groups did not. This
keyboard experience prior to the final composing period may have affected the results.
There is also the possibility that those students who were not out of rhythmic babble
were unable to produce a metrically cohesive songs, thus obscuring results. Also,
using keyboards may have made children focus on tonal rather than rhythmic elements
of their songs because it is visually reinforced. This was reflected by tonal ratings that,
in general, were higher than rhythm ratings in this study. Perhaps if students had sung
rather than played their songs, tonal and rhythmic elements might have received an
equal focus.

No significant differences were found for the length of the compositional
product. Perhaps this was due to the requirement that students replicate the finished
product at the end of the composing period. The students, in general, seemed to create
compositional products of similar length, regardless of the length of their composing
process. It is possible that the lengths of the finished products did not vary
significantly between groups because of the requirement of replication. Students
created short compositional products so that they could memorize and replicate their
pieces.

Additionally, no significant differences were found for developed melodic
pattern, repeated rhythmic pattern, and developed rhythmic pattern. Several reasons
might explain this. First, these three components of pattern use had the lowest
interjudge reliabilities, making it difficult to find significance. Second, there is

concern that the technique to investigate pattern use was not effective for young

100

composers. Students at this age can produce compositions that repeat and develop
rhythmic and melodic patterns. However, it is possible that the students in this study
produced songs that were not long enough to exhibit all of the components of pattem-
analysis used in this study. Songs may have concentrated only on one of the four
pattern-analysis components. Therefore, it would be difficult to find significance for
one component when all four individually can produce a cohesive song. Third, judges
may not have clearly understood the definitions and perceptions of developed melodic
patterns and developed rhythmic patterns, which may have contributed to the low
interjudge reliability.

There were significant interactions between treatment and aptitude for tonal
cohesiveness, repcated rhythmic pattern, replication, and range. In respect to tonal
cohesiveness, the high aptitude students in the class that received repcated keyboard
composing opportunities used significantly more tonal cohesiveness than the low
aptitude students from the same class. It is possible that the high aptitude students used
more tonal cohesiveness because of their high aptitude. Perhaps high aptitude students
were able to bring a vocabulary of tonal patterns and an understanding of syntax that
they had taught themselves to the experience, whereas the students with low aptitudes
needed to be formally taught a vocabulary and syntax because they were unable to
teach themselves informally. The high aptitude students in the pattern instruction group
composed songs that were significantly less tonally cohesive than the class that received
repeated keyboard composing opportunities and pattern instruction; the high aptitude
students in the repeated keyboard composing opportunities class. It is possible that
these findings were a Type 1 Errors.

The same reason might also explain why there was a significant difference
between high and low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
composing opportunities for repcated rhythmic patterns. One would expect, therefore,

that the high aptitude students in the control group would use significantly more

101

repeated rhythmic patterns than the low aptitude students in the control group.
However, results showed that both high and low aptitude students in the control group
used little repeated rhythmic patterns.

The low aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
opportunities to compose were significantly less able to replicate their finished product
than any other group. This may be because these students had deficient rhythm and
tonal vocabularies, and they received no guidance during their composing sessions. It
is possible that these students need guidance in order to be more successful composers.

The results for range were so random that it was difficult to glean any clear

interpretations.

 

CHAPTERV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary

Pumse and Problems

The purpose of the study was to gain more information about children' s

composing processes and products so that it could be used to improve and facilitate the

inclusion of creative activities in music education. The problems of the study were as

follows:

1.

To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on the processes of
fourth-grade children' s composing. Specifically, how long does it take
for children to compose a song and how much time is spent in
exploration, development, repetition, and silence during their
compositional processes?

To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on the tonal
cohesiveness and metric cohesiveness of fourth-grade children' s
compositions.

To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on the melodic and
rhythmic pattern-use in fourth-grade children' s compositions.

To detemrine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on the
extensiveness (range and length) of fourth-grade children's compositions.

To determine the effect of instruction and music aptitude on the ability of
fourth-grade children to replicate their finished compositional product.

102

103
Design and Angysis

Eighty-eight fourth-grade students (four, intact classes), from a public
elementary school participated in the study. The students received a total of twelve
weeks of instruction; each week included two 30—minute classes. All classes were
taught by the researcher.

Each class received a different type of instruction during the 12-week treatment
period. The treatments were as follows: (a) repeated unguided opportunities to
compose on electronic keyboards and tonal and rhythm pattern instruction, (b) repeated
unguided opportunities to compose on electronic keyboards, (c) tonal and rhythm
pattern instruction, and (d) traditional music instruction (control group). Keyboard
composition and pattern instruction experiences were provided to the respective
trcatment groups during each class period.

During the first week of instruction all students were administered Gordon' s
Intermediate Measure ofMirsic Audiation (IMMA). The test was used to measure the
musical aptitude of each student.

