As presented earlier, over the last decades musical creation has been woven into the curricula of many countries based in part on the issue that various practitioners and researchers have highlighted the importance of and discussed some of the possibilities for creative approaches and composing in the classrooms. In addition to practical descriptions, 66 In her 2008 book, Music, informal learning and the school: a new classroom pedagogy, Green examines how the pedagogy in the music classrooms could draw upon informal popular music learning practices outside the school. (See also Green, 2010).
a growing amount of research has described and examined the issue of helping students to compose music in classrooms (Barrett, 1996; Burnard, 2000; Burnard & Younker, 2002; DeLorenzo, 1989; Hickey, 2003; Kratus, 1994; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986; Wiggins, 1994 and 2011; Younker, 2000). As the field is rapidly expanding, this section only focuses on some of the earlier research relevant to this inquiry at hand. In general, research on composing in the classroom has mainly concentrated on the products of the creation processes, the individual or collaborative creation processes, and developing such strategies for teaching that could foster creativity while composing (e.g., Burnard & Younker, 2002). What has not been widely examined is the meaning of the creation processes and practices for the students and the teachers years afterwards, and how collaborative composing experiences at school are reflected in relation to student and teacher agency.
Compositional products
Some of the research has focused on examining children’s compositional products (e.g., Barrett, 1996; Davies, 1986, 1992; Loane, 1984; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986). For instance, Davies (1986) discussed the issue of children composing based on more than twenty songs that were composed by children between the ages of three and thirteen. The songs were usually created by first inventing the words and then repeating them rhythmically until a song emerged and became stable. Many of Davies’ composers based their songs on material they already knew. Davies argued that rich musical experiences helped the children compose. He emphasized the need for the teacher to be open-minded in composing processes and avoid the direct teaching approach. Davies’ suggestions are similar to songcrating both in overall facilitative, not directive approach, as well its age group (in songcrating students were 7 to 12 years old). In turn, Swanwick and Tillman (1986) analyzed a large amount of songs. Based upon their examination of over seven hundred children’s compositions, they present an eight-model spiral of children’s musical development that can be seen to potentially benefit music teaching.
Compositional processes and practices
Compositional processes and practices have also been of interest to researchers (Barrett, 2003; Bunting, 1987, 1988; Burnard, 2000; DeLorenzo, 1989; Folkestad, 1998; Folkestad & al, 1998; Kratus, 1989; Marsh, 1995; Muhonen, 2014; Wiggins, 1994, 2011; Younker, 2000 ). Bunting (1987, 1988) examined the teaching of composition through longterm case studies that concentrated on students’ work over two and three term time-spans. Bunting’s studies highlighted how students’ compositional practices, skills, and understandings developed through interactions with a teacher. Glover (2000, p. 17) stated that Bunting’s work brought “a new level of seriousness to the treatment of children’s composing, becoming
a widespread force in the main school curriculum.” In turn, Burnard and Younker (2002) analyzed how individual students encountered composition and the role creativity played as students composed by re-examining students’ individual engagement and reflection on composition. In his case study, situated in a music technology lab, Ruthmann (2008) drew on observation and interview data focusing on the nature of feedback and compositional intent using soundtrack composing. He analyses both the lived experiences of a teacher and a student with her peers and discusses the issues of feedback and valuing and responding to the student’s musical agency and compositional intent. Importantly, Ruthmann brought forth the complex interplay among teacher feedback, learner agency and student’s compositional intent and highlighted the need to design composing experiences in more inclusive ways.
Researchers have also been looking at how age affects compositional processes. In Finland, Paananen (2006a) has been interested in composing processes and the ‘creativeness’ within them. While researching the keyboard melodic improvisations of six to eleven year old children, she found that age was a significant factor in the development of tonal hierarchy.67 She suggests that the hierarchical structures of tonal music develop sequentially. In contrast, earlier studies by Davies (1992) and Barrett (1996) found structurally organized and varied invented songs already from five-year-old children.68 Sundin’s (1997) results in Sweden also showed that the very young may create versatile material. Thus, although age may be an important determining factor in education, there is a need to be cautious. In North America, Kratus (1989), focused his analysis on the amount of time 7 to 11-year-old children spent exploring, developing, and repeating their musical ideas as they composed. His results suggest that the seven year olds spent significantly more time exploring new material and significantly less time developing and repeating their ideas when compared with the older students. The same study also found that students who were able to repeat their songs the same way twice used significantly more repetition and less exploration while composing than the children who could not replicate their songs.
