The Routledge Companion to Teaching Music Composition in Schools: International Perspectives [1 ed.] 9781003184317, 9781032026268, 9781032026299

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
CONTENTS
List of figures
List of tables
List of boxes
List of contributors
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1. Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia
2. From composing project to university course: Formal and informal pathways of learning to compose in music classrooms in Austria
3. Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes: Alternative musical pedagogies on Brazilian education
INTERLUDE I: What is composing?
4. Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms
5. Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education in the global age of China
6. The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing in Croatian compulsory schools
INTERLUDE II: Creativity and composing in education
7. Composing in the classroom: The case of the Czech Republic
8. Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland: From musical inventions to cultural participation
9. As for us in France: Why do we call it creation?
INTERLUDE III: Starting points of composing
10. Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages: Between extracurricular projects and school music classes
11. Attending to creative music making and composing in Greek school music curricula: Preliminary findings from a document analysis
12. Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland
INTERLUDE IV: Ways to teach composing
13. Composition pedagogy in Italian schools: A model for teaching music acomposition through processes
14. A sheet of paper considered an instrument: Examining the separation of form and content in creative music education
15. Did you write that song?: Learning composition in the Kenyan secondary school
INTERLUDE V: Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion in teaching composing
16. Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexican schools
17. Music composition as playful activity: Perspectives on teaching composing from the Netherlands
18. Home-grown progressivism: Composing in Aotearoa New Zealand primary and secondary schools
INTERLUDE VI: Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies
19. Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms: Current practice, training, and creative developments (with particular reference to institutions in southern Nigeria)
20. Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school
21. Creativity in the Polish music classroom: Historical perspectives and recent actions
INTERLUDE VII: The role of digital technology in classroom composing
22. Making a difference in the music classroom: The role of music composition in reframing pupils’ attitudes toward music education in a Portuguese classroom context
23. Creativity and composition in South African school curricula
24. Music composition in Spanish schools: Towards student-centred pedagogics
INTERLUDE VIII: Why compose in music education?: Arguments between curricular and extracurricular settings
25. Composition and creative music making in Swedish public schools and other educational settings
26. Composing in schools: A perspective on the multilingual context of Switzerland
27. The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago
INTERLUDE IX: Notation – its place and role in composing pedagogies
28. Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons of Turkish general schools
29. Teaching and assessing composing in english secondary schools: An investigation into music teacher confidence
30. Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England
INTERLUDE X: The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing
31. The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland
32. Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition in higher education: Practices and perspectives from Uganda
33. When creative stars align: Music composition in K–12 schools in the US
34. Situating composition in music education in the United States
Conclusion
Index

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO TEACHING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN SCHOOLS

The Routledge Companion to Teaching Music Composition in Schools: International Perspectives offers a comprehensive overview of teaching composing from a wide range of countries around the world. Addressing the current state of composition pedagogy from primary to secondary school levels and beyond, the volume explores issues, including different curricular and extracurricular settings, cultural aspects of composing, aesthetics, musical creativity, the role of technology, and assessment. With contributors from over 30 countries, this volume encompasses theoretical, historical, empirical, and practical approaches and enables comparisons across different countries and regions. Chapters by experienced educators, composers, and researchers describe in depth the practices taking place in different international locations. Interspersed with these chapters, interludes by the volume editors contextualize and problematize the teaching and learning of composing music. The volume covers a range of contexts, including formal and informal, those where a national curriculum is mandated or where composing is a matter of choice, and a range of types, styles, and genres of musical learning and music-making. Providing a wide-ranging and detailed review of international approaches to incorporating music composition in teaching and learning, this volume will be a useful resource for teachers, music education researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, and all those working with children and young people in composing music. Kirsty Devaney is a composer and music education researcher based in Birmingham, UK. As a composition tutor at Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and founder of the Young Composers Project, Kirsty specialises in composing music with, and for, non-professional and youth groups. Her music has been aired on BBC Radio 3 and shortlisted for a British Composer Award. Martin Fautley is a Professor of Education at Birmingham City University, UK. He researches and writes about various aspects of teaching and learning in music, specializing in creativity and assessment. He is the author of 10 books, as well as over 60 journal articles, book chapters, and academic research papers. Joana Grow is a Professor of Music Education at Hanover University of Music, Drama and Media, Germany. Her areas of teaching and research are music composition, gender and music education, professionalization of student teachers, language-sensitive music education, and teaching music history. Annette Ziegenmeyer is a Professor of Music Education at the University of Luebeck, Germany. Her areas of teaching and research cover a broad range of topics such as music composition in schools and beyond, community music/music in social work, and music education in prisons.

ROUTLEDGE MUSIC COMPANIONS

Routledge Music Companions offer thorough, high-quality surveys and assessments of major topics in the study of music. All entries in each companion are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible, and cutting-edge, these companions are the ideal resource for advanced undergraduates, postgraduate students, and researchers alike. THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MUSIC, TECHNOLOGY, AND EDUCATION Edited by Andrew King, Evangelos Himonides, and S. Alex Ruthmann THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO SOUNDING ART Edited by Marcel Cobussen, Vincent Meelberg, and Barry Truax THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MUSIC AND VISUAL CULTURE Edited by Tim Shephard and Anne Leonard THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MUSIC AND MODERN LITERATURE Edited by Rachael Durkin, Peter Dayan, Axel Englund, and Katharina Clausius THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO ETHICS AND RESEARCH IN ETHNOMUSICOLOGY Edited by Jonathan P.J. Stock and Beverley Diamond THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO CREATIVITIES IN MUSIC EDUCATION Edited by Clint Randles, and Pamela Burnard THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO APPLIED MUSICOLOGY Edited by Chris Dromey THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO TEACHING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Edited by Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO TEACHING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN SCHOOLS International Perspectives

Edited by Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Designed cover image: full permission granted to authors by creator. First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Devaney, Kirsty, editor. | Fautley, Martin, editor. | Grow, Joana, editor. | Ziegenmeyer, Annette, 1976- editor. Title: The Routledge companion to teaching music composition in schools : international perspectives / edited by Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer. Description: [1.] | New York : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Routledge music companions | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023011497 (print) | LCCN 2023011498 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032026268 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032026299 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003184317 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Composition (Music)--Instruction and study. | School music--Instruction and study. | Music in universities and colleges. Classification: LCC MT40 .R78 2023 (print) | LCC MT40 (ebook) | DDC 781.3071--dc23/eng/20230522 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011497 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011498 ISBN: 978-1-032-02626-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-02629-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-18431-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317 Typeset in Sabon by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

CONTENTS

List of figures x List of tables xi xii List of boxes xiii List of contributors Acknowledgementsxx Introduction Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

1

1 Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia James Henry Byrne Humberstone

9

2 From composing project to university course: Formal and informal pathways of learning to compose in music classrooms in Austria Helmut Schmidinger

26

3 Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes: Alternative musical pedagogies on Brazilian education Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

37

INTERLUDE I

What is composing? Annette Ziegenmeyer and Kirsty Devaney

49

4 Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms Benjamin Bolden

55

v

Contents

5 Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education in the global age of China Wai-Chung Ho

64

6 The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing in Croatian compulsory schools Sabina Vidulin

76

INTERLUDE II

Creativity and composing in education Martin Fautley

91

7 Composing in the classroom: The case of the Czech Republic Vít Zouhar 8 Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland: From musical inventions to cultural participation Heidi Partti 9 As for us in France: Why do we call it creation? Margret Stumpfögger

102

114 122

INTERLUDE III

Starting points of composing Joana Grow

135

10 Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages: Between extracurricular projects and school music classes Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

140

11 Attending to creative music making and composing in Greek school music curricula: Preliminary findings from a document analysis Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

155

12 Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

172

INTERLUDE IV

Ways to teach composing Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

vi

185

Contents

13 Composition pedagogy in Italian schools: A model for teaching music composition through processes Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina

194

14 A sheet of paper considered an instrument: Examining the separation of form and content in creative music education Tadahiko Imada

206

15 Did you write that song?: Learning composition in the Kenyan secondary school Emily Akuno

222

INTERLUDE V

Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion in teaching composing Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow 16 Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexican schools Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

233 243

17 Music composition as playful activity: Perspectives on teaching composing from the Netherlands Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

253

18 Home-grown progressivism: Composing in Aotearoa New Zealand primary and secondary schools Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

265

INTERLUDE VI

Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies Martin Fautley 19 Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms: Current practice, training, and creative developments (with particular reference to institutions in southern Nigeria) Christian Onyeji 20 Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes 21 Creativity in the Polish music classroom: Historical perspectives and recent actions Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol vii

281

290 303

317

Contents INTERLUDE VII

The role of digital technology in classroom composing Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes 22 Making a difference in the music classroom: The role of music composition in reframing pupils’ attitudes toward music education in a Portuguese classroom context Ana Luísa Veloso 23 Creativity and composition in South African school curricula Alethea de Villiers

329

337 350

24 Music composition in Spanish schools: Towards student-centred pedagogics363 Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas INTERLUDE VIII

Why compose in music education?: Arguments between curricular and extracurricular settings Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

377

25 Composition and creative music making in Swedish public schools and other educational settings Peter Falthin

383

26 Composing in schools: A perspective on the multilingual context of Switzerland Sabine Chatelain

395

27 The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

409

INTERLUDE IX

Notation – its place and role in composing pedagogies Martin Fautley

421

28 Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons of Turkish general schools Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

429

29 Teaching and assessing composing in english secondary schools: An investigation into music teacher confidence Kirsty Devaney

444

viii

Contents

30 Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England Martin Fautley

452

INTERLUDE X

The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing Martin Fautley

467

31 The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland Angela Jaap

475

32 Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition in higher education: Practices and perspectives from Uganda Lawrence Branco Sekalegga

487

33 When creative stars align: Music composition in K–12 schools in the US Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

498

34 Situating composition in music education in the United States Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

511

Conclusion Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

525

Index

526

ix

FIGURES

1.1 The first notated student rondo group composition 1.2 Students extend their composed rhythmic themes into short melodies by exploring on a xylophone 6.1 Adding new rhythmic pattern 6.2 Composing melody on the rhythmic pattern 6.3 Composing melody based on the music pattern 6.4 Changing the melody 6.5 Metamorfoza [Metamorphosis], individual student’s work 6.6 Ljubav je [Love is], individual student’s work 6.7 Ljeto [Summer], students’ group work (sixth and seventh grade) 6.8 Mala kuća [Little House], students’ group work (seventh and eighth grade) 11.1 Frequencies for creative music making by age/grade level 11.2 Frequencies for creative music making by “Thematic Organizer” 11.3 Comparing collaborative compositional activities by age (percentage of total composition activities) 11.4 Frequencies of creative music making with technology by age/grade level IV.1 Cycle of composing exclusion IV.2 A cyclical approach toward composing teaching through creativity and music theory 13.1 Processes of music composition

x

19 19 82 82 82 82 83 84 84 85 162 165 166 167 186 192 200

TABLES

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 22.1 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.I 32.1

Key themes for the document analysis Frequencies according to age/grade levels Frequencies according to thematic organizers Collaborative activity Technology for creative music making by age Music education in Portugal Composition-related education at bachelor (B) and master (M) level at the different music colleges Creating music as part of curricula in Swiss compulsory schools Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 1–4 Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 5–8 Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 9–12 Distrubiton of Learning Outcomes according to the school levels, and number of composition-oriented learning outcomes Music theory and composition courses offered at Makerere University

xi

160 162 164 165 166 338 391 399 435 436 437 443 490

BOXES

11.1 Examples of improvising aims and activities across age/grade levels 11.2 Examples of composing aims and activities across age/grade levels

xii

163 164

CONTRIBUTORS

Emily Achieng’ Akuno is a Professor of Music of the Technical University of Kenya. Her research interests veer towards cultural relevance in music education. She is the editor and a contributing author of the (2019) Routledge publication Music Education in Africa: Concept, Process and Practice. She is a former president of the International Music Council (IMC) and current President of the International Society for Music Education (ISME) as well as chair of the Music Education Research Group – Kenya (MERG-Kenya). Michele Biasutti PhD, is a Full-Time Professor at Padova University conducting research in music education and psychology regarding online learning, creative collaborative processes, and improvisation. He is the director of research projects and conferences, member of the editorial board of international journals, and author of 8 books and 270 conference papers, impact factor articles, and chapters. Benjamin Bolden, PhD, Music Educator and Composer, is an Associate Professor and UNESCO Chair of Arts and Learning in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University, Canada. As a teacher, Ben has worked with pre-school, elementary, secondary, and university students in Canada, England, and Taiwan. Rubén Carrillo is a Lecturer at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico. His research interests include music literacy, informal music learning, and popular music education. His research work has been published in Revista Electrónica Complutense de Educación Musical, Revista Internacional de Educación Musical, and Revista Portuguesa de Educação Artística. Amalia Casas-Mas is a Full-Time Assistant Professor in Education at Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. She holds a PhD in Psychology and both MMus and MEdPsy. Her research is focused on the different cultures of musical learning, in several universities in Madrid. She is a founding member of the Spanish Society for the Psychology of Music and Musical Interpretation.

xiii

Contributors

Sabine Chatelain, PhD, Associate professor in Music Education, University of Teacher Education, State of Vaud, Lausanne (Switzerland), works as a teacher educator in Music Education with research interest on creative teaching/learning in interdisciplinary contexts, especially music, arts, and languages. She is a founding member of the international CREAT LAB in Lausanne. Smaragda Chrysostomou, PhD, is a Professor of Music Pedagogy and Didactics at the Department of Music Studies, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Her research interests include music teacher education, technology in music education, curriculum, and instruction and integration of the Arts and other subjects. Eleonora Concina is a researcher at the University of Padova, Italy. She has published articles and chapters about music education, the role and characteristics of effective teachers in music education, music teaching strategies with students with Special Educational Needs. Kirsty Devaney, PhD, is a composer and founder of the Young Composers Project at Royal Birmingham Conservatoire. Her music has been aired on BBC Radio 3 and shortlisted for a British Composer Award. She has won awards from the British Education Research Association, and funding from the Society for Research into Higher Education. Rene F.W. Diekstra is an emeritus professor of Youth and Development at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, and of psychology at the University College Roosevelt (UCR) in Middelburg, the Netherlands. He is the director of the Harvard University-UCR programme Excellent Learning through Teaching Excellence and worked for the World Health Organization as programme-manager. Nancy Evans is a Director of Learning for Birmingham Contemporary Music Group (BCMG) where she has worked since 2000. In this role, she created, and continues lead, an ongoing programme of opportunities for young people to compose, perform, and listen to new music, in and out of school. Peter Falthin, Sweden, is a music education researcher with a focus on music composition, improvisation, and music technology. He also teaches those subjects plus ensemble playing, music theory and music for film, and computer-games at upper secondary school and university college. Martin Fautley is a Professor of Education at Birmingham City University, UK. He researches and writes about various aspects of teaching and learning in music, specializing in creativity and assessment. He is the author of 10 books, as well as over 60 journal articles, book chapters, and academic research papers. Heloísa Feichas, PhD in Music Education (London University), is an Assistant Professor at Music School of Federal University of Minas Gerais in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Her main research interests are on Sociology of Music Education and Popular Music Education. She is also a pianist performing mainly Brazilian Popular Music in different ensembles. Priya Gain is a doctoral candidate at the University of Auckland in the School of Māori and Indigenous Education, New Zealand. She is a teaching fellow in music education in the School xiv

Contributors

of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand. She has worked in primary schools as a classroom teacher and music specialist. She is an education facilitator for Orff New Zealand Aotearoa and board member of Music Education New Zealand Aotearoa. Patricia Adelaida Gonzalez-Moreno is a Professor of Music Education at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Mexico. Before earning her PhD from the University of Illinois, she taught general music in basic education for seven years. Her published research includes studies on motivation, creativity, teacher education, knowledge mobilization, and community music. Joana Grow is a Professor of Music Education at Hanover University of Music, Drama and Media, Germany. Her areas of teaching and research are music composition, gender and music education, professionalization of student teachers, language-sensitive music education and teaching music history. Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir, PhD, is a Professor of Music Education at the University of Iceland and Professor II at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. Helga is a Chair of European Network for Music Educators and Researchers of Young Children, and Iceland’s representative in the Nordic Network for Research in Music Education. Maud Hickey is an Associate Professor Emerita of music education in the Bienen School of Music at Northwestern University, in Evanston, IL, USA. She worked at Northwestern University for 22 years where she taught courses in creative thinking, psychology, and educational curriculum and supervised dissertations. Wai-Chung Ho received her PhD in music education from the University College London Institute of Education, and she is now a Professor in the Academy of Music at Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China. Her substantive research interests include the sociology of music, the sociology of education, and China’s music education. Michel Hogenes, PhD, is a principal lecturer at the teacher education programme of The Hague University of Applied Sciences. He leads the Master of Arts Education at Codarts, University of the Arts in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He balances academic work with professional activities, such as being chair of Gehrels Music Education. Nick Hughes is an educator and enthusiastic music technology specialist. He has taught music technology and KS3-5 music at the Robert Smyth Academy since 2003 and is the Head of the Performing Arts Faculty. With a master’s in music technology learning, and research published in the Journal of Music Technology Education, he has presented at many teacher conferences regarding composing using DAWs. James Henry Byrne Humberstone is a senior lecturer at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney, Australia. His teaching covers methods courses and his specialty areas, namely composition and technology in music education. His research spans both creative and traditional outputs in the fields of music education, musicology, and experimental music.

xv

Contributors

Tadahiko Imada is a Professor at Hirosaki University, Japan. His PhD is from the University of British Columbia. Professor Imada is the author of The Music of Philosophy: Music Education and Soundscape, and co-author of A Little Sound Education; The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Music Education and Creativity in Music Education. Dr. Angela Jaap is a lecturer in professional learning at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland where she is responsible for leading teacher education. Angela has extensive experience of teaching in higher education and prior to this taught music in secondary school. Angela’s research interests lie in professional learning and arts education. Nesrin Kalyoncu is a Professor at Music Department of Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University (BAİBÜ) in Turkey. Degrees: Bachelor from Gazi University; Master from BAİBÜ; PhD from Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. She has many publications in the fields of music education and musicology. She was also in the functions of dean in BAİBÜ (2014–2018), EAS Turkey coordinator (2006–2017), EAS board member (2008–2015). Michele Kaschub is a Professor of Music and Director of Music Teacher Education at the University of Southern Maine, Osher School of Music in the United States. Her publications focus on children’s composition and music teacher education. She has appeared at colleges and conferences throughout the United States and abroad. Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol is an Assistant Professor at the Stanislaw Moniuszko Academy of Music in Gdansk, Poland. In January 2022 she was conferred an honors post-doctoral degree in musical arts. She is the author of 1 monograph and over 40 articles and chapters in the field of music education. She is a member of the Editorial Board of two journals (Ljubljana, Split). She was lecturer and workshop leader in many European countries as well as in Israel, Russia and Turkey. She is a board member of European Association for Music in Schools (2009–2013), and EAS National Coordinator. Christian Onyeji is a Professor of music at the Department of Music, University of Nigeria, Nsukka Enugu State, Nigeria. A Nigerian, he holds a Doctor of Music degree from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Christian is an internationally recognized music composer, educator, and scholar specializing in Research-Composition. Sezen Özeke is a professor at Music Education Department at Bursa Uludağ University in Turkey. She received her Master’s and Doctoral degrees in Music Education at Arizona State University, USA. She was the Head of the Fine Arts Education Department at Bursa Uludağ University (2017–2023) and currently serving as a board member of the European Association for Music in Schools (EAS). Heidi Partti, PhD, works as a Professor of Music Education at the University of the Arts Helsinki, Sibelius Academy in Finland. Her articles and book chapters on topics such as musicrelated learning communities, digital technology, collective creativity, and the development of music teacher education have been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals. Renaldo Ramai, born and raised in Trinidad, received a distinction in music composition at the University of Manchester, where he was also awarded the Proctor-Gregg Prize for Excellence

xvi

Contributors

in Music Composition. He has been teaching music for 15 years and composed music for the TV show “Diversification Not Just Talk”. Jan Erik Reknes has worked as a music teacher both in schools and in municipal schools of performing arts. He is a holder of a master’s degree from Western Norway University of Applied Sciences. Currently he is working as a headmaster in a primary school and trumpet player in Bergen, Norway. Gabriel Rusinek, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the College of Education, Complutense University of Madrid. His research has focused on collaborative composition, inclusion in music education, school dropout, audience experience, the history of Spanish music education, and the impact of school music education on society. Helmut Schmidinger, PhD, is a composer and visiting professor for composition and music theory pedagogy at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Graz, Austria. Composing for and with children is a very important subject of his artistic, academic, as well as pedagogical work. Lawrence Branco Sekalegga, PhD, is a Fulbright scholar and a Lecturer of Music at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. In 2017, he earned his PhD in Music Education at Texas Tech University (USA). In 2018, he served as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Music at the University of Utah (USA). Kristoff Silva, PhD in Music education, Lecturer at University of São João Del Rey (Brazil), has been teaching music in different institutions. He researches Brazilian popular songs and acts as a songwriter and composer for drama, dance, and video soundtracks. He has two albums: “Deriva” and “Em Pé No Porto”. Janice Smith is a Professor Emerita of Music Education at the Aaron Copland School of Music, Queens College City University of New York in the United States. Her publications focus on children’s composition and music teacher education. She has appeared conferences and colleges throughout the United States and abroad. Euridiana Silva Souza, PhD in Music education, Lecturer at University of Brasília (Brazil), Post-Doctoral Research at Santa Catarina State University (Brazil), is a researcher on higher music education, decolonialism, and professional development of musicians. She acts in different perspectives on teacher training courses and as a pianist in different ensembles. Margret Stumpfögger is a professional musicienne intervenante. She has realized many creative music projects in French primary schools and trained adults in the corresponding training centre (Centre de Formation de Musiciens Intervenant à l’école) at Université Lumière Lyon 2, in the fields of improvisation, performing and composing (contemporary) music with children. Adam Switala, PhD Candidate and Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Education, University of Iceland. Composer, musician, teacher. Member of the ISME Advocacy Standing Committee. 2018–2020 member of the Editorial Board of the ISME/Routledge book series “Specialist Themes in Music Education”. 2017–2020 Board Member of the Polish Music Council. xvii

Contributors

Vicki Thorpe, PhD, is currently a research and teaching fellow in the School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Previously she was a senior lecturer in Music Education. She began her teaching career as a secondary school music teacher. Angeliki Triantafyllaki (PhD University of Cambridge) is an Associate Professor of Music Education at the University of Ioannina, Greece. Research interests include initial music teacher education, ICT and creative music making in education, musical/professional identities and musicians’ health. Bert van Oers is an emeritus professor in Cultural-Historical Theory of Education (VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences). Since the 1980s, he is involved in the implementation of the Developmental Education Concept. His main research topics are as follows: play, early childhood education, literacy and mathematics education, music education. Ana Luísa Veloso (PhD Aveiro University) is a Portuguese researcher at INET-md. She is working in the areas of musical creativity, music composition and improvisation, experimental music in educational contexts and music, personal and social transformation. She is also a member of the association Sonoscopia where she participates in projects related to music improvisation, contemporary and experimental music, and sound art. Dr. Sabina Vidulin is the Head of the Department of Music Pedagogy and leader of musicalpedagogical courses at the Academy of Music in Pula, Croatia. She is the founder of the International Symposium of Music Pedagogues (SGP) and the International Forum of Music Pedagogy Students. She has authored/co-authored 6 books, 15 book chapters, and about 70 scientific papers. She has been the national coordinator for the European Association for Music in Schools (EAS) and is a member of six international journal editorial boards. Vidulin received the Ivan Filipović State Award and the Croatian Society of Music and Dance Pedagogues Award. Alethea de Villiers is a Professor in Music, at Nelson Mandela University, South Africa. Her teaching specializations are music education, creative arts, and continued professional development. She developed resources for classroom practice and publishes on music education policy. Her research interests include citizenship education, education policy, multicultural education, and cultural studies. Roy Waade is a Professor of Music Education at Nord University, Norway. His main subjects are Composing, Arranging, Improvisation, Guitar and Didactics. Waade holds a PhD on Soundpainting (2016) and he has published articles on improvisation and Soundpainting. Waade is a guitarist, composer, bandleader, and arranger and has released several records. Adam Walters, PhD, is a Visiting Fellow in Music (Composition) at the University of Trinidad and Tobago. Adam’s compositions often focus on Caribbean themes, blending elements from Trinidadian and western classical styles. He now lives in London where he works as a composer, academic, French horn player, and music educator. Gary Wendt teaches music and directs the student-run television studio, WGST, at Hubbard Woods Elementary School, a K–4 school in Winnetka, IL, USA. He has taught music for over 30 years in elementary and middle level schools in the United States. xviii

Contributors

Stuart Wise, PhD, is currently a sessional lecturer in the School of Education and Tertiary Access at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia. Prior to this, he held a number of senior positions in the School of Teacher Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch. He began his teaching career as a secondary music teacher. Annette Ziegenmeyer is a Full-Time Professor of music education at the University of Luebeck (Germany). Her areas of teaching and research cover a broad range of topics such as music composition in schools and beyond, community music/music in social work, and music education in prisons. Vít Zouhar (1966) is a Czech Composer, Musicologist and Professor of Music at Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Music Education, Faculty of Education, Czech Republic. He is the author and co-author of operas, chamber, and orchestra music, articles, critical editions and books, including Composing in the Classroom (with Ivo Medek and Jaromír Synek). Vít Zouhar is the founder of the Different Hearing (Slyšet jinak) programme.

xix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editors of this handbook would like to express our gratitude to all the authors who contributed with their inspiring chapters and helped with their positive attitude in bringing this wonderful project to life. We enjoyed working with you all very much. Particular thanks go also to our graduate assistants Juliane Galda and Carl Kanowsky who worked “behind the scenes” in formatting and proofreading each page of this volume. Furthermore, we had valuable help in writing some of the interludes and want to say thank you to Jan Duve (PhD) for his critical input concerning the interlude on “Technology” and Professor Nathan Holder for his critical feedback on the interlude “Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion in teaching composing”. Finally, this whole project would have not been possible without Routledge, supporting and leading us through the whole process.

xx

INTRODUCTION Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

To compose a piece of music is to bring into being something that hitherto did not exist. This means that the music creators, of whatever age, or at whatever phase of their learning journey, are both learning and creating at the same time. This makes teaching and learning composing a complex undertaking. Music as a practice exists in a web of relationships involving both creativity and learning. Within visual arts, this relationship is recognized as being relatively straightforward, and many parents are very pleased to be able to display the artistic endeavors of their children onto their kitchen fridge for example! It matters not that these early works are technically naïve – of course they are, they are painted by children, but in displaying their creations, the children’s novice creative outputs are acknowledged and valorized. When we turn our attention to music, this interrelationship becomes much more complex. While we know that young children can – and do – produce original musical outputs (inter alia Davies, 1992; Young, 2002), both the recording and valuing these initial musical creations can be considerably less apparent when compared with the visual arts. Where this becomes an issue is when many of the commonly held beliefs about musical development and the ways in which society expects children and young people to learn music are tied to the weight of the Western classical music tradition. Bruner (1996) writes of a ‘folk pedagogy’, where common assumptions are made about the ways in which teaching and learning can, and do, take place. This folk pedagogy can form many of the commonly held assumptions about how musical learning might be expected to occur. For example, music education has often been considered primarily as a performative art, and to be ‘musical’ often means having performance capabilities on an instrument. Although for young children, inventing music (Barrett, 2006; Young, 1995, 2002), often in the form of singing (Davies, 1986), is considered normal and indeed desirable, once children pass this early stage it is normally deemed that musical instruction ought to take place using performance modalities. Therefore, in order to become musically proficient, some form of technique, skill, or competence involving an instrument or voice is considered requisite. It can be particularly problematic when we are talking about composing where established ‘myths’ often derived from ‘archaic traditionalist beliefs … about classical composers’ (Burnard, 2012, p. 9), have informed much composing pedagogy (Devaney, 2022). A prominent assumption and practice within composing pedagogy is the belief that young people cannot compose or be creative without extensive knowledge of music theory first; the frequently DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-1

1

Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow et al.

expressed notion relating to this being that you have to know the rules before breaking them. This has perhaps had unfortunate consequences on young and budding composers who were told they could not compose music until they had mastered a specific set of skills, or sufficient acquisition of knowledge, normally meaning musical theory often derived from the Western classical art music tradition. Going back to our visual art analogy, it would seem absurd for an adult to reject the creative attempts of young children playing with different colors, shapes, and materials, so why is the creation of music often ring-fenced and upheld as something that can only be achieved after years of intensive study and then only by the select few who are specially gifted enough to do so?

Definitions of composing In this book, we take a broad view of what it means to compose. We are not talking only of a Western classical modality where the solitary composer struggles alone, but instead we take our cue from Burnard (2012) who made the pertinent observation that ‘… there is no single musical creativity for all musics’ (p. 3). When we say the word ‘composing’, we mean the activity in its broadest sense: any processes, individual or collaborative, which bring into fruition any kind of music, whether this be realized directly into sound, whether or not it has been notated, and whether or not it has an audience. When talking about composing in this way, it is treated as a normal part of educational life that anyone has the potential to do. Clearly the definition above will be uncomfortable for some, as there is a weight of history and tradition that hangs heavily in the context of the word ‘composing’. But for others, it is to be hoped that looking afresh at creative processes involved in musical generation will be helpful in thinking about what teaching and learning in this area does and could entail. It is interesting to note here the differing conceptualizations of composing that exist within the chapters of this book, and how the various authors have reflected on what composing means within their own socio-cultural and educational contexts. For example, one way of thinking about composing is to consider the role and place of songwriting, an area often excluded from Western classical definitions of what it is that a composer does, but one that nonetheless many young people are highly engaged with.

Composing for all We know that composing as a normalized classroom activity is not universally accepted or adopted, and even in countries where it is more established, such as the UK and New Zealand among others, it is still an area of music education that is underdeveloped and perhaps misunderstood. This becomes an important issue when we consider the role of music as a subject in generalist teaching and learning in schools, wherein music is considered a normal subject, to be taught and learned in school classes, by all pupils at the requisite age or phase, alongside native language, mathematics, history, geography, and so on. In some jurisdictions, music is a part of the general education of all young people, whereas in other countries music is viewed more as an extracurricular pursuit and is taught and learned outside statutory education. What the chapters in this book highlight is the diversity by which composing as a musical activity does, or conversely does not, have a part within a country’s national curricula and other mandated or legislated formats. This notion of composing as a normal subject for all children and young people regardless of background raises important questions for us in this book. Within recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the perceived importance of fostering creative skills and thinking within education and education research. This advocacy 2

Introduction

has been echoed in countries across the world. This need for creativity has been advocated, in part, from an economic standpoint. As Burnard (2006) explained, the ‘creativity agenda’ has ‘an explicit role in the economy’ (p. 313). Creativity is commonly listed as an essential tool for surviving and thriving in today’s social and economic landscape and is a skill that employers are looking for. Mirroring this, the importance and relevance of creativity in music education seems to have increased, and there are a rising number of research papers investigating composing and creative music-making practices. Research and resources around composing and improvising within the classroom are also becoming more prevalent. The potential benefits of a creative musical education continue to be raised in many publications (inter alia Tan, Tsubonou, Oie, & Mito, 2019). But with composing in the classroom becoming increasingly common, and in some countries a curricula requirement, questions still arise as to whether composing should be a normal activity for all young people. The link between instrumental proficiency and composing is another important area of thought and needs unpicking somewhat. In order to produce a new and original piece of music, some form of thinking in music, at its most basic level evidenced in sounds, is necessary. Where this becomes an issue for music education, particularly music education in a generalist school-based context, is when questions arise as to how much musical (for which often read instrumental or vocal) competence is required in order to be original. For some educators, instrumental facility always takes priority, and, indeed, as we have mentioned, in some music education programs both locally and nationally it is preparation for instrumental performance which is taken to be the purpose of music education. When we are thinking about generalist music education, however, we need to ask questions of how an expertise with instrumental or vocal sound production needs to precede being able to compose music. In other words, how much – or how little – technical proficiency is needed to compose with, and for, instruments. Developments in digital technology have dramatically transformed how music is performed and composed (Green, 2002; Savage, 2012) which may perhaps dissolve the once held belief that performing ability is fundamental to composing, thus allowing more young people to engage with composing in new ways. As with instrumental proficiency, similar arguments are to be found with regard to notation, especially staff notation of the Western classical tradition. There is a school of thought which is not uncommon among some music educators, particularly when they are from a Western classical tradition themselves, in which they … believe they need to teach western classical stave notation in isolation from other aspects of music, and that this needs to be done in advance of other musical activities, as preparation for them. (Fautley, 2017b, p. 123) There are many reasons for holding this view, including that outlined by Kivijärvi and Väkevä (2020, p. 154), when they observe that some music educators believe that … because skills of decoding WSMN [Western Standard Music Notation] are useful in learning certain kinds of music in a certain context (historically, a Western music and Western music pedagogy context), they are useful in learning any kind of music (or at least most musics), and thus should be taught to all. The counter to the teaching and learning of WSMN having to precede any other forms of musical education is articulated by Swanwick, who drew distinctions between music as a primary 3

Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow et al.

symbolic system, in other words one that happens in sound, and notation, which he described as a secondary symbol system, … music itself is an activity that is in some way representative of our experience of the world. Music is a primary symbolic system. Notations, verbal descriptions or graphic representations are secondary systems, offering a translation from one representational domain to another. In this process some loss of information is inevitable. (Swanwick, 2001, p. 232) What this means for the purposes of this book is that it is appropriate to foster a theorized music education which is intentionally inclusive, and not accidentally exclusive. After all, as Kivijärvi and Väkevä go on to note, WSMN can be regarded as non-pedagogical practice (or even malpractice) because of the lack of pedagogical tact that adjusts both to the individual teaching-learning situation and the cultural context of making music meaningful … an exclusive focus on learning notational musical literacy may hinder the progress of many learners by excluding them from the curricular context where developing musical skills is deemed a right for everyone. (Kivijärvi & Väkevä, 2020, p. 164) The practice of WSMN among teachers shows that within some music education circles composition pedagogy is not discussed as a thing in its own right.

Genre, taste, and value in music To add to this already complex mix in music education, we need to add some further dimensions, including notions of taste, aesthetic judgment, and style or genre of musical types. While visual arts in schools readily and happily celebrate modernism and internationalism and encourage students to create their own works of art, in music education, on the other hand, society, and sometimes policy makers, can want music to be a forum for establishing and maintaining certain styles and types of music. A hierarchical view can take hold that some music is more valuable, more important, and more worthy of a place in an already crowded school curriculum. One way this may play out in practice is that, to put it simply, Western classical musical = good/ complex/intellectual, whereas pop, rock, and pretty much anything else = not so good/simple/ unintellectual. This gross oversimplification may seem alien to some in countries with forwardthinking educational policies, but to others it will all too readily be recognized. For example, in the UK, the then secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, said this: I am unapologetic in arguing that all children have a right to the best. And there is such a thing as the best. Richard Wagner is an artist of sublime genius and his work is incomparably more rewarding – intellectually, sensually and emotionally – than, say, the Arctic Monkeys. (Gove, 2011) As the politician in charge of education at the time, Gove was in a position to be able to put his thoughts into policy. This sort of politicking seems, at first glance, to be both logical and reasonable. After all, as Matthew Arnold said back in 1896 (Arnold, 1896/1993), education should be about teaching children ‘the best that has been thought and said’, and it seems to 4

Introduction

many to be unreasonable to argue with Gove’s statement that Wagner is better than the Arctic Monkeys, or whatever is currently popular. Yet for our purposes in thinking about composing, a question is raised as to whether our children and young people in schools want to compose in the style of Wagner, or whether it would be appropriate for them to do so. This unresolved tension (rather like Wagner’s Tristan chord!) runs throughout this book. In some countries, the matter has been dealt with, genres and styles of music from all across the world run seamlessly through school classrooms with no significant issues. In other places, the legacy of the nineteenth century looms large, sometimes not helped by remnants of colonial legacies, in which music seems to reach its apotheosis with the works of Debussy. For young composers everywhere, this is a debate which affects them on a personal level. Walk through many towns and cities, in many countries, and the type of music that young people identify with will be evidenced in how they dress and how they appear; music for many young people is bound up with identity and person (Finney, 2007; Frith, 1996; Hargreaves & Marshall, 2003; Hargreaves, Welch, Purves, & Marshall, 2005). Young composers who self-identify with certain styles and genres of music will normally want to reproduce these through the original music that they compose. As Margaret Boden (1990) and Anna Craft (2001) remind us, a creative output, in our case a musical composition, might sound strikingly similar to pieces that have been heard before, yet for the pupil this is a new, novel, and original utterance, in that it is new, novel, and original to them. These pieces of music are worthy of celebration in a similar way to that was discussed earlier of the naïve artworks being stuck on the kitchen fridge; for our musical and educational purposes, these musical utterances are compositions worthy of educational consideration in the young person’s journey. Part of the role of educators may also be to introduce students to new music and encourage students to explore a diverse range of genres with open ears. However, in allowing all types of musical composition to take place in the classroom, questions of how to assess different genres of music are raised. As mentioned earlier, certain styles of music are often deemed to be more complex theoretically than others. This is problematic, as if we are assessing musical complexity against Western classical music as the standard, there are many examples of pieces of music that, although simple, have been incredibly successful. There are many examples of songs reaching international popularity that only use limited musical resources. An example of this is the 12-bar blues, which figures in the education systems of many countries, either as a formal part of the curriculum, or as a common factor which many teachers employ on an informal basis, which is the case in England (Fautley, 2017a). The 12-bar blues contains only three chords, I-IV-V, arranged in a pre-set structure, and represents one of the most minimal harmonic and organizational structures available, yet many thousands of hit songs have been, and continue to be, composed using this as their basic structural element. Away from popular music, minimalism involves, as its name suggests, an often limited range of tonal and rhythmic resources. In some musical styles, including aspects of non-Western musical styles, rhythm is privileged over beat, and repetitive drumming-based pieces form the backbone of the canon, while in others, melody takes the fore. One of the international appeals of music is that its variants are huge, yet all based on a distinct number of structural elements. For the young composer, understanding of these elements will normally form an important part of their musical education. Researchers have queried as to whether there is a set of universal criteria that could be used to assess the quality of a piece of music from across different genres of music (Cantwell & Jeanneret, 2004; Green, 2000). By way of contrast to this, Green (2000) suggested the use of criteria that are specific and tailored to a musical genre, where the composition would be ‘considered in terms of how well or how poorly it represented that style’ (Green, 2000, p. 102). When taking an international look at composing and music, it is vital that we widen 5

Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow et al.

our gaze beyond using Western classical music as the dominant framework for evaluation and assessment.

Teachers as composers With so many possible conceptions of composing, and composing pedagogy, there is a need to discuss how music teachers learn to teach composing. We know that composing in the classroom has gained interest around the world in recent years; therefore, music teachers and teacher pre-service providers have had to respond and adapt in order to enact this change to education policy, but in some instances, this change to their teaching practices has come with some apprehension. A number of the chapter authors in this book discuss the role of teacher training in their country; highlighting the wide range of approaches to this. Initial pre-service teaching programs, especially for those concerned with education for the primary age range, contain within them the possibility to break the cycle whereby student teachers feel worried about teaching music and therefore ‘do not learn to teach it because teachers with similar worries often do not teach it’ (Mills, 1989, p. 125). As discussed earlier in this introduction, music teaching can take place within generalist classroom teaching or outside of formal schooling depending on the country. When music as a subject is expected to be delivered by the generalist classroom teacher, often for younger age groups, there are numerous reports regarding teachers’ lack of confidence in their own ability to teach music (Hallam et al., 2009; Hennessy, 2000, 2017; Holden & Button, 2006; Mills, 1989), often resulting in music being ‘othered’ (Bhachu, 2019) compared to other school subjects. A commonly held assumption held by many generalist classroom teachers is that you must be able to play an instrument in order to teach music (Devaney & Nenadic, 2020; Hallam et al., 2009), thus perpetuating this divide between specialist and generalist music teachers (Hennessy, 2017). Taking this one step further, do music teachers also believe that in order to be able to teach composing, they themselves have to be active ‘composers’? The concerns around confidence are compounded when we are talking about composing within music pedagogy. Even if a teacher is a confident instrumentalist and experienced in music teaching, there is no guarantee that they will have had any experiences of composing before being required to teach it, especially if composing was not a part of the curriculum when they attended school themselves. In addition, in some music degrees, there is no requirement to compose at all; for example, music conservatoires around the world often involve students specializing in a certain instrument, music technology, or jazz, right from the start. This dichotomization of ‘composer’ and ‘performer’, often promoted by Western art music narratives, curtails potentially important experiences that may play a vital role in developing their music teaching pedagogy and sense of teacher-identity. Although initial teacher pre-service courses vary significantly in length and delivery, having student teachers with no prior composing experience at all creates significant challenges in preparing for all the aspects involved in music teaching (Odam, 2000). Therefore, the role of continual professional development programs and composing teaching resources can play a vital part in supporting classroom teachers to engage in composing teaching. A number of chapters in this book discuss partnership projects where external composers have worked alongside classroom music teachers, and other chapters highlight important resources commonly used within the music teaching profession of that country. It is clear to see that as composing becomes more popular and normalized in schools, further support for teachers is crucial in ensuring composing is accessible for all young people and that potentially damaging myths and assumptions about composing and composing pedagogy are uncovered and reflected upon. 6

Introduction

Contents/structure Throughout this book, authors illustrate and discuss key aspects, approaches, concepts, and the current state of research on teaching music composition in schools. Authors from six continents (Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Australia, and Africa), and from various academic, pedagogical, and artistic backgrounds, all offer a broad range of expertise regarding the ways composing is understood and taught in their respective countries. They address relevant characteristics of music composing through the lens of their respective socio-cultural contexts highlighting the diversity of teaching methods and practices. In doing this, they combine different approaches to research and teaching: theoretical, historical, empirical, and practical. The chapters are arranged in an alphabetical order of the participating countries: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Kingdom: England and Scotland, Uganda, and the United States of America. This order allows the reader to easily select and find information on a specific country and attempts to exclude the possibility of hierarchy. Furthermore, it provides a suitable framework in which the variety of perspectives on how composing in school contexts become visible and can be appreciated in several ways: first, within the socio-cultural context of the countries, second, within a comparative perspective on specific aspects, and third, within a global view. In addition to the various chapters, this companion offers ten short interludes between chapters. These interludes introduce crucial aspects and perspectives on composing written by the co-editors drawing together key themes and debates across multiple chapters in the companion. These are as follows: (I) What is composing? (II) Creativity and composing in education, (III) Starting points of composing, (IV) Ways to teach composing, (V) Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion in teaching composing, (VI) Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies, (VII) The role of digital technology in classroom composing, (VIII) Why compose in music education? Arguments between curricular and extracurricular settings, (IX) Notation – Its place and role in composing pedagogies, (X) The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing. Furthermore, these interludes visualize the manifold questions that arise around these complex topics and offer multiple ways on how to read and to re-read the individual chapters.

References Arnold, M. (1896/1993). Culture and anarchy and other writings. Edited by S. Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The ‘genesis’ of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–220. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669760600879920 Bhachu, D. (2019). Facilitating musical learning in Scottish Primary Schools: An interview-based study of generalist primary teachers’, primary music specialists’ and community music practitioners’ views and experiences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Burnard, P. (2006). Reflecting on the creativity agenda in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640600865801 Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1016/j. tsc.2013.05.001 Cantwell, R. H., and Jeanneret, N. (2004). Developing a framework for the assessment of musical learning: Resolving the dilemma of the “parts” and the “whole”. Research Studies in Music Education, 22(1), 2–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1321103X040220010201

7

Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow et al. Craft, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. London: Continuum. Davies, C. (1986). Say it till a song comes (reflections on songs invented by children 3–13). British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700008676 Davies, C. (1992). Listen to my song: A study of songs invented by children aged 5 to 7 years. British Journal of Music Education, 9, 19–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700008676 Devaney, K., & Nenadic, E. (2020). Music teaching provision in primary schools: Key findings 2019. Birmingham: Birmingham City University. https://bcuassets.blob.core.windows.net/docs/musicprovision-in-primary-research-report-2019-to-publish-132737536078916709.pdf Devaney, K. (2022). Investigating how composing teaching and assessment in English secondary school classrooms reinforce myths about composers and their creative practices. British Journal of Music Education, 40(1), 3–19. doi:10.1017/S0265051722000134 Fautley, M. (2017a). The location of creativity in curriculum and assessment in the lower secondary school in England. In R. Girdzijauskiene & M. Stakelum (Eds.), Creativity and innovation: European perspectives on music education (Vol. 7, pp. 71–84). Innsbruck: Helbling. Fautley, M. (2017b). Notation and music education. British Journal of Music Education, 34(2), 123–126. doi:10.1017/s0265051717000031 Finney, J. (2007). Music education as identity project in the age of electronic desire. In J. Finney & P. Burnard (Eds.), Music education with digital technology. London: Continuum Press. Frith, S. (1996). Music and identity. In P. Du Gay & S. Hall (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 108–27). London: Sage. Gove, M. (2011). Speech: Michael Gove to Cambridge University. Edited by Education, Department for. London: Department for Education. Green, L. (2000). Music as Media art: Evaluation and assessment in the contemporary classroom. In J. Sefton-Green & R. Sinker (Eds.), Evaluating Creativity (pp. 89–106). London: Routledge. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hallam, S., et al. (2009). “Trainee primary-school teachers’ perceptions of their effectiveness in teaching music.” Music Education Research 11(2): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800902924508. Hargreaves, D., & Marshall, N. (2003). Developing identities in music education. Music Education Research, 5(3), 263–273. doi:10.1080/1461380032000126355 Hargreaves, D. J., Welch, G., Purves, R., & Marshall, N. (2005). Effective teaching in secondary school music: Teacher and pupil identities. ESRC End of award report, Award R000223751. Hennessy, S. (2000). Overcoming the red-feeling: the development of confidence to teach music in primary school amongst student teachers. British Journal of Music Education, Volume 17(2), July 2000, 183–196. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000243 Hennessy, S. (2017) Approaches to increasing the competence and confidence of student teachers to teach music in primary schools. Education 3–13, 45(6), 689–700. doi:10.1080/03004279.2017.1347130 Holden, H. & Button, S. (2006) The teaching of music in the primary school by the non-music specialist. British Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 23–38. doi:10.1017/S0265051705006728 Kivijärvi, S., & Väkevä, L. (2020). Considering equity in applying Western standard music notation from a social justice standpoint: Against the notation argument. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 19(1), 153–73. doi:10.22176/act19.1.153 Mills, J. (1989) The generalist primary teacher of music: A problem of confidence. British Journal of Music Education, 6(2), 125–138. doi: 10.1017/S0265051700007002 Odam, G. (2000). Teaching composing in secondary schools: the creative dream. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 109–127. doi:10.1017/S0265051709008407 Savage, J. (2012). Those who can, play; those who can’t, use Music Tech. In C. Philpott & G. Spruce (Eds.), Debates in music teaching, pp. 169–184. Abingdon: Routledge. Swanwick, K. (2001). Musical development theories revisited. Music Education Research, 3(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800120089278 Tan, AG., Tsubonou, Y., Oie, M., Mito, H. (2019). Creativity and music education: A state of art reflection. In Y. Tsubonou, A. G. Tan, & M. Oie (Eds.), Creativity in music education (pp. 3–16). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2749-0_1 Young, S. (1995). Listening to the music of early childhood. British Journal of Music Education, 12(01), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700002394 Young, S. (2002). Young children’s spontaneous vocalizations in free-play: Observations of two-to threeyear-olds in a day-care setting. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 43–53.

8

1 BATTLE DANCES AND 808s Teaching music creation in Australia James Henry Byrne Humberstone

Dealing with terminology In this chapter, I will mostly refer to the place of composition in Australia’s syllabi, and composition teaching in Australia’s classrooms, because this is the term used in nearly every state or territory syllabus, rather than songwriting, production, writing, or other more inclusive terms such as “music creation.” At a time when music theory as an international field is taking “a long hard look at itself,” considering its racist/white supremacist undertones (Ewell, 2020; Morrison, 2019); and at a time when we are successfully challenging how music education has systemically marginalized some voices (Hess, 2015, 2017; Talbot, 2018), and how it can instead be a movement for positive social change (Hess, 2019), it seems strange that all of these documents refer to the act of making music up as “composing.” The vision of the “composer,” as projected by posters on classroom walls to this day, is nearly ubiquitously the dead, white male (Althouse, Grace, & Wyatt, 2015; McDonald Publishing Company, 2017; Music in motion, 2012; North Star Teacher Resources, 2020), who creates music by writing it down in scores and then having it performed by musicians trained to an elite level in the Eurocentric Western Art Music (WAM) tradition (Bull, 2019). The composer understands music theory, from figured bass to 12-tone rows. He [sic] has thorough knowledge of how to write idiomatically for orchestral instruments (and perhaps a few radical, modern extras such as the saxophone), vocalists, and choirs. Australia is “one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse populations in the world” (New South Wales [NSW] Government, 2020, para. 1), so it is difficult to generalize about what musical cultures young Australians grow up with and later choose to participate in. Spotify’s streaming statistics, at the time of writing (Spotify, 2020), suggest that Australians listen most to various genres of rock, mainstream pop, hip-hop, and only a little country and electronic dance music (EDM). Classical music is not mentioned. Statistics from the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) charts lean toward mainstream pop, with separate charts for hip-hop/RnB, Australian hip-hop/RnB, dance, club, country, Australian country, jazz & blues, and classical (Australian Record Industry Association, 2020); Evershed’s (2015) analysis of ARIA’s singles charts data from 1988 to 2014 summarizes the shifting popularity of the conventional band, electronic, urban, pop music, and “other” genres. Given the rise of hip-hop to become arguably the world’s most popular music genre in the last five years DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-2

9

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

(Leight, 2019), an updated analysis might reveal a sixth genre here, too. While such information provides only a blurry yardstick with which to paint the broadest of brushstrokes about the musical cultures to which young Australians relate, it is entirely clear that those musical worlds are not made up of music written by the archetypal dead, white composer-figure, or even a modern-day equivalent. Terms used to describe the creation of music within the genres that surround us every day are more likely to be “songwriter” (in fact, Everett [2008] goes to pains to clarify the difference between songwriter and composer), “producer,” “deejay” (Sa’id, 2016; Schloss, 2014), or “emcee” (Schloss, 2009). The nearly exclusive use of the term composer and composition to describe the musical identity and musical action of creating new music, then, is problematic. Problematic at the very least because dead, white Europeans are a long way separated from living, young Australians. Problematic because, if young people do want to make music, they probably want to produce, to song-write, to deejay, or to emcee rather than, or at least as well as, to compose. It may seem like semantics, but since the spirit of most of these same syllabus documents reads in a constructivist, student-centered tradition (for example, “In designing teaching programs, teachers should provide a program that balances work in each of the learning experiences [Performing, Composing, Listening]. Learning in music occurs best when these experiences are integrated with each other” [New South Wales Board of Studies, 2003, p. 18], or “The strands in Music Studies are interconnected and not intended to be taught independently” [The SACE Board of South Australia, 2019, p. 6]), it is problematic that the language we use is so separated from children’s own experiences of the world, or as Dewey put it, a world in which “certain points of interest and value to him in the conversation carried on: statements are made, inquiries arise, topics are discussed, and the child continually learns” (1899, pp. 51–52). It is important to establish this tension for two reasons. First, because I will return to it in the final section of this chapter, when we look for clear direction in Australia for the teaching of music creation in fields other than WAM. And second, because while it will remain necessary to refer to “composition” for the majority of this chapter, this is only done because it is the word used in the great majority of Australia’s syllabi, textbooks, education circles, and scholarly literature. Where the word composition is not specifically used in the referenced literature or data, I shall use more inclusive terms such as “making music up,” “creating music,” and “inventing music.”

Composition in Australian syllabi In Australia, compulsory education is divided into two stages, primary and secondary, like the British system that most influenced it (Stevens & Southcott, 2017). Primary school begins around the age of 5 years, and the transition from primary to secondary education happens around the age of 12 years. Junior secondary schooling and senior secondary schooling are divided, in some states and territories, into schools (junior) and colleges (senior). Some government policies direct students to remain in school to the end of senior secondary (see “full-time apparent retention rate,” below) unless they have secured an apprenticeship, a full-time job, or moved into Vocational Education and Training. In 2020, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the following national information on 2019 school and student numbers:

• There were 3,948,811 students enrolled in 9,503 schools. • Teachers made up 68.5% of in-school full-time equivalent staff. • The Years 7–12 full-time apparent retention rate was 84.0%. 10

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

• The average student to teaching staff ratio for all schools was 13.7. • Government schools held the greatest share of enrollments (65.7%), followed by Catholic schools (19.5%) and independent schools (14.8%). (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020) Under the Australian Constitution (Parliamentary Education Office and Australian Government Solicitor, 2010), state and territory governments are responsible for school education, rather than the federal government. As a result, the provision of music within each education system has, historically, been varied; and the demands of each system’s syllabus have been equally varied (for a complete summary of the evolution of music education in Australia, see Stevens & Southcott, [2017]). As a general rule, music has been included as a mandatory component of every state or territory’s primary-school arts curriculum, but its delivery has varied widely. Historically, education authorities in Tasmania and Queensland provided every primary school with a specialist music teacher (Stevens & Southcott, 2017); others provided a free or subsidized peripatetic service for teaching children instruments one-to-one or in small groups. However, in some states, such as Victoria and New South Wales (NSW), while music remained in the creative arts syllabus for all primary children, very few schools had a specialist music teacher on staff, and the level of preservice training or professional development for generalist primary classroom teachers in music was varied. At the secondary level, and at the time of writing, music is mandated in all states and territories in the first one or two years of secondary schooling and is taught by specialist teachers except in some instances where (for example) rural schools cannot employ one. It becomes an elective subject after the mandatory course, and while national figures are unavailable, it is estimated that 3–8% of students elect to study music to the end of high school (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2020), varying by state. Until recently, the inclusion of composition or other music creation processes as a key music learning activity for students in high school was highly varied in high-school syllabi. In some states, composition was not included in the music syllabus at all. Over recent years, the primary and junior secondary syllabi have begun to coalesce around the new national Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2020), which was endorsed by all of Australia’s education ministers in September 2015. However, the implementation of the Australian Curriculum has still been undertaken on a state-by-state basis and, at the time of writing, had still not been completed by all states, including the one with the largest population, NSW. In addition, while the Australian Curriculum provides a music curriculum for Foundation to Year 10, it does not yet provide one for senior secondary school, where state syllabi still widely diverge, especially in the inclusion and place of composition. The rest of this section of the chapter provides an overview first of the Australian Curriculum, which is the best guide to the place composition might hold in the music classroom nationally in the foreseeable (if not immediate) future, to the end of junior high school, and then provides an analysis of the widely varying state syllabi for senior secondary education, leading to school-leaving exams in music.

The Australian Curriculum Music exists as a subject under The Arts learning area in the Australian Curriculum, alongside Dance, Drama, Media Arts, and Visual Arts (ACARA, 2020).1 The interrelated strands in all of The Arts content descriptions are Making and Responding, which are to be understood as 11

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

“intrinsically connected” (p. 10). In the music curriculum, “improvising, composing, [and] arranging” (p. 25) are defined as Making activities, as are “recording and notating, […] and performing” (p. 25). Responding “involves students being audience members” (p. 25). The Australian Curriculum takes a loosely constructivist approach (while none of the syllabi reference particular texts of music education philosophy, the following will remind readers of the ideas of musicking [Small, 1998], or musicing [Elliott & Silverman, 2015]) to musical learning: it divides musical activities into three areas (also found in many, but not all, of the individual state syllabi), listening, composing, and performing, and specifies that “students’ musical skills are best developed through activities which integrate the techniques and processes of music” (ACARA, 2020, p. 26). Composition, then, is one of three core activities for learning music in the new Curriculum and is to be integrated with Performance and Listening: this is exactly as is found in the Learning Experiences of the NSW syllabi of the last two decades (for example, New South Wales Board of Studies, 2003). The Australian Curriculum defines composition as “a broad term for creating original music. In the classroom, this involves improvising, organizing musical ideas, creating accompaniment patterns, and arranging and writing original works, either individually or collaboratively” (p. 26). Composition activity descriptions are mapped into the Curriculum from the very first stage, Foundation (around five years old) to Year 2, and at this level include ambitious aims such as “[c]reate compositions and perform music to communicate ideas to an audience” (p. 31) with elaborations, including “choosing and combining sounds to create compositions, for example, combining pitch and rhythm patterns,” or “recording music using notation and technologies so others can read the notation and listen to the recording” (p. 31). These composition outcomes, as may be expected, become more sophisticated through the stages, with a primary-school leaver expected to be able to “[r]ehearse and perform music including music they have composed by improvising, sourcing and arranging ideas and making decisions to engage an audience” (p. 41). In secondary school, the crucial Year 7–8 stage is, for the majority of Australian children, the only time they will learn music from a qualified music teacher, composition outcomes include the ability to “[d]evelop musical ideas, such as mood, by improvising, combining and manipulating the elements of music” (p. 46), and to “[s]tructure compositions by combining and manipulating the elements of music using notation” (p. 47). By the end of Year 10, students electing to take music in the Australian Curriculum should be able to compose in a range of styles, using technology and notation, and to “[p]lan and organize compositions with an understanding of style and convention, including drawing upon Australian music by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists” (p. 53). Composition, therefore, is core to musical learning in the whole of the Australian Curriculum, and the outcomes set out for compositional achievements are detailed, sophisticated, and ambitious. While the documents do not provide a weighting for the relative time spent performing, listening, and composing, similar (state) documents outline that the three learning experiences, as well as being integrated, should be evenly taught. This suggests that composition should be taught weekly in all Australian schools, at all ages: but the combination of Stevens and Southcott’s (2017) “recurring issue” (p. 226) of non-music-trained teachers, together with research revealing that even trained music teachers tend to identify as performers, not composers (Hargreaves, Welch, Purves, & Marshall, 2003), and therefore do not feel sufficiently trained to teach composition well (Bernhard, 2013; Bledsoe, 2017; Gall, 2013; Randles & Sulivan, 2013; Strand, 2006), means that there is a dearth of information about how composition, and the creation of music more broadly, is actually taught in schools in Australia, if it is taught much at all. 12

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

Nonetheless, the core place of composition as one of three music learning experiences in the Australian Curriculum, with demanding and ambitious outcomes over 11 years of compulsory schooling, means that the research that this chapter presents ought to be useful to in-service music teachers and assures musical creativity a central place in Australian classroom music, as long as music in general can defend its position as a mandatory subject for at least one or two years in state and territory secondary syllabi. As discussed, the Australian Curriculum – music – does not yet extend into the final two years of schooling and has not yet been flagged for creation (only English, Math, Science, and the Humanities have been created at the time of writing). Therefore, the differing state and territory syllabi determine not only how much composition is taught in the final two years of schooling, but also whether it is taught at all, and if it is, what percentage composition can contribute to the school-leaving assessment and qualifications toward tertiary entry, if desired.

State and territory syllabi for senior secondary Nearly all of the states and territories – the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), NSW, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia (SA), Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia (WA) – have their own syllabi for senior secondary. The Northern Territory teaches the South Australian syllabus. Please note that the following information was correct at the time of writing, but that syllabus reviews and revisions were being undertaken at this time.

Is composition mandatory? Is it part of assessment in school-leaving exams in music? The constructivist idea that music is best learned through the integration of three activities or “learning experiences” (New South Wales Board of Studies, 2003, p. 18), performing, listening, and composing, is found in many (but not all – SA uses quite different language, and WA separates “a written component and a practical component” [School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2019, p. 1]) of the state and territory syllabi and thus establishes the important place of composition within these jurisdictions. The division of musical learning into these three areas does not necessarily imply that they are evenly taught, however, or even that composition must be present as part of a student’s final assessed work. For example, the Victorian Certificate of Education Music Study Design (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2016) states that “[m]usic learning requires students’ active engagement in the practices of listening, performing and composing” (p. 6), yet as an assessable outcome, composition is only available to students who can study the four (of ten total available) Music Style and Composition units (p. 11), exclusively in schools that choose to offer them. As established, many teachers do not feel skilled enough to teach composition, despite its place in the syllabi, and in Victoria, it appears that in this situation, schools simply do not offer this part of the overall course. And even in the Music Style and Composition units, creating original music appears to be a minority assessable activity. Similarly, in NSW, there are two music courses for Years 11 and 12: Music 1 (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2009a), a course designed to cater for all students no matter what their prior learning in music, and Music 2 (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2009b), a WAM course. Both courses list four learning experiences, “performance, composition, musicology, and aural” (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2009a, p. 10), and while composition should form a part of internal assessment, only the Music 2 course mandates the submission of a composition for external assessment. It is also significant that, as the WAM course, it is taken by on average only 15% of the annual Year 12 music candidature (NSW Education 13

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

Standards Authority, 2020) – in other words, the great majority of students will not create music as part of their final assessment. Many states and territories do have a mandatory element for composition which contributes to their final school-leaving qualification (this being the only certain way to know that composition is being taught and undertaken). The Queensland General Music syllabus (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2019) includes composition as 20% of the internally assessed component (pp. 39–41); this can be further extended in an Extension (Composition) syllabus (Units 3 and 4) in which compositions contribute up to 65% of the internally and externally assessed work (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2020). The SA syllabi (The SACE Board of South Australia, 2020a) organize musical learning differently to other states and territories into a number of strands which include “understanding music, creating music, and responding to music” (p. 7). The creating music strand includes performance, composition, and arranging, which gives composition quite a different position and priority to the other syllabi, including the Australian Curriculum. The SA syllabi include a range of courses over two stages: in Stage 1, the Music Experience and Music Advanced courses both include composition as part of final assessment, and its requirements are progressive: “An arrangement or composition may be notated (standard or graphic notation), a notated lead sheet, or an audio recording in digital format. An arrangement or composition should be between 1 and 3 minutes” (p. 10). In the Stage 2 SA syllabi, composition appears in the Music Studies and Explorations courses (the other two courses are performance based). In the Music Studies syllabus (The SACE Board of South Australia, 2019), composition appears again under the “Creating Music” strand (although it is also mentioned under “Musical Literacy,” suggesting that integration may also be the goal of this syllabus too), but submitting composition toward assessment is optional, and students may elect to perform only. In the Explorations course (The SACE Board of South Australia, 2020b), content speaks more directly to the modern music-creative, including “sound production and/or recording processes” (p. 8), and submitted work must include “one portfolio of explorations” and “one creative connections task” (p. 12), although these can include, for example, “a presentation of a set of short performances, compositions, and/or other musical products” (p. 15), in each case giving an option for performance-only outcomes instead of insisting on some compositional element toward final assessment. As mentioned, WA’s courses separate the written and practical components of music: the contexts can even be different, negating constructivist integration (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2017, p. 4). These syllabi are the most prescriptive and musically conservative in the county, providing teachers little autonomy over the content taught, or the opportunity to create diverse and differentiated outcomes for learners. In the ATAR Course (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2020 [designed for those aiming toward tertiary music study]), school-based assessment does include a composition portfolio, so there is a mandatory composition element. In the slightly less prescriptive General Course (School Curriculum and Standards Authority, 2017), composition is entirely optional (students can choose among Performance, Composition portfolio, or a Production/Practical project [pp. 14 and 23]). In stark contrast, the ACT Music A/T/M courses (Australian Capital Territory [ACT] BSSS, 2017) are some of the most open in the country, with a wide range of freedom and choice to study any kind of music, and to draw on the expertise and interests of each young person. Composition is integrated in every unit, with 29 units available for study, from Early Music to IDM and Hip Hop, all equally weighted. In each context, the musicological, compositional (called making (creating)), and performing outcomes are adjusted to make them relevant to 14

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

the musical culture being studied. For instance, a student studying Early Music might experiment creating their own “organum [or] motet” (p. 46), while a student taking IDM and Hip Hop may undertake a task involving “timbre production through manipulation of recorded vocals and sampled audio” (p. 135). And in every case, one or more original works are included in the formal assessment, assuring that composition is undertaken by every student in every unit. Like WA, Tasmania has a range of music courses, with composition learning part of the Level 3 general Music syllabus, as well as the Level 2 Music Studies and Contemporary Music courses. While the Music Technology Projects – Foundation syllabus does not include composition specifically, it does define a lot of skills with music technology that would be very useful in creative production projects (such as multitrack recording, sampling, remixing, and so on). In the Level 3 Music syllabus, all students compose as part of the internal assessment requirements but can choose whether to present a composition portfolio or perform (there is no option to do both, as there is in some other states) for their externally assessed component.

What proportion of the assessed curriculum is it? Having outlined the place of composition within each of the state and territory syllabi, and specifically whether there is any mandatory component of composition at all, it is worth reflecting on what proportion composition makes up of the final assessed work, as an indicator of how much time and importance is given to composition in these capstone assessments around the country. Consideration of such proportions also serves as a litmus test for statements in each syllabus’s rationale on the experiential nature of learning in music. In the ACT broad and progressive courses, 30–50% of the assessed work in each unit is based on a student’s composition portfolio, depending on how much performing a student chooses to do. The 30% minimum composition represents the largest proportion in the country. In NSW’s Music 2 course, composition is 20% of the internal assessment mark, and 15% of the external assessment mark (overall, 17.5% of the overall mark); in addition, students can elect to submit composition as their elective, an additional 25% of the final mark. In the NSW Music 1 course, 10% of the internal assessment mark (5% of the overall mark) is for composition, but the form that this mark is allocated in is open. There is no other proportion of composition unless students choose to undertake composition electives, which can count to up to 50% of the final mark. The story in the Queensland senior syllabus is similar – there is a 20% internal assessment mark for composition (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2019, pp. 39–41), but it is not clear how consistently this is undertaken – at the same time, there are many opportunities for elective composition outcomes that contribute to the final assessment marks. There is also an extension syllabus for composition.

Describing two composition-teaching pedagogies The first section of this chapter has shown that composition maintains a strong place in the Australian Curriculum to Year 10, although little is known about how or even whether it is taught, and existing research suggests that teachers are reluctant to teach composition because they are not confident in their own ability to compose. The first section has also established that composition is present in most school-leaving courses, at least as an elective option, but that it is not mandatory in many of these syllabi, and just as little is known about how or even whether it is taught, mandatory or not. 15

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

Teaching musical creativity in Australia – the research project The second section of this book takes this identified gap in knowledge and establishes a new project called Teaching Musical Creativity in Australia, to learn how musical creativity is actually taught in this country. Human ethics approval from the University of Sydney was obtained to interview leading teachers of music creation from a wide variety of backgrounds using a constructivist Grounded Theory approach (Charmaz, 2014, 2017) that will allow for iterative interviews and correspondence with leading teachers of musical creativity at all levels of formal and informal music education. Taking a long-term Grounded Theory approach will allow researchers to re-examine and reinterpret data collected early in the project and to test theories as they arise both empirically through the data and reflexively in transparent communication with participants. As lead researcher, I recognize my multiple roles and power that I hold as a classically trained composer, music educator, and technologist. I will be known to many of the project participants as a performed composer and an expert on this subject myself, as someone who taught composition in an independent school in Sydney for over a decade and now teaches both music education and composition at Sydney’s only conservatory. At the same time, these participants may see me as a disruptor for my work with music technology, or the strong angle my public work has taken toward pluralism, social justice, diversity, and inclusion in music education over the last decade (Haralampou & Humberstone, 2020; Humberstone, 2017, 2020; Humberstone, Zhao, & Liu, 2020). In interviews with strangers or friends, I am cognizant that my very presence may affect the answers they give and so adopt a humble approach where I make it clear that only they can be the experts of how they teach musical creativity. To remain cognizant of this position, I aim to listen, not to speak, or to prompt, not to interrogate. I remember that I am interviewing “as a way of opening inquiry and as a tool for advancing [my] theoretical analyses” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 157). Participants in the project retain absolute control of how I represent them and their experiences. They choose whether they will be identified. Transcripts of interviews are sent promptly after each interview and are triangulated through further interviews or correspondence. Drafts of arising research are sent to participants before publication.

Michael and Richard This chapter presents data and initial findings arising from the first interviews in this project, with Michael. I chose Michael because he has been a colleague and friend for over 20 years and has a very similar background to me: he is classically trained but has an interest in a wide range of musical styles. He has worked for multinational music technology companies, played keyboards professionally nationally and internationally in the classical, jazz, and popular fields, and now teaches. In his case, though, Michael is the head of music in a further-education college in central Sydney. I know that many of the students he teaches do not have the formal musical background we share, nor the aspiration to make “classical” music. He teaches musical creativity outside the more formal secondary and tertiary systems, but his courses are actually more inclusive (of all musical styles). This, it seemed, would provide the best contrast to the little published material that exists on the more traditional teaching of musical creativity in schools, which is where I will start. I will contrast Michael’s approach with Richard’s. Richard Gill (1941–2018), AO, was Australia’s most beloved advocate for music education in living memory. While he did occasionally exasperate some music educators, academics, and, more importantly, politicians, it cannot be denied that he had a positive impact on 16

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

many young people’s (musical) lives: whether it was through the Discovery series of concerts (captured on ABC DVDs) that he presented over the two decades, in which he would explain how orchestral repertoire both old and new was made (ABC, 2007), in his work as an orchestral or operatic conductor championing new Australian music by young composers (for example, SMH, 2005), as the eloquent eccentric on popular TV quiz show Spicks and Specks, or through his extensive music education advocacy in the press or directly with children in the many schools he taught in before becoming quite so famous – in his own words, “Encouraging the young is vital to ensure that the supply of talent continues” (Gill, 2013, p. 239). I was lucky enough to work with Richard during his residencies in an independent girls’ school with an award winning music program that was later subject of a similarly award winning music education documentary (Connolly & Raymond, 2011). In the early 2000s, he gave a series of primary (elementary) music classes to every year from kindergarten to Year 5 (around 5–11 years old), to share his pedagogy with the huge music-teaching forces in that school (8 classroom teachers, 4 composers-in-residence, and about 50 peripatetic instrumental and vocal teachers) as well as the broader profession. Teachers were permitted to sit in, and on the final day with each class, Richard de-briefed his process and answered questions. In addition, every single class was filmed, and the resulting record was published as a DVD set titled The Creative Music Classroom with Richard Gill (Gill, 2003). In order to account for, compare, and contrast Richard and Michael’s pedagogies when it comes to teaching music creation, I transcribed this DVD set, including the teacher de-brief sessions. I did not perform a formal content analysis but instead excerpted all sections pertaining to composition or improvisation activities in the many hours of video footage, including my own descriptive memos where Richard led a composition or improvisation activity but did not speak to it. The following section distills the essence of his composition pedagogy. In addition, I transcribed and reviewed several hours of footage of our conversations recorded (but not all included) for a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), The Place of Music in 21st Century Education (Humberstone, 2016). I have published about this course, and the impact Richard’s comments had on teachers elsewhere, and will not address those issues here (Humberstone et al., 2020; Humberstone, Zhao, Liu, & Mary Elizabeth, 2023). Finally, Richard also published a composition textbook, Creating Music – A Composition Guide for Students (Gill, 2017), which I used to triangulate and extend my analysis of his in-class pedagogy and de-briefing sessions.

The creative music classroom with Richard Gill Improvisatory activities at the kindergarten level begin through movement, not music. In Lesson 1, Richard has students mirror his movements, then invites students to lead with their own movements. Later, he has students copy his movements as he moves about the room, then tells students to “find a different dance” (15:10) en masse, pointing out the creative efforts of some students to create original movements. In Lessons 4 and 5, a similar process is used to introduce improvisation with body percussion and percussion instruments, in addition to movement: for example, in Lesson 4, students copy Gill’s movement with a tambourine, then volunteers are encouraged to find “your special way” (0:46) that the rest of the class can copy; in Lesson 5, movement and body percussion are combined as, “Who can do a pattern with some walking and some clapping?” (16:18). In Gill’s approach, the language is very carefully constructed. While in his de-briefing sessions with teachers observing these classes, he clearly states, “This is preparation for composition” (Kindergarten Debrief, 0:38), the language used with the children does not mention 17

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

improvisation, composition, nor even the idea that a child is improvising “solo” or as part of a group. The language is gentle and inviting, such as, “I’m looking for a different person now to do a pattern” (Lesson 5, 16:48). Over the six years, there is a slow and gentle scaffolding toward more formal composition. By Year 2, movement is still central to improvising and composing: an improvisation becomes a composition by remembering the movement and then showing it to the class (Lesson 1, 5:15). Gill encourages meta-cognition around the process, asking questions like, “What are we doing? We are making things up in-between (the phrases we already learned)” (19:05). By the third lesson, the making-up has moved through body percussion (“Who can make another pattern for baking biscuits?”, Lesson 2, 2:30) to pitched percussion (“On this alto xylophone, make up a tune,” Lesson 3, 15:42) with limited pitch sets. These techniques are then scaffolded to musical form through the introduction of the idea of question and answer. Questions and answers are sung, danced, and played on unpitched and pitched percussion, sometimes all at once. There is no attempt to cement the pitched and unpitched improvisations into repeatable compositions, though, as was done early with the dance. It is also evident that, even in the early years, the lessons are traditionally didactic, or teacher-led. Gill changes mode and activity every few minutes, so students do not seem to tire of listening to him or others’ music, but it is notable that this is not Orff-Keetman Schulwerk, in which an aim of the pedagogy is to talk as little as possible and keep all children singing or playing a part at all times (Frazee & Kreuter, 1987; Humberstone, 2015; Steen, 1992). Often only two or three children are actively making music, while the rest of the class listens and prepares to answer questions. Gill is also not averse to spending periods at the whiteboard spelling Italian musical terms, or asking questions about the music notation, but as he notes himself in the de-briefing following the fifth lesson, “This is terribly old-fashioned teaching. Terribly old-fashioned, heavily teacher-directed, very heavily teacher- directed. But the responsibility for the lesson is on the child.” His aim is to repeat ideas until they settle in, and then extend them: “It’s not hugely entertaining, it’s actually hard-core musical information that requires consistent teaching, and letting everyone have a go.” A more deliberate, but still heavily scaffolded, composition process is increasingly evident by Years 4 and 5. Students begin by improvising a dance to the second of the Romanian Folk Dances Sz. 56 by Béla Bartók (1915), the Sash Dance. Next, they learn and improvise a dance to Tielman Susato’s Battle Pavane (1551), as well as the idea of a “Battle Dance” which becomes the structure for the rest of the classes. Susato’s original is gradually replaced by provided and improvised layers, first on unpitched percussion instruments, and then on xylophones in D Dorian performed and danced to by the students. In the final lesson, Richard has students invent each of these parts, except a given bordun (Steen, 1992), and notates some of them, getting students to read them in French rhythm syllables (Simpson, 1976) and then play them, creating a new battle-dance accompaniment which also includes some entirely improvised lines in sections. The structural theme for Richard’s lessons with Year 5 is the rondo. Beginning with the polka from Schwanda the Bagpiper by Jaromír Weinberger (1926), students copy rhythms and then make up their own from the same rhythmic elements (one-beat combinations of quarters, eighths, and sixteenths). After learning the rondo form, students invent their own B, C, and D sections to a given A theme, and Gill scaffolds their writing in stick notation, again through the use of French rhythm syllables. In Figure 1.1, the given rondo is indicated with a smiley face (chosen by the children), and the other rhythms are named after the child who invented them and the type of body percussion they used. 18

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

Figure 1.1  The first notated student rondo group composition

Students then develop these rhythms into pitched melodies by improvising on xylophones until they are happy with their efforts, although these composed melodies are memorized, not notated. See a transcribed development of the “clicky Portia” theme (from Figure 1.1) in Figure 1.2. In both Years 4 and 5, Richard is content to write the notation for the students. He might get them to work it out in rhythm syllables, or he may get them to read, sing, or play it from the notation, but certainly the focus is on inventing, not on notating.