Within a week following the completion of instruction, each student met with
the researcher for a lO—minute composing session. At the end of the composing period,
the students were asked to play their finished product two times. The composing
session and the finished product performances were audio-taped and used for data
analysis. Students who had received one ycar or more of private piano instruction did
not participate in the final 10-minute composing session. Of the 88 fourth-grade
students, 24 were not included because of their piano background. Therefore, the
number of students included in the data analysis was 64.

Two independent judges were used to analyze the compositional process.
They listened to each student's composing session and labeled every five-second
interval as one of four processes: exploration, development, repetition, or silence.

Each category was totaled and averaged to represent the total amount of time spent in

104

each activity. The researcher analyzed each composing period for the length of time
students used to compose a song.

Two independent judges analyzed the compositional product. They listened to
each student' 3 product and rated it for melodic cohesiveness, metric cohesiveness, and
replication using a seven-point Likert-type scale. The use of rhythmic and melodic
patterns in the song were also evaluated by the two judges. The means of the two
judges' ratings were used for analysis. The composed song's extensiveness (range and

length) was measured by the researcher because it did not require subjective rating.

ms

The corrected split-halves reliabilities for IMMA were low compared to the
norms sample reported by Gordon (1986). The mcans and standard deviations were
also lower and smaller than the means and standard deviations from Gordon' s norms
sample.

Interjudge reliability between the process judges ranged between .90 and .99.
A two-way analysis of variance (treatment by levels of music aptitude) was used to
answer the problems of this study. The group that received repeated keyboard
composing opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly less exploration than
any other group. The class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities
and pattern instruction as well as the class that received pattern instruction, used
significantly more development than the control group. The pattern instruction group
used significantly more repetition than the control group or the group that received
repeated keyboard composing opportunities. No significant differences were found in
the trcatment category for silence. Additionally, no significant differences were found
for aptitude as it related to the compositional process. Significance was found for
treatment category for length of compositional process. The group that received

pattern instruction used significantly more time to compose than any other group.

105

No significance was found for metric cohesiveness, developed rhythmic pattern,
repeated melodic pattern, developed melodic pattern, or length of finished product.

Significant interactions were found for tonal cohesiveness. The low aptitude
students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities
produced significantly less tonally cohesive songs than any other group. The students
in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and pattern
instruction and the high aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities produced significantly more tonally cohesive songs than the
high aptitude students in the pattern instruction group.

There was also a significant interaction for replication. The low aptitude
students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities were
significantly less able to replicate their songs than any other group. The high aptitude
students in the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and
pattern instruction could replicate their songs significantly better than the high aptitude
students in the pattern instruction class.

A significant interaction was found for repeated rhythmic patterns. Students
with high aptitude in the class that received repcated keyboard compositional
opportunities and low aptitude students in the class that received both repcated
keyboard opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly more repeated
rhythmic patterns than the students in the control group. Low aptitude students in the
class that received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern instruction
used significantly more repcated rhythmic patterns than the low aptitude students who
received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities. High aptitude students in the
class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities used significantly
more repcated rhythmic patterns than high aptitude students in the class that received
repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and pattern instruction, low aptitude
students who received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities, and the low

106

aptitude students who received pattern instruction. High and low aptitude students in
the class that received pattern instruction used significantly more repeated rhythmic
patterns than the high aptitude students in the control group.

There was also a significant interaction for range. The low aptitude students in
the class that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and pattern
instruction and the high aptitude students in the class that received repeated keyboard
compositional opportunities used a significantly narrower range than all other groups.
The high aptitude students in the control group used a significantly narrower range than
low aptitude students who received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities, low
aptitude students in the control group, and high aptitude students who received pattern
instruction. The high aptitude students in the class that received repcated keyboard
compositional opportunities and pattern instruction used a narrower range than low
aptitude students in the class that received repcated keyboard compositional

opportunities.
Conclusions

m r n 3

Results of the process analysis from this study suggest that the most effective
instruction is repeated keyboard compositional activities combined with pattern
instruction. Previous studies ( Hedden, 1992; Kratus, 1989) have reported that the
most effective compositional products result when less time is spent in exploration and
more time is spent in development and repetition. The group that received repeated
compositional keyboard opportunities and pattern instruction used significantly less
exploration than any of the other groups. Additionally, the treatment groups that
received repeated keyboard compositional activities and pattern instruction and the class

that received pattern instruction both used significantly more development than the

107

control group. It appcars that pattern instruction provided students with the necessary
tools with which to compose; students were able to transfer formal pattern instruction
to the composing process. Therefore, pattern instruction alone seems to have a positive
effect on the composing process, but not as positive an effect as when combined with
repeated composing opportunities. The pattern instruction students may have used
more development and more repetition than the control group and the group that
received repeated keyboard opportunities because of improved audiation skills resulting
from the pattern instruction.