67 In Paananen’s (2006a) study, six to seven-year-old children generally emphasized the first five tones of the diatonic scale. The tonic triad was prominent in the products of ten to eleven year old children. In the first sub-stage of her development sequence structure, children focused on either melodic-rhythmic surface or deep structures (tonality, metre); in the next sub- stage, surface and deep structures began to coordinate; and in the final sub-stage, they were fully integrated.
68 It is possible that the results also apply to younger children. The researchers did not have any subjects younger than five in their research.
In a later study, Kratus (2013) focused on children’s compositional strategies in relation to their compositional products. The results showed that the students who composed the “most successful songs”69(p. 98) used a variety of exploring, repeating, and developing strategies as they composed. Those who composed the least successful songs were more limited in their use of strategies. Specifically, the “’low-success’ subjects” (p. 98) explored new ideas and repeated individual notes and patterns as they composed, but only rarely did they employ strategies to develop their musical ideas. Kratus (2013) concluded that conducting creativity research and improving creativity pedagogy should be directed “toward how children compose rather than what children compose” (p. 102).
Since the late 1990s, the increasing availability of technology and computer based creative music making in schools has contributed to a change in compositional processes. These processes were first examined, for instance, by Folkestad (1996, 1998) and Hickey (1997), and became a growing trend in music education research (e.g., Nilsson, 2003; Nilsson & Folkestad, 2005). Later, web-based composing and composing using a variety of applications both individually and collaboratively was also examined, as were the varied ways in which people are enabled to compose during their free time both on and offline (Partti, 2009; Partti & Karlsen, 2010; Partti & Westerlund, 2013; Salavuo, 2006; Waldron, 2012, 2013).
Focusing on group composing processes, Burnard and Younker (2008) investigated children’s musical interactions within composing and arranging in groups. A group composing task was given to fifth graders, and a group arranging task to eighth graders. The micro-analysis focused on exploring the social and language processes, and indicated that composing and arranging involve differentiated activity systems. In another study of creative collaboration, Wiggins (2011) focused on a classroom in which scaffolding was made available. She explores the ways in which the teacher may enable the learning processes and discusses scaffolding as a teaching strategy within composition. This approach has similarities to songcrafting because both aim at mediating, supporting, furthering and conceptualizing the process musically for the participants.
69 In Kratus’ (2013) research, sixty children (aged 7, 9, and 11) were asked to compose a melody within ten minutes with an electronic keyboard. The melodies were taped, and two judges listened to them as well as “rated the success of the songs” (p. 95). After this, “another set of three judges” listened and used “observation forms to analyze the 10 highest rated and 10 lowest rated songs” and to describe the ways in which the twenty students had utilized different composing strategies.
Composer’s experiences
Focusing on children’s experiences, Burnard (2006c) found that they composed in different ways, and for the children composing was essentially a “meaning-making activity” (p. 124). Their musical experiences could be seen related to time, body, relations, and space (ibid., p. 126). She concluded that children get great satisfaction out of talking about their composing processes and products. Therefore, she suggests that offering experiences is not sufficient, instead we “need to help them to develop a language for talking about composing and about themselves as composers.” (p. 127). Burnard (2012) argues for the multivoicedness of children as composers when she discusses the notion of musical creativities. By this she refers to the different types of creativities children utilize as composers, and to the different ways in which students ascribe meaning.
Instead of focusing on the experiences of students, Barrett (2006a) examined the complex phenomenon of the teaching and learning of composition. She focused on the beliefs, processes and practices of an eminent composer-teacher when working with a tertiary-level student-composer. In such collaborative configuration the relationship is “inherently imbalanced in terms of experience, power, skills and understanding” (Barrett, 2006a, p. 213). Yet, such collaboration may in John-Steiner’s (2000) words lead to “mutually beneficial collaboration” that may provide “a mirror to an individual, broadening his or her self-knowledge, which is crucial to creativity” (p. 48). Barrett (2006a) results demonstrated that “key elements in any collaborative relationship” are “’joint purpose” including “social and emotional support” (p. 213). These are important elements to take into account also when facilitating composition within music education.