Figure 1.2 Students extend their composed rhythmic themes into short melodies by exploring on a xylophone

19

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

I have mentioned some of the repertoire Gill uses to teach composition concepts very deliberately, above. As a conductor and composer himself, he is an avowed advocate for the study of WAM being central to a “quality” music education, writing in his autobiography, “Subjecting children to second-rate music implies that they do not have the capacity to be affected or moved by good music. In short, playing children rubbish means you get a rubbish response. I will never subscribe to the poison that currently permeates the curriculum of all music having the same value” (Gill, 2013, loc. 580). At the same time, in the de-briefing session, Richard explained that he was not a “crusader” for classical music, saying, “Just because it’s Beethoven doesn’t mean to say it makes any sense to children. Then I started to change my tack. And think about children making their own music, based on music that was the exemplars. So that the concept of an appreciation lesson changed in my mind, dramatically: that it should have a musical outcome at the end, which resulted in composition. And then I crusaded for composition!”

Michael and non-WAM practice Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, Michael and I spoke over video conferencing software. Because his college’s course focuses on music industry, business, performance, music video, interactive media, sound design, sound production (audio engineering), and electronic music production, and also because of Michael’s extensive experience as a performer of popular music, I expected him to outline pedagogies for teaching musical creativity that were much less formal than Richard’s. I was wrong. Michael explained that his own training in musical creativity, which in the early days centered around arranging music, was quite ad hoc: “I used to go home and record my arrangements into MIDI using crappy sounds, and you could sort of hear […] so that’s how you learn, that’s how I learned by doing and, and listening, doing and listening and critiquing.” While he studied music theory and performance formally, the creative part of the process was self-taught, toward arranging songs for professional ensembles that Michael performed in. This gave him some key skills, but he thought that he developed these skills more through his teaching: “I do have teaching others to thank for my increasing ability in those things, because the more time you spend teaching others, the more time you spend teaching yourself.” Michael has therefore developed a pedagogy for musical creativity in which teaching arranging, rather than composition alone, is the logical first step for his students, just as it was for himself. And, to me arranging is – I’m a believer in steps. People need to be taught fundamental basic skills before they can go any further. And the simple things like notating drum parts on a manuscript line, and learning how sounds interact with each other, like kick drums and bass guitars, and how open string chords and barred chords on a guitar sound different. […] And learning to write basic style. So I, I mimic, I give students works to copy, so they can understand, take a piece they know. And let’s write it out on paper so we can see […] what it sounds like, this is what that looks like. Such an approach sounds surprisingly formal and theoretical for further-education industrybased college courses, but in his reflections, Michael made it clear that while learning these skills sequentially, the theory is always connected to the sound, “in their own head a vision of […] what a pop song looks like on a piece of paper, versus what it sounds like when you hear it. And whether that drum sound is an electronic drum sound from an 808 or recorded in a studio on a drum kit.” 20

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

In addition to prioritizing reading, writing, and development of aural imagination, Michael described a range of skills that would later be useful for “free” composition that are developed through arranging, including instrumentation, idiomatic writing, voicing, and music technology (understanding synthesis and sound design). These skills are then scaffolded toward composition through heavily scaffolded exercises: “Often the hardest part is starting. And so you give people things to start from, you set them boundaries, you give them conditions – a key, a time, a sound, a space, a note, a texture or rhythm, something to start with and just introduce them to compositional techniques, one thing at a time.” Michael said that some college students are resistant to this approach, feeling that learning compositional techniques one at a time is too limiting, or not creative enough; but that when students have finished going through the exercises, that they “start to realize that their innate ideas […] can often be articulated [through those] compositional techniques,” and that they can be more creative and free through the use of those carefully developed skills. Michael also spoke about the importance of giving students feedback on their arranging and compositional work, and using that feedback to teach students to self-critique and to teach themselves, just as he did at the same age. Michael made the point that, while learning music notation is important in his courses, and his process for teaching composition, it isn’t the same for all courses at the college. “We have teachers that teach electro style of composition, hip-hop, and styles that are of that ilk. It’s all Ableton Live. I mean, that that kind of composition is […] all listening, it’s trial and error. […] They’re all valid ways to compose music, there’s nothing invalid about listening to something and trying something new until it sounds right. And that type of music does not require you to read. It’s not a written form.” In a later discussion, Michael also explained that learning music notation is still very much required in the music industry, and in industry-based courses. His pedagogy is therefore a balance of drawing on his own learning experiences (both formal and informal), a strong belief in formal techniques informing the creative practice, developing self-critique and a thirst for improvement in his students, and an open-mindedness to musical experiences, integrated whenever possible (composition that develops performance, aural, and musicianship skills all at once). And he believes that his graduates show that his process works: What I would like to be able to think that we do in diploma level students is to give them enough tools to create that desire to become self-educated, musicians moving forward, either to go study elsewhere, to move on to a degree, or at least become inquisitive enough so when they leave, they have that desire to keep learning more. And in fact, that is one of the things that makes me very happy when I bump into students years later to find out that they’ve actually gone and done something interesting, doesn’t necessarily have to be studied. But they’ve written enough songs to make an album, or they’re performing live enough now that they actually understand what we were doing in class.

Similarities and differences It is clear from these two examples that even in entirely different institutions and age groups, that there are surprisingly more similarities in the pedagogical approaches of Michael and Richard to teaching music creation than there are differences. Musical models and techniques are very important to both of them, and their teaching scaffolds the understanding of these techniques through composition (or improvisation, or arranging). Both educators value the integration of traditional music notation and theory, articulated in my interviews with 21

James Henry Byrne Humberstone

Michael, and shown repeatedly in Richard’s lessons, even as young as Kindergarten and Years 1 and 2. While pedagogies such as the Orff-Keetman Schulwerk might encourage a more immersive musical experience, and while the expectation of further-education colleges might be that learning is exclusively practical and applicable to immediate industry outcomes, both educators valued the “slow road” to understanding, with Richard often taking time to explain concepts (and their spelling) to primary classes, or running activities with just one or two children while the rest of the class listened, and Michael encouraging students to understand why as well as how they learn each compositional technique, in order to nurture deeper and self-directed learning in the long term. Not only was Richard’s range of repertoire and instrumentation used to model compositional approaches much narrower than Michael’s, which reflects both the different institutions and age groups, but also Richard’s fervent belief was that some music is simply better than others. This belief and its influence on music educators in Australia and internationally is the subject of another research project.

Teaching music creation in Australia Michael and Richard do not represent the myriad ways musical creativity is taught in Australia: in fact, this is largely unknown due to the lack of research in this field. A long-term research project that theorizes the similarities and differences in how composition is taught in all of Australia’s states and territories by its leading educators will help establish the field properly. The summaries of the various syllabi in the first half of this chapter suggest that the approaches are likely to be highly varied. What the analysis of Richard’s hours of teaching and detailed interviews with Michael do reveal are two brilliant educators’ well-articulated pedagogies that do fit into the parts of the Australian education sector(s) in which each works. They provide two well-refined and articulated approaches which can be used by teachers to guide their own practice, and for the research project, to develop a more nuanced picture of how musical creativity is taught in Australia. Whether these pedagogies, or others yet to be discovered, provide the kind of holistic and inclusive curriculum required in Australia in the 21st century is yet to be seen.

Reflective questions 1 How do the requirements for and definitions of composition in Australia align or contrast with those of other countries? 2 Is there a better term for composition in syllabi internationally that is more inclusive of all approaches to creating music? 3 Regardless of musical style, both Richard and Michael accentuated the importance of learning notated music theory. How important is this for teaching composition/music creation in your context?

Note 1 The following references refer to page numbers in The Australian Curriculum. This document is not published separately but generated by the ACARA website (see reference), and to match pagination, readers should select Music, All year levels, and All curriculum elements before selecting Download PDF at https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download?view=f10

22

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia

References ABC. (2007). Discovery. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Althouse, J., Grace, C., & Wyatt, M. (2015). Composer gallery. 24 caricature posters of the masters. Alfred Publishing. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Schools. Data on students, staff, schools, rates and ratios for government and non-government schools, for all Australian states and territories. https://www.abs. gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/2020#cite-window1, accessed April 23, 2023. Australian Capital Territory (ACT) BSSS. (2017). Music A/T/M course. Phillip: ACT Board of Senior Secondary Studies. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2020). The Australian curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download?view=f10 Australian Record Industry Association. (2020). ARIA top 50 singles. https://www.aria.com.au/charts/ 2020/australian-artist-singles-chart Bernhard, H. C. (2013). Music education Majors’ confidence in teaching improvisation. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 22(2), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083712458593 Bledsoe, R. (2017). Pedagogical decision-making. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.47 Board of Studies New South Wales. (2009a). Music 1 stage 6 syllabus. Sydney: Board of Studies NSW. Board of Studies New South Wales. (2009b). Music 2 and music extension stage 6 syllabuses. Sydney Board of Studies NSW. Bull, A. (2019). Class, control, and classical music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780190844356.001.0001 Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publications. Charmaz, K. (2017). Constructivist grounded theory. Journal of Positive Psychology. 12(2), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612 Connolly, B., & Raymond, S. (2011). Mrs. Carey’s concert [documentary] (95 minutes). Matchbox Pictures. Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters. A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Everett, W. (2008). The foundations of rock: From “Blue Suede Shoes” to “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes”. : New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Evershed, N. (2015, January 13). Australian music across four decades – how our popular music has changed over time. The Guardian. Ewell, P. A. (2020). Music theory and the white racial frame. Music Theory Online, 26(2). https://doi. org/10.30535/mto.26.2.4 Frazee, J., & Kreuter, K. (1987). Discovering Orff. Mainz: Schott Music Corporation. Gall, M. (2013). Trainee teachers’ perceptions: Factors that constrain the use of music technology in teaching placements. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 6(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1386/jmte.6.1.5_1 Gill, R. (2003). The creative music classroom with Richard Gill. Sydney: MLC School. Gill, R. (2013). Give me excess of it: A memoir. Sydney: Pan Macmillan. Gill, R. (2017). Creating music. Sydney: Devirra Publications. Haralampou, L., & Humberstone, J. H. B. (2020). What will become of us. The Future Ancients. https:// www.thefutureancients.com/ Hargreaves, D. J., Welch, G. F., Purves, R., & Marshall, N. A. (2003). The identities of music teachers. In Proceedings of the 5th Triennial ESCOM Conference, (September), (pp. 178–181). Hanover: Institute for Research in Music Education. Hess, J. (2015). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415581283 Hess, J. (2017). Equity and music education: Euphemisms, terminal naivety, and Whiteness. Action, 16(3), 15–47. https://doi.org/10.22176/act16.3.15 Hess, J. (2019). Music education for social change: Constructing an activist music education. Abingdon, New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452000

23

James Henry Byrne Humberstone Humberstone, J. H. B. (2015). Toward a pluralist music education. Creatively exploring the Creative Music Movement, the Orff approach, and new research on children’s musical identities and informal music learning. In NSW Orff Schulwerk State Conference. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11278. 20807 Humberstone, J. H. B. (2016). The place of music in 21st century education. Retrieved June 1, 2016 from Coursera website: https://www.coursera.org/learn/music-education/ Humberstone, J. H. B. (2017). A pluralist approach to music education. In A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.40 Humberstone, J. H. B. (2020). Empathy in a time of division [solo viola, delay, tape]. Tübingen, Germany: Art has to be contagious. Humberstone, J. H. B., Zhao, C., & Liu, D. (2020). Nurturing vulnerability to develop pedagogical change through MOOC participation and public blogging. In J. Waldron, S. Horsley, & K. K. Veblen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social media and music learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190660772.013.35 Humberstone, J. H. B., Zhao, C., Liu, D., & Mary Elizabeth. (2023). Judging the successful challenging of participant worldview in a MOOC designed with a pedagogy of provocation. International Journal of Music Education, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221149223 Leight, E. (2019, January). Hip-hop continued to dominate the music business in 2018. Rolling stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/hip-hop-continued-to-dominate-the-musicbusiness-in-2018-774422/ McDonald Publishing Company. (2017). Famous composers teaching poster set. St. Louis, MO: McDonald Publishing. Morrison, M. D. (2019). Race, blacksound, and the (re)making of musicological discourse. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 72(3). 781–823. https://doi.org/10.1525/jams.2019.72.3.781 Music in motion. (2012). Classical composers poster. Music in motion. https://www.musicmotion.com/ 5909-composer-posters-set-1-classical-roma New South Wales Board of Studies. (2003). Music Years 7-10 syllabus. Sydney: New South Wales Board of Studies. North Star Teacher Resources. (2020). Composers bulletin board. North Star Teacher Resources. NSW Education Standards Authority. (2020). HSC facts and figures. Retrieved from https:// educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/11-12/hsc/about-HSC/HSC-facts-figures/2020-hscfacts-and-figures New South Wales (NSW) Government. (2020). Australia’s cultural diversity. Sydney: New South Wales (NSW) Government. Parliamentary Education Office and Australian Government Solicitor. (2010). Australia’s constitution pocket edition: With overview and notes by the Australian Government Solicitor. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2019). Music 2019 v1.2 general senior syllabus. Brisbane City: Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2020). Music extension composition v1.1. Brisbane City: Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Randles, C., & Sulivan, M. (2013). How composers approach teaching composition. Strategies for music teachers. Music Educators Journal, 99(3), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432112471398 Sa’id, A. (2016). BeatTips manual: Some insight on producing hip hop-rap beats and music. New York, NY; Paris: Superchamp Books. Schloss, J. G. (2009). Foundation: B-boys, b-girls and Hip-Hop culture in New York. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schloss, J. G. (2014). Making beats: The art of sample-based hip-hop. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2017). Music general course year 12 syllabus. Cannington: School Curriculum and Standards Authority WA. School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2019). Music ATAR course Year 11 syllabus. Cannington: School Curriculum and Standards Authority WA. School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2020). Music ATAR course Year 12 syllabus. Cannington: School Curriculum and Standards Authority WA. Simpson, K. (1976). Some great music educators: A collection of essays. Borough Green: Novello.

24

Battle dances and 808s: Teaching music creation in Australia Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. SMH. (2005, January 22). The eternity man, Sydney festival. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www. smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/the-eternity-man-sydney-festival-20050122-gdkjir.html Spotify. (2020). The sound of Australia. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2XVNjIYqXmzPbneYemRrix Steen, A. (1992). Exploring Orff. Mainz: Scott Music Corporation. Stevens, R., & Southcott, J. (2017). Australia: Recurring problems and unresolved issues. In G. Cox & R. Stevens (Eds.), The origins and foundations of music education. International perspectives. (pp. 223–239). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Strand, K. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/4101437 Talbot, B. C. (Ed.). (2018). Marginalized voices in music education. Abingdon, New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315225401 The SACE Board of South Australia. (2019). Music studies subject outline stage 2. Adelaide: SACE Board of South Australia. The SACE Board of South Australia. (2020a). Music 2020 subject outline stage 1. Adelaide: SACE Board of South Australia. The SACE Board of South Australia. (2020b). Music explorations 2020 subject outline stage 2. Adelaide: SACE Board of South Australia. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2016). Victorian Certificate of education music study design. Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

25

2 FROM COMPOSING PROJECT TO UNIVERSITY COURSE Formal and informal pathways of learning to compose in music classrooms in Austria* Helmut Schmidinger Terminology and definitions Although during the last two decades there has been an increase in publication and research activities within the field of composition pedagogy in German-speaking countries (Aigner, 2017; Grow, 2018; Schmidinger, 2020; Wieneke, 2016), with few exceptions (Aigner, 2017; Schmidinger, 2020), there is no specific Austrian approach that has developed independently of the German discourse. How closely the conceptual history is interwoven between Austria and Germany is illustrated by the contributions to the proceedings of a symposium on Composition in didactic contexts at the Mozarteum Salzburg (Losert & Bornhöft, 2018) or an article on the profession of the composition teacher in the Lexicon of Music Professions (Schmidinger, 2021, p. 264). Academic discussion concerning composition in school music education has intensified, yet composers and their points of view tend to be only seldom considered (Handschick, 2015). Therefore, this article dedicates a section to the role of the composer in the classroom. In analogy to the field of instrumental and vocal pedagogy, composition pedagogy considers itself an independent subject area of music pedagogy (Schmidinger, 2020). While instrumental pedagogy and vocal pedagogy focus on learning an instrument or singing, the subject of composition pedagogy is learning to compose. Because the relatively young field of composition pedagogy is still in the process of developing terminology which is both specific and consistent, it is helpful at this juncture to define some terms in order to clarify content. The term ‘composition pedagogy’ is often used as an approximate or complete synonym for the term ‘composition didactics1’. While the term ‘composition pedagogy’ refers to the whole academic field, the term ‘composition didactics’ describes more narrowly the normative process of planning and evaluating lessons. Closely connected to the discussion concerning the term composition pedagogy is the discussion about the term composition, which relies heavily

*The author would like to acknowledge and thank Elizabeth Bucura, Timea Sari, and Lukas Schmidinger for translating the chapter and Constanze Wimmer (KLANGNETZE) and Marie-Therese Rudolph (OeAD) for helpful information.

26

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-3

From composing project to university course

on German pedagogue Carl Dahlhaus’s dating from 1979. He states that composition is ‘(1) a self-contained individual musical structure, which (2) is fully formulated and (3) fixed in written form, (4) with the intention to be performed, where the formulated and noted part represents the essential part of the aesthetic object that constitutes itself in the consciousness of the listener’ (Dahlhaus, 1979, p. 10). These more conservative definitions of composition seem to be incompatible with composing with children and adolescents. Therefore, current thinking in music pedagogy has developed an alternative definition and new concepts to describe composing in the classroom. Just as with Dahlhaus’s formulation, the following approaches also fall back on the German discussion due to the absence of an independent Austrian discourse. In his article ‘Musik erfinden’ (‘Inventing Music’), Kramer (1997) refers explicitly to ‘inventing music’ as a method of learning music. The method he describes aims at, ‘(a) building fundamental musical knowledge and skills, including basic listening skills, (b) broadening the understanding of musical works and pieces, (c) the development of a fundamental understanding for artistic-musical creativity, (d) fostering individual musical productivity and music-related creativity’ (p. 340). This terminology distinguishes between composing as a method to make theoretical musical knowledge tangible through one’s own actions and composing as an end in itself, following one’s own compositional and artistic ideas. Other terms which emphasize this difference and are used in the German-speaking literature when referring to composing in the classroom include inventing music, design work, and music production. According to Nimczik, ‘“[i]nventing music” as musical design work means a communicative, interactive, and specific way of dealing with treating music as one [emphasis in original] field of activity in music lessons […], while its accomplishment and performance is the work of a group (i.e. composition and interpretation in groups)’ (Nimczik, 1997, p. 182). These pedagogical definitions of composition tend to focus on aspects of composing as a method in contrast to an otherwise ‘artistic definition of composition’ (Schmidinger, 2020, p. 49). In order to strengthen the artistic aspect of composing, it may be helpful to intensify the involvement of composition teachers in both practical work and academic discourse. It is interesting to observe that in other school subjects with a high proportion of individual creativity, such as art and creative writing, no alternative terms for the creative action have been established. However, the term ‘composing without any prerequisite’ (‘voraussetzungsloses Komponieren’), which plays an important role in composing in the classroom as it refers to approaches that are available for all students regardless of their previous musical experiences, reflects the literal meaning of the term of composing (Lat. componere). Such approaches can work, for instance, via listening or basic rhythmic elements. This approach stays abreast of the increasing heterogeneity we can find in the classroom (Friedrich, 2016). The terminology is particular, and the use of different terms for, and definitions of, composing is mirrored in Austrian school curricula.

Specifications of Austrian school curricula The Austrian school system is divided into elementary (1st to 4th grade, ages 6–10), lower secondary (5th to 8th grade, ages 11–14), and upper secondary levels (9th to 12th or 13th grade, ages 15–18 or 19). The following overview highlights all demands which refer to the creative musical practice. All school curricula use the above-mentioned replacement terms ‘create’ and/ or ‘invent’ for composing in the classroom.

27

Helmut Schmidinger

Elementary school ‘Music education has the purpose […] to lead to creative musical design’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2012, p. 164). The following paragraph clarifies what is meant by this: ‘An appropriate amount of time has to be dedicated to creative design. Events, poems, narratives, and moods can be stimuli for improvisation. Thereby, different opportunities for free creation should be offered. Along with the voice and traditional instruments, self-made instruments should be used. Cross-connections to crafts, German, reading (writing), arts (writing) and to general scientific education [‘Sachunterricht’] are to be established’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2012, p. 172). Additionally, under the headline ‘making music’, the curriculum states: ‘The multitude of possibilities for personal experience with a range of different instruments, from sound experiments to group improvising, should give great space for the development of the creative design abilities of the children’ (p. 172). An Austrian particularity, that of elementary schools with a musical focus, should be mentioned here as well, as these are elementary schools with additional music classes.

Lower secondary level Secondary-level school curricula describe the educational field of ‘creativity and design’ as follows: ‘Skills of reproduction, production and improvisation through singing, making music, sports, design, development of imagination, spontaneity, and creativity – individually and in groups’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2020, p. 5). From a terminological point of view the wording ‘design of musical pieces with given or self-invented rhythmic and melodic motives, texts, and motion sequences’ is very interesting. Here, both replacement terms ‘design’ and ‘invent’ are used in one sentence. One could also read the sentence as: composing of musical pieces with given or self-composed rhythmic and melodic motives. Under the headline ‘didactic principles’, the following wording can be found: ‘An essential part of a lesson’s design is the active integration of artists and experts’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2020, p. 6). This reference will be revisited later in the paragraph about the role of composers and composition pedagogues in schools. As an Austrian particularity in this age group, the ‘Musikmittelschule’ (musical lower secondary school) has a higher number of music classes per week. However, according to the curriculum, these extra hours do not automatically imply the amplification of creative competences and skills.

Upper secondary level The possibilities of school education in the age group of the upper secondary level in Austria are essentially characterized by, first, the ‘Oberstufe der Allgemeinbildenden Höheren Schulen’ (AHS) (i.e. academic secondary schools) and, second, the ‘Berufsbildenden Höheren Schulen’ (BHS) (i.e. vocational schools). While in the BHS area the subject of music cannot be found, in the AHS it remains part of the curriculum. In the 7th and 8th grade of the AHS (ages 17–18), students can choose between artistic subjects such as music and arts. In the most recent version of the curriculum for the upper secondary level (AHS), ‘creativity and design’ are referred to thusly: ‘Musical reproduction, production, and improvisation support the development of imagination and creativity, as well as the development of a consciousness for artistic action. The gained experiences from individual achievement and musical group processes should support the process of musical education and the forging of an identity’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2004, p. 72). 28

From composing project to university course

In the curriculum of the ‘Realgymnasium unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der musischen Ausbildung für Studierende der Musik’, better known under the name ‘Musikgymnasium’ which has a particular focus on and specialization in music, no reference to composition can be found, neither in relation to individual settings nor in the context of group processes. In the curriculum of the ‘Bildungsanstalt für Elementarpädagogik’ (BAfEP) (‘educational institution for elementary pedagogy’, i.e., training institution for kindergarten teachers) and the ‘Bildungsanstalt für Sozialpädagogik’ (BASOP) (‘educational institution for social pedagogy’, i.e., training institution for social-educational professions), the design of music plays a more important role. Included in the educational plan are ‘movement and performance’ activities, such as improvising, sound-painting, and the depiction of extra-musical contents via musical means (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2016, p. 5). Processes of inventing music and improvisation are referred to as one field of action. In the field of action ‘singing and making music’ for primary schools, the wording is ‘improvised design of non-musical content (e.g., texts, images, moods) through voices and instruments’ (p. 8–14). For the Austrian particularities in lower and upper secondary school levels, the model extends the field of action to include ‘vocal and instrumental musicmaking’ and ‘creating sounds [i.e. periodic vibrations] and noises [i.e. aperiodic vibrations] experimentally’ ‘Klänge und Geräusche experimentell erzeugen’. The references to inventing music can be found in the wording ‘inventing and editing of melodic and rhythmic motives’ (p. 20–38). The requirements of ‘inventing and editing melodic and rhythmic motives’ or, in particular, the aspect of ‘creating sounds and noises experimentally’ were essential characteristics of the artistic-pedagogical concept of the project ‘Klangnetze’ (‘Webs of Sound’). The educational package of the Austrian government, adopted by the council of ministers in 2018, contains a restructuring of school curricula which will be implemented in the school year of 2023/24. An important contribution to the new educational package could be the model of competences by the ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Musikerzieher Österreich’ (AGMÖ) which has been developed for all grades and different kinds of schools (Knaus, Peschl, Rehorska, & Winter, 2013). However, like the curricula, this competence model does not represent any obligation for teachers. The curriculum in Austria, as a framework, is primarily an orientation for teachers. Apart from the core topics determined by the curriculum, teachers are free to choose the content of lessons, as there are no centrally established and monitored standards in the subject of music.

Historical development: Klangnetze This project heavily influenced the image of composing in Austrian classrooms between 1992 and 2003 as it took place throughout the country. In 1991, when Karsten Witt transferred from the Ensemble Modern to the Viennese ‘Konzerthaus’, he brought with him to Austria the experiences he had with music education and outreach projects at the Ensemble Modern and initiated in cooperation with ‘Klangforum Wien’ a comparable model. The experiences were derived from a British model, where orchestral musicians from the London Sinfonietta composed together with school classes and their music teachers. He invited the flutist Richard McNicol, Daryl Runswick, a jazz pianist and composition teacher at the Trinity College of Music, and the composer David Sawer to Austria for the start of the project. The trio shaped the team-teaching model comprising composers and musicians, which is characteristic of the 29

Helmut Schmidinger

‘Klangnetze’. Out of this first collaboration, an extensive process of discussion and development of an Austrian version evolved over the following years. The project received substantial financial support from music curators Christian Scheib and Lothar Knessl in the years between 1993 and 1996. After their term as music curators ended in 1996, the Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Arts took over the financial sourcing, but it could not keep it at the former level. The financial support decreased each year until the project ended in 2003. Hans Schneider, at this point assistant at the Department of Music Pedagogy at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, defined the aims of the initiative as follows: ‘The aim of this work and of the project is to give students an understanding of the different aspects of modern music. To initiate and promote an understanding for material and form, improvisation and the technique of composition, musical communication, tonal colours, noises, and so on’ (Scheib, Schneider, & Lippert, 1995, p. 11). He referred to a focus on composing as a method to gain a better understanding of the music of the 20th century. This aspect is an important part of children’s individual composing processes, which means that when they begin to develop an individual compositional idea, it usually does not express itself in the language of contemporary music but rather in stylistic replications of various composers and/or genres of music. In such compositions, traces of the music that the children and adolescents are listening to or are playing themselves can clearly be seen. Over time, specific schedules for all ‘Klangnetze’ projects evolved. Before work in the classroom started, an introductory seminar was held for several days. There, all participants met for the first time and the project was introduced. This was followed by a phase of getting to know the methods and materials for the whole group, as well as a try-out phase in small groups. In these small groups, short pieces, mainly from the concept area, were performed or composed by the participants. Based on this experience, the first teams were formed, consisting of a musician, a composer, and a teacher. The teams prepared a 2-hour lesson and taught it at a local school as part of the seminar. The lesson was observed by other participants and was followed by a joint reflection. In this way, every member of the team had the opportunity to be in both a teaching and an observing role. Based on their experiences, the participants formed final teams for the project work in schools. The amount of work in the classroom consisted of approximately 20 lessons, in which an individual approach was developed – neither reference work nor an overarching theme was predefined. At the conclusion of the project, the results were presented by the participants and their students either in the context of a school event or on a larger scale, at a ‘Klangnetze’ concert. At these concerts, a range of pieces that originated in the project were presented. Due to the intense preparation of these projects, follow-ups and reflections were used throughout the course of the project. Along with ‘Klangnetze’, a network (‘Klangnetzwerk’) of participating composers, musicians, and teachers developed, which regarded itself as a ‘community of practice’2 (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). One can find the traces of this network (‘Klangnetzwerk’) in recent projects; therefore, it can be said that the ‘Klangnetze’ shaped the landscape of projects in Austria and thereby the informal pathways of learning in further education over the longer term. For example, Cordula Bösze repeatedly worked together with composers such as Wolfgang Suppan and Konrad Rennert from the ‘Klangnetzwerk’ in her composing workshop at the music school in Tulln. In Styria in 2010, the composition project ‘Konfrontationen’ was initiated by Klaus Dorfegger and was designed in the spirit of ‘Klangnetze’. Klaus Dorfegger, who was a composer in the ‘Klangnetze’ team, is currently the school inspector for music in Styria. In addition, ‘Klangnetze’ are also an inspiration for the university course ‘Lehrpraxis Projektunterricht’ (‘Teaching Practice in Project Classes’), which is part of the study program Composition and Music Theory Pedagogy at the KUG. 30

From composing project to university course

Transformation from project to university course As the curricula of middle schools require that ‘the active inclusion of artists’ should play an ‘indispensable part of lesson organisation’ (Lehrpläne der Mittelschulen, 2020, p. 6), the preparation of artists to work with school classes is one of the objectives of the autonomous study program of Composition and Music Theory Pedagogy at the University of Music and Performing Arts in Graz (KUG). By establishing pathways for qualification, such programs attempt to address a demand for competences among future composers, as well as music, instrumental, and vocal teachers. This study program is offered as a bachelor’s degree and an accompanying master’s degree. It centers on composition pedagogy as a field of study at the same level as instrumental and vocal pedagogy, as well as on school music (Schmidinger, 2018b). The ‘Bamberger Fachstrukturmodell’ (‘Bamberg Structure Model of Music Education’), consisting of three levels of practice, didactics, and research (Hörmann & Meidel, 2016), functions as a model for the internal structure of this field of study at the KUG. However, this model does not address an important aspect, namely that of musical art. In order to emphasize the importance of this fourth level for the study of composition pedagogy, the program is situated within the primarily artistic Department of Composition. Thereby, composition pedagogy is outlined as both an artistic and academic field of study (Schmidinger, 2019, p. 117). The curriculum for this program was developed in collaboration by two departments: the Department of Music Pedagogy, and the Department of Composition, Music Theory, Music History, and Conducting. The study program in composition pedagogy at the KUG aims to prepare students for a range of practical fields. Therefore, it offers an extensive range of possibilities for teaching practice (Schmidinger, 2018a). The KUG can offer these possibilities internally in teaching composition to individuals or groups, within the context of music schools, in their own composition class for children and adolescents, or within the context of music education and outreach, by designing workshops related to concerts of the university orchestra. In the context of upper secondary schools (AHS), the university cooperates with external partners, such as different schools from the region. Building on the experiences from my longstanding participation at ‘Klangnetze’, I chose production-centered project lessons, which have proven a beneficial setting for composing in the classroom context. They have been an inspiration for the university course Teaching Practice in Project Classrooms. Because the curriculum is designed to combine departments, it is possible to implement a team-teaching philosophy, which is a characteristic of composing in the classroom. The university course is mandatory for students of Composition and Music Theory Pedagogy, as well as being an optional course for students of school music. Currently, it is taught by a team consisting of a composer and composition pedagogue, and a senior scientist (postdoc) in music education. The students themselves form teams consisting of one composition pedagogy student and one music education student. Because this form of project lessons is unusual in the professional practice of composers and (music) teachers, the teamwork is supposed to create understanding for the needs and approaches of the other. The aim is to teach artists the necessary pedagogical competences. These can include, for example, leading a workshop at a school, teaching teachers an understanding of the conditions of artistic processes, and enabling them to support, join, and complement the work of the school teachers. At the moment, the course is designed so that in the winter term a project takes place in cooperation with a school from the secondary level, and in the summer term, a project is conducted in cooperation with a primary school. The sequence is based on the observation 31

Helmut Schmidinger

that working with younger students requires a heightened awareness for age-appropriate task assignment and/or use of language, for example with respect to phrasing instructions or the use of complicated terminology. When choosing the schools for collaborations, the lecturers aim to represent a realistic image of schools, considering the ratio between schools with or without a musical focus, but most work is done in schools without a musical focus. The main concept is the same in both semesters: visits to the schools and team meetings at the university alternate to create space for reflection and new context-dependent and context-relevant input between the school visits. The prerequisite for registering for the course for students of pedagogy of composition and music theory is to finish their didactic courses, which prepare them for teaching practice. The content of the seminars consists of three main topics: 1 Preliminary and debriefing sessions about the lesson taught. This phase takes up most of the time. 2 Complementary didactic input, such as recommendations for classroom management. 3 Treating topics that arise from the specific lessons, such as managing conflicts between students during a group activity. The students’ teaching is observed by the lecturers, if possible. At the end of the semester, short performances are scheduled, similar to ‘Klangnetze’, either in a smaller school context or in the form of a large public concert (Wieneke & Schmidinger, 2020). Currently, the presentation of the project results takes place as a joint concert with a group of students who learn to compose individually within the framework of a university composition course for gifted children. These children and adolescents are taught by students as well, but within the framework of another university course, ‘Lehrpraxis Komposition’ (‘Teaching Practice Composition’). The joint concert has two aims. First, it offers the chance for children from the school classes to experience compositions by other children, hopefully giving them the self-esteem to keep developing their own musical thoughts that have emerged during the project teaching. This reflects the aspect of sustainability of composing in the classroom, which usually takes place as a group project, as a basis for a possible path toward individual composing. Second, a combined field of practice takes into account that both areas of composition pedagogy – in public schools and music schools – will become difficult to separate and eventually merge into a common field of practice, as the amount of all-day schools (i.e. the children are at school from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.) increases.

Informal learning of composition teachers The nationwide project ‘Klangnetze’ has not only shaped the design of Austrian composition projects in the classroom context since 1991 but has also been at the same time and in addition to teaching, a kind of informal professional development opportunity for the teachers and composers involved. The study program of composition pedagogy, especially the course Lehrpraxis Projektunterricht (‘Teaching Practice in Project Classes’), is a derivative or institutionalization of this informal learning path in the context of projects. However, among composers and musicians of the independent scene, such informal qualification as an alternative to studying composition pedagogy for composing in the classroom context remains a common practice. The free-project scene is an informal way for composers and musicians to qualify for composing in the classroom context. Through ‘learning by doing’, they can gain experience, which influences the projects in a positive way. 32

From composing project to university course

To promote and financially enable the collaboration among schools, artists, and cultural institutions, the Austrian government funded a platform, called OeAD, which became a nationwide project hub. First, it offers advisory services to all participants, such as teachers, artists, and cultural institutions. The support includes sending interested composers to schools and connecting interested teachers to composers. A large amount of information, ranging from tips about project management to finance, is available on their website (https://www. kulturkontakt.or.at). Second, beyond the assistance in establishing partnerships, the OeAD offers financial support for up to 3,000 workshops with the aim of fostering activities for the communication of arts and culture. In 2018, 2000 supported events took place all over Austria, 323 of them musical events. However, only 10% were dedicated to the topic of contemporary composing. Most of the activities took place in Vienna, followed by Lower Austria and Styria. In secondary schools, 719 projects were funded in 2018, among them 118 musical projects. These workshops took place all over Austria. Another format for the promotion of such projects is the program ‘Culture Connected’. It supports projects where cultural initiatives or institutions cooperate with school classes. Teams of students, teachers, and at least one extracurricular partner can apply with their project. The projects to be funded are chosen by a jury. A list of funded musical programs is available online via the website of the OeAD (www.oead.at). At time of this writing, there is only one project about composing in the classroom on the available list. A possible reason for the low number of projects where composers are directly involved could be that the role and potential of composers in the classroom is not recognized and used to the extent that seems appropriate according to their qualification and job description. As the didactic principles in the school curriculum state, ‘a fundamental part of the classroom design is the active inclusion of artists and experts’ (Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria, 2004, p. 86). Furthermore, as stated above, composition teachers and their points of view about the field of practice of composing in a classroom are only seldom mentioned at relevant symposia and in literature. Therefore, the following section draws a picture of possible roles of composition teachers at schools.

The role of the composition teachers at schools Composers who have acquired extensive didactic competences in addition to their artistic skills during their studies of composition pedagogy can bring a specific artistic perspective to a school project that a classroom music teacher usually cannot provide. Based on my experiences as a composition teacher in various projects (e.g. ‘Klangnetze’) and as a university lecturer of composition pedagogy, in the following section, I will outline four possible aspects to illustrate the specific role of composition teachers at schools. Composition teachers are experts in musical creativity. Due to these experiences, they should have the expertise to author or co-author instructional literature for the classroom. Closely connected to their expertise is their possible function as a role model. An additional perspective is the role of the composition teacher composer as an expert for new music and music of the 20th and 21st centuries. In their function as experts for musical creativity, composition teachers can initiate processes in the area of improvisation and, based on their own experiences, they are able to guide and follow up on the processes over a longer stretch of time. They are also able to promote and bolster the deciding steps in the transformation process from images and text into music, which is an important method according to the curricula and some classroom literature, beginning from the stage of ‘Verklanglichung’ (‘Sound transformation’), that is, the basic and most direct transformation of sounds from a text or an image into music, up to more advanced stages. Their own work as composers only indirectly 33

Helmut Schmidinger

plays a role, as source of personal experience, but is not central to encounters with students. The ability to lead open-ended design processes over the duration of a composition project is a central competence that is an important part of formal qualification. These processes are creative processes whose end result is not clear, or if there will be any presentable result at all. Therefore, it is appropriate to highlight the competence of a composer to deal with the danger of failure of a project, for example through writer’s block or the absence of creative energy. These are situations the composer likely knows from personal experience. The individual concepts that composers have to have developed to overcome those difficulties can be of help for students by opening new pathways. Similar to their function as experts in musical creativity, composition teachers have expertise in formulating basic composition exercises based on their own artistic experiences. Ideally, composition teachers create teaching materials for the classroom or exercises in schoolbooks in a team with experienced music education specialists, to take into account the artistic as well as the pedagogical expertise. Their role as experts for the job and the life situation of an artist is invaluable in describing the everyday life and work of a composer. In this approach, their own work as an artist is at the center of encounters with students. Themes for questions and discussions stretch from the origin of pieces, via the environment of the performance, cooperation with the performers, the dealings with the auditorium and the press, to the utilization of the pieces in social media and connected legal issues, such as royalties or copyright laws. In their function as experts on new music and the music of the 20th and 21st centuries, composers can report from their own perspective of being part of that past, but nevertheless still present and influential history. As a consequence of their education, they have experience in the handling of predominant methods of composing of that time and can create a new artistic perspective on them. Through their experiences as composers, they can develop a direct approach to pieces from their colleagues and bring them into the classroom.

Future perspectives On the basis of this analysis of the situation of composers in Austrian classroom contexts, the following perspectives for the future can be drawn: first, I would like to promote and suggest the rediscovery of the term ‘Komponieren’ (‘composing’) in the Austrian curricula, inspired by the natural use of the term ‘compose’ from the English usage. This would lead to a decrease of difference between a pedagogic and an artistic definition of composition. At the same time, the definition of the term would lose its elitist touch and could become, similar to the natural use of creative activities in the arts classrooms, a form of integrated and individually creative activity in the music classroom. As soon as the term ‘compose’ appears in curricula, the next step would be to make composers authors and co-authors, in a team with music education specialists, of simple composition exercises. Recently, a number of didactic and academic studies from the area of composing in the classroom context have been written by composers (Friedrich, 2016; Schlothfeldt, 2009). In the area of education of future music teachers, it is necessary that ‘composing in the classroom context’ become a mandatory university course in curricula. The course should ideally be taught by composers or by specialists of composition pedagogy, and in a team-teaching arrangement with a music education expert. However, this would require a heightened awareness of the benefits of such an arrangement in a university context in order to come up with an adequate payment model for lecturers. Ideally, the notion, rationale, and practice of team teaching will be consolidated not only among lecturers but also among students. Only team teaching creates an understanding of the mindsets and requirements of each partner, based 34

From composing project to university course

on their own experiences. Formats like this could lead to the development of networks that would open access to the contemporary music scene for teachers as well as for composers, even after they complete their studies. As all-day schools (i.e. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) become more common in Austria, the borders between the compositional practice fields, public schools and music schools, are going to vanish. This development has to be dealt with in the higher education sector through the development of new formats or the adaptation of existing forms of teaching and presenting. In the disappearance of these borders and the establishment of new forms of presentation, perspectives for individually developing musical thoughts during project lessons for children and adolescents are important to keep in mind. To conclude, one wishes for the self-proclaimed ‘land of music’, Austria, to give composing the same significance in its curricula and range of subjects as it already is the case in other countries, notably England and Israel3.

Reflective questions 1 Describe and discuss the differences between formal and informal pathways of learning of composition teachers. 2 Which other ideas, beyond and/or additionally to those discussed in this chapter, could be considered with regard to the role of composition teacher at schools? 3 Describe and discuss the characteristic elements of the Austrian debate of composing in schools in comparison with the German situation.

Notes 1 ‘Didaktik reflects both the theory of teaching and the practice of organizing lessons. The German conception of Didaktik offers various models of teaching which (depending upon the subject, the teacher and students) provide the background and rationale for the actual teaching and learning’ (Kertz-Welzel, 2004, p. 279). 2 The authors define this as ‘groups of people, who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis’ (p.4). 3 Dr. Eilon Aviram (Levinsky College of Education Tel-Aviv, Israel) at the ISME Conference 2019 in Kathmandu reported on composition lessons that are embedded in the Israeli school curricula. Similarly, composition is a subject of the UK school curriculum in the Key Stages 3 and 4.

References Aigner, W. (2017). Komponieren zwischen Schule und Social Web. Eine entwicklungsorientierte Studie. Augsburg: Wißner Verlag. Dahlhaus, C. (1979). Was heißt Improvisation. In R. Brinkmann (Ed.), Improvisation und neue Musik (pp. 9–23). Mainz: Schott. Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria (2004, July 8). Lehrplan der Allgemeinbildenden Höheren Schulen. BGBl. Nr. 88/1985. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/ BGBLA_2004_II_277/BGBLA_2004_II_277.pdfsig Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria (2012, September 13). Lehrplan der Volksschule. BGBl. Nr. 134/1963 in der Fassung BGBl. II Nr. 303/2012 2012. https://www.freielehrer. at/fileadmin/dateien/bilder/Gesetze/VS-Lehrplan.pdf Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria (2016). Lehrpläne der Bildungsanstalt für Elementarpädagogik und der Bildungsanstalt für Sozialpädagogik StF: BGBl. II Nr. 204/2016 idgF. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/II/2016/204

35

Helmut Schmidinger Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture, Austria (2020). Lehrplan der Mittelschulen. BGBl. II Nr. 185/2012 zuletzt geändert durch BGBl. II Nr. 379/2020. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/ Bundesnormen/NOR40226181/NOR40226181.pdf Friedrich, B. (2016). Klangwelten des 21. Jahrhunderts in der Musikalischen Bildung. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Grow, J. (2018). Komponieren im Musikunterricht der Grundschule. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Handschick, M. (2015). Musik als ‘Medium der sich selbst erfahrenden Wahrnehmung’. Hildesheim: OLMS. Hörmann, S., & Meidel, E. (2016). Orientierung im Begriffsdschungel. Terminologische und fachstrukturelle Perspektiven zur Profilierung der Musikpädagogik und Musikdidaktik. In B. Clausen, A. Cvetko, S. Hörmann, M. Krause-Benz, & S. Kruse-Weber (Eds.), Grundlagentexte wissenschaftlicher Musikpädagogik. Begriffe, Positionen, Perspektiven im systematischen Fokus (pp. 11–68). Münster: Waxmann. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2004). Didaktik of music: A German concept and its comparison to American music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 277–286. doi:10.1177/0255761404049806. Knaus, H., Peschl, W., Rehorska, W., & Winter, C. (2013). Kompetenzen in Musik: ein aufbauendes Musikpädagogisches Konzept von der Volksschule bis zur kompetenzorientieren Reife- und Diplomprüfung. Musikerziehung Spezial, 66(3). Wien: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Musikpädagogik Österreich (AGMÖ). Kramer, W. (1997). Musik erfinden. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.), Handbuch des Musikunterrichts. Sekundarstufe I (pp. 335–363). Kassel: Gustav Bosse. Losert, M., & Bornhöft, A. (2018). Anregen – Vertiefen – Ausbilden. Komponieren im didaktischen Kontext. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Nimczik, O. (1997). Erfinden von Musik. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.) (1997), Handbuch des Musikunterrichts. Sekundarstufe II (pp. 169–189). Kassel: Gustav Bosse. Scheib, C., Schneider, H., & Lippert, C. (1995). Klangnetze. Wien: Österreichischer Kultur-Service (ÖKS). Schlothfeldt, M. (2009). Komponieren im Unterricht. Hildesheim: Olms. Schmidinger, H. (2018a). Das Bachelorstudium der Kompositions- und Musiktheoriepädagogik an der Kunstuniversität Graz. Möglichkeiten der Verknüpfung interner und externer Praxisangebote [The bachelor’s programme of composition and music theory pedagogy at the university of music and performing arts Graz. Opportunities for connecting internal and external practice offers]. https://www. kompaed.de/fileadmin/files/Artikel/KOMPAED-Schmidinger_31.1.18.pdf Schmidinger, H. (2018b). Kompositionspädagogik – eine Fachrichtung der Musikpädagogik? [Composition pedagogy – A discipline of music education?]. In M. Losert, & A. Bornhöft (Eds.), Anregen – Vertiefen – Ausbilden. Komponieren im didaktischen Kontext [Inspire – Intensify – Educate. Composing in educational context] (pp. 207–222). Münster: LIT-Verlag. Schmidinger, H. (2019). Schönbergs Bedeutung für die aktuelle Kompositionspädagogik. In E. Feß, & T. Muxeneder (Eds.), Journal of the Arnold Schönberg Center (16) (pp. 112–130). Wien: Arnold Schönberg Center Privatstiftung. Schmidinger, H. (2020). Kompositionspädagogik. Theoretische Grundlegung als Fachrichtung der Musikpädagogik. Augsburg: Wißner Verlag. Schmidinger, H. (2021). Kompositionspädagoge. In M. Lücke (Ed.), Lexikon der Musikberufe. Geschichte – Tätigkeitsfelder – Ausbildung (pp. 264–265). Lilienthal: Laaber. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wieneke, J. (2016). Zeitgenössische Musik vermitteln in Kompositionsprojekten an Schulen. Hildesheim: Olms. Wieneke, J., & Schmidinger, H. (2020). Der Klang der Stadt – A collaborative composition project including schools, university and opera house (Austria). In A. Houmann, & E. Sæther, (Eds.), Make music matter – Music education meeting the needs of young learners (pp. 107–119). Innsbruck: Helbling.

36

3 EXPANDING ANALYTICAL EYES AND EARS ON COMPOSITIONAL PROCESSES Alternative musical pedagogies on Brazilian education Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva Introduction: the Brazilian context “Brazilian” is an adjective that must be read carefully, not only in this work but also in any other studies that characterize our country. Brazil has a large territorial extension and many regional differences. Using “Brazilian” as something applicable to the entire country can create an illusion of homogeneity that does not equate to reality. When describing the realities of music education in Brazilian schools, it is necessary to take into consideration the history of the national policies, their interpretation, and implementation at state and municipal levels. With the educational reforms of the 1930s and 1940s, music became a mandatory course in the education system through the practice of orpheonic singing. This policy dealt with the need to create a national identity through values expressed not only in music but also in collective discipline and civic practices. In 1971, music, as a course, was officially removed from the curriculum, being replaced by classes in artistic education. It was only in 2008, that music, now as a subject, returned as mandatory within art classes (Brasil, 2008). Regarding the presence of music in the school curricula, public policies are fragile and not effective most of the time (Souza, 2018). There have been different interpretations at both municipal and state levels. In some municipalities around the country, there are mandatory music classes in early and elementary education, taught by educators who were trained for that purpose. However, this reality depends on each city’s administrative plan, financial resources, and other factors. The same takes place at the state level (Del-Ben et al., 2016; Figueiredo & Meurer, 2016). Furthermore, there is still a discrepancy between public and private education. In some private schools, music education is prioritized as a mandatory subject in early education and sometimes extended throughout elementary education. As a result of these multiple scenarios, the country has a huge fraction of the population without any systematized musical education. For a better comprehension of our system, it is important to highlight that basic Brazilian education is segmented as follows: early childhood education for 0–5-year-olds; elementary education, which is broken down into early grades for 6–10-year-olds, and final grades for 11–14-year-olds; and finally high school for 15–17-year-olds. DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-4

37

Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

Finally, in order to understand the Brazilian scenario regarding music education and its lack of systematization, it should be noted that there is no national prescriptive and unified curriculum at any level of education. The BNCC – Common Curricular National Base (Brasil, 2018) – is a normative document, based on the development of skills, which guides the contents and subjects that must be included in each grade of the education system. Thus, there is no single curriculum in music education applied throughout the country. The BNCC’s text includes musical content inside of the general art class, meaning that music has been recognized as a subject such as dance, drama, and visual arts (Brasil, 2018), but not as a specific course. As stated by the BNCC, the practice of music composition is one of the five pillars that organize music programmatic content.1 Some activities are suggested in the learning process, for instance in early education teachers should explore the sounds of the body and the environment; creating sounds with daily objects and musical instruments; using the sounds produced during games, storytelling, and in other recreational spaces (Brasil, 2018, p. 49). For elementary education students should, “experiment making improvisation, compositions, soundtracks for stories through the use of voice, body sounds and/or musical instruments – conventional or not – in individual, collective and collaborative modes” (Ibid, p. 203). The encouragement for these creative and compositional processes within music/art classes depends on the teacher’s choice. Without a prescriptive curriculum, what takes place in the classroom reflects the values and beliefs of each teacher, school administration, local government, and public policies.2 We have briefly described the positionality of music education relating to the policies and to the education system in Brazil. However, when we consider music-teacher training courses, and higher music education more broadly, we need to look at the pedagogical influences on the structures of this system. Teacher training courses are largely influenced by 20th-century music educators who have broadened their gaze on creative and compositional processes, with emphasis on Swanwick’s work, especially the C(L)A(S)P model (1979).3 Unfortunately, the knowledge of theories and teaching methods during higher education does not guarantee their application. Some music educators in Brazil have developed individual approaches for putting music education theories into practice. In this chapter, we focus on two of these specific approaches, which provide examples of alternative pedagogies concerned with creativity through improvisation and composition: (1) Pedagogy of Integration (Feichas, 2010) and (2) Pedagogy of Song (Silva, 2020). Both pedagogies were developed in the state of Minas Gerais, in the southeast of Brazil. Although they do not represent the “Brazilian” thought or a general view in Brazilian music education, they offer a way of encouraging the development of other pedagogical approaches in the different realities of the country and reflect approaches that are more in tune with the strong presence of popular music in Brazilian culture. Pedagogy of Integration has been an individual initiative of Heloísa Feichas, a lecturer in the Music School of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, located in the southeastern part of Brazil. The initiative has been an attempt to create a pedagogy that is more inclusive and dialogical, where the teacher facilitates learning processes and respects all students’ knowledge. This concept favors creative learning and opens many possibilities for compositional activities. This chapter will present a general concept of this pedagogy, with an overview of its practices rather than a detailed description. The concept can be applied to many disciplines, since it is more an ideology of teaching and learning rather than a prescriptive teaching method. The second approach, Pedagogy of Song, was developed by Kristoff Silva, in which he has reconciled his practice as a songwriter, researcher, and aural training teacher with the concept of “musical perception,” or “musicalization.” Although Pedagogy of Song was developed at private music schools and other settings around the Minas Gerais state, it has the potential to be applied at high schools and with both young people and adults.4 It aims to expand 38

Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes

comprehensive hearing and listening of Brazilian popular songs with an awareness of the body and using improvisation activities. The pedagogy provokes a good level of musical analysis that is nurtured by listening, which can ultimately lead to short compositional practices.

Alternative musical pedagogies: a holistic approach through composition activities Traditionally in Brazil, learning music has been the equivalent of learning music notation from European classical music. For more than a century, music conservatoires and schools of music have been working with aural training classes to provide skills and knowledge for reading and writing notated music. The famous solfeggio (sight-singing) and dictations from different methods have been the focus of this type of training (Feichas, 2000, 2006). Whereas methods of aural training develop specific skills, little attention has been paid to look at how musical skills relate to each other. For example, students are asked to practice numerous aural training exercises to succeed in various aural tests. Thus, the classes can become monotonous and tiring with repetitive exercises, causing dissatisfaction and a lack of motivation from the students (Feichas, 2000, 2006). As Pratt (1998, p. 1) states, An alarmingly large proportion of musicians, questioned about their own experiences of aural training, admit that they disliked it, thought they were bad at it, and have found it largely irrelevant to their subsequent engagement in music. Something is clearly wrong. Aural perception is self-evidently indispensable in musical activity, in creating through composing, re-creating in performance, responding as a critical listener. The aural abilities of students are assessed through discrimination, recognition, identification, and classification of intervals, scales, chords, harmonic progressions, modality, meter, and rhythm. Pratt (1998, p. 2) believes that “much aural training is directed towards testing what is right or wrong, and the most convenient material for this is the pitch and duration.” Obviously, pitch and duration are important. In most music of the Western tonal tradition and of other cultures, the accuracy of pitched notes and their duration in meter and rhythm are central elements of musical expression. Nevertheless, in aural training classes, other musical elements that are neglected are timbre, texture, dynamics, tempo, and structure (Pratt, 1998, p. 3). As a result, the skills and elements do not interact, thus producing a fragmented musical experience. It is not surprising to meet students complaining about this approach to music education saying that the study of music is separated from the music itself. The aim of aural training should be to expand musical awareness rather than just training the ears. Therefore, it is essential to think about approaches for aural training courses in which the musical experience will be treated in an integrated view instead of a fragmented one; where students will be able to link with other musical and cultural elements. The two alternative pedagogies we will discuss in this chapter (Pedagogy of Integration and Pedagogy of Song) align with this more holistic approach to music education, in which creativity is crucial. Gamble (1984, p. 17/18) lists some advantages from working with creative activities, arguing that they encourage: … open-mindedness and a willingness to explore new ideas and experiences, leading to a deeper aesthetic response to all kinds of music, and the valuing of music as a unique experience; involvement and enjoyment in meaningful musical activity; the development of independent critical thinking and attitudes towards music and other areas of knowledge and experience. 39

Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

Moreover, working with creative activities develops aural awareness, musical imagination, and musical understanding, which are all present learning goals in both pedagogies. One of the ways to develop creativity within these alternative pedagogies is through improvisation activities, which can eventually lead to compositional practices. Sloboda (1985, p. 138) points out that what distinguishes improvisation from composition is “primarily the pre-existence of a large set of formal constraints, which comprise a ‘blueprint’ or ‘skeleton’ for the improvisation.” The improvisers use a model, which is memorized, as a basis for creating variations. The model can be a melodic phrase, a rhythmic pattern, a sequence of chords (harmonic progression) in which other ideas arise, thus expanding the model. This process expands improvisers’ repertoire of musical ideas which will be relevant for compositional activities. Another important aspect about these alternative pedagogies is the enlargement of the student’s musical world through cultural experiences. As the repertoire includes different styles and genres throughout Brazilian music history, students are invited to discover a diversity of musical contexts. This expansion happens through active engagement within music, working with melodic and rhythmic patterns, understanding their structures and form, playing with different textures, improvising in different ways. As Wright (1998, p. 71) suggests in regard to a holistic approach, it “offers an interesting and in many ways educationally beneficial alternative to the more traditional separatist approach to the curriculum.” It is necessary that teachers recognize the feasibility of pedagogical action where playfulness and musical creativity dominate the curriculum, so that students can engage with music in a variety of ways, and where musical skills can be developed without fragmentation.

Pedagogy of Integration at music school of UFMG The Pedagogy of Integration is a pedagogical strategy developed in Brazilian higher music education, in which informal music learning practices (Green, 2002, 2008) help the integration of students with different musical/cultural backgrounds, meaning they come with a diverse range of skills and knowledge already developed in their musical lives. Therefore, it respects students’ identities, celebrates their diversity, and facilitates their inclusion into a music school environment. It helps the students to bridge the gap between their own musical practices and what is expected of them to learn at the institution (Feichas, 2006, 2010). The music school where this pedagogy was developed offers bachelor’s degrees in various instruments, composition and conducting, as well as courses in music education (teacher training course), music therapy, and popular music. The experience of working with the Pedagogy of Integration took place in compulsory undergraduate aural training classes. The pedagogy has since been developed in the music education degree as optional modules allowing for the opportunity to put the principles and concepts into practice with a pedagogical reflection about the processes. In this pedagogy, a music teacher must expand students’ views and experiences, allowing encounters with a broad range of musical styles and genres from different periods and cultures. Although the pedagogy aims to work with a large and diverse repertoire, the focus has been on Brazilian popular music, since our popular culture has a history of exclusion in the conservatoires and departments of music, bringing our cultural memory to the new generations. In this sense, Brazilian popular songs have a special place in the repertoire, due to their historical importance and wide spectrum of representation in Brazilian culture, which will be explained later in the chapter. From a practical point of view, the Pedagogy of Integration consists of promoting activities within the classes that combine musical practices such as playing and composing together in a collaborative way. It is necessary to conduct a “warming up” moment where socialization 40

Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes

occurs through exercises that explore creativity in rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic aspects. Normally, this is based on improvisatory strategies. It promotes an interaction fostering a sense of playfulness, releasing tensions and inhibition, which facilitates making music together. It also promotes body consciousness, especially working with rhythms. Once there is an atmosphere of confidence among the students, the next step is to promote compositional activities in a collective way, ending with the performance of compositions. In the whole process, a great deal of attentive listening takes place which leads to open ears and the expansion of many musical skills (Feichas, 2010). Working within this perspective, it is possible for students and teachers to learn from each other, as every individual has strengths and weaknesses. This creates a community of learners based on cooperation and collaborative attitudes (Gaunt & Westerlund, 2013) and affords students autonomy, encouraging them to make choices and take responsibility for their musical learning, as well as triggering their awareness and consciousness, allowing them to ask questions about their needs and how to improve, as well as looking for solutions in a reflexive way when facing challenges. Composition can occur in different ways: the first is to make arrangements for the music chosen. Arranging is primarily a compositional activity, which first involves the process of deconstructing an existing piece of music by aural analysis, in which students must understand all the musical elements of the chosen piece. As they work in groups, they are encouraged to make a list of their musical tastes so that students can vote on what pieces of music to use. The music selected will be the basis for a collective composition of an original arrangement, rather than just performing an exact copy of the original recording. Students are encouraged to try out different ideas, to play by ear in an experimental process, and to focus on memory rather than writing their music down using traditional notation. In this process, they need to listen to the chosen music many times to grasp the melody and chords of the original recording, which is the basis for composition. When each student knows how to play the melody and chords, they start the process of composing. The original genre/style can change, new ideas may arise, such as variations on the main theme, and the structure can also be altered. The second way of working with composition in the Pedagogy of Integration is to promote collective composition through a creative and collaborative learning approach. Inspired by Peter Renshaw (2010, 2013) and Gregory and Renshaw (2013), the work consists of developing composition through strategies adapted by the “Connect” ensembles from Guildhall School of Music and Drama (London). The sessions start with “warm ups” in which some musical material is introduced by the teacher/leader, or it arises from improvisatory games. In many cases, during the improvisation with melodic and/or rhythmic patterns, some sort of musical idea emerges with a potential to be a starting point for a composition. The starting point (musical motif) is worked out with the whole group using their instruments, voices, and body percussion. This is called “interpretation” of the material, in which the participants improvise on the musical motif, experiencing its variations as well as making possible the emergence of new musical ideas. After this phase of experimentation, the whole group is split up into smaller groups assigned with composing different tasks. When they return to the whole ensemble, each group presents their musical ideas, allowing all the participants to learn them, and to play and improvise using the ideas. At this point, the teacher encourages the group to compose the piece using all the material presented by the students (D’Amore, 2009; Feichas & Wells, 2010). This process of making choices collectively and collaboratively after playing and listening to many possibilities for the composition is a rich one, involving many skills and diverse knowledge, not only in musical but also interpersonal skills. 41

Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

Brazilian popular song: some considerations Before understanding the practices of the Pedagogy of Song, some concepts of Brazilian popular song must be examined. If the twentieth century had provided Brazil with only the configuration of its popular song, it could perhaps have been criticized for its sovereignty but never for its mediocrity. The hundred years were enough for the creation, consolidation, and dissemination of an artistic practice that, in addition to building the sound identity of the country, was in tune with the worldwide tendency to translate the relevant human content into small pieces formed of melody and lyrics. (Tatit, 2004, p. 11) Together, melody and lyrics form what Tatit calls the “core of identity” (1995, p.18). In theory, this “core” is enough for a listener to recognize a particular song, even if it is performed in a modified way. Although our research focuses on the song as a whole, it is postulated that a melody enhanced with lyrics is sufficient to create a song; or, more boldly, just “a metric regulation between the verses or indications of instrumental accompaniment” (Segretto, 2019, p. 96), as in the case of rap. In Brazil, this form of musical and poetic expression was cultivated as an object of artistic and intellectual value, especially since the advent of bossa nova. Certainly, this cannot be said about the whole national production of popular songs. We are referring to a popular song produced in cities, of known authorship, and usually directed to consumption through the media (Ribeiro, 2014, p. 8). With greater or lesser repercussions in these media, there is “in certain lines of the song a way of signaling the culture of the country which, besides being a form of expression, also becomes a way of thinking - or, if we want, one of the forms of Brazilian riflessione” (Wisnik, 2004, p. 215. Author’s italic emphasis). We do not mean to say that every Brazilian song has the same degree of intellectual and aesthetic investment by all its authors and consumers. Nor do we mean by this that there are good and bad songs. We are interested in the fact that a significant part of songwriting has the power to distill something from Brazilian musical identity, revealing a particular form of poetic thought and expression. Knowing that a song is, in essence, a product of the integration of the lyrics with the melody (Segretto, 2019), we must resort to this integration whenever we wish to evoke its cultural value. It creates bridges between musical life inside the music school and outside the public school. There are recurring characteristics in Brazilian popular songs that are worth noting. One is the presence of post-tonal modalism, which is the concomitance of the modal interval structure – especially Mixolydian, Lydian, and Doric with aspects based on temporal organization in bars, quadrature, and symmetrical structuring of sentences. Another characteristic is the effective participation of rhythm in the configuration of musical genres. Normally, a song is recognized by its rhythmic aspect, outlining which genre it belongs to, for instance, Dona Ivone Lara’s samba, a Dominguinhos’ xote, a Moraes Moreira’s frevo. This happens because there is a proper rhythmic result of an accompanied melody with particular instruments. There is also the fact that this urban popular song, since its inception, is linked to recording processes, like every song to be consumed. On the one hand, we can define a song as the integration of lyrics with a melody; on the other hand, we will relate a song to the recording and all aspects that it presents: the arrangement, the way of recording the performer’s voice, the sonority. For these reasons, the transcription of a melody to the musical score (traditional notation), besides being insufficient, would be in contradiction to the fact 42

Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes

already mentioned earlier, that a song is intrinsically connected to the recording. Therefore, for those who want to understand these elements, listening to the recording is a path with better chances of success instead of only reading the music score.

Pedagogy of Song The Pedagogy of Song offers some possibilities of using Brazilian popular songs in music education in order to intensify the act of listening. It can bring new relations toward music as a modus operandi for improvisational and compositional processes, especially among the youth and adults. Combining perception and creative development, the practice involves repertoire selection and is based on the idea of circularity and its relation to modalism. It works with vocalization, visualization, and memorization of pitch relations, the use of body ostinatos, and the use of recordings as a basis for improvisations. Concerning the selection of the repertory, recordings are used as didactic material, contemplating not only the students’ preferences but also the need to expand these references. Using songs that have been widely known alongside unfamiliar songs is part of this pedagogy. The selection must favor songs that have some use of modal procedures, either in melody or harmony, considering not only the Greek modes but also the pentatonic scale as belonging to the modal world. This type of song is deemed to be easier when partaking in improvisation activities. Another criterion for choosing a song and for using a specific recording is the existence of a piece that can serve as a loop for vocal improvisation. Moreover, when selecting musical material for the activities, musical meanings come into play, such as affective relationships with the chosen songs (delineated meanings) and structural relations of sound material (inherent or intrasonic meanings) (Green, 2008). A dialogical path is established from the choice of song, which considers the musical experience of both the student and the teacher and pervades the activities of improvisation since all people involved take turns in the role of protagonists of collective activities (Freire, 2011; Renshaw, 2013). The arrangement of the classroom is circular since it creates the possibility of giving voice to all, thus emphasizing the importance of collective. The circle formed by the students and the teacher constitutes a pedagogical, political, and aesthetic resource. It recalls the ritual dimension of popular manifestations which are the bases of the Brazilian popular songs of modal inspiration. Furthermore, the spatial circularity could be linked to the circular time provided by the modalism of the song. Arranged in a circle, singing together on a fixed musical basis, the students participate in a practice based on collectivity and circularity. As Wisnik (1989, p. 78) says, “circularity around a fixed harmonic axis is a distinctive feature of the modal world, and different from the world of tonal music - its perception is the touchstone that introduces to another experience of musical time.” The circularity encompasses the understanding of the relationships between pitches, which puts emphasis on the experience of the pentatonic scale and the modes that appear most frequently in Brazilian songs. In advanced levels, the experience could be expanded to the hexatonic scale – pentatonic plus a characteristic note from each of the most recurrent modes of Brazilian popular song. The activities of vocal improvisation, developed using hand signs, start from the recognition of the “tone,” in the sense of sound with definite pitch. This occupies the center of the listening at these scales. The melodic rhythmic model is presented while the students are asked to create another model with a similar level. In this practice, vocal activity is often associated with body participation in various ways: the hand sign itself, the percussive-bodily ostinatos (Simão, 2013), and even dance (Ciavatta, 2009). Percussive-bodily ostinatos involve making rhythms on one’s own body using all possibilities such as finger snapping, clapping with 43

Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

different positions of the hands, tapping on different parts of the body (thighs, chest), and ultimately mixing all those in a way that a sequence of actions creates a known rhythmic pattern. This participation of the body is closely linked to rhythmic comprehension and how rhythm participates in the modal world, relating pulse and pitch. In addition to the rhythmic-melodic texture, another thing that contributes to converting the melodic order into pulse order: in modal music, there are no individualized themes, as there will clearly be in tonal music. Melodies are manifestations of scale, melodic unfolding that sets in motion the dynamic virtualities of the mode, rather than finished motifs that draw attention to themselves. Through melodies, the scale circulates, and this circulation is a modality of rhythm as a recurrence figure. (Wisnik, 1989, p. 79) The practice of improvisation/vocal composition in this pedagogic approach is performed on a loop base, which acts as a pedal. This base is no more than a recorded sample of a small part of a song. The use of loops extracted from recordings stems from the desire to preserve the tones and textures presented by recorded songs, which is why they are extracted using any available audio editing software. It is important to consider that the activity happens on material with affective relation of memory and recognition because it is extracted from a song already known by the group, either by previous individual experience or by the didactic work of solmization in another moment of the learning process. Preferably, samples are selected having only one base chord to ensure listening to a tonal center, a reference for tuning and understanding sounds in relation to this center. This sample is played in constant reiteration, as a loop. An interesting aspect of using these loops is that the teacher can abandon the function of playing a pedal, giving the reference note on an instrument, and instead participate integrally with the group. This significantly changes the dynamics of the practice and makes it quick to move from one stage to another. It is not easy to translate a text, the energy, the musical experience, and the creativity shared during classes based on Pedagogy of Song. For a spectator, the playfulness and fluidity of the learning process are visible. Through the improvisation games above the loops, students absorb interval relationships, harmony sense, and rhythm patterns lightly and with pleasure. In this way, there is an increase in the awareness of what is heard and the improvement of musical skills as a whole. This process creates a musical base which supports the composition activities, besides stimulating analytic and aural sense through Brazilian popular songs. Pedagogy of Song represents a way to associate people’s appreciation for the universe of popular songs with a consistent musical education, able to give both theoretical and practical support for those who wish to be either a professional musician or amateur. The particularity of this pedagogy is to bring together an informal world of popular songs with the more formal context of a music school. This kind of approach can be seen as a decolonial practice, promoting conciliation of a formal music school, based on the traditional European model, with Brazilian culture, which consists of a crossing of many subcultures and different ethnical origins.

Final thoughts From what we have presented in this chapter, alternative pedagogies have great potential for developing many aspects in music education, such as allowing for a democratic class through 44

Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes

a dialogic and collaborative perspective (Freire, 2011; Renshaw, 2013), promoting a friendly atmosphere for learning, and providing a holistic approach to music education instead of a fragmented one, which is quite typical of traditional classroom music teaching and learning in Brazil. It is important to point out that these pedagogies provide tools for musically educating all students. These approaches have the potential to expand the ears and the way one listens to music, providing musical material to promote the creative process of fruition and composition/improvisation. Another relevant area within the alternative pedagogies lies in the Brazilian repertoire, which is important for our sense of identity and cultural memory. Brazilian popular music, particularly popular songs, occupy an important role in our culture and have been neglected in our curriculum; therefore, it is important to have pedagogies that focus on this repertoire with creative approaches. The lack of systematization of music education policy and the problems with implementing it into the classroom in many regions of the country are a challenge for music educators. Changes depend upon political values both nationally and regionally. However, it is important to reflect on our roles as music educators in dealing with the education of professional musicians and music educators in universities. Therefore, we must continue to open the possibilities of developing pedagogies centered on creative learning and encouraging students’ creativity through compositional activities. We believe that the two alternative pedagogies outlined in this chapter have the potential to be disseminated among university students during their training as well as contribute more widely to the music education community, where we hope that the seeds of these approaches will germinate and grow.

Reflective questions 1 In your pedagogical practices with composition, what strategies could be used to expand your students’ analytical eyes and ears? 2 How improvisation with elements from popular songs can contribute for composition in other musical domains? 3 To what extent pedagogies based on compositional practices can foster a dialogical and collaborative education?

Notes 1 These pillars are known as “objects of knowledge.” They are (1) contexts and practices, (2) language elements, (3) materiality, (4) music notation, and (5) creation processes (Brasil, 2018). 2 Regarding the existence of public policies that encourage the creation of materials to support curricula and programmatic planning, there is the PNLD – National Plan for Books and Didactic Materials. The PNLD is directed toward basic education’s public schools, which also includes the materials toward the area of arts/music. The materials are produced through public bidding and evaluated by the specialized field. However, it is up to schools to select from the available materials those which will be chosen and applied. Its effective use is ultimately up to the teacher’s role in the classroom. 3 The abbreviation of C(L)A(S)P Model stands for Composition (Literature Studies), Audition (Skill acquisition), and Performance. The brackets ( ) in skill and literature activities to characterize them as secondary to the educational process (knowledge about music). To Swanwick, composition, audition, and performance are central for the student’s development. The other ones provide support to the involvement with music. 4 The EJA – Education for Young and Adults – is a policy component of the Brazilian public education system. It is intended to serve young people and adults who have not completed their school education in the recommended time. It can be a place to experience this pedagogy.

45

Heloísa Feichas, Euridiana Silva Souza, and Kristoff Silva

References Brasil. (2008). Diário Oficial da União. Lei n° 11.769 de 18 de agosto de 2008. Altera a Lei n. 9394/96, para dispor sobre a obrigatoriedade do ensino de música na educação básica. Seção 1. Brasília: Imprensa Nacional. Brasil. (2018). Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. http://basenacionalcomum. mec.gov.br/images/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal_site.pdf Ciavatta, L. (2009). O passo: música e educação. Rio de Janeiro: L. Ciavatta. D’Amore, A. (2009). Musical futures: An approach to teaching and learning: Resource pack (2nd ed.). London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Del-Ben, L. M., Pereira, J. L., Macedo, V. L. F., Gaulke, T. G., Pimentel, M. O. Q, Cotrim, C. V. O., … Pedrini, J. R. (2016). Sobre a docência de música na educação básica: uma análise de editais de concurso público para professores. Opus, 22(2), 543–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.20504/opus2016b2221 Feichas, H. (2000). Composition as a central activity in a holistic approach in higher education (Unpublished master dissertation). Institute of Education, University of London. Feichas, H. (2006). Formal and informal music learning in Brazilian higher education (Unpublished PhD thesis). Institute of Education, University of London. Feichas, H. (2010). Bridging the gap: Informal learning practices as a pedagogy of integration. British Journal of Music Education, Cambridge, 27(Special Issue 01), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051709990192 Feichas, H., & Wells, R. (2010). Connect project in Brazil. In P. Renshaw (Ed.), Engaged passions: Searchers for quality in community contexts (pp. 185–193). Delft: Eburon. Figueiredo, S. L. F. D., & Meurer, R. P. (2016). Educação musical no currículo escolar: uma análise dos impactos da Lei n° 11.769/08. Opus, 22(2), 515–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.20504/opus2016b2220 Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogia da Autonomia. Saberes Necessários à Prática Educativa. São Paulo: Editora Paz e Terra. Gaunt, H., & Westerlund, H. (2013). Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education. Surrey: Ashgate. Gamble, T. (1984). Imagination and understanding in the music curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 1(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700004101 Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Green, L. (2008). Music on deaf ears: Musical meaning, ideology and education (2nd ed.). Suffolk: Arima Publishing. Gregory, S., & Renshaw, P. (2013). Creative learning across the Barbican-Guildhall Campus. A new paradigm for engaging with the arts? Guildhall School of Music and Drama. Retrieved from https:// www.gsmd.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Research/1045_Creative_Learning_V3-no_cover_.pdf Pratt, G. (1998). Aural awareness – Principles and practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Renshaw, P. (2010). Engaged passions: Searches for quality in community contexts. Delft: Eburon. Renshaw, P. (2013). Postlude: Collaborative learning: A catalyst for organizational development in higher music education. In H. Gaunt & H. Westerlund (Eds), Collaborative learning in higher music education. Surrey: Ashgate. Ribeiro, V. (2014). O Modalismo na música popular urbana do Brasil (Master dissertation). Programa de Pós-Graduação em Música da Universidade Federal do Paraná. Segretto, M. (2019). A canção e a oralização: sílaba, palavra e frase (Doctoral dissertation, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Semiótica e Linguística Geral, Faculdade de Filosofia). Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo. Silva, K. (2020) Afinação da interioridade: Um estudo sobre a integração da canção popular brasileira à musicalização de adultos (Doctoral dissertation). UFMG. Simão, J. (2013). Música corporal e o corpo do som: um estudo dos processos de ensino da percussão corporal do Barbatuques (Master dissertation). Faculdade de Educação, UNICAMP]. Sloboda, J. (1985). The musical mind – The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Souza, E. (2018). Evaluation of teacher training courses in music: Reflections on Brazil. ISME Commission on Commission on Music Policy: Culture, Education, and Media, pp. 26–274. https://lucris.lub. lu.se/ws/files/64824570/ISME_Commission_on_Policy_2018.pdf

46

Expanding analytical eyes and ears on compositional processes Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. London: NFER. Tatit, L. (1995). O Cancionista: composição de canções no Brasil. São Paulo: Edusp. Tatit, L. (2004). Semiótica da Canção. São Paulo: Ed. Escuta. Wisnik, J. (1989). O som e o sentido: ou uma outra história das músicas. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras. Wisnik, J. (2004). Sem receita: ensaios e canções. São Paulo: Publifolha. Wright, R. (1998). A holistic approach to music education. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700003776

47

INTERLUDE I

What is Composing? Annette Ziegenmeyer and Kirsty Devaney

What do people mean when they use the term “composing”? What is included and excluded in the various perspectives on this word? How do differing definitions of composing affect creative educational work with children and young people? Who does “composing” belong to, and how and where does it take place?