This study supports the work of Hoffman, Hedden, and Mims (1991) who
found that their subjects who had received improvisatory and creative activities since
kindergarten used less exploration than the subjects in Kratus' (1989) study, who had
no previous composing opportunities. The fact that the keyboard treatment group in
this study spent over fifty percent of the composing time in exploration, which is more
than all other groups, is particularly interesting in light of the fact that low aptitude
students in that class were less able to produce a tonally cohesive finished product than
any other group.

Data for the length of the compositional period indicate that the
keyboard/pattern treatment group used less time to compose than the pattern treatment
group. However, the pattern treatment group, although the instructional treatment
provided them the necessary tools with which to compose, needed a longer time to
compose because they had never had keyboard composing opportunities and thus
needed to familiarize themselves with the keyboard. It was necessary for them,
therefore, to spend more time in exploration than the keyboard/pattern group.

Aptitude did not affect the composing process of the students in this study.
This conflicts with Kratus (1994b), who found a positive correlation between music
aptitude and the compositional processes of development and repetition and a negative

correlation with exploration. This discrepancy may be explained by the omission of

108

students with prior keyboard experience from this study. Many of those were high
aptitude students. As a result, the means of the aptitude scores used for analysis in this
study were lower and the standard deviation was smaller than those reported in the
IMMA manual, causing low reliabilities. With a criterion measure with low reliability,
it is difficult to find significant differences. It is possible that aptitude would affect the
compositional process when measured more reliably.

m iti 11

Results of product analysis suggest that repeated keyboard compositional
activities combined with pattern instruction may be the most effective way to facilitate
student composing. The subjects in this treatment group (both high and low aptitude)
produced significantly more tonally cohesive compositions than the high aptitude
students in the pattern instruction group. Furthermore, the high aptitude subjects in the
keyboard/pattern group used significantly more repeated rhythmic patterns than high
aptitude students in the control group. It appears that pattern instruction, combined
with keyboard composing opportunities, has the strongest effect on high aptitude
students.

It is interesting to note that the low aptitude students in the class that received
repeated keyboard opportunites used a wide range for their songs, produced the least
tonally cohesive songs, and were significantly less able to replicate their songs than any
other group. These data strongly suggest that unguided repeated opportunities to
compose are less effective than what occurs in a traditional general music classroom for
low aptitude students. The time spent during keyboard compositional opportunities
takes valuable time away from regular classroom instruction, which seems to be more
effective for low aptitude students than unguided compositional opportunities.

Reinhardt (1990) found that students who had received repeated opportunities to

compose were better able to replicate their songs. Her results contrast with those of

109

this study, which found that low aptitude students who were given repeated
opportunities to compose on a keyboard were less able to replicate their songs than any
other group. Reinhardt did not measure her subjects' music aptitude, and although no
significance was found for aptitude in this study, it is possible that aptitude does affect
students' ability to replicate their compositional product in certain settings.

Significant interactions were found in several of the product rating categories,
indicating that aptitude, when combined with an instructional treatment, affects the
compositional product. In this study, the effects of the interactions between aptitude
and treatment are so confounding that it is difficult to reach any definitive conclusions

or practical implications, particularly in respect to the range of the final composition.

lmpligtigns

Several implications about the compositional processes and products of fourth-
grade children can be reached as a result of the present study. Instructional treatment
can affect the compositional processes of children. Tcachers should provide repeated
keyboard compositional opportunities combined with pattern instruction in order to
enable fourth-grade children to use their composing time more productively. This will
also help students efficiently explore and formulate melodic and rhythmic material and
spend more time developing and repeating their compositional ideas. Pattern
instruction combined with repeated keyboard compositional opportunities appears to
have provided the subjects in this study musical tools with which to create.

If keyboards are not available for classroom instruction, teachers should
consider pattern instruction as a possibility to facilitate student composing. In this
study, pattern instruction alone allowed fourth-grade children to spend more time
developing their keyboard compositional ideas. The pattern instruction group and the
group that received repeated keyboard compositional opportunities and pattern

instruction used more development than the control group. Pattern instruction alone,

110

therefore, appears to have a positive effect on the compositional process, but not as
positive as when combined with repeated composing opportunities.

This study revealed that unguided repeated keyboard compositional opportunites
are less effective than what occurs in a traditional general music classroom for students
with low aptitude. The class that received only repcated keyboard compositional
opportunities showed no significant differences in exploration or development because
they were not provided the necessary tools (pattern instruction) to facilitate musical
development. The low aptitude students in this treatment group also produced
significantly less tonally cohesive songs than any other group, and they were less able
to replicate their songs than any other group. The low aptitude students must be taught
a music vocabulary by rote, because they will not be able to glean it without guidance.
Teachers should be cognizant of the limitations of low aptitude students and take extra
care to see that these students have every opportunity for success.

