Earlier, it has been claimed that ‘school music’ often fails to offer opportunities for creative music making (e.g. Paynter, 2000; Winters, 2012). The challenges of implementing composing in the classroom are varied. First, many teachers feel uncertain about how to include creative experiences as they were not provided with personal composing experiences while at school or as a part of their teacher education. A teacher’s adopted values, beliefs, awareness, skills and accumulated experiences are known to affect her actions and be a powerful factor in a teacher’s implementation of practices (e.g. Jorgensen, 2008; Sternberg & Kaufman, 2010). Second, the traditional and prevailing emphasis on the Great Musical Works and reference to C-creativity in music education may lead to the undervaluing of one’s capabilities as a musical creator. Third, the timetable may be seen as being congested and the curriculum overcrowded causing difficulties in meeting its varied aims. Fourth, big class sizes, the infrequency of music lessons, and the one-big-room model for music also create conditions that reduce the opportunities for musical creation. Fifth, the contradiction in societal values may also create practical problems. While creativity is in general considered to be a desired outcome of schooling, school is also expected to be based on measurable tasks which are most often seen to reduce creativity, especially when being implemented in criticizing ways (e.g., Uusikylä, 2002). Finally, changing existing working practices – at least from a teacher and school perspective – is difficult and requires a conscious effort (e.g., Jorgensen, 2003; Miettinen, 1990).
Finnish curricular aims – like many curricula worldwide – take into account the student’s previous knowledge, experiences, and interests, and also endeavour to enrich the student’s ability to think conceptually. At its best, a sensitively facilitated collaborative musical creation process may interlace these aims since ‘a natural need’ to know often arises during musicking (e.g., to know how to play and document the collaboratively created tune). However, as Younker (2002) noted over ten years ago, for a long time there has been “little guidance for music education – both in the field and in training – about how to devise, structure, and engage students in appropriate compositional activities” (p. 24). In the Finnish language, there have been very few books and practical materials to support composing in education. Urho and Tenkku’s innovative textbook The green
twittering-machine (1972) was before its time in its support of musical invention and
creation. For a long time, the 1981 book of Musiikin didaktiikka (The didactics of music) by Linnankivi, Tenkku, and Urho was the most commonly used didactic literature for music educators concerning classroom activities including composing. Recently, however, there has been an increase in the available Finnish literature. Some of these publications have targeted teachers and teacher education and have focussed on composing pedagogy (Ojala & Väkevä, 2013) and musical creation and composing in various music education
contexts (Ervasti & al. 2013; Muhonen, 2012). As the 2016 Finnish Core curriculum will emphasize composing as one essential form of music education, materials and training for teachers are needed. Although practical books for guiding creative music sessions for educators may be seen as shackling “recipes” (see Meri, 1998), they may also be seen as stimulating materials which open up new possibilities to be developed.
Recently, however, the literature has increased notably both internationally and in Finland which implies that this area of music education is becoming more active. I will next discuss the approaches on composing within education, dividing them into
explorative, facilitative, and collaborating with peers with minimal guidance approaches. Explorative approaches
Among the first influential contributions in the field of composing in the classroom was the 1973 book Sound and Silence: Classroom projects in creative music by the British composer and music educator John Paynter, and composer, academic and conductor Peter Aston. It introduced a variety of exploration and composition projects that emphasized the creative potential in all of us. Paynter and Aston highlighted the importance of allowing children to explore sounds and make their own decisions instead of concentrating on learning to play instruments and teacher directed performances. In a similar vein, in
The dance and the drum: Integrated projects in music, dance and drama for schools
Paynter and Paynter (1974) presented their comprehensive view of artistic learning that emphasized holistic artistic experiences. Similarly, Keith Swanwick (1979) emphasized an integrated approach to musical activities for all children, which involved the combination of composition, performance and structured listening supplemented by literature studies and the acquisition of technical skills. Swanwick (1979) introduced the mnemonic, C(L)A(S)P, which stands for Composition, Audition and Performance, with (Literature) and (Skills) in supporting roles. The contributions from Paynter, Aston and Swanwick approaches influenced new syllabi and curricula in Britain and attracted huge interest in many other countries (Green, 2002, p. 136–137).62
62 Important contributions that worked to get musical creation to the centre of the curricula in England are also seen the work of Peter Maxwell Davies and George Self. In the USA the Manhattenville Project was important for curricula development. (see Schafer, 1975, p. 3).
Another pioneer of composing and creating in the classroom is Canadian composer, music educator, writer and environmentalist R. Murray Schafer. In his books, The composer
in the classroom (1965) and The rhinoceros in the classroom (1975), Schafer described the
creative approaches he implement in his classrooms.63 These books include examples of sound exploration, students’ invented notation, and throwing oneself into experimentation and improvisation. He emphasized experiential learning stating that “too often teaching is answering questions which nobody asks” (Schafer, 1975, p. 6),64 and argued that the right time to introduce the skills required to play an instrument or read notation, for instance, is whenever the learner asks. Schafer (1975) explains that “The best thing any teacher can do is to plant the spark of a subject in the minds of his students, so that it may grow, even if the growth takes unpredictable forms.” (p. 6). His explorative approaches and pedagogy were progressive in their inclusion of group-learning and learner-centred methods. On the other hand his explicit advancement of contemporary Western art music while ignoring popular culture could be seen as conservative (Green, 2002, p. 136).