Rather than giving specific answers to the questions mentioned above, this interlude aims to raise the awareness of the many aspects and questions that arise when defining “composing” in music education. Moreover, this interlude hopes to uncover hidden influences carried through by historical and cultural baggage coming from the central discourses in Western music history. Finally, it shows how the meaning of the word composing has undergone change around the world – from composing being viewed as an elitist act to something that is more inclusive and can be undertaken by all young people. This change in attitude is crucial because it affects not only if composing takes place in schools, but also how it takes place. Looking back in time, people have always created new music in different ways and will continue to do so. Nevertheless, well-known historical composers, often from the Western classical canon (e.g., Mozart, Beethoven), continue to shape a general understanding of composing as something that belongs only to those who are “exceptionally talented” (Swanwick, 1996, p. 26), therein creating a debate as to whether composing can indeed be taught and learned at all (Schlothfeldt, 2018, p. 327). This skepticism is reinforced by the romanticized stories and “myths” (Burnard, 2012) of 19th-century composers that promote this narrative of the creative genius. During the 1970s, composer-educators in England such as John Paynter, Brian Dennis, and Murray Schafer attempted to challenge this notion that composing as an activity was only confined to “the Mozarts of this world” (Spruce, 1996, p. 26). Their revolutionary composing teaching resources, including “New Sounds in Class” (Self, 1967), “The New Soundscape” (Schafer, 1969), “Sound and Silence” (Paynter & Aston, 1970), “Experimental Music in School” (Dennis, 1970), and “Sound and Structure” (Paynter, 1992), promoted a progressive, child-centered approach that placed “active involvement with music” (Paynter, 1992, p. 6) and creativity at the heart of the learning. Students were viewed as artists (Finney, 2011, p. 52) and “musical inventors, improvisers” and “composers” (Swanwick, 1988, p. 14). The international impact of their work can be seen throughout the chapters of this companion and DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-5

49

Annette Ziegenmeyer and Kirsty Devaney

has contributed to composing becoming viewed as something that can be taught to all young people in formal and informal music education. The frame in which a definition of composing is made largely depends on multiple aspects, such as context, discipline, and the intentions behind using the word: is composing defined as a professional skill requiring extensive training and aiming at producing a completed musical work, or is it understood in its broadest and most open sense as creative activity that belongs to everyone and thus can be performed in any music classroom? The central question here is: who decides what definition of composing prevails and stays in the cultural memory? The latter seems crucial because it relativizes its claim to absoluteness and shows how the respective definitions are shaped not only by the esthetical, musical, or pedagogical position of the author(s) but also largely by the socio-cultural and historical aspects (Western influence) behind them. In this regard, it is eye-opening to have a look at the two definitions given in the main encyclopedias of Western music on “composition.” In the New Grove, composition is defined in a rather general way as “a term usually referring to a piece of music embodied in written form or a process by which composers create such pieces” (Lindley, 1980, p. 599). Alongside this definition (given at the beginning of the entry), the author points to the very different meanings composition can have (depending on the respective cultural context): Etymologically it suggests “putting together,” and in many societies this is regarded as a vocation requiring expertise, talent and an observance of implicit or explicit rules to ensure that the music will serve the functions of its genre. (ibid., p. 599) The allusion to the requirements such as talent and/or vocation in order to compose becomes even more obvious in the definition in the German encyclopedia of Musicology, Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (MGG), which also reveals a clear focus on the European – and especially the German – art music tradition (Sterzel, 2017, p. 26): Composition in a general (modern) sense usually refers to a structure meeting the requirements of an artistic work (which can be thus characterized by a particular quality of form, expressiveness, depth of meaning, etc.) and can refer to various aspects: 1. the creation of this structure, the creative activity as such, “composing;”; 2. the goal and result of this activity, the individual “work,” 3. the entire field of artistic creation and what has already been created (historically) as well as on the “teaching” leading to it or resulting from it. (Sachs, Cahn, Kelterborn, & Rösing, 1996, column 506, translated by Ziegenmeyer)1 Moreover, the strong and broad socio-cultural and historical influences on this scientific definition become visible in the detailed description of more than 54 columns (MGG, columns 505–557). Thus, it takes a while to read through all five parts covering aspects such as the usage, meaning, and music-related implications of the word (A), aspects of the history of composition from the Middle Ages to 1600 (B), from 1600 to 1950 (C), and in the present time (D), as well as psychological aspects of composition (E). But despite the detailedness of this encyclopedia entry, crucial aspects are excluded, such as music of oral traditions, taking the argument that the above criteria would be inadequate for those genres (Sachs et al., 1996,

50

What is composing?

column 506). The tendency to exclude especially orally transmitted music is also to be seen in the entry of the New Grove: Folksongs are seldom referred to as compositions, not just because they exist primarily in unwritten form, but more fundamentally because their creation and the compositional transformations that they are likely to undergo may be impossible to disentangle from their performance. (Lindley, 1980, p. 600) The question on what is included and excluded in a definition becomes crucial, especially in definitions that (can) shape an entire culture over time (for instance in those two encyclopedias). With reference to the focus of this companion, the question arises how these definitions affect its place and meaning in (school) music education. Thus, how does composing take place (or not) and in which way are young people encouraged and introduced to finding their own expression in music? Is composing understood rather in a narrow and very specific way as “a specialty that can only be honed through years of focused education and practice” (Hickey, 2012, p.7) and thus moved “outside of the realm of classroom or studio music in the minds of many teachers” (ibid.)? (See Zouhar’s chapter, which argues that composing in the classroom is not contained in the Framework Educational Program of the Czech Republic for General Music Education, and thus not included among the activities that are deliberately developed at primary or secondary schools). Or is it defined in its broadest etymological meaning of “putting together” and more understood in a very open definition (see, e.g., John Cage’s definition of composing as integration of material of music: The material of music is sound and silence. Integrating these is composing. (Cage, 1961, p. 62) A closer look into emerging publications written worldwide on this topic reveals that, in school contexts, the use of the word “composing” is undergoing a change that takes more or less time. Thus, a significant change in the meaning of composing in the school curriculum can be seen in Turkey: Although composition has had a place in music lessons in Turkish schools since the mid20th century, the importance attributed to it and its prevalence has varied. Due to the curriculum change in 2006, which was realized under the effect of constructivism leading to mainly student-centered activities being supported as a result, musical creativity has become one of the compulsory learning fields. (see Özeke and Kalyoncu, abstract of Chapter 28 in this volume) Along with this comes a high sensitivity about the use of the word “composing,” as Finland’s Heidi Partti writes in her chapter (Chapter 8) in this book: […] It took decades before the term “composing” (in Finnish, säveltäminen) was first mentioned as a content area in the curriculum for basic education. […] It almost looks like the writers of curricular documents did their best to avoid

51

Annette Ziegenmeyer and Kirsty Devaney

speaking of composing. […] Perhaps there was something too solemn about the word “composing?” (Partti, Chapter 8 in this volume) This high sensitivity about the use of the word “composing” and “composition” in the context of music education in schools can also be seen in Germany, where it becomes especially obvious with the many synonyms of composing used in school contexts, e.g., expressions such as “inventing music,” “producing music,” and “creating music” are used very often throughout the curricula. With the use of these synonyms, composing in a pedagogical context is clearly distinguished from a professional activity (see also Krämer, 2018, p. 329). Surprisingly, this distinction is not made within arts education in schools, where there are no synonyms used to distinguish “professional painting” from “amateur painting”: When a child deals with pencils or finger paints, we call it “painting” in the same way as when an artist creates a painting, and we know that this is to be valued differently. What would be lost if we dealt with the term “composing” in the same unconstrained way, if we opened the term in this sense? (Vandré, in: Schlothfeldt and Vandré, 2018, p. 59, transl. by Ziegenmeyer)2 One famous example of how composing can be applied in a very broad sense in music education within a research project can be found in the eight-mode spiral of musical development by Swanwick and Tillmann (1986). In this study of over 700 compositions by children aged 4–11, composing was understood in its broadest sense, “including the briefest spontaneous utterances as well as more sustained and rehearsed invention” (Swanwick, 1991, p. 22). According to both authors, “composing takes place when there is some freedom to choose the temporal ordering of music, with or without notational or other forms of detailed performance instruction” (Swanwick, 1991, p. 22). Nevertheless, the question as to who can call themselves a real composer (and, thus, who composing belongs to) seems to still be vividly discussed and argued about in the academic community. Can you only call yourself a composer if you have gone through all the stages of academic or university learning (Wallbaum, in: Schlothfeldt & Vandré, 2018, p. 57) or is everybody a composer (Partti, n.d.)? Or are you a composer if you consider yourself a singer-songwriter? Creative processes encompass many different operations/steps such as putting together, playing and improvising, exploring, inventing, shaping, working out and elaborating, designing, reworking, adjusting, and finalizing. When creative processes such as composing are conducted in the music classroom, music teachers need to ask themselves about the respective value that each of these operations can have for music learning. How can the experience of these different steps in composing help children and young people in finding their own ways of expression in music and in understanding how music is created? Along with this, challenges and questions concerning how to design group composing processes are foregrounded and need to be approached with a more differentiated view on the composers themselves: the question of requirements, the goal behind the act of composing, the question of “planning”/”structuring” creative processes, the question on guidance/support, the question/ challenge on how best to fix and/or notate your musical ideas and make them “audible” and “repeatable,” etc. Thus, depending on the respective goals, composing tasks can be designed more in the style of a sequence of precise instructions within a clear framework of musical material or as a very open, more artistic impulse (with only a very small number of words). 52

What is composing?

Last but not least, it is important to take into consideration the music teachers’ perspectives themselves on how to define composing. Here, the results from a binational survey of music teachers in Germany and the UK3 reveal that music teachers of both countries differ in emphasizing specific aspects of composing as a creative process. Whereas German teachers tend to emphasize the aspect of writing associative ideas (such as products of “inventing”), UK teachers showed a more flexible and pragmatic approach, emphasizing the “work in progress” aspect of composing. Both approaches can be understood as two sides of the coin called “creative process,” which is in line with existing models of creativity (see Lothwesen & Lehmann, 2018): the cognitive concept of composing is based on two aspects of (1) the associative idea of the act of inventing on the one hand, and (2) on the process of working out, shaping, designing, thus the process of creating. Slowly, the change from composing being viewed as an elitist act to something that is more inclusive and can be undertaken by all young people is taking place around the world. This change in attitude is crucial because it affects not only if composing takes place in schools, but also how it takes place. We invite you to reflect on how your view on composing might change and be enriched by new perspectives when reading through the various chapters of this companion.

Notes 1 “Komposition in allgemeiner (neuzeitlicher) Bedeutung bezieht sich in der Regel auf ein Gebilde mit Kunstanspruch (das sich somit durch besondere Gestaltqualität, Ausdrucksfähigkeit, Sinntiefe u.ä. ausweist) und kann verschiedene Aspekte bezeichnen: 1. die Herstellung dieses Gebildes, die schöpferische Tätigkeit als solche, das ‘Komponieren’; 2. das Ziel und Ergebnis dieser Tätigkeit, das jeweils einzelne ‘Werk’; 3. das Gesamtgebiet des künstlerischen Schaffens und des bereits (historisch) Geschaffenen sowie die dazu führende oder daraus resultierende ‘Lehre’” (Sachs et al., 1996, column 506). 2 Wenn ein Kind sich mit Stiften oder Fingerfarben beschäftigt, nennen wir es genauso ‘malen’, wie wenn eine Künstlerin oder ein Künstler ein Gemälde schafft, und wir wissen, dass das unterschiedlich zu bewerten ist. Was ginge denn verloren, wenn wir genauso ungezwungen mit dem Begriff ‘komponieren’ umgingen, den Begriff in diesem Sinne öffnen würden? (Vandré, in: Schlothfeldt & Vandré, 2018, p. 59). 3 Data were collected using a mixed methodology approach involving an online survey of over 500 German and UK music teachers combined, covering a quasi-experimental design (see Devaney, Platz & Ziegenmeyer 2021).

References Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cage, J. (1961). Silence: Lectures and writings. Middletown: Wesleyan UP. Dennis, B. (1970). Experimental music in schools: Towards a new world of sound. London: Oxford University Press. Devaney, K., Platz, F., & Ziegenmeyer, A. (2021). Composing is what young people can do. Comparing German and English music teachers’ beliefs about composing in the classroom. Paper presentation at the 28th European Association of Music in Schools conference (2021, March 24–27). Finney, J. (2011). John Paynter, music education and the creativity of coincidence. British Journal of Music Education, 28(01), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051710000343 Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines. Ideas for composing in K-12 music classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krämer, O. (2018). Improvisation als didaktisches Handlungsfeld. In M. Dartsch, J. Knigge, A. Niessen, F. Platz, & C. Stöger (Eds.), Handbuch Musikpädagogik. Grundlagen – Forschung – Diskurse (pp. 319–325). Münster & New York: Waxmann. Lindley, M. (1980). Composition. In S. Sadie (Ed.), The new grove dictionary of music and musicians (Vol. 4, pp. 599–602). London: Macmillan.

53

Annette Ziegenmeyer and Kirsty Devaney Lothwesen, K., & Lehmann, A. C. (2018). Komposition und Improvisation. In A. C. Lehmann & R. Kopiez (Eds.), Handbuch Musikpsychologie (pp. 341–366). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Partti, H. (n.d.). Access all areas! Everyone is a composer. Opus 1. Composition pedagogy materials databank. https://www.opus1.fi/en/access-all-areas-everyone-is-a-composer/ Paynter, J. (1992). Sound and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paynter, J. & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence. London: Cambridge University Press. Sachs, K.-J., Cahn, P., Kelterborn, P., & Rösing, H. (1996). Komposition. In L. Finscher (Ed.), MGG – Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. Sachteil Bd. 5. Stuttgart und Kassel: Bärenreiter und Metzler. Column. 505–557. Schafer, R. M. (1969). The new soundscape: A handbook for the modern teacher. BMI Canada. Schlothfeldt, M. (2018). Komposition als didaktisches Handlungsfeld. In M. Dartsch, J. Knigge, A. Niessen, F. Platz, & C. Stöger (Eds.), Handbuch Musikpädagogik. Grundlagen – Forschung – Diskurs (pp. 326–333). Waxmann: Münster & New York. Schlothfeldt, M., & Vandré, P. (Eds.). (2018). Weikersheimer Gespräche zur Kompositionspädagogik. Regensburg: ConBrio. Self, G. (1967). New sounds in class. London: Universal Edition. Spruce, G. (1996). Teaching music. London: Routledge. Sterzel, K. (2017). Der Komponist als Pädagoge (Beiträge zur pädagogischen Grundlagenforschung). Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000814 Swanwick. (1988). Music, mind, and education. London: Routledge. Swanwick. (1991). Further research on the musical development sequence. Psychology of Music, 19(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735691191002 Swanwick. (1996). A basis for music education. London: Routledge.

54

4 TEACHING COMPOSING IN CANADIAN MUSIC CLASSROOMS Benjamin Bolden

Introduction In Canadian music classrooms, composing is much less common than performing. For many years, mandated music curricula and teachers’ practices emphasized learning to play instruments and sing, with only very limited attention to nurturing young composers. Currently, composing is much better represented in mandated curricula than it has been in the past, but teachers’ practices still heavily emphasize the development of performance skills. For example, in a recent survey of music teachers in Ontario (Canada’s most populated province), elementary teachers reported spending on average just 11% of class time on composition (compared to 55% of class time on playing and/or singing). Secondary teachers reported spending on average just 6% of class time on composition (compared to 58% of class time on playing and/or singing) (Bolden et al., 2015). In Canada’s second most populated province, Quebec, a survey administered by the Quebec Federation of Music Educators’ Associations and completed by 330 Quebec music educators identified that half of the teachers spend less than 20% of class time on compositional activities, and that 82% of teachers do not view such activities as a priority (Peters & Pierre-Vaillancourt, 2013).

Mandated curricula Canada does not have a national curriculum. Instead, curriculum content is mandated by provincial or territorial authorities. As I am most familiar with the Ontario context, I will describe the music curricula mandated by the Ontario Ministry of Education in the province of Ontario. At the elementary level, using Grade 4 as an example, the mandated music curricula are represented by ten “expectations” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, pp. 104–105). Three of these directly address composing. These expectations provide broad direction to educators that students are indeed to compose, with specific intention, and to notate their compositions using traditional or invented notations. For example, students must

• apply the elements of music when singing and/or playing, composing, and arranging music to create a specific effect;

• create musical compositions for specific purposes and audiences; and DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-6

55

Benjamin Bolden

• demonstrate an understanding of musical signs and standard notation on the five-line staff and use devised notation to record the sequence of sounds in a composition of their own. At the secondary level, using Grade 10 as an example, the mandated music curricula are represented by eight “expectations” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, pp. 110–111). Four of these directly address composing and again provide very broad direction to educators, stipulating that students must make use of creative processes, unspecified compositional techniques, and unspecified technology when composing. The expectations require that students

• apply the creative process when composing and/or arranging music; • apply the elements of music and related concepts appropriately when composing and/or arranging simple pieces of music;

• apply compositional techniques when composing and/or arranging simple pieces; and • use current technology when composing, and/or arranging music. Recommended composing practices Within the government document, the curriculum expectations are presented with suggested (but not required) composing activities and practices that can enable learners to achieve the expectations. These listed suggestions are helpful in identifying some of the composing practices that are common—or at least recommended—in Ontario schools. The suggested approaches progress in complexity as the grades advance and address aspects such as specific melodic parameters, textural and structural possibilities, notation options, things to represent in the music, purposes for the music, and more. For example, at the Grade 4 level, suggested approaches include composing a pentatonic melody for recorder or voice with a bordun accompaniment; using non-traditional notation to compose a melody map with symbols; composing a soundscape to represent the physical landscape of Canada; creating a composition to accompany a dance piece; and using a system of syllables, numbers, or letters to represent simple pitch notation in a composition. At the Grade 10 level, recommended approaches include composing an 8-bar melody with appropriate accompaniment; writing and performing diatonic melodies over an appropriate harmonic progression; creating a simple two-part composition; creating a soundscape using environmental sounds such as forest sounds or sounds in a machine shop, and developing a means of notating the sounds; composing or arranging a selection in binary form for more than one voice or instrument; arranging a selection for percussion using musical forms common in West African drumming; and composing the rhythm section accompaniment for a 12-bar blues progression using software. However, despite these clear examples of what is expected of teachers and students with regard to composing, it is very difficult to know what is actually going on inside music classrooms; there are no formal, systematic processes for determining what students and teachers actually do with regard to music learning in Ontario or indeed anywhere else in Canada. It is virtually impossible to know to what extent mandated curricula and recommended practices that refer to composition are actually experienced by Canadian learners.

An overview of Canadian articles addressing composition pedagogy in schools In order to provide some sense of what is going on in Canada in terms of the teaching and learning of composing in schools, I carefully sifted through all articles published in the Canadian Music Educator—the official journal of the Canadian Music Educators’ Association—between 56

Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms

2010 and 2018. I identified 26 articles that addressed the teaching of composing. The Canadian Music Educator is published four times a year and delivered to approximately 2,500 Canadian music educators across the country. Article authors include music education academics and classroom practitioners. While the journal does not by any means comprehensively describe or address all that is going on in music education in Canadian schools, I believe its content constitutes a reasonable representation of what Canadian music educators are doing and thinking about. A synthesis of these articles therefore enables me to provide a broad perspective of current thought concerning composing pedagogy in Canada. I read through the 26 relevant articles and analyzed the content thematically. Four themes emerged as prominent: (a) the need for more creative opportunities in music classrooms, (b) recommended composing approaches, (c) applying creativity research to nurturing composing, and (d) encouraging teachers to teach composing even though it is outside their comfort zone. I discuss each of these themes below.

Theme one: the need for more creative opportunities in music classrooms One theme that emerged as significant among the reviewed articles was the need to provide learners with more creative opportunities. Authors identified that learners generally have little chance to exercise their creativity in Canadian music programs and implored teachers to provide opportunities for student composing as a means to develop creativity (Bolden, 2012, 2014; Cavanagh, 2016; Giddings, 2013; Willingham & Bartel, 2015). Cavanagh (2016), for example, cited the Quebec survey described above in which 82% of the surveyed music teachers responded that composition activities were not a priority in their programing (Peters & Pierre-Vaillancourt, 2013). Giddings (2013) described his own experiences of school and post-secondary music as completely devoid of creative music opportunities, which he found instead outside of formal music learning, playing in a ska band. Bolden (2012) quoted well-known Canadian music educator Lee Willingham: We lay claim to creativity as one of the pillars of our musical educative endeavours. Yet music education, so strongly rooted in performance traditions, has resulted in the virtual absence of creative problem solving processes in its teaching and learning practices. (2002, p. xvii) In his 2014 article, Bolden expands on this theme, identifying that the considerable emphasis on large ensemble performance preparation within Canadian music classrooms leaves little time and space for learners to compose. The authors seek to convince teachers of the importance of finding ways to build composing into their programs—to advocate for composing—and make the case that it deserves as much time and attention as performing or listening. Cavanagh (2016) makes the case for composing by pointing out that other artistic domains engage young people in creating the art—dancers create dance pieces, visual artists create artwork—and so musicians should have the opportunity to create music compositions. Giddings (2013) offers as rationale for composing that it is the best way for students to consolidate and apply their musical learning, referencing Bloom’s taxonomy and its identification of creativity as the highest level of thinking and personal actualization. He also identifies that composing gives learners ownership over their work, or what Ryan and Deci (2000) refer to as autonomy, one of three factors key to human motivation and happiness. Bolden (2012) outlines social, cultural, and economic arguments for building students’ creative capacity and identifies that, to practice and develop this capacity in a music education 57

Benjamin Bolden

context, “learners must own the decision making and connection making involved in creating the musical product” (p. 2). Bolden claims composing is therefore the most effective way for students to fully exercise and develop creative capacity in a music education context. In a 2014 article, Bolden promotes composing from a slightly different angle, identifying it as a way to combat growing disinterest among students in school music programs, suggesting composing is a way to increase learner-centeredness and student engagement: Positioning creative work such as composing at the heart of music education curricula […] firmly places students at the centre of their own music learning. It allows them to hear and share their own voices above the noisy tumult of the education environment. Such a shift transforms music education; it opens it up…. In such an environment learners not only compose music; they compose selves…. Music education in the 21st century must enable young musicians to choose their own musical adventures, sing their own songs, and hear their own voices. (2014, p. 3)

Theme two: recommended composing approaches Another theme among the articles reviewed was to provide readers with various recommended approaches to composing. Authors offered ideas that I have categorized as (a) games and exercises, (b) working with sound and soundscapes, (c) graphic scores, and (d) songwriting.

Games and exercises Music educator Douglas Friesen is prominent in the Canadian creative music making scene. He has authored a number of articles that describe “Creative Traction Ideas” such as “create a piece of music (beginning, middle, ending) with your shoes” (Friesen, 2017, p. 11). “Chain composing” (Friesen, 2012a) is an exercise in which a group of instrumentalists (a) come up with an idea for their piece to be about, (b) figure out a way to start, (c) pick one person to play what they think should happen next, then designate who goes next (until all have played), and finally (d) play all the way through, revise, practice, and perform. Friesen (2013c) also describes a method for whole-class collaborative composing, using riffs as building blocks. He recommends that the class work with instruments in hand, first learning a riff from a pop song together by ear, then organizing the riff into a composition. He suggests structuring strategies such as moving the riff around the ensemble, layering, adding a bassline, adding a counter melody, and finally imagining and then working out a beginning and an ending. His “noisy introductions” (Friesen, 2017) involve an improvised introduction to a rehearsed performance piece. The conductor starts the piece by inviting players to play pitches and durations of their own choice, while shaping the improvisation with gestures to indicate that the musicians play low or high, loft or loud. When the “noisy introduction” is complete, the conductor segues seamlessly into the actual start of the piece.

Working with sound and soundscapes The influence of internationally renowned composer, writer, environmentalist, and legendary music educator R. Murray Schafer continues to figure prominently in Canadian music education, particularly in the realm of creative music making. Rutherford (2014) recently analyzed Schafer’s educational approaches of the late 1960s and 1970s and found their emphases on 58

Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms

learning that is “life-long, collaborative, relational, knowledge-building, self-directed, personalized, inquiry-based, and inclusive” (p. 20) to be highly relevant for contemporary educators. In the late 1960s, Schafer popularized the term “soundscape” to describe the combination of sounds one perceives in a particular place or context. Schafer and others also created soundscape compositions, combining recordings of various sounds into electroacoustic musical pieces, or creating scores for instrumentalists and/or vocalists to imitate a variety of sounds from the environment. Friesen (2012c, 2013d) describes a number of ways students can work with soundscapes. He suggests, for example, that learners go on a “soundwalk” (Schafer, 1977) to a particular nearby location and catalog the sounds they hear. Learners can then use their voices and bodies to imitate the nearby sonic environment and/or do the same with instruments. Friesen also suggests students could extend the idea by creating a “musical” version of the soundscape, translating the sounds into musical gestures with pitches and rhythms (2012c). Heckel (2017) similarly suggests students could find inspiration for composing by going on sound collecting expeditions, and then manipulating the sounds or musicalized versions of them within GarageBand, Audacity, Loopy HD, or MadPad. In another article, Friesen (2012b), again referencing Shafer, identifies other ways students can work with sounds, such as bringing in a sound from home, and having the other students close their eyes and guess what the object is. Friesen explains students can then combine their sounds into “sound sentences.” Alternatively, students can take turns using hand gestures to lead the class in an improvised foundsound orchestra composition. Friesen also offers a simple composing exercise: “Search for a truly happy sound, a sad one, a surprising sound, an unsure sound, a lonely sound, end again with your happy sound” (2013a, p. 9).

Graphic scores Schafer was also a practitioner and proponent of graphic notation. Friesen and Bettger (2015) describe engaging students with graphic scores and offer the example of using the view looking out a classroom window as a graphic score that students interpret and perform with voices or instruments. Friesen and Bettger (2015) also suggest students take photos that could work as graphic scores or work with fine art students to produce graphic scores. In a mild critique of composing with graphic scores, Eddington (2017) identifies that while students’ musical processes and products tend to be more creative when composing with graphic rather than traditional Western notation—citing studies by Auh and Walker (1999) and Auh (2000)—it is difficult for composers to specify rhythm and pitch, therefore “graphic scores are better for a certain kind of avant-garde music” (p. 38).

Songwriting In addition to composing approaches inspired by the ideas of R. Murray Schafer, songwriting figured prominently among the analyzed articles. West Coast music educator Ian Farish authored a series of articles with advice on nurturing student songwriting. Farish offered strategies for helping students with song structure (2010) and melody writing (2011) along with general strategies such as encouraging the popular music learning practices identified by Lucy Green (2004)—e.g., learning and imitating songs by ear—and the importance of providing opportunities for students to showcase and share their songs, e.g., in a lunchtime songwriters’ circle, coffee house performance, or compilation of recordings. Friesen (2013b) also weighed in on songwriting, describing how students can learn to build primary chords and then simply 59

Benjamin Bolden

distribute them among given lyrics, e.g., a nursery rhyme, then make up a melody that fits. He also suggests the exercise of tasking students to create the lyrics and melody for a song chorus inspired by a fairy tale, such as the Three Little Pigs. Music educator Steve Giddings (2013) describes whole-class songwriting with middleschool students. He starts students off by inviting them to improvise within structures, for example, having each member in a group of five assigned a different pitch within a pentatonic scale to play on their instrument, and then inviting them to come up with a sequence for those pitches (a melody) that sounds good.

Theme three: applying creativity research to nurturing composing A third theme identified among the articles was identifying and describing how creativity research can be applied to inform approaches and strategies for classroom composing. Bolden (2012) references Lehrer (2012) to make the case that creativity is a universal trait, and that all students therefore have the capacity to be creative and, by extension, to compose. He also passes on Lehrer’s recommendations of welcoming mistakes and failure as the only way to achieve success in creative endeavors; developing the ability to suppress the inhibitors that block divergent thinking and expression; and allowing the brain to have the time and space it needs to reach the “eureka” moments of creative insights: for example, by taking a break and going for a walk. Bolden connects this notion to the Einstein quotation, “creativity is the residue of wasted time.” Bolden also shares Burnard’s (2012) strategies for supporting learners’ creative work: modeling a variety of processes of musically creating, and making clear what the processes entail; providing time for long planning sessions; welcoming speculative solutions and answers; welcoming mistakes; inviting risk-taking and flexible thinking; and striving to minimize students’ fear of failure. Giddings (2013) makes the case for classroom composing by explaining that it offers students the opportunity to experience what Csikszentmihalyi calls “flow”—“the feeling when things are going well […] an almost automatic, effortless, yet highly focused state of consciousness” (1996, p. 110). Giddings explains that “Creative musicians constantly create flow by improvising and composing” (2013, p. 45). He suggests that—through composing and improvising—students can let go of some of their daily worries and, ultimately, be happier. Mitchell (2011a, 2011b) synthesizes research specifically related to the assessment and evaluation of students’ creative musical work. She identifies that, in order for assessment of creative work to be supportive of students’ creativity, teachers must develop supportive and trusting relationships with their students (Simmons & Ren, 2009); recognize that punitive evaluation stifles originality (Yuan & Zhou, 2008) while feedback that is presented as informational supports it (Shalley, 1995), and that therefore teachers should emphasize detailed, descriptive, formative assessment (Mitchell, 2011b). Mitchell (2011a) also recommends that students be supported with qualitative feedback from a variety of sources (e.g., teachers and peers) throughout the development and realization of creative projects and that students engage in detailed and focused reflection (self-assessment) on their own creative products and processes. Mitchell provides a list of suggested questions to guide meaningful self-reflection, such as “What were your goals upon starting this project? To what extent do you feel that you accomplished those goals? Why?” and “What were some of the options you considered? Are you satisfied with the choices you made?” (p. 44). Haley (2010) similarly recommends that teachers should support student composers through questioning—e.g., “what are they trying to do with their music?” (p. 41). When these formative assessment strategies take place throughout the creative process, Mitchell points out, they help students develop the ability to engage in creative work autonomously (Wiggins, 1992). 60

Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms

Theme four: encouraging teachers to teach composing even though it is outside their comfort zone A fourth theme that emerged as prominent within the analyzed articles involved encouraging teachers to teach composing even though it is outside their comfort zone. Willingham and Bartel (2015) describe a large professional development project involving over 30 teachers in Ontario. Collaborative learning communities of four teachers each were established across three school boards to develop ways to engage students in composing or improvising. Government funding enabled release time for teachers to pursue this professional learning through a collaborative action research structure. The teachers reported outcomes of the project including greater confidence in developing their students’ creative potential, and a sense of empowerment and confidence to share their knowledge with teaching colleagues. Secondary school music educator Katherine Fraser (2018) describes her own trepidation in engaging students with creative music activities but took the plunge and found success using GarageBand to create a class soundscape composition with found sounds from around the school. Lesley Dawe (2016), a teacher at the elementary level, described personal risktaking and experimenting to move beyond the traditional teacher-centered large ensemble approaches she was familiar with. Dawe described shifting her mindset to become a “co-learner” with her students as they engaged in creativity-inviting activities such as composing. Dawe noticed that her students responded with greater willingness for risk-taking of their own, increased engagement, and appreciation that their voices were being honored. As a means to help teachers overcome a fear of engaging students with composing, Cavanagh (2016) suggests learning about contemporary Canadian composers and inviting them into music classes to demystify the composing process. Along the same lines, Duncan and Andrews (2016) describe a program of commissioning contemporary Canadian composers to come into high school music programs and compose music for them, as a way to help students and teachers understand what composing is all about.

Conclusion The teaching of composing in Canadian music classrooms is strongly supported by current mandated curricula and professional literature. However, the prominent positioning of composing within mandated curricula is a relatively recent shift from curricula that were previously heavily performance-dominated (i.e., prior to 2000). There is little evidence to indicate how effectively this intended shift toward a greater emphasis on composing has been realized in schools. The limited research that does exist concerning the extent to which music learners are actually provided with opportunities to compose (e.g., Bolden et al., 2015; Peters & Pierre-Vaillancourt, 2013) suggests that composing remains an under-developed aspect of Canadian K–12 music education. Nevertheless, the music education professional literature offers a variety of suggestions for Canadian teachers who are willing to give composing a try.

Reflective questions 1 The chapter describes a prominent theme in Canadian music education literature: that composing more effectively supports student creativity than performing. Is this always the case? 2 Canadian music education professional literature encourages teachers to teach composing even though it is outside their comfort zone. Are teachers in your context uncomfortable teaching composing? If so, what are the systemic issues that contribute to their discomfort? 61

Benjamin Bolden

3 The chapter describes some recommended composing approaches such as games and exercises, working with sound and soundscapes, graphic scores, and songwriting. What other approaches work to engage and support the development of young composers?

References Auh, M. S. (2000, December 4–7). Effects of using graphic notations on creativity in composing music by Australian secondary school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Auh, M. S., & Walker, R. (1999). Compositional strategies and musical creativity when composing with staff notations versus graphic notations among Korean students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 17(141), 2–9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40318975 Bolden, B. (2012). The residue of wasted time. Canadian Music Educator, 53(4), 2–3. Bolden, B. (2014). The dearth of creativity in music education: Time to shift. Canadian Music Educator, 55(3), 2–3. Bolden, B., Linton, L., Younker, B. A., Willingham, L., Niknafs, N., & Bartel, L. (2015). What in music is going on? How teachers engage students with music in Ontario schools. The Recorder, 58(1), 22–29. Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Cavanagh, C. (2016). When today’s composers become an inspiration to develop musical creativity in schools. Canadian Music Educator, 57(2), 40–41. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Dawe, L. (2016). Fumbling towards vulnerability: Moving out of the familiar for music education’s sake. Canadian Music Educator, 57(2), 22–24. Duncan, A., & Andrews, B. (2016). Composers’ personal learning composing Canadian music for strings. Canadian Music Educator, 56(4), 26–29. Eddington, A. (2017). “Not my cup of tea”: Can we teach composition beyond musical genre? Canadian Music Educator, 58(2), 37–39. Farish, I. (2010). Song structure. Canadian Music Educator, 52(3), 41–42. Farish, I. (2011). Helping young songwriters. Canadian Music Educator, 51(3), 53–55. Fraser, K. (2018). Teach what you do not know. Canadian Music Educator, 59(2), 26–27. Friesen, D. S. (2012a). Creative traction ideas. Canadian Music Educator, 53(4), 8. Friesen, D. S. (2012b). Fun with found sounds (while possibly also covering curricular expectations). Canadian Music Educator, 54(2), 10. Friesen, D. S. (2012c). Starting with soundscape. Canadian Music Educator, 53(3), 9. Friesen, D. S. (2013a). Burn out? Canadian Music Educator, 55(2), 8–9. Friesen, D. S. (2013b). “Rep” every day might just keep the creativity and empowerment away … and some ways to start song writing. Canadian Music Educator, 54(4), 17–18. Friesen, D. S. (2013c). Riffs as method. Canadian Music Educator, 55(3), 8–9. Friesen, D. S. (2013d). Slow down! Canadian Music Educator, 55(1), 18. Friesen, D. S. (2017). Creative ideas for the music classroom: A case for letting it get noisy. Canadian Music Educator, 58(2), 11. Friesen, D. S., & Bettger, P. (2015). Creative ideas for the music classroom: Graphic scoring ideas and resources. Canadian Music Educator, 56(3), 5–6. Giddings, S. (2013). Inherent creativity and the road to happiness: Improvisation and composition in the music classroom. Canadian Music Educator, 55(2), 44–46. Green, L. (2004). What can music educators learn from popular musicians? In C. X. Rodriguez (Ed.), Bridging the gap: Popular music and music education (pp. 225–240). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Haley, R. (2010). Interview with Tim Brady. Canadian Music Educator, 52(2), 40–42. Heckel, S. (2017). Soundscapes: Using informal learning pedagogy to create a Canadian strand of musical futures. Canadian Music Educator, 58(2), 12–16. Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Mitchell, N. (2011a). Evaluating creative products. Canadian Music Educator, 52(4), 42–44. Mitchell, N. (2011b). What impact does expected evaluation have on the creativity of music students? Canadian Music Educator, 52(3), 34–36.

62

Teaching composing in Canadian music classrooms Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1-8: The Arts (revised). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: The Arts (revised). Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education. Peters, V., & Pierre-Vaillancourt, Z. (2013). Le programme de formation de l’école québécoise: Résultats préliminaires du sondage FAMEQ 2011. Revue Musique et pédagogie, 28(1), 21–23. Rutherford, S. (2014). Is Murray Schafer’s creative music education relevant in the 21st century? Canadian Music Educator, 55(3), 16–20. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd. Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 400–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410903297980 Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.2307/256689 Wiggins, J. (1992). Teaching to the (authentic) test. In K. Burke (Ed.), Authentic assessment: A collection (pp. 69–86). Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing, Inc. Willingham, L. (2002). Prologue: Creativity and the problem with music. In T. Sullivan & L. Willingham (Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. xvii–xxi). Edmonton: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. Willingham, L., & Bartel, L. (2015). Engage to create! A funded professional development project. Canadian Music Educator, 53(4), 22–24. Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2008). Differential effects of expected external evaluation on different parts of the creative idea production process and on final product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 20(4), 391–403. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10400410802391827

63

5 ASSESSING COMPOSITION/ IMPROVISATION IN SCHOOL MUSIC EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL AGE OF CHINA Wai-Chung Ho Introduction Music education, as part of an education on human culture, is identified by communication, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, and music education is at the centre of contemporary educational value and professional activity. John Paynter (1931–2010), one of the pioneers of creativity and composing in school education, developed a set of guiding standards of music education in the British curriculum (Paynter, 1982). Composition and improvisation in music education are important to students’ success as individuals and as members of society, with an emphasis not only on the creative expression of ideas and imagination but also on the values of cultural understanding and social competences. As early as 1859, Charles Darwin (1859/1958) remarked that social instincts, including songs, are the prelude for much of what commanded our social evolution. Inspired by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s (1999) and Pierre Bourdieu’s (1993) arguments on the relationship between creativity and cultural production, a more comprehensive approach to music education has emerged to encompass the study of composition, improvisation, music listening, cultural and social contexts, and relationships to other arts. This trend began in the 1960s with the Comprehensive Musicianship Project (1963–1969), the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project (1965–1971),1 and the Tanglewood Symposium (1967),2 all of which worked through their own initiatives to transform school music education into a more inclusive artery to teaching and learning. Music teachers are encouraged to organize their teaching around offering a balance of musical activities such as singing, listening, composing/improvising, and analysing music (Reimer, 2003; Swanwick, 1979). Burnard (2012) considered both environmental and social contexts in exploring different kinds of musical creativities by looking at how schools might on occasion curb creativity in their music teaching, rather than advocate it (also see Barrett & Webster, 2014; Burnard, 2012). A number of researchers have also proposed developmental guidelines that have informed the integration of music composition/music creation in classroom music (e.g., see Barrett, 1997, 1999; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986). Some of these researchers have focused on individual or small groups of children, while others like Wiggins (1990) and Kaschub (1997) have provided models of composing in whole class conditions. 64

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-7

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education

If we are to realize the value of music education in the formation of social consciousness, it is vital to study the intricate relationship between music, education, and society. According to Kanellopoulos (2007, p. 97), the practice of music education can be considered a form of “political practice” to create “situations where special meanings are produced, attitudes built, identities shaped, and hierarchies of musical and social values constructed”. Despite not having much discussion on composition, Woodford (2005) mentioned that the capability of composing can expedite student exchange and preparation for democratic citizenship. With regard to achieving a knowledge-oriented economy in the twenty-first century, Chinese policymakers and educators have adopted “globalization”, increasing cross-border flows of goods, capital, and people, rather than “modernization”, to address “pedagogical and social means” through the cultivation of “creativity, flexibility, independent thinking and innovation” (Ross & Lou, 2005, p. 227; also see Tan, 2017). In keeping with the gradual infusion of quality education and individual values in a globalized world, the Chinese curriculum has focused on the values of creativity and individuality (Lockette, 2012). With particular reference to China’s music education, this chapter will show how music composition and improvisation for creativity and extra-musical learning introduced in the school curriculum have taken shape in the social context of the global age (i.e., a period of time when there is a prevalent sense of the interconnectedness of all human beings). Despite composition and improvisation being two forms of music creations, the words “composition” and “improvisation” are often used interchangeably and are identified with musical performances of everyday musical creativity (see Lehmann, Sloboda, & Woody, 2007). As there is no clear division in the official policy for the teaching and learning of composition and improvisation in China’s music education, I have attempted to link composing and improvising as “composing/improvising” in my presentation format in this chapter. The dynamics and dilemmas of introducing music composing/improvising and creativity into China’s school music education will be examined by analysing official documents, selected textbooks adopted by schools, and other relevant literatures. This chapter will first provide a historical review of music compositions in China’s school education, followed by the exploration of musical creativity in recent Chinese school music education.

A historical review of music compositions and education in China China is one of the four ancient civilizations, along with Babylon, Egypt, and India. China has a rich heritage of culture, art, music, and literature dating back to the earliest civilization. Confucianism, though it has gone through changes throughout Chinese history, particularly during the Chinese Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976, has been the mainstream of Chinese ideology, politics, culture, and education through the ages. Chinese culture and values have been quite stable over its long history largely because its education system to date has been governed by the teachings of Confucius (or Kung Fu-tzu) (551–479 B.C.), who promoted a system of political and social ethics with an emphasis on order, unity, moderation, and reciprocity between superiors and subordinates (see Huang, 1988). The rationale for Chinese music education corresponded to the discipline of moral education as a way of encouraging people to conform to more righteous living (Ho, 2010; Ji, 2008; Park, 2015). This is the reason why Confucius gave priority to the arts, not only of music, but also of rites, archery, charioteering, writing, and numbers (also known as the Six Arts).3 The relationship between music and social order can be observed in the Five Classics, namely, the Book of Changes (I Ching or Yi Jing), which illustrated that “ancient kings took up composing music to revere virtue, enrich the emperor, and to recall ancestors” (Zhong, cited in Garrison, 2012, p. 211). 65

Wai-Chung Ho

In addition to the Book of Changes, the Book of Documents (or Classic of History) (Shujing), the Book of Odes (or Book of Songs or Classic of Poetry) (Shijing), the Book of Rites (Liji), and the Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu) led to what modern scholars recognized to be metaphysical, political, poetic, social, and historical visions of Confucianism, respectively. According to Confucius, “a good music composition” in imperial court music was defined as “a well-ordered self or state” with the use of diverse musical instruments and dances harmoniously (Ivanhoe, 2013, p. 51). As stated in “Yueji” (“Record of Music”, transmitted as a chapter in the Liji), “music harmonizes people’s voices” (yuehe minsheng), indicating the fact that music was viewed as a means to encourage social harmony and a stable society (see Li, 2014, pp. 43–44, 46–47; Thrasher, 2008, p. 37). These concepts and other social values were passed on by the Confucians during the Song Dynasty (960–1279), and they subsequently grew into prime principles within Chinese society.4 The function of music, education, and politics explains the role of music education and its significance in the most important dynasties of Imperial China (i.e., from the Zhou Dynasty [1075–256 B.C.] to the Qing Dynasty [1644–1911 A.D.]). During the twentieth century, Chinese music and music education had significant influence from Japan, Western countries, Soviet Russia, and other Eastern European countries. Under the influence of Western missionary and modernization movements, many musical experimentations and musical compositions were composed in the final dynasty and Western influence greatly increased with the establishment of the Chinese Republic in 1911 and with the rule of the Communist Party of China (CPC) beginning in 1949. In this chapter, I consider China’s modernization as a historical process of transformation from a “traditional society” to a “modern society”. This historical process of transformation started with the birth of modern China, as in 1840, in all major domains of Chinese society (see Hsu, 2000, Chapter One). According to Zhang (1991, p. 411), “the introduction of Western music into China and the exchange between Western and Chinese music represent the irresistible historical trend favorable to people which no one can change or stop”. For example, in the late nineteenth century, the Qing Government started to send students abroad to receive education in military training, maritime affairs, the sciences, and manufacturing. The Western style of music education and institutions (i.e., the areas of traditional Western music theory, compositional techniques, the Western orchestra, and the Western canon) was introduced in China with the help of the foreign-trained Chinese musicians and music educators as well as Western musicians (see Ho, 2003). Moreover, Huang Zi (1904–1938), a Chinese music educator and composer, and other composers were requested to edit a set of music books, Renascent Junior Secondary Music Textbooks, in June 1933, and six sets of music textbooks were published in October 1939 (see Liu, 1990, pp. 439–445). After 1949, Communist China introduced a strong revolutionary orientation as political propaganda in the development of music. The Communist Chinese Government made use of Soviet practices in the formation of large orchestras and choirs to perform traditional and modern music along the lines of the Soviet Army’s Alexandrov Ensemble and Cossack choirs (Manuel, 1988, p. 230). Folk songs and contemporary music for the masses were given symphonic accompaniments in the style of Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov (Manuel, 1988, p. 230). During the Cultural Revolution, Chinese composers and musicians strove to bring about an enthusiasm for revolutionary ideology in music education. Despite these revolutionary attempts, Chinese political leaders, as commented by Kraus (1989, p. 128), “propagated a music that was in fact highly Western in its technique, harmonic structure, instrumentation, and emphasis on choral singing”. Deng Xiaoping’s announcement of an “open door” policy in 1978 laid the foundation for modern China, and the exchange between Chinese and Western cultures was most welcome. Many young Chinese composers such as Tan Dun, Chen Yi, Zhou 66

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education

Long, Bright Sheng, Ge Ganru, and Ye Xiaogang went to the United States for further study. Modern compositional skills were adopted in their works, blended with Chinese cultural or folk elements (Kang, 2009, p. 24), and their music style was known as “East-West fusion or East-West composition” (Lau, 2017, p. 265). Along with the influence of popular and rock music, Western classical styles also become commonplace in the composition of contemporary Chinese minge (“folk songs”) (Barmé, 1999, p. 100).

Music education, creativity, and music composition in the school curriculum in the global age On July 1, 1986, the Chinese Government passed a law for children aged 6 and 15 to receive nine years of free compulsory education, six years of elementary education, and three years of junior secondary education (Grades 1–9). From the late 1970s to 2000, to empower China to compete in the global economy, China implemented several major education laws and over 200 regulation changes to improve the quality of education, enhance good educational practices, and promote teachers’ professional development through education reforms (see Law, 1999, 2007; Liu & Dunne, 2009). The 1999 Action Plan for Education Development and Decision on “Furthering the Education Reform and Promoting Quality-Oriented Education” included the implementation of quality-oriented education at all levels, as well as the reform of pedagogy to encourage students’ independent thinking and creativity. This nationwide education reform affected all aspects of teaching and learning in basic education (including two stages of primary education and junior secondary education) and aspired to enable China to meet the demands of quality-oriented education in the era of globalization (see Gu, 2010; Huang, Wang, & Li, 2015). Over the last two decades of music in schools, (including both Chinese and Western music compositions) its messages and social processes have become one of the areas where opportunities and pressures of nationalism and globalization have begun to be implemented and manipulated by the contemporary People’s Republic of China (PRC) (Ho, 2018). In 2001, China’s Ministry of Education issued the Compendium for Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (trial education) after long preparation and review. The early 1990s to 2001 laid major groundwork for this curriculum reform and led to experimental curriculum standards (including music), which led to the fine-tuning stage for the standards between 2001 and 2011. These were then gradually implemented nationally after 2011. Additionally, China’s Eleventh Five-Year Plan of 2006 fostered creativity as a priority for the country (Vong, 2008). To this end, teachers and local and state governments were to be given more authority over the development and selection of textbooks to develop a flexible curriculum (Preus, 2007). The Ministry of Education has acknowledged the importance of increasing students’ creativity skills and innovation to improve the nation’s education standards. A child-centred approach is now encouraged in the classroom, where the music teacher is not viewed merely as an instructor but also as a facilitator who can use a variety of teaching methods and approaches and has a commitment to high artistic standards in their teaching (see Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2001a, 2001b; Tan, 2017). The arts curriculum is thought to be able to develop all competences of students (Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2001a) and it is believed these approaches will allow students to be more unified and well-adapted to assist them in dealing with social and daily complications of life (see National Institute of Education Sciences, 2012). Since China’s curriculum reforms at the beginning of the 2000s, the school music curriculum has targeted the development of students’ aesthetic judgement to cultivate students’ musical sensitivity and love of music and to promote Chinese national music as well as foreign compositions (Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2001a, 2001b, 2011, 2017, 2022). Music 67

Wai-Chung Ho

activities such as composing, improvising, and critical listening help to provide students with unique insight into the form and structure of music, while at the same time helping to develop their creativity and imaginative thinking by using the elements of music for expressive effects (see Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2011, pp. 21–25, 30–31, 2017, pp. 2–4, 14–21). The effectiveness of the implementation of this new music curriculum is believed to be related to music teachers’ abilities in, and practices of, new pedagogies (Guo, 2012; Jin, 2018). For example, music teachers are now encouraged to incorporate modern technology to improve the quality of teaching and learning (Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2011, p. 28) and Guo (2012) reported that many music classrooms in public schools have since been equipped with technology to support teaching of the curriculum such as new computers, DVD players, stereo players, music composing and editing software, among others.

Dynamic perspectives on creativity and music composition/improvisation in the curriculum In an increasingly connected and interdependent world, China’s school music education is described as environmental, multilevelled, and always in respect to, and part of, domestic and global interactions (see Wang, 2016; Zhang, 2011). Creativity and diversity in Chinese school music education have largely been implemented in terms of the teachers’ selection of music activities and genres. The composition/improvisation tasks and instructional modes of teaching and learning musical components can be found in the curriculum, including the invention of music notations for rhythms and melodies for creative expression, as well as extra-musical meanings in personal and social contexts. Drawn from the selected official music textbooks, this section will examine the interaction of two pairs of contrasting relationships found in the introduction of creativity and improvisation activities: between multicultural and ethnic and patriotic education, and between individual and collective education.

Between multicultural and ethnic and patriotic education In response to diverse music cultures, students in China are encouraged to discover a wide range of feelings and thoughts unique to themselves, as well as to those cultures around the globe, by allowing them to explore creative music and their creativity in daily life. The revised music curriculum reform of China’s music education (Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2011, 2017, 2022) allows students to incorporate listening and creative activities such as singing, instrument playing including recorders and simple percussion instruments, and other performance activities, to foster a wider understanding of music-making in diverse musical cultures (also see Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019; Jiangsu Phoenix Juvenile & Children’s Publishing House, 2015, 2016; People’s Education Press, 2016, 2018a, 2018b; Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017a, 2017b; Xie & Leung, 2011). As noted by Greene (1988, p. 125), music involves “the range of human intelligences, the multiple languages, and symbol systems” that occur in different parts of the world. The transmission of multicultural values in the curriculum can be viewed in light of a stronger emphasis on improvisation, for example, textbooks include

• the performance/instruction/execution/discussion of the complex rhythmic nature of African music (Jiangsu Phoenix Juvenile & Children’s Publishing House, 2016, p. 46),

• the performance/instruction/execution/discussion of movement in Czech folk dance (Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2018b, pp. 22–23), 68

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education

• the melodic and rhythmic composition techniques of music in South America (People’s Music Publishing House & Henan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2016, pp. 34–40),

• the makeup of body movements for musical features in the Peruvian folk song “The Flying Away Male Eagle” (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017a, p. 48),

• a rhythmic improvisation activity based on the 4/4 time signature of the tango (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017a, p. 49),

• other dance and music improvisation in the rumba and samba (Guangdong Education Publishing House, 2014, pp. 37–40). There are also teaching materials which aim at inspiring in students the nature of creativity, for example, creating a small sound project titled “a paper symphony” through exploring a wide variety of sounds using paper that is related to the sound environment found in students’ daily lives (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017a, p. 56). Students are inspired to gain knowledge and experience of electro-acoustic composition by creating acoustic and/or electronic music through an inclusive range of composition, improvisation, and performance practices (e.g., see Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017a, p. 58). These music practices described above aim to cultivate multicultural competence and cultural experience in school music education, with the underlying belief that cultural experience can foster creativity among students (see Bourdieu, 1993). In addition to this, there are many improvisation activities in the curriculum themed around Chinese patriotic nationalism, which constitutes a trend in Chinese school music education today (i.e., the same trend found in the 1990s).5 According to Zhang (2017, p. 74), China is a unified multinational country comprised 56 ethnic groups, and “some of the created lyrics” found in the official approved songs to be sung in the classroom “demonstrated a patriotic theme derived from the national music education policies”. Chinese ethnic folk songs such as from the Dong (or the Kam people mostly living in eastern Guizhou, northern Guangxi, and western Hunan), Li (the Li people mostly living in Hainan and on islands in the South China Sea), and Yi (the Yi people primarily living in rural areas of Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guangzi) are incorporated with vocal and rhythmic improvisations to strengthen the ideological and political education of school students, and these beautiful ethnic songs are part of the homeland’s beauty (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2017b, chapter four). Students are also encouraged to create melodic lines for the binary form of the Chinese song “Heavenly Road”, a well-known Chinese folk song composed by Yin Qing to mark the opening of the railway to Lhasa (also known as the Qinghai-Tibet Railway) on July 1, 2006 (Jiangsu Phoenix Juvenile & Children’s Publishing House, 2015, p. 23). However, instead of presenting genuine ethnic life through music activities, the cultural themes selected in the textbooks manipulate students’ thoughts by creating a fantasy world in which ethnic people enjoy their wonderful life and are grateful for the motherland and the Chinese Government.6

Between individual and collective education As the Chinese Government attempts to use more fashionable means to reach out and guide the younger generation, patriotic hip-hop has been used to challenge the world’s media over its portrayal of China.7 Recently, a patriotic rap song titled “100%”, with the participation of 100 Chinese rappers, was released in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1, 1921. Despite the new Beijing authorities’ rules preventing rap from being shown on television, Chinese state media continues to produce its least inspired effort at rap to date. For example, students are told to improvise with their own 69

Wai-Chung Ho

rapping style (Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2019, p. 8) over the approved song “Big China”, a patriotic song composed by Gao Feng, with the lyrics: We have a home, and the name is China. We have many brothers and sisters…. No matter whether we are under the wind and the rain, I will still follow her. China—blessing you […] (Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2019, p. 8; translated by the author) Students are also guided to sing, listen to, and play the song “[My] Motherland, [My] Motherland, We Love You” and develop their own rap style (Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2018b, p. 54). Patriotic education is further developed in improvisation activities by using Chinese patriotic songs such as “National Flag, National Flag, Very Beautiful” (People’s Education Press, 2017a, p. 12) and “I Love Beijing’s Tiananmen Square” (People’s Education Press, 2017a, p. 14). These examples share the similar view that Kanellopoulos (2007) has argued that composition and improvisation are a means of hypothesizing the issue of political autonomy in musical terms. Kanellopoulos (2007, p. 119) explored a dialogue on young children’s thoughts and found that music education should develop a “voice to the learners [that] welcomes experimentation, constantly questioning the assumptions we bring as music educators”. The quote is also a reflection of how China’s social order can be applied to students’ improvised music-making to be more interactive in and to facilitate their everyday life. Approved Chinese music textbooks state that musical creativity in children’s everyday lives boosts students’ creativity, therefore rhythmic and melodic composing activities can help express personal feelings. Chinese students can be helped to explore sound exploration and improvisation in connection with human life in modern times. They can use creative play and movements to enact experiences in daily life and to experiment with sounds and movements at their own developmental level in an encouraging environment (see Ministry of Education, the PRC, 2011, pp. 34–35). For example, a unit titled “An Interesting Sound World” for Grade 1 students focuses on the creation of their own sense of sounds in their life (People’s Education Press, 2017a, p. 2). The approved music textbook materials support children in developing and building their self-esteem and self-fulfilment through expressive body movements. For instance, children can learn how to respond to a bully and stand up for their rights through movement improvisation for the song “The Snail Song”, composed by Wang Tianrong (People’s Education Press, 2017c, pp. 34–35). Diverse improvisation activities are illustrated in children’s hand-clapping games featured in a Beijing-approved music textbook, such as the Beijing children’s song “Hand Clapping” (People’s Education Press, 2017b, pp. 44–45) and a musical journey to visit different famous sites, including a historical and cultural museum, a clock and watch museum, a stadium, a zoo, and a children’s playground in Beijing (People’s Education Press, 2017b, pp. 52–53). In contrast to introducing individuality in improvisation activities, approved teaching materials have adopted collectivism to realize the ideological education of Confucianism in the Chinese music curriculum. Since taking office in 2013, President Xi Jinping has promoted traditional Confucian values and new guidelines on morality and social cohesion. The values implicit in the Confucian views are those of friendship, family love, stability, and hierarchy, and these are observed in multidimensional improvisation activities that involve creativity and performance behaviours in real-time. Interpersonal interactions are explained in a pedagogically meaningful way in the music activities found in the approved music textbooks, for example, students are encouraged to create collective improvisation in a circle dance and a dragon circle (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2018a, p. 14). The ethical power of music, as set in 70

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education

Confucian education, is observed in the melodic and rhythmic improvisation activities found in the approved music textbooks. These activities aim to achieve strong national and character development by using both national and foreign songs, for example, “Frog Mother” (a song from Mainland China) (Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House, 2018a, pp. 36–37), “My Lovely Home” (a British song) (Shanghai Educational Publishing House, 2018b, p. 13), “My Home Is the Grassland” (a Mongolian folk song) (People’s Education Press, 2017a, p. 15), and “Beautiful Village” (a Spanish folk song) (People’s Education Press, 2015). Collectivism is an important cultural and creative dimension in the Chinese music curriculum, and as such a set of hierarchical values has been adopted for creativity education in music lessons.

Conclusion This chapter has argued that the historical discoveries of China’s past can be traced to fulfilling the needs and trends of creativity and music-making in the contemporary music curriculum. With the Confucian canon, Chinese students have long been encouraged to practice what they have learned through self-cultivation and social interaction. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the principle of music learning for life, as part of the development of quality education, has invited policymakers and music educators to develop new approaches to and techniques for teaching to inspire students’ creativity in music thinking and creation in China’s school music education. The education reforms have appealed to the production of a rounded education that promotes creative thinking, creative expression, and imagination, as well as develops emotional and social skills, while encouraging schools to teach morality and collectivism. The challenge for school music teachers is to achieve a fusion of global and national values with which to experience and explore creativity and improvisation activities in school music education. This chapter has demonstrated how music education in China has been influenced by Confucianism and Chinese political developments, and how these evolutions have helped initiate a policy dialogue on creativity and composition/improvisation in music education and the challenges of connecting contemporary cultural, social, and political values with collectivism and individualism. Concerning the foundations of music practices in China’s school music education, creative pedagogy has attempted to make visible to the study of Chinese political culture. This has raised fundamental questions about the relationship between multicultural and ethnic values in education, as well as individualism and collectivism alongside the knowledge and strategies to structure and to shape the Chinese propaganda system today. This chapter intends to raise a discussion regarding the idea of a nation-centric curriculum, which seeks to explore the possibilities of the value of creativity in the music curriculum as a more relevant and meaningful prospect for the future. While the Chinese authorities have attempted to develop creativity in school education through education reforms of student-centred creative practices, there is also a question of how Chinese authorities can balance the power of enhancing patriotic education and collectivism in school music education, which may assume robust control over creativity, critical thinking, and music imagination in the implementation of the music curriculum and composition/improvisation activities in the music classroom.

Reflective questions 1 To what extent can different conceptions of education coexist in respect to Confucianism, Chinese Communism, and patriotic education in the struggle for a balance between individual and collective education in the implementation of creativity pedagogy in the school music curriculum? 71

Wai-Chung Ho

2 How might music teachers’ awareness and sensitivity concerning politics (not limited to Mainland China) in the introduction of creativity in music composition/improvisation affect their approaches for teaching in the classroom? 3 In what ways are teachers (not limited to Mainland China) sensitive to the transformation of creative learning in their use of music cultures other than their own and unfamiliar music styles in the classroom?

Acknowledgement The author wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council who funded this project (HKBU 12608618).

Notes 1 According to Moon and Humphreys (2010), the direct impetus of this education reform movement was the launch of the world’s first successful space satellite, Sputnik I, after which education came to be seen as vital to the nation’s survival during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. 2 The Tanglewood Symposium took place in Tanglewood, Massachusetts, from July 23 to August 2, 1967. It was convened by the Music Educators National Conference to consider major issues along the theme of Music in American Society in cooperation with the Berkshire Music Centre, the Theodore Presser Foundation, and the School of Fine and Applied Arts at Boston University. 3 There are many Confucian temples in China such as the four biggest ones—the Beijing Temple of Confucius, the Confucius Temple in Qufu, the Nanjing Confucius Temple, and the Jilin Confucius Temple. Though the Dujiangyan Confucius Temple is not large in size, it may be the only existing Confucian temple to offer a blend of temple and academy where visitors can experience the traditional Six Arts. 4 Since the time of Confucius, Confucianism has consistently changed over the centuries. Throughout Chinese history, there has been a pendulum effect in Confucian scholars’ emphasis on practical matters and on a strict adherence to rituals and other aspects of tradition. In the late Tang Dynasty (618–907), which preceded the Song Dynasty (960–1280), scholars advocated the Ancient Classics as the true messages of Confucius. Song Confucian scholars focused on interpretation rather than word-by-word adherence as a reaction to the Tang trend, and their expression was a combination of Confucian learning with practical matters of the day. This focus on intuitive understanding continued in further developments in the Ming (1368–1644) and the Qing (1644–1911) Dynasties. NeoConfucianism (a form of Confucianism) was primarily developed during the Song Dynasty. 5 Zhao (2004) argued that China’s patriotic education officially started in the 1990s and found that patriotic nationalism was reinvented by the CPC in the years after 1989, when internal contestations culminated; the years after the 1989 Tiananmen Incident were admittedly the most repressive in China’s modern history (also see He, 2013). 6 Book censorship has been a method adopted by China since the beginning of the Qin Dynasty (221 to 206 B.C.). The Ministry of Education (MoE) of the PRC has continued to publish regulations on the management of school teaching materials. A review process is conducted before textbooks can be introduced in schools. With a view to obtaining approval for publication, songs chosen for the textbooks must carry social and political correctness approved by the MoE. The MoE has also launched a comprehensive inspection of school textbooks to remove unapproved alternations and re-assert the ruling Communist Party, its political ideology and direction, its history, and values orientation as the focus of school education. There has also been a call for greater ideological guidance in Chinese universities, and efforts have been made to revamp mandatory ideology classes to include instruction on Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought, and President Xi’s own signature ideology. 7 The official Xinhua News Agency co-produced a rap video titled “‘Two Sessions’: To the World from China” about “Chinese miracles” to celebrate the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress (NPC) in March 2019. The rap song boasts about the Chinese nation’s recent social and scientific achievements. The video clip begins with a dramatic camera angle panning over Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, where members of the NPC gathered for the Two Sessions. The music video can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5rvO5e-rik

72

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education

References Barmé, G. (1999). In the red: On contemporary Chinese culture. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Barrett, J. R., & Webster, P. R. (Eds.) (2014). The musical experience: Rethinking music teacher and learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. (1997). Invented notations: A view of young children’s musical thinking. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9700800102 Barrett, M. (1999). Modal dissonance: An analysis of children’s invented notations of known songs, original songs, and instrumental compositions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 14–20. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Edited by R. Johnson. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativity in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583942.001.0001 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Darwin, C. (1859/1958). The origin of species. New York, NY: Mentor Book. Garrison, J. (2012). The social value of ritual and music in classical Chinese thought. Teorema, XXXI(3), 209–222. Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gu, M. (2010). A blueprint for educational development in China: A review of “the national guidelines for medium-and long-term educational reform and development (2010–2020). Frontiers of Education in China, 5(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-010-0101-3. Guangdong Education Publishing House. (2014). Yinyue (Music) (Grade 8, vol. 2). Guangdong: Author. Guo, L. Y. (2012). New curriculum reform in China and its impact on teachers. Canadian and International Education/Education Canadienne Et Internationale, 41(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.5206/ cie-eci.v41i2.9205. He, Y. N. (2013). Forty years in paradox. Post-normalization Sino-Japanese relations. China Perspectives, 4, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.6314 Ho, W. C. (2003). Westernization and social transformations in Chinese music education, 1895–1949. History of Education, 32(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00467600304145. Ho, W. C. (2010). Moral education in China’s music education: Development and challenges. International Journal of Music Education, 28, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761409351351 Ho, W. C. (2018). Culture, music education, and the Chinese dream in Mainland China. Singapore: Springer Nature. Hsu, I. C. Y. (2000). The rise of modern China (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Huang, R. (1988). China, a macro history. New York, NY: ME Sharpe. Huang, Z. J., Wang, T., & Li, X. J. (2015). The political dynamics of educational changes in China. Policy Futures in Education, 14(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315612644. Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House. (2018a). Yinyue (music) (Grade 2, vol. 1). Hunan: Author. Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House. (2018b). Yinyue (music) (Grade 4, vol. 2). Hunan: Author. Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House. (2018c). Yinyue (music) (Grade 1, vol. 1). Hunan: Author. Hunan Literature & Art Publishing House. (2019). Yinyue (music) (Grade 6, vol. 1). Hunan: Author. Ivanhoe, P. J. (2013). Confucian reflections: Ancient wisdom for modern times. New York, NY: Routledge. Ji, Y. (2008). Confucius on music education. Nebula, 5(1–2), 128–133. Jiangsu Phoenix Juvenile & Children’s Publishing House. (2015). Yinyue (music) (Grade 9, vol. 1). Nanjing: Author. Jiangsu Phoenix Juvenile & Children’s Publishing House. (2016). Yinyue (music) (Grade 8, vol. 2). Nanjing: Author. Jin, Q. H. (2018). Rengdon zhinneng jishu yingyong yu yinyue jiaoyu de keneng xing yu fazhan quchi yanjiu (Research on the possibility and development trend of artificial intelligence technology applied to music education). Journal of Hubei Correspondence University (Hubei Hanshou Daxue Xuebao), 31(11), 142–143. Kanellopoulos, P. (2007). Musical improvisation as action: An Arendtian perspective. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(3), 97–127. Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/ Kanellopoulos6_3.pdf

73

Wai-Chung Ho Kang, L. (2009). The development of Chinese piano music. Asian Culture and History, 1(2), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.5539/ach.v1n2p18. Kaschub, M. (1997). A comparison of two composer-guided large group composition projects. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9700800103 Kraus, R. C. (1989). Pianos and politics in China: Middle-class ambitions and the struggle over Western music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lau, F. (2017). When a great nation emerges Chinese music in the world. In M. Saffle & H. L. Yang (Eds.), China and the West: Music, representation and reception (pp. 265–282). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Law, W. W. (1999). New rules of the game in education in the People’s Republic of China: Education laws and regulations (Guest Editor’s introduction). Chinese Education and Society, 32(3), 3–8. Law, W. W. (2007). Legislation and educational changes: The struggle for social justice and quality in China’s compulsory schooling. Education and Law, 19(3/4), 177–199. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09539960701751493. Lehmann, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for musicians: Understanding and acquiring the skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195146103.001.0001 Liu, C. C. (Ed.) (1990). Zhongguo xin yinyueshi lunji 1946–1976 [History of new music in China: 1946–1976: Collected papers]. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong. Li, C. Y. (2014). The Confucian philosophy of harmony. New York, NY: Routledge. Liu, Y. J., & Dunne, M. (2009). Educational reform in China: Tensions in national policy and local practice. Comparative Education, 45(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060903391594. Lockette, K. F. (2012). Creativity and Chinese education reform. International Journal of Global Education, 1(4), 34–39. Manuel, P. (1988). Popular music of the non-western world: An introductory survey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education, the PRC. (2001a). Yishu kecheng biaozhun (Standard of arts curriculum). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publisher. Ministry of Education, the PRC. (2001b). Yinyue kecheung biaozhun (Standard of music curriculum). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publisher. Ministry of Education, the PRC. (2011). Yiwu jiaoyu yinyue kecheng biaozhun [Compulsory education -national music curriculum standardisation]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publisher. Ministry of Education, the PRC. (2017). Putong gaozhong yinyue kecheng biaozhun [Orindary high school music curriculum standardisation]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publisher. Ministry of Education, the PRC. (2022). Yishu kecheung biaozhun [Standard of arts curriculum]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publisher. Moon, K. S., & Humphreys, J. H. (2010). The Manhattanville music curriculum program: 1966–1970. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, XXXI(2), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 153660061003100202. National Institute of Education Sciences. (2012, March 29). Zhongguo jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige tuijin yanjiu baogao (The promotion research report on China’s basic education curriculum reform). Retrieved from https://mus.hkbu.edu.hk/people-detail/wai-chung-ho Park, S. J. (2015). Music as a necessary means of moral education: A case study from reconstruction of Confucian culture in Joseon Korea. International Communication of Chinese Culture, 2(2), 123–136. Paynter, J. (1982). Music in the secondary school curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. People’s Education Press. (2015). Yinyue (music) (Grade 4, vol. 2). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2016). Yinyue (music) (Grade 6, vol. 1). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2017a). Yinyue (music) (Grade 1, vol. 1). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2017b). Yinyue (music) (Grade 2, vol. 2). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2017c). Yinyue (music) (Grade 3, vol. 2). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2018a). Yinyue (music) (Grade 9, vol. 1). Beijing: Author. People’s Education Press. (2018b). Yinyue (music) (Grade 9, vol. 2). Beijing: Author. People’s Music Publishing House & Henan Literature & Art Publishing House. (2016). Yinyue (music) (Grade 7, vol. 2). Henan: Author. Preus, B. (2007). Education trends in China and the United States: Proverbial pendulum or potential for balance. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900207.

74

Assessing composition/improvisation in school music education Reimer, B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ross, H. A., & Lou, J. J. (2005). “Glocalizing” Chinese higher education: Groping for stones to cross the river. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1353/ Gls.2005.0007. Shanghai Educational Publishing House. (2017a). Yinyue (music) (Grade 9, vol. 1). Shanghai: Author. Shanghai Educational Publishing House. (2017b). Yinyue (music) (Grade 6, vol. 1). Shanghai: Author. Shanghai Educational Publishing House. (2018a). Yinyue (music) (Grade 6, vol. 2). Shanghai: Author. Shanghai Educational Publishing House. (2018b). Yinyue (music) (Grade 7, vol. 1). Shanghai: Author. Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. London: Routledge. Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 305–339. Tan, C. (2017). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015.1105737. Thrasher, A. (2008). Sizhu instrumental music of South China: Ethics, theory and practice. Leiden: Brill. Vong, K. (2008). Developing creativity and promoting social harmony: The relationship between government, school and parents’ perceptions of children’s creativity in Macao-SAR in China. Early Years, 28(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140802065599. Wang, Z. C. (2016). Shehui jinyue jiaoyu de gongneng ji yiyi tanjiu (Exploration of function and significance of social music education). China Music Education, 12, 25–30. Wiggins, J. H. (1990). Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching. Reston, VA: MENC. Woodford, P. (2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Xie, J. X., & Leung, B. W. (2011). Students’ motivation to study music: The mainland China context. Research Studies in Music Education, 33(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X11404654. Zhang, Q. (1991). The history and future of the reception of Western music by China in the 20th century. In Y. Tokumaru, M. Ohmiya, M. Kanazawa, O. Yamaguti, T. Tukitani, A. Takamutsu, & M. Shimosako (Eds.), Tradition and its future in music: Report of SIMS 1990 Osaka (pp. 407–412). Tokyo: Mita Press. Zhang, Y. M. (2011). Yinyue jiaoyu jiazhi de “sanchong guanxi” ji neizai yizhi xing (The “triple relationship” of music education value and its internal consistency). Journal of Wuhan Conservatory of Music, 99(3), 1–9. Zhang, W. Z. (2017). Multicultural ethnic music education in Communist China. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(3), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v19i3.1359 Zhao, S. (2004). A nation-state by construction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

75

6 THE CHALLENGES, MODELS, AND OUTCOMES OF COMPOSING IN CROATIAN COMPULSORY SCHOOLS Sabina Vidulin Introduction Creativity as a multidimensional phenomenon and process has remained constant throughout human history. It is significant for societies and individuals as an archetype of adapting and transforming their surroundings, while at the same time affecting personal growth. In the theoretical and practical premise of creativity, approaches and strategies are analysed, interpreted, and evaluated by researchers from different fields, including the field of education. In the modern world of rapid changes, creative personality development throughout education is one of the main tasks in forming new and productive generations. Contemporary school should therefore be oriented towards shaping a capable person able to creatively respond to everyday challenges. Yet are teachers educated for this challenge, and are they open and creative enough to support and manage their students’ creative potential? One of the educational domains and school subjects which encompasses creativity is the arts, of which music is a part. The art of music represents a link between past and present, and of composers and musical works in which the individual creative potential, thinking, and expressions are shown and captured. Music directly affects students’ cultural and artistic knowledge and skills. Experiencing and learning about music in schools allows students to express themselves, think critically, discover new relations and meanings, and appreciate music better. They open themselves up to their own personal musical expression and are able to go a step further – to create something new.