The many interactions that were found in the analysis of the compositional
product suggest that while instructional treatment alone seemed to effect the
compositional process, it is not the only factor that affects the compositional product.
Although no significant differences for process were found in respect to aptitude, many
interactions occurred in the product analysis, suggesting that aptitude, in conjunction
with instruction, does affect what children compose. Therefore, teachers should
consider the aptitude levels of students when planning compositional instruction for
children.

Recommendations for Future Research
The review of literature in Chapter 2 indicated a recent increase of research
investigating children' s compositional processes and products. Collective data revcal
that there are many factors that can affect composition. The present study has shown

that instructional treatments and aptitude can affect the ways in which children

111

compose, and that instructional treatment in combination with music aptitude can affect
the resulting product. These can now serve as a basis for further curricular and
pedagogical research.

Music education could benefit from another study that replicates this study with
a more reliable aptitude measure. A replication of this study with a reliable aptitude
measure might show different results as they relate to aptitude; this study did not,
perhrms because of low reliability

Music education could benefit from another study that replicates this study with
a longer treatment period. A longer treatment period would allow students to spend
more time with keyboards, and it would allow the students who received pattern
instruction to cover more rhythm and tonal units, possibly showing different results
than what was found in this study. Or, this study could be replicated comparing
students in a school where Gordon' s music learning theory has been well established in
the curriculum with equivalent students in a school without a learning theory-based
curriculum. This would provide possibly more conclusive data showing the effects of
pattern instruction and aptitude on the composing process and product. Because music
learning theory has been identified by MENC as one of six major approaches to music
education, more research is needed to ascertain how pattern insn'uction as a part of
music learning theory affects the creative processes and products of children' s
compositions.

It would also be beneficial to replicate this study with other age-groups.
Comparing data from this study with data from different age-groups would provide
deeper insight on how aptitude and pattern instruction affect children' s compositional
processes and products.

Additionally, more research is needed to investigate how structured
compositional guidance can affect children' s compositional processes and products. If

composition is to become an integral part of music education, more knowledge is

112

needed to improve how music educators should structure and sequence compositional
activities. Teachers must always strive to become more aware of the effects of their
instruction. Learning more about how instructional techniques and approaches affect
musical development will not only improve student learning, but it will also impact
how universities and colleges train prospective teachers.

Continued research in crcativity will enlighten music educators to the profound
effect crcative experiences can have on a child' s musical development. Presently,
creative activities are given superficial recognition as worthy endeavors, and
consequently, as the review of literature indicated in Chapter 2, little creative activity
actually happens.

Education has been moving, and will continue to move, in directions where
critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity are fostered. Music must move in
tandem with the directions of education rather than follow the directions of education.
Children nwd to learn more than just the rules of music; they must become actively

engaged in the creative process in order to enhance musical understanding and reinforce

conceptual thinking.

113

APPENDIX A

Parental Letter and Permission Slip

    

Administration Center

Assistant Superintendent for Instruction: Lee Gerard

Dear Parent:

This is to advise parents of a research project which will soon be conducted
in the Okemos Public Schools that could involve your child. A description of
the project follows. Additional information regarding the project, as well as
a copy of any measuring instrument which might be used , will be available in
the office of your child's school. Please sign either the Consent To Project
Particimtion form or Refusal For Project Particigtion form and return to the
office of your child's school. If you agree to have your child participate in
the research described here but later change your mind, you have the option
of withdrawing your child from the project by signing the Withdrawal From
Project form, which also accompanies the project description, and returning
the signed form promptly to the school principal.

If you have further questions please feel free to contact your school principal
or me.

Sincerely,

Lee Gerard
Assistant Superintendent
for Instruction

LG/mq

113a

CONSENT TO PROJECT PARTICIPATION
Okemos Public Schools

I hereby give my consent to the participation of ‘

~ (Child's name) in the research
project described above. I understand that neither the researcher

and/or his/her approved assistants nor any other group or individual

will use the material gathered in any way that would invade the .

privacy of this child or his/her family. I understand that the rights

of this child with regard to confidentiality will be paramount.

 

 

(Parent7Legal Guardian Signature)

 

(Dare)

 

 

REFUSAL FOR PROJECT PARTICIPATION
Okemos Public Schools

I do not consent to the participation of
(Child's name) in any way in

the research project described above.

 

(Parent/Legal Guardian Signature)

 

(Date)

 

WITHDRAWAL FROM PROJECT

I wish to withdraw my child
from the Project.
I do not want him/her to participate in any way in this project.