The explorative approach can also be seen in Rena Upitis’ book This too is music (1990). Upitis describes transforming a music classroom into a ‘musical playground’ that included for instance an area for building new instruments. The ‘musical playground’ provided a space and time for children to play and invent, and she held regular recess concerts for them to perform their work.
Facilitative approaches
In many of the facilitative approaches (e.g., Muhonen, 2010b; VYC, 2012; Wiggins, 2011) the children and their ideas are carefully listened to and respected. The children are not pushed to compose nor are they expected to have earlier music or composition studies. In turn, the composing processes are sensitively nurtured in ways that everyone may succeed. One example of a this approach is the children’s composing workshop called Very Young Composers where, from the beginning, all participants are treated equally and viewed as creative contributors (VYC, 2012, see also Sintonen, 2012). VYC is led by composer Jon Deak, who has developed this method for encouraging children to create their own compositions for orchestra with his colleagues in the New York Philharmonic Orchestra. This method is based on three principles. First, the child contains creativity, which can 63 Schafer is also known for his concern for acoustic ecology (e.g. World Soundscape Project, and the book The Tuning of the World).
64 Interestingly, research concerning children’s musical creativity was not published in English until the 1970s (see, Sundin, 1997, p. 49). However, there are reports of composing activities in Pillsbury Foundations School in California in the 1940s which have become known to others much later and which involve the only known longitudinal study of spontaneous expressions of musicality of preschool children and music-making of young children from that period (see Sundin, 1997, p. 49).
revitalize the repertoire of both orchestral and general concert music. Second, children’s creations are taken seriously. Third, the teaching artist is a facilitator who acts as a creative conduit or catalyst and provides an essential link for realizing the child’s compositional vision. Similar principles to these three apply also in classroom context (e.g. Muhonen, 2010b; Wiggins, 2011).
In her books, Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching (1990) and Teaching
for musical understanding (2001), Jackie Wiggins provides examples from classrooms,
and presents techniques for teacher-guided composition, small group composition, and individual composition. Her approach involves teaching children skills to compose with limited teacher guidance, emphasizing a view whereby the teacher steps out of the centre and guides, not directs, her students to develop their own appreciation and understanding of music. Similarly, Upitis’ (1992), Can I play you my song? The compositions and invented
notations of children, explores songs and instrumental music composed by young children
as well as the children’s use of emergent music notation. Upitis links composing to the ‘whole language’ approach making parallels with literacy development. These holistic and linguistic perspectives are also emphasized in songcrafting (Muhonen, 2014). Glover’s (2000) practical book Children composing 4–14 importantly introduced some possibilities for organizing and teaching composing in schools. Another author, Clennon (2009), developed a composition resource for primary school teachers that aimed at encouraging student participation and ownership. Importantly, in Facilitating musical composition as
“contract learning” in the classroom Clennon discusses the creative tensions that may
arise from the sometimes conflicting approaches of “instruction” and “facilitation”. In short, the former refers to transmitting knowledge, while the latter refers enabling taking responsibility for one’s learning. 65
A facilitative approach that also involves teaching is also taken in Kaschub and Smith’s (2009) book Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking, in which the authors stress the vital role that composition must play in music education and provide practical and theoretical viewpoints for its implementation in various contexts. Kaschub and Smith’s later book Composing our future (2013), provides teachers and teacher educators with tools for including composition in school practices and in music teacher preparation. It also features examples of practices that have been successful.
Hickey’s (2012) Music outside the lines: Ideas for composing in K–12 music classrooms proposes a practical way of implementing composition. Hickey argues that introducing composition to music programs is not as challenging as is often thought. She believes that even without formal composition training, teachers have the skills to show students how to compose exciting and interesting music. The book includes a curricular model for teaching composition with activities for beginning, intermediate, and advanced students. In their book Teaching music creatively Burnard at al. (2013) discuss for instance issues of musical play, group improvisations, composing, and exploring new media in the primary school context. Other recent writings also include Freedman’s (2013) Teaching music
through composition that provides tools for a curriculum that also utilizes technology
in musical composition. Farish (2011), while writing about songwriting in the schools, encourages teachers to draw from popular music practices and outlines practical ways in which teachers may help students improve their craft (e.g. discussing form, understanding sequence, providing space for performing).
Collaborating with peers with minimal guidance
Some approaches emphasize minimal teacher guidance. For instance, in her recent works, Lucy Green has raised the question of formal-informal learning, and learning from the practices of popular and vernacular musicians to transform classroom practice (Green, 2002, 2005, 2008). Her ideas of supporting students’ autonomy as learners and working collaboratively in groups without (or with minimal) instructional guidance from the teacher has initiated fruitful discussions among music educators and researchers (e.g., Allsup, 2008; Karlsen & Väkevä, 2012; Väkevä, 2009). Green has also led the UK project
Musical Futures (2009) that utilizes characteristics of informal music learning methods
adapted to classroom contexts.66
3.3.3 Important research contributions to children’s composing and composing in