The meaning of musical creativity Since the terms musical creativity or music making are used in Croatia rather than the term composing, I will start out by explaining these terms. There is no common point of view of what musical creativity/music making in school implies and represents. While some teachers and researchers understand the term “musical creativity” only to mean musical activities, i.e., rhythmical-melodical improvisations and patterns which lead to song writing, others believe it to be interdisciplinary and multimodal work combining musical and non-musical activities (art, literature, drama, and dance) which can lead to the creation of new forms, e.g., a 76

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-8

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

musical. In the first example, musical creativity is perceived as the creation of new compositions, a creative process resulting in a new piece of music as the outcome, the notion of bringing something into being (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2006; Hogenes, van Oers, & Diekstra, 2014). This creative process can be seen as composing. As Berkley (2004) states, composing is a knowledge-rich and creative activity that requires the development of skills which can be verified, and at the same time encouraging openness and flexibility, and the sense of aesthetics. To succeed, time (as well as a positive and creative environment) should be taken into consideration. Since lack of time is noticeable in Croatian schools during regular classes, and due to the large amounts of other content contained in the curriculum, the appropriate place for composing outcomes seems to be through extracurricular music classes held at school after regular lessons. This way, students are able to develop and enhance their musical competences and produce creative works through the composing process. The activity of composing is prominent in a new method encouraged in Croatia, such as the Listening to Music/Music Making (LMM) approach that links listening to music with music making (composing). The LMM approach starts with listening to music and learning about musical elements so that students can become aware of what music is made of: rhythm, melody, dynamics, tempo, musical form, instrumental, and vocal ensembles (Vidulin, 2017). After the listening activities, students move onto music making (composing), allowing them to further explore these components and understand music. During these sessions, students express themselves, demonstrate the level of their musical knowledge, and create something new. Another example of musical creativity is where creativity connects musical with nonmusical activities. Over the last two decades, multidisciplinary projects like school musicals have been realized in Croatian schools (Vidulin-Orbanić, 2007; 2013). A project like this often starts with breaking down the musical into parts: song writing (composing), singing, playing, and recording music, followed by text writing for the play, stage construction, costume design, and choreography. The realization of school musicals is a great opportunity for students to perceive art as an integrated whole, as they combine songs, spoken dialogue, acting, and dance. Another approach proposed in Croatia (Stanković, Vidulin-Orbanić, & Belušić, 2013) focuses on the interdisciplinary connection between music, drama, and the English language. The Stage-English-Music (SEM) concept connects disparate yet similar educational contents of artistic-linguistic fields and the realization of tasks in a creative and innovative way, developing the children’s full potential. Through an example of an SEM project Journey Around Europe, arts and language are linked by interweaving listening to classical music and its performance, dramatic plays, and learning English. The results of composing which can be achieved through both musical and non-musical activities indicate the goal of composing in Croatian schools: to promote creativity and innovation as the main educational outcome, encourage students to freely express themselves through music, foster their musical creativity and ability, and create an original work. These tasks encourage the students’ musicality, hearing, musical memory, and musical sensitivity. They learn what the parts of a song are, how to properly connect music with lyrics, develop a sense of rhythmical and melodical movement, and improve their composing skills. The purpose of composing in this context is to participate in the school and local community’s cultural and public events with new compositions and to develop students’ self-confidence and artistic freedom. Even though the end goal, activities, and the purpose are mostly oriented towards the development of students’ musical competence, social and emotional competences are encouraged too. In the following sections, I will provide a historical overview of these activities in the school curricula focusing on some models which lead to composing songs in the classroom. 77

Sabina Vidulin

Fostering creativity in regular and extracurricular music lessons in Croatia: a historical overview, outcomes, and possibilities In almost all the governmental curricula dating from 1946 up to 2019, creativity was one of the activities in regular music lessons. By analysing the curricula, Vidulin (2016b) learned that the 1946 curriculum mentioned composing music under the term creativity, while in the 1964 curriculum the term signified improvisation on rhythmical instruments, composing music, as well as a new form of creativity, proposing the connection of music with movement, acting, and artistry. In the 1972 curriculum, musical improvisation is emphasized to a greater extent. Besides the activities listed in the area of creativity, the 1984 curriculum contains tasks related to the outcomes of students’ creative work meant to develop their creative music abilities, developing a sense of phrase and form, and combining rhythm and melodic patterns. Creativity is not included in the 1991 curriculum as a teaching area, though the subsequent 1999 curriculum once again includes it with the aim of making music improvisations, inventing rhythmical patterns or melodic samples, and composing songs. In 2006, a different approach to musical creativity in regular classes emerges. It was set up and realized in line with teachers’ ideas, leading the process of creating new forms, encouraging students’ disposition and skills, and explaining how to improve their work. In the eight-year compulsory education, music teaching encompassed eight years of music classes and the area of creativity was carried out in each grade. From the first to the third grade (seven to nine years old), creativity was carried out within the framework of the unit called Elements of Musical Creativity. In the fourth grade (ten years old), the option to encourage musical creativity was mentioned in the unit Musical Games, while in the fifth and sixth grades (11–12 years old), it was implemented in the unit Free Improvisation, Movements, Dance and Playing Instruments. In the seventh and eighth grade (13–14 years old), musical creativity was featured within the units Playing (Synthesizer), Creativity, Computer (Midi-Equipment). Therefore, different kinds of creativity were mentioned in the curriculum, and it contained mostly musical but also some non-musical activities. In the 2019 Kurikulum nastavnog predmeta Glazbena kultura za osnovne škole i Glazbena umjetnost za gimnazije [Subject Curriculum of Music Culture in primary schools and Musical Arts in Gymnasiums], the field of creativity is not strictly defined and is not particularly elaborated, although creativity is declared to be an important part of music teaching. The document states that teachers have to encourage their students’ creative expression through singing, playing, dance, and movement activities and the use of informationalcommunicational technology (ICT). Students are also prompted to take part in independent public group performances in the classroom, school, or local community. Although creativity, and thus composing, is present in almost every previous curriculum as well as the current one, the fact is that composing is rarely taught in regular classes in Croatian schools. The most common version of how composing is realized in the classroom is by using music making as one of the activities during the music lesson. It encompasses adding melody to a text, modifying rhythmical or melodic patterns for voice or instrument, creating two-part or three-part forms, adding a rhythmic or melodic sample to words, or doing some movement or choreography with music. Occasionally, composing can take place within the framework of school projects or specific events. Besides the curricula, over the last 70 years, several music pedagogues in Croatia have written papers or books about creativity in music teaching and proposed some models of fostering it. Vladimir Tomerlin (1969) pointed out that musical experience is the main issue in music classes and that a written text can be used for composing melodies, for example: lyrics as inspiration for the creation of the melody. Branko Rakijaš (1981) proposed adding other activities 78

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

such as acting, movement, and speech improvisation alongside music improvisation. Višnja Manasteriotti (1987) advocated composing, however, with the task of paying attention to its esthetical value. Joža Požgaj (1988) suggested that adding melody to the proposed rhythmic patterns can be very motivating for students. Elly Bašić (see more in Letica, 2014) encouraged a syncretic children’s musical, artistic and speech expression and the development of musical creativity. Unlike those who were very involved in fostering musical creativity in schools, Pavel Rojko (1996) was particularly critical of it and pointed out that only some of these musical activities actually develop students’ musical creativity. In Croatia, one of the possibilities of deepening the work on composing is music lessons in extracurricular activities. Extracurricular activities have been an integral part of the Croatian educational system since 1953 as another way of activating students in areas of their interest or in what they have a special affinity and disposition for. Students participate in these activities on a voluntary basis to enhance their academic achievements and develop their skills and knowledge. It is a chance for students to think creatively and critically, which can also positively affect their well-being and social behaviour (Darling, 2005; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Khanlou, 2004; Marsh & Kleitman, 2003; Pejić Papak & Vidulin, 2016; Vidulin, 2019). Within the framework of extracurricular activities, students expand their knowledge, skills, and attitudes and, at the same time, systematically develop their interests and boost high-quality artistic growth and development. In Croatian compulsory schools, extracurricular musical activities are usually held once a week for an hour or two as an additional possibility to deepen students’ musical experience, gain new knowledge, develop and improve their skills, and express themselves musically in a safe environment with a competent teacher. According to information on extracurricular musical activities available on school websites, it is evident that these activities are conducted in almost all Croatian schools. The activities may include choirs, small vocal groups, playing music solo, playing music in an ensemble, folk groups, dancing, musical creativity, composing, music workshops, music projects, listening to music, or music literacy. Research studies by Dubovicki, Svalina and Proleta (2014), Terzić (2015), Martić (2015), Vočanec (2015), Svalina, Muha, and Peko (2016), and Vidulin (2016a) confirm that the most common activity is the choir. According to the results of the research conducted by Vidulin (2016a), only half of the participants opt for the activity of playing an instrument, and there is an even smaller number of those who lead small vocal groups, musical projects, musical creativity groups, and dance. Music composing and music literacy are carried out in Croatian schools to the smallest extent. In extracurricular music activities, composing and other forms of creative music making are implemented slightly more than in regular classes, but it is still not enough given the possibilities of working in a smaller group of interested students who choose to attend extracurricular activities. In Croatia, the results of composing are mostly presented and performed through school, city, and regional children’s festivals. To name a few: the children’s festivals Kukuriček1 and Kvarnerić,2 the children’s festival of spiritual music Iskrice,3 a regional festival of extracurricular musical activities,4 the competition Europa u školi [Europe at School], and Original je uvijek bolji [The Original is Always Better]. Within the international project Pokreni pro­ mjenu [Start the Change], children’s songs are often composed as a part of the project, then can be realized through workshops,5 and through integrated school days in which students attend various subjects as one whole, with music composing as a part of it. Some students’ songs can be found on Dječja televizija6 [Children’s Television], while others are recorded on CDs.7 Also, school musicals8 are performed based on students’ songs.

79

Sabina Vidulin

An example of creativity and composing in Croatia is the seven-day Novigradsko proljeće9 [Novigrad Spring] School of Creativity, held annually since 1974. It is a festival of creativity for gifted students participating in extracurricular school activities engaged in languageartistic areas. Held in the Rivarela Compulsory School in Novigrad, Istria, from 1990, the school is organized by the Ministry of Science and Education and the Education and Teacher Training Agency. The mentors are teachers who have successfully worked for many years in the linguistic-artistic area. The programme of the Novigradsko proljeće School of Creativity includes seven days of workshops in 20 heterogeneous linguistic-artistic areas. The work is realized taking into account the year’s selected topic through word, sound, image, and movement. Choir and composing are a part of the school programme. When composing, students make new songs on a given topic as well as compose, sing, and play music inspired by the lyrics prepared by the participants of the literary group or the lyrics they have written on their own. These compositions are then performed by the participants of the school, namely the choir, or by the student composers themselves. In this way, students are encouraged to use creativity in their work, and develop and improve their musical competences in an interdisciplinary and multimodal way. Although it is evident that composing is present in regular and extracurricular music lessons, it is clear that there is a need to create conditions for fostering creativity at school to a greater extent. Teachers need to assist and enable the development of young people’s creativity, identify models that will stimulate the students’ creative expression, find time when the activity can be realized in the music classroom, and pay attention to the quality of their works. At the same time, teachers should aim at developing the students’ composing skills, preparing and sharing educational materials, as well as being present at the workshops and conferences.

The Croatian examples of fostering creativity: improvisations and composing in schools When teaching composing, Croatian teachers sometimes use the Orff concept method (Schulwerk, Orff & Keetman, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955),10 adapting it for the class they teach, or introducing their own ideas derived from their practical experience as music teachers. Composing activities are based on making up melodic and rhythmic patterns, writing melody to the set rhythm, lyric rhythmization, and/or melodization, creating lyrics to an existing melody, composing short songs (two-part, three-part), and adding instrumental accompaniment to songs or adding another voice. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on composing using computer programs, which is easy to use, since students are often familiar with ICT, and the possibilities that these programs offer are very interesting and user-friendly. The computer programs mean that students do not need to be advanced musicians or know how to compose in order to create music. If the classroom is equipped with computers and adequate programs (tablets and students’ mobile phones are also suitable and common work tools), a good ear and sense of music, then composing will be possible. An analysis of Croatian school curricula reveals that, regarding the ICT technology and composing, teachers use Finale and Sibelius programs for writing notes, as well as MuseScore software and Notion editor, while students most commonly use applications for voice or sound recording on cell phones (Voice Recorder). Currently there are no published educational materials for composing in Croatian schools, therefore teachers often base their teaching on trial-and-error methods as well as their own personal experience of composing, 80

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

arranging, analysing music, as well as listening to a variety of musical styles and singing or playing in various vocal groups, bands, or ensembles. Since the lack of materials for composing is evident, and as music teacher worked for many years in compulsory school, I propose two ways of composing teaching and learning (see more in: Vidulin-Orbanić, 2007, 2013; and Vidulin, 2016b, 2017). Firstly, composing starts with the children’s musical improvisation, and secondly, exploring the given models and patterns by playing on musical instruments. These will now be outlined in more detail.

Musical improvisation in the classroom Free and spontaneous creations are students’ natural reactions to their inner life and their environment, and they should first be practiced mostly by singing or playing musical instruments. Spontaneous improvisation has unpredictable outcomes because it is unfettered and free of rules. The teacher can see the richness of each student’s ideas as well as their innate musicality. Spontaneous improvisation is affected by their own music sensibility, openness, will, interest and by the specific situation and conditions in which the students are located. One of the ways of introducing students to improvisation is through the “game of sounds,” which consists of imitations of sounds that can be heard in the environment. It encourages children to express themselves with voices or instruments and create sounds/tones of different duration, height, timbre, and intensity. A second game is improvising with their name using various rhythmic and melodical patterns. After the first musical experiences, students learn about the models of how to get tools for composing and improving their own work, and therefore the improvisation becomes more conscious (more in: Kazić, 2019). Conscious improvisation implies a certain level of students’ knowledge and understanding of the rules, organization, and symmetry in music. The difference between the two types of improvisation is that the former work is a unique phenomenon, while the latter is created according to a model or template. For example, text rhythmization, which consists of inventing words, syllables, sentences, and adding some rhythmic patterns, can be a suitable task during conscious improvisation, as well as an addition of a new motif or musical phrase to the existing melody. Conscious improvisation is the link between improvisation and composing. This is also stated by Hogenes et al. (2014) who wrote that improvisation can be the first step in the composition process. Spontaneous and conscious work in the field of creativity contributes to the development of students’ knowledge and skills, and they can be encouraged to improve their critical and creative thinking as they do creative work. Conscious improvisation can be realized by voice or instruments and it can be seen as rhythmic and melodical. Rhythmic improvisation can be carried out as a conversation led in the way that the teacher or student proposes a rhythmic question, and the other student replies to it by giving a rhythmic answer. After rhythmic improvisation, melodic improvisation by voice and instruments follows: the melody is sung or played by one, and then modified and changed by another student. Besides rhythm instruments, students can use melodic instruments that are suitable for improvisation and exploration. In addition to playing on their melodic instruments, students observe tones and sounds, their range, duration, and timbre, and create different melodies. At one point, improvisation ceases to be improvisation and becomes composing, arrangements, rearrangements, and improvements of their initial music idea. Composing, according to Kratus (2012), allows time for reflection, development, and revision of the final product and this can be as a step further from improvisation to composing. Using their acquired knowledge and skills in music, students invent, vary, and combine melodic-rhythmic patterns and create new works. 81

Sabina Vidulin

Composing with musical instruments: from defined patterns to new compositions As a music teacher since 1994, with the experience of working with students from 10 to 22 years old, I set up a composing program for compulsory-school students attending regular and extracurricular lessons11. Some of the proposed examples of composing activities are presented throughout this section. These activities are possible to realize with the 12-year students in compulsory school if they know the basic notation and play an instrument in regular classes or extracurricular classes. The process should be led by the music teacher who can support and help them write the musical scores. In Figure 6.1, I present an exercise where students have to continue the rhythmic structures on the basis of the given rhythmic pattern, taking the time signature and beat into consideration. They play on one tone to start with then gradually they can play up to three tones simultaneously, shaping new harmonic chords (i.e. major and minor chords). In Figure 6.2, students have to add a melody to the given rhythmic lines. There is no defined tonality; therefore, students can be open to the sound environment. Figure 6.3 shows how students can compose a new tune based on suggested melody, while Figure 6.4 demonstrates that students have to modify an existing score by using rhythmic or melodic patterns. In these four examples, the composing process is realized through several stages: i teacher’s demonstration of the example by singing and playing, ii analysing the notated example together with students, iii students’ experience of the example by singing and playing, iv composing (adding, changing, new piece), v analysing it with the teacher (students become aware of what they created and of the possibilities of modifying and improving the musical piece.), vi for better musical experience, the teacher can add another voice and harmonic accompaniment to the student’s work to make it more interesting and musically richer.

Figure 6.1  Adding new rhythmic pattern

Figure 6.2  Composing melody on the rhythmic pattern

Figure 6.3  Composing melody based on the music pattern

Figure 6.4  Changing the melody

82

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

My experience of this activity was as follows. During these stages, it can be seen that composing is a very personal and varied activity. Some students make music perceiving it as a whole, while others divide it into rhythm and melody parts. For example, some students imagine the rhythm a mente and then write it down and put some melody up, while others define rhythmic values to be used, the number of bars and tonality and only then start to compose. Some of them just start to play, trying to find the melodies they like regardless of bars and tonality. During these composing exercises, students explore with smaller and larger intervals, sometimes they use known rhythmic patterns or create gradual melody movements with interval leaps. Some students continue using the same pattern, whereas others develop different patterns with completely new elements and solutions. Often when they play and hear a melody they do not like, they look for a better solution, they are very open to analysing the final product and improving their music when needed and finally seem very happy when their creations are appreciated by the teacher and other students. In the next section, I will demonstrate the different responses students can have when engaging in composing.

Some examples of composing in extracurricular music activity The following figures present the compositions of students’ independent (Figures 6.5 and 6.6) and group work (Figures 6.7 and 6.8). These students had attended one year of extracurricular music activity for learning to play an instrument and then learned composing the following year. Independent students’ work was carried out in the following way; first, they defined the tonality, measure, and musical form. Using the keyboard, they played a short musical phrase and, if they liked the phrase, they wrote it down with the help of the teacher and continued developing other phrases. After creating a melody which suited their expectations, they defined the dynamics and the tempo. Subsequently, the teacher played different harmonies and the students selected the most suitable one. In this way, many instrumental works were created by the class (see Figures 6.5 and 6.6). When working in a group, the work started by creating lyrics on some topic. After that, tonality and measure were defined and each student from the group started by identifying

Figure 6.5  Metamorfoza [Metamorphosis],12 individual student’s work

83

Sabina Vidulin

Figure 6.6  Ljubav je [Love is],13 individual student’s work

Figure 6.7  Ljeto [Summer]14, students’ group work (sixth and seventh grade)

84

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

Figure 6.8  Mala kuća [Little House],15 students’ group work (seventh and eighth grade) (Continued)

85

Sabina Vidulin

Figure 6.8  (Continued) the rhythmic text structures. The work continued with the students inventing the melodic patterns to the defined rhythm by playing an instrument. All of the students’ individual contributions were performed, with the most interesting example chosen for the main composition. Group work comprised the students and teacher working on improving the song. Finally, the tempo, the dynamics, the mood, and harmonic accompaniment were defined (see Figures 6.7 and 6.8). Several vocal-instrumental songs which were created were arranged by me, performed by me and my university students, and recorded in a music studio as the instrumental bases. Then, the school choir, small vocal group, and soloists recorded voice lines and back-up vocals, and so the CD Tvoja staza [Your Path] was made. The following school year, the CD was an incentive in making a school musical staged by the music and drama teacher and students attending the music and drama activities in same school in Rovinj (Istria).

86

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing

Conclusion Having an affinity for composing is something that either is or is not a part of our being, but it is something that needs to be figured out through engagement with music making in schools. It can be discovered in early childhood, when the child enjoys music, singing, playing, dance, making music, and improvising and is starting to unconsciously explore the world of music. If encouraged by a teacher they will be guided in various musical experiences, which will provide them with more possibilities to be creative, as well as think and live creatively. In the first place, being a part of the composing process as a teacher, I realized how children’s inner world has to be approached and musically observed, taking into consideration that musical improvisation will bring to the surface many unspoken words, something that the child has deep inside, that s/he does not communicate with others but feels and expresses in some other way, without words. Composing was a great way to get to know my students, accept them, teach them to appreciate music, themselves, and others. It demonstrated to students how to work together, accept suggestions, evaluate work and be constantly open, flexible, and ready for change. Without teacher guidance, explanations, interpretations, and demonstration of new and different composing models, the average student would more than likely remain at the same level and would not advance and develop his/her latent potential. This is the reason why teachers’ knowledge and composing ability is very important for leading the process. It can be concluded that in Croatia, we can find some examples for how to manage composing in regular and extracurricular music classes, of which some outcomes and results foster musical creativity at school. However, there is still no consensus on what musical creativity should take place, leading to a number of unanswered questions. For example, which activities are the best for students? Are non-musical activities an integral part of fostering musical creativity? Is composing worth pursuing in school? What are the desired outcomes of musical creativity? As mentioned in this chapter, one of the main reasons why teachers do not teach composing in regular music classes is due to the lack of time and the pressures to focus on other activities such as singing and listening to music. Other reasons may be that the majority of students are musically illiterate in terms of Western classical notation,16 only a few of them play an instrument,17 and there is a lack of instruments in school. The question of the teachers’ competence for composing and leading the creative process is also one of the potential reasons why composing is not taught more in both regular and extracurricular music classes. Composing includes the teacher’s knowledge of solfeggio (ear-training), harmony, polyphony, musical forms, and music history, as well as the abilities of singing, playing, and arranging music. Also, pedagogical sensitivity and a didactic approach to composing are important in the composing process because teachers need to transfer their knowledge and skills to students. Because there are various positive outcomes to fostering musical creativity in the classroom, more attention should be paid to it. This is not only because the music lessons are more actively approached, and more intensive and innovative when dealing with musical creativity, but also because students are given the possibility to develop their musical, cognitive, psychomotor, and social skills; acquire knowledge; understand music better; gain independence; and develop work responsibility. Should composing be more prominent in Croatian music lessons? The answer is a resounding yes.

87

Sabina Vidulin

Reflective questions 1 Since musical creativity/music making in school implies and represents not only different musical but also non-musical activities, which ones, from your perspectives, represent this phenomenon in a greater extend and wider context? 2 What are the reasons why in the extracurricular musical activities the pupils get a chance to achieve better musical knowledge, skills, and outcomes then in regular music classes? 3 Which one of the Croatian examples of fostering musical creativity can be realized in the European school system during the regular and extracurricular music classes and what can be expected as the final outcome?

Notes 1 https://kukuricek.com/ (1 July 2019). 2 https://www.rijeka.hr/teme-za-gradane/obitelj-i-drustvena-skrb/djeca-i-mladi/slobodno-vrijememladih/manifestacije-za-djecu-i-mlade/festival-djecjeg-stvaralastva-kvarneric/ (1 July 2019). 3 http://zupavodnjan.com/dogadanja/iskrice-djecji-festival-duhovne-glazbe (1 July 2019). 4 http://os-acesarec-spisicbukovica.skole.hr/?news_hk=5314&news_id=476&mshow=603#mod_ news (1 July 2019). 5 For example, a musical storybook titled Razigrane vodene brojalice [Playful Water Rhymes] has been published along with a sound recording medium. 6 http://djecja.tv/ (1 July 2019). 7 Lovranske črešnjice (2018); Ljiljani (2009, 2006); Vežički tići (2007); Tvoja staza (2007); Male tratinčice (2006); Na krilima prijateljstva. 8 For example, Tvoja staza (2007). More in Vidulin-Orbanić (2013). Musicals: Pjesma za Filipa, Srcem sasvim jasno čujem, Čarolija Crnog vrta. 9 http://www.novigradsko-proljece.com/web/ (4 June 2021). 10 Exercises that Orff included in his Schulwerk are rhymes and songs for playing, rhythmic-melodic exercises, rhythm for clapping, making melodies and lyrics, the rhythm of the ostinato accompaniment, the rhythm for further replenishment, rhythmic rondo, rhythmic canon, melodies for further performance (first book); bourdon and scale degrees (second book); major scales, dominants (third book), minor scales, bourdon, modes, scale degrees (fourth book); minor scales, dominants, rhythmic-melodic exercises (fifth book). More in Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1950–1955). 11 The didactic composing exercise was devised at the time when I worked in a compulsory school in Rovinj. The composing process and some results of extracurricular activities are presented in more detail in the author’s books (Vidulin-Orbanić, 2007, 2013), and the composing models (examples) were published in the author’s paper (2016b). 12 From the CD Tvoja staza [Your Path]. The scores are published in: Vidulin-Orbanić (2007, 2013). 13 The scores are published in: Vidulin-Orbanić (2013). 14 From the CD Tvoja staza [Your Path]. The scores are published in: Vidulin-Orbanić (2007, 2013). 15 From the CD Tvoja staza [Your Path]. The scores are published in: Vidulin-Orbanić (2007, 2013). 16 In Croatian compulsory school, the students are not musically literate. They acquire only the basic knowledge about the phenomenon of notation. If a teacher wants to work on musical notation and make students literate, he/she can do it but it is rarely the case because singing is taught by ear, so the scores are not necessary. 17 They play only if they are included in the extracurricular music activity of playing, if they attend music school, or if the teacher chooses playing as one of the activities in regular music classes, which is rare.

References Berkley, R. (2004). Teaching composing as creative problem solving: Conceptualising composing pedagogy. British Journal of Music Education, 21(03), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026505170400587X.

88

The challenges, models, and outcomes of composing Campbell, P. S., & Scott-Kassner, K. (2006). Music in childhood: From preschool through the elementary grades. Belmont, CA: Thomson Schirmer Press. Darling, N. (2005). Participation in extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34–35, 493–505. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10964-005-7266-8 Dubovicki, S., Svalina, V., & Proleta, J. (2014). Izvannastavne glazbene aktivnosti u školskim kurikulumima [Extracurricular music activities in school curricula]. Školski vjesnik, 64(4), 553–578. Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kinds of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(1), 10–43. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003. Hogenes, M., van Oers, B., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (2014). Music composition in the music curriculum. US-China Education Review, 4(3), 149–162. Kazić, S. (2019). Muzička improvizacija u edukaciji: historija i praksa [Music improvisation in education: history and practice]. Sarajevo: Muzička akademija u Sarajevu. Khanlou, N. (2004). Infuences on adolescent self-esteem in multicultural Canadian secondary schools. Public Health Nursing, 21(5), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-1209.2004.21503.x. Kratus, J. (2012). Nurturing the songcatchers. In W. D. Bowman, & A. L. Frega (Eds.), Handbook of philosophy in music education (pp. 367–385). Oxford University Press. Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja. (2019). Kurikulum nastavnog predmeta. Glazbena kultura za osnovne škole i Glazbena umjetnost za gimnazije [Subject Curriculum of Music Culture in primary schools and Musical Arts in Gymnasiums]. Zagreb: Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja. Letica, M. (Ed.). (2014). Vjerujem svakom djetetu – tekstovi iz ostavštine Elly Bašić [I believe in every child – texts from the legacy of Elly Bašić]. Zagreb: GU Elly Bašić. Manasteriotti, V. (1987). Muzički odgoj na početnom stupnju [Music education at the first level]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2003). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review, 2(4), 464–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.4. 051388703v7v7736. Martić, F. (2015). Mogućnosti aktivnog muziciranja [Possibilities for active musicianship] [Masters thesis/diplomski rad]. Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli. Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1950). Musik für Kinder – Im Fünftonraum. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne. Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1952). Musik für Kinder – Dur: Bordun - Stufen. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne. Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1953). Musik für Kinder – Dur: Dominanten. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne. Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1954). Musik für kinder – Moll: Bordun - Stufen. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne. Orff, C., & Keetman, G. (1955). Musik für Kinder – Moll: Dominanten. Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne. Pejić Papak, P., & Vidulin, S. (2016). Izvannastavne aktivnosti u suvremenoj školi [Extracurricular activities in contemporary school]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Požgaj, J. (1988). Metodika nastave glazbene kulture u osnovnoj školi [Didactics of music in compulsory school]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Rakijaš, B. (1981). Osnove muzičke kulture [The basic of music culture]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Rojko, P. (1996). Metodika nastave glazbe [Didactics of music]. Osijek: Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Pedagoški fakultet. Stanković, M., Vidulin-Orbanić, S., & Belušić, E. (2013). SEM concept in practice: Interdisciplinary correlation of music, drama and English language. In S. Vidulin-Orbanić (Ed.), Music pedagogy in the context of present and future changes 3 (pp. 317–332). Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli. Svalina, V., Muha, K., & Peko, A. (2016). Izvannastavne glazbene aktivnosti u prva četiri razreda osnovne općeobrazovne škole [Extracurricular music activities in the first four grades of primary school]. Napredak, 157(1–2), 71–89. Terzić, V. (2015). Izvannastavne glazbene aktivnosti u školama novogradiškog kraja [Extracurricular music activities in the schools of Nova Gradiška] [Masters thesis/diplomski rad]. Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli. Tomerlin, V. (1969). Dječje muzičko stvaralaštvo [Children’s musical creativity]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Vidulin, S. (2019). Ishodi i utjecaj izvannastavnih glazbenih aktivnosti na učenika, učitelja i školu [Outcomes and influence of extracurricular music activities on the pupil, teacher and school]. In V. Marković, & J. Martinović-Bogojević (Eds.), Muzička pedagogija: izazov, inspiracija i kreacija (pp. 43–60). Cetinje: Muzička akademija.

89

Sabina Vidulin Vidulin, S. (2017). The “Listening to and Making Music” approach in the function of improving musical understanding. Glasbenopedagoški zbornik (The Journal of Music Education), 27, 145–161. Vidulin, S. (2016a). Extracurricular musical activities in primary school from the teachers’ point of view. In M. Sedláček (Ed.), Music – Education – Terra Cognita? (pp. 6–12). Brno: Masarykova univerzita. https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-8443-2016 Vidulin, S. (2016b). Glazbeno stvaralaštvo u primarnom obrazovanju: retrospektiva i perspektiva [Musical creativity in primary education: Retrospective and perspective]. In V. Balić, & D. Radica (Eds.), Glazbena pedagogija u svjetlu sadašnjih i budućih promjena 4 (pp. 9–26). Split: Umjetnička akademija u Splitu. Vidulin-Orbanić, S. (2013). Glazbeno stvaralaštvo: teorijski i praktični prinos izvannastavnim glazbenim aktivnostima [Musical creativity: theoretical and practical contribution to extracurricular musical activities]. Pula: Udruga za promicanje kvalitete i poticanje izvrsnosti u odgoju i obrazovanju “SEM”. Vidulin-Orbanić, S. (2007). Izvannastavne (glazbene) aktivnosti: mjesto suživota, kreativnosti i stvaralaštva [Extracurricular (music) activities: a place of coexistence and creativity]. Rovinj: OŠ Vladimira Nazora. Vočanec, M. (2015). Stavovi voditelja o provođenju izvannastavnih glazbenih aktivnosti [Teachers’ point of view regarding extracurricular music activities] [Masters thesis/diplomski rad]. Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli.

90

INTERLUDE II

Creativity and Composing in Education Martin Fautley

Music education is often considered to be an example of creativity, and creating, composing, and making music are all thought to be creative acts in their own right. Indeed, in curricular justifications for the subject of music, creativity is often mentioned, with music described as one of the creative subjects children and young people are taught about, and learn, in diverse educational settings. Creativity can be, however, a somewhat nebulous construct, and in this interlude understandings of creativity will be questioned from the stance of how composing interrelates with it. As Burnard rightly observes: Musical creativity – broadly construed as the exemplary locus of diverse forms of practice – is one of the prominent yet notoriously contentious phenomena in the “field” of music education. Arguably the locus of highest value and integrally tied to conceptions linking the individual, society, and culture (and sub-cultures or neotribes), the literature on “musical creativity” largely profiles professional musicians and composers, across high and popular cultures. Nevertheless, the general situation is far from clear. From the perspective of students and teachers, the challenge of musical creativity can be attributed to it being an emerging field of theory and research, and one for which definitions are not only elusive but also contested and confused. (Burnard, 2012a, p. 319) Within these challenges and confusions, this interlude will endeavour to pick its way through issues of creativity, with particular reference to how the terminology applies to notions of teaching and learning creativity within the context of composing pedagogies. It should be stated at the outset that it is not the intention of this interlude to provide an overview of the current state of creativity research as it applies to the field of composing, but rather to problematize issues associated with pedagogies of creativity and composing, and enable a reflective educator to ask questions of their own professional practices. To begin with, it is worth thinking about what creativity actually involves. There are a number of theories of creativity (Cropley, 2001; Sternberg, 1988; 1999; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999), with some of them building on aspects of Wallas’ pioneering 1926 publication “the art

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-9

91

Martin Fautley

of thought” (Wallas, 1926). In this, Wallas suggests that there are four stages to the creative process:

• • • •

Preparation Incubation Illumination Verification

These four stages were discussed by, inter alia, Savage and Fautley, who described them in this fashion: The first stage, preparation, represents the consideration of an issue, which involves getting ready for the next stage too. This is followed by incubation, which is defined as a period of time where the issue and its ramifications are considered, mulled over and thought about. Illumination involves arriving at a point of realisation where a solution presents itself, or becomes apparent. Finally verification involves some form of testing of that which has happened. (Savage & Fautley, 2007, p. 2) These four points show a process, complete in itself, which happens over time, and leads to an output of some sort, in our case a piece of music. For novice composers who are at the learning stages, it is helpful to try to dissect the various aspects of the composing process. Learners being creative “to order,” as it were, as in a school classroom, might seem anathema to some, but this nonetheless needs to be done in order for structured learning to take place. For non-classroom cases, time is going to be less of a factor in the production of a new piece of music, but for schools, with rigid timetables, and a close ordering of teaching and learning in set and sequential lesson formats, this is often unavailable and inflexible. While established composers, songwriters, and music producers might be able to have flexible timeframes and work when they wish, school and college timetables do not allow for this, and ways need to be found to enable composing to be taught and learned under these timetable conditions. Considering creativity as involving a series of stages, as Wallas outlines, is not necessarily all that is involved, however, since the sorts of musical outputs that are created are also important for educators to think about. To this end, the work of Margaret Boden is helpful to take into account at this juncture. The importance of Boden’s work is that she places creativity into two specific types: everyday creativity, which can include the composing activities of children and young people in classrooms, and creativity which impacts a much wider sphere, including the production of musical works of importance. As she observes, it is important to: […] make a distinction between “psychological” creativity and “historical” creativity. (P-creativity and H-creativity, for short.) P-creativity involves coming up with a surprising, valuable idea that’s new to the person who comes up with it. It doesn’t matter how many people have had that idea before. But if a new idea is H-creative, that means that (so far as we know) no-one else has had it before: it has arisen for the first time in human history. (Boden, 1990, p. 2) This is very useful for our consideration of creativity in educational settings. Let us take a simple example. A young child when encountering a tuned diatonic percussion instrument, such as a xylophone or glockenspiel, will often begin their experimentation of the instrument by sweeping 92

Creativity and composing in education

the beaters up and down the note-bars, often followed by a sequence of pattern playing where they play every other note-bar, producing a resultant piece that is constructed using major and minor thirds, although of course they do not know this yet. Such patterning activities will have been heard by the teacher hundreds of times, and yet will be absolutely new for the child. Using Boden’s notion of P-creativity means the teacher is able to recognize this as a creative act in its own right. This also means that significant musical compositional outputs can be recognized as H-creative if they have a lasting effect, whether this is a song by Ed Sheeran, or a piano piece by Einaudi, or any other piece of music. This distinction between creative acts is helpful for our purposes, as it enables teachers, educators, composers, and learners themselves to think about the ways in which their compositions can be considered being part of a spectrum of understandings and classifications of what they are doing in their own personal musical journeys. Odena (2018, p. 8) provides a useful, school-based example of this: For instance, a pop song by a group of students aged 12 may do poorly if compared with the song that is at number 1 in the pop charts, but for the students the process of composing it may have been an outstanding creative achievement in its own right. This is another helpful way of thinking about creativity when considering composing, in that it is important they we are not only limited to the work of geniuses, but that creativity can be considered a normal and everyday occurrence in all educational settings, from kindergarten to conservatory. This is a point which is picked up later in this interlude. Building on the work of Boden, Odena and Welch (2012) describe their categorizations as being part of a “new” conception of creativity, whereas what they call the “traditional” concept is that of the lone genius of Western classical music. Where confusions can arise is when thinking of creativity, but not distinguishing between these two classifications: […T]here are at least two generic concepts of creativity co-existing: the “traditional” and the “new.” The traditional is ascribed to people who contribute significantly to a field and whose contributions are recognized by the community, such as successful adult composers, painters or sculptors. The significance of this traditional perspective in a school context tends to focus more on the output (such as interpretation within the “canon”) rather than the creative process. This implies that although the work of “the masters” is a source of inspiration and is often studied in educational institutions, such exceptional standards of quality are difficult to reproduce…. Confusion arises when accounts of the new concept are presented as if they were characterizations of the traditional one, as for example when we try to assess young people’s musical products using historical creativity criteria. (Odena and Welch, 2012, p. 29) However, a classification such as Boden’s, or Craft’s (2001) notion of “little-c creativity” also needs to be considered alongside thinking about what creativity is, and what it entails. In the UK, two important publications some 20 years apart provide useful definitions of what creativity is. These are helpful in our thinking about educational composing as a creative activity. The first of these definitions places creativity as being: Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value. (NACCCE, 1999, p. 30) 93

Martin Fautley

Although this seems to lean more towards Boden’s notion of H-creativity, it is worth thinking about how this can be placed into context by reframing the term “of value” to mean “of value to the learner,” and, hopefully, to the teacher as well. The NACCCE report also considered ways in which creativity could feature as a pedagogic activity, and said this: There is an obvious sense in which children cannot be “taught” creativity in the way that they can be taught the times tables. Creative processes do draw from knowledge and practical skills. It is also the case that there are various techniques to facilitate creative thinking. But this does not mean that children are taught creativity by direct instruction. We define creative teaching in two ways: first, teaching creatively, and second, teaching for creativity…. By teaching creatively we mean teachers using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting, exciting and effective…. By teaching for creativity we mean forms of teaching that are intended to develop young people’s own creative thinking or behaviour. (NACCCE, 1999, pp. 102–103) For our purposes in thinking about pedagogies for teaching and learning composing, this is a helpful distinction. The notion of teaching for creativity seems particularly apposite in thinking about the ways in which composing can be both taught and learned. This thinking is clearly evidenced 20 years later, when, again in the UK, the Durham Commission on Creativity and Education also produced a series of useful definitions of creativity. These are as follows: Creativity: The capacity to imagine, conceive, express, or make something that was not there before. Creative thinking: A process through which knowledge, intuition, and skills are applied to imagine, express, or make something novel or individual in its contexts. Creative thinking is present in all areas of life. It may appear spontaneous, but it can be underpinned by perseverance, experimentation, critical thinking, and collaboration. Teaching for creativity: Explicitly using pedagogies and practices that cultivate creativity in young people (Durham Commission on Creativity and Education, 2019, p. 94). The reasons that these definitions are helpful for our purposes is because of the ways in which they separate out creativity per se from teaching for creativity. For composing, this warrants some further unpicking. As a creative act, composing music, as has been discussed above, also involves an understanding of style and genre. This is where the composing teacher has a part to play. Teaching composing requires the utilization of what the Durham Commission referred to as “teaching for creativity.” This is where the teacher will be employing pedagogic techniques to help the student. These include, but are not limited to, these issues:

• What is the starting point (stimulus) for a composing activity? • How much scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) is needed (or wanted) in order for • • • • •

the learner to begin the composing process, and then make progress? What are the directions in which the composing can be expected to proceed? What happens if the student goes in an unexpected direction? Are there things that students do which are “right” and “wrong” in this process? How can learners be helped with the process of composing? How important is it that there is a final compositional product? 94

Creativity and composing in education

There are many other questions and issues which will need to be considered by the teacher and student. It is also the case that many of these questions have a clear linkage to assessment, as they can be seen as instances of formative assessments (see assessment interlude, this volume). There are obviously significant differences in “teaching for creativity” which are dependent upon the ages and stages of learning that the learners are at. Composing, although often labelled as “making up music” with a group of pre-school children, is going to be of a different form and nature than composing with a group of primary school children, secondary school, university, or conservatory students. But what does creativity mean in this instance, and how is it arrived at? Although creativity and expertise are related, they are nonetheless very different things. Expertise does not usually require creativity, but creativity generally does require a certain level of expertise. There are similarities in the relationships of both expertise and creativity to domains, however. Research has shown that just as expertise in one domain does not predict expertise in other, unrelated domains, creativity in one domain does not predict creativity in other, unrelated domains. People may be expert, and people may be creative, in many domains, or they may be expert, or creative, in few domains or none at all, and one cannot simply transfer expertise, or creativity, from one domain to another, unrelated domain. The domain specificity of creativity matters crucially for creativity training, creativity assessment, creativity research, and creativity theory. (Baer, 2015, p. 165) Baer makes it quite clear in this quotation that there are differences between creativity and expertise, and this is helpful for our purposes in thinking about creativity and its relation to teaching and learning composing. One of the ways in which this can be evidenced is in thinking about what progression in composing might entail. If we take the instance of very young children, for example in a kindergarten or other early-years setting, then they may well be making up a piece of music to accompany a poem or a story. Although possibly labelled “making up music,” this is still composing. The children will probably be doing this in groups and will be creating music directly into sound using classroom instruments. Later, as they get older, they may well produce a soundscape in a similar fashion and later still compose using melodic instruments. Alongside this, for older pupils and students, aspects of more formal compositional teaching and learning may well be taking place, including an understanding of keys, chords, and harmony. It may well be the case that creativity has to be curtailed in order to be able to work at these aspects of composing. For example, species of counterpoint and the harmonization of Bach chorales may not immediately spring to mind as examples of creative acts, but they can be seen as getting ready for the creativity which will hopefully follow, this being part of a preparation for expertise, to follow Baer’s standpoint above. The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi viewed creativity as involving a complex set of interactions: […W]hat we call creative is never the result of individual action alone; it is the product of three main shaping forces: a set of social institutions, or field, that selects from the variations produced by individuals those that are worth preserving; a stable cultural domain that will preserve and transmit the selected new ideas or forms to the following generations; and finally the individual, who brings about some change in the domain, a change that the field will consider to be creative … Creativity is a phenomenon that results from interaction between these three systems. (Csikszentmihalyi, 2015, pp. 47–48) 95

Martin Fautley

Using this to inform thinking about the sorts of preparatory compositional exercises described above, it becomes clearer that this is a part of creativity in its own right. Indeed, part of the process of teaching for creativity is to facilitate the transfer of domain-specific knowledge and understanding to the individual learner, or as Hooker, Nakamura, and Csikszentmihalyi (2015, p. 211) put it, “For creativity to occur, a set of rules and practices must be transmitted from the domain to the individual.” What some of the authors in this current volume describe in their various chapters are ways of teaching and learning composing which are appropriate to their local contexts. This means that indigenous musics are privileged in locations where it is appropriate so to do, but what creativity entails in such cases needs to be thought about with reference to Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of “gatekeepers”: Simply introducing novelty does not, of course, constitute an act of creativity. Many new ideas are generated every day and are quickly forgotten or ignored. To be creative, a variation must somehow be endorsed by the field: a group of experts entitled through their own accomplishments or position to decide what should or should not be included in the domain. The field is the social organization of the domain. It consists of gatekeepers – teachers, critics, editors, museum curators, agency directors, and foundation officers – whose role is to decide what should and should not be added to the existing set of knowledge and passed on to subsequent generations. (Hooker et al., 2015, p. 211) This is an important matter and affects not only indigenous musics and regional typologies, but also any genre, style, or type of music. A heavy metal band is unlikely to switch instruments and play a Mozart string quartet, a choral society is not going to perform an orchestral symphony; these are obvious, but important, as the gatekeepers of heavy metal are not the same as the gatekeepers for choral music. Indeed, the field for each will have its own rules and conventions, and in order to be accepted, the piece of music produced will need to meet the criteria – normally tacit but understood by the practitioners and devotees – in order to be accepted. Again, this is about differences and connectivity between creativity and expertise. Indeed, this can be seen to be a recurring theme, almost an idée fixe, which runs throughout this discussion of creativity and composing. The issue of gatekeepers is revisited later in this interlude. Back in 1996, the American music education academic Peter Webster was worrying about issues associated with creativity in music education: Many questions about creativity continue to prevail. Is creativity product, or process, or both? Should it be considered primarily as something that takes place in composition? Can it be readily measured? Does it have anything to do with music aptitude? Isn’t it the same as intelligence? Isn’t it really only a “general music” activity? Can it be taught? There remains little doubt about the importance of creativity in the music education profession, but little collective sense of what it is. (Webster, 1996, p. 88) All of these issues, and Webster’s concluding statement, seem as apposite today as when they were written during the closing years of the last century! Many of the chapters in this current book describe different national and regional approaches to the teaching and learning of composing, and it is clear that there are significant differences in practices in each of the cases 96

Creativity and composing in education

herein. But we also have an additional pressure, which is the fundamental question of what creativity in composing actually is. When citing from the work of Odena and Welch (2012), the notion of a “traditional” view of creativity was explored above. Burnard (2016, p. 6) is critical of this stance and views it as being out of date when applied to the notion of the “great composers” of Western classical music: A collective and individualized understanding of musical creativity (one that traces beyond the common forms of composition and improvisation) is an imperative. As Finnegan has argued, although ‘the one common form of musical creativity, is musical composition’ for which ‘this high-art model assumes a canon of accepted composers, notably the “greats” like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Chopin’ (2007, p.160), there are a myriad of differing ways In which musicians, at both ends of the high-art and grassroots spectrum, are creative. What is more, the Western conception of ‘musical creativity’ becomes increasingly dominant when we seek out what are the values and norms of approval (i.e. what institutions legitimize) for measuring and standardizing its assessment…Put in another way, to acknowledge that creativity exists in music is insufficient. The singular defined concept of ‘music creativity’ is outmoded. Burnard invites us to consider an issue which has had considerable traction in creativity research, and in relation to Western classical music specifically, this being the issue of what Stillinger (1991) referred to as “the myth of solitary genius.” There are, of course, exceptional individuals who have left their mark on music history in the Western classical tradition, but at some point these “solitary geniuses” were also normal human beings, going about their everyday business, and learning how to compose. They were encouraged to find their own versions of expertise, and to serve their compositional apprenticeships. They also required musicians to play their music, instruments to play it with, spaces to perform it in, and so on, for which there was a whole industry of other people to help with this. It is possibly problematic for educators to spend time worrying about waiting for the individual genius to arrive in one of their classes, far better to concentrate on those who are in the class today; or, as one English school pupil in an inner-city school asked, “Does you have to be dead to be a composer?” (Fautley, 2015, p. 517). With that last quotation from Pamela Burnard, she is inviting us to move away from thinking about creativity solely in its singular form. Instead, and by way of contrast to this, Burnard encourages us to think about creativity in its plural form, “creativities,” or, as she observes, “[t]he outmoded, notionally singular phenomenon of ‘musical creativity’” (Burnard, 2012b, p. 8). With regards to composition, Burnard goes on to observe: The sacred and fetishized concept of “composition” is as far removed from most of the world’s traditional music as it is from globally spatialized internet forms, both of which were not originated through formal acts of composition. In order to demythologize the scholarly rhetoric, we need to recognise that it is a human construction, a product of culture, and accordingly varies from time to time and from place to place. We need to ask what musical creativity means to us, and think how we might begin to situate creativity in music and music-making, and how it is mobilized in practice by social groups. (Burnard, 2012b, p.10)

97

Martin Fautley

To situate a singular creativity in any one style, type, or genre of music is problematic. While there is domain-specificity, in the current connected world of musical endeavours, we need to be thinking about what compositional creativity really means. It seems likely to be the case that there will be some instances where inculcation into a musical domain is considered to be a key role that compositional pedagogy entails, but at the same time we need to be thinking about what the realities and complexities of a 21st-century composing education ought to entail. Burnard again has a view on this: But a theory of musical creativity, which is to say, an idea of what musical creativity is and what it is not, and of the role it plays in our lives, must be able to explain not just why members of one social and cultural group differ in their ways of “musicking” from members of another group, but how it is that members of one culture can come to understand and enjoy, and perhaps creatively appropriate the creativity of others. It must also explain when some forms of music creativity become dominant, sometimes across the whole world, while others remain confined to the social group within which they originated…. A theory of musical creativity, like the act of creating itself, is not just something for “musical” or “creative” people but an important component of our understanding of ourselves and of our relationships to others. The act of musical creativity establishes in the place where it is happening a set of relationships between people, between the individual and the social group, between the individual and society, and between the society and the ever-expanding creative spectrum of web space. (Burnard, 2012b, p. 31) In this quotation, Burnard is adding the issue of valorization to the already complex mix of creativity and its definitions, and it is to this aspect that we now turn. What makes a worthwhile student composition? Who says so? This is where we need to return to Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of “gatekeepers.” The first level of gatekeeping will be undertaken by the teacher. It will be the teacher who, in their formative assessment comments (again, see interlude on assessment, this volume), will be making their judgements visible, or perhaps aural. They will say what they think is worthwhile about the piece, what might be done to improve it, and how the student can improve on their work. The usual caveats apply here; the teacher working with younger school-age children will do this in a very different fashion from the expert composing tutor in a conservatory. But both will be undertaking some form of valuing exercise with any work that is produced. From what has been discussed already in this interlude, it will be immediately apparent that it is unlikely that a single teacher or tutor will be able to embody and personify expertise in all musical genres. Indeed, it is unlikely that the pupils or students would expect this. But in some countries where there are public examinations for school-age pupils which include an element of composing, there can be a wide range of compositional styles which can be entered for the examination. In England, teachers report examples of examination groups of 16-year-olds in England being entered for GCSE1 where one pupil might have composed a disco track, another a setting for church choir of the Magnificat, another an electronic composition based on loops, and another a pop song. This eclectic mix is not untypical for a class of this nature and at this stage. This requires the teacher to be able to make musical judgements concerning the work of the pupils, and while the breadth of possibilities can be a strength of the examination, it can also be an issue for teachers and pupils alike. Devaney (2018) described how, in some schools, pupils were very aware that composing for examination purposes was a singularly specific activity, and that 98

Creativity and composing in education

close attention needed to be paid as to how their work would be perceived by an external examiner, whom they did not know, and the examiner did not know them: [School pupil speaking] It’s got to follow the rules more than anything. And maybe that’s one criticism I have of the composing system in schools is that a lot of it is very much about ticking boxes and not about what composing really is about…. I’ve definitely had some truly terrible compositions full of musical features and “ah tick tick”…. I mean for exam purposes I would say the most important thing is ticking boxes and that’s the sad thing. That, you know, composers are composing to get the best marks in exams but as a result the composition may not be as good as it should be. (Devaney, 2018, p. 162) This adds the complexity of valuing not just by a field of musicians in the style/genre concerned, but of what an outsider marking and grading such a piece might think. This composing for assessment purposes brings a whole other area to thinking about what creativity in learners might entail. But to return to expertise and valuing, what has become clear is that composing does not normally happen outside of musical styles, rather it is intrinsically bound up with them. In a seminal paper of 1960, Hood writes about the notion of “bi-musicality.” Although reflective of the time it was written in many ways, Hood nonetheless presents some interesting issues which are apposite to this current discussion. Hood observes: Perhaps it is not necessary to remind the reader that we are speaking of the world of music, that training in basic musicianship of one order or another is characteristic of cultivated music wherever it is found and to some extent is unconsciously present in the practice of ingenuous music. It may be of some comfort to the music student of the West to realize that the Chinese, Javanese or Indian student also must jump through a series of musical hoops. But if this kind of training is indeed essential, the Western musician who wishes to study Eastern music or the Eastern musician who is interested in Western music faces the challenge of “bi-musicality.” (Hood, 1960, p. 55) In this paper, Hood is writing about “Oriental” [sic] music, but to this can be added presentday thoughts about transferability to pop/rock/jazz styles, as well as all the various aspects of world music. As Hood goes on to observe: […A]n understanding of and an insight into not only music and the related arts but also language, religion, customs, history - in other words, the whole identity of the society of which music is only one, but one very important, part. (Hood, 1960, p. 58) What this means is that thinking about creativity with reference to composing necessitates the educator thinking about a number of separate but related aspects, including, but not limited to:

• What is the domain in which this creative composing task or activity is being situated? • How much expertise do I, the educator, have in this domain? • How relevant is my expertise to thinking about whether the students’ work is a creative contribution of quality to this domain?

• What aspects of development or improvement can the educator contribute to the proffered student work? 99

Martin Fautley

Thinking about the linked areas of creativity and expertise in this way may be challenging for some educators, but in a connected 21st-century world it is necessary in order to be able to consider how such an education can be fit for purpose. However, this is not to decry or in any way denigrate the importance of expert composing pedagogies. For specific teaching and learning to take place at conservatory, music college, and university level, it is important that domain-specific expert pedagogies of composing are enacted, which link specifically to the style/genre involved, whatever that may be, and which not only develop the competencies of the individual learner concerned but also prepare them for entry into the community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) which is so vital a part of the education of young composers at that stage of their education.

Conclusion As was stated at the outset, the intention has not been to provide an exhaustive review of the available research, but instead this interlude has tried to problematize creativity and composing pedagogies. It has taken a wide stance, and looked at a number of possible ramifications, issues, and dilemmas, the purpose of which has been to facilitate reflection on these issues, and for teachers and educators to ask questions of their own professional practices, and to think about their own contexts, and to what extent these either do or do not mesh with other contexts, other practices, and other ways of working.

Note 1 GCSE – General Certificate in Secondary Education, a public examination which pupils choose to study at age 14+ in England, with an examination externally marked at age 16+.

References Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Review, 37(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480. Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Burnard, P. (2012a). Commentary: Musical creativity as practice. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (vol. 2, pp. 319–336). New York, NY: Oxford UP. Burnard, P. (2012b). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford UP. Burnard, P. (2016). Rethinking ‘musical creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 5–27). Farnham: Routledge. Craft, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. London: Continuum. Cropley, A. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 47–61). Heidelberg: Springer Dordrecht. Devaney, K. (2018). How Composing Assessment in English Secondary Examinations Affect Teaching and Learning Practices [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Birmingham: Birmingham City University. Durham Commission on Creativity and Education. (2019). Durham Commission on creativity and education, first report. Durham University, Arts Council England. Fautley, M. (2015). Music education assessment and social justice: Resisting hegemony through formative assessment. In C. Benedict, P. K. Schmidt, G. Spruce & P. Woodford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education (pp. 512–524). New York, NY: Oxford UP. Finnegan, R. (2007). The hidden musicians: Music-making in an English town. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

100

Creativity and composing in education Hood, M. (1960). The challenge of “bi-musicality”. Ethnomusicology, 4(2), 55–59. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/924263. Hooker, C., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The group as mentor – Social capital and the systems model of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 207–225). Heidelberg: Springer Dordrecht. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture & education. Sudbury, Suffolk: DfEE. Odena, O. (2018). Musical creativity revisited: Educational foundations, practices and research. Abingdon: Routledge. Odena, O., & Welch, G. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 29–48). Farnham: Ashgate. Savage, J., & Fautley, M. (2007). Creativity in secondary education. Exeter: Learning Matters. Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15).Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Stillinger, J. (1991). Multiple authorship and the myth of solitary genius. New York, NY: Oxford UP. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Watts. Webster, P. (1996). Creativity as creative thinking. In G. Spruce (Ed.), Teaching music (pp. 87–97). London: Routledge. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

101

7 COMPOSING IN THE CLASSROOM The case of the Czech Republic Vít Zouhar Introduction The first impulses on how to compose in classes and collaborate between music education teachers and composers in general music education courses at primary and secondary schools appeared in the former Czechoslovakia in the late 1950s and 1960s. But skepticism about the musical creativity of pupils and the persistent concept of composing, as a highly specialized expert activity of the most talented and educated musicians, all these delayed the wider application of composing in classes in Czechoslovakia and after 1993 in the Czech Republic. It was only since 2001 that compositional activities in classrooms at general schools developed and cooperation between teachers and composers in music education courses at primary and secondary schools took place. In this chapter, we will focus on the state of composing in classrooms in the Czech Republic and the role of the Hear Differently program in the development of compositional activities of pupils and students at primary and secondary schools over the past 20 years.

Who can compose? Composing in the classroom is not contained in the Framework Educational Program of the Czech Republic for General Music Education and, thus, is not included among the activities that are deliberately developed at primary or secondary schools (Balada, Jeřábek, & Tupý, 2006; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2007, 2021). Hence, practical activities in music education at standard primary and secondary schools in the Czech Republic are focused on vocal training, instrumental performance, combining music and motion, and listening activities. The Framework Education Program for Primary Education (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2005, 2021) and the Framework Education Program for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools) (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2007), both constituting the Czech national curriculum, support the development of vocal, instrumental, and listening skills and knowledge in elementary music theory and history in general music. Creative activities are always connected with vocal and elementary instrumental performative competencies. For example, learning outcomes for primary education include “elementary improvisation” and the development of “elementary introductions, interludes 102

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-10

Composing in the classroom

and closing sections” (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2021, p. 84) as part of instrumental activities. At the lower secondary education level, pupils are able to improvise “simple music forms” (p. 87). Improvisation skills are as well included in the learning outcomes in the Framework Education Program for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools) (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2007). Here, within the vocal activities, it is mentioned to create “a simple vocal composition (intro and outro, period [small scale formal structure])” (p. 52). This means that these vocal compositional activities should be focused on small-scale formal structures and build on the theoretical knowledge of pupils of musical forms. And among the instrumental activities, students will be able to create “simple instrumental compositions (movement, small song form, rondo)” (p. 52). Other creative activities are not mentioned in these frameworks. Even if composing is (or seems to be) reserved for talented and skilled students, those with a future as music professionals, who can apply at some selected basic arts schools, conservatories, and music universities (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2010a, 2010b), in the past 20 years, many pupils have gained experience with classroom composing and had opportunities to create their own works, sounds, musical instruments, and to improvise and perform their group compositions. They have received this shared experience of composing in music classrooms, workshops at music festivals, and specialized courses organized by symphony orchestras, music festivals, or opera houses (Bakla, 2005; Coufalová & Synek, 2014; Dvořáková, 2005; Flašar & Kyas, 2005; Hořínka, 2019; Medek, 2004; Šťastný, 2005; Všetičková, 2012, etc.). These activities allow children to experiment with composing, building their own musical instruments, or playing their own works. The spontaneous efforts and enthusiasm of teachers and composers have brought these extracurricular activities into the classroom as a teaching supplement or additional tool that teachers can use to achieve curricular learning outcomes. It is by the support from universities, musical and educational institutions, and non-profit organizations, as well as European grant programs and agencies, that classroom composing made its way into school environments first as an informal component of lessons, educational programs, and workshops. Many activities are based on the methodology of the Different Hearing program, and its concept of “barrier-free music education”: The differences in the musical abilities, experience and skills of pupils are erased. Cultivation of children’s musical creativity is only limited by, and also draws upon, the current predispositions of the participants. Barrier-free music education conceived in this manner affords equal opportunities for all pupils to assert themselves, not only those possessing a certain musical skill (singing, playing an instrument, improvisation). (Synek, 2008a, p. 92; Medek, Synek, & Zouhar, 2014, p. 67) Workshops and seminars on developing musical creativity are attended annually by hundreds of teachers, and not only those in music education. Many of them incorporate composing into their lessons in all types of schools, where any students can participate in all music activities (see the offer of courses and workshops in social media and on the website).1 The methodology of Different Hearing also became a part of an inclusive education. Students of music education, teaching, and special education also take courses on classroom composing. This is especially the case for the Palacký University Olomouc, which has worked steadfastly on developing musical creativity and classroom composing in the Czech Republic since 2001. The educators of the Different Hearing program carried out dozens of courses for teachers, supported by European structural funds, which focused on inclusive education. On the principles of “barrier-free music education,” they showed how to develop musical 103

Vít Zouhar

creativity for students with wide scope of special needs, how to compose with them, and how to produce musical instruments and play their own compositions.

Music education and composition in the Czech Republic Individual lessons in composition programs for talented pupils are provided by some basic art and music schools and conservatories. Separate composition activities are included only in artistic education frameworks, the Framework Education Program for Basic Art and Music Schools (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2010b) and the Framework Education Program for Music (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2010a) for conservatories, where individual composition programs are provided. Training can then be continued in composition programs in the music department of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague and the music department of the Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Brno. This division of music tuition at general-education schools open to all pupils and at artistic schools for talented young people is one of the reasons why general music education frameworks for primary and secondary education in the Czech Republic do not include separate composing activities. This conceptual approach is based on the historical conviction that composing is a highly specialized activity with significant requirements with regard to theoretical knowledge, talent, performance skills, and the artistic quality of compositions (Fukač, 1997; Janeček, 1969; Knittl, 1896). This is related to issues such as skepticism toward children’s compositional abilities and the quality of their works (Helfert, 1930; Poš, 1969; Váňová, 1989) and toward experimental musical means and their application in music education. As Všetičková mentioned in 2012, “Music education in our country shows signs of certain conservativism.” (p. 113). It goes back to the mid-1980s when Sedlák, Kolář, and Herden (1983) stated: […] musically creative manifestations are only the privilege of those who are musically gifted and therefore, musical improvisation cannot be a generally valid component of basic music education. Forcing all children to improvise is apparently a mistake, as more than half of them have no prerequisites for such activity, and nor are they interested in it. (p. 218) This is exacerbated by esthetic barriers and teachers’ willingness to motivate pupils to join in musical games and contribute to joint compositions (Hachová, 1971; Synek, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). Specific proposals to introduce composing into music education in the Czech Republic and former Czechoslovakia date as far back as the 1950s. Here, in 1953, Fedor presented his vision of a music education that “will strive – generally speaking – to encourage listeners to reproduce music and from there continue to create music on their own.” (p. 10) However, the methodology of elementary composing was accompanied by skepticism regarding children’s music creativity until the end of the 1980s in Czechoslovakia (Váňová, 1989).

Composing in the classroom: extracurricular context Similar to the United States, Canada (Schafer, 1986), the United Kingdom (Mills & Paynter, 2008; Paynter & Aston, 1970), and other countries, Czechoslovakia also reverberated in the 1960s with demands for reform in music education, together with specific proposals to include composing into music education and to engage composers in classroom tuition (Melkus, 1969; Poledňák & Budík, 1969). However, these demands remained unfulfilled, barred from 104

Composing in the classroom

implementation by the political situation following the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968: the Communist regime did not permit any reforms. And so, the only noticeable shift in music education in the 1970s and 80s was the implementation of Orff’s Schulwerk (Hurník & Eben, 1969; Orff, 1969–96). It was not until after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989 that the new political climate enabled a new interest in classroom composing to be awakened among music teachers and composers. From the mid-1990s, the topic gradually reentered the Czech music-teaching discourse. Researchers and university teachers reflected new international impulses and described their own experience with implementing students’ composing activities (Synek, 2011c). Popovič (1994) introduced the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program at the Charles University in Prague. He described the methodology, how students learned to compose and perform their own compositions using everyday sounds, create new ones, and create their own notation system. Students used stories they had experienced or invented as a theme of their compositions. Popovič repeated the same process with students at Charles University. But first he introduced the Manhattanville methodology to them, then they composed their own compositions (Popovič, 1994, p. 12). Some of them did not compose and only asked others what kind of music they would create for specific situations and stories (p. 13). Despite a strong accentuation of developing creativity in children at schools, the idea of classroom composing gained only marginal acceptance until the beginning of the third millennium due to considerable skepticism regarding pupils’ abilities and teachers’ preparedness (Váňová, 1989). Inspirations from the project Klangnetze (Schneider, Bösze, & Stangl, 2000) and the British Response project were influential for the next development of classroom composing in the Czech Republic around 2000. The Different Hearing program, founded by the author of this chapter in 2001, draws on these ideas (Synek, 2008a, 2008b; Zouhar, 2004, 2008). Classroom composing was more broadly introduced into Czech general music education. It was both a topic of many workshops and seminars and a frequent subject of research projects and theoretical reflection. This development was strongly supported by the Different Hearing program.

Classroom composing heading the curriculum: the Different Hearing program The Different Hearing program aims to improve creative activities in general music education (Synek, 2005, 2008a; Všetičková, 2012; Zouhar, 2005). It brings a methodology and thus new tools how to inspire and motivate every student to compose in the classroom and creates more than just “interludes” or “accompaniments,” mentioned in the Frameworks for Primary and Secondary Music Education. This alternative general music conception enlarged creativity within all music activities. It develops creativity while also providing a means for bolstering communication and concentration skills, the “3 C” target (Synek, 2008a; Zouhar, 2004). Based on the concept of a “barrier-free music education,” anyone can participate regardless of his or her abilities, skills, age, and previous musical experience. Medek et al. (2014) emphasize that it “[…] affords equal opportunities for all pupils to assert themselves, not only those possessing a certain musical skill (singing, playing an instrument, improvisation).” (p. 67). In terms of classroom composing, Kaschub and Smith emphasize: “The act of composing challenges children to consider their understanding of the world in new ways.” (2009, p. 5). Different Hearing focuses in a similar way not just on the development of musical skills, but on the entire world and experience of young people. One of the main intentions of the Different Hearing program is to make music lessons an exciting, creative, playful, and experience-replete discipline, similar to, for example, 105

Vít Zouhar

art education. The tools serving to attain this objective are children’s composing in the classroom and their performing their own compositions. … All children, not only the gifted ones, compose and perform in the classroom, since we presume that all children are creative, only limited by their predispositions. (Flašar & Kyas, 2005, p. 34) The educators in the Different Hearing team have created a methodology that supplements and expands the present curriculum of music education for primary and secondary schools (Synek, 2008a–2008c). The Different Hearing methodology draws on the specific state of music education in the Czech Republic, on Czech curricular materials, and on international experience with classroom composing (such as Klangnetze or Response, see Schneider et al., 2000). The core approach is composing in the classroom. Group-based composition activities that draw on music and sound games are used to help pupils of all ages in school to develop their creative, performance, and listening competencies. Teachers stimulate their activities’ hands-on discovery of the subject through experiential learning: Every sound is understood as musical. Every object as a musical instrument. Spontaneous interaction between sounds as improvisation. Their graphic or verbal forms as a musical composition. (Zouhar, 2004, p. 11) The meaning of composing is defined extensively and reflects Cage’s expression: “The material of music is sound and silence. Integrating these is composing” (1973, p. 62). The students’ own experience precedes their theoretical grasp of the issue. This foundation of personal experience and understanding then allows for the solid acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The role of the teacher has also changed, similar to earlier experiences and observations since the 1960s. Všetičková stated similarly to Paynter and Aston (1970, p. 5), Popovič (1994-95, p. 12), and others: A teacher is no longer the only source of knowledge; he/she is more an intermediary and co-creator. A teacher becomes the main person to inspire and coordinate, he/she supports children in experimenting with sounds and provides them with new stimuli, and he/she gives advice, monitors and actively intervenes in the process if required. (Všetičková, 2012, p. 124) The Different Hearing program is focused on pupils in schools, and also students in universities as well as teachers and adults who are interested in music and composing. Courses are designed for students from the age of 6 to 19+, but some courses take advantage of the domino effect, when classroom composing is first experienced by teachers who later motivate their students. In that case, teachers first take part in courses. Based on this experience, they prepare courses for their pupils. The Different Hearing courses consist of a sequence of four stages: initiation, material (sound), structure (composition), and performance. All are based on sound and music games. Participants are motivated to produce their own sounds and their graphic or verbal forms. They create their own notation, graphic or verbal scores, and simple musical instruments. Participants use sounds in their compositions, which they later perform themselves. The length of the courses ranges from a few hours to several months. The time allocation of courses results from their focus, learning objectives, and results. The courses are focused 106

Composing in the classroom

on developing creativity and group composing, as well as on introducing existing works and approaching them as reference compositions through group composing. Both use composing activities and sound games. In the second case, stimulating games are aimed at similar processes and principles used by the author of the reference composition. Teachers and composers create sound games, attracting diverse activities (Synek, 2011a, 2012a; Zouhar, 2007). This is a tool to experience and learn more about existing pieces. Courses oriented on the introduction of referential compositions are suitable for the cooperation between educators and composers. It allows a large cooperation between musicians and artists. But this cooperation is not limited only to such type of courses. It is the base of the Different Hearing program. The program combines compositional, performance, and listening activities of participants and can be used to achieve many of the current goals of the Czech Framework Educational Program (Synek, 2008a, pp. 155–159).

Extramural activities: workshops and publications The members of the Different Hearing team are both composers and educators who mainly work on the basis of co-teaching. Synek, Coufalová, Všetičková, and the author of this chapter are educators, teachers, musicians, and composers at the Department of Music Education at Palacký University Olomouc. Medek, Medková, and Dvořáková are composers, performers, and teachers at the Department of Composition at JAMU Brno. All of them have been leading hundreds of teachers and students in the courses of the Different Hearing program. Melkus proposed a cooperation between educators and composers in general music education in 1969: “I believe that in our country, too, faculties of education should, upon their own initiative, strive to establish a close contact with young composers and involve them in music-education issues” (p. 75). Although composers such as Petr Eben and Ilja Hurník created a Czech adaptation of Carl Orff’s Schulwerk already at the beginning of the 1960s and 1970s, it was not until 2003 that teachers and composers joined forces in teaching classroom composing. Combined teams of teachers and composers were assembled in the Czech Republic, and together they prepared general music lessons for primary-school classes based on the Different Hearing program (Dvořáková, 2004; Synek, 2004). The Different Hearing team has realized many workshops and courses for music and educational institutions, such as the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra, Brno Philharmonic, Hradec Králové Philharmonic, National Theatre in Brno, Berg Orchestra, Exposition of New Music, The Leoš Janáček International Music Festival, and many others. During 2004 and 2017, numerous studies, methodological handbooks, conference papers, and three books (Coufalová, Medek, & Synek, 2013; Kopecký, Synek, & Zouhar, 2014; Medek et al., 2014) were published by the Different Hearing team members, which have had a large impact on teachers, educators, and parents. Classroom composing also became a focus subject for theses and dissertations (Drkula, 2006; Jandová, 2012; Jeníčková, 2019; Skřebská, 2017, 2019; Stecová, 2015; 2017, etc.). Moreover, historical roots of classroom composing are topics of studies by Coufalová, Synek, and Zouhar. Coufalová made an analysis of reflections on classroom composing in German-speaking music journals (Coufalová, 2017a, 2017b). Synek focused on Czech music journals (Synek, 2011b, 2011c) and Zouhar discussed selected projects in the United States, United Kingdom, Great Britain, Germany, and Austria (2005, 2008). The methodology of the Different Hearing program is reflected in various studies (Synek, 2008a, 2008c; Všetičková, 2010; Zouhar & Medek, 2010). Basic principles of “barrierfree music education” (Zouhar, 2004; Zouhar & Medek, 2010) and improvement of key 107

Vít Zouhar

competencies “3 C: concentration, communication, creativity” (Synek, 2005; Zouhar, 2004; Zouhar & Medek, 2010) were introduced and described in general studies. Synek described in detail the multilevel structure of the Different Hearing courses for teachers and their students (Synek, 2004, 2008a–2008c). The course design and the methodological sequence of four stages were discussed by him (2008) and the author of this chapter (Zouhar, 2004, 2005; Zouhar & Medek, 2010). Všetičková focused on the methodology for listening activities and their role for classroom composing (2015). Synek thematized learning objectives and learning goals for Different Hearing courses (2008a–2008c, 2011a) and these courses introducing existing works to students (2008c, 2012a). Všetičková described a modified methodology oriented on composing activities reflecting the existing visual art works by Calder, Miró, Kandinsky, Klee, and others (Všetičková, 2014a, 2014b). Synek provided a deep analysis of courses and their evaluations from 2004 to 2007 (Synek, 2008a). Most of the participants confirmed an increase of creative competences. All these results were fundamental for the development of the methodology of Different Hearing program and for the next research. Evaluations by pupils, students, and teachers in the past testify to the functionality of the program, which caught enough interest to lead to conducting a research project in neuroscience at the Palacký University Olomouc. Twenty-two students participated in the 2-day Different Hearing workshop, and together with another 24 students as a control group, underwent the fMRI2 examinations. According to Arkhipova et al., “the findings suggest that DHP training modified the behavioral and brain response to diverse sound samples, differentially changing the engagement of functional networks known to be related to creative thinking, namely, increasing DMN activation and decreasing activation of the executive network” (2021, p. 1). Diverse topics around composing are thematized by Medek, Dvořáková, Všetičková, Vítková, and Zouhar. Všetičková dealt with minimal music principles and processes and their use in classroom composing (Všetičková, 2011, 2012). Medek and Medková-Žalčíková focused on parallels between classroom group composing by students at schools and team composing by professional composers (Gojowy, 1971; Medek, Zouhar, & Žalčíková, 2010). Dvořáková (2004, 2005, 2006) and Vítková (2011) reflected on the composition process in the Different Hearing courses and Zouhar discussed a post-indeterminacy approach in composing in the classroom (Cage, 1973; Zouhar, 2005) and explained composing as a teaching method (2007). The search for new sounds in classroom composing resulted in the development of elementary DIY (“do it yourself”) musical instruments and a new methodology. Synek conducted this development and described (2008a, 2008b) the general principles on how to produce instruments in music education classes and use them in classroom composing. These activities led to a book on elementary instruments of Different Hearing including a collection of DIY instruments and instructions (Coufalová et al., 2013). The next Different Hearing book (Kopecký, Synek, & Zouhar, 2014) includes a collection of music games triggering composing. The third book (Medek et al., 2014) reflects classroom composing and the Different Hearing program and includes a collection of games. Furthermore, other composers are contributing with their skills, experience, and knowledge to classroom composing activities. They are participating in Different Hearing workshops and have published articles: Bakla (Bakla, 2005), Dlouhý, Vítková (Vítková, 2011) and Graham (Šťastný, 2005, 2008). Hořínka is conducting his educational activities within the framework of educational programs of the Czech Philharmonic (Composing on Demand) and previously also of the Berg Orchestra. Recently, he focused on experiential learning and organized workshops for adults, in which he used sound interventions (Hořínka, 2019). 108

Composing in the classroom

Reflective questions 1 In which way does the Framework Educational Program of the Czech Republic for General Music Education in the Czech Republic focus on the development of compositional activities at primary and secondary schools? 2 Where can young talented musicians develop composing skills in the Czech Republic? 3 What is the benefit of the Different Hearing program for general music education in the Czech Republic? What can other countries learn from this?