 

(Parent/Legal Guardian Signature)

 

(Dare)

    
  
 
 
 
    
  
 

nnmgmsomuMemw
ZSKMmmnmmammm
thmqummgm
MERJOfi
fiM§$NKJ
FAX:517I335-H71

 

114

AAIWPEHNINEXII!
Human Subjects Approval Form
U N I V E R S I T Y
June 1, 1994
To: Warren Henry
5891 Edson t. #4
Haslett, MI 48840
RE: 1R8}: 94-257
TITLE: THE EFFECTS OF PATTERN INSTRUCTION ON THE
CONPOSITIONRL PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS 3? ORIGINAL
COMPOSITIONS OP POURTN GRADE STUDENTS
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY:

APPROVAL.DATE:

l-A,E
06/01/94

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)

review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adv

se that the

rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
protected and methods to obtain informed consent are apprOpriate.
herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision

listed above.

RENBHAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
. the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be and one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e originalt:§proval letter or when a

project is renewed) to seek u a

certification. There is a

maximum of four_such expedit renewals ssible. Investigators
wishing to continue a project beyond tha time need to submit it
o .

again

 

r complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving human
subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal fora. To

0

revise an approved protocol at an

her time during the year,

send your written request to the CRIBS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB I and title. Include.

ins

pnoatsasl

in your request a description of the change and any revised
ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

CRANGBS: Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: {1) problems
e c.) ng uman

(unexpected side effects, comp aints,

involv

subjects or {2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future helpé lease do not hesitate to contact us

at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517)3

Sincerely,

 
 
   

  

vid E. Wright,
UCRIHS Chair

DEW:pjm
cc: Cynthia Taggart Dr

- 171.

115

APPENDIX C
Intermediate Measures of Music Aptitude Test Sheet

 

 

 

no“
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

“:3" [1o
0 o

 

 

1

 

hi) I O ‘ '

 

M

 

 

- it). [ (-:

 

3%
\
.]~o.
Isa

*

2o
o
o
o

h- u...—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q G
e
9 __-_
o}
L?

 

 

Q3
(9
$9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@’®
Lifh
3'0

(__J

. (O;
..: o
i“ ..._

 

q} 6
Lg

 

 

 

9
Q}
Q?
Q
Q.

JQ>
@
\ l
i?

‘L

e - .
\ .

.I.‘
I '.

1
lo

 

 

 

 

 

I '91
o
o

J.

o «3

Ci}

b
919

_ To} o
59

‘2 O

0mm

E

116

APPENDIX D
Rhythm Seating Chart

RHYTHM UNIT 1 SECTION A CRITERION 1

Grade—Techs! Da- Test—

 

Chanuhymm sequence in usual duple using ‘bah
Chantclass patterns in mus! maple using “f'bah

Students chant pm using “bah."

WWW“!!! Chm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

APPENDIX E
Tonal Seating Chart

TONAL UNIT 1 SECTION A CRITERION 1

TC!!—

 

Grade __ Teacher Dab

Sing tonal sequence in D major using “."bum
Sing class patterns in D major using ”."burn

Teacher sings pattern using "."burn
Students sing only first pitch using “."burn

”‘3“ E M

swimmer. cnan

 

 

 

 

Hag;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

APPENDIX F
Tonal Unit 1
I I ll . l S . A
Criterion I: Sing tonal sequence in C major using "bum."
Sing class patterns in C major using ”bum.”
Student Evaluation: Teacher sings pattern using "bum. "
Students sing only first pitch using "bum.”
Major B M D

 

Criterion 2: Sing tonal sequence in C major using "bum. "
Sing class patterns in C major using ”bum.”

Student Evaluation: Teacher sing pattern using "bum. "
Students sing only resting tone using "bum.”

Major E M D

 

Criterion 3: Sing tonal sequence in C major using "bum.”
Sing class patterns in C major using "bum."

Student Evaluation: Teacher sings pattern using ”bum. "
Students sing pattern using "bum.”

Major E M D

 

119

T I ll . l S . E
Criterion I: Sing tonal sequence in C major using ”bum.”
Sing class patterns in C major using "bum.”

Student Evaluation: Teacher sing pattern using "bum."
Students sing only first pitch using "bum.”

Minor E M D

 

Criterion 2: Sing tonal sequence in C minor using "burn."
Sing class patterns in C minor using ”bum."

Student Evaluation: Teacher sings pattern using “bum. "
Students sing only resting tone using "burn.”

Minor E M' D

 

Criterion 3: Sing tonal sequence in C minor using ”burn.
Sing class patterns in C minor using "bum."

Student Evaluation: Teacher sing pattern using "burn. "
Students sing pattern using "bum.“

Minor E M D

 

Rhythm Unit 1 Section A
Criterion 1:

Student Evaluation:

Usual duple

-35 mini-ii

Rhythm Unit 1 Section B
Criterion 1:

Student Evaluation:

Usual triple E

ngW

Rhythm Unit 2 Section A
Criterion 1:

Student Evaluation:

Usual duple

W

120

APPENDIX G
Rhythm Unit 1

Chant rhythm sequence in usual duple using
”bah. "
Chant class patterns in usual duple using ”bah. "

Teacher chants patterns using "bah. "
Students chant patterns using "bah.”

