Compositional and improvisational processes have been object of research in the cognitive psychology of music (Collins, 2005; Johnson-Laird, 2002; Pressing, 1988; Sloboda, 1985), which sought to develop cognitive computational models of the mental structures and processes of expert musicians. In the field of music education, Amabile's componential model of creativity has been adapted by Hickey (2003) to examine
children's creative musical thinking in composition tasks. Webster (1990, 2002) proposed an exhaustive model of creative thinking process in music (see Figure 2), whereby he defines creative thinking as "the engagement of the mind in the active, structured process of thinking in sound for the purpose of producing some product that is new for the creator" (Webster, 2002, p.26).
Figure 2. Model of creative thinking process in music (Webster, 2002)
The model encompasses a number of dimensions relevant to the process of generating musical ideas. The product intention – the problem-solving context which drives the process – can include composing, improvising, performing, or listening. The thinking process is based on the interplay of divergent and convergent thinking within repeated
cycles of preparation (planning and exploring), time away (incubating ideas), working through (generating, editing and refining ideas), and verification (rehearsing the finalised ideas). The process relies on a set of enabling skills – including musical skills, conceptual understanding, craftsmanship, and aesthetic sensitivity – and enabling conditions – either personal characteristics such as motivation and personality traits, or the external features of the task at hand, the sociocultural context, and (important here) peer influence. The outcome of the process may consist in different creative products, i.e. composition, improvisation, analysis, or mental representations. This model represents a valuable framework for labelling and analysing individual children's creative processes in music and can be adapted to group creative work, too.
Specific aspects of individual children's creative processes in music have been
investigated. Kratus (1989) examined the relative amounts of time that children aged 7, 9, and 11 spent on exploration, development, repetition and silence during the 10-minutes composition process of a song. Significant developmental differences were found,
indicating that older children tended to be more engaged in modifying and reviewing their musical ideas, whereas 7-year-old children's approach to the task predominantly
consisted in an improvisatory exploration of musical elements rather than a convergent movement towards closure. Kratus relates this to children's inability to firmly hold a melody in memory and to employ effective problem-solving strategies, and to their prevalent orientation toward the process rather than the product. DeLorenzo's (1989) field-based study sought to provide insight into the creative music problem-solving processes of sixth-grade students. The qualitative analysis of eight different creative music activities was oriented on an emerging framework of four open-ended categories for observing and describing children's decision-making process, which included perception of the problem structure, search for musical form, sense for musical possibilities, and personal investment. The findings suggested that, firstly, in order to achieve higher levels of creative musicianship students need to gain reflective skills together with practical experiences – 'thinking' alongside 'doing' – and, secondly, that more structured exploratory phases and more guided discussion would help them acquire a better understanding and mastery of their own creative processes.
Burnard and Younker (2002, 2004), based on different data banks of previous research in the UK, Australia and Canada, examined the diverse thought processes and strategies of students between 8 and 21 years old in their individual unassisted approaches to musical composition. They identified and compared different categories of 'composing pathways', i.e. processes of understanding and framing the problem, alternating between divergent
and convergent thinking, generating and evaluating solutions, up to achieving a final outcome. In terms of Wallas's (1926) stages of the creative process, a first category of pathways would display minimal movement between the phases and proceed in a linear fashion from the exploration to the fixation phase. At a higher level of complexity and skill were those processes which were more flexibly regulated and involved an ongoing interplay and frequent feedback loops between the different phases of work. Thus, depending on the students' age, prior musical experiences and extent of formal
instrumental training, a wide range of individual composing pathways can be found, from simplistic and mainly linear-based models to recursive and sophisticated ones.
Wiggins (2007), too, underlines the fact that compositional processes are characterised by a dynamic interaction between different constituent phases. In her own model (see Figure 3 overleaf) she maps the process as starting with some kind of experimentation with respect to the possibilities offered by the sound source, the goal or intention of the music being composed, and, if used, text (or, it may be added, other extra-musical referents). These emerging musical ideas are immediately set into context and organised through repetition, development, evaluation, revision, and rehearsal, based on what Wiggins defines as the composer's 'holistic conception' of the work. Drawing on previous research (Wiggins, 1994), she maintains that in the initial phases of the work the music is somehow envisaged as a whole, in terms of a framework of melodic or rhythmic motivic ideas, or overall mood, affective qualities, and style. The details of the single component parts are, thus, constructed, added or rejected according to this larger global design, which steers the process from the very beginning as a deliberate and conscious plan or as a tacit, partly subconscious image in the mind of the creator. Wiggins (2007) also includes in her model the role of different aspects of the sociocultural context in shaping the compositional process: the musical knowledge acquired in formal or informal settings, the expectations of the audience of adults or peers to which the composition is
addressed, the support of a safe-feeling learning enviroment, the sense of ownership, self-determination and personal agency of children composers, and the social issues arising in collaborative work with peers. In Wiggins' view these features of the
Figure 3. Model of compositional process in music (Wiggins, 2007)
A last, relevant remark on creative musical processes: from a broad cross-cultural perspective, Glover (2000) claims that, given the accelerated global evolution of the last decades in terms of intercultural contacts and hybridisations, "any fixed notion of what composing is has been thoroughly deconstructed as it becomes clear that the processes of making music are as diverse as the musics themselves" (p.3). A pluralist view of what 'composing' may mean in different sociocultural settings is now necessary in order to distinguish the approaches of different musical styles and genres, with regard to the particular kinds of musical processes enacted and to the composer's and the performer's roles. Composing – and for that matter, improvising or any kind of creative music-making process – is not a culturally neutral activity, and creative work in education has to
acknowledge its own situatedness as a cultural practice.