Notes 1 https://www.facebook.com/Slysetjinak/about/, http://www.slysetjinak.upol.cz 2 fMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) maps neural activities.

References Arkhipova, A., Hok, P., Valošek, J., Trnečková, M., Všetičková, G., Coufalová, G. … Hluštík, P. (2021). Changes in brain responses to music and non-music sounds following creativity training within the “Different Hearing” program. Frontiers in Neuroscience, October, 15, 703620. doi: 10.3389/ fnins.2021.703620 Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.703620/ full. Balada, J., Jeřábek, J., & Tupý, J. (2006). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [Framework Education Program for Primary Education]. Prague: Research Institute of Education. Bakla, P. (2005). Radost slyšet jinak [The joy of different hearing]. His Voice, 5(4), 26–27. Cage, J. (1973). Silence: Lectures and writings. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Coufalová, G. (2017a). Reflexe projektů zaměřených na komponování dětí v hudební publicistice německy mluvících zemí v 70. letech 20. století – 1. část [Reflection on composing in the classroom projects in German speaking countries in the 1970s. Part 1]. Hudební výchova – časopis pro hudební a obecně estetickou výchovu školní a mimoškolní, [Music Education – journal for music and general aesthetic education at school and extracurricular], 25(3), 7–9. Coufalová, G. (2017b). Reflexe projektů zaměřených na komponování dětí v hudební publicistice německy mluvících zemí v 70. letech 20. století – 2. část [Reflection on composing in the classroom projects in German speaking countries in the 1970s. Part 2]. Hudební výchova – časopis pro hudební a obecně estetickou výchovu školní a mimoškolní, [Music Education – journal for music and general aesthetic education at school and extracurricular], 25(4), 7–9. Coufalová, G., & Synek, J. (2014). Composing in the classroom “Different Hearing” programme: Experiences in Czech Music Education. In SGEM psychology & psychiatry, sociology & healthcare, education. Conference proceedings. Volume III (pp. 169–175). https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2014/ B13/S3.023. Coufalová, G., Medek, I., & Synek, J. (2013). Hudební nástroje jinak. Netradiční využití tradičních hudebních nástrojů a vytváření jednoduchých hudebních nástrojů [Musical Instruments Differently. Non-traditional use of Traditional Musical Instruments and Creation of Simple Musical Instruments]. Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Drkula, P. (2006). Hudební tvořivost v aktuálních proměnách obecného a pedagogického anglofonního diskurzu [Musical Creativity in the Current Transformations of General and Pedagogical Anglophone Discourse]. (Doctoral dissertation). Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc. Dvořáková, M. (2004). Stručná zpráva o projektu Slyšet jinak [A short report on different hearing project]. In V. Zouhar, I. Medek & J. Synek (Eds.), Slyšet jinak 03: tvořivost a improvizace v hudební výchově na zvláštních školách [Different Hearing 03: Creativity and Improvisation in Music Education at Special Schools] (p. 48). Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Dvořáková, M. (2005). Kompoziční aspekty projektu Slyšet jinak [Compositional aspects of the different hearing project]. In Hudební improvizace [Musical Improvisation] Proceedings from a national conference (pp. 7–9). Prague: Czech Music Council, Theatre Institute. Dvořáková, M. (2006). 2. ročník dílny pro nejmladší skladatele [Second year of the workshop for the youngest composers]. Talent, 8(3), 27.

109

Vít Zouhar Flašar, M., & Kyas, O. (2005). Radost Slyšet jinak [The joy of different hearing]. Opus musicum, 37(4), 18–20. Fukač, J. (1997). Skladba [composition]. In J. Fukač, J. Vysloužil & P. Macek (Eds.), Slovník české hudební kultury [Dictionary of Czech Music Culture] (p. 833). Prague: Editio Supraphon. Gojowy, D. (1971). Komponieren im Kollektiv: Zur Arbeit des Brünner Komponistenteams. Musik und Bildung, 3(6), 302–303. Hachová, E. (1971). Osnovy hudební výchovy na čtyřletých gymnáziích [Music education curriculum at four-year grammar schools]. Hudební rozhledy, 23(3), 109–111. Helfert, V. (1930). Základy hudební výchovy na nehudebních školách [Fundamentals of Music Education at Non-Music Schools]. Prague: Státní nakladatelství v Praze. Hořínka, S. (2019). Naslouchat světu, žít hudbu [Listen to the world, live music]. Gymnasion, 13(2), 11–14. Hurník, I., & Eben, P. (1969). Česká Orffova škola. Díl 1 [Czech Orff’s School. Part 1]. Prague: Supraphon. Jandová, M. (2012). Aplikace a reflexe principů projektu Slyšet jinak. Modelová výuka pro Cyrilometodějské gymnázium Brno [Application and Reflection of the Principles of the Different Hearing Project. Model Lessons for Cyril and Methodius Grammar School in Brno]. (Master’s thesis). Masaryk University. https://is.muni.cz/th/p8zu4/Aplikace_a_reflexe_principu_projektu_Slyset_ jinak._Modelova_vyuka_pro_Cyrilometodejske_gymnazium_Brno.pdf Janeček, K. (1969). Skladatelské studium [Composition studies]. Hudební rozhledy, 22(1), 8–9; (4), 105–107. Jeníčková, N. (2019). Program Slyšet jinak v letech 2001-2017 [Different Hearing Program between 2001 and 2017]. (Master’s thesis). Palacký University Olomouc. https://library.upol.cz/arl-upol/cs/cs g/?repo=upolrepo&key=3301451743 Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music. Composition for creative and critical thinking. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Knittl, K. (1896). Jak upraveno je vyučování Theoretické v prvém ročníku komposiční školy na pražské konservatoři [How the theoretic teaching is in the first year of the composition school at the Prague conservatoire]. Dalibor, 18(27–28), 205–213. Kopecký, J., Synek, J., & Zouhar, V. (2014). Hudební hry jinak. Tvořivé hry a modelové projekty elementárního komponování [Different Music Games. Creative Games and Model Elementary Composing Projects]. Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Medek, I. (2004). Několik poznámek k hudební kreativitě [A few comments on musical creativity]. In V. Zouhar & I. Medek, & J. Synek (Eds.), Slyšet jinak ‘03: Tvořivost a improvizace v hudební výchově na zvláštních školách [Different Hearing ‘03: Creativity and Improvisation in Music Education at Special Schools] (pp. 24–27). Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Medek, I., Synek, J., & Zouhar, V. (2014). Composing in the classroom. Different hearing: Experiences in Czech music education. Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Brno. Medek, I., Zouhar, V., & Žalčíková, L. (2010). To the teamwork creativity. In Filosofické koncepcie v hudbe a umení 6., sborník mezinárodní conference. Akadémia umení v Banskej Bystrici a HUAJA Banská Štiavnica [Philosophical Concepts in Music and Art 6, Proceedings. Academy of Arts Banská Bystrica and HUAJA Banská Štiavnica] (pp. 31–33). Banská Bystrica: Akadémia umení. Melkus, L. (1969). Problematika hudební výchovy na všeobecně vzdělávacích školách a příprava hudebních pedagogů [Music education at comprehensive schools and training of future teachers]. In V. Holzknecht & V. Poš (Eds.), Člověk potřebuje hudbu [People Need Music] (pp. 75–76). Prague: Panton. Mills, J., & Paynter, J. (Eds.). (2008). Thinking and making. Selections from the writings of John Paynter on music in education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2007). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro gymnázia [Framework Education Program for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools)]. VÚP. https://www. edu.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RVPG-2007-07_final.pdf Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2010a). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro obor vzdělávání. Hudba 82-44-M/01. [Framework Education Program. Music 82-44-M/01]. Národní ústav odborného vzdělávání. https://www.edu.cz/rvp/ramcove-vzdelavaci-programy-stredniho-odborneho-vzdelavanirvp-sov/konzervatore/ Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2010b). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro umělecké školství [Framework Education Program for Basic Art and Music Schools]. VÚP. https://www.msmt.cz/ file/31244/

110

Composing in the classroom Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2005, 2017, 2021). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [Framework Education Program for Primary Education]. Prague: MŠMT. Orff, C. (1969). Schulwerk – pohled do minulosti a do budoucnosti [Schulwerk – A view of the past and the future]. In V. Poš (Ed.), Comenium Musicum 7. Perspektivy Orffovy školy v hudební výchově [Perspectives of the Orff’s School in Music Education] (p. 25–31). Prague: Supraphon. Paynter, J., & Aston, J. (1970). Sound and silence: Classroom projects in creative music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poledňák, I., & Budík, J. (1969). Hudba – škola – zítřek: Projekt modernizace pojetí a osnov hudební výchovy na Zdš [Music – School – Tomorrow: Project of modernising the music education conception and curriculum at primary and secondary schools]. Prague: Supraphon. Poš, V. (1969). Úvod [Intorduction]. In I. Hurník & P. Eben, Česká Orffova škola. Díl 2 [Czech Orff’s School. Part 2] (p. 8.). Prague: Supraphon. Popovič, M. (1994-95). Manhattanvillský Program [The Manhattanville program]. Hudební výchova [Music Education], 3(1), 12–13. Schafer, R. M. (1986). The thinking ear. Indian River: Arcana Editions. Schneider, H., Bösze, C., & Stangl, B. (Eds.). (2000). “Klangnetze” Ein Versuch, die Wirklichkeit mit den Ohren zu erfinden. Saarbrücken: Pfau-Verlag. Sedlák, F., Kolář, J., & Hedren, J. (1983). Nové cesty hudební výchovy na základní škole [New Paths to Music Education in Primary School]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Skřebská, K. (2017). Komparace projektů Slyšet jinak na základní škole a na základní škole speciální [The Comparison of Projects “Slyšet jinak” in Elementary School and in Special Elementary School]. (Bachelor’s thesis). Palacký University Olomouc. https://theses.cz/id/fw66l1/Bakal_k_prce_Kate_ina_ Sk_ebsk.pdf Skřebská, K. (2019). Program Slyšet jinak a Montessori pedagogika [Program Different Hearing and Montessori pedagogy]. (Master’s thesis). Palacký University Olomouc. https://theses.cz/id/31akw7/ Program_Slyet_jinak_a_Montessori_pedagogika.pdf?zpet=%2Fvyhledavani%2F%3Fsearch%3Dpe dagogika%26start%3D1 Stecová, A. (2015). Metody komponování populární hudby v hudební výchově s užitím artificiálních prvků. [Methods of popular music composition in general music education using classical music elements]. (Bachelor’s thesis). Palacký University Olomouc. https://theses.cz/id/muojht/BP_Stecov_Aneka.pdf Stecová, A. (2017). Populární hudba a informální učení - reflexe britského přístupu v hudební výchově a možná aplikace v kontextu českého školství [Popular music and informal learning – Reflection of the British approach in music education and possible application in the context of Czech education]. (Master’s thesis). Palacký University Olomouc. https://theses.cz/id/jypnfh/Stecov_Ane_ka_DP.pdf Synek, J. (2004). Slyšet jinak – třikrát jinak. [Different hearing – Three times different]. In V. Zouhar, I. Medek, & J. Synek (Eds.), Slyšet jinak ‘03: Tvořivost a improvizace v hudební výchově na zvláštních školách [Different hearing ‘03: Creativity and improvisation in music education at special schools] (pp. 28–34). Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Synek, J. (2005). Pedagogické aspekty projektu Slyšet jinak [Pedagogic aspects of the different hearing programme]. In Hudební improvizace [Musical Improvisation]. Proceedings from a nationwide conference (pp. 9–12). Prague: Czech Music Council, Theatre Institute. Synek, J. (2008a). Elementární komponování a jeho význam v edukaci [Elementary composing and its significance in education]. (Doctoral dissertation). Palacký University Olomouc]. http://slysetjinak. upol.cz/files/Synek_Elementarni_komponovani_a_jeho_vyznam_v_edukaci.pdf Synek, J. (2008b). Výroba dětských hudebních nástrojů ve škole [Crafting children’s musical instruments at school]. In J. Říha & I. Ašenbrenerová (Eds.), Aktuální otázky současné hudebně výchovné teorie a praxe III [Current issues in contemporary music education theory and practice III] (pp. 41–49). UJEP. Synek, J. (2008c). Zpřístupňování soudobé hudby v rámci programu Slyšet jinak [Making Contemporary Music Accessible within the Different Hearing Programme]. In Inovace v hudební pedagogice a výchově k poctě Lea Kestenberga (1882–1962). Sborník z mezinárodní muzikologické konference konané 29. listopadu-1. prosince 2007 v Uměleckém centru Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci [Innovation in Music Education and Lessons in Honor of Leo Kestenberg (1882–1962). Proceedings of the International Musicological Conference at the Art Center of Palacký University Olomouc on 29 November to 1 December 2007] (pp. 191–196). Palacký University Olomouc. Synek, J. (2011a). Composing in the classroom – Cíle Programu Slyšet jinak [Goals of the different hearing program]. In ACTA FACULTATIS PHILOSOPHICAE UNIVERSITATIS Prešoviensis, Zborník

111

Vít Zouhar katedry hudby Inštitútu hudobného a výtvarného umenia Filozofickej fakulty Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, De Musica II [Compendium of the music department of the Institute of Musical and Visual Art of the Faculty of Arts of Prešov University in Prešov, De Musica II] (pp. 161–172). Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove. Synek, J. (2011b). Komponování ve třídách – reflexe projektů zaměřených na komponování dětí v české hudební publicistice od 50. let 20. století – 1. díl [Composing in the classroom – Reflection of projects for children’s composition in Czech music journalism from the 1950s – Part I]. Opus musicum, 43(3), 46–57. Synek, J. (2011c). Komponování ve třídách – Reflexe projektů zaměřených na komponování dětí v české hudební publicistice od 50. let 20. století – 2. díl. Opus musicum, 43(4), 44–53. Synek, J. (2012a). Děti se těšily na koncert filharmonie aneb výchovný koncert jinak [The children were looking forward to the philharmonic concert or educational concert differently]. Hudební výchova, 20(4), 68–69. Synek, J. (2012b). Inovace předmětu Didaktika hudební výchovy na Univerzitě Palackého v Olomouci [Innovation of music education teaching preparation at Palacký University Olomouc]. In A. Prídavková & M. Klimovič (Eds.), Komplexnosť a integrita v predprimárnej, primárnej a špeciálnej edukácii [Complexity and integrity in pre-school, primary, and special education] (pp. 495–497). Prešov: Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove. Šťastný, J. (2005). Problémy výuky improvizace na vysoké hudební škole [Issues with teaching improvisation at music universities]. In Hudební improvizace [Musical improvisation]. Proceedings from a nationwide conference. (pp. 24–26). Prague: Czech Music Council, Theatre Institute. Šťastný, J. (2008). Slyšet jinak [Different hearing], A2, 1(37). http://www.advojka.cz/archiv/2008/37/ slyset-jinak Váňová, H. (1989). Hudební tvořivost žáků mladšího školního věku [Musical creativity of the younger schoolchildren]. Prague: Editio Supraphon. Vítková, L. (2011). Ještě jednou o projektu Slyšet jinak [Once more on different hearing]. Talent, 13(8), 14–15. Všetičková, G. (2010). Komponování jako součást hudební výchovy [Composing as a part of music education]. Talent, 13(6), 6–11. Všetičková, G. (2011). Komponování dětí v hudební výchově s přihlédnutím k hudebnímu minimalismu [Children’s composition in music education with regard to musical minimalism]. (Doctoral dissertation). Palacký University Olomouc. https://theses.cz/id/g7errl/G_Vetikov_-_Komponovn_ dt_v_hudebn_vchov_s_pihldnutm_k_hud.pdf Všetičková, G. (2012). Classroom composing in music education with regard to minimal music. In J. Luska (Ed.), Interdisciplinary research on the music culture: Anthology of PhD thesis competition (pp. 111–150). Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc. Všetičková, G. (2014a). Graphic scores and visualisation of music: Experience from the Czech different hearing creative programme. In SGEM conference on arts, performing arts, architecture and design. Conference proceedings (pp. 321–328). https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2014/B13/S3.023. Všetičková, G. (2014b). Komponování dětí jako součást hudební výchovy v Anglii a České republice – minulost, současnost (a budoucnost?) [Composing Children as Part of Music Education in England and the Czech Republic – Past, Present (and Future?)]. In P. Hala (Ed.). Musica viva in schola XXIV. http://www.ped.muni.cz/wmus/studium/sborniky/musica_viva_in_schola_xxiv.pdf. Všetičková, G. (2015). Poslech a vnímání jako východisko pro tvořivé aktivity v hudební výchově: Zkušenosti z Programu Slyšet jinak. [Listening and perception as a starting point for creative activities in music education: Experience of the program different hearing]. Musicologica Olomucensia, 21, 113–128. Zouhar, V. (2004). Slyšet jinak: Každý může být skladatelem [Different hearing: Everyone can be a composer]. In V. Zouhar, I. Medek & J. Synek (Eds.), Slyšet jinak ‘03: Tvořivost a improvizace v hudební výchově na zvláštních školách [Different hearing ‘03: Creativity and improvisation in music education at special schools] (pp. 11–23). Brno: Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts. Zouhar, V. (2005). Ke genezi programu Slyšet jinak [Genesis of the different hearing programme]. In Hudební improvizace [Musical improvisation]. Proceedings from a national conference (pp. 3–6). Czech Music Council, Theatre Institute. Zouhar, V. (2007). Slyšet jinak: Komponování jako výuková metoda i nástroj k poznávání hudebních skladeb [Different hearing: Composing as a teaching method and tool for learning music compositions]. In Aeduca 2006 (pp. 1–5). Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc.

112

Composing in the classroom Zouhar, V. (2008). Komponování ve třídách. Poznámky k prvním americkým a britským projektům [Composing in the classroom. Notes on the First American and British Projects]. In Inovace v hudební pedagogice a výchově k poctě Lea Kestenberga (1882–1962). Sborník z mezinárodní muzikologické konference konané 29. listopadu-1. prosince 2007 v Uměleckém centru Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci [Innovation in music education and lessons in Honor of Leo Kestenberg (1882–1962). Proceedings of the international musicological conference at the Art Center of Palacký University Olomouc on 29 November to 1 December 2007] (pp. 186–190). Palacký University Olomouc. Zouhar, V., & Medek, I. (2010). Music making in the classroom: possibilities for Czech music education. In The 2nd world conference on arts education, 25–28 May 2010, Seoul. (pp. 1–3). UNESCO. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228691574_Music_making_in_the_classroom_possibilities_for_Czech_music_education

113

8 MAPPING THE FIELD OF COMPOSING PEDAGOGY IN FINLAND From musical inventions to cultural participation Heidi Partti Introduction The task of the subject of music is to create opportunities for versatile musical activities and active cultural participation […] The pupils are guided in developing their thinking skills and perception by regularly providing them with opportunities for working with sound and music as well as for composing and other creative production. (FNBE [Finnish National Board of Education], 2014)

Ever since the development of the free public school system in Finland in the 1850s, music (originally a subject called singing) and other arts have had a central role in the Finnish school curriculum. Ensuring that every citizen has an equal opportunity not only to learn how to read and write, but also to develop and express themselves in and through the arts, is indeed a basic right recorded in the Constitution of Finland (Finlex, 2000). Today’s music education in school settings aims to be multifaceted and hands-on, providing stimulating and relevant activities for heterogeneous groups of pupils with various needs. Musical concepts and skills are learned through multiple activities, such as singing, playing instruments, moving, and listening to music – as well as composing one’s own music. In the most recent core curriculum for basic education (Grades 1–9), “composing and other creative production” of music is expected to be taught to all pupils at all grades (FNBE, 2014). In Finland, general music instruction is offered free of charge in pre-schools (age 6), schools (ages 7–16), and upper secondary schools (ages 16–19). In addition, and after general education, there are various opportunities for music education (see Korpela et al., 2010). A wide network of music schools provides affordable basic education in the arts, primarily for children and young people, on an extracurricular basis. Instruction in music schools is goaloriented and follows the objectives and key contents as stated in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education in the Arts (FNBE, 2017). In the extended syllabus of the core curriculum, composing and improvisation (treated as a singularity) are included as one of the four main objectives of tuition (ibid.). Moreover, in many music schools, it is now possible to

114

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-11

Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland

choose composing (instead of a musical instrument) as the main subject. For a lifelong learner, institutions of liberal adult education provide a natural setting to continue or begin a musical hobby. Vocational and higher education offer opportunities for earning a degree in music, including in composing. Although it is nowadays possible to receive teaching in composing throughout the whole system of formal music education, the focus of this chapter lies in the context of basic education, as it is the school system that provides general music instruction for every child in Finland.

To compose or not to compose? The idea of creative music-making in Finnish schools is by no means unprecedented. Muukkonen (2010, p. 66; see also Suomi, 2019) shows how the evolution of music instruction from singing hymns and patriotic songs to active and diverse music education has happened gradually, often following the international trends and current research and methods (e.g. Orff and Dalcroze) in the wider field of music education. The development of technology and the establishment of the International Society for Music Education (ISME) in the 1950s opened particularly important doors to the wealth of modern educational thinking and ideas that were quickly adopted and applied in Finnish school classrooms and music teacher education (Louhivuori, 2005). In addition to the importance of singing, the curricular documents of the time also recommend the inclusion of other activities, such as music listening and musical invention exercises. By the 1970s, the understanding of the importance of giving pupils opportunities to express their own musical ideas and creativity in the school classroom was already established, and the journey toward the “ethos of versatility” (Muukkonen, 2010) in music teaching was well on its way. This ethos is also clearly displayed in the current core curriculum with its emphasis in the importance of providing pupils with opportunities to “learn music in many different ways” to support the development of their “musical skills and understanding as well as holistic growth and cooperation skills” (FNBE, 2014, p. 141). It is then all the more curious that despite this early awakening to the significance of creativity and active student participation in the music classroom, it took decades before the term composing (in Finnish, säveltäminen) was first mentioned as a content area in the curriculum for basic education. Prior to the most recent core curriculum (FNBE, 2014), which came into effect in 2016, creative music-making activities were referred to with various euphemisms, such as “musical inventions.” In the former core curriculum (FNBE, 2004), for instance, teachers were advised to offer opportunities for pupils to “experiment with their own musical ideas” and make “small-scale sound collages and improvisations.” It almost looks like the writers of curricular documents did their best to avoid speaking of composing. One can only guess at the reasons behind it. Perhaps there was something too solemn about the word composing? Something that sounded more like an exclusive right reserved for those with a “special talent,” rather than an activity that could be taught to and exercised by anyone in the school classroom? Or, maybe the nineteenth century’s Romantic ideal of the “innate nature of creative genius” (Burnard, 2012, p. 10) was still looming around, preventing policy-makers and music educators from considering that there could be several ways of being and becoming a composer? Be that as it may, the limited and individualistic view of musical creativity is finally challenged in the present curricular documents. Both the Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE, 2014), which boldly urges schools to offer pupils occasions for composing already 115

Heidi Partti

from the first grade onwards, as well as the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education in the Arts (FNBE, 2017), which instructs the extracurricular music schools to encourage all their students to compose their own musical works, place composing at the very center of music educational activities. It is also clear that the writers of the current Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE, 2014) have understood composing in its widest sense: composing can include various creative activities from songwriting and riff-building; to facilitated groupimprovisation and sound explorations with body percussion; to the invention of improvisatory textures and soundscapes inspired by other art forms; to remixing and other forms of digital composing; to the more traditional forms of note-based composing, and so on. Composing is, in other words, understood in a much broader meaning than as a form of specialized musical expertise practiced only by highly educated (and/or exceptionally talented) professionals. Rather, a role of music instruction in school is considered to be “to encourage the pupil in developing a creative relationship with music” (ibid., p. 488, emphasis by the author). An important part of this development process is the inclusion of composing one’s own music or in collaboration with others.

Equipping music educators for teaching composing It is important to note that Finnish schools have full autonomy, and teachers receive significant independence in applying the aims of the core curriculum to their own teaching. The national core curriculum offers the basis for education providers to outline their local curricula, in which it is possible to consider the local specificities and needs of the pupils more distinctively (FNBE, 2016). At its best, the pedagogical freedom, unrestrained from ready-made instructional methods, leaves a lot of room for the teacher’s imagination and innovative ideas. As noted by Randles and Muhonen (2014), there are a number of possibilities for a skillful music teacher to incorporate composing original music with pupils as part of classroom activities in the Finnish school. On the other hand, however, teachers might experience the feeling of working alone with little help in their efforts of putting the curricular objectives into practice. Especially generalist class teachers, who (typically) are not specialized in music but often expected to teach music in Grades 1–6, may consider their musical and didactic skills to be insufficient and, therefore, struggle to implement the learning content of the core curriculum in music teaching (Suomi, 2019; Vesioja, 2006). It appears that the eagerness of policy-makers to give composing a pivotal role in music education has not yet fully transferred into the everyday practices of classrooms. According to reports and surveys (e.g. Juntunen, 2011; Partti, 2016), composing is not regularly taught in schools, and the majority of teachers consider themselves ill-equipped for teaching and facilitating composing in diverse classrooms (Partti, 2016; Suomi, 2019). In many countries, the emphasis of music teacher education programs appears to be more on performance-based studies than in creative music-making pedagogy (e.g., Deemer, 2016). Similarly, in Finland, pre-service teachers gain wide general knowledge of music and didactics and spend a substantial portion of their studies practicing several instruments and ensemble playing, whereas opportunities to develop the skills in teaching composing are few and far between (Ojala & Väkevä, 2013). It is therefore hardly surprising that music teachers find it easier to facilitate reproductive learning practices, such as playing songs from school music textbooks, even at the cost of opening up opportunities for pupils’ composing processes. In a nationwide survey conducted among Finnish music teachers (Partti, 2016), only one third of the participants estimate their own skills to be good in teaching creative music-making in the classroom.

116

Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland

According to the teachers, the main challenges in teaching composing at school are related to large group sizes, the lack or scarcity of training in composing pedagogy during their own teacher education, and the lack of time. Furthermore, as much as 80 percent of the participants express their need for in-service training in composing pedagogy. The study conducted among students in the primary teacher program in Finland (Suomi, 2019, p. 196) paints an even bleaker picture of the situation. Students report that they were given little or no opportunities for creative music-making during their studies. Unsurprisingly, the lack of music composing opportunities during the studies directly correlates with their perceived skills in teaching it in their future classrooms (ibid., p. 212). Recently, the contradiction between curricular aims and classroom practices has been widely acknowledged. An increasing number of initiatives and in-service programs are being developed to promote composing and equip teachers with resources and skills for facilitating composing in the music classroom. Many of these initiatives result from a collaboration between music education institutions and the wider music sector, including the music industry. An example of such collaborative efforts is the BiisiPumppu [SongPump] project (2013–2014), which was designed to encourage school children to compose their own music as well as to equip teachers to incorporate composing as part of their music lessons. The BiisiPumppu project was organized by the Finnish Composers’ Copyright Society (Teosto) and implemented by some of the most renowned Finnish songwriters and music producers, who would work alongside the teachers to provide guidance in pupils’ composing processes. According to the study on the project (Partti & Ahola, 2016; Partti & Väkevä, 2018), the composer/teacher partnerships were particularly successful when the collaborators found a way to make use of each other’s expertise and experience as their mutual learning resource. Another recent composing pedagogy project is Säpe (2016–2020), a collaborative effort between three higher music education institutions in Finland, funded by the Finnish National Board of Education. The Säpe project provided continuing education for music educators working in various settings from schools to music schools, to liberal adult education institutions. A concrete result of the project is the edited online publication Resepejä säveltämisen ohjaukseen [Recipes for facilitating composing] (Hartikainen, 2017), a collection of ideas, best practices, and methods for teaching composing in schools and music schools. The “recipes” are shared by the Säpe participants and trainers to be freely used and applied by colleagues in their own work. The rapid development of inexpensive and easily available music technology has further enabled possibilities for classroom composing. Mobile devices, in particular, offer several prospects for group-based composing – but only if these opportunities are put to use in music classrooms. The Future Songwriting project (2018–2020) utilized the novel prospects opened up by mobile music-making devices. The project was a European cooperation, initiated and coordinated by the Finnish Composers’ Copyright Society (Teosto) and co-funded by the European Commission under the Creative Europe program. Future Songwriting took place in 15 schools in Finland, Germany, and France with the aim of strengthening and developing technology-enabled composing practices in music education (Partti, Weber, & Rolle, 2023). The specific emphasis of the project was in in-service training to upgrade teachers’ professional skills and knowledge related to the use of digital technology in the service of creative music-making. In the project, a team of three trainers, with their background in the music industry and education, first provided teachers with workshops for learning how to use tablet computers in the classroom composing and, thereafter, continued to work alongside the teachers as they begin to implement their new skills with their own pupils.

117

Heidi Partti

Educating music teachers toward creative agency An important starting point for the classroom composing projects mentioned above has been the centrality of composing in the recent curricular documents on the one hand, and the reported gap between curricular aims and classroom activities on the other. Indeed, supporting the work of music teachers is essential, and research-based development projects, such as Future Songwriting, among others, can have an essential role in equipping teachers with current know-how and skills, as well as encouraging them to undertake novel methods in music teaching. As pointed out by the Finnish music educator and scholar Sari Muhonen (2014, p. 13), “Unhooking internalized practices and tried and trusted methods demands effort, some degree of courage, and being ‘tuned’ towards inquiries.” Furthermore, the process of change often not only requires transformation in the teacher’s mindset, but also, and importantly, support from outside – be it emotional, financial, structural, or collegial. As the results of the study on the Future Songwriting project suggest, development projects may have an important role also in helping to facilitate professional learning communities among teachers (Partti et al., 2023). At their best, these communities enable the development of one’s skills through collaborative activities with one’s colleagues. Certainly, of equal importance to the support provided for the teachers already working in the field is the systematic development of the programs educating future music teachers. The teachers of tomorrow will work in increasingly diversifying societies and will be required to possess not only various musical skills and deep know-how, but also a wealth of other competencies, such as media and technology literacy and an ability to swiftly adapt in and cultivate diverse learning environments (e.g., Opetusministeriö, 2007). Supporting the student teachers’ development in versatile teaching and creative musicianship thus calls for teacher training during which students are offered multiple opportunities for creative examinations and discoveries in music as well as in teaching and learning. Muhonen (2014, p. 13) urges music teacher education institutions to support the student teachers’ development into creative agency, to recognize and value their individual creative endeavors and collaboratively explore, stretch, expand, and create new practices. An example of recent efforts to model and support the development of creative agency is the Kuule! minä sävellän project [Hear this! I’m composing], a major collaboration among the Sibelius Academy, Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra, Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra, Finnish National Opera and Ballet, and Helsinki Music Centre, with its roots in the Very Young Composers (VYC) program of the New York Philharmonic (Taideyliopisto, 2019). In the project, children and young people are provided with opportunities to compose and hear their own compositions performed by Philharmonic musicians. The creative work is guided by professional composers and student teachers of the Sibelius Academy, but the leading principle is to let children initiate all the creative ideas and decisions. The development of creative agency of the young composers is supported by ensuring that the role of the adult is not to control and supervise, but to assist the child by discussing their ideas, and to help them to further develop and finally notate the ideas for the musicians. For the student teachers participating in Kuule! minä sävellän, the project provides chances to practice means to facilitate and scaffold children’s composing processes in ways that put the child’s individual creativity and voice in the front and center. Rather than orientating the young composers to a certain direction, or composing for them, the project invites the student teachers and other adults to believe in and respect children’s capability and agency and partake in the effort of collaborative creativity. The aforementioned composing projects also highlight an inquisitive and bold attitude as a central part of the growth into creative agency; that is, the fearlessness to venture into musical 118

Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland

explorations that are free from established notions of “right” and “wrong.” As reminded by Kanellopoulos (2007), these kinds of explorations are based on risks and form the very core of creative music-making, in which “risk is welcomed and, in fact, what can occur by mistake can be more satisfying” (p. 133). An ongoing challenge for the Finnish music teacher education institutions is therefore to open up more opportunities for supporting students’ creative agency. Indeed, this should be understood as the starting point for teaching, rather than an “add-on” or a separate “composing task” to be squeezed into the already crammed course structures. Advancing creative agency in our institutions probably also means a shift in focus from the emphasis on content, curriculum structure, and students’ enculturation to existing musical traditions only, to the ways we could better support the student teachers in becoming agents in their own learning communities and creators of new cultural content.

Composing as a means to cultural participation In addition to the increased emphasis put on the importance of composing in the Finnish curricular documents, the justifications and meanings of composing also appear to have somewhat expanded over the years. The tendency of previous curricula to include creative music-making as a supplementary element to accompany the more principal activities – especially singing and instrument playing – is being replaced by the new understanding of the fundamental importance of composing. Instead of limiting the role of composing in school to an effective means to learn about music, the current Core Curriculum for Basic Education (FNBE, 2014) views composing in the context of wider educational aims, such as the development of the pupil’s creative thinking and collaborative skills. This shift in focus is well aligned with current research literature in music education. The Finnish music education researchers Juha Ojala and Lauri Väkevä (2013) approach composing as a musical exploration and a form of playing. Central to this view of composing as a practical research process (ibid., p. 10, translation by the author) are the possibilities that creating one’s own music offers for pupils to “come to terms with the world and with other people” (ibid., p. 17, translation by the author). Ojala and Väkevä further argue that composing can empower pupils to take their place as creators of musical culture by offering ways to experiment and evaluate various combinations and possibilities of tones and sounds. This is to say that through creative explorations, it is possible to also make explorations into ourselves (see also John-Steiner, 2000) and to find one’s own voice among other voices. The journey of composing from the margins of educational activities to the center of music instruction is ongoing. The future challenges for Finnish music education include, among others, the question of how to better advance the development of music education institutions where the cultivation of experimental attitude through the creation of new cultural content is central. A good starting point for such development work is in helping student teachers and music teachers to begin to recognize and utilize the everyday opportunities for creative music-making. This might not necessarily require carrying out large-scale composing projects. Instead, composing can be seen as a cross-curricular pedagogical activity embedded in daily music-making activities, as reminded by the Finnish music teacher educator Marja Ervasti (2013, p. 113). In a similar vein, Sari Muhonen (2014) discusses her own experiences as a teacher in the Finnish school. For her, the development of songcrafting (Muhonen, 2016), a collaborative way of composing in a classroom, has worked as a rewarding way to include composing “as part of everyday classroom activities” (Muhonen, 2014, p. 7). Nurturing this kind of “everyday creativity, creativity with a small c” (ibid., p. 13) has also transformed her awareness of the teacher’s role as a collaborator in creative processes with her pupils. The 119

Heidi Partti

most crucial feature for a teacher who wishes to advance an experimental attitude and creative activities in his or her classroom might not be the high-level competence in composing, but “the ability to learn, inquire, create in collaboration, and support these skills in his or her students,” as stated by Muhonen (ibid., p. 13). An ever-deeper understanding of the many opportunities that composing can offer to all kinds of pupils to participate in musical meaning-making – regardless of their cultural background, ways of learning, or levels of musical knowledge, for instance – opens up new opportunities for a more inclusive and equal music education. Understanding composing as a creative activity accessible to anyone welcomes young and older learners to participate in the processes of creating and carrying out new musical ideas and interpretations, and, ultimately, to find their place as authors, reformers, and innovators of culture (Ojala & Väkevä, 2013; Toivanen & Partti, 2017). It is in this way that composing music could be seen as a powerful way to support the development of “active cultural participation” (FNBE, 2014, p. 141) in Finnish schools.

Reflective questions 1 What kinds of justifications and meanings of musical composing can you identify in the curricular documents of your country? 2 How can music educators advance every students’ participation in musical meaning-making? 3 In which ways are music teachers in your country equipped with resources and skills for facilitating composing in the music classroom?

References Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deemer, R. (2016). Reimagining the role of composition in music teacher education. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115626253 Ervasti, M. (2013). Musiikillisia sormenjälkiä. In J. Ojala & L. Väkevä (Eds.), Säveltäjäksi kasvattaminen. Pedagogisia näkökulmia musiikin luovaan tekijyyteen (pp. 113–125). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Finlex. (2000). Suomen perustuslaki. Retrieved September 15, 2019 from https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ smur/1999/19990731 FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). (2014). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). (2016). New national core curriculum for basic education: focus on school culture and integrative approach. Retrieved October 3, 2019 from https://www.oph. fi/sites/default/files/documents/new-national-core-curriculum-for-basic-education.pdf FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). (2017). National core curriculum for basic education in the arts. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Hartikainen, S. (Ed.). (2017). Reseptejä säveltämisen ohjaukseen. Helsinki: Metropolia Ammattikorkeakoulu. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Juntunen, M.-L. (2011). Musiikki. In S. Laitinen, A. Hilmola, & M.-L. Juntunen (Eds.), Perusopetuksen musiikin, kuvataiteen ja käsityön oppimistulosten arviointi 9. vuosiluokalla (pp. 36–94). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Kanellopoulos, P. (2007). Children’s early reflections on improvised music-making as the wellspring of musico-philosopihical thinking. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(2), 119–141. Korpela, P., Kuoppamäki, A., Laes, T., Miettinen, L., Muhonen, S., Muukkonen, M., …, Rikandi, I. (2010). Music education in Finland. In I. Rikandi (Ed.), Mapping the common ground: Philosophical perspectives on Finnish music education (pp. 16–31). Helsinki: BTJ Finland Oy & Sibelius-Akatemia. Louhivuori, J. (2005). Musiikkikasvatuksen vuosikirja 2002—2004. Helsinki: Gummerus. Muhonen, S. (2014). Songcrafting: A teacher’s perspective of collaborative inquiry and creation of classroom practice. International Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 1–18.

120

Mapping the field of composing pedagogy in Finland Muhonen, S. (2016). Songcrafting practice: A teacher inquiry into the potential to support collaborative creation and creative agency within school music education (Doctoral dissertation). Studia Musica 67. Sibelius-Akatemia, Helsinki. Muukkonen, M. (2010). Monipuolisuuden eetos. Musiikin aineenopettajat artikuloimassa työnsä käytäntöjä (Doctoral dissertation). Studia Musica 42. Sibelius-Akatemia, Helsinki. Ojala, J., & Väkevä, L. (2013). Säveltäminen luovana ja merkityksellisenä toimintana. In J. Ojala & L. Väkevä (Eds.), Säveltäjäksi kasvattaminen. Pedagogisia näkökulmia musiikin luovaan tekijyyteen (pp. 10–22). Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Opetusministeriö. 2007. Opettajankoulutus 2020. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2007:44. Yliopistopaino. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/ handle/10024/79634 Partti, H. (2016). Muuttuva muusikkous koulun musiikinopetuksessa. The Finnish Journal of Music Education, 19(1), 8–28. Partti, H., & Ahola, A. (2016). Säveltäjyyden jäljillä. Musiikintekijät tulevaisuuden koulussa. Helsinki: Sibelius-Akatemia. Partti, H., & Väkevä, L. (2018). SongPump: Developing a composing pedagogy in Finnish schools through collaboration between professional songwriters and music teachers. In C. Christophersen & A. Kenny (Eds.), Musician-teacher collaborations: Altering the chord (pp. 73–84). Oxford: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208756 Partti, H., Weber, J., & Rolle, C. (2023). Learning a skill, or learning to learn? Supporting teachers’ professional development in music education technology. Journal of Music, Technology & Education 14(2&3), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00037_1 Randles, C., & Muhonen, S. (2014). Validation and further validation of a measure of creative identity among USA and Finland pre-service music teachers. British Journal of Music Education, 32(1), 51–70. Suomi, H. (2019). Pätevä musiikin opettamiseen? Luokanopettajaksi valmistuvan musiikillinen kompetenssi perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden toteuttamisen näkökulmasta (Doctoral dissertation). University of Jyväskylä. Taideyliopisto. (2019). Kuule! minä sävellän. Retrieved October 1, 2019, from http://www.kuuleminasavellan.fi/ Toivanen, L., & Partti, H. (2017). Composing cultural diversity in higher music education [Paper presentation]. Cultural Diversity in Music Education Conference (CDIME), Kathmandu, Nepal, March 29 to April 1, 2017. Vesioja, T. (2006). Luokanopettaja musiikkikasvattajana (Doctoral dissertation), University of Joensuu.

121

9 AS FOR US IN FRANCE Why do we call it creation? Margret Stumpfögger

Introduction This chapter is about collective creative processes as they have been practiced in France for several decades, mainly in primary and secondary schools, music academies; sometimes also as part of music outreach programs as organized by operas, orchestras, and other music disseminators; or else in the frame of workshops in social and even medical institutions. It is written from the point of view of a practitioner having conducted many creative projects in the field of music (mainly linked to performing arts), and having trained musicians to carry out such projects in the frame of primary-school settings, namely musiciens intervenants. However, it is actually more about composing in a collective setting than about teaching how to compose, in other words, about “setting up together a piece of music,” whatever that may be: a song, an instrumental piece played on traditional, classical, electronic, or self-made instruments (in French lutherie sauvage), a piece made up with electroacoustic or digital tools using any sound material, acoustic objects, ambient noise, or samples, and many more. A question to be raised is: what do we mean by composition pedagogy? Is it teaching how to compose, passing on theories and techniques about harmony and orchestration, voicing and arrangement, or about the use of sound software? Is it building up knowledge about different music styles and forms, analyzing existing works to understand the implemented musical processes in order to reuse them in a personal way? Is it fostering an imaginative use of sound and an original organization of sound events? Summing all this up, is composition pedagogy teaching music making in a very broad sense? Or is it, on a meta-level, teaching how to teach music making? Composition pedagogy may include all this, depending on the frame it takes place in. And whatever we call it, there are significant issues and challenges.

Creation – composition What do we mean by composition and composing? Does “composing” suggest a processoriented and “composition” a result-oriented approach? The French word création signifies both a process involving and arousing creativity, and an achievement, a product – the result of a creative process. Can this be a first answer to the title question? 122

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-12

As for us in France

Asking why we call it creation is asking why we do not call it composition. In general, the first spontaneous answer to this question from practitioners involved in creative processes in classrooms is, because composing is still and too often (unconsciously) understood as the achievement of a single (genius) person, writing down music by using pitched notes on the musical staff, ordering rhythms in meters, and searching to attain a highly sophisticated result in a more or less classical tradition. In a more contemporary and less caricatured understanding, composing is still supposed – or at least intended – to produce serious art, and, as such, distinguished from the inventing of popular or folk music, for which the terms “music making” and “songwriting” seem more appropriate. We know full well that the stereotype of composition (as an individual act by a genius writing down music) does not correspond to inventing music in class. Nor is it reduced to this. Talking of writing, there are many ways and means to invent music, in the classroom as well as in real life. All over the world, oral transmission leads to the appearance of variations, reinterpretations, and a contextualized (re)invention of music in popular and traditional music practices. Also, jazz and rock musicians – to name but two – invent music by playing and trying it out directly. Such creative practices can be undertaken in school settings. Indeed, composing in the sense of producing a lasting result is only one of the possibilities of inventing music. Improvising, for example, is another one, and of equal interest. The advantage of using the word “creation” is to include both possibilities: composition and improvisation; improvising being a way as such to practice music, as well as a step to composing. Talking of individuals, for most of the time, composing in class is not an individual but a collective approach, taking place in group settings. Individual work has to be included in a common work. In the case of genius, brilliance is certainly welcome, but originality and authenticity are more important to achieve a satisfying result. We might suppose that, in France, the word “creation” has supplanted “composition” because musical creation includes a variety of activities actually in place with school settings. Creating music may include not only writing and performing, but also other aspects of musical inventing, such as sound exploration, improvising, recording, sound editing and mixing, or instrument building, and indeed may lead to an instrumental or mixed piece as well as to a song or a sound installation. Furthermore, being also applied to processes and productions in other artistic fields (dance, theater, fine arts, etc.), the term “creation” is useful to designate cross-disciplinary activities in any setting. Working out a musical stage performance also implies building up performing skills, an awareness and creative use of body and sound in space. In such a case, composing music can be considered one part of a wider artistic production, including also elements of scenography such as sound diffusion and light effects, theatrical set design and clothing, with the term création designating the whole. Nevertheless, in 2000, the Council of CFMI (Centres de Formation de Musiciens Intervenants) gathering the nine French training centers for musicians working in primary schools edited the Children’s Competencies Guidelines for Music (2000), which is still relevant today. It mentions “composition” as one of the five key competencies to be developed in music education, along with “interpretation, improvisation, arrangement, listening.” The described examples of composition projects in class – based on real-life experiences – are: writing a song; designing a sound track for a local exhibition; setting up an instrumental accompaniment for a poem, and “writing a score” (in quotation marks) by using “existing graphic signs or inventing a representation mode.” There is also “composing a soundtrack” (still in quotation marks), meaning a short electroacoustic piece. The quotation marks in these descriptions seem to indicate that the term composition is not fully recognized. Were the readers of these guidelines supposed to disagree with the validity of composing in a primary-school context at that time? Is this linked to a 123

Margret Stumpfögger

notion of composition as an artwork, an outcome not to be expected from children? If so, do we need a reviewed understanding not only of composition but also of artwork? What does seem to be the case, however, is that we need a contemporary understanding of composing in order to be able to discuss composition pedagogy. Glover (2000, p. 3) states that, in a context and climate of cross-cultural practices and perceptions of music, “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.”

Composition, writing, and permanence Music is ephemeral in essence. Unlike improvisation, composition is linked to a desire for some fixed form, and thereby to a lasting medium. Writing offers the possibility to transmit and replay a piece of music, to defer it in time and space. Nowadays, recording has more or less replaced and even surpassed writing by fixing music to a considerable extent. Indeed, recordings can be repeated over and over without any variation arising from an individual interpretation. Following this common understanding of composing as the production of a fully written score, we have another possible answer to the question of why we prefer to speak of creation. Indeed, working out a piece of music with a school class, however, it will sound and whatever material it will require, rarely produces more than summary indications in service of a live performance. As memory assistance, visual symbols such as letters, numbers, and figurative or abstract graphic signs are set up together to define instruments and to indicate a way and an order in which to sing or play, or else the uses of summary chord and structure grids are generally sufficient. Having memorized the piece entirely, why should the inventors – who are also the performers – put their music down in writing? Whether for a live performance or a recording, many musicians consider indeed that music is best performed from memory. But does composing necessarily depend upon some visible and lasting materialization? Is it not merely a mental framework? Discussing the issue of writing down music invented in class, two musiciens intervenants, Isabelle Gay and Martin Bouveresse, develop another interesting point of view on this question. B: Why such disapproval for writing? It can actually help us to give up on something if necessary, like an authorization to erase something on paper, left aside and resumed later. G: It is not disapproval, merely a personal observation: by introducing a written medium, we automatically lose the notion of space, since everything revolves around this visual medium. I need the children to remain connected to this notion of space, to their positioning in relation to each other, which allows them to become aware of sound in space. The sound is sent from one end of the stage to another, it moves …. Sound is alive. (Bouveresse & Gay, 2012, pp. 41–42) Many practitioners also reckon that writing an entire music score, especially if using staff notation, requires a lot of time they do not have available, and above all a lot of training, even if, nowadays, digital software makes it much easier. At an ordinary school level, an appropriate standard can hardly be expected without additional individual training, and even if such training exists, essential questions remain: what are we able to imagine by anticipation and by hearing in our minds? Which choices do we make to put our musical ideas into a lasting 124

As for us in France

form? How can we train our students to invent music using their imagination? Composition pedagogy has to meet these issues, whatever the means may be. If writing down music is not linked to hearing in mind by anticipation and thereby to an intention, can we really speak of composing?

A short historical and political overview In France, we indeed speak of “creating music” rather than of “composition,” firstly and above all as a musical aim and issue, and perhaps only secondly as a learning situation. Cognitive and social-skill development, artistic liberty and self-expression, utilitarianism versus esthetics – as in many other countries, the issues of education in art and/or education through art have been and are still widely discussed in professional circles. The appearance of creative approaches in music teaching in France can be traced back to the 1970s. To give a somewhat caricatured description, in this period music was generally taught in a highly selective and rather academic way in the French conservatoires, in secondary schools (collèges and lycées) by specialist teachers scarcely trained in (group) pedagogy, and in primary schools by generalist teachers scarcely trained in music. In this post-1968 context, creativity in learning and teaching was claimed and valued by forwardthinking professionals as a matter of individual and collective emancipation of a dominant and restraining model. Creation was considered to be a practice within reach of each and every person, whereas composition continued to be regarded as a professional task, most of the time associated with serious music: a highly sophisticated activity of a selected and especially well-trained few, respected and sometimes criticized as such. Many changes have taken place since, but the general and constant use in France of the term création remains a fact. In the ensuing years, creative approaches in music teaching, learning, and practice progressively became a topic of interest in professional spheres and entered into public policies. As Noémi Duchemin-Lefebvre and Anne Veitl point out, former Directors of Music at the French Ministry of Culture, Marcel Landowski (1960s–1970s) and Maurice Fleuret (1980s), took especially decisive actions in favor of cultural democracy (Duchemin & Veitl, 2000; Lefebvre, 2014). Indeed, in the field of cultural education policies, the French republican ideal of égalité implies an equal access to quality music education. In this spirit, professional training was developed through the founding of the CFMI (training centers for musicians in schools) in the 1980s and the CEFEDEM (training centers for musicians in music academies) in the 1990s. This enabled new generations of musicians to guide and to develop creative group settings essentially in primary schools and music academies. At the same time, official instructions began to prescribe the fostering of creative skills – still under the term creation or creating – as one of the basic musical activities in conjunction with listening and interpreting. Consequently, the 1990s saw the appearance of a general opening in music teaching and the development of local partnerships to organize artist’s residencies, for example, or the first festivals presenting children’s musical creations. During the 2000s and 2010s, these developments were slowly but continually progressing. Marie-Christine Bordeaux, an expert in French public cultural and educational policies, declares that: Artist residencies in schools have a history, which shows that this system is rooted in a recurrent conception of the role of art in society as well as in the history of school and its reforms, and that it adapts to changes in institutions and social demand. (Bordeaux, M.-C. 2013, p. 110) 125

Margret Stumpfögger

In France, artistic and cultural education is indeed a matter of official public policy implemented by the French Ministry of Culture and the French Ministry of Education. Under the name of Education Artistique et Culturelle (Artistic and Cultural Education, or EAC) – since the 2000s, this ambitious program is based on the UNESCO cultural rights meant for every person throughout their lifetime. It aims simultaneously for education in art and education through art by combining three dimensions: perceiving arts by encountering works and artists directly, practicing arts in various forms and settings, and building up knowledge about arts and culture. In other words, EAC is meant to provide and develop esthetic experiences, esthetic conduct, and esthetic judgment. A complementary set of institutions and of professionals (artists, teachers, educators, mediators, etc.) is necessary to translate these ambitions into practice. School remains a privileged place to achieve tangible progress in these matters.

Creating music as a learning situation? Consequently, since 2015 school curricula prescribe the following issues and activities for music education, starting at an early age: for children aged 3–5, in addition to “singing” and “listening,” there is “exploring” and “discussing.” Exploring means “discovering varied sound materials according to the children’s motor skills (body percussion, various objects, percussion instruments …)” with the aim of “mastering one’s gesture to control the [sound] effects” and “comparing simple instruments to sort them into groups (instruments to hit, to shake, to rub …)”. For children aged 6–8, prescribed activities are the same, with the addition of “comparing” and “imagining,” which means “imagining graphic or bodily representations of music” and “inventing a simple organization based on different sound elements” (Bulletin officiel, spécial n°11 du 26 novembre 2015). This is a first reference to writing. And although the term is not mentioned, the notion of organizing sound elements may well be accepted as a basic definition of composition in its etymologic sense, componere in Latin meaning “putting together.” Children aged 9–11 are additionally supposed to “sing and interpret; listen, compare and comment; explore, imagine, and create; exchange, share, and argue.” This adds to “imagining the organization of different sound elements,” “making personal propositions when creating, inventing, and interpreting” (ibid.). Indeed, a musical object becomes relevant for its creator or its listener if there emerges a personal relation to it: if it causes an emotion, awakens a memory, evokes a mental association, in other words, if it offers the possibility of an esthetic experience. Following Krämer (2013, p. 39), “Art is created when the human being implants himself […], with his individuality and his own perspective, in the artifact he creates and it is only this that gives it meaning,” because “our relationship to art is not a functional but a personal one.” The detailed objectives for children aged 9–11 are to “experiment sound parameters and imagine possible uses accordingly; imagine graphic representations to organize a succession of sounds and sound events; invent a simple organization based on selected sound sources (including voice) and interpret it.” These aims are to be obtained by the means of “vocal games associating sound objects; making personal and original contributions when interpreting; handling and dealing with sound objects using appropriate digital tools.” There is also the matter of “realizing graphic scores and comparing results” and – here the term appears for the first time – “composing graphic scores and sound productions and interpret them.” To sum up, these activities are about “experiencing the attitude and the conduct of a

126

As for us in France

sound explorer and thereafter a composer by producing, listening, sorting, choosing, organizing, composing.” It is interesting to note that these definitions are very close to Burkhard’s understanding of composition pedagogy. He proposes the combined term “Sound Design – Composing” (in German Klanggestaltung-Komponieren) and its extension to “Experimental Sound Design – Composing” as “this term summarizes the content-related segments of the creative processes: discovering, (creative) hearing, inspiration, imitation, improvisation, design, composition and interpretation” (Burkhard, 2016, p. 33). At this point, speaking of composition or creation appears as a mere question of semantics. Acting as a composer in a school setting is more than building up musical knowledge by understanding through experience. It is a way of being a musician, expressing oneself through music. The French composer Michèle Reverdy declares that “composing […] is a high-risk action because the composer engages his whole person, body and soul, in this undertaking, and delivers what he has most intimate to his listeners and interpreters. […] We become composers out of necessity” (Reverdy, 2007, p. 21). Commissioned in 2005 “to create an ‘interactive’ work” (ibid.) in the frame of the Chantiers de la création – Creation Worksites – which have taken place every year since the 1990s within the Orchestre National de Lyon, she relates: The composer was required to perform regularly for one school year in two primary school classes with five musicians from the orchestra, and to compose a work with children aged about 8–10 years […] The challenge was enormous […] Thanks to the enthusiasm of the two teachers and the musiciens intervenants who supported me throughout this project, the result exceeded my expectations […] during the [final] concert […] the children managed to sing with pleasure – and in several voices! – music of our time they had helped to compose and they were proud to share with five professional musicians who had become their friends. This experience remains a very beautiful memory of my life as a composer. (Reverdy, 2007, pp. 173–175)

Composing in secondary schools The official requirements for pupils aged 12–14 in secondary schools (collège) are the most explicit and therefore particularly instructive for understanding composition in a teaching context today in France. Indeed, in collège, music education is compulsory, whereas in the French lycée it becomes optional (from age 15). Curricula contents “are in line with […] the programs for music education in collège and raise their ambition” (BOEN, 2015). If chosen as a specialty during the last two years of lycée, music education includes a general deepening of musical culture and therefore various academic aspects. In regard to composition, we still find the setting up of “musical creation projects (arrangement, pastiche, improvisations, creation, etc.)” (ibid.). Indeed, secondary-school curricula specify that “every year at least one project out of the categories ‘songwriting, other creation’ must be set up” to develop the key competencies of “exploring, imagining, creating and producing” as well as “exchanging, sharing, arguing and debating.” (ibid) Students have to

• produce short creations (using voice, various acoustic and electronic sound sources) in a style of a piece of music previously studied;

• carry out musical projects in a collective setting involving the whole class, a small group, or else individually; 127

Margret Stumpfögger

• set up digital creations to specifications in small group settings and compare the interpreted creations;

• use an appropriate coding system to organize a creation; • self-assess the work undergone at each step of the process. (Eduscol, 2015, p. 47, transl. M. Stumpfögger)

Evaluation and assessment As creation (or composition) represents a process as well as a product, assessment and evaluation have to take both aspects into account. This implies formative methods and thereby the fostering of verbal interactions at all stages of the creative process. Critical inter-subjectivity seems indeed to be the only means to attain some relevant esthetic judgment. The items outlined in the French curricula for secondary schools about “[e]xchanging, sharing, arguing and debating” give an idea as to assessment and self-assessment going hand in hand “at each step of the creative process.” Students are supposed to

• • • •

take a critical look at their individual production; develop constructive criticism as to a collective production; argue critically on the basis of an objective analysis; distinguish the conducts of a creator, an interpreter, and a listener (Ibid.).

These items again allude to esthetic experience (interpreting, listening), esthetic conduct (producing), and esthetic judgment (criticizing, arguing). As the underlying esthetic emotions are linked to personal experiences, and therefore subjective and not normative, to what extent can we evaluate esthetic experience (as a manner of cognitive discrimination?), esthetic conduct (as an operating procedure meeting the tastes and the interests of listeners?), and esthetic judgment (as an ability to perceive, verbalize, and balance both objective and subjective aspects of music making and hearing?). Comparing evaluation practices in French and English secondary schools, Stéphane Sacchi, a music education teacher himself, concludes that “in practice, the activity of artistic creation generates esthetic experiences and esthetic conducts” (Sacchi, 2016, p. 185). “That is why […] the evaluation of a musical creation should take into account not only the acquisition of skills but also and jointly the esthetic aspect of an activity of artistic creation, especially since the acquisition of skills and esthetics (experiences, conducts, and esthetic judgments) are closely linked” (ibid.). Sacchi advocates a formative evaluation and a “reconsidering of the pedagogical relationship.” Indeed, in a creative process, adult musicians and/or teachers are necessarily involved in the critical inter-subjectivity, not only as technical, pedagogical, or artistic experts but also as sensitive people. In their book chapter dedicated to composition, Alain Gerber, a primary-school teacher, and Laetitia Pauget, a musicienne intervenante, having collaborated for several years on electroacoustic composition projects with children aged 8–10 years, describe their role in the process: The objective [at this stage] is to help children to assert their choices. […] When listening to a piece under construction, each adult is there with his or her own sensitivity, criticizing the organization of sounds, the processing chosen, the emotion or boredom

128

As for us in France

felt, in order to lead the child to question his or her production and, ultimately, to make choices knowingly. (Gerber & Pauget, 2008) It is indeed important to build up esthetic criteria to make sure that the choices made after several tryouts are intentional and guided by musical (and not social or affective) criteria. For children, the following questions may be helpful: do we like the way it sounds? Do we want to meet the taste and interest of listeners and how? If not, what can we do to improve our piece of music? French curricula insist on the building up of a common musical culture, hoping that this may enhance intercultural understanding and mutual acceptance. In social life, this challenge has become increasingly important in recent years.

Roots The French tradition of musique concrète Undoubtedly, one of the roots which have fostered a specific understanding and practice of composing in France, and consequently inspired corresponding projects in school settings, is the tradition of musique concrete, starting in the late 1940s. This “concrete music” uses sounds derived from material objects like instruments or voices as well as from electronic devices, everyday utensils, or ambient noise in a natural or human environment. It focuses on sound envelopes and forms rather than on elements traditionally thought of as “musical” (melody, harmony, rhythm, metric, tones, and even timbres). The theoretical, esthetic underpinnings developed by Pierre Schaeffer, one of the founders of the GRM (Groupe de Recherches Musicales) and its electroacoustic Studio d’Essai at the RTF radio station in Paris, have led to a specific approach of composing. For example, in his book A la Recherche d’une Musique Concrète (In Search of a Concrete Music), written in 1952, Schaeffer develops an esthetics centered upon the use of sound as a primary resource for composing. In May 1948, he notes in his journal, “Repeat the same sound fragment twice: there is no longer event, but music.” (Schaeffer, 1952, translated by North & Dack, 2012, p. 13). Many important French composers, Messiaen and Boulez among them, have been members or influenced by the GRM. In his writings, Schaeffer also emphasizes the importance of play (jeu) in sound-based composition, and this is where children and pedagogy come in. Indeed, among Schaeffer’s heirs at the GRM is François Delalande, who has been significantly inspiring a large number of educators since the 1980s. In charge of theoretical research at the GRM, particularly in the field of children’s musical behaviors, Delalande has contributed to a renewal of music pedagogy together with Guy Reibel, the author of the famous Jeux musicaux (Musical Games) republished several times since their first edition (Reibel, 1984). Together they have set up radio programs for music education and analyzed a great number of pedagogical experiences led by educators all over France. In his book La musique est un jeu d’enfant (Music is Child’s Play), Delalande explains how to encourage and guide children’s spontaneous behaviors of playing with sounds until they take the form of an authentic musical invention (Delalande, 1984). Today the European project “Creamus” of the INA-GRM (Institut National de l’Audiovisuel – Groupe de Recherches Musicales) and its program “Creative Music at School and Beyond,” set up by Dominique SaintMartin, is one of the best means of sharing innovative practices and music created by children.

129

Margret Stumpfögger

The French tradition of chanson French songwriters and/or performers (such as Edith Piaf and Georges Brassens, to name but two among many emblematic artists) are legendary, and the chanson, placing great importance on lyrics in a genuine poetic and literary style – rhythm and melody following them as much as possible – is a legitimate and very popular artistic musical genre. In some of his numerous writings about music and pedagogy, Gérard Authelain defends the chanson as an authentic, major art form and as an essential object of analysis, interpretation, and creation in a pedagogical context (Authelain, 1988, 2003). Indeed, songwriting is one of the most common and popular ways of creating music in a school setting. But its apparent ease must not mislead. The chanson is not enclosed in a specific style and the repertoire refers to numerous and varied musical esthetics. In a teaching context, this raises a lot of interesting challenges. As Danel and Delon describe in their handbook Inventing songs at school (Inventer des chansons à l’école), published by the education authorities of the Auvergne region, Songwriting […] allows the child to work on many of the important parameters of a musical discourse: the tonal feeling, the rhythmic placement, the correlation between lyrics and melody, notions of musical form, the discovery of musical styles … […] Songwriting can take place through a multiplicity of approaches, none of which is more legitimate than another: practices as the “poem on which to find a melody” […] have produced masterpieces. […] The melodic invention can come from speaking in rhythm, which gradually gives rise to a melodic line based on the intonation and accentuation of the spoken voice […] The melodic inventions of each child can be taken up by the group that models them in its own way before sending them back to the soloist. […] On a loop of two or three simple chords played on guitar or piano, the children improvise first collectively, then individually. […] It is also possible to take randomness into account in the composition process […] children may assign at random a limited number of notes initially chosen to each syllable of the lyrics. An original outcome is then guaranteed. […] Finally […] the arranger of their song […] can make [the children] listen to several suggestions of accompaniment, on a number of rhythms, for example, or in different musical styles. (Danel, CRDP Auvergne, 2005, pp. 7–9) Is it possible to lead such processes without being a composer? Or without being pedagogically trained?

Professional training The professionals involved in these creative processes are primary- and secondary-school teachers, musicians as artists-in-residence, and very often musiciens intervenants. These musicians are especially well trained in the CFMI training centers in working on creative projects with primary school, generalist teachers, as or with artists-in-residence, composers among them. These university institutions provide a professional and academic training of 1,500 hours, including 500 hours of internship in schools.

130

As for us in France

G. Authelain, one of the founders of the CFMI, wrote in 1995: “Practicing music is also inventing music by oneself. Each child and each young person is capable of this, on the condition that they are provided with means to meet the target […]. We must nevertheless be firm on the verdict: no pedagogue has a chance of being able to lead children or young persons on the path of creation if he hasn’t faced, himself or herself, the challenge beforehand, which is to follow the same process until its end” (Authelain, 1995, p. 87). Consequently, the French CFMI give priority to collective music creation both in training sessions and in practical teaching in classes, described in 2017: CFMI students are encouraged to build up ways of helping children empirically, by trying out and questioning critically both music playing and teaching practices, rather than relying on ready-made instructions. […] Creating music with children means moving through a process of exploration, drafting, developing, refining, and fixing; entailing decisions and choices to make at any stage. To acquire the competencies necessary to guide such a process, several complementary elements are most important during professional training: a direct and personal experience of improvising and creating music by the means of collective settings between (adult) musicians, a practical training in schools with children in the frame of work placements, and in both cases, as an essential correlate, constant analysis and reflectivity by the means of regular group evaluations and self-evaluations […] so as to build a general approach which can be transferred to many situations. (Stumpfögger, 2017, p. 254) As an example, in the CFMI of Lyon, one of the projects students have to undertake in the frame of their primary-school internships is creating a piece of music with a class of about 25 pupils during ten working sessions, including a final presentation before other children. The students are assisted in this process by professional trainers during supervision visits and feedback sessions in small group settings. The evaluation rubric used for supervision and the final performance takes both situations into account. During the visit, observation criteria are the student’s abilities to enable children to enrich their proposals (by providing clear instructions, and/or by a personal artistic involvement …). Indeed, they have to act as pedagogues and musicians in turn and to choose the appropriate attitude in real time. They also have to develop the children’s critical feedback ability: (how) do students foster and guide collective verbal interactions to build up a capacity of esthetic judgment, enhancing the creative progress? The working in partnership with the generalist teacher is also observed as an important professional competence. During performance, developments between the supervision visit and the final presentation are evaluated: has the children’s work (meaning the efforts achieved and the esthetic result) progressed in the interval? Have the students taken into account self-analysis or trainer’s advice developed during the feedback sessions, and if so, how? The observed criteria about the presentation itself are defined as follows:

• “Presentation taking place”: has the creative process resulted in a form which can be presented to an audience? This is not as obvious as it may seem. Children as well as beginning practitioners may not perceive or manage the difference between playful exploration activities, improvising (freely or with pre-defined rules relating to the use of sound parameters, sound events, or sound patterns), and the producing of a fixed form. In this context, speaking of composition can be helpful to understand fully and precisely the musical issues of the project undertaken.

131

Margret Stumpfögger

• “Logistical organization (stage/audience)”: are time and space organized in a way that offers good performing and listening conditions so as to value the children’s work?

• “Children’s involvement and autonomy”: are the performers concentrated and listening to each other? Are the children conducting their own performance or even acting entirely independently? • “The student’s artistic (vocal, instrumental, bodily …) involvement in service of the children’s project”: are the students acting as musicians alongside the performing children in a way that enriches their musical discourse? • “Self-analytical capacity” (during the post-performance debriefing with the trainer): are the students aware of the pedagogical and esthetical issues of the process and its result, and of their ability and progress in leading such? The issues of esthetic experience, esthetic conduct, and esthetic judgment are underpinned by these criteria, but not expressed in these terms. Following again the Children’s Competencies Guidelines for Music, children’s creative competencies may be evaluated using the following criteria, according to the project undertaken: 1 The child defines his or her project according to the situation or intention chosen. 2 The child compares different resource palettes and makes choices (number of participants, instrumentation, sampling, composition processes, etc.) 3 The child calls on his previous knowledge (use of elements resulting from improvisation, knowledge of genres, forms …) and possibly formulates new requests (techniques, equipment, playing methods, processes, references, codes, etc.) 4 The child writes the lyrics of a song using vocabulary and syntax appropriate to the subject and genre. The child pays attention to prosody. In writing the lyrics, he or she takes into account the future vocal conduct. 5 The child takes into account the melody of a song, the sounds and curves of the lyrics when writing. 6 The child chooses a “writing method” for his or her production. He or she records it and/or writes the score using the graphic signs he or she knows (possibly searching for additional signs). 7 The child is responsible for the realization of his or her score. (Conseil des CFMI, 2000, p. 33).

Conclusion Whether we speak of creation or composition – as a process of exploring, drafting, developing, refining and fixing, entailing decisions and choices to make at any stage; possibly also including improvising, listening critically and analyzing, and finally performing – guiding such a process in a collective (pedagogical) setting is a highly challenging task which requires both artistic and pedagogical competencies and an adequate professional training. In France, musical creation has been continually gaining ground during the past decades, in school settings and other frames. Public policies have been aiming to promote creative practices, explicitly in order to meet the challenges of living in society in the 21st century. Nowadays, good practices are numerous in France and institutionally rooted, but there remains a wide gap to close by establishing significant research at the same level, and above all by generalized artist and teacher training to meet the challenges. Meant as a pedagogical guide for artistic freedom, musical creation in school or composition pedagogy – whatever we call it – keeps all its relevance and 132

As for us in France

deserves full and complete commitment from all professionals and political and financial decision makers. And above semantics, this is what really matters.

Reflective questions 1 Is artistic freedom compatible with teaching and learning in school? 2 Is music invented by children a specific kind of music? 3 Is there a specific French experience in composition pedagogy to be shared with practitioners in other countries?

References Authelain, G. (1988). La chanson dans tous ses états – The song in all its forms. Paris: Van de Velde. Authelain, G. (1995). La création musicale grandeur nature – Life-size musical creation. Courlay: Fuzeau. Authelain, G. (2003). A l’école on fait musique – In school we make music. Paris: Van de Velde. Bulletin officiel spécial (du 26 mars 2015). Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la jeunesse et des sports. Programme d’enseignement de l’école maternelle. Retrieved August 2019 from https://www.education.gouv.fr/au-bo-special-du-26-mars-2015-programme-d-enseignement-de-l-ecole-maternelle-3413 Bulletin officiel spécial (n°11 du 26 novembre 2015). Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la jeunesse et des sports. L’éducation musicale aux cycles 2 et 3. Retrieved August 2019 from https://eduscol.education. fr/147/education-musicale-cycles-2-et-3; https://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/MEN_SPE_11/76/0/ Programme_cycle_4_pour_B.O._1424760.pdf) Bordeaux, M.-C. (2013). Synthèse du colloque “La résidence d’artiste en milieux scolaire et éducatif. Pratiques et recherches” – Summary of the conference “Artist residency in schools and educational settings. Practice and research”, ECP (Université Lyon 2(pp. 110–121). Lyon: Institut français de l’Éducation / Centre Enfance Art et Langage. Bouveresse, M., & Gay, I. (2012). Sur les chemins de l’invention – On the path of invention. Lyon: Mômeludies Editions. Burkhard, F. (2016). Klangwelten des 21.Jahrhunderts in der Musikalischen Bildung – Kompositionspädagogik in Theorie und Praxis. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Conseil des CFMI. (2000). Musiques à l’école, référentiel de compétences «musique» pour l’enfant – Music in school, children’s competencies guidelines for music. Courlay: Fuzeau. Danel, P. (Ed.). (2005). Inventer des chansons à l’école – Inventing songs at school. Clermont-Ferrand: CRDP d’Auvergne. Delalande, F. (1984). La musique est un jeu d’enfant – Music is a child’s play. Paris: Buchet Chastel. Duchemin, N., & Veitl, A. (2000). Maurice Fleuret – une politique démocratique de la musique – Maurice Fleuret – A democratic music policy. Paris: La Documentation française. Bulletin officiel spécial n°11 du 26 novembre 2015. Programme du cycle 4. Bulletin officiel spécial n°11 du 26 novembre 2015. (pp. 465–429). Paris: Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse https:// cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/MEN_SPE_11/76/0/Programme_cycle_4_pour_B.O._1424760. pdf Eduscol (Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse). (2022a). Paris: Éducation musicale. Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse. https://eduscol.education.fr/education-musicale/sinformer/textes-officiels/programmes/de-lecole-au-college.html Eduscol (Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse). (2022b). J’enseigne. Programmes d’enseignement, ressources et évaluations. Paris: Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse. https://eduscol.education.fr/pid33040/programme-ressources-et-evaluation.html Gerber, A., & Pauget, L. (2008). Sons d’école – School sounds. Mômeludies editions, Lyon. Glover, J. (2000). Children composing 4-14. London: Routledge/Falmer. Krämer, O. (2013). Music education between artistic aspiration and the teaching of craftsmanship. In A. De Vuigt & I. Malmberg (Eds.), European perspectives on music education: Artistry, EAS publications volume 2 (pp. 31–46). Innsbruck, Esslingen, Bern-Belp: Helbling. Lefebvre, N. (2014). Enseigner la musique n°12, Marcel Landowski – une politique fondatrice de l’enseignement musical 1966-1974 – Teaching music n°12 Marcel Landowski – A fundamental policy of music education 1966–1974. Lyon: Cefedem Rhône-Alpes et le Comité d’Histoire.

133

Margret Stumpfögger North, C., & Dack, J. (2012). In search of a concrete music (translation) Berkeley. Oakland: University of California Press. Reibel, G. (1984). Jeux musicaux – Musical games. Paris: Salabert. Reverdy, M. (2007). Composer de la musique aujourd’hui – Composing music today. Paris: Klincksieck. Sacchi, S. (2016). Les enjeux esthétiques dans le processus de création -L’évaluation de l’activité de création en cours d’éducation musicale – Aesthetic issues in the creative process – Evaluating creative activity in music classes. Paris: L’Harmattan. Schaeffer, P. (1952). A la Recherche d’une Musique Concrète. Paris: Le Seuil. Stumpfögger, M. (2017). Preparing musicians to create music with children in schools: Professional training in the French CFMI as a practical approach to understanding and enhancing music made by children. In R. Girdziauskienė & M. Stakelum (Eds.), European perspectives on music education: Creativity and innovation, EAS publications volume 7 (pp. 245–256). Innsbruck, Esslingen, Bern-Belp: Helbling.