_LD—blnfi _.L_-.L--:.L- i---"

Chant rhythm sequence in usual triple using ”bah."
Chant class patterns in usual triple using "bah."

Teacher chant patterns using "bah.”
Students chant patterns using "bah.”

__qu W534

Chant rhythm sequence in usual duple using

rhythm syllables.
Chant class patterns in usual duple using

rhythm syllables.
Teacher chants patterns using rhythm syllables.

Students name the meter and functions of the
patterns.

.J_fl+ClJ_fi _J_J_+J_.__+{

 

121

Criterion 2: Chant rhythm sequence in usual triple using

rhythm syllables.
Chant class patterns in usual triple using rhythm

syllables.

Student Evaluation: Teacher chants patterns using rhythm syllables.
Students name the meter and functions of the

patterns.

. E M . o D

Usual triple

122

APPENDIX B
Compositional Process Evaluation Sheet

Subject Name Judge

COMPOSlflONAI. PROCESSES
13.-Exploration, D-Developrnent, R-Repetition, S-Silence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:05 __ 2:05 __ 4:05 _ 6:05 _ 8:05 __
0:10 __ 2:10 __ 4:10 __ 6:10 __ 8:10 __
0:15 __ 2:15 __ 4:15 __ 6:15 __ 8:15 _
0:20 __ 2:20 __ 4:20 __ 6:20 __ 8:20 __
0:25 __ 2:25 __ 4:25 _ 6:25 __ 8:25 __
0:30 __ 2:30 __ 4:30 __ 6:30 _' 3:30 _
0:35 __ 2:35 __ 4:35 __ 6:35 __ 8:35 __
0:40 __ 2:40 __ 4:40 __ 6:40 __ 8:40 __
0:45 __ 2:45 __ 4:45 __ 6:45 __ 8:45 __
0:50 __ 2:50 __ 4:50 _ 6:50 __'_ 8:50 __
0:55 __ 2:55 __ 4:55 _ 6:55 __ 8:55 _
1:00 __ 3:00 __ 5:00 _ 7:00 _ 9:00 __
1:05 __ 3:05 __ 5:05 __ 7:05 _ 9:05

1:10 __ 3:10 __ 5:10 __ 7:10 _ 9:10 __
1:15 __ 3:15 __ 5:15 __ 7:15 __ 9:15

1:20 __ 3:20 __ 5:20 _ 7:20 __ 9:20 _‘_
1:25 3:25 _ 5:25 __ 7:25 __ 9:25 __
1:30 _ 3:30 __ 5:30 __ 7:30 __ 9:30 __
1:35 3:35 __ 5:35 __ 7:35 9:35 __
1:40 __ 3:40 __ 5:40 __ 7:40 __ 9:40 __
1:45 __ 3:45 5:45 __ 7:45 9:45 __
1:50 __ 3:50 __ 5:50 __ 7:50 __ 9:50 __
1:55 __ 3:55 . 5:55 __ 7:55 9:55 __
2:00 __ 4:00 _ 6:00 __ 8:00 10:00 __

123

APPENDIX I
Compositional Product Evaluation Sheet

Subject N0. J udge _—
COMPOSITION PRODUCT RATINGS
90mm '
Tonal Cohesiveness ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Metric Cohesiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Z [Q .I. II . E ||

Repeated Melodic Patterns 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Developed Melodic Patterns 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Repeated Rhythmic Pats. O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 7 O 80 90 100 .

DevelopedRhythmicPats. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

124

References

Ainsworth, J. (1970). Research project in creativity in music education. Bulletin of
the Council ibr Research in Mirsic Education, 22, 43-48.

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

Balkin, A. (1990). What is creativity? What is it not? Mirsic Educators Journal,
76(9), 29-32.

Baltzer, S. (1988). A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of
Research in Mirsic Education, 36(4), 232-249.

Bamberger, J. (1977). In search of a tune. In D. Perln'ns & B. Leondar (Eds), The,
W (pp. 284-319). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted
children. In R. J. Stemberg and J. B. Davidson (Eds) Conceptions of
gifledness (pp.388-413). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barron, F., Gaines, R., Lee, D. & Marlow, C. (1973) Problems and pitfalls in the
use of rating schemes to describe visual art. Perceptual and mtor Skills, 37,
523-530.

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

Bennett, S. (1976). The process of musical creation: Interviews with eight
composers. Journal of ksearch in Msic Education, 24(1), 3-13.

Besemer, S. & Treffinger, D. (1981). Analysis of creative products. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.

Borgden, H. E., & Sprecher, T. B. (1964). Criteria of creativity. In I. A. Taylor,
(ed. ), Creativity, progress and potential. New York: McGraw Hill.

