Jonassen (2006, p.44) is critical of educationalists who ‘claim that constructivist solutions should replace behaviourist methods’, though he also argues that effective solutions may be founded on constructivist principles (p.43). Constructivism is not a way of teaching, but a view of learning, and therefore offers no solutions by itself, but may bring to light instances of learning which may benefit from new approaches. We may apply this lens to musical creativity, and see an aspect of musical learning that has hitherto proved troublesome (Shively 2015, p.129). Specialist, as well as generalist, teachers of music report uncertainty on how to teach composition (Winters 2012). The curriculum gives us a framework of
musical devices, and we may direct students to apply these devices, but how do we argue that they have done so creatively? Set against this question, in successive curriculums, is the benchmark of the ‘great [Western] composers’, and the principle of developing a discerning appreciation for their works, ‘to listen with discrimination to the best in the musical canon’ (DfE 2013, p.1). Burnard (2012) refers to ‘myths of creativity’ which disseminate an unrealistic notion of composition:
29 [Musical] creativity is rarely, if ever, a matter of the lone composer, or self,
composing in isolation. Rather, it is a matter of composers working and playing with and with respect to others, intentionally or unintentionally... Creativity is not the product of single individuals, but of social systems making judgements about individuals’ products.
(p.24)
Myths such as the one identified here contribute to an idea of creativity that is wholly
unquantifiable; we might call it inspiration. This is not traditionally viewed as something
which can be taught, but which must emerge from the gifted individual. However, the same
can be said of understanding within the constructivist paradigm (see the start of this chapter,
for example) and yet this is not seen as a scarcely-attainable abstract but rather the very objective of every lesson. When we view musical creativity through the lens of
constructivism,we may see through the veil of myth and observe something which is very
much attainable; even, part of an experiential process.
Burnard’s explanation of compositional process here resembles a social equilibration; collaboration not just in the direct sense, but also in terms of indirect influence – reaction, response, cultural ideas – all of the ways in which our social environment is engaged in a dynamic interplay with our creative efforts. Borgo (2007, p.71) argues that, if we are shaped by our social environment and ‘perceived place’ within it, then ‘all musical encounters… are inherently social, since other listeners are always either present or imagined.’ While we know that musical creativity can be fostered by a vast range of personal, social and cultural
circumstances, research is needed to contribute toward a framework for understanding how this occurs. Previous research provides us with some insight into this field.
A study by Gall and Breeze (2008, p.35) found that students with less musical training were discouraged from contributing to the task when grouped with more experienced
musicians, as they felt ‘less ownership of the final product’ due to the more experienced
students ‘[taking] control of the compositional process.’In such scenarios, the more
experienced students are seen to be skipping the ‘exploratory phase’ of the activity, to the
detriment of its educational value for their less musically-confident peers6. The research
suggests that bridging this gap between students who are inclined and disinclined to
6Research by Odam (2000, p.118) also suggests that more musically-confident pupils tend to find shortcuts
30 experimentation is an important consideration in the design of any resource aimed at
supporting creative-decision making. Also, this may be of particular relevance to the transition between primary and secondary education (key stage 2 to 3) where differences in provision of key stage 2 music education lead to potential disparity in skills and
understanding at the start of key stage 3.
A study on the student interaction with compositional computer programmes by
Scripp, Meyaard and Richardson (1988)found that students with no formal music tuition
were more exploratory in their use of the programme than those who had received musical training. Mellor (2008, p.453) suggests that ‘those participants with musical training
produced responses which ‘fitted’ their self-perception of the ‘musical’ expectations inherent
in the task’thereby diminishing their need to experiment. These findings are further
substantiated in several other studies (Folkstad et al. 1998; Hewitt 2002; 2009; Seddon &
O’Neill 2001; 2003; 2006).A study by Hewitt (2009, pp.19-20) concludes that students with
musical training tend to spend less time in the ‘exploratory phase’ of a music-making activity, and proposes further determining factors: The older children in the study were also less prone to exploration and experimentation (the age range of the group was between 7 and 12 years), as were those who were more familiar with the activity. This suggests that the factors which encourage exploratory musical learning should be further examined.
Researchers have observed a need for case studies which examine the individual experiences of students engaged in the music-making process, to understand how intuition
and personal perspective affects creative decision-making (Hallam in Welch et al. 2004,
p.250; Higgins 1992, p.491; O’Neill in Welch et al. 2004, pp.257-8). Hewitt (2009, p.21)
recommends that there is a need for research which focuses on both the macro- and micro- levels of analysis; that is, the music-making experience of the individual and the wider social process. What is clear from this discussion is that the social environment, be it present or virtual, should be a key consideration in any research into pedagogical creativity and music technology. The value of what teachers and other educational practitioners can bring to this
discussion should not be underestimated; Welch (et al. 2004, p.270) identifies the need for a
‘symbiotic research environment’formed by closer links between researchers and
practitioners and is critical of the ‘ongoing ‘conservative’ influence of music conservatoire curricula… largely untouched by pedagogic innovation’ (p.269; see also Cain 2004, p.220; Savage 2007, p.72).
31