134

INTERLUDE III

Starting Points of Composing Joana Grow

What do composers, and especially children, need to do in order to go from a blank page to a finished composition? How can appropriate teaching settings be initiated? There are lots of individual stories about composing by famous personalities. And lots of them are not (only) about the genius, inspired by heaven, who writes down entire symphonies in one go. There are a large number of anecdotes about the inspiration of composers for various works. Stories are told about the influence of nature on the music of composers, such as Antonio Vivaldi and Jean-Philippe Rameau, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Igor Stravinsky as well as Olivier Messiaen, who were, among others, inspired by birdsong or the sounds of a stream. Special experiences, but also strokes of fate, are processed: a stormy crossing in a small sailing ship on the adventurous journey from Riga to Paris inspired Richard Wagner to write the opera Der fliegende Holländer. Alban Berg named the death of one of Alma Mahler’s daughters as the inspiration for his violin concerto, while Eric Clapton dealt with the death of his son Conor in “Tears in Heaven.” Other artists talk about the arts as a source of inspiration. Coldplay, for example, points to two paintings by Frida Kahlo and Eugène Delacroix as inspiration for “Viva la vida.” Nirvana released “Scentless Apprentice” in 1985, a lyrical setting of the novel Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Süskind, and Robbie Williams claims to have been inspired by Sergei Prokofiev’s “Dance of the Knights” for “Party Like a Russian.” Even everyday encounters can inspire and lead to a song. For instance, Ken Hensley’s view from his window on a Sunday morning, in a small bed-and-breakfast in the north of England, of a woman with long hair dressed in black was the starting point for Uriah Heep’s “Lady in Black.” Composers are portrayed, by themselves and others, as always being at work (Kopiez & Rodehorst-Oehus, 2010). Life inspires them and they translate their perception and experience of the world into music. Composers, artists, and songwriters from Mozart to Hank Williams, from Tom Jones to Bosse, collect ideas for new pieces of music in a sketchbook. Inspirations seem to be highly relevant for the success of a composition. This relevance is reinforced by the fact that, by some definitions of composition, it is only composition if it originates from one’s own idea (Schlothfeldt, 2009). The socially accepted importance of inspiration is also illustrated in the fact that stories of inspiration have been invented or embellished by composers. This is not to say that experiences of nature or personal strokes of fate were not, and are not, processed in music and serve as inspiration. Rather, Walton (2017) shows that “inspiration” is a term of the 19th century and is related to the mystification around work and composer as DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-13

135

Joana Grow

genius. He demystifies Wagner’s inspiration for Der fliegende Holländer as lies and half-truths with the help of diary entries by Cosima Wagner. Further, he discovered that Berg’s “inspiration” for his violin concerto by the early death of one of Alma Mahler’s daughters was a commercial marketing strategy. A composer who lacks inspiration would, according to prevalent definitions, not be a composer. Therefore, one of the challenges shared among composers is the fear of “the blank page,” of not knowing where and how to start a new piece of music, which can be terrifying. The idea of inspiration as a starting point for composing may also be a burden to some, even though research shows that composing is not only inspiration but can be described as a continuum between inspiration and hard work (Kopiez & Rodehorst-Oehus, 2010). Over time composers collect a range of different methods, strategies, and tools to help them overcome this (often inevitable) stage in the composing process, such as improvising on an instrument, keeping a composing diary, doing research on certain topics, or looking for inspiration. Igor Stravinsky describes a different strategy: “My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles” (Stravinsky, 1970, p. 65). The composer Johannes Schöllhorn also describes different kinds of inspiration: for instance, that difficult, unusual, and unpredictable specifications of a client, for example, on the instrumentation, coupled with a deadline, had inspired him and were very successful as a starting point (in: Kopiez & Rodehorst-Oehus, 2010). The burden of the term inspiration and the fear of failure can also affect composing in a school setting. The title of this interlude, “Starting Points of Composing,” – a common title in a range of teacher handbooks – implies this issue in two ways. First, it suggests that the process of composing has a clear beginning, which indicates the necessity to quickly come up with ideas. Second, the heading implies that a beginning is followed by an ending, that composing has an aim, and culminates in a product. Although music educators consider the compositional process to be significant, and possibly even more significant than the product, an expectation is created with regard to the students, just as results are expected of composers. Thus, in situations of composing in the music classroom, starting points of composing need to be a lot more than a moment of inspiration and its stimulus. In the following, we assume that composing is the actual subject and content of music lessons. It is about the students going through a composition process, experiencing a composer’s decisions or just the necessity to take various decisions and formulate an idea musically. Composing is, therefore, not used methodically with regard to other goals. For such a lesson, the teacher has to create a safe environment that allows for creativity and invites risk-taking. S/he needs to promote risk-taking and a “have-a-go” philosophy. The teacher has to clearly communicate that there is a safe environment, an assessment-free space. Will the composition be graded? If so, then the question arises as to whether composing, inspiration, and school actually contradict each other. Next, the teacher needs to create a starting point that inspires the students to write a piece of music. In doing this, various aspects are to be considered:

• This starting point needs to be within the boundaries and structures of music lessons in school (e.g., 45-minute lessons once or twice a week). Rather than waiting for an idea to strike, inspiration needs to occur within a very short time frame, since the length of the lesson is restricted (see interlude “Creativity”). Thus, it could be said that the teacher is faced with the challenge of artificially creating inspiration.

136

Starting points of composing

• Additionally, the stimulus that serves as a starting point needs to reach students in their realm of experience in order to motivate them extrinsically. This inspiration should work equally well for 20–30 students. • The teacher must take into account the different previous knowledge and range of experience of the students. It can be assumed that these are usually not of a compositional nature, but possibly of a music-theoretical or instrumental nature. Or the students are used to listen to music they prefer. Paynter addressed this issue in 1982: “Just because some children have more ‘technical skills’ than others, for example gathered through learning a musical instrument, does not mean they are ‘more creative’. In some cases, children with the ‘technical skills’ become so bound up in the need to ‘do it right’ that they become inhibited in their ability/willingness to creatively explore” (Paynter, 1982, p. xiii). • The teacher must take into account the age of the children, which ties in with their experience. • Further, it is necessary to consider whether starting points are to be designed differently for different styles (e.g., soundscapes, songwriting). These starting points are more like a setting and are usually made up of work instruction. In the following, we will discuss first possible stimuli and then provide examples of a task that could serve as inspiration for generating ideas for composition processes. Activities do not need to take a long time. You could, for example, just give a group a fragment of music, such as fingernails scraping on the table, a falling vocal “ooh” or a word such as “what” and give them 1 minute to develop their material in any way they wish. You could even take these miniature “snowballs” and combine them, putting two groups together after this initial stage of idea generation. Stimuli can be categorized as musical and non-musical stimuli. Musical stimuli can be compositions of others, but also any tones, sounds, and noises, as well as instruments and sound generators, digital or analog. Other works in their entirety are rarely used as stimuli in practice. Frequently – in Response projects, among others – a feature of a piece of music, for example, the form, is used as a stimulus for student composition. After the composition process, the pieces can then be juxtaposed. Apps offer another way of using form or structure as a stimulus, although possibilities are limited by app layout. Other musical stimuli can be instruments provided to the class, everyday objects from which sounds can be created, or sounds of the environment, which students are asked to listen to and record if necessary. Non-musical stimuli can be products of other arts, such as, for example, images or paintings. Further, a theme (topos) can inspire composing, but also objects (artifacts). Especially in a phenomenological approach, as in the children’s composition class in Winsen (Germany) by Astrid Schmeling (and Matthias Kaul, until 2020), artifacts are of particular interest. They are investigated for their properties, forms, and structures, which are then used as starting points for composing. A stimulus can be an idea (e.g., theme, action in a picture, mood) or even a musical motive – with younger children, possibly also in form of a story – which can then be developed freely and creatively. Or stimuli can limit these means (e.g., instruments) but do not give any impetus for the “content” of the composition. Although in principle any stimulus can enable inspiration, social and cultural norms and expectations may resonate in the choice of stimulus that could make inspiration difficult if the

137

Joana Grow

moment is deprived of lightness. Thus, the choice of stimulus should be reflected upon using the following aspects:

• A work of art and its knowledge represents a certain, for example, bourgeois culture. The use of such a work of art thus indirectly points toward difference.

• Other music to which there is no common point of reference and which seems “foreign” (e.g. opera). This runs the risk that narratives are provoked.

• An instrument whose playing technique is known to some students only. Think of the differences of instructions like instruction, “Create a piece of music (beginning, middle, ending) with your shoes” “Set the picture paysage surréaliste by Yves Tanguy to music,” “Invent a music to The Night Café by Vincent van Gogh,” or “Write a piece of music to the poem Meeresstille (Sea Silence) by Joseph von Eichendorff.” Moreover, the limitations Stravinsky required for inspiration and enabling creativity can also be realized in the classroom, for instance through creating tension between openness and closedness. Many studies in music education implement this dichotomy: compositions that emerge from a free task show pronounced individuality (cf. Burnard, 1995, p. 44). Offering too much freedom can be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing for novice composers (Hickey, 2012), which is why limiting creative possibilities might be helpful for students. Specifications, and thus constraints, are supposed to enable the composition process in the first place because they limit the multitude of decisions (cf. also Kratus, 1991). On the basis of a meta-analysis of Swedish studies, Folkestad states that “too little task structure can cause students difficulty because of too many choices” (Folkestad, 2004, p. 88). He recommends that a framework, but not details, should be given (see Folkestad, 2004, p. 88). Therefore, setting limitations acts as an aid (Breeze, 2009) and offers an “exciting challenge” (Lewis, 2012, p. 156) for composers. Others see creative expression threatened by such restrictions (cf. Burnard & Younker, 2010, p. 246). Smith (2008, p. 159), for instance, asserts that “too much task structure can inhibit creativity/personal expression” (see also Wiggins, 2002, p. 85f.). Therefore, a balance must be struck in providing inspiring starting points that help guide students without limiting their decision-making to the point that it becomes a “painting by numbers” (Devaney, 2018) and technical exercise (Salaman, 1988; Webster, 2003). Limiting the sound material and prescribing form and structure appear to be particularly common in tasks. While the stimuli are often intended to enable creativity, the tasks are related to learning. Recent research argues that different types of tasks stimulate divergent and convergent thinking. Since composing involves developing diverse ideas as well as evaluating and selecting them according to one’s own or given criteria, and with justifiable esthetic decisions, both thinking operations – open, experimental (divergent) thinking – and goaldirected, evaluative (convergent) thinking are ultimately required, sometimes at different points in the composition process. Granzow investigate what this means for the task design (Granzow, 2022). So far, it is an open question as to how different stimuli and tasks should go together. Furthermore, it is difficult to consider starting and ending and to disregard the process of composition with methodology, media, social forms, accompaniment, etc. A collection of possible starting points and tasks could help, furthermore, there is more research needed.

138

Starting points of composing

References Breeze, N. (2009). Learning design and proscription: How generative activity was promoted in music composing. International Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0255761409335953 Burnard, P. (1995). Task design and experience in composition. Research Studies in Music Education, 5(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9500500104 Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2010). Mapping pathways: Fostering creativity in composition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380022000011948 Devaney, K. (2018). How composing assessment in English secondary examinations affect teaching and learning practices (Doctoral dissertation). Birmingham City University. http://www.open-access.bcu. ac.uk/7266/ Folkestad, G. (2004). A meta-analytical approach to qualitative studies in music education: A new model applied to creativity and composition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (161/162), 83–90. Granzow, J. (2022). Öffnen und Beschränken – Die Sprache von Kompositionsaufgaben als Auslöserin kreativer Denkprozesse. Diskussion Musikpädagogik, 95, 23–29. Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines. Ideas for composing in K–12 music classrooms. Oxford: Oxford UP. Kopiez, R., & Rodehorst-Oehus, L. (2010). “Eigentlich komponiert man immer” – Ein offenes Leitfadeninterview zum kreativen Prozess mit dem Komponisten Johannes Schöllhorn, dem Jazzmusiker Herbert Hellhund und dem Musikproduzenten Johann Weiß. Beiträge empirischer Musikpädagogik, 1(18), 1–28. Kratus, J. (1991). Orientation and intentionality as components of creative musical activity. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 2, 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149502600103 Lewis, R. (2012). Composing the curriculum: Teacher identity. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000198 Paynter, J. (1982). Music in the secondary school curriculum. Trends and developments in classroom teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Salaman, W. (1988). Objectives and the teaching of composition. British Journal of Music Education, 5(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505170000629X Schlothfeldt, M. (2009). Komponieren im Unterricht. Hildesheim: Olms. Smith, J. (2008). Compositions of elementary recorder students created under various conditions of task structure. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(2), 159–176. Stravinsky, I. (1970). Poetics of music in the form of six lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Walton, C. (2017). Lügen und Erleuchtungen: Komponisten und ihre Inspiration von Wagner bis Berg. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Webster, P. (2003). What do you mean, ‘Make my music different?’ Encouraging revision and extension in children’s music composition. In M. Hickey (Ed.), Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music (pp. 55–65). Reston, VA, USA: MENC: The National Association for Music Education. Wiggins, G. A. (2002). Creative process as meaningful musical thinking. In T. Sullivan & L. Willingham (Eds.), Creativity and music education (p. 21). Toronto: Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

139

10 COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY IN GERMANY IN ITS FLEDGLING STAGES Between extracurricular projects and school music classes Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Introduction In this chapter, we want to provide an overview of the meaning and history of composing in school contexts and on the various approaches and contexts in which it takes place both in and outside school contexts in Germany. In order to get a detailed and broad view, we refer to a growing body of literature written by researchers, educators, and practitioners based in Germany. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that in our approach, we focus on the perspectives of music teachers. Therefore, we start from our own experiences as former music teachers in both primary and secondary education, where we both included music composition and improvisation in our music lessons. In German music education, the question of how to teach and learn music composition in schools has gained increasing interest among researchers. Thus, in a growing number of publications, research projects, programs, and initiatives,1 the current discourses on composing in schools are becoming visible. The latter can be characterized by the following aspects:

• The terms “composing” or “composition” are rarely used within the school context because of their rather elitist connotation that is strongly connected to an understanding of composing as being an activity only geniuses such as the “Great composers” can fulfill. As a consequence, the terms are mostly replaced by synonyms such as “inventing music,” “designing music,” “creating music,”2 or “producing music” (Wallbaum, 2000). This becomes obvious especially in school curricula, leaving it open to the teacher as to which way creative approaches enter the classroom or not. In a similar fashion to the relatively weak status of practices of creative music making in school curricula, teaching music composition is not yet a strong issue, neither in teaching materials and schoolbooks nor in higher teacher education of music. • The question as to what composing is, and in which way it can be taught and/or learned, is an important one raised throughout the history of composing pedagogy. Even if different didactical concepts and approaches in creative music making can be seen, composing 140

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-14

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages

and improvising have not yet really played a predominant role in discourses of music education. • The German discourse on composing in educational contexts was especially driven by music educators and composers working outside school contexts. With their first symposium on composition pedagogy followed by a publication (Vandré & Lang, 2011), they initiated a dialogue within music education and also opened up the understanding of composing in school contexts. Nevertheless, the many approaches and methods developed by these actors focused on using composition as an approach to exploring “New Music.” All these observations serve as starting points from where we present and discuss the German discourse around composing pedagogy in its manifold aspects and perspectives. Therefore, we first explore the development of the meaning of composing/composition, and the roots of creative approaches in former/historical and current German music education. The role of composing in school contexts will then be examined by an analysis of school curricula and teaching materials. Moreover, teachers’ attitudes and views on their own practices in teaching music composition are explored through selected interviews, followed by an overview of the many projects in composing that are offered in Germany (e.g. school projects in cooperation with composers, institutions and/or extracurricular activities, and instrumental lessons). We then discuss the recent status of research in composing pedagogy in German music education. This overview shows the popularity of “composing” as a subject which is reflected and examined in many different ways by an increasing number of researchers (see references under “Current research”).

Meaning of composition/composing As already mentioned, a closer look in the emerging publications on this topic reveals that there seems to be a high sensitivity and no consensus about the use of the word “composing” and/or “composition” in the context of music education in schools (see Schlothfeldt & Vandré, 2018). Is it purely associated with professional composers, or can it be utilized in a broader way? In order to understand this issue and the many meanings of “composing” and “composition,” it is helpful to have a closer look at some of the crucial definitions of the terms in the course of German music history. Looking back in the history, the many meanings that were attributed to “composing” throughout the centuries become obvious. Thus, before the early 18th century, the word componere described a practice of combining voices without mentioning the act of notation (Sterzel, 2017, p. 31, see also Bandur, 1996, pp. 2, 18). Then, in the early 18th century, Johann Mattheson differentiated between Inventio (invention), Elaboratio (elaboration), and Executio (execution) (Sterzel, 2017, p. 32). In the early 19th century, the term “composition” was split into a “formal” and a “material” part (Bandur, 1996, p. 3). Thus, there was a difference between composing as a craft in which grammar and rhetoric could be acquired, and of composing as art and aesthetics that could only be created by a “genius” (Koch, 1802, pp. 878ff.) and not learned (Sterzel, 2017, p. 32). In the 20th century, this definition blurred (see also Bandur, 1996, p. 32). It was the German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus who – with his definition of “composition” – laid a strong foundation for the subsequent discourse. Dahlhaus based the term “composition” on five features: 1 An individual musical entity, closed in itself […] which is 2 elaborated and 141

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

3 written down, in order to 4 be performed whereas/whereby 5 the elaboration is the essential part of the aesthetic object, which is constituted in the consciousness of the listener (Dahlhaus, 1979, pp. 10f., transl. by Ziegenmeyer). What is striking about this definition is the fact that it skips the mere etymological meaning of composition, stressing the act of combining individual elements in various ways. Also, the definition is highly exclusive in focusing on a specific type of music of so-called musical works (Goehr, 2007). Thus, Dahlhaus emphasizes specific artistic criteria that a composition has to fulfill. The high threshold that needs to be reached in order to speak of a real “composition” (such as the aspects of elaboration and notation) forms a contrast to inclusive ideas of creative music making in schools and might be one of the reasons that the term both was and is hardly ever used in this context. In order to understand what music educators/teachers in Germany might have learned in their studies about the meaning of “composition,” it is helpful to have a look at the respective entry in the German music encyclopedia “Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart”. Within the long and complex entry entailing several pages on various aspects of composition, the following definition is given: Composition in a general (modern) sense usually refers to a structure meeting the requirements of an artistic work (which can be thus characterized by a particular quality of form, expressiveness, depth of meaning, etc.) and can refer to various aspects: 1. the creation of this structure, the creative activity as such, “composing”; 2. the goal and result of this activity, the individual “work”; 3. the entire field of artistic creation and what has already been created (historically) as well as on the “teaching” leading to it or resulting from it. (Sachs, Cahn, Kelterborn, & Rösing, 1996, p. 506)3 On the one hand, this definition still reveals a strong focus on the European and especially German music tradition and details many criteria and characteristics a composition should have; on the other hand, the understanding of what a composition can refer to is opened up toward the process, product, and context of composing. With reference to school contexts, Matthias Schlothfeldt defines a composition in a broader sense as follows: A composition is usually worked out in detail, is considered by the composer as being complete(d) and exists in form of a text, e.g., as a score.4 (Schlothfeldt, 2009, p. 36, transl. by Ziegenmeyer) The option that a text can – but does not have to be – a score, opens new possibilities to use the term within a wider, and thus within the school, context. Nevertheless, the need to differentiate professional composing from processes of creative music making within school contexts still remains an issue. This is the reason why many authors prefer using other terms such as “producing music” (Wallbaum, 2000), “designing/shaping music” (e.g. Nimzcik, 1991) or “inventing music” (e.g. Hess, 2018; Kranefeld & Mause, 2018, 2020; Schneider, 2008), whereas others intentionally use the term “composing” (e.g. Buchborn, Theison, & Treß, 2019; Grow, 2018; Ziegenmeyer, 2016).

142

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages

Approaches toward music making in the history of German music education in schools In order to better understand the place and meaning of composing music in German music education in schools, we want to outline some of the main currents and approaches in music education which are connected with the idea of initiating, promoting, and supporting creative music making. Although the concept of creativity (see footnote 1) has not played a predominant role in German music education in schools (see Wallbaum, 2016), approaches for how to encourage improvisation and composition in educational contexts can be found in the history of German music education. Thus, already during the 1920s, the era of “Reformpädagogik” (= progressive education), music educators such as Fritz Jöde built their pedagogical concepts on the creative5 power of the child (Jöde, 1928). Furthermore, Carl Orff developed his famous approach for creative music making that encouraged students’ natural responses to music using singing, dancing, acting, and playing specific instruments (Orff-Instruments). During World War II, such creative approaches toward music learning were completely abandoned in favor of a strong manipulative use of music for patriotic purposes. Music education in Germany after World War II was influenced by music educators such as Michael Alt, who, in his concept of “Orientierung am Kunstwerk,” (Alt, 1968) focused on assigning new meaning to the interpretation and analysis of musical works of art (and thus, paying lesser attention to the production). As a reaction to the strong focus on the object (of musical works) developed in this concept, multiple approaches and new thoughts arose (especially in the 1970s and 1980s) that looked for ways to make the subject the center of educational thinking. This was realized, for example, in experimental approaches on improvising and inventing/producing music (e.g. Friedemann, 1969; Meyer-Denkmann, 1970) that concentrated on ways to explore New Music by focusing on sound creation. Furthermore, concepts such as “Polyästhetische Erziehung” (polyaesthetic education) (Roscher, 1976) and “Auditive Wahrnehmungserziehung” (education on listening) (Frisius, Fuchs, Günther, Gundlach, & Küntzel, 1971; Günther, 1970) emphasized the value and potential of deep listening and the inclusion of other arts in creative music making. It is not until the 1990s that inventing music is explored in its benefit for music education in schools with a focus on New Music (e.g. Nimzcik, 1991). This is followed by pedagogical concepts stressing the value of creative music making for aesthetic experiences (Rolle, 1999; Wallbaum, 2016, 2000). The discourse around the concept of “aesthetic experience” in combination with processes of creative music making in the music classroom is still very strong and alive today. Nevertheless, the few concepts that include composing as a “normal” practice (e.g. Wallbaum’s “Prozess-Produkt-Didaktik”) do not enter the music classroom. If students do encounter composing in schools, this is mostly realized in projects within a certain time frame run by external composers.

The role of composing in German music education in schools The school system In order to understand the role of teaching music composition in German music education in schools, it is important to look at the school system and its developments. Germany consists of 16 federal states, each following its own education policy. With the release of the UN Convention in 2006 on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Germany was supposed to change its separated school system to a more inclusive one. Before this, there was a division between the

143

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Gymnasium (grades 5–12/13), which prepares students for an academic career, and the Realschule (grades 5–10) and Hauptschule (grades 5–9), which prepare students for a vocational training. Only in the first four years, all children are supposed to learn together in primary school. Furthermore, integrated comprehensive schools, linking all types, are today gaining in popularity. In schools offering higher secondary education e.g. Gymnasium, the subject of music is a regular part of the school curriculum in grades 5–10 (with certain schools even having a focus on music). In the upper grades, it becomes an elective subject. The number of music lessons per week differs from state to state, although there are more music lessons offered in “Gymnasiums” than in other school types. Furthermore, there are differences in the number of music lessons between schools, because music lessons are often not taught or are shortened due to the lack of music teachers in secondary schools. In primary schools, music lessons are often given by generalists and there are often no music lessons in grades 1 and 2 (see Lehmann-Wermser, Weishaupt, & Konrad, 2020).

Curricula The creative use of music is part of almost all curricula, especially in secondary schools. The relevance of composing and improvising for different schools is reflected in the structure of the curricula: While some curricula see improvising and composing as an aspect of music practice, in others they are assigned a separate core area of music instruction parallel to, for example, singing (Grow, 2018, p. 401). Nevertheless, it is striking that the term “composing” is hardly used, instead often replaced by numerous synonyms, such as inventing or designing music, musical creativity, improvisation (Grow, 2018, p. 401; Hasselhorn, 2015, p. 27). In a study on primary school curricula it was shown that among the music invention tasks for grades 1 and 2, improvisation is used more frequently,6 while composition tasks increase as children get older (Grow, 2018, p. 274ff.). When more time is spent on composition, improvisation often becomes part of it, or it is used as a method within the framework of learning (in) music. Some curricula describe possible stimuli or starting points, i.e. composition occasions. Composing mostly appears in the form of composition tasks based on open stimuli. In primary education, composing should be free of prerequisites, e.g. with reference to the use of Orff-instruments (ibid., p. 297ff.). Composition in school settings in Germany varies widely between schools and usually depends on the interests and expertise of the teacher. In the curriculum, the role of assessment of the process and product of composition remains unclear. Creativity and its development are not mentioned in the context of assessment. Competencies with regard to composing and compositions are either reduced to technical exercises, e.g. variation (especially in the music curricula for primary education) or not defined/specified at all (especially with curricula of secondary schools [“Gymnasium”]). Thus, it is not surprising that teachers feel unsure about assessing composition and consequently seem to avoid it (Devaney, Platz, & Ziegenmeyer, 2021). This hesitation is also reflected in the academic discourse in which the question “how to assess” is problematized in many ways. For example, Schlothfeldt (2009, pp. 111–114) suggests to only assess those composition tasks that train general composition competencies (which he calls “Gestaltungsaufgaben”). Others deny the possibility of evaluation for compositions, e.g. Rolle argues that “specific performances (like composing) cannot be assessed objectively” (Rolle, 2008, p. 72). LehmannWermser comments that divergent thinking and aiming for originality contradict fulfilling standards (Lehmann-Wermser, 2008, p. 115). Music can only be graded adequately when creativity is part of the grade, and not only knowledge about music is considered (Rolle, 2008, p. 72f.; Stöger, 2008, p. 42). 144

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages

School music textbooks Inventing music can be found in school music textbooks for primary school as a topic itself, and also as a method. However, only one-third of the primary school music textbooks actually contain multiple composition tasks. These tasks for inventing music are based on the use of open stimuli inspired by topics, texts, images. A primary activity is the exploration of sound by trying out various sound-objects and materials to develop one’s own musical language. Composing as a process, including planning and developing and revising ideas and material, is not found in the books. The process of composing is hardly ever evaluated; only the product is recognized in the presentation. Moreover, there is no guidance for the teacher on how to support and facilitate those composition processes (Grow, 2018, p. 410). In addition, primary-school books contain composition-related exercises. Music-theoretical phenomena and cultural norms are practiced, e.g. by completing bars with rhythms, or inventing melodies with given notes. A link between these “exercises” and the open stimuli is not included in the books (ibid., p. 696). In school music textbooks for secondary schools, composing tasks that address songwriting and/or the use of technology in composing dominate the field. Moreover, some books contain tasks such as the creation of rap texts. In addition to the school music books, pedagogical approaches toward composing can be found in journals for music educators and other teaching materials. Altogether, the amount of material specifically addressing composing is very small (e.g. Kotzian & Blaschke, 2015; Milliken, 2018; Oberschmidt, 2014; Rüdiger, 2015; Schneider, 2017). Furthermore, they often have a special focus such as “songwriting” (Schmidt & Terhag, 2010).

The practice of composing in the music classroom Whereas more and more research projects focus on specific aspects of composing in the classroom within a qualitative methodological design (see Current research), a quantitative study that reveals how composing takes place in all school formats and federal states of Germany has not yet been conducted. Nevertheless, Devaney et al. (2021) recently conducted a comparative online survey on composing in the music classroom with 500 German and British music teachers. One of the central results was the very high count of names of classical composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach being mentioned when asked what composers were used as examples. The authors’ impressions from teacher training are that composing is not seen as a normal and integral part of school music education. This view is supported by the fact that composing mostly enters the music classroom through projects in which composers are engaged, for example when, together with students, composers work on the creation of a composition (often over a time period of around 3 months). Nevertheless, there might be a significant number of music teachers who compose with students in their classes. The extent of composing as part of the music class changes from teacher to teacher (Devaney et al., 2021; Weber, 2021). According to a study with primary teachers, a number of reasons for not composing were given. Composing is still a subject that causes caution and even fear. There seems to be very high and often excessive expectations concerning composing even in the context of working with children. In a research project, one teacher utters, “No, neither me nor my students can compose. And anyway, we would not be able to create a real piece” (female primary teacher, 54 years old) (Grow, in prep.). It is stated that the musical background of the students is not sufficient for composing, or that the resulting products are not adequate compositions. 145

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Additionally, the teachers’ own lack of knowledge about composing and new music is mentioned. Finally, music teachers feel unprepared for teaching music composition in schools (Grow, in prep.) (this relates to the lack of composing and composition pedagogy in musicteacher education at university). Nevertheless, composition pedagogy can also be carried out in cooperation with teachers and composers working on a specific composition project during a specific time frame and/or as an extracurricular activity in music schools in the form of composition classes.

Composition projects in the music classroom In Germany, composing in school contexts is strongly connected with contemporary art music. Many projects follow the idea of “response-projects” and want to introduce New Music and composing to students. Individual musical elements (tone sequences, rhythms, patterns, etc.) of a preexisting work that the workshop leader – often a composer – finds particularly suitable are used to serve as the basis for starting the compositional work with the students in response to this preexisting artwork, its principles or ideas. The actual composition process is preceded by exploring and analyzing the idea and structure of the preexisting artwork with the students. At the end of the project, students present their own compositions in a public performance and attend a concert in which the preexisting artwork is played by professional musicians. The idea of response projects comes from the UK and was first adopted in Germany in 1988 (Voit, 2018). The response principle has become particularly popular among concert organizers, see for example “Response Project” of the Institute for Contemporary Music of the Frankfurt University of Music and Performing Arts (HfMDK), the Hessian Ministry of Culture and the Alte Oper Frankfurt.7 Additionally, there is a growing number of educational composition projects between schools and external composers that deliberately take other paths, such as “Querklang” or “Klangradar.” The program “Klangradar” was initiated by the composer Burkhard Friedrich in Hamburg in 1999. Within a specific time-frame (usually three months), all students of a music class in school work on their own composition under the guidance of an external composer and their music teacher. Musical knowledge is not needed in this setting. By improvising and experimenting, the students try to find their way to their own composition. The students make music with self-made instruments, sound objects, (classroom) music instruments and electronic sound generators as well as other media. Together, the students communicate about their musical ideas, pictures, and stories and select suitable sound generators, instruments, or sound objects. The project ends with a public performance of the composition. Corresponding projects are now taking place in seven cities. Many also include advanced training modules for composers and teachers (see Friedrich, 2011, 2012). It seems particularly interesting that the above-mentioned projects were initiated by composers who work in pedagogical settings like extracurricular composition classes for older children. Approaches, ideas, and methods for the composer to undertake such a composition project in school have recently been published by Taxus (2020).

Digression: composition as an extracurricular activity Alongside school projects, some composers work in a music school. In 2020, there were 37 classes on composition in music schools in Germany.8 Lessons are usually given as individual lessons or in small groups for children (from the age of 8, 12, or 14) who have already learned 146

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages

to play an instrument (often piano) and have a basic knowledge of music theory (Zocher, 2007, p. 101). Thus, these composition classes address a small and rather select group of students. In a study by Zocher (2007, p. 92), most of the teachers were male with an education in composing, although actual numbers are unavailable. Individual composition lessons with children are often methodically perceived as equal to studying composition: Children experience the same processes of decision-making (Vandré & Lang, 2011, p. 11) and look for their own styles. In composition class, they discuss the children’s own composition in relation to recent works (see Grow, 2018; Vandré & Lang, 2011), ear training, rhythm theory, instrument science/instrumentation, melody, and harmony theory are considered particularly important (Ehrler, 2009; Schlünz, 2011, p. 110; Zocher, 2007, p. 104). Furthermore, there exist numerous formats to support young composers, especially in the form of competitions (Schlothfeldt & Vandré, 2018, p. 143). To begin with, the “Bundespreis Jugend komponiert” (Federal Prize Youth Composed) is the highest award for young composers in Germany. Moreover, the “Jeunesses Musicales Germany” offers intensive support to talented young people (age 12–22) on their way to becoming a professional composer (e.g. composition workshops and coaching under the guidance of renowned lecturers) (ibid.). Finally, there is a competition promoting the creation of “New Music” in schools. The competition “teamwork! neue musik (er)finden” was initiated by the Federal Association for Music Education (Bundesverband Musikunterricht, BMU). Student groups, study groups, music classes, or courses with at least five people in general schools of all types and levels can participate. The students invent their own piece of music in a team, perform or study an existing composition by a contemporary composer, or combine the two into an exciting project. The project is meant to be developed by the students as independently as possible and contain their own creative ideas.

Composing in music-teacher education In general, composing pedagogy does not play a dominant role in music-teacher education. Nevertheless, it is gaining more and more attention and ways of integrating it in the course studies of music-teacher education can be observed (see the network ModusM = Musikunterricht des Musik erfindens). Nevertheless, the way it is described in curricula varies significantly between universities and often depends on who is teaching there. Usually composing takes place within classes of music theory, but there are some universities that offer classes in composing pedagogy. Very few universities have integrated the subject of “Composing pedagogy” into their curriculum (e.g. Folkwang Hochschule, Essen). There are only a rather small number of workshops offered for teachers throughout the year, where they can learn about methods and approaches of teaching composition in schools.9 However, the subject of teaching composition in school contexts is addressed in its manifold aspects in many research projects. We present here some of the projects which aim to develop concepts and materials for teacher education, teacher training, and further education.

• “neue töne für junge ohren” is an open-access platform intended for university-based learning settings. It focuses on ways to teach and reflect on processes of composition in the classroom. The platform was conceived by the composer and musician Christine Weghoff and the drummer Olaf Pyras, and evaluated by Frauke Heß. The platform aims to support a reflective higher teacher education concerning composition. By using multimedia material, students gain insights into processes of creative music making (inventing music). 147

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

The many video examples offer possibilities to reflect on the relevant aspects of processes of composition and on the role of the teacher. • ModusM is a cooperative research project of the universities of Bielefeld, Dortmund, and the Universities of Music in Freiburg and Luebeck. The researchers of this group investigate relevant aspects of teaching and learning music composition in school contexts and compile the national and international discourse on composition pedagogy. By doing this, ModusM wants to develop a learning-design for higher music-teacher education in which future teachers experience and learn about how to teach and learn music composition in schools also with a specific focus using digital media (Degree 4.0).10 • Another project focuses not on the general music classroom, but on composition projects in different institutions like schools, music schools, or other cultural institutions: KOMPÄD was a collaborative research project between researchers from the following universities: Hochschule für Musik Saar, the University of Cologne, and the Folkwang University of the Arts. It was carried out in 2014–2017 in cooperation with Jeunesses Musicales Germany and was promoted by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. With the aim of developing a program of continuing education (professional development) for composers who intend to work with children, teenagers, or adults or who would like to expand their skills in this respect, KOMPÄD designed a three-phase model. The latter consisted of two academy phases and a supervised practical phase where composers had to develop, carry out, and evaluate their own composition project. Parts of the composers’ training were conceived at the same time as further training for music teachers for composing in regular music lessons. KOMPÄD has developed a continuously growing collection of materials on composition pedagogy and an extensive bibliography that is regularly updated (see KOMPÄD11).

Current research As previously mentioned, composing pedagogy is an emerging field in Germany with an increasing number of publications, projects, and programs exploring the manifold questions raised around this subject. In order to get an idea of the variety of current research projects, we will give an overview of some key issues that are being worked on in different research groups and projects (this list is not intended to be exhaustive but intends to show how research is developing in this field).

Processes of composing in groups in school settings A growing number of researchers work on specific aspects within processes of composing in groups such as interactions in processes of composing, decision-making and improvising (e.g. Buchborn et al., 2019; Kranefeld & Mause, 2020; Mause, 2020; Theisohn & Buchborn, 2020; Treß, Theison, & Buchborn, 2022), or the support and facilitation of creative processes of composing in groups in school settings (e.g. Kranefeld & Mause, 2018; Kranefeld, Mause, & Meisterernst, 2018). Furthermore, attitudes of students (Meisterernst, 2020) as well as teacher attitudes and ideologies toward classroom composing (Devaney et al., 2021; Grow, in prep.) and beliefs of composers and how these are connected to their actions (Weber, 2021) are examined. Additionally, researchers explore the tensions that become visible within processes of composing in groups within the music classroom, such as the tension between openness and guidance (e.g. Grow, 2021; Mause, 2020; Theisohn & Buchborn, 2021; 148

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages

Weidner, Weber, & Rolle, 2019). Finally, researchers examine the many ways in which artistic dimensions become visible within processes of composition in school settings (Handschick & Lessing, 2020; Lessing & Handschick, 2020).

Digital media Another growing topic is the use of digital media for processes of creative music making. On the one hand, researchers explore the potential of composing with apps in school contexts (see e.g. joint research projects such as MuBiTec and AppKOM led by Rolle, Knigge, and Wallbaum [2018–2021] [Godau et al., 2019] and the research project “Inventing music with smartphones” [= Musik erfinden mit Smartphones] by Ahner). On the other hand, international projects such as “Future Songwriting” aim at supporting teachers in actively using the potential of digital media for songwriting processes (see Weber & Rolle, 2020). Finally, the role of digital media within processes of music composition in groups is explored (Duve, 2020).

Assessment The question of how to support and evaluate/assess processes of composing is being raised and discussed by researchers (see Schäfer-Lembeck, 2008). Currently, the use of portfolios in order to support the creation of compositions in music classrooms is being examined (Ehring & Thienenkamp, 2020; Janczik, 2021; Janczik & Voit, 2020). Current studies try to solve the problem that aesthetic experience is not directly measurable – even enabling aesthetic experiences is one of the major aims of music education (Ehninger, 2021). Rolle and Knigge (MARKO) focus on how aesthetic experiences are expressed in language. Spychiger (2021) tries to visualize aesthetic experiences in videographies of music lessons.

Outlook In this chapter, we have provided an overview on how the topic of composing pedagogy has gained increasing interest within the German music education community. Now it is time to reflect on the actual intentions and reasons behind still avoiding the word. Why do we have a problem using it? What would happen if we used it in schools, as we do, for example, in music schools? What would happen if teachers and students used the German word “komponieren” and did not refer to synonyms, as they already do with singing and listening? What difference would it make and what doors might open up? We think that composing belongs to everybody, and that teachers and students should experience the full potential of creative practices for music learning. Thus, we want to empower music teachers to rediscover and trust in their artistic identity and expertise they have built up throughout their lives. At the same time, we would like composition pedagogy to be part of music-teacher education. Even though current research does not only refer to composition projects but also increasingly includes regular classes, it does not reflect the scope of the school landscape. Many studies still refer to lessons at the “Gymnasium” or integrated comprehensive schools. In order to move to a broader and more participatory understanding, composing should also be part of music lessons in all schools of general education. This requires appropriate projects and research in the context of all schools, including the schools where music classes are not carried out regularly and optimally – those especially need our attention. 149

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Reflective questions 1 What is your own understanding of “composing” and/or “composition” in the context of music education in schools? 2 How did you experience composing as a student in your music class or beyond? (In which way did it shape your own understanding/practice?) 3 Describe the discourse on composing in school music education in your country: In which way do you see similarities and in which ways differences?

Notes 1 See therefore the respective references given in this chapter as well as the following two websites informing about publications/activities on composing in schools: www.kompaed.de and www.modusm.de. 2 Creativity is often referred to as disposition, target dimension, or characteristic, i.e. within the context of the practices of creating and inventing music. For the discourse in creativity, see, e.g. Sachsse, M (2019), Lothwesen (2014). 3 “Komposition in allgemeiner (neuzeitlicher) Bedeutung bezieht sich in der Regel auf ein Gebilde mit Kunstanspruch (das sich somit durch besondere Gestaltqualität, Ausdrucksfähigkeit, Sinntiefe u.ä. ausweist) und kann verschiedene Aspekte bezeichnen: 1. die Herstellung dieses Gebildes, die schöpferische Tätigkeit als solche, das ‘Komponieren’; 2. das Ziel und Ergebnis dieser Tätigkeit, das jeweils einzelne ‘Werk’; 3. das Gesamtgebiet des künstlerischen Schaffens und des bereits (historisch) Geschaffenen sowie die dazu führende oder daraus resultierende ‘Lehre’” (Sachs et al. 1996, p. 506). 4 German original: “Eine Komposition ist meist detailliert ausgearbeitet, wird vom Komponisten als abgeschlossen betrachtet und liegt als Text vor, z.B. als Partitur” (Schlothfeldt 2009, p. 36). 5 Jöde uses the word “schöpferisch.” 6 In the study, improvisation is distinguished from composing on the basis of the characteristics of repeatability and revision (Grow, 2018, p. 24ff.) 7 This school project takes place every two years. Composer, performer, and teacher work together in a team for six 2-hour slots each with a school group from November to March. 8 Information by Jeunesse musicales 2020, For further information, see https://www.jugend-komponiert.org/bjk/kompositionspaedagogik/. 9 The Federal Association for Music Education (Bundesverband Musikunterricht, BMU) planned 163 offers of music courses in 2020, but only two of those focused on inventing music. 10 In the project DIBS: Digital competences in music-teacher education at the TU Braunschweig, video vignettes on composing are used in subject didactic seminars. 11 https://www.kompaed.de/.

References Alt, M. (1968). Didaktik der musik. Orientierung am kunstwerk. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwan. Bandur, M. (1996). Composition/Komposition. In A. Riethmüller (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie. Stuttgart & Freiburg: Franz Steiner Verlag. Buchborn, T., Theison, E., & Treß, J. (2019). Kreative musikalische Handlungsprozesse erforschen. Einblicke in ein Verfahren der videobasierten Rekonstruktion von Gruppenimprovisations- und -kompositionsprozessen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. In W. Weidner & C. Rolle (Eds.), Praxen und Diskurse aus Sicht musikpädagogischer Forschung (pp. 69–85). Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:20705 Dahlhaus, C. (1979). Was heißt Improvisation? In R. Brinkmann (Ed.), Improvisation und neue Musik (pp. 9–23). Mainz: Schott. Devaney, K., Platz, F., & Ziegenmeyer, A. (2021). Composing is what young people can do. Comparing German and English Music Teachers’ beliefs about composing in the classroom. Paper presentation at the 28th European Association of Music in Schools conference (2021, March 24–27).

150

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages Duve, J. (2020). Komponieren am Raster. Fallanalytische Perspektiven auf Prozesse des Musik-Erfindens mit digitalen Medien. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 97–110). Münster & New York: Waxmann. https://www.waxmann. com/index.php?eID=download&buchnr=4170 Ehninger, J. (2021). Wie lässt sich musikbezogene Argumentationskompetenz empirisch untersuchen? Über die empirische Erforschung einer facettenreichen Kompetenz. Beiträge empirischer Musikpädagogik, 12, 1–21. https://www.b-em.info/index.php/ojs/article/view/192 Ehring, C., & Thienenkamp, H. (2020). Gestalterische Begleitung von Kompositionsprozessen mittels Portfolioarbeit. Ein Impuls aus der kunstpädagogischen Praxis und Forschung. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 153–168). Münster & New York: Waxmann. https://www.waxmann.com/index. php?eID=download&buchnr=4170. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830991700 Ehrler, H. (2009). “… ich war so’ne eigene Komponistin, irgendwie …”: 10 Jahre Kompositionsklasse für Kinder und Jugendliche Winsen - eine Untersuchung. Friedberg: Pfau. Friedemann, L. (1969). Kollektivimprovisation als Studium und Gestaltung Neuer Musik (= rote reihe 7). Wien: Universal Edition. Friedrich, B. (2011). Klangradar 3000. In P. Vandré & B. Lang (Eds.), Komponieren mit Schülern (pp. 89–92). Regensburg: ConBrio. Friedrich, B. (2012). Klangradar 3000. Komponieren und Neue Musik in der Musikvermittlung. In M. Dartsch, S. Konrad, & C. Rolle (Eds.), neues hören und sehen … und vermitteln. Pädagogische Modelle und Reflexionen zur Neuen Musik (pp. 104–107). Regensburg: ConBrio. Frisius, R., Fuchs, P., Günther, U., Gundlach, W., & Küntzel, G. (1971). Sequenzen. Stuttgart: Klett. Godau, M., Eusterbrock, L., Fiedler, D., Haenisch, M., Hasselhorn, J., & Knigge, J. (2019). Digitalization and arts education – New empirical approaches. In: BMBF (Ed.), German-Dutch colloquium. https://www.flipsnack.com/RatKulturelleBildung/contemporary-research-topics-in-arts-education/ full-view.html Goehr, L. (2007). The imaginary museum of musical works: An essay in the philosophy of music (revised edition; 1st ed. 1992). Oxford: Oxford UP. Grow, J. (2018). Komponieren im Musikunterricht der Grundschule. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Grow, J. (2021). “Erfinde eine Sturm-Musik”. Anforderungen an Aufgaben beim Komponieren in der Grundschule. In G. Brunner, C. Lietzmann, S. Schmid, & J. Tress. (Eds.), Mastery oder Mystery: Musikunterricht zwischen Lehrgang und offenem Konzept. Innsbruck & Esslingen: Helbling. Grow, J. (in prep.). Komponieren Sie? Interviews mit Lehrer*innen zur Rolle des Musik erfindens in ihrem Unterricht. Günther, U. (1970). Musikhören – das musikpädagogische Hauptproblem der Gegenwart. Musik und Bildung, 4, 162–164. Handschick, M., & Lessing, W. (2020). ‘…und dann wird’s etwas Erstaunliches’. Schulisches Komponieren zwischen Poiesis und Performativität. In J. P. Hiekel (Ed.), ÖFFENTLICHprivat. (Zwischen)Räume in der Gegenwartsmusik (pp. 123–143). Mainz: Schott. Hasselhorn, J. (2015). Messbarkeit musikpraktischer Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Entwicklung und empirische Validierung eines Kompetenzmodells. Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann. Hess, F. (2018). Musik erfinden und gestalten als Thema für die Schule. Multimediales Lehrmaterial für Musikdidaktik-Seminare. In M. Dartsch, C. Rolle, M. Schlothfeldt, P. Vandré, & J. Weber (Eds.), Handreichungen zur Kompositionspädagogik. https://www.kompaed.de/fileadmin/files/Artikel/ KOMPAED-Hess_31.1.18.pdf Janczik, L. (2021). Das Portfolio als Instrument zur Begleitung offener Kompositionsprozesse. In G. Brunner, C. Lietzmann, S. Schmid, & J. Treß (Eds.), Mastery oder Mystery? Musikunterricht zwischen Lehrgang und offenem Konzept (pp. 237–248). Innsbruck & Esslingen: Helbling. Janczik, L., & Voit, J. (2020). Das Portfolio als Instrument musikpädagogischer Unterrichtsforschung. Eine methodenkritische Exploration anhand von Fallanalysen aus der Unterrichtsreihe „Komponieren mit virtuellen Doppelgänger*innen“. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 127–152). Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830991700 Jöde, F. (1928). Musikalische Erziehung. In W. Fleitner & G. Kudritzki (1961), Die deutsche Reformpädagogik (Vol. 1). Stuttgart: Cotta Verlag. Koch, H. C. (1802). Musikalisches Lexikon. August Hermann der Jüngere: Frankfurt a. M.

151

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer Kotzian, R., & Blaschke, M. (2015). Musik erfinden mit Kindern: Elementares Improvisieren, Arrangieren und Komponieren. Elementares Improvisieren, Arrangieren und Komponieren. Mainz: Schott. Kranefeld, U., & Mause, A.-L. (2018). Anregung zur Exploration? Eine videobasierte Fallanalyse zur Lernbegleitung beim Musik Erfinden in der Gruppe. In J. Voit (Ed.), Zusammenspiel? Musikprojekte an der Schnittstelle von Kultur- und Bildungseinrichtungen, Diskussion Musikpädagogik Sonderheft 9 (pp. 139–150). Hildergard-Junker-Verlag: Hamburg. Kranefeld, U., & Mause, A.-L. (2020). Anleitung zum Eigen-Sinn? Ergebnisse einer videobasierten Studie zur Begleitung von Gruppenprozessen des Musik-Erfindens. In S. Timm, J. Costa, C. Kühn, & A. Scheunpflug (Ed.), Kulturelle Bildung. Theoretische Perspektiven, methodologische Herausforderungen, empirische Befunde (pp. 113–128). Münster & New York: Waxmann. Kranefeld, U., Mause, A.-L., & Meisterernst, M. (2018). Zur Erforschung von Lernbegleitung in Gruppenkompositionsprozessen. In M. Dartsch, C. Rolle, M. Schlothfeldt, P. Vandré & J. Weber (Eds.), Handreichungen zur Kompositionspädagogik. https://www.kompaed.de/artikel/handlungsfelder/ ulrike-kranefeld-anna-lisa-mause-miriam-meisterernst-zur-erforschung-von-lernbegleitung-in-gruppenkompositionsprozessen/ 22.04.2023]. Lehmann-Wermser, A. (2008). Kompetenzorientiert Musik unterrichten? In H. U. Schäfer-Lembeck (Ed.), Leistung im Musikunterricht. Beiträge der Münchner Tagung 2008 (pp. 112–133). München: Allitera. Lehmann-Wermser, A., Weishaupt, H., & Konrad, U. (2020). Musikunterricht in der Grundschule. Aktuelle Situation und Perspektive. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Lessing, W., & Handschick, M. (2020). Schulisches Komponieren als künstlerische Form der Vermittlung? Ein Zwischenbericht zum Forschungsprojekt Campus Neue Musik. In W. Rüdiger (Ed.), Lust auf Neues? Wege der Vermittlung neuer Musik (pp. 139–164). Augsburg: Wißner-Verlag. Lothwesen, K. (2014). Kreativität in der Musikpädagogik. Anmerkungen zu Begriffsverständnis und Thematisierungskontexten. In J. Vogt, F. Heß, & M. Brenk (Hrsg.), (Grund)Begriffe musikpädagogischen Nachdenkens. Entstehung, Bedeutung, Gebrauch. Sitzungsbericht 2013 der Wissenschaftlichen Sozietät Musikpädagogik (= Wissenschaft liche Musikpädagogik, Bd. 6) (S. 183–212). Münster: Lit. Mause, A.-L. (2020). „Du könntest das einbauen, wenn du die Katze mitbringst“. Das Ringen um Vorgaben innerhalb von Prozessen des Musik-Erfindens. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 55–65). Münster & New York: Waxmann. https://www.waxmann.com/index.php?eID=download&buchnr=4170. https://doi. org/10.31244/9783830991700 Meisterernst, M. (2020). “Dann spiele ich lieber was, was es schon gibt.” Fallanalytische Betrachtungen von Schülervorstellungen zum Komponieren. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 111–126). Münster & New York: Waxmann. https://www.waxmann.com/index.php?eID=download&buchnr=4170. https://doi. org/10.31244/9783830991700 Meyer-Denkmann, G. (1970). Klangexperimente und Gestaltungsversuche im Kindesalter. Neue Wege einer musikalischen Grundausbildung. Wien: Universal Edition. Milliken, C. (2018). Klangspuren Lautstark: Aktives Musizieren und Komponieren mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Regensburg: ConBrio. Nimzcik, O. (1991). Spielräume im Musikunterricht: Pädagogische Aspekte musikalischer Gestaltungsarbeit. Bern: Lang. Oberschmidt, J. (2014). Komponieren und Improvisieren im Musikunterricht. EinFach Musik. Unterrichtsmodell. Paderborn: Schöningh. Rolle, C. (1999). Musikalisch-ästhetische Bildung. Über die Bedeutung ästhetischer Erfahrung für musikalische Bildungsprozesse. Perspektiven zur Musikpädagogik und Musikwissenschaft (Vol. 24). Kassel: Bosse. Rolle, C. (2008). Argumentationsfähigkeit: eine zentrale Dimension musikalischer Kompetenz? In: Schäfer-Lembeck, H-U. (Ed.), Leistung im Musikunterricht. Beiträge des Münchner Tagung 2008 (= Musikpädagogische Schriften der Hochschule für Musik und Theater München) (pp. 70–100). München: Allitera. Roscher, W. (1976). Polyästhetische Erziehung: Klänge, Texte, Bilder, Szenen, Theorien und Modelle zur pädagogischen Praxis. Köln: DuMont Schauberg. Rüdiger, W. (2015). Ensemble & Improvisation: 20 Musiziervorschläge für Laien und Profis von Jung bis Alt. Regensburg: ConBrio.

152

Composition pedagogy in Germany in its fledgling stages Sachs, K.-J., Cahn, P., Kelterborn, P., & Rösing, H. (1996). Komposition. In L. Finscher (Ed.), MGG – Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik. Sachteil (5th ed., pp. 505–557). Kassel: Bärenreiter & Metzler. Sachsse, M. (2019). Musik-Erfinden im Unterricht. Eine ästhetische Praxis vor dem Hintergrund von Standardisierung, Kompetenzorientierung und Assessment. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 65(6), 864–887. Schäfer-Lembeck, H.-U. (2008). Leistung im Musikunterricht. Beiträge der Münchner Tagung 2008 (= Musikpädagogische Schriften der Hochschule für Musik und Theater München. Band 2). München: HMT. Schlothfeldt, M. (2009). Komponieren im Unterricht. Hildesheim: Olms. Schlothfeldt, M., & Vandré, P. (Eds.). (2018). Weikersheimer Gespräche zur Kompositionspädagogik. Regensburg: ConBrio. Schlünz, A. (2011). Ist Komponieren erlernbar? – Die Komponistenklassen Sachsen-Anhalt und Dresden. In: P. Vandré & B. Lang (Eds.), Komponieren mit Schülern. Konzepte, Förderung, Ausbildung (pp. 107–116). Regensburg: ConBrio. Schmidt, A., & Terhag, J. (Eds.). (2010). Songwriting. 40 Wege zum eigenen Song. Mainz: Schott. Schneider, H. (2017). musizieraktion – frei, streng, lose: Anregungen zur V/Ermittlung experimenteller Musizier- und Komponierweisen. Bpdingen: Pfau-Vlg. Schneider, H. (2008). Musik erfinden mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. In T. Greul & F. Heß (Eds.), Musik erfinden. Beiträge zur Unterrichtsforschung (pp. 76–99). Aachen: Shaker. Spychiger, M. (2021). Wieviel Mastery braucht Mystery? Überlegungen anhand einer Unterrichtsvignette aus einem gymnasialen Leistungskurs. In G. Brunner & S. Schmid (Eds.), Mastery oder Mystery? Innsbruck & Esslingen: Helbling. Sterzel, K. (2017). Der Komponist als Pädagoge. Weinheim & Basel: Beltz Juventa. Stöger, C. (2008). „Wag the dog“ – das Lernen im Dienste der Leistungsbeurteilung? In H. U. SchäferLembeck (Ed.), Leistung im Musikunterricht. Beiträge der Münchner Tagung 2008 (= Musikpädagogische Schriften der Hochschule für Musik und Theater München), (pp. 41–54). München: Allitera. Taxus, T. (2020). Ein Dreiklang ist kein Wald oder: Praxisschock Kompositionspädagogik? Rogensburg: ConBrio. Theisohn, E., & Buchborn, T. (2020). Moldau oder Waschmaschine? Von kontroversen Aushandlungen zu einer konstruktiven kompositorischen Gruppenarbeit. Eine exemplarische Fallanalyse. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 67–80). Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann. https://www.waxmann.com/index. php?eID=download&buchnr=4170. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830991700 Theisohn, E., & Buchborn, T. (2021). Kompositionspädagogik im mehrdimensionalen Spannungsfeld zwischen Anleitung und Offenheit. In G. Brunner, C. Lietzmann, S. Schmid, & J. Treß (Eds.), Mastery oder Mystery? Musikunterricht zwischen Lehrgang und offenem Konzept. Tagungsband zum Symposium vom 7.–8.11.2019. (pp. 209–226). Innsbruck: Helbling. Treß, J., Theisohn, E., & Buchborn, T. (2022). Gruppenimprovisations- und -kompositionsprozesse initiieren und fördern. Entwicklungsorientierte Forschung zu kreativem Handeln im Musikunterricht. In U. Konrad & A. Lehmann-Wermser (Eds.), Musikunterricht durch Forschung verändern? DesignBased Research als Chance für Theoriebildung und Praxisveränderung. (p. 197–210). Hannover: Institut für Musikpädagogische Forschung. Vandré, P., & Lang, B. (2011). Komponieren mit Schülern. Konzepte, Förderung, Ausbildung. Regensburg: ConBrio. Voit, J. (2018). 30 Jahre Response. Historischer Rückblick und Typologie aktueller Erscheinungsformen. In Handreichungen zur Kompositionspädagogik. www.kompaed.de. Wallbaum, C. (2000). Produktionsdidaktik im Musikunterricht. Perspektiven zur Gestaltung ästhetischer Erfahrungssituationen. Kassel: Bosse. Wallbaum, C. (2016). Erfahrung – Situation – Praxis. In D. Barth (Ed.), Musik. Kunst. Theater. Fachdidaktische Positionen ästhetisch-kultureller Bildung an Schulen (pp. 39–56). Osnabrück: epOs. Weber, J. (2021). Stimmigkeit und Dissonanz. Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Überzeugungen von Komponist*innen und ihrem kompositionspädagogischen Handeln. Münster & New York: Waxmann. Weber, J., & Rolle, C. (2020). Überzeugungen von Lehrkräften zu Musik und Technologie. In K. Kaspar, M. Becker-Mrotzek, S. Hofhues, J. König, & D. Schmeinck (Eds.), Bildung, Schule, Digitalisierung (1st ed., pp. 109–114). Münster & New York: Waxmann.

153

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer Weidner, V., Weber, J., & Rolle, C. (2019). Kompositionsprozesse in pädagogischer Praxis oder: Der “Spagat zwischen Freiheit, Laufenlassen und die Zügel in die Hand nehmen”. In J. Ludwig & H. Ittner (Eds.), Forschung zum pädagogisch-wissenschaftlichen Wissen und Handeln. Pädagogische Weiterbildungen für Kunst- und Kulturschaffende: Bd. 2 (pp. 73–96). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20646-8_4 Ziegenmeyer, A. (2016). Komponieren – eine Chance für den inklusiven Musikunterricht? Diskussion Musikpädagogik, 70, 36–42. Zocher, C. (2007). Kompositionsunterricht an deutschen Musikschulen. Eine empirische Untersuchung der pädagogischen Praxis (Dissertation). Universität Hildesheim. https://nbn-resolving.org/ urn:nbn:de:gbv:hil2-opus-765.

154

11 ATTENDING TO CREATIVE MUSIC MAKING AND COMPOSING IN GREEK SCHOOL MUSIC CURRICULA Preliminary findings from a document analysis Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

Introduction Composition or composing, the creation of original music, improvisation, musical creation and experimentation are some of the different terms that are associated with composition and its teaching and learning practices. Considered a core concept, a goal and an attainment target, and simultaneously a musical process, practice and activity in music education, composition is explained and experienced differently in each country across formal, non-formal and informal educational contexts. Writing this chapter was approached through the lens of formal music education in Greece. We sought to focus specifically on the National Curriculum for teaching music in mandatory education and to examine how creative music making and improvising and composing in particular are conceptualized through the curriculum philosophy, its aims, as well as through the proposed activities for each grade level (and corresponding age group). The official curriculum is an indication of the aims and objectives for music education in every country and also reflects the expected outcomes and experiences for students in music classes. Diverse definitions of curriculum abound. Elliott (2009, p. 11) talks about curriculum as teacher and learner experiences of the interactions between “aims, knowledge, learners, teaching-learning processes, teacher(s), learning context, and evaluation” (p. 10), while Eisner (1994) described curriculum as the opportunities and activities provided to the young. In other views of curriculum, it is seen to be a “conversation” (p. 848) and understood as “symbolic representation, rather than school materials” (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995, p. 16). Despite the different definitions and use of the curriculum in each country and across different periods, whether it is considered through a traditional lens prescribing the content and the mechanics of teaching music or is seen as a springboard to challenging the role of music teachers (Hanley & Montgomery, 2005), an analysis of the official documentation can provide a picture of the “planned” and expected music teaching and learning in formal education. It is DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-15

155

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

therefore a starting point in order to begin to understand how music composition is conceptualized. By delving into the official documentation, we can analyze and discuss the role and function that creative activities such as composition are expected to have at all levels of formal education in Greece. This chapter, then, provides an overview of the position such creative music making occupies in the latest Greek National Curriculum (2014) and discusses some of the processes and values associated with composing and improvising for building students’ musical learning in this educational context. The official curriculum documents as well as supplementary materials created and used by music teachers in the Greek classroom (textbooks, teachers’ guides) were reviewed and analyzed using content and thematic analysis to illuminate the way that composition is understood and delivered in Greek formal music education contexts. This chapter focuses on the “official” or “planned” curriculum rather than the “received” or “actual” curriculum that refers to students’ experiences when the actual curriculum is applied (Kelly, 1999). Though we recognize the “lived experiences” of the Greek music curriculum to be a subsequent step in our research journey, we also agree with Economidou Stavrou (2006) in that “the study, analysis, and reflection of the official curriculum, however, is a crucial step that should be taken in any attempt to evaluate any curriculum, as it composes one very important dimension of its totality” (p. 32). In the Greek research literature, there has been scarce attention paid to the space that musical creation and creative endeavors such as improvising and composing occupy within the formal curriculum. The first part of the chapter will provide the theoretical framework for the concept of composition and creative music making in general and will define the notions for our research purposes. Some information relating to Greece and the latest music curriculum will set the scene for further analysis. Methodological considerations are described in the third part of the chapter followed by the analysis and discussion of the themes that emerge as well as implications for music education both locally and globally.

The role and function of composing as a creative activity in music education Since this chapter focuses on formal education settings rather than students’ musical activities in the home or other community settings and in their everyday lives, it is useful at this point to clarify what is meant by composition and composing as discussed in the field of music education. In doing so, we draw both on Western European academic literature in general and on prior work that has focused on the Greek context in particular. In the past 20 years or so, creative music activities have been incorporated into many formal school music curricula around the world. “Creative” musical learning experiences are considered key to the preservation of children’s innate creative capabilities (Trevarthen & Malloch, 2012), with calls for music practitioners to “foster and sustain the joy of music and musical creativity that are so cleverly evident in early years” (Trehub, 2006, p. 44). In the Greek National Curriculum (ΝC), creative music activities are termed “musical creation” and considered to be one of three ways (together with listening/reception and performing) through which music education goals are to be achieved. Herein, composition is but one end of a continuum of musical creation that places emphasis on both improvising and composing activities. Thus, it is not easy to discuss composition without simultaneously referring to improvisation. Similarly, and farther afield, distinctions between improvising and composing are often blurred, with research showing that children will often integrate improvisational activity in the act of composing (Burnard, 2000). 156

Attending to creative music making and composing

When discussing creative music making in terms of developmental stages, improvising seems to be the common starting point for subsequent experimentation with composition. The simple call-and-response patterns used in many of Dalcroze’s games as young children improvise their musical answers to peers’ or teachers’ questions, improvising rhythm patterns over a steady beat or inventing movement patterns to illustrate a musical phrase (Rowe & Triantafyllaki, 2017) are some examples of the “live,” spontaneous and experiential nature of improvisation. Young and Glover (1998) have suggested that such early exploration of sounds can form the basis for composition work in later childhood. Some dispute in terms of ageappropriateness for integrating composing in the curriculum is also shown: for example, while Kratus (1989) in his study of composition processes of 7-, 9-, and 11-year-olds concludes that only from age 9 and over are children able to compose with form and structure, Glover (2000) talks about a developmental watershed for children compositionally around the age of 7, whereby “a child’s perspective of a piece of music as something separate from the experience and process of making it becomes established” (p. 39). Several influential European music educators and musicologists who have had an impact on Greek music pedagogy, such as the Swiss Emil Jaques-Dalcroze (1865–1950), the Hungarian Zoltán Kodály (1882–1968) and the German Carl Orff (1895–1982), integrated improvisational activity in music education activities, employing movement, gesture, song and games, drawing on the learner’s innate cultural musical understandings and making of meaning. More often than not, however, such activity is employed (at best) in the earlier stages of musical learning, when notation is (still) avoided. As a child-participant in Kanellopoulos’ (2019) recent study concluded, “improvising” and “learning to play the piano” (within a Western-style, conservatory setting) are two entirely separate things; when “serious learning” begins in her instrumental learning journey, her (free) will to improvise seems to be quashed. Other studies have argued that “prior instrumental music training does not necessarily provide children with the confidence to engage in the kind of exploratory and creative play that seems key to composing in the early years,” perhaps attesting to “the ‘default setting’ of following a given score” (Rowe, Triantafyllaki, & Anagnostopoulou, 2015). In lieu of the above, Rusinek (2012) describes composing as a “learning procedure” that involves the “non real-time generation of music which is new for the pupils” (p. 185). Webster (2012) talks about composing as being subject to revision, his work emphasizing also learner agency and voice in impacting the end result of the composition process. Notice here the emphasis on “composing” rather than “composition,” but also an emphasis on the learner and the self. Allsup (2013) adds a further definition whereby composing “becomes an unfinished, discursively productive self-interested and self-creating event, in which fluency in transcontextual multimodalities facilitates communication and independence within self and in relationship with others” (p. 58). While this rich definition encompasses a series of key concepts for composition pedagogy, it is perhaps the emphasis on composing as a process that is of most interest to us and has also been pointed out in work that studies the verbal negotiations and thinking processes that children employ when composing (Triantafyllaki, 2017), or literature that advocates for multi-modal and pedagogically open practices when talking about composing (Allsup, 2013). Furthermore, new collaborative, fluid and cross-sectional (rather than highly individualized, structured and context-dependent) ways of participating in musical creation are arising in the 21st century. Literature focusing on group composing processes, particularly friendship “pairs” working in collaboration on composition activities, is particularly pertinent for the current chapter. In their study on musical creativity, MacDonald and Miell (2000) found that friends working in pairs orally and musically extended and elaborated on each other’s ideas, 157

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

thereby gradually developing their compositions. Faulkner (2003) finds that ideas concerning individually developed compositions at home gain significance and value mostly when later shared, processed and assessed in group settings. Hence, musical learning is not only about processing musical information, but also about collaboratively exploring and, importantly, creating new and exciting forms of musical expression (Triantafyllaki & Burnard, 2010).

Setting the scene: the National Curriculum for music in Greece The structure and administration of the Greek educational system are highly centralized, and all fundamental decisions concerning education are made by the Ministry of Education, which is directly under the jurisdiction of the state. A national curriculum for all levels of education and all school subjects has been in place since the beginning of the modern Greek state in the late 1800s. It can be said to be the case that educational reforms throughout the history of Greek education have been numerous and mostly unproductive and futile (Chrysostomou, 1997). Our chapter focuses on the latest National Curriculum for music that was created as part of the latest educational reform, which took place between 2010 and 2011, under the umbrella name “New School.” Apart from changes to the Curriculum itself, “New School” educational reform aimed to improve teacher professional development, educational structure, teaching and learning philosophy, teaching methods and technology integration. As is evident from the above, the National Curriculum plays a central role in the Greek educational system as well as teaching practices in Greek schools. It should be noted, however, that the subject of music is not formally assessed on a national level. Music teachers are thereby flexible and free to use any materials that they consider appropriate for their classrooms, even though the National Curriculum for Music suggests various activities and content. Another important point to have in mind in setting the scene is that music is compulsory and allocated one hour per week (at least) from the first grade of primary school to the third grade of lower secondary school (between ages 7 and 15). Music in both primary and secondary education is taught by graduates of higher education institutions specializing in music studies. According to the official document (National Curriculum, 2014), the main goal for music as a school subject is the development of musicality and music skills through encouraging activities for (1) listening, (2) performing and (3) creating music. It is important to mention for our subsequent analysis that the curriculum content and attainment targets are structured around four thematic organizers that categorize and organize attainment targets/aims and relevant suggested musical activities thematically. The first thematic organizer relates to “understanding the basic musical elements and concepts,” the second involves “learning and appreciating music historically and worldwide (styles, genres, location, throughout time),” the third is about “connecting music with other arts and the sciences” and the fourth thematic organizer locates “music in our lives within and beyond schools.” Delving into the official document, the first part elaborates on the main goals as well as the attainment targets; it also describes the spiral and constructivist approach that is adhered to throughout the national curriculum. It further describes and explains the structure of the content as this is developed around the four thematic organizers. It defines the notions of performance and creating music as they are comprehended in the Curriculum and in connection with teaching practices. Lastly, it makes specific mention of teaching methodologies and approaches that are considered appropriate and important for music and at the same time are in accordance with the philosophy of the educational reform. Active music teaching, interdisciplinary approaches, collaborative learning, multicultural approaches and differentiated teaching, the use of technology and authentic assessment are emphasized and endorsed. 158

Attending to creative music making and composing

The second and main part of the document unpacks the main attainment targets and develops them further, specifically for each level of education: nursery, first, and second grade of primary (ages 5–7), third and fourth grade (ages 8–9), fifth and sixth grade (ages 10–11) of primary school and one section each for the first, second, and third grades of lower secondary education (ages 12–14). This structure is in accordance with school music textbooks that are part of the available material in Greek schools distributed to all pupils and music teachers in public and private schools. The National Curriculum document was supplemented by a Teacher’s Guide (2011). This document, also available online, develops specific, extended examples of lesson plans, one for each of the above sections of the national curriculum. All of the above materials were used as our data for the document analysis in order to ascertain the way that musical creation, with an emphasis on composing, is described and conceptualized in the Greek Curriculum for Music.

Methodology for the analysis of the formal music curricula In this study, document analysis (Bowen, 2009) served the purpose of drawing out understanding of how composition is positioned in these formal documents. In order to focus and reduce the materials, we have applied qualitative content analysis to the documents (Schreier, 2014), in the form of a coding scheme that draws on the two questions below for its generation of themes. A number of other techniques impacted our analysis. O’Leary (2014) talks about the interview technique in document analysis, whereby a document is treated as respondent-specific questions are asked, and the answer is then highlighted within the text. Other forms of document analysis involve the quantification of terms – in our case words, phrases or meanings that signify the extent to which some form of composing is mentioned in the formal Curriculum and supplementary documents. It should be clarified here that we coded composing activities not only when the terms “composing/composition” were stated as an aim, but also where the expected outcome of a creative music-making activity was a finished creative result (a recording, a drawing or music that children “played back” to their peers and teachers). We were also interested in the context in which the terms are (or are not) found, for example, across certain age groups or across the four thematic organizers mentioned above. As might be inferred from the initial sections of this chapter, we chose to conceptualize composing as a continuum, constituted also of exploratory and improvisational musical activity; in other words as a multi-directional creative music-making process involving all aspects from musical exploration and experimentation to the more intentional processes and structural outcomes that musical composing entails. In response to the methodological and conceptual decisions above, two questions were raised centering on the key theme of the current chapter but arising also in response to pertinent literature on composing and composition in formal music education. They allowed us to think about the documents both as “resources (i.e. as information repositories, telling us about a setting, an organization)” and “artefacts for exploration in their own right” (Coffey, 2014, p. 370): 1 What space does creative music making, conceptualized as a continuum of improvising and composing activities, occupy in the National Curriculum at the various grade levels/ages and according to thematic organizers? 2 What are the features of creative music making as a collaborative or technology-enabled activity across age/grade level? 159

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

With the first question, we aimed to explore in a quantifiable way the frequency of accounts that both improvising and composing occupy in the documents. With this frequency count of creative music making (improvising/exploring, composing), we also aim to pinpoint whereabouts with regard to age and thematic organizers. Instances of improvising/composing are to be found in Tables 11.2 and 11.3. We made a distinction between the more exploratory/ improvisatory aims and activities, and those specifically suggesting composing are taking place (either because it is a clearly stated “aim” or because a creative outcome arising from a music-making process is expected of a suggested activity). Furthermore, literature has often discussed composing and improvising as an individual or a collaborative activity (Huovinen & Rautanen, 2020; Roels & Van Petegem, 2016; Rowe, Triantafyllaki, & Pachet, 2017; Winters, 2012) and in conjunction with the use of technologies (Rowe et al., 2017). In the Greek NC, further emphasis is placed on cooperative/collaborative learning as one of the main teaching strategies, particularly important for music. Maximizing promotive interaction, reciprocal teaching, and positive interdependence are important goals obtained through cooperative teaching techniques. Moreover, digital advancement as one of the four pillars of the “New School” educational reform was a priority in the creation of the Greek NC. Therefore, integrating digital technology and utilizing digital tools for listening, performing and creating music was an important innovation for the Greek Music NC and of interest to our analysis. Therefore, in response to the methodological and conceptual decisions above, the following coding scheme was developed. The features mentioned previously constituted the backbone of our document analysis, the codes of which are evidenced in Table 11.1, as we sifted through the formal curriculum texts to identify where in the NC creative music making is evidenced; to what extent and where collaborative activities are encouraged, and where and how technology is introduced. Table 11.1 presents examples of coded instances from the documents for each of the above.

Table 11.1  Key themes for the document analysis Code

Example

1. Composing

Experiment initially with the pentatonic scale (Do) and thereafter called to create an accompaniment for a well-known song, using the pentatonic scale Create, work on, and record a hip-hop song with their own verse and music, using music editing software Create in small groups their own variations inspired by W.A. Mozart’s variations on the French song, “Je vous dirai maman” (Twinkle little star) Explore and produce consecutive short and long sounds in different musical instruments: for example, a triangle, a tambourine, and a glockenspiel (http://photodentro.edu.gr/lor/r/8521/5842?locale=el) Open the interactive app “Set Drums” and improvise while playing on this virtual instrument “Interpret” paintings by Joan Miró with musical instruments working in small groups

2. Composing using technology 3. Collaborative composition 4. Improvising

5. Improvising using technology 6. Collaborative improvisation

160

Attending to creative music making and composing

Findings In the initial pages of the NC, one of the eight key learning objectives across all grades is: to explore, to create, to select, and organize sounds, composing and improvising skillfully, with imagination and fluency, using the voice or musical instruments (conventional or self-made), the body (body percussion) or other improvisatory means, and additionally (using) an appropriate music program or dialogic educational software. (National Curriculum, 2014, p. 7) Later in the document, one of the three key activities (musical creation) around which musical learning and teaching are organized (listening, performing and musical creation), encompasses composing and improvising. The key aim of this group of activities is to “develop children’s creativity by employing their prior acquired knowledge and skills in their own creative activities” (p. 9). As is explained thereafter, improvising and composing provide learners with a means of self-expression and communication with others. Learners select and manipulate a large variety of sound sources, simultaneously developing their critical thinking through the various decisions they need to make for the combination of musical elements, so that they may produce in the best possible way musical ideas, images, and emotions. (p. 9) Furthermore, in the initial pages of the NC it is stated that children’s creativity is developed through employing acquired musical knowledge and skills for their own creative music work (p. 8). As Kaschub and Smith (2009) argue, “it is in the act of creating, or making something completely new and original to ourselves, that we evidence our capacity to shape, manipulate, and reveal our musical understandings.” Additionally, throughout the document of the NC, we drew out ample evidence of creative musical activities being employed in order to support students’ musical development. The subsections below present not only the findings in accordance with the evidenced coded thematic categories, but also the related strategy for data analysis. The opening section serves as an overview of the space that creative music making occupies in the NC in relation to Question 2. Through a frequency count of related terms, the occurrence of improvisation and composition in the curriculum in general and according to age group/level is presented. Subsequently, evidence from the documents is presented to explore how the features of creative music making are presented across the continuum.

The occurrence of “musical creation” across age/grade levels and thematic organizers The overall occurrences of improvising and composing are found in Table 11.2 and Figure 11.1. As mentioned, included in the document search were terms that relate to musical “creation” (δημιουργία), which is a key term in the NC signifying the whole range of music-making activities, for example “exploring,” “experimenting,” “creating,” “improvising” and “composing.” We searched for instances of the above, to include both stated aims and proposed activities.