125

Bradley, 1. L. ( 1974). Development of aural and visual perception through creative
processes. Journal of Research in Mirsic Education, 22(3), 234-240.

Castaldo, J. (1969). Creativity can end our musical isolationism. Msic Educators
Journal, 56(3), 36—38.

Cleall, C. (1983). Notes toward the clarification of creativity in music education.
Psychology ofllfirsic, 9, 44-47.

Coleman, S. N. (1922). Creatite music lbr children. New York: G.P. Putnam's
Sons.

Colley, A. , Banton, L., & Pither, A. (1992). An expert-novice comparison in
musical composition. Psychology of Msic, 20, 124-137.

Dacey, J. S. (1989). Pcak periods of creative growth across the lifespan. Journal of
Creative Beha vior, 23(4), 224-247.

Davidson, L. (1990). Tools and environments for musical creativity. Msic
Educators Journal, 76(9), 47-51 .

Davidson, L. , & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: The developmental
path of tonal thinking. In J. Sloboda, (Ed.), Generative processes in music:
The psychology of perlbrmance, improvisation and composition (pp. 260-285).
New York: Oxford.

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

DeTurk, M. (1989). Critical and creative musical thinking. In E. Boardman (Ed.),
Dimensions of musical thinking (pp.21-32). Reston, VA: Music Educators
National Conference.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation ofreflectiw
thinking to the educatiw: process. Boston: Heath.

Doig, D. (1941). Crcative music: 1. Music composed for a given text. Journal of
Educational Research, 35, 262-275.

126

Doig, D. (1942a). Creative music: II. Music composed on a given subject. Journal
of Educational Research, 35, 344-355.

Doig, D. (1942b). Creative music: III. Music composed to illustrate given musical
problems. Journal of Educational Research, 36, 241-243.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-I-Iill.

Gordon, E. E. (1976). Tonal and rhythm patterns: An objectiw analysis. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Gordon, B. E. (1986). Primarymeasures of music audiation and intermediate
measures of music audiation, manual. Chicago: G.I.A.

Gordon, E. E. ( 1986a). Manual lbr the primary measures of music audiation and the
intermediate measures of music audiation: Msic aptitude tests for kindergarten
and first, second, third, and fourth grade children. Chicago: G.I.A.

Gordon, B. E. (1993). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns.
Chicago: G.I.A.

Gordon, B. E. & Woods, D. G. (1990). Reiérence handbook ibr using learning
sequence activities fi‘om jump right in: The music curriculum. Chicago:
G.I.A.

Gordon, E. E. & Woods, D. G. (1990). Rhythm register book one fiom jump right
in: The music curriculum. Chicago: G.I.A.

Gordon, B. E. & Woods, D. G. (1990). Tonal register book one than: jump right
in. The music curriculum. Chicago: G.I.A.

Greenhoe, M. (1972). Parameters of crcativity in music education: An exploratory
study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1972). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 38, 1766A.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Crcativity. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479.

Hassler, M. (1991). Crcative musical behavior in adolescence. Canadian Journal of
Research in Music Education, 33, 55-64.

127

Hedden, S. K. (1992, April). Qualitative assessments of children' s compositions.
Paper presented at the Music Educators National Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Henle, M. (1975). Fishing for ideas. American Psychologist, 30 (8), 795-799.

Hickey, M. & Webster, P. (1994). Rating scales and the assessment of children 's
compositions. Unpublished abstract.

Hitz, R. (1987). Crcative problem solving through music activities. Young Children,
42(2), 12-17.

Hoffman, M. K., Hedden, S. K. & Mims, R. (1991, February). Mirsic compositional
processes in children aged seven through nine years. Paper presented at the
Symposium on Research in General Music, The University of Arizona.

Jordan, J. (1989). Rhythm learning sequence. In D. L. Walters & C. C. Taggart
(Eds), Reading in music learning theory (pp. 26—36). Chicago: G.I.A.

Jordan-DeCarbo, J. (1986). A sound-to—symbol approach to learning music. Music
Educators Journal, 72(6), 32-37.

J osuweit, D. (1991). The effects of an audiation-based instrumental music curriculum
upon beginning band students' achievement in music. Dissemdon Abstracts
International, 52, 3213A.

Kratus, J. (1985). The use of melodic and rhythmic motives in the original songs of
children aged five to thirteen. Contributions to Msic Education, 12, 1-8.

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

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

128

Kratus, J. (1991). Characterization of the compositional strategies used by children to
compose a melody. Canadian Journal of Research in Msic Education, 33, 95-
103.

Kratus, J. (1994a). The efléct of composing tempo on the musical characteristics of
children 's conrpositions. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kratus, J. (1994b). Relationships among children’ 3 music audiation and their
compositional processes and products. Journal of lbsearch in Mrsic
Education, 42(2), 1-23.

Kratus, J. ( 1995). The efiéct ofdiflbrent types of melodic materials on children's
musical compositions. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University.