161

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki Table 11.2  Frequencies according to age/grade levels

Improvising Composing

Ages 5–7 Nursery/primary

Ages 8–9 Primary

Ages 10–11 Primary

Ages 12–14 Lower secondary

14 1

9 3

14 13

27 20

Table 11.2 reveals that experimental, exploratory forms of improvising are found across grade levels in both nursery/primary and lower secondary levels of education. A small dip in instances is observed at ages 8–9, rising again quite dramatically at the lower secondary school level (n = 27). Figure 11.1 shows the overall instances of improvising and composing across age/grade levels. A stable increase in composing activities is observed across ages, while more exploratory and improvisatory instances fluctuate, with an increase at ages 12–14. Examples of improvising aims and activities follow in Box 11.1. Experimenting and exploring rhythm and melodies at ages 5–9 give way to more complex forms of improvising activities, such as accompanying songs and taking turns at solo improvisation in group creative music making. The creative activities at ages 5–7 related to improvisation often employ the term “experimenting.” Children here “experiment” with their voice/body and with conventional instruments (triangle, glockenspiel, tambourine) with rhythms, pitch and simple melodies or sound dynamics. Another term often employed for improvising activities at Level 1 is “copying” a sound source, musical or non-musical. Activities gradually build on prior musical knowledge (e.g. a familiar song that has already been sung and performed by learners in previous lessons) or on-the-spot copying/repetition to provide a baseline on which later more complex forms of musical creativity are based. For example, on p. 19 of the National Curriculum (2014), one of the aims should be “to create melodies on the glockenspiel through free improvisation.” The relevant proposed activity uses a familiar and previously performed by learners/ classroom song, and the use of four notes on a glockenspiel to encourage learners to improvise their own melodies. At this grade level, the voice and conventional instruments are employed to explore musically the dynamics of sound, tempo, melody and other musical elements (e.g. pass a tambourine around, playing louder or softer on a given rhythm, as on p. 24, or students

Figure 11.1  Frequencies for creative music making by age/grade level

162

Attending to creative music making and composing

Box 11.1  Examples of improvising aims and activities across age/grade levels Ages 5–7 Aim: to create melodies on the glockenspiel with free improvisation Activity: (students) improvise on the tambourine their own rhythmic pattern, which the teacher then imitates.

Ages 8–9 Aim: to experiment with various musical instruments’ timbres Activity: (students) listen to the traditional Italian song “Ndrezzata” and improvise individually or in groups a rhythmic accompaniment on percussion instruments.

Ages 10–11 Aim: to improvise simple rhythmic and melodic ostinato, accompanying songs that they are learning. Activity: (students) clap the pulse of a 4/4 meter. During the next meter, the class pauses and one student (solo) improvises on the tambourine their own rhythmic pattern. This is repeated so that other students (solo) can have the chance to improvise.

Ages 12–14 Aim: to improvise with movement, voice, instruments, body percussion, emphasizing structure (rondo, theme and variations, question/response) Activity: one-by-one (students) sing a phrase, following the melody of “Everybody Sing Freedom” and then improvise another melody on the same rhythmic patterns and lyrics, snapping their fingers on the first and third beat (4/4 meter).

spontaneously mimic with their voice – individually or in pairs – human or animal voices, p. 19). Later, improvising is integrated with the accompaniment of songs and multimodal work (movement, song, instruments). A rather different picture is evidenced for composing across age/grade levels, with scarce instances up to age 9, rising dramatically at ages 10–14. Examples of composing aims and activities are presented in Box 11.2. In Boxes 11.1 and 11.2, the aim and activities are not always related, as there sometimes is no aim for creative music making on the whole, but there may be an activity. While composing, aims and activities are scarcely mentioned until age 9, thereafter an increase in complexity and variety in composing activities is evidenced. It is interesting to observe also that it is often that composing is conceptualized as a second step in the musical creation process, following more exploratory and improvisatory activities. We then sought to determine the frequencies improvising and composing activities mentioned across the four thematic organizers in the Greek National Curriculum. The first thematic organizer relates to “understanding the basic musical elements and concepts,” the second involves “learning and appreciating music historically and worldwide (styles, genres, location, throughout time),” the third is about “connecting music with other arts and the

163

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

Box 11.2  Examples of composing aims and activities across age/grade levels Ages 5–7 Aim: none Activity: (students) set to music a poem they created. While singing the poem, they suggest their own melodies that the teacher plays on the piano and the class collaboratively selects each time the appropriate melody for the rest of the poem.

Ages 8–9 Aim: to compose their own rhythmic patterns Activity: (students) write and record their own musical ideas with an educational musical software.

Ages 10–11 Aim: to compose in accordance with melodic, rhythmic and structural elements of popular 20th—21st-century music. Activity: (students) create and record their own hip-hop song with their own verse and music, using appropriate musical software.

Ages 12–14 Aim: to compose emphasizing musical features of 20th—21st-century music Activity: (students) listen and observe the variations in W.A. Mozart’s “Je vous dirai maman” and, working in small groups, create their own variations, changing e.g. the rhythm, the melody, and so forth.

sciences” and the fourth thematic organizer locates “music in our lives within and beyond schools.” Figure 11.2 is particularly revealing that the majority of “musical creation” instances seem clustered around the first organizer, which essentially is related to using music as a learning tool for acquiring knowledge and skill of basic musical elements and concepts (rhythm, melody, dynamics, timbre etc.). Through this initial frequency count, we were able to create a picture of the space that creative music making occupies overall within the national curriculum according to age/grade or level of education and according to the thematic organizers, which create structure within the NC documents. The low frequencies of coded segments for composing are evidenced in the above breakdown for musical “creation” across the Greek NC according to age and thematic organizer (Tables 11.2 and 11.3). This is mostly due to the fact that proposed composing Table 11.3  Frequencies according to thematic organizers

Improvising Composing

T.O. 1

T.O. 2

T.O. 3

T.O. 4

52 29

7 5

6 2

0 1

164

Attending to creative music making and composing

Figure 11.2  Frequencies for creative music making by “Thematic Organizer”

activities in the analyzed documents are few; the small frequency of coded segments arose from data mentioning composing as a stated aim, but with little follow-through in proposing relevant activities in meeting this aim. In other words, composition is mostly conceptualized as an aim for creative music making, yet relevant activities that would permit educators to initiate composing in their classrooms seem to be often omitted. It was also commonly found, at least until age 9, that “improvising or composing” was a phrase often used as an aim; a deeper reading of this finding could potentially point to a reluctance of using the term “composition” in early childhood formal music education.

Working alone or in groups Throughout the National Curriculum documents, and as viewed in Table 11.4, collaboration for musical creation is scarcely mentioned. One example of students’ improvisation activity in the early years is when they individually improvise the sound of rain on a glockenspiel, and as an extension of the activity, another student provides musical input for the “thunder” during peak moments of the improvisations. This instant collaboration, however, is more of a momentary partnership rather than a systematic exchange of views and ideas. From a review of music education trends in improvisation research, Siljamäki and Kanellopoulos (2020) conclude that although the sociality of improvisation has been widely recognized, studies that focus on the collaborative aspects of improvisation are still limited. At ages 11–14, again, collaborative musical creation is a stated aim, yet seems to fade in the suggested activities section. In Figure 11.3, it is evidenced that of the total instances for composing in the NC, collaborative composing activities or aims constitute a small percentage and are mostly found at ages 10–11 and 12–14. Table 11.4  Collaborative activity

Improvising Composing

Ages 5–7 Nursery/primary

Ages 8–9 Primary

Ages 10–11 Primary

Ages 12–14 Lower secondary

3 0

4 0

3 4

2 4

165

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

Figure 11.3 Comparing collaborative compositional activities by age (percentage of total composition activities)

Examples of suggested collaborative activities are found in Box 11.2, whereby students work in small groups creating their own variations on a given piece or using musical software to compose their own song.

Employing technology in creative music making Our analysis revealed that technology and music technology, while a key initiator of learning about music, is scarcely mentioned. As viewed in Table 11.5, the first mention in the Greek National Curriculum of using technology in creative music making coincides at ages 8–9 with an activity to encourage composing, whereby students use an online digital application to compose with various rhythms (http://photodentro.edu.gr/ lor/r/8521/5836?locale=el). The analysis revealed that the few suggested composing activities involved simple software applications for building knowledge of rhythm and other basic musical understanding. Thereafter, music technology is employed, albeit scarcely, for both improvisation and composing activities at ages 10–11, in both individual and group work, with a slight rise at ages 12–14 for activities with improvisation. As viewed in Figure 11.4, of the total instances for composing and improvising documented in the National Curriculum, employing technology for creative music making seems uncommon. It is interesting to note in this initial frequency overview that no technology is employed in the first grades for creative music making. This seems to coincide with the literature on employing technology for creative music making. Indeed, classroom applications using technology to compose or, less so, to improvise, at the secondary level of education or the final grades of primary school are well documented (e.g. Gall & Breeze, 2008). Yet, when Table 11.5  Technology for creative music making by age

Improvising Composing

Ages 5–7 Nursery/primary

Ages 8–9 Primary

Ages 10–11 Primary

Ages 12–14 Lower secondary

0 0

0 2

4 3

5 1

166

Attending to creative music making and composing

Figure 11.4  Frequencies of creative music making with technology by age/grade level

it comes to creative music making with younger ages (e.g. 7–8-year-olds) similar classroom activities are much less common. Applications and digital learning objects that were created as part of the latest reform attempting to integrate Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education in Greece, and that are available through the national repository of digital content, or “Photodentro,” present a great potential for in- and out-of-school music education. They are available through the internet and can be used “in multiple ways, in various environments and teaching formats promoting a variety of teaching strategies” (Chrysostomou, 2017, p. 113). Moreover, they allow users with little or no prior knowledge of notation to create music, and to improvise and explore sounds and timbres. A relevant activity is thereafter mentioned on page 47 of the National Curriculum, introducing students to composing through technology – a simple rhythm game whereby students are asked to combine short rhythmic patterns (from the popular Kodály method) and notes of different duration to compose a short rhythmic piece. At ages 10–11, composing again is fostered through the use of technology, experimenting initially with the pentatonic scale (Do) and thereafter being called to create an accompaniment for a known song, using the pentatonic scale (National Curriculum, 2014, p. 83). At ages 12–14, composing as an aim is mentioned alongside improvisation. Proposed activities again often make use of technology to record and “evaluate” (National Curriculum, 2014, p. 123) the end result. At this level, the activities incorporate students’ knowledge of variation – both in dynamics and rhythm. Again, the specific use of skills developed at Levels 1–3, such as using multiple means to make music – voice, body and instruments – are encouraged.

Conclusion The detailed analysis presented in this chapter allowed us to explore, analyze and present in both qualitative and quantitative ways the position and the role of creative musical activities in the National Curriculum. More specifically, we were interested in the ways in which creative music making is presented in the documents to include both improvising

167

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki

and composing activities. We began this analysis by asking two questions which we now return to: What space does creative music making, conceptualized as a continuum of improvising and composing activities, occupy in the National Curriculum at the various grade levels/ages and according to thematic organizers? What are the features of creative music making as a collaborative or technology-enabled activity across age/grade level? The frequency count of composing and its constituent terms, as well as the more qualitative thematic analysis that we conducted, revealed that learning aims, as well as activities related to composing are introduced mostly from age eight. This finding seems on par with literature talking about a development watershed for understanding composing at ages 7–8 (see Glover, 2000; Kratus, 1989). Improvisation in the National Curriculum seems much more prominent throughout mandatory education. Indeed, composing often seems to be based and dependent on improvisation activity rather than being conceptualized as a distinct creative activity within the curriculum. Overall, throughout the National Curriculum, a model-bound definition conception (Siljamäki & Kanellopoulos, 2020) of improvisation and composition seems prominent, with the focus being on developing key musical skills and facilitating basic musical comprehension. This seems consistent with a high percentage of instances for both improvising and composing found within the first thematic organizer, as Figure 11.2 reveals. Creative music making is mostly an individual activity in the Greek National Curriculum. This is evident from the small number of coded segments of both improvising and composing activities in the main document referring specifically to small group or collaborative “musical creation.” Furthermore, where collaboration is referred to with regard to creative music making, it is solely presented as an activity rather than an aim. While this provides teachers with more substantial guidelines for implementing collaboration in creative music making, it perhaps also indicates that, hierarchically at least, collaborative activity in “musical creation” does not seem to be a priority in the Greek National Curriculum, as it seems to be in other parts of the world when teaching composition, especially at ages 12–14 (Fautley, 2005). In relation to the “late” introduction of composing at ages 8–9, the fact that it is introduced through technology may be indicative of the lack of systematic preparation for teaching creative music making in early childhood music education. Technology may be considered a way of engaging pupils in creative musical work when teachers’ preparatory training in improvisation and composition skills and knowledge is lacking. The implication of this realization is beyond the subject matter of this chapter, yet it may be a “knowledge gap” in music teacher education courses in Greece and perhaps elsewhere that needs to be systematically addressed (see also Winters, 2012). In conclusion, it is fair to say that the last two decades have seen a surge of music education research in the field of composition teaching and learning. Within this literature, it is often discerned that teachers are key initiators of composing in the classroom (Kaschub, 2016). Notwithstanding this realization, we chose as an initial step in our investigation to focus on the Greek National Curriculum documentation analyzing the way that music creation is included in the text and exploring the multiple ways that improvisation and composition are prescribed for the music lesson. The analysis revealed the breadth and positioning of creative activities within the National Curriculum; it also highlighted composing activity as part of a continuum of creative activity. A future stage in this investigation would be to focus on 168

Attending to creative music making and composing

teachers’ practices and document how and to what extent music teachers employ these tools, apply these methods and practice music exploration, music improvisation and music composition within their music classrooms/lessons. This study may have implications for several areas. Building and developing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skills in creative forms of musical expression, as well as subsequent professional development opportunities to engage with the basic tenets of musical composing and improvising activity, seem of major importance. Placing more emphasis on composing pedagogy (e.g. knowledge of questioning techniques or supporting pupils to contextualize and draw out their learning) may well be one way forward. Supporting teachers to use technology capably in creative musical activity in order to develop independent, agentic action in students, creativity development and metacognitive thinking is another. Of most importance perhaps is prioritizing 21st-century teaching and learning processes that favor open and unplanned learning outcomes, thereby initiating novel, authentic and meaningful forms of musical learning.

Reflective questions 1 What is the status of composition in your country’s general education music curriculum? 2 How often and in what ways are improvisation and music experimentation used in your context? 3 What are the skills and knowledge that music teachers need to acquire in order to encourage composition in their music classrooms?

References Allsup, R. E. (2013). The compositional turn in music education: From closed forms to open texts. In M. Kaschub & J. P. Smith (Eds.), Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. New York, NY: Open University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199832286.003.0004 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Burnard, P. (2000). How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composition: Rethinking pedagogy in music education. Music Education Research, 2(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14613800050004404 Chrysostomou, S. (1997). Initial education of Greek music teachers: Are there lessons to be learned from a study of the English system? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading. Chrysostomou, S. (2017). Technology in the music classroom – Navigating through a dense forest: The case of Greece. In S. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education (pp. 105–119). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.9 Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 367–379). London: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n25 Economidou Stavrou, N. (2006). Reflecting on the curriculum: The case of the Cyprus music curriculum for music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.3200/ AEPR.107.4.31-38 Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Elliott, D. J. (2009). Curriculum as professional action. In T. Regelski & J. T. Gates (Eds.), Music education for changing times: Guiding visions of practice (pp. 163–174). New York, NY: Springer. Faulkner, R. (2003). Group composing: Pupil perceptions from a social psychology study. Music Education Research, 5(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085504 Fautley, M. (2005). A new model of the group composing process of lower secondary school students. Music Education Research, 7(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500042109.

169

Smaragda Chrysostomou and Angeliki Triantafyllaki Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2008). Music and eJay: An opportunity for creative collaborations in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 27–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ijer.2007.11.008 Glover, J. (2000). Children composing 4–14. London: Routledge. Hanley, B., & Montgomery, J. (2005). Challenges to music education: Curriculum reconceptualized. Music Educators Journal, 91(4), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400153 Huovinen, E., & Rautanen, H. (2020). Interaction affordances in traditional instruments and tablet computers: A study of children’s musical group creativity. Research Studies in Music Education, 42(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1321103X18809510 Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2019). Improvisation and/or music education: A child’s upsetting clarity. In S. Young & B. Ilari (Eds.), Music in early childhood: Multi-disciplinary perspectives and inter-disciplinary exchanges. International perspectives on early childhood education and development, Vol. 27. Cham: Springer. Kaschub, M. (2016). From the guest editor: Advancing composition in music education. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0027432115626907 Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Kelly, A. V. (1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: Paul Chapman. Kratus, J. (1989). A time analysis of the compositional processes used by children ages 7 to 11. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3344949 MacDonald, R., & Miell, D. (2000). Musical conversations: Collaborating with a friend on creative tasks. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, and D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 65–78). London: Free Association Books. National Curriculum for Music (2014). Retrieved on 01.2019 from: http://repository.edulll.gr/1967 O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Pinar, W. E., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Roels, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2016). Transdisciplinary dimensions in the composing activities of children: Transfer of strategies and transformation of knowledge. British Journal of Music Education, 33(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171500025X Rowe, V., & Triantafyllaki, A. (2017). Improvisation: A gateway to creative thinking. In V. Rowe, A. Triantafyllaki, & F. Pachet (Eds.), Children’s creative music-making with reflexive interactive technology: Adventures in improvising and composing (pp. 99–119). London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315679952 Rowe, V., Triantafyllaki, A., & Anagnostopoulou, X. (2015). Young pianists exploring improvisation using interactive music technology. International Journal of Music Education, 33(1), 113–130. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F0255761414540137 Rowe, V., Triantafyllaki, A., & Pachet, F. (2017). Children’s creative music-making with reflexive interactive pedagogy: Adventures in improvising and composing. London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315679952 Rusinek, G. (2012). Action research on collaborative composition: An analysis of research questions and designs. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 185–200). Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook for qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–83). London: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12 Siljamäki, E., & Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2020). Mapping prevailing visions of improvisation pedagogy in music education research. Research Studies in Music Education, 42(1), 113–139. https://doi.org/10. 1177%2F1321103X19843003 Teacher’s Guide for the National Curriculum of Music (2011). http://ebooks.edu.gr/info/newps/%CE% A4%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%82%20-%20%CE%A0%CE%BF%CE%BB% CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82%20%E2%80%94%20%CF% 80%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7%20%CE%B1%C2%B4/%CE%9F% CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%B3%CF%8C%CF%82%20%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1%20%CE%9C% CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%20%CE%91%20%CE%A0%CF%81% CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7%20%E2%80%94%20%CE% 94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%93%CF%85%CE% BC%CE%BD%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF.pdf

170

Attending to creative music making and composing Trehub, S. (2006). Infants as musical connoisseurs. In G. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 32–49). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530329.003.0002 Trevarthen, C., & Malloch, S. (2012). Musicality and musical culture: Sharing narratives of sound from early childhood. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education, Volume 1 (pp. 248–260). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780199730810.013.0015 Triantafyllaki, A. (2017). Developing a language for creative music-making. In V. Rowe, A. Triantafyllaki, & F. Pachet (Eds.), Children’s creative music-making with reflexive interactive technology (pp. 160–176). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315679952 Triantafyllaki, A., & Burnard, P. (2010). Creativity and arts-based knowledge creation in diverse educational partnership practices: Lessons from two case studies in rethinking traditional spaces for learning. UNESCO Observatory, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, the University of Melbourne Refereed E-Journal, 1(5.6). Accessed online at https://www.unescoejournal.com/issue1-volume-5/ Webster, P. (2012). Towards pedagogies of revision: Guiding student’s music composition’. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315596952 Winters, M. (2012). The challenges of teaching composing. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000489 Young, S., & Glover, J. (1998). Music in the early years. London: The Falmer Press.

171

12 COMPOSITION AND CREATIVITY IN MUSIC EDUCATION IN ICELAND Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Introduction Music composition is an aspect of music education that has often been neglected in the past (see, e.g., Elliott & Silverman, 2015), while performance and music theory have for a long time been at the center of curricula and teaching practices (see, e.g., Allsup, 2003; Sarath, Myers, & Campbell, 2016). In Iceland, there seems to be a noticeable trend in recent times toward more emphasis on the creative aspects of music. Much of this development occurred in the second decade of the 21st century. There are two important factors that each greatly impacted this development. One is rooted in educational policies toward more emphasis on creativity as an important pillar of education and curricula. The other stems from recent developments in new technology that enable innovative practices in teaching and learning to be creative in a music educational context. In this chapter, the development toward increased creativity in music education will be illustrated through examples of various educational projects and curricular policies. The last part of this chapter reports on a research project regarding the use of new technology among Icelandic music educators and the effects it has had on creativity and educational practices in music classrooms.

Use of terminology for music composition in different contexts The title of this chapter uses the terms composition and creativity. In the English language, composition refers to the creation of a musical work. Outside of the context of music, composition means parts that together make a whole (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). A person who composes music is a composer. In Icelandic, the word for a musical composer is unique to that profession. A professional music composer is called tónskáld, a combination of the words tón (i.e., tone or music) and skáld (i.e., author) which translates directly as: tone-author. The word skáld is used for authors of literature, in effect placing composers of music in the same category as authors of literature and poetry. A parallel to this can be found in the English language when a written piece of literature is called a composition. In Iceland, the tradition of literature is well preserved as is demonstrated by the legendary sagas, and authors of literature are highly esteemed in the Icelandic cultural context. The fact that a music composer is considered an author of tones gives the profession an elevated status alongside the literary authors of Iceland. The product 172

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-16

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland

of a musical composer is a musical composition. In Icelandic, the product of a tónskáld (toneauthor) is tónsmíð or tónverk meaning something constructed with tones. In the context of pedagogy and music education in Iceland, it is much more common to use the word tónsköpun meaning the creation of tones, rather than the word tónsmíði which is reserved for the music composition of professional composers. Tónsköpun is used for creating or composing music (the direct translation would be “tone-creation”). For example, tónsköpun (i.e., tone-creation) is the word used in the Icelandic National Curriculum (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014) for original music compositions of students in compulsory education (ages 6–16). In the English translation of this curriculum (Icelandic National Curriculum, 2014), the word composition is used where the word tón-sköpun is in the Icelandic version. The same word, tónsköpun, is used in the curricula for music schools (The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Music Schools: General section,1 2000/2007) when talking about students’ own creations of music under the chapter of creativity and the chapter on music theory. So, there is no distinction made between the act of composing music by students in general music classrooms and students in music schools, who mostly study Western classical music in private lessons and Western music theory formally. The use of terminology within a language and a reflection on the origins of the words can demonstrate the value placed on a particular action or a profession. In English, the word composition is used for describing both professional compositions of music, and student or amateur music compositions alike, while in Icelandic, there are some subtle differences between the terms used about professional composition of music and more informal acts of creating music, such as by young students in school. It is interesting to observe that the word tónsköpun (i.e., tone-creation) refers particularly to the creativity in the composition process and therefore may provide a more process-based context for composition within education. In contrast, the professional composers are authors of tones, which reflects that their work may be seen more in terms of the products they construct than the creative processes of composition.

Creativity as a pillar of the Icelandic National Curriculum The latest Icelandic National Curriculum was published in 2013 with an added section on subject areas such as the arts, including music. The English translation of the National Curriculum cited here was published in 2014. The curriculum presents a holistic educational agenda with six fundamental pillars on which the guidelines are based. These are: (1) Literacy, (2) Sustainability, (3) Health and welfare, (4) Democracy and human rights, (5) Equality, and (6) Creativity. The six pillars should permeate the teaching and learning of every subject, including music. The creativity pillar has a strong influence on the presentation of the competence criteria for music in the curriculum. The chapter on music specifies what constitutes a musical activity: “listening, creating and performing” (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014, p. 153). Furthermore, tasks of musical creativity are listed under the competence criteria set for the end of each grade level. For example, at the end of fourth grade: “pupils should be able to take part in creating and performing simple musical compositions/sound compositions and document them in a simple manner” (p. 154). By the end of tenth grade: “pupils should be able to use common tools, musical instruments, voice and computer programs to compose their own musical composition and/or sound composition, take part in composing and performing their own compositions or those of others, criticize and support their views with regard to their taste, musical styles and aesthetics, uphold their musical compositions, their choice of music and support their choice” (p. 154).

173

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

The tenets of the Icelandic National Curriculum (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014) highlight the importance of preparing the pupils to participate in a democratic society. The teacher is encouraged to choose from a wide variety of teaching methods in order to support pupils’ personal growth through innovative and creative means. This sentiment is further elaborated in the chapter on the value of arts education: “Creation of art opens up […] various ways to work on ideas, ask questions, reflect and interpret their own experience and that of others. Thus, pupils develop their talent and ability to evaluate their actions and their environment in a critical manner. New points of view on ideas and objects are often discovered through the creation of art” (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014, p. 146). Music is one of the art subjects that have a place in the weekly plan of every grade (grades 1–10 or ages 6–16, which constitute the compulsory or mandatory education by law in Iceland). However, individual schools can decide to incorporate the arts through interdisciplinary projects as long as the art subjects have a designated share in the overall timetable. “Each compulsory school decides if subjects or subject areas should be taught separately or should be integrated” (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014).

Arts and creativity in education in Iceland A comprehensive report on arts education in Iceland was released by the Iceland Ministry of Education in 2009. The commissioned work was undertaken by Anne Bamford, a foreign expert in art education reform, and author of “The Wow Factor” (Bamford, 2006). The report stated that although arts education in Iceland fulfills high international standards, and the Icelandic pupils are “skilled and confident in the progress of the arts, they are less confident and skilled in the presentation, description and critique of their arts making” (Bamford, 2009). In the recommendations of the report, a strong emphasis is placed on the necessity to make arts education more inclusive, in particular by addressing children with special needs and funding being specifically tied to sharing good practice. A “mismatch” between the broad, inclusive understanding of arts in the Icelandic society and the narrow definitions within education was pointed out in the report, as well as insufficient integration of creative learning across all curriculum areas (Bamford, 2009). The art subjects have a prominent place in the curriculum and in the schools. The average time dedicated to the arts was 3.4 hours per week in grades 1–10 according to statistics from 2010, which marginally exceeds the standards set by the national curriculum of about 3.4 hours (Óskarsdóttir, 2014). In most schools, there are specialists teaching art subjects (ranging from 60 to 90%, depending on the subject). Most schools provided specialized and well-equipped rooms for each arts subject (Óskarsdóttir, 2014) and the average teaching experience of art teachers was slightly higher than the average for all teachers in compulsory schools, suggesting that art teachers were comparatively stable professionals in the schools. Arts teachers were reportedly content with the facilities provided and demonstrated autonomy in terms of developing unique and creative approaches in their teaching. While students rated the arts as their most preferred subjects, they consider the arts to be the less important than other school subjects (Óskarsdóttir, 2014).

Music education in Iceland School-music (tónmennt) is a subject in the Icelandic National Curriculum (Menntamálaráðuneytið [The Icelandic Ministry of Education], 2011/2013) and is taught by music specialists in approximately 80–90% of Icelandic compulsory schools (Gudmundsdottir, 2008). Icelandic school-music teachers in the compulsory education system have good access to computers and information technology such as tablets in their classrooms (Gudmundsdottir, 2013). Music is also taught 174

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland

privately in Iceland and most instrumental music study is provided in private or publicly funded semi-private music schools. An exception to this are the wind-band programs offered in some school districts though the municipal compulsory schools, where the participating pupils receive lessons from a specialist on their instrument in individual lessons within their regular compulsory school and participate in the wind band of the school (Gudmundsdottir, 2019).

Icelandic music schools The population is small for a sovereign nation. There are roughly 360,000 inhabitants, and children of compulsory school age number about 46,000, attending 170 compulsory schools (Statistics Iceland, n.d.). A law on music education was passed in 1963, which created the foundation for state-supported music schools for children. As a result, public music schools were established in most school districts around the country (Gudmundsdottir, 2019). Similar systems are not in place for any arts other than music, which seems to have a particularly strong position in the Icelandic education system (Bamford, 2009). A national curriculum for music schools was created and published in 2000, which details the graded standards for every instrument (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2000, 2007). Interestingly, no other art subjects have a separate national curriculum outside the compulsory school system as music does. Currently there are approximately 90 public music schools operating around Iceland, with roughly 15,000 students, providing access to music education in all communities. The financial support to the music schools is conditioned and framed by the national curriculum (Grendal & Sigurbjarnarson, 2010). This means that the music schools provide education to approximately 4% of the total population. We do not have access to the exact age distribution of music students on a national level, although it is known that the majority of music students are children of school age. One can conservatively estimate that approximately 15–20% of children under the age of 18 in Iceland enroll in music schools. In smaller towns and communities, music schools are run directly by the municipality, often in conjunction or close collaboration with the compulsory school system (Gudmundsdottir, 2019). In smaller communities, the proportion of children attending music schools can reach over 40%, while in the Reykjavik capital area, the average attendance in music schools is estimated at 8% of the population of children (ranging from 4 to 35%, depending on the school area) (Reykjavik Statistics, n.d.).

School-music in compulsory education Compulsory schools in Iceland are publicly funded, serving over 97% of the population. Less than 3% of Icelandic students of compulsory school age attend semi-private or “charter schools”2 (Statistics Iceland, n.d.). Icelandic music education within the compulsory schools is traditionally strongest in early childhood education and in the lower grades and becomes less important in the higher grades. Contrary to what is most common in many nearby countries, the compulsory system focuses primarily on group lessons in music in grades 1–7, and as an elective subject in grades 8–10. Some compulsory schools offer music as an elective subject in grades 8–10 (13–15-year-olds) (Gudmundsdottir, 2019). Before the 1970s, the primary musical activity in Icelandic schools was singing, and the music teacher was the singing teacher. In the 1970s, the term used for school-music in the curricula changed to the word tónmennt, meaning music education or school-music. With the Icelandic National curriculum in 1976, there was a shift toward a more eclectic music curriculum, including school instruments, movement, and music making in the classroom (Gudmundsdottir, 2008). Within this curriculum, a minimal emphasis was placed on composition, and only a small mention of creativity 175

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

was made in music classes, even in the following national curriculum from 1989. The first curriculum for classroom music to include creativity and composition as core subjects and activities is the latest one, from 2013, and this seems to be influenced by the mandate of the 2013 General Curriculum, where one of the main pillars of the entire curriculum is creativity, as detailed above. Icelandic school-music educators usually work in well-equipped classrooms intended for music teaching (Bamford, 2009; Gudmundsdottir, 2008, 2013; Óskarsdóttir, 2014). Icelandic music educators have consistently valued singing as the most important activity of the schoolmusic program, and singing was the main musical activity mentioned in Icelandic National Curricula before 1976 (Gudmundsdottir, 2013). However, most school-music teachers incorporate several other types of musical activities besides singing, such as music listening, music history, and theory into their lesson plans (Gudmundsdottir, 2008). While accomplished school-music educators emphasized the importance of expression through creating and performing music (Valsdóttir, 2009), an interview study with school-music educators found that many of them were slightly overwhelmed with the idea of including music making and creativity in their lessons. They blamed a limited amount of time with students for open-ended projects, as well as large group sizes. Many found the lesson time better spent through safer and more predictable singing and listening activities (Gudmundsdottir, 2013).

A tale of composition in general music education As previously mentioned, many Icelandic school-music educators have not felt as confident as they would like to be in terms of leading and including creativity and composition in their music classes (Gudmundsdottir, 2013). There are signs that this may be changing with the use of new technology, as is reported later in this chapter. Furthermore, there are examples of teachers who have successfully applied composition (music creation) as one of the main elements in their teaching. An example of this is a documented case study by Faulkner who investigated students’ (6–16-year-olds) own perception of classroom composing outcomes, as well as the development of their various musical skills and musical understanding (Faulkner, 2003). The detailed study, addressing a range of well-categorized aesthetic, personal, and social themes, found that aesthetic aspects of the compositions and social aspects of working in a group were the most significant factors for the pupils’ satisfaction regarding a musical composition. The participating children almost equally emphasized musical and social qualities of the composing process as most important. When asked about an individual versus group-composing situation, the majority of pupils clearly preferred the latter, highlighting that composing in a group “helps generate more, and a greater variety of musical ideas” (p. 115). Most of the pupils also claimed, “to have brought musical ideas at more and less developed stages into the classroom,” (p. 115) which can be interpreted as a sign of their high level of engagement in the composing process. Faulkner also notes that young children tend to describe their own experience with composing (“discovering musical ideas”) in a similar way as adult composers and “see individual invention as being essential to the group’s progress,” (p. 116) while at the same time referring to the group-composing activity as “more fun” than working alone. The research provides important information about creative practices from the perspective of students, highlighting the necessity for students to get opportunities for their own composing. The results give new insights into the ways individuals can benefit from group work and creative compositional activities in a classroom context. The practices described here by Faulkner have inspired other music educators in Iceland to implement composition as a part of music projects in the early grades, and there are documented examples of such projects with children as young as eight (third grade) in Icelandic schools (Jóhannsdóttir, Ragnarsdóttir, & Hjartarson, 2012, p. 43). 176

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland

Digital technology and music creativity Digital technology has impacted most aspects of everyday life. Music as an art form and medium has been profoundly affected by new technology and media. The way music is created, shared, performed, and enjoyed has been drastically changed over the course of only a few years (Crow, 2010). As Ruthmann pointed out, music and technology are inseparable within the lives of today’s adolescents (2012), and a decade later, we can confidently suggest that digital technology has become just as important a part of younger children’s daily lives. In Iceland, as in other OECD countries, there has been a large increase in the use of digital tablets in the classroom (OECD, 2015; Reykjavíkurborg, 2014). In some municipalities, iPads or tablets have been provided for entire classes on a one-per-student basis. In some cases, the schools are equipped with portable class-sets of tablets that can be borrowed for different classes within the school, based on projects and need. Critics point to the fact that many teachers have reservations about the use of tablets and often lack confidence in their capacity to use the new technology even after taking courses in how to use tablets in teaching (Kristbjarnardóttir, 2014). However, there may be good grounds for teachers’ reservations about tablet use, because the software development for educational purposes, arguably, lags considerably behind the hardware development. Apart from using tablets for reading digital textbooks, as can sometimes be the case in education (Ahn, 2014), tablets seem to have significant possibilities in terms of building skill and knowledge. Nevertheless, the selection is scarce when it comes to carefully developed software applications created for the purpose of learning and skill enhancement. Mostly, teachers have to make the best of what they can find among a myriad of apps on the general market. In this case, the success depends on the creative capacities of each teacher for adjusting and accommodating apps for the purpose of achieving their educational goals (Riley, 2016). It seems obvious in the light of the technological revolution in the creation and preservation of musical sound that there is a pressing need for renewed and fresh thought on the nature and role of music education (Burnard, 2007; Cain, 2004). There is a need for a collaborative effort among software designers, musicians, educators, and researchers in order to bridge the ever-widening gap between older methods in music education and the new reality of music in the modern world. Innovative programs in music education that look more toward the future than to the past will eventually generate ways of teaching and learning music that are more relevant to children in the 21st century than the older and more traditional ways (Karlsen & Väkevä, 2012; Ruthmann & Dillon, 2018; Väkevä, 2010).

Teaching materials for music education in Iceland Examining the resources available to Icelandic school-music teachers, one can conclude that there is not much support provided for developing creativity and composition in the music classroom. The published material for music education in Icelandic does not to this date include any books or material that exclusively address composition in the classroom. Most of the material published is based on repertoire for either singing, playing, or listening. There are thematic books introducing world music or arrangements for school instruments. Some books or collections focus on musical games or music and movement that work well in a classroom context. Some of the teacher’s manuals for these books include ideas for creating and composing music that teachers are encouraged to implement. It is obvious from the teaching material available that composition and creativity have traditionally not been seen at the center of music classes, and the support for teachers in developing creative music classrooms has been 177

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

limited. Therefore, it has depended on the resourcefulness and capability of each individual teacher to develop their own practice of teaching children to create and compose music in the classroom setting.

Recent innovative projects for music and creativity In the spirit of the most recent curricula in Iceland in music and general education, there has been more visibility given to initiatives that promote children’s creativity in education and in cultural life. This is true for all artistic outlets, including music creation and composition. The following are descriptions of recent projects in music creation.

Biophilia At the dawn of the computer tablet (iPads and android tablets), the artist Björk introduced apps in connection with her release of her album Biophilia in 2011. These apps were intended to open up the world of music for children and consequently inspired workshops in collaboration with the city of Reykjavik to involve children in music making (Gudmundsdottir, 2014). The project was promising and interesting from a creative perspective, even though the Biophilia-inspired apps have been criticized for having serious limitations in terms of educational value (Gudmundsdottir, 2014). The Biophilia Educational Project had the aim of integrating school subjects such as natural science and music through creative means. The project was extended to the other Nordic countries through the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2014. According to the mission statement of the project, its purpose was to:

• promote innovation in schools through the development of educational methods which combine natural sciences, creativity, and technology

• break up traditional teaching practices through a cross-disciplinary approach, across all ages, subjects, and disciplines

• set up a Nordic collaborative network that will share experiences and ideas, and further develop the project based on common Nordic values

• encourage young people’s interest in creativity, natural sciences and technology, thus progressively increasing the competitiveness of the Nordic countries. (Biophilia Educational Project, 2014) Reports and case studies have been written on various implementations of the Biophilia Educational Project (Hilmarsdóttir et al., 2016; Skinner, 2016). A case study reported the implementation of Biophilia over one school year, with a group of teachers and 84 sixth and seventh graders (Skinner, 2016). When serious flaws were found with the running of the Biophilia apps (created in 2012) on new iPads in 2015, the teacher in charge of the project was resourceful in finding other apps that could be used to create music on the iPads. The teacher concluded that, to her surprise, the app was not useful or even intended as a teaching tool (p. 45). Rather, the Biophilia ideology seemed to provide an inspiration and encourage cross disciplinary cooperation between teachers who normally would not have worked together. As a downside, preparation of successful lessons in the Biophilia spirit was much more time-consuming than teachers were accustomed to (pp. 48–49). One main conclusion was that students were open and ready to be creative with music through the use of various music creation apps, and many continued to create their own music at home (Skinner, 2016). 178

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland

The upbeat (Upptakturinn) A collaborative initiative for encouraging children and youth in Iceland to compose music was created in 2012 through an annual young composer awards program. The institutions who instigated the awards were the Harpa Concert Hall in Reykjavik, the annual Children’s Culture Festival in Reykjavik, the national broadcasting service (RUV), and the Iceland Academy of the Arts. The composition awards are called Upptakturinn or “the Upbeat” (Harpa, n.d.; Upptakturinn, 2019). Every year since 2012, children aged 10–15 have been invited to send in their own compositions or compositional ideas in any musical genre. About 12 compositions or compositional ideas are chosen each year for further development. The finalists are offered to participate in workshops with students in creative music mediation at the Iceland Academy of the Arts and receive guidance from music composition students at the Academy to further develop and arrange their musical compositions. The final results are performed in real concert venues by professional musicians in public concerts in connection with the annual children’s culture festival. The concerts are recorded and broadcasted by the national broadcasting services (The Upbeat, n.d.). The competition is open to all 10–15-year-old children and they can submit a musical composition in the length of 2–6 minutes either through traditional notation, graphic notation, or as a sound file. A committee selects a dozen compositions from the entries, and they all receive the same music creativity awards. Since the beginning, 280 compositions have been submitted to the competition. The objectives of the awards are to encourage children and youth to compose their own music, giving them opportunity to develop their compositional ideas, help them to preserve their creations, and provide a platform for experiencing a professional performance of their creations in real-world concert venues (Harpa Concert Hall, 2021; RUV, 2021). These compositional awards reflect a respectful attitude toward children’s creativity and capacity to compose music. The awards give the impression that children and youth can create real music that is worth arranging, performing, and listening to. There is no official threshold of entry as the children who send compositions do not have to be in a music school or have a formal background in music. However, most of the entries seem to come from children with previous experience with music instruction either at music school, general school, or an afterschool program.

Research project on creativity and technology in music education in Iceland The following findings were the result of a collaboration between two masters students in music education in 2015, under the supervision of the author of this chapter. The purpose was to investigate how Icelandic music educators implemented creative projects in music in their teaching and what the role of new technology played in their music classes. The project resulted in two master’s theses from the University of Iceland (Gudnason, 2015; Schram, 2016). A summary of the results is presented here in English for the first time.

Method A survey was created using online forms and sent to all music teachers in compulsory schools in Iceland (grades 1–10). The questionnaire was sent by email to 109 music teachers in 102 schools and was completed by 54 music teachers, giving the response rate of 49.5%. As a follow up, four of the music teachers who reported using tablets in their teaching were interviewed in semi-constructed open-ended interviews. The teachers were asked about their use of tablets, the kind of apps they had used, the age of students they had used tablets with and their experiences in being pioneers in using tablets in the music classroom. 179

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir

Results Survey statistics The survey data provided information on how often certain activities were implemented by the music teachers in their classrooms. The most common activity was singing and was reportedly implemented “often or very often” by 98% of the music teachers. Much less common were activities involving music theory (32%), while improvisation (45%) and music creation (52%) were implemented often or very often by approximately half of the music teachers. Of the music teachers surveyed, 46% claimed to have access to tablets for teaching. Of those with tablets, 30% reported using the tablets frequently in their teaching in music class. When asked if they used tablets at all, the youngest age group (24–35 years) was most likely to use tablets (73%), while fewer among the older teachers (26–45) used tablets (56%). In the oldest age group (46 and older), only 22% had ever used a tablet in their teaching. When asked what type of software or apps they used on the tablets, the teachers reported using Garageband most often (36%), followed by recording software (32%), composition software (28%), and virtual instruments (20%).

Creativity Interestingly, the four music teachers interviewed shared a belief that tablets were best suited for creative learning and creative assignments in the music class. None of the interviewees had introduced their students to apps that teach music theory, notation reading, or ear training. Garageband (https://www.apple.com/mac/garageband/) was the only app used by all four informants, and three of them used Figure (https://www.reasonstudios.com/mobile-apps) in their music classes. Two participants had used Loopseque (https://loopseque.com) apps as well as the Keezy (https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/keezy-corp/id535354752) and Musyc (http://www.fingerlab.net/portfolio/musyc) apps. All of these apps offer open-ended platforms that encourage students to explore and expand their auditory experience and to create their own music. In terms of age, the music teachers most commonly used tablets with students in middle school or approximately from the age of ten. They seemed to have other activities reserved for the younger children in grades 1–4 that did not involve technology.

Cooperation Although some of the teachers reported that they had their students work in pairs on tablet assignments, they mostly seemed to have children work individually with one tablet per student. The individual approach to composing on tablets seemed to change how composition was approached in the music classroom. Before, they said that composition assignments were more influenced by the teacher, who would lead the composition projects in class. The tablets, however, take the teacher out of the equation and make the students more independent in the creativity. Students would share their creations with others in the class, and the teachers believed that their students were less self-conscious when presenting their musical creations on tablets than they would have been sharing compositions through live performances. This is especially the case with more timid children or those who are prone to perfectionism and self-criticism. In general, the teachers found that creative work on tablets was a positive experience for their students and seemed to engage them. The students were usually genuinely interested in this kind of work, and they related to the technology as well as the music they could create 180

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland

with it. According to the teachers, working with the tablets promoted student interest and concentration in music class, as this type of work seemed to motivate all students.

Room for improvement None of the negative experiences mentioned by the music teachers were related to teaching the students, but only regarding obstacles in terms of technical issues. The teachers did not mention negative experiences in relation to educational content or design of apps themselves. However, difficulties were encountered with wireless connections, saving student work, and problems stemming from accessing tablets on different accounts by different users where tablets were shared between students. Furthermore, frustrations came up when solving minor issues such as purchasing and updating software, as the industry is mostly geared toward the individual user but not groups such as schools or classrooms.

Reflective questions 1 Reflect on the words used for composing or creating music in the languages you know and discuss if there are hidden meanings behind these words. 2 Do you think that the choice of words in a curriculum have an impact on the perception, practice, and teaching in a given field, such as music education? 3 Discuss the pros and cons of using technology to create and compose music in an educational context?

Notes 1 The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Music Schools covers the study in music schools from beginner to college level. This refers only to those learning to play musical instruments as a choice outside of the compulsory school system. 2 Charter schools are run by private organisations but largely publicly funded.

References Ahn, S. (2014). Effect analysis of digital textbook on ability of self-directed learning. In International conference on soft computing and machine intelligence (ISCMI) (pp. 135–138). IEEE. Allsup, R. E. (2003). Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345646 Bamford, A. (2006). The wow factor: Global research compendium on the impact of the arts in education. Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann Verlag. Biophilia Educational Project, (2014). https://web.archive.org/web/20150314204117/http://biophiliaeducational.org/ Bamford, A. (2009). Arts and cultural education in Iceland. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Reykjavík, Iceland. https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/mrn-pdf_ reports/ann_bamford.pdf Burnard, P. (2007). Reframing creativity and technology: Promoting pedagogic change in music education. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 1(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.1.1.37_1 Cain, T. (2004). Theory, technology and the music curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 21(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051704005650 Crow, W. G. (2010). Remixing the music curriculum: the new technology, creativity and perceptions of musicality in music education (Doctoral dissertation). Institute of Education, University of London. Elliott, D., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters. A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Faulkner, R. (2003). Group composing: Pupil perceptions from a social psychological study. Music Education Research, 5(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085504

181

Helga Rut Gudmundsdottir Grendal, S., & Sigurbjarnarson, A. (2010).  The music school system in Iceland  [PowerPoint slides] SMOK: Västerås. https://www.slideserve.com/jorryn/the-music-school-system-in-iceland Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2008). Tónmennt í íslenskum grunnskólum: Útbreiðsla, aðstæður og viðhorf. [Music education in Icelandic schools: Scope, conditions, and attitudes.]. Tímarit Um Menntarannsóknir [Icelandic Journal of Education Research], 5, 63–76. Félag um menntarannsóknir, Háskóla Íslands. Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2013). Tónmenntakennsla í íslenskum grunnskólum (Transl.: Music education in Icelandic schools). Uppeldi og menntun [Icelandic Journal of Education], 22(2), 37–54. Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2014). Biophilia: Framsýnt listaverk en býður upp á litla sköpun notandans. [Biophilia: Visionary piece of art allowing limited user creativity]. Uppeldi og menntun menntun [Icelandic Journal of Education], 23(2), 107–110. Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2019). An Icelandic perspective on the Nordic music education community. In D. Hebert & T. Bakken-Hauge (Eds.), Advancing music education in Northern Europe. Abingdon & New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/ edit/10.4324/9781351045995-6/icelandic-perspective-nordic-music-education-community-helgarut-gudmundsdottir Gudnason, K. I. A. (2015). Tónmennt á tímum nýrrar tækni: kennsluhættir og viðfangsefni í tónmennt við upphaf 21. aldar. [Music Education in the era of new technology: Approaches and topics in the early 21. century.] (Master thesis). University of Iceland. School of Education. Harpa. (n.d.). The Upbeat. https://harpa.is/en/the-upbeat Harpa Concert Hall. (2021). Upptakturinn 2021, Dagskrá [Program of The Upbeat 2021]. Hilmarsdóttir, H., Bachmann, G., Pétursdóttir, S., Gestsson, S., Gísladóttir, E., & Thoroddsen, C. (2016). Final report for the Biophilia Educational Project 2014–2016. Reykjavík: The Biophilia Reykjavík Steering group. Jóhannsdóttir, I., Ragnarsdóttir, E., I., & Hjartarson, T. (2012). Sköpun - Ritröð um grunnþætti menntunar [Creativity – Essays on the fundamental pillars of education]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið og Námsgagnastofnun [The National Centre for Educational Materials]. Karlsen, S., & Väkevä, L. (Eds.). (2012). Future prospects for music education: Corroborating informal learning pedagogy. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kristbjarnardóttir, L. Ó. (2014). Spjaldtölvur í stærðfræðikennslu á yngsta stigi grunnskóla (Bachelor thesis). Kennaradeild Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands [University of Iceland Faculty of Education]. Merriam-Webster, (n.d.). Composition. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/composition Menntamálaráðuneytið (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture) (2011/2013). Tónmennt. (AÐALNÁMSKRÁ GRUNNSKÓLA. ALMENNUR HLUTI), Icelandic National Curriculum. Reykjavik: Menntamálaráðuneytið, https://www.government.is/topics/education/curriculum/ Ministry of Education and Culture, (2000, 2007). The Icelandic National Curriculum guide for music schools general section Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/ritogskyrslur/adalnamskra_ton_almhl_enska.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2014). The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools – With subject areas. Translation from 2011/2013. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-ofEducation/ Curriculum/adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en Óskarsdóttir, G. (Ed.). 2014. Starfshættir Í Grunnskólum Við Upphaf 21. Aldar. (Teaching and Learning Procedures in Icelandic Compulsory Schools in the Beginning of 21 Century). Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Reykjavik Statistics. (n.d.). Reykjavík í tölum. https://tolur.reykjavik.is/PXWeb/pxweb/en Reykjavíkurborg. (2014). Notkun snjalltækja í skólastarfi. Skýrsla. Riley, P. (2016). iPad apps for creating in your general music classroom. General Music Today, 29(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371315594408 Ruthmann, S. A. (2012). Engaging adolescents with music and technology. In S. L. Burton (Ed.), Engaging musical practices: A sourcebook for middle school general music (pp. 177–192). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Ruthmann, S. A., & Dillon, S. C. (2018). Technology in the lives and schools of adolescents. In G. E. McPherson & G. E. Welch (Eds.), music learning and teaching in infancy, childhood, and adolescence: An Oxford handbook of music education (vol. 2, p. 313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

182

Composition and creativity in music education in Iceland RUV, The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service. (2021). Upptakturinn 2021. https://www.ruv.is/ utvarp/spila/upptakturinn-2021/31738?term=upptakturinn&rtype=radio&slot=1 Sarath, E. W., Myers, D. E., & Campbell, P. S. (2016). Redefining music studies in an age of change: Creativity, diversity, and integration. London & New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Schram, Ó. (2016). Spjaldtölvur og sköpun í tónmenntakennslu [Smart tablets and creativity in music education] (Masters thesis). Reykjavik: University of Iceland, School of Education. Skinner, R. (2016). Biophilia–að hugsa út fyrir boxið og fara á flug [Biophilia–to think outside the box and take off], unpublished MA in Art Education thesis. Reykjavík: Iceland Academy of the Arts. Statistics Iceland. (n.d.). Compulsory Schools. Statistics overview. https://statice.is/statistics/society/ education/compulsory-schools/ Upptakturinn. (2019). http://tjornin.is/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/01/upptakturinn-2019-.pdf Väkevä, L. (2010). Garage band or GarageBand®? Remixing musical futures. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051709990209 Valsdóttir, K. (2009). Hlutverkavitund og starfsumhverfi farsælla tónmenntakennara [The role identity and working environment of successful music teachers]. Tímarit um menntarannsóknir, 5, 67–83

183

INTERLUDE IV

Ways to Teach Composing Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Composing teaching in schools can look (and sound) very different depending on various circumstances, such as the age, ability, and interests of the students, the tradition of composing in a country’s music education system, and their curriculum, as well as the musical background, confidence, and experiences of the teacher, not including the infrastructure, technology, and resources available in the classroom. Also relevant is the question of who is teaching composing, as a professional composer coming into a school and conducting a timelimited composing project might be very different from the approach taken by a generalist classroom teacher. This interlude will take a closer look at the variety of approaches, methods, and practices used to teach composition in music education and how diverse pedagogies have been developed over time.

Who can teach composing? Composing has not always been recognized as an important part of the music education of all young people. Traditionally, composing in music education was taught to only a select number of students who were viewed as specifically gifted or talented. The training these students was often from “eminent” composer-teachers (Barrett, 2006, p. 196) once they had already achieved a high level of musical knowledge and skills. Today, composing is becoming more widely acknowledged as possible for all young people to learn; therefore, more and more music teachers are being required to teach it, despite potentially having very little experience in composing themselves. Although composing is becoming more common in schools, there is still a significant lack of research, resources, and training widely available for music teachers, leaving many feeling underprepared and worried about how to teach it (Hickey, 2012; Webster, 2003; Winters, 2012). This lack of training may mean teachers have little opportunity to learn about and reflect on different pedagogical practices beyond what they already know about composing, potentially resulting in their relying on more traditional approaches to composition teaching, such as an overly focused approach on music theory or creating pastiche compositions (Devaney, 2018, 2022). This can result in students developing a very narrow perspective of what real-world composing processes entail. In many parts of the world, composing is still not a required part of the school music curriculum; therefore, if teachers do not feel confident in teaching composing, they may choose DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-17

185

Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley et al.

Figure IV.1  Cycle of composing exclusion

not to teach it. This can result in a whole generation of young people never experiencing creating their own music, meaning that should they go on to train to become music teachers themselves, they too feel unprepared to teach composition, thus creating a cycle that maintains the exclusion of composing from the classroom (Figure IV.1): In order to break this cycle, several steps must be taken; firstly, policy makers must ensure composing and creative music making is a mandatory part of formal music education for all young people. Secondly, teacher training courses must ensure there is adequate training in composing, improvising, songwriting, and electronic producing. Thirdly, continuing professional development courses must be provided to current teachers to provide opportunities for them to develop their confidence and skills so that they are able to support composing in a wide range of contexts and genres. Finally, more research and resources need to be made more widely available for music teachers to access. Schemes that involve music teachers working with composers have also been found to be an excellent way for teachers to develop their skills and break down preconceptions about composers and composing (see the work of Listen Imagine Compose in England [https://listenimaginecompose.com] and others in Germany [e.g. https://www.kompaed.de; https://modusm.de; https://neuetoenefuerjungeohren.de]).

Ways composers can work with children and young people In some circumstances, composing in music education might take place through working with a composer in a school through a time-limited project. There are diverse ways that composers might work with young people, depending on the type of project, the young people themselves, and the expectations of the composer, funders, and other stakeholders. Thus, the following section proposes four basic classifications, developed by Fautley and Evans, of the ways in which composers have been observed to be working with children and young people, these are:

• Composing with children and young people. • Composing on children and young people. 186

Ways to teach composing

• Composing for children and young people. • Composing by children and young people. These classifications are based on research with children and young people who have participated in composing workshops and other activities involving professional composers and performers with Birmingham Contemporary Music Group (BCMG), based in the English Midlands. These workshops and activities offer young people ages 8–18, in and out of school, the opportunity to compose both for their peers and also for professional musicians guided by composer-educators. The group also has an extensive commissioning program that extends to inviting living composers to compose new music for young performers. Nancy Evans has led the group’s learning and participation program for over 20 years and leads composing workshops with the younger part of the age group. An important part of that job has been thinking about the role of the composer in the myriad of projects with differing aims and objectives. The next section will go on to explain each of these four classifications in turn.

Composing with… In the composing with modality, the composer works cooperatively with the young people involved in the composing project. There is cooperation, and power is distributed between the participants. It may be that this power sharing is somewhat unequal, in that it may well be weighted more toward the composer, but nonetheless, all of the participants feel that they have a say in what happens. This is important for conceptualizing what happens in composing with projects, as the voices of the stakeholders are recognized and taken into account. This way of working does not mean that the composer’s expertise is subordinated to those of the children, but that, in a spirit of cooperation, this can be viewed as a conjoint way of working. One of its useful aspects is that this way of working tends to model composerly thinking, and the composer often finds it necessary to show what they are doing, why they are doing it, and also allow the young participants to have a voice in both the process of composing as well as in the final compositional product that results from this process. This modality can be seen in action when a composer asks the young participants to generate ideas for a piece and then works with the ideas that arise, sharing qualitative decisions about the shape, form, tonality, harmony, and other characteristics of the music with the children concerned. This could be said to be a democratic way of composing and endeavors to empower all participants.

Composing on… In this way of working, the composer is well and truly in the driving seat. They have ideas, and they then transmit these to the children and young people involved in the program, and the role of the young people is to be subservient to the composer. Participants may be allowed to produce ideas of their own, but it will be the composer who then arbitrates as to whether or not these are suitable to be entered into the resultant composition arising from the process. Sometimes this decision-making process can be done visibly, at other times the composer’s thinking and decision-making are invisible. In this way of interacting, the composer’s own expertise overrides all others. Instantiation of this way of working can be found in composer comments, where it is sometimes indicated that the composer has an idea that they transmit (or partially transmit) to the children. 187

Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley et al.

Working in this fashion does result in a final piece that is publicly performable but sometimes, depending on the ages and experiences of the children and young people concerned, can result in a disconnect from the music, in which it “belongs” not to the participants, but to the composer. Composing on could be said to be an autocratic way of working, and nearly all of the power is vested in the composer. Indeed, when time is tight, and a scheduled final performance is looming, this may well be the most efficacious way of reaching a satisfactory musical outcome. However, it should be noted that this is distinct from those occasions when a composer is being commissioned to compose a piece for a group of young musicians, which may or may not have involved some kind of discussion and meeting between the composer and the group. This is discussed in the next category, composing for children and young people.

Composing for… As mentioned in the previous section, composing for children and young people is an entirely legitimate form of commissioning for a composer to work in this way. This modality is distinct from the composing on category in that the whole rationale is that the composer in question is undertaking their professional craft in a particular and specified way. When working for specified and distinct groups of young people, it may well be appropriate for the composer to meet with them, maybe listen to recordings of what they have done in the past, and generally get a feeling for the ensemble concerned. Clearly composing for an established ensemble, like a youth orchestra, for example, is a very different matter from composing for, say, a generalist class of primary school children. It is at this stage that there can be linkages with the composing on modality, in that the composer may well try out ideas with the class concerned, maybe ask them for some input, and be thinking about the results. It is important to observe that learning can still happen for children and young people as performers in this context and that new sound worlds and playing techniques can be opened up for them in this modality. This makes it distinct from the other categories described here, in that composing for children and young people is an entirely legitimate way of working, indeed, one which can produce new pieces of major importance, but one where the object is to produce a piece of music by the composer, but where the children are involved as performers.

Composing by… In this way of working, the children and young people concerned are the generators and organizers of musical ideas, and do so with minimal or no intervention from the composer. In this modality, the composer might do little more than set up a task. The composer leaves the children to produce their own ideas, more or less, and arrive at the destination of their own final compositional pieces. The professional composer may well move between children if they are composing this way in school classrooms, listening to what they are doing while the work is in progress, and possibly offering suggestions, asking questions, making observations, and giving feedback; but this is music composed and produced by the young people concerned. The role of the composer is that of a facilitator who enables composing to take place and gives the participants full control over what happens. In this way of working, all generative, organizational, and decision-making lie under the control of the children and young people concerned. These four composer-in-education modalities discussed above are not mutually exclusive constructs. Instead, it is possible that they can be seen to be taking place during any single classroom composer project. Moreover, there is no hierarchy of utility meant or implied, but 188

Ways to teach composing

instead, they are descriptions of ways of working that have been observed from many years of undertaking, observing, and researching classroom composing projects. It is important for funders, program managers, composers, and schools and youth organizations to be clear on what sort of composer-in-education project is being embarked upon. This matters both for considering what learning might take place for the students through composing, but also because all parties involved need to understand the various roles they will be playing.

The teacher’s role in supporting the composing process Composing in formal school education is still relatively new in many parts of the world and, as evidenced by many of the chapters in this companion, this means that approaches and methods are still being developed. As we saw earlier, traditional composing teaching, if it was taught at all, normally took a master-apprentice approach, wherein students completed rulebound exercises. However, the role of the teacher today may shift from a formal and teacherled approach to one more informal and student-centered. Lupton and Bruce (2010) theorized four approaches to composing teaching each with different student-teacher relationships: 1 Learning from the masters (Knowledge) – The student learns from imitating certain composers and reproduction of musical styles. May involve score analyzing and listening. 2 Mastery of techniques (Skills) – The student must learn compositional techniques and develop a toolbox of skills. May involve completing short exercises to demonstrate understanding of techniques. 3 Exploring ideas (Process) – the student is encouraged to engage in active learning through problem-solving, trial and error, and self-reflection. The teacher guides the student through the process, offering formative feedback. May also involve collaborative processes as well as peer feedback. 4 Developing voice (Expression) – The students develop their own personal style of composing and take ownership of the work. The teacher acts as a mentor without imposing their own views. Although these four approaches listed above are separated into four distinct categories, we would argue that the complexity of composing teaching is due to the interconnected relationships between developing knowledge and skills while supporting the creative process and allowing for self-expression. Interestingly, the last approach, “developing voice,” was found to be the least common pedagogical approach taken, perhaps because it is the least structured and has uncertain outcomes that are difficult to measure and assess in the classroom. One debate that has emerged is if teachers should intervene at all in the musical creations of students. On the one hand, Webster (2003) argued that intervening in young peoples’ composing was “a violation of their rights as composers” (p. 244), warning it can result in students being “told what to do” (ibid.). On the other hand, having no teacher intervention may leave a student struggling to know how to progress. Research into when the best time is for teachers to intervene in a student’s composing varies, with some studies recommending intervention at the start and the end of the composing process as effective (Kennedy, 2002), whereas others find intervention was most common during the middle of the process (Fautley, 2004), as feedback is not always welcome by students at the end of the process (Wiggins, 2005). The question of how teachers can support students with composing is ongoing. Published research that has investigated how teachers can support students’ composing has repeatedly 189

Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley et al.

raised the importance of questioning as an important tool for developing students’ self-reflection skills (see Kinsella & Fautley, 2017; Webster, 2003; Wiggins, 2005). Ongoing formative assessment practices are noted as an important part of supporting the creative processes of students (Savage, 2007). Barrett (2006, pp. 201–202) listed 12 strategies teachers may use when giving feedback to students, including: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Extended thinking, provided possibilities. Referenced work to and beyond the tradition (signposting). Set parameters for identity as a composer. Provoked the student to describe and explain. Questioned purpose, probed intention. Shifted back and forth between micro and macro levels. Provided multiple alternatives from analysis of student work. Prompted the student to engage in self-analysis. Encouraged goal setting and task identification. Engaged in joint problem finding and problem-solving. Provided reassurance. Gave license to change.

The strategies listed are not exclusive but are a useful starting point for teachers to reflect on what they use in their own teaching. Strategies might also vary depending on the stage of the composition or the abilities of the students. Other developments within education have influenced how composing can be taught. The student-led popular music approaches to musical learning, such as those steered by the organization Musical Futures, have encouraged teachers to take a step back to allow students to learn through active engagement, and with peers. Collaborative composing, although often a common process of creating music in the lower grades in classrooms, can often be dismissed as student progress to higher levels, even though many professional musicians and music creators highly value collaborative practice as part of their creative process. Another significant development that has changed how students learn to compose is the use of digital technology, which is discussed in more detail in the “Technology” interlude. As with all aspects of teaching and learning, what works best for students will always be dependent upon various factors. There is no one way to teach composing or creative music making that is appropriate and relevant for all young people. Instead, teachers and composers should consider the respective target groups addressed. For example, contexts such as community music or music therapy offer a different and interesting perspective on how composing can be approached:

• Composing through songwriting and storytelling (e.g., popular-music context). • Learning by doing in a band context or composing with digital technology. • Learning through improvising (e.g., in a community music-workshop). Important questions to ask when approaching teaching composing in a setting include: Is it a single student or a group that is being taught? How big is the group? Is it a group of amateurs, professionals, or a mixed group? Do the group members know each other? How old are the group members? Are the group members there voluntarily? What kind of prerequisites do they bring? All these aspects will influence the ways in which composing is taught and learned. 190

Ways to teach composing

What to teach? Creativity or theory? Just like the old conundrum, “What comes first – the chicken or the egg?”, one question that can often divide a room of music educators is that of the importance of music theory as creativity. At the core of this debate is the belief that students cannot learn to compose or be creative until they have mastered a certain level of technical proficiency, which in practice often tends to mean the learning of Western classical music theory and notation. It is felt by those who maintain this stance that only once students have a strong underpinning of the rules that they can then attempt to break them and be creative: “Changing rules … cannot be done if one does not know the rules in the first place … learning to follow the rules must always come first” (Boden, 2001, p. 100). This “time-honoured” (Lupton & Bruce, 2010, p. 274) method of composing teaching comes from a history of student composers learning to imitate another composer’s style, termed pastiche. This approach to composing teaching, one which privileges knowledge and skills over creative exploration, can still be found today, often in formal educational settings. Such attitudes toward composition teaching can be critiqued as not representing the reality of how many music creators create their music, leading to limiting opportunities for creativity, self-expression, and student voice. Salaman (1988) argued decision-making is an essential part of the creative process. Thus, when students are not able to make decisions about their own music, for example when completing a Bach chorale exercise, it cannot be called composing. Progressive pedagogical approaches have been developed that go beyond just “delivering compositional techniques” (Berkley, 2001), instead allowing students to engage in experimentation. Within this approach, composing and creativity are viewed as complex processes whereby learning is undertaken holistically and collaboratively. The role of the teacher changes from the all-knowing expert to someone who “guides” students (Berkley, 2001) through creating an environment for creativity to flourish, and intervention and questioning that supports students in developing their own self-reflection skills (Barrett, 2006; Webster, 2003; Wiggins, 2005). This approach does not place the learning of music theory or notation at the start of the learning journey but instead values exploration and learning by doing. One possible criticism of a more open approach to composing teaching is that students may struggle with a lack of boundaries. “Imagine how anxious students would feel if they were asked to compose a piece of music, with no guidelines except that it be something good” (Hickey, 2012, p. 17). Limitations can therefore play an important part in the creative process for students, Salaman (1988) believed that effective composing teaching involved a careful balance somewhere between providing freedom and offering structure. With this debate, we have witnessed that music teachers and composer-educators may choose to place themselves in either the “theory first,” or “creativity first” group. We would argue that there is value in a more balanced approach. Taking a creative approach does not have to mean a lack of boundaries, or having no consideration of learning outcomes. Instead, music theory can be integrated more organically into the creative journey of students if, and when, it is appropriate for them. In that way, theory, knowledge, and skills are intertwined with the creative process to provide a more holistic learning experience, as shown in Figure IV.2: It is important for teachers to reflect on what music theory they are teaching students so as to ensure it is relevant, appropriate, and a useful tool to allow students to expand their creative potential and voice. 191

Kirsty Devaney, Nancy Evans, Martin Fautley et al.

Figure IV.2  A cyclical approach toward composing teaching through creativity and music theory

Conclusions As illustrated throughout the various chapters in this companion, approaches to teaching and learning music composition can vary greatly depending on the context, country, the student group, and the purpose and aims behind why composing is taking place. Depending on the chosen approach, the teacher or facilitator needs to decide how to frame the creative task according to the needs of the students in the respective situation. This interlude does not offer a clear or simple answer to the question of “how to teach composition.” Instead, we recognize composing as “a complex activity” and that “no single classroom pedagogy can be considered as universally appropriate.” (Fautley, 2004). Thus, we would like to invite the reader to think about how they experienced the teaching of composition and reflect on the many aspects and modalities involved in these creative processes:

• Can all music teachers teach composing, and does it matter if you are not an “expert” composer?

• What is important to you when developing a composition task for your students? What aspects are you especially draw attention to?

• How can everybody contribute to the creative process with their respective backgrounds, resources, experiences, expertise, and thoughts about how to create new music?

• What are the different roles and power relations when supporting students with their composing?

References Barrett, M. (2006). Creative collaboration: An ‘eminence’ study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061852 Berkley, R. (2001). Why is teaching composing so challenging? A survey of classroom observation and teachers’ opinions. British Journal of Music Education, 18(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051701000225 Boden, M. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 95–102). London: Continuum. Devaney, K. (2018) How composing assessment in English secondary examinations affect teaching and learning practices. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Birmingham City University, Birmingham.

192

Ways to teach composing Fautley, M. (2004). Teacher intervention strategies in the composing processes of lower secondary school students. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0255761404047402 Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines, ideas for composing in K–12 music classrooms. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, M. A. (2002). Listening to the music: Compositional processes of high school composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345815 Kinsella, V. & Fautley, M. (2017). The use of activity theory as an analytical tool for the music learning processes. In J. Bugos (Ed.), Contemporary research in music learning across the lifespan: Music education and human development. Routledge studies in music education (pp. 26–38). Oxon: Routledge. Lupton, M., & Bruce, C. (2010). Craft, process and art: Teaching and learning music composition in higher education. British Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051710000239 Salaman, W. (1988). Objectives and the teaching of composition. British Journal of Music Education, 5(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505170000629X Savage, J. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for change. In J. Finney & P. Burnard (Eds.), Music education with digital technology (pp. 142–155). London: Continuum. Schlothfeldt, M. (2018). Komposition als didaktisches Handlungsfeld. In M. Dartsch, J. Knigge, A. Niessen, F. Platz, & C. Stöger (Eds.), Handbuch Musikpädagogik. Grundlagen – Forschung – Diskurs (pp. 326–333). Münster & New York, NY: Waxmann. Webster, P. R. (2003). Conference keynotes: Asking music students to reflect on their creative work: Encouraging the revision process. Music Education Research, 5(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1461380032000126337 Wiggins, J. (2005). Fostering revision and extension in student composing. Music Educators Journal, 91(3), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3400074 Winters, M. (2012). The challenges of teaching composing. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000489

193

13 COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY IN ITALIAN SCHOOLS A model for teaching music composition through processes Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina Introduction In recent times, scholars have been reconsidering the role of creativity and compositional activities in music education (Lothwesen, 2020). From the 1980s, an appreciable development has characterized the research field of music composition, and several theoretical models have been conceptualized (Biasutti, 2012, 2018; Biasutti & Concina, 2021; Fautley, 2005; Hopkins, 2019). Research trends on musical creativity were characterized by different assumptions, practical intentions, and research methodologies (Sloboda, 2005). Creative abilities were explored in different groups of participants, with a huge variability, from beginners to professional musicians (Schiavio, Moran, van der Schyff, Biasutti, & Parncutt, 2022). Students from primary school to the music conservatory were involved, considering the context in which the activities were carried out (Burnard, 2012a). In the school, creative activities have been reconsidered an educational foundation, and the need to include expressive methods based on creativity, sound experimentation and improvisation in the music education curriculum was pointed out (Dogani, 2004). In the past, the attention of researchers had focused more on the dynamics of listening to music according to perceptive and discriminative principles. In school contexts, activities based on music composition can enhance not only artistic attitudes, but also general skills such as the communicative abilities of students (Macdonald, Miell, & Mitchell, 2002). This chapter presents the current situation for composition pedagogy in Italian schools, examining the national curriculum and some experiences and projects in the field of musical creativity. Finally, some relevant processes involved in music composition are analyzed with the purpose to lay the foundations for an educational approach based on processes rather than products (Biasutti, 2017).

An overview of Italian school activities concerning music composition What is music composition in schools? Within primary school, we could define what characterizes creative activities and how composition can find a specific space. By composition, we mean activities that stimulate the creativity 194

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-18

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools

of students, who are asked to rework and assemble sounds in a divergent way. These are compositional activities in the broadest sense and can be understood differently than in the academic field, and in conservatories or music academies in which the prominent elements are elaborating a traditional musical score. In primary and middle school, by creative activities (Burnard, 2012b), we mean various types of activities that use any kind of sound sources, such as sound events, body percussion, but not necessarily compositional practices with notes on the musical stave that drive the creation of a traditional score (Hickey, 2012). Experimentation processes in schools have been fundamental, both for inspiring children and for realizing musical and sound ideas, which can also be notated in an informal way. During composition, the students elaborate their thinking, looking for forms of translation and transduction from musical thought to a form of graphical presentation. Many inspirational ideas and symbols can be present in aural or visual form not only as images, but also as proprioceptive sensations (Zanchi et al., 2017), and one of the fundamental processes of composition is the translation of the intended thought as a graphic representation of sound into the score.

Music curriculum: aims and activities in Italian schools of the first cycle In Italian schools, more emphasis than in the past is currently dedicated to the role of creative skills in music education. In Italy, for the first cycle of schooling (including primary and junior high school), the main goal of music education is to promote students’ musical sense (MIUR, 2012), in a perspective of sharing cultural and artistic meanings within the community and between cultures. During kindergarten (3 years, students of 4–6 years old), primary school (5 years, students of 7–11 years old), and junior high school (3 years, students of 12–14 years old), music is introduced in connection with other artistic modalities (visual art, drama) and often in an interdisciplinary perspective with the contents of other curricular subjects (De Cicco, 2019). Music education includes two main dimensions (MIUR, 2012), the first related to the production of an action on sound materials, and the second referring to active listening to music. Composing and improvising are two core activities included in the productive dimension: here, children’s creativity, critical thinking, and metacognitive skills are directly involved (Vannini, 2013) in the exploration of the sound dimension that characterizes their daily life. Students are encouraged to explore the musical reality of their cultural context and to rethink, rework, change, and personalize simple rhythmical and sound patterns. According to the Italian “National indications for curricula of kindergarten and first educational cycle” (Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e il primo ciclo di istruzione, MIUR, 2012), at the end of primary school students should be able to explore and elaborate sound, using different instruments and tools for expressing their creativity. These abilities should be consolidated during the years of junior high school in order to reach the necessary competence to compose and improvise, individually and in groups, so that students may convey artistic and cultural messages through the musical dimension. The national curriculum addressed three main themes: the promotion of creativity through music education; the need to adopt an interdisciplinary perspective, which could connect different subjects in a whole educational project; and the introduction of new technologies as tools for supporting classroom activity. One of the main aspects that highlights the potentialities of music education is the interdisciplinary approach, which links music as expressive language with other areas of knowledge: As a medium of expression and communication, music constantly interacts with the other arts and is open to exchanges and interactions with the various areas of knowledge. (MIUR, 2012, p. 71, translation by the authors) 195

Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina

This statement highlights the role of composing and improvising activities as tasks for encouraging students’ self-expression through sounds.

Creativity and compositional activities in Italian schools Creativity and expressivity are considered core elements for helping students develop their critical thinking skills. In addition to critical thinking, it is necessary to acquire autonomy in the learning process and in other dimensions of daily life (Branca, 2012). Through music education, and more specifically, through compositional activities, children and adolescents can be encouraged to experiment, explore, compare, reflect, and manage their creative process, stimulating the use of creative thinking and the achievement of divergent thinking skills (Burnard & Younker, 2008). According to Burnard (2012b), several different kinds of creativity can be recognized in music education and should be encouraged. “Multiple creativity” should reflect on the range of creative tasks that can be undertaken during music lessons. Creativity in music may not be only an individual process (Gaggioli et al., 2020) – as can be imagined in the work of the “traditional” Western classical music composer – but also a shared and community process (Partti & Westerlund, 2013). Collaborative creativity can be effectively introduced in music education classes in order to encourage students to explore sounds and create music. Learning objectives could be shared in negotiating, discussing ideas, and collaborating for the success of the group. Several educational projects in the field of music education in Italy have adopted the perspective of collaborative learning in creative and compositional tasks (Passanisi, Di Nuovo, Urgese, & Pirrone, 2015; Zanchi et al., 2017). The traditional conception of music composition as an activity reserved for musically trained people has to be revised: often generalist teachers in primary school consider compositional activity a more difficult class activity than tasks based on listening and music performing. The challenge now becomes how to propose composing tasks in primary and secondary schools in ways that can be easily accessed by students and sustain their interest toward music making (Hickey, 2012). Especially for generalist teachers, music education activities can lack in the expression of students’ creativity, relying more on listening and sound reproducing tasks (Welch & Henley, 2014). In Italy, non-specialist teachers teach music in primary school, and they are not always prepared for implementing such educational tasks in the classroom (Biasutti, Hennessy, & de Vugt-Jansen, 2015). Primary teachers who do not feel sufficiently skilled in music education, or who think that music creating and performing require specific musical talent or competence, could be more cautious in proposing musical tasks based on composing. For non-specialist teachers, it becomes essential to promote professional development activities and innovative educational projects for fostering teachers’ competence in teaching music composition in the class. This should be considered while proposing training programs and professional development activities for primary teachers. Information communication technologies (ICT) and the introduction of new technologies as tools for supporting compositional activities in the class could play a relevant role.