Laycock, R. P. (1993). The relationship of musical experience, musical aptitude, self-
concept, age, and academic achievement to the musical problem solving abilities
of high school students (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2728A.

Levi, R. (19913). Investigating the creativity process: the role of regular musical
composition experiences for the elementary child. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 25(2), 123-136.

Levi, R. (1991b). A field investigation of the composing processes used by second
grade children crcating original language and music pieces (Doctoral
dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 52, 2853A.

Ling, S. J. (1974). Missing: Some of the most exciting crcative moments of life.
Music Educators Journal, 61(3), 40, 93-95.

Lilley, I. M. (Ed.) (1967). Friedrich Froebel: A Selection From His Mitings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

129

Madsen, C. (1977). Creativity and music education: Comparing two methods of
teaching junior high general music. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38,
539A. (University Microfilms No. DDJ77-16809).

Moore, B. R. (1990). The relationship between curriculum and lcamer: Music
composition and learning style. Journal of Research in Msic Education, 38(1),
24-38.

Moorhead, G., & Pond, D. (1978). Mirsic for young children. Santa Barbara, CA:
Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of the Arts. (Original work
published 1941-1951).

Music Educators National Conference (1994). The school music program: A new
vision. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Oherle, E. (1984). A case for creativityin elementary music education. University of
Natal (South Africa): Pietermaritzbury-Durban.

Packard, S. P. (1973). Crcative tempo in children's art production. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 34, 4883-4—A.

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

Pressing, J. (1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In J. Sloboda, (Ed.),
Generative pmcesses in music: The psychology of peribrnrance inrprowlsation,
and composition (pp. 129-178). New York: Oxford.

Regelsld, T. A. (1981). Teaching general music: Action learning ibr middle and
secondary schools. New York: Schirrner.

Reimer, B. (1989). A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Reinhardt, D. A. (1990). The effect of repeated composition experience on the tonal

structure of fifth-grade students' compositions (Doctoral dissertation, Case

130

Western Reserve University, 1991). Dissertation Abstract International, 5],
3663A.

Reitrnan, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought. New York: Wiley Press.

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

Richardson, C.P. (1983). Creativity research in music education: A review. Bulletin
lbr the Council of Research in Music Education, 74, 1-21.

Sessions, R. (1970). Questions about music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Schmidt, C. & Sinor, J. (1986). An investigation of the relationships among music
audiation, musical creativity, and cognitive style. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 34(3), 160-172.

Shehan, P. K. (1986). Major approaches to music education: An account of method.
Mrsic Educators Journal, 72(6), 26—31 .

Shelley, S. J. (1981). Investigating the musical capabilities of young children.
Bulletin ibr the Council of Research in Music Education, 68, 26-34.

Sherman, R.W. (1971). Creativity and the condition of knowing in music. Msic
Educators Journal, 58(2), 18-22.

Swanner, D. (1985). Relationships between musical creativity and selected factors
including personality, motivation, musical aptitude and cognitive intelligence as
measured in third grade children. (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve
University, 1985). Disserfltion Abstracts International, 46, 3646A.

Swanwick, K. , & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A
study of children' s compositions. British Journal of Msic Education, 3, 305-
339.

Torrance, E. P. (1966). Guiding creative mlent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Crcative

Education Foundation.

131

Treffinger, DJ. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 3&1), 15-
19.

Vaughan, M. (1977). Musical creativity: Its cultivation and measurement. Bulletin
for the Council of Research in Music Education, 50, 72-77.

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

Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A. & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem-solving
sldll in the social sciences. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation, I 7. New York: Academic Press.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Walters, D. L. (1989). Skill learning sequence. In D. L. Walters & C. C. Taggart
(Eds). Readings in music learning theory (pp. 12-25).

Webster, P. R. (1987a). Conceptual bases for creative drinking in music. In J .C.
Peery, I.W. Peery, & T.W. Drape (Eds), Mirsic and child development
(pp. 158—174). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Webster, P. R. (1987b). Refinement of a measure of creative thinking in music. In
C. K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett (Eds), Applications ofresearch in music
behavior (pp. 257-271). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Msic Educators Journal, 76(9),
22-28.

Webster, P. (1992). Research on creative thinking in music: The assessment
literature. In Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and
learning (pp. 266-280). 'New York: Schirmer Books.

Wilson, B. (1981). Implications of the Pillsbury Foundation School of Santa Barbara
in Perspective. Bulletin ibr the Council of Research in Mrsic Education, 68,
13-25.

132

Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Relationships among parental involvement, music aptitude,
and musical achievement of instrumental music students. Journal of Research

in ersic Education, M2), 114-125.

V.

MICHIGAN STATE UNI
ll1WINllllWWIIIIINIWU I1 "I
31 29301 4

RRRIES

LIB
WIN
56

 

09 77