ICT and music composition The role of technology in music composition has been widely discussed in Italy, and it has been argued that technology has to be considered a technical support. Technology brought about changes in the way didactics are being conceived, and the target skills of educational activities have been diversified, focusing on processes rather than on products. The computer 196

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools

could be considered a tool that allows a diversification of teaching, focusing on aspects such as critical thinking skills, along with an increasing awareness of application opportunities. Exploiting technology has transformed the interaction between teachers and students by the active involvement of students. The use of technology in a constructivist context could be promoted, where students develop their own conceptions of music. The computer is a catalyst that enables students to express their potential through complex thinking patterns, e.g., making decisions to produce a piece of music. Using ICT in music composition, the teacher offers “comments to his students that helped them to expand their composing skills while still respecting their creative thought” (Webster, 2010, p. 117). The multitude of interactions furthers the scope of the quality of thinking and the ability of devising increasingly complex applications. ICT allows the achievement of a personalized learning dimension, targeting individual characteristics and goals based on a learner-centered perspective. Didactic activities have to be a function of the students’ needs, and the teacher should be a facilitator and a supervisor rather than the center of all interactions (Biasutti, Hennessy, & de Vugt-Jansen, 2015). These principles could be used as guidelines for the development of multimedia didactics and must be taken into account when considering projects carried out at all levels, from primary to middle and secondary schools.

ICT in the national curriculum The technological innovations that characterized music production reflect in Italian school curricula. In the national curriculum (MIUR, 2012), an important recognition of the role of multimedia technologies in music education emerges. Listing the educational goals that should be achieved at the end of primary school, ICT instruments are mentioned as possible tools for supporting music production (composing and performing): [The student] articulates timbrical, rhythmic and melodic combinations, applying elementary schemes; he/she performs them with the voice, the body and the tools, including those of computer technology. (MIUR, 2012, p. 71, translation by the authors) Multimedia devices and software are introduced in music classes for all school cycles. While presenting the learning goals for music education in junior high school, ICT supports are included: [The student] is able to conceive and implement, even through improvisation or by participating in processes of collective processing, musical and multimedia messages, in critical comparison with belonging models to musical heritage, also using ICT systems. (MIUR, 2012, p. 72, translation by the authors) The national curriculum encourages teachers to help students to develop and express their creative skills in music education autonomously. Creative skills should be developed in a student-centered approach with multiple tools and instruments, including those related to multimedia devices. ICT should be considered the medium that could support educators in facilitating students’ creative expression in music (Baek & Taylor, 2020). A critical use of computer and multimedia technologies in music education could be promoted to empower students through music activities, and not a trivialization of music classes into a mere “computer gaming” lesson. The enhancement of creativity and the promotion of an active role of 197

Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina

students have become the core features of many educational projects concerning music composition undertaken in Italian schools.

Italian experiences and school projects on music composition In the Italian educational landscape, music education has often become the context for promoting not only artistic and creative skills, but also the achievement of specific psychological, emotional, and social objectives. Particularly for primary and junior high school students, music education may become a suitable context for enhancing social and interpersonal abilities (De Cicco, 2019). Currently, special attention is given to kindergarten children, with the aim of encouraging their musical development. In the last decades, some educational projects have developed to support artistic expression and active participation of young children, such as the Reggio Emilia experience (O’Hagin, 2007). Several interdisciplinary projects have focused on the development of students’ educational inclusion and psychological well-being. Activities that encourage musical expression and production, such as music performing, composing, and improvising, can be useful, and the support of multimedia technologies can facilitate students’ engagement in the tasks (Tobias, 2017). Many projects proposed in Italian schools for music education are based on an interdisciplinary approach and aim to foster interpersonal interaction and inclusion of all students, addressing special educational needs. The focus is on teachers, enhancing their pedagogical skills with regard to music education. An example is the LINK project (Zanchi et al., 2017), a two-year project involving both teachers and students. Its aim was to encourage an inclusive approach in school through music education. The project involved teacher training with the support of a music therapist and other experts, and classroom activities for primary and junior high school students. There were three areas covered: body and movement, musical expression, and verbal communication. Teachers were invited to rethink their educational approach, introducing innovative strategies and activities for promoting the engagement of the whole class in tasks, which stimulated individual expression through different mediums. With reference to the musical dimension, students worked in small groups for experimenting, improvising, and creating new musical materials, using different instruments with the support of ICT for shaping their compositional projects. Improvisation became one of the main activities for stimulating students’ creative thinking, and group improvisation and composition were particularly useful for fostering social inclusion. Several Italian school experiences are related to the promotion of transferable skills, in the social, psychological, and emotional spheres. In these projects, technology may be useful for fostering children’s and adolescents’ improvisational and compositional abilities and creativity. Creating new musical materials become easier and more accessible for young people without formal compositional competencies or theoretical knowledge. This may be particularly engaging for kindergarten children, who can enjoy musical exploration and experimentation, as happened in the DiaMuse project (Addessi & Pachet, 2006). In this project for kindergarten children, the Continuator, a multimedia instrument for supporting students’ exploration of sound material, was used. The Continuator is a multimedia system for performing music which can reproduce simple musical pieces by acting as a “mirror” of what was played by the child on a keyboard. This tool has been used for proposing game activities focused on the exploration of sounds and silence with simple imitative, compositional, and improvisational tasks, using a children’s tale as background. The results of the project have showed that children’s interaction with the Continuator encouraged the expression of individual creativity, fostered improvisational behaviors, and raised their interest toward music. In addition, the 198

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools

interpersonal exchange within the group of pupils positively affected the social dimension, supporting attitudes toward cooperative learning and social sharing. Music education has been also associated with the promotion of social skills, often through the proposal of collaborative tasks for making music (Baek & Taylor, 2020). Passanisi et al. (2015) proposed activities of creative musical expression (individually and in groups) to Italian primary students. Nine-year-old children were engaged in creative musical tasks in which they had to listen, experiment, and create with sounds, first individually, then in pairs, and finally in wider groups. The aim was to develop creative thinking skills and enhance social competencies and interpersonal relationships with peers. Students experimented with what Burnard has defined as “collaborative creativity” (Burnard, 2012a, p. 15), where each member of the group shares the responsibility of the final musical product. Another project for primary students – “Project for children’s music literacy through new technologies,” (Progetto di alfabetizzazione musicale per bambini attraverso le nuove tecnologie) – was promoted by the composer Luciano Berio (Luca, 2008) for the development of creative skills through ICT. This project used graphic and gestural interfaces which enabled primary-school students to explore and elaborate on acoustic events and produce electroacoustic music pieces. The project was conducted with classes of about 20 children each, whose age ranged between eight and ten years old. The children worked in pairs on dedicated computers. The contents displayed the following three-level structures: (1) knowledge of sound parameters, transformation and creation of music structures; (2) music patterns, creation of rhythms, melodies, sound specialization, and dynamic transformations; (3) realization of a specific interdisciplinary project, where the skills developed through the previous levels were displayed. The children completed the pieces using inductive processes developed in a virtual learning environment in which the rules of composition were extracted from the system itself. The exploratory phase considered a variety of activities such as the exploration and transformation of the sound events accessed through a sound databank. No constraints or frameworks were imposed upon the children. The listening sessions were focused on two dimensions: listening for ear training, and listening for assessing the compositions which had been created. The ear training aimed to develop the ability to recognize specific characteristics of the sound. The listening for assessing the compositions was conducted collectively and included a period of group commenting/discussing facilitated by the teacher, with the aim of discussing the quality of results reached and consistency in the various stages of the composition process. Each meeting comprised three segments: outline of the theme and description of the interfaces, individual creation, and collective listening. The project results were documented by a CD containing the children’s works. The future developments of this project and its potential applications on a large scale are limited by the need of specialized staff and of dedicated computers, which can hardly be afforded by individual schools. The projects described in this section are only some examples of the many experiences that characterize music composition in Italian schools. Innovations are directly linked with findings from educational research, which is examining the development of creative processes. Innovative proposals are now introduced in the first educational cycle, with the aim to enlarge the perspective about music education from mere music teaching to an opportunity for self-expression and individual development. One core issue is the didactic method that could be used during the activities, and a focus on the learning processes rather than on products could be relevant for the promotion of creative ideas and to the application of creative thinking skills. 199

Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina

Teaching music composition through processes Research trends on musical creativity have considered both the products and processes. Product studies have analyzed the finished work of the creative act, while process research has considered observable behaviors and the mechanisms reported by subjects during music composing. These research findings have paved the way for several practical applications in school music classes. The understanding of cognitive processes involved in musical creativity has helped teachers in finding innovative strategies for engaging students in creative tasks. It is relevant to reflect on the processes involved during composition and to define a didactic approach on processes rather than on products (Biasutti, 2017). A process-oriented teaching method can help the acquisition of skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking and can promote reflective practice on the processes involved in composition. The objective is to outline a reflective approach that goes beyond the instructional level. The overcoming of this approach, one mainly based on fixed practice, can be found in an educational approach focused on processes. A process-oriented model based on cognitive research for developing a compositional pedagogy could be based on Biasutti (2015), considering the following dimensions: planning, generating, translating, organizing, and monitoring/evaluating/revising, which are reported in Figure 13.1 and discussed next in this section. Planning concerns itself with the general aspects of the piece and the objectives to be pursued. Planning includes the definition of the context, the scenario, and the aims of work, such as the occasion in which the piece will be performed, and the characteristics of the listeners, for example, whether it is a Christmas performance or event for parents and relatives to mark the end of the school year. The piece could also be about creating a soundtrack of a story, or creating a song to be performed in the class. In planning, the goals and the best ways to achieve them are established, defining the musical genre, the style in which to compose, the techniques, and instruments to be used. Planning guides the processes of generating ideas, translating, and organizing and orients the work and the evaluation criteria. Planning involves cognitive effort and is related to the ability to define an overall structure. Musical

Figure 13.1  Processes of music composition

200

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools

sequences are considered a gestalt rather than single notes, and musical material is articulated into groups. Generating regards the creation of musical material and refers to the ability to produce patterns and phrases to be used in the composition. Idea generation is a fundamental aspect of the composition process and takes place in accordance with predefined objectives. Generative actions follow techniques, such as thinking about music mentally, or producing it with musical instruments or with the computer, or a combination of these elements. In the case of a mental process, there is the definition of the characteristics of the sounds in mind. In the case of performance, instruments, such as the recorder, xylophone, piano, guitar, built instruments, sound objects, body percussion, and voice, could be used. The generation of ideas can be stimulated individually or in small groups and can take place in stages of experimentation and improvisation. Aspects of rhythmic, melodic, or harmonic dimensions can be explored, using materials such as rhythmic cells or phrases to be developed and expanded, considering the timbral characteristics of the instruments or sound objects. Translating concerns the transcription of sound ideas into a written form, representing sounds graphically with various forms of notation. Writing music is an abstract process which involves the transition from an auditory to a visual system, since music is thought of in sound terms but is graphically encoded on paper. Composing implies two skills, one relating to the knowledge of musical writing and the other relating to the ability to connect the graphic sign to the resulting sound effect. The transcription mechanisms allow the transition from the dimension of musical performance to the elaboration of a written score. The composer adapts his or her thoughts to the characteristics of the instruments and to the stylistic and performance conventions. Using traditional notation, the composer has to consider constraints and to respect variables such as pitch and duration for expressing complex temporal aspects of musical thought. In the case of translation with informal notation, graphic symbols are invented for the representation of sounds with an arbitrary process. The advantage of elaborating a score is to make the music transmissible and playable by other people, an element that gratifies children when they realize that a piece created by them can be performed by other companions. Organizing is concerned with the strategies used to construct the piece and consists of selecting the generated material to give it a shape based on rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic dimensions. Some compositional strategies include the trial-and-error type and are based on listening in order to review what has been elaborated. In addition, writing processes develop according to hierarchically organized purposes, giving rise to complex interconnected systems. The difference between experts and beginners lies in the distinct ability to integrate the working plans: experts make more connections while taking into account more constraints and principles at the same time, while beginners proceed with less coordination and planning between the actions. Beginners use serial processes using one parameter at a time, while experts use parallel processes, considering multiple constraints at the same time (Davidson & Welsh, 1988). The use of simultaneous strategies involves greater cognitive effort and requires a high degree of mastery of writing. There are two hypotheses regarding the genesis of passages: the first believes there is a generation of several ideas that are subsequently articulated, while the other assumes that there is elaboration of a single idea, such as in the case of theme and variations form. Monitoring/evaluating/revising occurs on several occasions and has different functions. Monitoring happens while coordinating and supervising the overall activity, and it involves performance and evaluation of music fragments. The performance takes place at different times in relation to the need to generate, transcribe, and organize the material and provides 201

Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina

an idea of what has been produced so far. Evaluation constantly accompanies the writing processes and provides indications for any changes or revisions and can result in some parts being modified and adapted. Evaluation concerns general and specific aspects: on an overall level, structural changes to the general plans can be decided, while at the level of the individual blocks, formal errors are checked. There may be a systematic review when a first draft of the piece has been completed in order to check for errors at the microstructural level, such as notes out of tonal context or rhythmic errors. At the didactic level, when working with material produced from sound objects, there is the problem of establishing the control criteria, since the compositional principles are outlined extemporaneously, without having a universal validity. This is a different process than while composing melodies or pieces in the tonal system, in which there are established constraints and rules (such as harmonies) to refer to for evaluation. In music, evaluation can be done both mentally and by listening. Mentally, it is possible to reread and represent the score internally, imagining the resulting effect and checking the notes according to the principles defined in the design. Conversely, by listening, forms of control are implemented with the acoustic medium, evaluating whether the piece “sounds good.” In school activities, evaluation should find a more specific space (Ruokonen et al., 2017), valuing and integrating this process into educational practices. The presented processes could be useful for developing a pedagogical approach to processes, in which the teacher focuses on the actions necessary for composition. The processes involved in composition are identified to determine relevant educational activities. The strength of a teaching approach to processes is that individual processes can be consolidated and linked in a holistic framework to support composition as a general skill. Process-oriented teaching requires a greater workload in the design phase compared to traditional approaches, where specific activities are defined. Furthermore, the teacher assumes the role of facilitator to improve students’ awareness during composition, rather than imposing notions and theories about students.

Conclusions This chapter has proposed a review of activities concerning musical creativity, with reference to composition and its educational implications in the Italian context. More attention is currently being devoted to the promotion of musical composition in educational settings (Thorpe, 2018). In primary and secondary schools, musical production is considered one of the core dimensions of musical education, linking composition with other interdisciplinary goals in the school curriculum. Findings from educational research offer some relevant implications for introducing tasks based on composition in school and higher education contexts, where one of the main aims of musical production activities is to encourage the development of divergent thinking. In Italian schools, there is a growing interest in activities that involve creative thinking in music. Music teachers, educators, students, and institutions are experiencing a transition from an approach based on results to one mainly based on processes. Musical creativity could be a reference for educational programming with the construction of innovative educational contexts. Particular attention must be given to the promotion of a positive socialization, to the stimulation of motivation, and to extensive and transversal learning methods. Attention must be on processes rather than products, encouraging autonomy and being responsible for one’s own learning, making students aware of their strengths and weaknesses. The relevance of cultural variables, previous musical experiences, interactions, and cooperation has to be considered for developing creativity, focusing on the environment in which 202

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools

communications and exchanges take place. Musical activities in which the teacher relates to what the student knows and is able to do, with an approach centered on the learner rather than on the teacher, are currently fundamental in a music education program for fostering a significative learning process in students. It is relevant to respect the declarative and procedural knowledge developed in informal contexts activating metacognition and processes such as reflection, flexibility, and critical evaluation. An active creative behavior could be expressed in different situations. A different concept of learning is emerging in which the learning results are considered in relation to the individual processes (cognitive, affective, behavioral) that lead to them, and to the social dimension in which the learning experience has been developed. Educational activities on processes could promote planning, generation of ideas, organizing, and evaluating, and in which the teacher has to stimulate the students to share within the group the implicit level of their knowledge. Analysis of the issues should be promoted with questions focused on how the problems were solved, and on the alternatives to obtaining significant solutions by activating metacognitive mechanisms that induce an improvement in the quality of thought. Applications can be at various levels and should involve a different approach and a new attitude toward teaching, promoting a music education in which the development of creativity and composition has a specific role.

Reflective questions

• What compositional tasks could be proposed to students in the framework of processbased learning?

• How students could be prepared for performing compositional tasks? • Which kinds of reflective activities could be proposed to students to activate their metacognitive and creative processes?

• What strategies could be used for assessing these tasks, considering both the compositional product and process?

• What are the teachers’ competences for developing creative process-centered activities? References Addessi, A. R., & Pachet, F. (2006). Young children confronting the continuator, an interactive reflective musical system. Musicae Scientiae, 10(1_suppl), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864906010001021 Baek, Y., & Taylor, K. (2020). Not just composing, but programming music in group robotics. Music Education Research, 22(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2020.1767558 Biasutti, M. (2012). Group music composing strategies: A case study within a rock band. British Journal of Music Education, 29(3), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000289 Biasutti, M. (2015). Elementi di didattica della musica. Roma: Carocci. Biasutti, M. (2017). Teaching improvisation through processes. Applications in music education and implications for general education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(911). http://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00911 Biasutti, M. (2018). Strategies adopted during collaborative online music composition. International Journal of Music Education, 36(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761417741520 Biasutti, M., & Concina, E. (2021). Online composition: Strategies and processes during collaborative electroacoustic composition. British Journal of Music Education, 38, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051720000157 Biasutti, M., Hennessy, S., & de Vugt-Jansen, E. (2015). Confidence development in non-music specialist trainee primary teachers after an intensive programme. British Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000291 Branca, D. (2012). L’importanza dell’educazione musicale: risvolti pedagogici del fare bene musica insieme. Studi sulla Formazione/Open Journal of Education, 15(1), 85–102.

203

Michele Biasutti and Eleonora Concina Burnard, P. (2012a). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press Burnard, P. (2012b). Rethinking “music creativity” and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 5–28). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2008). Investigating children’s musical interactions within the activities systems of group composing and arranging: An application of Engeström’s Activity Theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.001 Davidson, L., & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: The developmental path of tonal thinking. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 260–285). Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Cicco, D. (2019). Assessment of music learning in the Italian education system. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education, Volume 1 (pp. 253–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dogani, K. (2004). Teachers’ understanding of composing in the primary classroom. Music Education Research, 6(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380042000281721 Fautley, M. (2005). A new model of the group composing process of lower secondary school students. Music Education Research, 7(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500042109 Gaggioli, A., Mazzoni, E., Benvenuti, M., Galimberti, C., Bova, A., Brivio, E. … Chirico, A. (2020). Networked flow in creative collaboration: A mixed method study. Creativity Research Journal, 32(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1712160 Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines: Ideas for composing in K-12 music classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand. Hopkins, M. T. (2019). Verification and modification of Fautley’s model for analysis of lower secondary school students’ group composing processes. Music Education Research, 21(1), 71–85. https://doi. org/10.1080/14613808.2018.1503243 Lothwesen, K. S. (2020). The profile of music as a creative domain in people’s conceptions: Expanding Runco & Bahleda’s 1986 study on implicit theories of creativity in a conceptual replication. Musicae Scientiae, 24(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918798417 Luca, S. (2008). Exploration and musical creation with new technologies (Esplorazione e creazione musicale con le nuove tecnologie). Musica Domani, 147, 12–17. Macdonald, R. A. R., Miell, D., & Mitchell, L. (2002). An investigation of Children’s musical collaborations: The effect of friendship and age. Psychology of Music, 30(2), 148–163. https://doi. org/10.1177/0305735602302002 MIUR. (2012). National directions for the National curriculum for kindergarten and the first education cycle (Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e per il primo ciclo d’istruzione). Ministerial decree from November 16, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2023, from https://www.miur.gov. it/documents/20182/51310/DM+254_2012.pdfhttps://www.miur.gov.it/documents/20182/51310/ DM+254_2012.pdf O’Hagin, I. B. (2007). Musical learning and Reggio Emilia. In K. Smithrim & R. Upitis (Eds.), Listen to their voices: Research and practice in early childhood music (pp. 196–210). Toronto: CMEA. Partti, H., & Westerlund, H. (2013). Envisioning collaborative composing in music education: Learning and negotiation of meaning in operabyyou.com. British Journal of Music Education, 30, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000119 Passanisi, A., Di Nuovo, S., Urgese, L., & Pirrone, C. (2015). The influence of musical expression on creativity and interpersonal relationships in children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2476–2480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.308 Ruokonen, I., Enbuska, J., Hietanen, L., Tuisku, V., Rimppi, A., & Ruismäki, H. (2017). Finnish student teachers’ self-assessments of music study in a blended learning environment. The Finnish Journal of Music Education, 20(2), 30–39. Schiavio, A., Moran, N., van der Schyff, D., Biasutti, M., & Parncutt, R. (2022). Processes and experiences of creative cognition in seven western classical composers. Musicae Scientiae, 26(2), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864920943931 Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind. Cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thorpe, V. (2018). An activity theory analysis of the relationship between student identity and the assessment of group composing at school. British Journal of Music Education, 35(1), 5–22. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051717000158

204

Composition pedagogy in Italian schools Tobias, E. (2017). Augmenting music teaching and learning with technology and digital media. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education (pp. 431–438). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vannini, I. (2013). Educazione musicale: progettualità educativa e didattica nella scuola. Musica Docta, 3(1), 117–120. Webster, P. (2010). The changing role of music teachers as guides for learning (Gli insegnanti di musica come guide per l’apprendimento: un cambiamento di ruolo). In M. Biasutti (Ed.), Educating to educating: Research in educating music teachers (Educare a educare. Ricerche sulla formazione degli insegnanti di musica) (pp. 115–129). Lecce: Pensa. Welch, G. F., & Henley, J. (2014). Addressing the challenges of teaching music by generalist primary school teachers. Revista da ABEM, 22(32), 12–38. Zanchi, B., Bacarella, E., Bonfiglioli, L., Addessi, A. R., Colace, E., & Quadrelli, F. (2017). Inclusive practice in Italian schools: Body and music for listening and sharing without words. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 50, 33–52.

205

14 A SHEET OF PAPER CONSIDERED AN INSTRUMENT Examining the separation of form and content in creative music education Tadahiko Imada Introduction In creative music making for the classroom, what kind of relationship should be developed between “form” (as sound itself or sonorous air) and “content” (a story using words)? Ferdinand de Saussure (1966, pp. 66–67) states: The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image. The latter is not the material sound, the impression that it makes on our senses. […] The psychological character of our sound-images becomes apparent when we observe our own speech…Our question of terminology. I call the combination of a concept and a sound-image a sign, but in current usage, the term generally designates only a soundimage, a word, for example (arbor, etc.). One tends to forget that arbor is called a sign only because it creates the concept “tree,” with the result that the idea of the sensory part implies the idea of the whole. According to Saussure, language is a system of signs to be studied as a complete system at a given point in time (synchronicity), and the historical account of a culture (diachronicity) is not needed. Every word has two aspects. First, it is made of sound; that is to say, “water” is different from “pater,” “mater,” “later,” “eater,” and so on, because of the first consonant. The pronunciation or spelling of “water” can be considered a signifier. Second, the meaning associated with the sound of the word “water” can be regarded as the signified. These two aspects of every word are closely linked to each linguistic sign. This connection between signifier and signified is not a natural linkage but developed purely on the basis of a socio-cultural setting. Therefore, the relationship between the signifier and signified can be considered an arbitrary relationship. Saussure says (1966, p. 119): The signs used in writing are arbitrary; there is no connection, for example, between the letter t and the sound that it designates. Saussure proposes the concepts of “synchronic” and “diachronic,” referring, respectively, to the study of language without reference to the past, only as an existing system of 206

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-19

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

relationships, and the study of changes in language (Jary & Jary, 1991). The cultural system of language can be modified and changed in terms of time and space because of its arbitrariness. In other words, if we take any language as a system of differences, we must specify the time and place for any system being examined. Saussure thought that the diachronic changes of history and the synchronic system of time and space should be differentiated. It is possible to apply such roles as signifier and signified from Saussurean linguistics to music, separating out the “form” (sonorous air) and “content” (the story told in words) (e.g., Imada, 2000). The “aesthetics” of European music, fully developed by the nineteenth century, were extensively based on the Platonic and Aristotelian doctrine of mimesis and were essentially literary accounts wherein music was explained by words, on the assumption that words and their meanings were capable of illuminating musical meaning and thus were capable of accounting for “musical understanding.” Western composers such as Beethoven and Schubert took advantage of this rhetorical tradition (Imada, 2012). As a result, many musicologists and music educators have been confused and misled by the supposed similarities between music and language (Imada, 2000). Cooke (1989, p. 151), for example, talks about the minor progression (1-2-3-2 in g minor; for example, the harmony moves from tonic [1: G - 2: A - 3: B ♭] to dominant [2: A]) as musical language: This term is actually a fusion of the gloomy relationship between the tonic and minor third, and (harmonizing the third as a minor sixth of the dominant) the emotional effect of the minor 6-5 progression. It has been employed rarely, but these are three outstanding examples which give it the status of a basic term in musical language. The fact that Beethoven and Tchaikovsky hit on the same phrase to open works which they entitled “Pathétique,” and that Purcell also used the same progression to open Dido’s Lament “When I am laid in earth,” in his opera, puts the expressive function of the term in a clear light. Nineteenth-century audiences in Europe seemingly tried to listen to certain types of musical components, such as melody, rhythm, and tonality, as signifying different emotions and feelings. Cooke (1989, p. 28) states: Everyone can hear how Schubert, by use of different types of melody, different rhythms, and subtle tonal modulations follows the emotional progression of the poem, in such songs as “Gretchen at the Spinning-Wheel;” and, pace Hindemith, the conflicting emotions of poem and music follow in swift succession—restless anxiety, joyous ecstasy, a cry of pleasurable pain, restless anxiety—yet the emotions of the one are as “real” as those of the other. Those audiences who got together in Schubert’s circle for the famous “Schubertiads” (evenings of performing Schubert’s music), mostly his close friends, might have shared the same musical elements and vocabularies. Music simultaneously became a means of communication in a specific society, as if music was a language. What is more problematic, however, is that the application of formal principles of rhetoric to music became accepted rationally, scientifically, and physiologically as universally present. In Euro-American classical music, many composers create a logical phrase, and eventually those phrases are constructed like a huge story based on human emotion and defined by adjectives such as “happy,” “sad,” “warm,” “cold,” “graceful,” “dark,” and “bright.” That is to 207

Tadahiko Imada

say, Euro-American classical music can be considered imitating human emotions and feelings. Sontag (1990, p. 3) states: The earliest theory of art, that of the Greek philosophers, proposed that art was mimesis, imitation of reality. It is at this point the peculiar question of the value of art arose. For mimetic theory, by its very terms, challenges art to justify itself…Plato, who proposed the theory, seems to have done so in order to rule that the value of art is dubious. Aristotle, on the other hand, defended art because of its medicinal effectiveness. According to Sontag (1990), both Plato and Aristotle advocated the mimetic theory of art. According to this theory, art itself, beyond the individual work, is inevitably suspect. Therefore, art becomes something that requires defense. As a result of this defense, art is separated into two parts: form and content; and the conclusion that content is essential and form is an accessory. Plato and Aristotle used words as an essential tool to convey meaning to these empty phenomena. Plato, perhaps, hated the chaotic states that art magically produces and tried to tame and manage it by logos. Sontag (1990, p. 10) explains: Interpretation does not, of course, always prevail. In fact, a great deal of today’s art may be understood as motivated by flight from interpretation…A great deal of modern poetry as well, starting from the great experiments of French poetry (including the movement that is misleadingly called Symbolism) to put silence into poems and to reinstate the magic of the word, has escaped from the rough grip of interpretation. In Euro-American classical music, it is assumed that music is its content, as we can see from the development of the modernist Western concept of “aesthetics.” In short, music is always defined by statements, such as “What Beethoven actually said is…” and “What Schoenberg really expressed is….” This content-oriented manner is superficially adapted to today’s music education in terms of both listening and performance (including creative music making) in Japan. Jacques Derrida (1981) argues that all language leaves the reader and listener free to interpret because of a lack of exact reference, a vagueness in the relationship between the signifier and signified. Derrida sees a fundamental alienation between speech events (parole) and writing (écriture). Writing, however, produces “the death of a subject,” because writing does not represent any specific feeling of any particular person at all and merely becomes a general linguistic sign. If language is a system of differences, as Saussure says, language can no longer be present for anyone. Hence, language no longer represents any specific feelings of any particular person. The term “play” is therefore introduced by Derrida to indicate this absence of any transcendental meaning in text. Derrida thinks that, as soon as one uses words, language automatically becomes involved in a system of differences and is separated from any original meaning. The combination of “original meaning,” “speech events,” and “writing,” which phono-centrism takes for granted, and the presence of the truth, ensured by phono-centrism, can no longer be established. In other words, the sound “water,” for example, only signifies “water,” whatever that is, by social convention as Saussure sees, and that word can refer to many more things than a clear, transparent, and drinkable fluid that forms the rain, rivers, and so on, and to many more signifiers, which in turn refer to yet more signifiers, thus leaving any signifier open to change and modification and leaving any applied meaning open to deconstruction. Derrida did not even notice how important the concept of “play” is. Since signifiers do not have any fixed signified, they cannot express, explain, or interpret anything. At this 208

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

moment, the term “water,” for example, becomes an innocent word, similar to an incantation. In terms of the system of language, this phenomenon of “play” apparently merely indicates the vagueness of the relationship between the signifier and signified. “Play,” however, is much more critical for music.

Japan: premodern and modern “Japanese classical literature is known for the privileging of landscape and its description,” (Karatani, 1989, p. 263). According to the Japanese philosopher and literary critic Kojin Karatani, Japanese classical literature was not interested in finding meaningful content in the landscape, but in describing the landscape itself. For example, the role of words in the Japanese short-form poetry haiku does not have the dichotomy of form and content as theorized by Plato and Aristotle, or the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified as pointed out by Saussure. It is closer to the “play” proposed by Derrida. However, this natural flow, or balance of influence between landscape or soundscape and the Japanese language, was broken off by the introduction of Euro-American logos in the 1880s. From 1887 to the early twentieth century, there arose a movement for the “Unification of the Written and Spoken Languages,” in order to create a new written language to replace the existing one. The new Japanese language, based on this source text matching, played an important role in the smooth translation of Western logos. Tetsuji Takechi (Takechi & Tomioka, 1988, pp. 88–89, author’s own translation) describes the use of sound in the classical singing form of Japanese gidayubushi theater as follows: If you put pressure on your stomach, you can produce a voice without vibrating your vocal cords. You do not speak with your vocal cords. The muscles around the vocal cords vibrate to produce sound. In other words, the vibration of the entire body is transmitted to the muscles surrounding the vocal cords, which vibrate to produce a sublimated voice. In short, there is a way of thinking that rejects the human, the physical. The sound here is not an autonomous contribution to art, but rather a fusion with nature, which requires complex overtones of natural sounds. We leave the human body and gently add manmade sound as if it is natural sound. The physicality of noh (a classical Japanese dance-drama) actors is also different from that of Western actors. A noh actor can become a man, woman, the gods, spirit, or even a monster (Takaoka, Takahashi, & Morita, 2004). A fierce man is a fierce man himself, and perhaps not something to be expressed. The actor must faithfully portray the fierce man who is there in the dark of the night, and whom people can recognize. The technique required here has no meaning or content. When a male noh actor plays a woman, he does not imitate the woman’s voice. In other words, he does not interpret the meaning and content of the existence of the woman. It is the same when he plays a monster, so his body must always be a medium in which something can enter transparently. For this reason, noh actors practice daily right from their childhood. They must speak loudly with all their might. Therefore, by eliminating excessive verbal interpretations and explanations, the body of the noh actor possessed by the fierce performer becomes a new signifier (unshakable visual and auditory information as a form), which involves the body of the audience as well. Here, there is no dichotomy of performer and audience. Similar to the Japanese language, the introduction of Western music to Japan took place during the end of the nineteenth century under the Europeanization policy, which was the 209

Tadahiko Imada

motto of the government of the Meiji Restoration (1868–1912). In 1879, the Music Study Committee (Ongaku Torishirabegakari, later Tokyo Music School) was established by the Ministry of Education, and in 1900, after hiring foreign teachers, the Japanese composer Rentaro Taki, a graduate of the Tokyo Music School, composed songs based on Western functional harmony. According to the Japanese musicologist Hiroshi Yasuda (2021), the Ongaku Torishirabegakari was a mysterious institution established to conduct research on educational music, and train teachers. It was here that Japan’s first music teachers for schools and would-be Western musicians were trained. This institution was re-established as the Tokyo Music School in 1887 and became the first stronghold of Western music in Japan. However, the transfer of Western music was not done in the same way as the establishment of a new Japanese language, by translating different phonology and syntax, and by interpreting or translating the meaning. Music, in which phonetics and syntax take precedence, cannot be translated according to meaning and content. The two were too different to be translated into the matrix of the traditional Japanese acoustic culture. Therefore, the introduction of music did not lead to the establishment of new “national music” like the new “national language.” Foreign teachers were not dismissed, and Japanese “classical music” maintained a sub-classical position for many years. In 1875, Shuji Izawa, an officer at the Music Interrogation Office, was sent to Bridgewater Normal School in Massachusetts, in the United States, to study under Luther Whiting Mason (Howe, 1991). Howe was a music educator who edited music textbooks in three countries, including the United States and Japan (Howe, 1991), and was invited to Japan later. Izawa, who was familiar with the Japanese melody (mode), was not good at Western singing based on the so-called diatonic scale (Okunaka, 2009). In addition, the transfer of Western music was a deal between Japan and the United States on the condition of Christian missionary work and was a part of Japan’s Europeanization policy (Yasuda, 1993). According to the Japanese musicologist and soundscape researcher Keiko Torigoe (1997), the people of the Meiji era were not shy about importing and learning the modern sound culture of the West, that is, art music. The so-called shoka (commonly taught Japanese school songs) was originally a unique teaching material, unparalleled in the world, specially created to teach Western music, and had a completely different system of tuning and scales from those unique to Japan until the Edo period. It can be said that the installation of reed organs in elementary schools all over Japan, so that all children could sing in solfege, was one of the cleverly designed national policies to westernize the Japanese people through music. When composers such as Claude Debussy, Erik Satie, and later John Cage attempted to relativize and deconstruct Western musical thought through the acoustics of non-Western spheres, Izawa created a blend of East and West that was neither about the “superiority of Western music” nor the “uniqueness of Japanese music” (Kikkawa, 1995). However, as mentioned above, the incompatibility of Western and Japanese acoustic cultures prevented the “unity of words and sentences” in music, and solfege as a universal language was transferred under the name of shoka. The fusion of classical performing arts, such as gagaku, gidayu, kabuki, and noh, with Western classical music ended in failure, and Western classical music, along with its imported “meaning and content,” formed the Western-style logos of Japan for more than a century.

Great music considered content In traditional European classical music, everything is expressive. In order to express a “great” story, for example, it is transformed into a symphony or opera, and people’s ears are held captive for an expected great excitement. Composers and performers are also forced to undergo years of intensive training, resulting in and creating various negative effects, such as 210

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

dichotomies between professional and amateur, producer and consumer, object and thing, winner and loser (in competitions, for example), as Edward Said (1991) points out the disparity between professionals in their dresses and tails and the “inferior” amateurs, for example. Since the birth of playback technology, popular music has replaced classical music as the most commonly consumed music. Consequently, “music” has been deeply connected to finance and has been commodified. Jacques Attali (1985) sees this as a factor in the shift of sponsorship from aristocracy to publishers after the civil revolution in France. The target market of capitalism was the middle class, a large market of amateurs. The emerging bourgeoisie, lacking the financial means to hire a private orchestra, kept a piano in their living rooms and enjoyed arranging orchestral works in the nineteenth century. The “great” music is found and performed in schools in Japan, no matter the scale of the activities, be it a performance of a brass band, or chorus, or listening to Verdi’s Aida in the music appreciation materials for secondary school students. This demonstrates how music education in Japan still has the colonial roots of the “great” European tradition. Schafer (1995) sees the Western symphony orchestra as a symbol of the hegemony of nineteenthcentury Europe. The materials used in European instruments, such as gold, silver, ebony, ivory, granadilla wood, and rosewood, all came from European colonies around the world. Jean-François Lyotard (1984) proposed the concept of grand narrative. Grand narratives were born around such ideas as individuality, creativity, originality, genius, history, and nationality. European classical music that relies on such grand narratives can be called “great music.” Music education in Japan since the end of the nineteenth century has been developed on the basis of this European classical music tradition. However, the bearers of this “great music” are the “artists,” who are viewed as cultural heroes, and the general public only consumes the cultural values justified by the stories. Therefore, it is difficult to say that music education based on this example is appropriate for the schooling of ordinary children. Here, it is necessary to introduce “small music” as a counter concept to “great music” into music education. Two characteristics can be found in small music: (1) it does not simply advocate rebellion against great music—because the discourse of rebellion against great music becomes itself a narrative that justifies the concept—but deconstructs great music and uses it to create new music; (2) it pays attention to the way children interact with their daily sound environment and creates music that is rooted in their individual acts of listening and seeing.

Universal design and Schafer’s indictment It was not until the twentieth century that music finally broke free from the spell of “Western classical music” and became an object of anthropological and psychological investigation. Robert Walker (1996) argues that no experiment in biology, anthropology, or psychology has ever shown that human behavior based on cultures, such as music or language, is innate. While humans must have basic adaptive capacities for their existence, there is no way to predict how human behavior will change depending on the cultural context. Human musical behavior can only be studied from multiple perspectives through ontological conditions, social relationships, and productive relationships in a particular environment. There are many reasons why the focus has been on non-Western acoustic cultures that were not previously included in the category of “music.” Western music after Claude Debussy, due to the limitations of the underlying tonal system, planned to construct a new system by referencing (or exploiting), for example, the gamelan. In parallel with these creative activities, ethnomusicology, for example, has studied the presence or absence of a main note or center inherent in descriptive data from different acoustic cultures (McAllester, 1971), and the presence or 211

Tadahiko Imada

absence of structural principles such as theme and variation, repetition, and beat (Blacking, 1973). Music psychology has studied perceptual behaviors such as listening, comprehension, and learning. Harwood (1976), working on music psychology, explores the regularity of perceptual behaviors, such as listening, understanding, and learning. However, the complexity of different acoustic cultures (sophistication) prevents them from finding the universal terms they need (Blacking, 1973). This, based on ethnomusicology (e.g., Blacking, 1973) and music psychology (e.g., McAllester, 1971), creates a paradox: “quality” can be measured by “quantity,” and “quality” is determined by “quantity.” The Japanese anthropologist Junzo Kawada (1997, p. 117, author’s own translation) argues: There is certainly a reason why Christianity and Islam, which give absolute value to logos (and écriture), have banned dance. As I looked at the crowd of nudes dancing through the night, stamping their feet on the ground, kicking up dust in a daze, and dancing to the sound of drums, I felt as if I could understand the reason why they did not need to write. The crowd of naked forms dancing with “voices” outside the logos is physical and public. In Japan, music in public education is based on the idea that music can be explained in words, or that music is a “quantitative” practice aimed at perfecting a piece of music based on a small fragment of Western music composed at the end of the nineteenth century. Walker (1990) also points out that for the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, Dreamtime is the source and repository of songs and all artistic activities. In this system of practice, there is no creativity as defined by Western thought. There is no place for the individual as the creator of his or her own music. This represents an important and qualitative difference between Indigenous musicians and Western composers such as Liszt. With the disappearance of linear timelines, instruments, composers, performers, audiences, and actual sounds, Dreamtime may force us to reconsider the notions of “art” that Europeans have traditionally taken for granted: genius, originality, and individuality. Walker (2007, pp. 173–174) also notes: The Second World War had devastated large segments of Europe, leaving indelible scars on the psyche of millions of people. The appropriation of the noble German traditions of music, from Bach to Wagner by the Nazi regime, caused many to feel repulsion on hearing that music. Karlheinz Stockhausen, as a young man at the end of the Second World War made a statement which perhaps exemplifies the feelings of any 24-year-old who has witnessed the destruction of his country through war, and especially the misuse of music by Nazis. He said that the new music of the post-war should be built on the ashes of the old. (Stockhausen, 1963) Immediately after World War II, composers such as Pierre Louis Joseph Boulez and Karlheinz Stockhausen, who were in their late teens and early 20s, discarded tonal music, the foundation of Western classical music, with total serialism, an extension of Schoenberg’s 12-tone technique. They advocated a break with the entertainment, Dionysianism, and populism that enable music to sway human emotions, and to confront science with intellect. Stockhausen meant that “the new music should pay homage to the great traditions of Western intellectual endeavour and it should not be a total break from these nor rejection of them. It should, however, represent a new way of thinking about music built from the old” (Walker, 2007, p. 174). American experimental music, at the same time, relativized Western classical music in a different way from that of Central Europe by advocating the concepts of the “prepared piano” 212

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

and “aleatoric music,” for which John Cage drew inspiration from Zen and the I Ching. This avant-garde movement offered Japanese composers of the time a ray of hope that they could break free from both colonial rule in music and a kind of internalized stigma as Euro-American imitators that had prevailed since the end of the nineteenth century. After World War II, the Japanese Ministry of Education set and released an official guideline for public music education, which is still in effect, called the Course of Study (COS). The latest version of COS in music (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [Japan], 2017 comprises two main categories: “music-making,”—which includes singing, playing instruments, and creative music making—and “appraising.” Both Fumishige Yamamoto and Yukiko Tsubonou played a significant role in creative music-making. Hajime Takasu (Takasu & Takasu, 2019, p. 219) points out: Fumishige Yamamoto (1938-) and Yukiko Tsubonou (1949-), two music education researchers, strongly encouraged the inclusion of the musical activity “Making Music and Expressing It” during the revision discussion for the Course of Study. They were the first few researchers who were interested in Paynter and Aston’s 1970 book, Sound and Silence: Classroom Projects in Creative Music. Yamamoto and Tsubonou translated this book into Japanese. Yukiko Tsubonou was a pioneer researcher encouraging creative activities through composing…these efforts were realized in the eighth version of the Course of Study, issued in 2008. In the latest COS (2017) for elementary and junior high school music, three points concerning the development of qualities and abilities were proposed, and the structure was changed. The first is an understanding of the “structure and background” and “diversity” of music; expression based on “originality and ingenuity”; and the acquisition of the “knowledge” and “skills” necessary for this. The second is “originality and ingenuity” in expression; the ability to think and judge in order to accept beauty. Lastly, the third is regarding the “experience of enjoyment,” “sensitivity,” and “sentimentality,” which are unique to music. In the “Goals and Contents of Each Grade” section, the use of the word “collaboration” emphasizes communication and collaboration through music. A major change can be seen in “creation.” In elementary school, “music creation” requires a flexible response to sound itself, as seen in the descriptions of “the idea of sound creation through sound play,” “the relationship between the voice and the characteristics of various sounds around us,” and “expression through improvisational selection and connection of sounds.” In junior high school, which is the basis for creative activities, it is important to focus on the internal form of music rather than the external contents, such as narrative and scene description in words, as seen in the descriptions of “coherent creative expression,” “characteristics of scales and words,” “ways of connecting sounds,” “characteristics of sound materials,” “overlapping of sounds,” “repetition,” “changes,” and “objects.” In the COS, the construction of a musical expression in which students collaborate and devise based on active learning is required. At the same time, the teacher is expected to facilitate, while making an efficient link between music making and appraising. The description that “for students with disabilities, the content of instruction and the method of instruction should be planned and systematically devised in accordance with the difficulties that arise when learning activities are conducted” suggests the need to respond to the universal design of music instruction programs and social inclusion (inclusive education). Similar to John Paynter, the Canadian composer Murray Schafer, who was born in 1933 and was familiar with European avant-garde compositional techniques and musical languages, 213

Tadahiko Imada

such as dodecaphony and total serialism, played a significant role in Japanese music education. As a fellow student of pianist Glenn Gould at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto, his focus was not on playing Bach as a pianist or composing based on total serialism, but on the snowy north, the forests and lakes of Eastern Canada where he was inspired by locale, the spirits of the gods residing there, and the mountains and their soundscapes where the Indigenous people of North America live (Schafer, 1995). Thus, for him, the school was not the École de Paris or the New Viennese School but the soundscape of Eastern Canada (Yamaguchi, 1987). That is to say, Schafer thinks that the sound environment comes first, and then the human ear responds. This kind of interaction between soundscape and human beings—in other words, acoustic ecology—was music for Schafer. Schafer (1977) points out that the view of music that dominates the training of musicians is Romantic or Dionysian, that sounds produced are highly subjective and hedonistic. At the same time, he points out that, since the twentieth century, music has come to be defined as sound in a way that was once unimaginable. Schafer proposed the concept of “soundscape design” to enable the “public” traffic between the sound environment and body. Citing Hermann Hesse’s Glass Bead Game, what Schafer attempts to achieve is a social welfare of sound, or universal design. Design refers to the creation of something new while simultaneously referring to what has already existed. Schafer’s soundscape design is intended to create a universal sound environment, and sound education is designed for children to be involved in its creation. In order to modify Dionysian music education and construct public music education, Schafer (2005) points out the problems of today’s music education such as: value being placed only on Western tonal music and on music created by others; children forgetting the true joy of music because of the high level of skill required; value being placed on expensive music, with inexpensive materials being ignored; teachers and parents being unable to understand music outside of concerts; music being isolated and out of touch with science, other arts, and the environment; and finally that teachers are powerless in the entertainment industry (he implies that even without music education in schools, children can choose their favorite pop stars and listen to their music). Schafer does not consider the “music” described here to be universal for children. This notion has affinities with the American architect Ronald Mace’s principles of universal design (Mace, Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, 2021): fairness, flexibility, simple intuition, tolerance of error, and non-burdening of the body. The goal is not to reproduce conventional music (including classical, commercial, and traditional music) but to create music through sound education that is simple, intuitive, tolerant of error, and physically free. In the next section, I focus on sound education, including soundwalks and paper projects, as an alternative to the concerns and practices discussed thus far. This chapter discusses the importance of creating a new signifier without being linked to the signified by means of a music classroom activity entitled “sound project,” at Hirosaki University Junior High School.

Sound education and the sound project Schafer’s basic premise is that there is a spirit, a nature, that inhabits a particular place. In A Little Sound Education, there is an exercise based on Emily Carr’s paintings of the forests of British Columbia. Some people think that when trees are cut down, they scream. The Canadian painter and author Emily Carr used to call the stumps of trees that had been cut down “screamers” to remind us of the horrible fate they suffered when they were cut. (Schafer & Imada, 2009, p. 90) 214

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

The reason why “sound” is direct is that it contains no metaphor. The tree screams and communicates with the “it,” but the “it” also screams at the same time, be it a forest in Canada or a large zelkova tree in a temple in Tokyo. The Japanese critic Masako Shirasu (2000, p. 27, author’s own translation) says: According to the chief priest, the local people believed that there was a monster in this zelkova. In May, when the new buds are blooming, every night, the zelkova cries out with a mysterious hooting sound. Some people think it might be a chirping sound, but the abbot thinks it might be the sound of an old tree sucking up water. In the same way that Schafer sees the world soundscape, Shirasu, too, implies that since everything in the hands of humans is “artificial,” the first thing to do is to listen carefully to what is actually there.

Moment one: soundwalk Yukina Chiba (2021) points out that some of the creative activities listed in the compulsory music textbooks in Japan, such as adding rhythmic accompaniment to melodies, playing with others the rhythms that the students come up with themselves, and creating melodies to the rhythm of words, all have limited rhythmic patterns or words or are limited to certain sounds. In addition, the topics in these textbooks are all compositional or solfege-like in content. Chiba considers this kind of creation, which limits the collaboration and ingenuity of the students, as not being creative. Although some topics allow for partial improvisation, there are no creative activities in which students perceive and sense sounds from scratch. As Chiba sees it, Japanese music textbooks, even in their creative activities, conform to the larger narrative. The Faculty of Education at Hirosaki University, where I teach, has four affiliated facilities: kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, and the special needs school. Students who aim to become music teachers at junior high schools are required to engage in intensive internship training at the affiliated junior high schools in their third year. The following practical training is conducted five times a week during the spring and fall semesters for a total of 20 lessons (50 minutes per lesson). This program, called the Sound Project, was designed by me based on Schafer’s Sound Education in order to resolve the problems of music textbooks as Chiba points out, for example. They will have already experienced the sound project in my music education class during their sophomore year. This internship practice led by the university faculty is unique to Hirosaki University, and this program, based on Sound Education, has been developed over a period of about 15 years with the cooperation of the music teachers at the affiliated schools. On the afternoon of May 21, 2013, the most striking feature of the day was the sound of the wind. The junior high school students took time to create a physical connection with it. The wind would approach from afar, resonate with their bodies, stimulate their senses, and eventually drift away. At the same time, various types of wind formed a soundscape. After returning to their classrooms, the junior high school students verbalized these sounds. Their words were the result of their attempt to faithfully trace the sounds they heard. They tried to capture the unshakable acoustic information as a signifier without giving the sound any narrative meaning. In this project, I instruct a sound project for first-year students (ages 12–13) at Hirosaki University Junior High School, and the “soundwalk” is the first exercise I always 215

Tadahiko Imada

introduce. The German-born Canadian composer Hildegard Westerkamp (2011, pp. 12–13) notes: One specific listening activity that was initiated by R. Murray Schafer and appealed to me greatly from the start was the soundwalk. In any soundwalk – whether done alone or in groups, whether blindfolded or not – we move through any environment without talking, focusing our listening on every sound around us. Not only does a place reveal itself in most interesting and often new ways but also, we learn much about our own listening, such as the ways we hear a soundscape, how we get distracted and stop listening outwardly, how we respond to sounds, what we think while listening, what draws us in, and what discourages us from listening. The sound project begins with a soundwalk, a walk in which the children listen to all the sounds around them while maintaining a space of solitude and not talking to anyone. The soundwalk requires a leader to design the course in advance. Third-year students investigate various sounds inside and outside the Hirosaki University Junior High School building in advance and come with a soundwalk that features interesting acoustic spaces and experiences. They take the lead in the actual musical performance as student teachers, leading the junior high school students while paying attention to, for example, the sound and feel of shoes hitting different kinds of ground, sounds coming and going from far away, sounds that can be visualized, and artificial sounds that occur suddenly, one after the other, sometimes mixing and diffusing. The sound environment in the open air is more dynamic than the students expect. With a good leader’s design and guidance, students can enjoy the soundwalk as if they are experiencing a composed work. Environmental sounds are, of course, fickle, so it is not always possible to hear the sounds you design in advance. Wind, birds, and people move at will. In such cases, the leader guides nature as if they are improvising. Since the actual soundscape is unstable, the leader (student teacher) also has to take on both roles, as composer and improviser.

Moment two: exercise using pencil boxes After the soundwalk, we return indoors and perform the second exercise. Since almost all students carry pencil boxes, I ask the students to listen carefully to the sound of their pencil boxes to examine whether they can recognize the sound of their own. They pass their boxes to the student teachers, I ask the students to close their eyes, and I let the student teacher shake each box in turn. If a student thinks they recognize their own pencil box, they put up their hands. After undertaking these two exercises—the soundwalk and pencil boxes—I ask the students about their impressions of the sounds. They answer using such terms as “firm,” “dull,” “round,” “crowding,” “expanse,” and “scattered.” They try to trace the sounds they heard using limited words. One student said “I heard the sound of ants walking,” to which another student’s reaction was “That is impossible!” I commented that “It is not physically impossible to hear ants walking.” The sounds that the students experience through both exercises are signifiers, solid acoustic information. This can be considered a form. The adjectives they use to explain their sound experiences, such as “firm” and “dull,” superficially seem to be the signified elements and content. However, I assume that they were involuntarily and poetically creating new signifiers or forms, since these minimize the need for words.

216

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

Moment three: listening to piano pieces (major and minor key functions) I then play two short piano pieces for the students, “In Old Vienna” and “Valse Triste,” by the American composer William Gillock. These works have a clear key function: “In Old Vienna” and “Valse Triste” were written in C major and f minor, respectively. Most of the responses are similar: “The first piece feels fun but the second piece sounds sad” or “The first piece sounds happier than the second piece.” I then ask the students the difference between the sounds they experienced in Moments One and Two and the piano pieces. Sample responses include “They were totally different,” “The two piano pieces sound more common as music.” “I can imagine some storylines from the piano pieces.” The students listen to the Gillock piano pieces from a relativistic standpoint as a simple signifier (acoustic information), since they answer with clear signified elements. In short, the meanings associated with the sounds of major and minor keys are “fun,” “sadness,” and “happiness” (signified elements or content). Here, we can clearly see an entirely different response that contrasts with the students’ comments from moments one and two.

Moment four: a sheet of paper as an instrument (a paper project) Schafer and Imada (2009, pp. 45–46) wrote the following two exercises for children in the published book A Little Sound Education: Take a sheet of paper and try to pass it around the room absolutely silently. It’s harder than you think. As soon as your fingers touch the paper, they make a sound. Now imagine that the sheet of paper is a musical instrument. Each person in the class has to make a different noise with it. How many different sounds can we think up? We could fold it, blow on it, drop it, tear it…what else? But don’t crush it up until the last. On the basis of the experiences up to this point, we move on to creative activities with paper in the next period. First, we use copy paper and pass it around the classroom from student to student without making any noise. The size of the paper is gradually increased (from newspaper to model paper), and we do the same. At this point, the students are divided into four groups and we have them try to pass the paper as neatly as possible. I ask them to pay attention to their bodies—head, neck, spine, leg and arm joints, fingertips, and so on—to create an ensemble with the other group members, even if it means making a little noise. I instruct the trainees to perform the same exercises. I then have a group of trainees who have done well present their work. I have them focus on body movements without paper at first, then add paper (the students’ material was newspaper). I then have each group of students present their work. Through this exercise, students become aware of the qualities of paper as a material and learn how to familiarize themselves with it. The physical activity here consists only of the visual information of “movement” and the “sensory” information of what is happening inside the students’ bodies. It is the play of signifiers that do not take a specific signified element. After this presentation, I give the students an exercise to make sounds with paper. All the students form a circle, and one by one they create a sound, but I tell them that they cannot use a sound that someone else has already used. They change the sound of the paper with different movements, and so they pay attention to the sounds and body language of the other students. Since this activity is an application of the preceding exercise, it is still a play of only signifiers who do not take a specific signified element.

217

Tadahiko Imada

Moment five: making paper music (a paper project) In this final activity, we have two groups of students: the “sound as form” group and the “storyline as content” group. First, the students reflect on the first lesson. They comment on the quality of sound they found in the soundwalk and the pencil case exercise, and on the verbal narrative, they found in the piano piece, such as the cheerful and joyful scene for the major key or the sad story of lost love for the minor key. The students are divided into two groups, one for sound quality and the other for storyline, and begin their creative activities. The “sound quality” group concentrates on creating various kinds of sounds by using different shapes of newspaper and changing their body movements. The “storyline” group begins discussions, completes a script, and adds sounds to it. Both groups are given 15 minutes to complete their work and present it at exactly the same time. Since I only give them 15 minutes to make paper music, the first group is unable to complete its composition. By contrast, the second group somehow completes its work. After performing these two paper pieces, I ask the students, “Which piece was more complete?” and they answer, “The storyline group.” A student from the first group says, “We were short of time. If you had given us an hour, we would have been able to complete it.” Then, I ask the second group, “Could you possibly elaborate your piece if I give you an extra hour?” A student from the second group answers, “I don’t think so. I reached a limit since we only paid attention to our story. I didn’t listen to the sounds.” The students even point out that the acoustic information (signifiers) bound by a specific signified would not go anywhere and would not have any development. Herein lies the key to the relationship between words and music. It is not necessary to introduce post-structuralist theories such as play among signifiers that do not take up a specific signified (content), but they have experienced the meaninglessness of binding sound with words.

Closing thoughts The students learned that a signifier (acoustic information or form) tightly linked to a signified (storyline or content) has limited potential for further musical development. As Sontag (1990, p. 12) puts it, “What is needed, first, is more attention to form in art. If excessive stress on content provokes the arrogance of interpretation, more extended and more thorough descriptions of form would silence.” Schafer tries to recover our sense of the music itself and its grain with the help of the paper activity. Since Nature has been musicians’ chief source of inspiration for creating music, and Nature itself does not express anything, we should pay more attention to sound itself and its resources (the human body and movement). How can music teachers pass on this musical experience to children without losing the primal control of music performance? Schafer makes it possible by using a sheet of paper. Creativity is not a matter of more or less (quantity) or thickness or thinness (density). In short, a musician cannot intentionally possess the option of having creativity. In today’s music education, what haunts all use of the concept of creativity is the link between signifier and signified, as well as form and content. To be “creative,” we probably need to forget the term “creativity” and pay more attention to making a new signifier (or form) itself. On the afternoon of October 31, 2017, a group of third-grade middle school students each found a favorite spot and listened to environmental sounds for 3 minutes at a fixed point. When they returned to the classroom, they traced their listening experiences in graphic notation rather than in words. This minimal activity led them to the next creative activity following the soundwalk. Schafer (1977) believed that by returning the echo to the

218

A sheet of paper considered an instrument

soundscape of nature, humanity acquired two miracles: language and music. The experience of soundwalk, that is, the impression of the soundscape, can lead to an expression using, for example, graphic notation as a medium. When drawing a graphic notation, try to represent the experience of sound as much as possible in terms of shapes (i.e., do not make the experience of hearing a bird’s voice explicit with an illustration of a bird). In the performance of graphic notation, I asked the junior high school students to use graphic notation that is not created by themselves but by others, so that the work does not become a mere imitation of the sound environment. This is a way to let the students play with the work as a new kind of signifier, without binding the graphic notation as a story (signifier) of their own experience. The work can be created by a group or an individual, but by using familiar materials as instruments, the principles of universal design, flexibility, simple intuitiveness, and tolerance for error can be ensured. Listen to the soundscape. The act of listening is a very active process, but there is no need to find meaning or value in it. If the body feels something, it will transparently capture the impact and create a new signifier. This is the happy work of words, music, and the body. Design, or ingenuity, is about referring to existing “music” as information and creating something that has never been heard before. Music does not necessarily need an audience (it does not need to impress others), nor does it need to use existing instruments. It can be performed either alone or in collaboration with others. The sound project approach has been practiced not only in junior high schools, but also in elementary and special needs schools (for the intellectually disabled), and schools for the deaf. In a joint class between a junior high school and a special needs school, the students from the special needs school surprised the junior high school students by showing alternative expressions that could not be expressed in conventional “music” activities (Imada, 2019). This is a pathway to the universality of music created by the school music room, which should be for everyone. Schafer (Wakao, 1990) thinks that every sound has a certain magical power; for example, sound as God speaking, or as a mysterious force at work. He sees examples of this in the North American Indians. For instance, shamans try to find the right sound that can invoke a good god or kill an evil one. This is magical, and a completely different way of thinking from the Western idea of analytical music based on length, height, and intensity. It is important to note that Schafer’s point is that music is essentially the magical result of the traffic between the natural soundscape and the human body and emotions. His point is not a desire to return to antiquity, but to feel, rather than analyze, the qualities of authentic sound. Schafer also argues that in this case of Western music education, what the piano teacher looks for is not true music education, but the next Glenn Gould. However, that does not do anything for anyone but a few people. In this regard, Schafer was an exceptional composer who pursued the public and welfare aspects of music.

Reflective questions 1 Are Composition and Creative Music Making different or the same? If they are different, how do you think they differ? 2 Have you ever thought about the relationship between environmental sounds (soundscape) and music? If so, have you ever applied these ideas to your teaching? 3 What do you think about the effective and friendly relationship between language and music?

219

Tadahiko Imada

References Attali, J. (1985). Noise: The political economy of music. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Blacking, J. (1973). How musical is man? Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, Chiba, Y. (2021). Transcending the 88 Keys: Music Classroom and John Cage (Master’s thesis). Hirosaki University. Cooke, D. (1989). The language of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derrida, J. (1981). Writing and differences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Harwood, D. (1976). Universals in music: A perspective from cognitive psychology. Ethnomusicology, 20(3), 521–533. Howe, S. W. (1991). Luther Whiting Mason’s textbooks in three countries: National music course, Shokashu and Neru Gesangshule. Canadian Music Educator, 33, 65–74. Special ISME research edition. Imada, T. (2000). Out of logos: A semiotic approach of music education. Bulletin Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 87–90. Imada, T. (2012). The grain of the music: Does music education ‘Mean’ something in Japan? In W. D. Bowman & A. L. Frega (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of music education (pp. 147–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394733.013.0008 Imada, T. (2019). The music of philosophy for children: Soundscape and universal design. Studies in Japanese Philosophy, 16, 66–85. Jary, D., & Jary, J. (1991). The Harper Collins dictionary of sociology. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Karatani, K. (1989). One sprit, two nineteenth centuries. In M. Miyoshi & H. D. Harootunian (Eds.), Postmodernism and Japan (pp. 259–272). Durham: Duke University Press. Kawada, J. (1997). Oto No Kokyosei, Shintaisei (The physicality and public nature of sound). In S. Saito & M. Takemitsu (Eds.), The world of Toru Takemitsu (pp. 116–117). Tokyo: Shueisha. Kikkawa, E. (1995). Nihon ongaku no rekisi (History of Japanese music). Tokyo: Sogensya. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Mace, R., Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. (2021). Retrieved July, 2021, from https://universaldesign.ie McAllester, D., (1971). Readings in ethnomusicology. Johnson Reprint Corporation. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan). (2017). The Course of Study. Retrieved September 20, 2021, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/index.htm/ Okunaka, Y. (2009). Kokka to ongaku (Nation and music). Tokyo: Shunjusha. Said, E. W. (1991). Musical elaborations. New York: Columbia University Press. Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Schafer, R. M. (1995). R. Murray Schafer: Suntory hall international program for music composition no. 20. Tokyo: Suntory Hall. Schafer, R. M. (2005). HearSing. Indian River, ON: Arcana Edition. Schafer, R. M., & Imada, T. (2009). A little sound education (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Shunjusha Sontag, S. (1990). Against interpretation. New York: Anchor Books. Stockhausen, K. (1963). Texte. Köln: Du Mont Schauberg. Takaoka, K., Takahashi, M., & Morita, T. (2004). Noh. Tokyo: PIE Books. Takasu, H., & Takasu, A. (2019). Creativity in the Japanese national curriculum for music. In Y. Tsubonou, A.-G. Tan, & M. Oie (Eds.), Creativity in music education. Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-13-2749-0_16 Takechi, T., & Tomioka, T. (1988). Dentougeijyusu towa naninanoka (What is traditional art?). Tokyo: Gakugei Shorin. Torigoe, K. (1997). Soundscape: Sono Shiso to jissenn (Soundscape: Its philosophy and practice). Tokyo: Kashima Press. Wakao, Yu. (1990). More than music. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. Walker, R. (1990). Musical beliefs: Psychoacoustic, mythical, and educational perspectives. New York, NY: Columbia University. Walker, R. (1996). Open Peer commentary: Can we understand the music of another culture? Psychology of Music, 24, 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735696242001

220

A sheet of paper considered an instrument Walker, R. (2007). Music education: Cultural values, social change and innovation. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Westerkamp, H. (2011). Ears unplugged: Reflections on 40 years of soundscape listening. Japanese Journal of Music Education Practice, 9(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.20614/jjomep.9.1_10 Yamaguchi, M. (1987). Shintai no Souzouryoku (A collection of conversations with Masao Yamaguchi: The imagination of the body). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Yasuda, H. (1993). Shoka to jujika (Shoka and the cross). Tokyo: Ongakunotomosha. Yasuda, H. (2021). Bayer no nazo (Mystery Bayer). Tokyo: Ongakunotomosha.

221

15 DID YOU WRITE THAT SONG? Learning composition in the Kenyan secondary school Emily Akuno

Introduction – unpacking composition Music and learning in Kenya The definition and concept of music identify the individuals who engage with it. In Kenyan cultures, music is a multi-media event involving sonic and visual elements of song, dance, instruments, and décor. The musician is a multi-disciplined individual, a creator-performer who could also be an instrument maker-maintainer. Their training often involves music practices of composition, performance, and technology (Kwami, 1989). The multi-skilled individual takes a variety of roles, often shifting among singer, dancer, and player. This is one of the attributes of the music phenomenon in Africa, leading to its recognition and reference as musical arts (Nzewi, 2019). Its production calls for different modes of expression, such as drama, poetry, costume, dance, song, and playing instruments, and its apprehension requires the senses of hearing, sight, and feeling. In performance, the Kenyan musician endeavors to make his/her work comprehensible to the participating audience and includes them in the rendition. Music performance is communal and participatory (Oehrle, 1993), seen as re-creation (Andang’o, 2009). In such a performance space, skills are honed and concepts assimilated in the course of engaging in music activities that bring together novices and experts performing side by side. The musician is taught through modeling and learns through observation, replication, and practice. As they correct the learners, they reiterate the subtleties of performance that are deemed appropriate for the performing groups, which are often demarcated by age and social status (Kiiru, 2021). Spontaneous composition characterizes the work of proficient Indigenous Kenyan musicians. Gleaning information from the performance environment, the musician extends his or her performance by including it in the ever-evolving work of art. Often, “it is possible for the audience to influence the music directly as the audience itself is influenced by the music” (Holtz, 2006, p. 266). A musician like nyatiti1 player-singer creates a song from the few sentences given by the audience during panegyrization (Omondi, 1980). Since the expression of music is predominantly song, dance, and instrumental activities, music composition involves the creation of artistic and cultural expressions that utilize those media. The exposition above describes music traditions associated with Indigenous practices and upon which Western cultural practices have been introduced. This chapter interrogates the teaching and learning of composition in Kenyan secondary schools. In the author’s experience, 222

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-20

Did you write that song?

teaching is a process of sharing of one’s skills, understanding of concepts, perceptions, and world views. The teaching of composition, understood as the process of expressing one’s experiences and impressions through an artistic medium, becomes pertinent at this point. Does one get taught how to generate a piece of music from their mind; how to, from an apparent nothingness, come up with something tangible that can be shared? Does the teacher impart their procedures of coming up with a product, or guide learners to decipher what may get into their artistic expression, or empower them to determine how to discriminate, select, order, and present the materials of music to best represent their impressions? Does one teach another to be a composer, or simply support their creative journey through exposure to different possible manifestations of creative outputs, and interrogation of their reasons for doing what they do, leading them to take deliberate decisions and knowingly select the materials and procedures to employ? Can creativity be taught, or simply coached or coaxed? What is the teacher’s role in the composition class? The author’s post-experience reflections uncover a multiplicity of roles – the initiator, coach, supporter, motivator, sounding board, and anchor, roles akin to those played by the Indigenous musician-educator who was a guru from whom several disciples learned their trade.

Composition in the Kenyan curriculum and practice This chapter is based on the premise that a music curriculum is designed to guide learners toward becoming musicians, a term that loosely means individuals who exhibit musical behaviors of performing, composing, and participating as listeners. This premise derives from research on Indigenous music knowledge transmission strategies of sampled African communities. Omondi (1980) and Kwami (1989), for example, elucidate the growth pattern of a music student from novice to accomplished musician. Since music education aims to foster understanding of the inter-sonic (Green, 2008) meanings that arise from the sounds and patterns of music, the curriculum is the central way in which music grows as a discipline. It is implemented through musicking activities (Small, 1998) like creating, performing, and listening, also called composition, audiation, and performance (Swanwick, 1979). On this line of thought, one learner’s fascination with composition drew the author’s attention,2 confirming that composition is handled in ways that reveal learners’ and teachers’ attitudes to it and is aided by other experiences of music. Given the opportunity to write their own music, the learner excitedly explored music styles and sounds that had characterized previous encounters with music through performance, even when other students appeared unsure of where to begin or how to proceed and needed elaborate instructions. In the Kenyan sonic environment, easily described as having a song tradition (Akuno, 2016), much of the product of composition in and out of class is in the form of songs. The nomenclature in use in Kenya stems from the wide application of terms at the Kenya Music Festival where “original composition” distinguishes a work of art that is not based on existing thematic material (Musungu, 2014). Subsequently, the clause “adaptation and arrangement” refers to music generated from existing music, usually traditional folk and popular songs. For the purposes of this chapter, composition is either an original composition or an adaptation and arrangement. Both take shape and content that depend on the artist’s knowledge of and ease with the techniques of music, resulting in simple to complex pieces. The creative process in the composition class is often guided by tasks that demand response to a given music stimulus. Learners are given guidelines that lead to products in specific formats or particular media. In responding to such instructions, learners revert to their vocabulary of stored music experiences, visiting these archives for idioms and nuances that may make their work unique or help them respond to the required tasks. A learner must, consciously or 223

Emily Akuno

otherwise, consider, evaluate, select, and appropriate sound material. The process and product are dependent on the learners’ experience with similar tasks, which contributes to the quality and quantity of the output. The discussion below highlights the progressive nature of composition tasks undertaken in secondary school.

Conceptual underpinnings “Learning music is a part of the socialization process which is mostly something else than formal education” (Fredrikson, 2006, p. 260). The notion of learning assumes a learner’s active role in the process of assimilating knowledge and acquiring capabilities that enable them to perform varied tasks and fulfill related roles. Music learners engage in activities and interactions that develop abilities and relationships toward becoming part of the community that practices music. In the Kenyan cultural context, the musician plays and holds roles that tax one’s creative capacity and abilities. Learning composition is an avenue through which an individual develops, by engaging in the creative process, into a social being in the community. The social roles, such as being a member of the human social group, a community of scholars, or creatives or musicians, are often intertwined. The capacity to balance these roles, expectations, and demands is developed over time as one engages in learning activities. Some of the issues considered in interrogating the creative process include “the creative process, the content of the music, the artist’s motivation to create music, and the relationship of the musician to his listeners as well as his relationship to the society as a whole” (Holtz, 2006, p. 263). The creative journey takes individuals through different phases and stages. Whereas some learners struggle, working hard through rules and laid-down procedures, others appear to move swiftly through activities that lead to works that are liked and found acceptable. These two types of creative people are differentiated by a large focus on rationalization for the former, and “an unconscious eruption of activity” (Holtz, 2006, p. 265) for the latter. Created works reflect idioms and nuances that can be found in the creative’s environment, which are the individual’s vocabulary of expressions and repository of resources. The creative mind is fed and sustained by the stream of resources at their conscious and/or subconscious disposal. The Kenyan secondary school curriculum provides opportunities for learners to engage with a variety of repertoire from which they can experience the rules and processes that define and characterize different types of music. “Music listening/music appreciation is typically taught as a decoding activity, learning to ‘hear’ what the composer intended in and from the music: aesthetic listening” (Lamont, 2006, p. 144). Lamont’s statement above points to the focus of composition lessons on generating a musical product. The teaching of composition therefore requires that learners engage with sound material at an early stage and work within a sound environment in ways that are sustainable. As learners make meaning of their environment, as they derive knowledge for application in their individual composition learning tasks, they benefit from the teacher’s guidance. The Indigenous Kenyan teacher’s role has been that of a model that learners observe and replicate (Omondi, 1980). In the process, learners acquire the norms and the language of the practice. Replicating this in the classroom requires an appropriately skilled teacher-model. This chapter leans on a cognitive learning theory position that mental processes aid the understanding of information (Stevens-Fulbrook, 2019), explaining how learners get influenced by both internal and external elements. Stevens-Fulbrook (2019) proceeds to elaborate on how Piaget’s work underscores the significance of the internal structures and the external environment to the cognitive process. In the study on teaching and learning composition which will be presented in this chapter, these internal and external elements are, respectively, associated with the learner and the teacher. Learners understand their thought (internal) processes 224

Did you write that song?

as a way of learning composition, which includes how and what they think about musical styles, idioms, and sounds. The teacher’s role includes providing a safe (external) environment for the learners to ask questions and express their thoughts. Comprehension and application, components of cognitive learning, are crucial to the learning process in composing. Students generate their work from a position of understanding by developing skills of connecting new information to the ideas that they already have. The behaviorist position (McLeod, 2017), that students’ behavior emanates from their interaction with the environment, explains the strength of modeling as a teaching strategy. Modeling is a teaching and learning strategy that is crucial for the successful passing down of norms and good habits to learners. It is a viable strategy for training in music composition. The teacher’s duty is to ensure that learners are exposed to music of “good quality” (music of cultural and aesthetic value) and given opportunities to generate works that are deliberated upon in an encouraging (non-threatening) environment. This generates the kinds of stimuli that elicit appropriate responses from learners. Constructivist learning theory (Bruner, 1996) provides a glimpse of how learning can empower the creative individual. Students create their own learning based on previous experiences and pre-existing cognitive structures (cognitive constructivism), thereby needing a good prior-learning experience to support current learning activities. Students with vast experiences of listening and performing have a large repertoire of music material with which to shape their learning of how to compose, something that the totality of the Kenyan secondary school curriculum provides. The social context of learning is of significance (social constructivism) because the learners’ interaction with a knowledge community is critical to the learning process. This model of apprenticeship learning characterizes much of Kenya’s Indigenous and emerging learning processes. The constructivist approaches resonate well with the practice of learning composition in the Kenyan environment. They point to a rich musical experience as a favorable condition for learning. Learning is as much a factor of gathering information as it is of forming connections. The connectivism learning theory posits that connections are crucial in learning (Duke, Harper, & Johnson, 2013). Students’ connections with each other, with roles and with obligations in life, have a crucial influence on learning. The composition class is best served by this conceptual orientation when teachers allow learners to make connections with the types of music that excite them, with composers that inspire them, and with media that enable them to transcend their daily spaces. The theories of learning described above provide conceptual bases for considering the different events of the composition class. Learners do not work in the same way, and so teachers’ activities are best read through the diverse lenses.

Teaching and learning composition in the Kenyan secondary school The secondary school music curriculum in Kenya is a four-year program open to all learners. Its content covers music literacy, music contexts (history, analysis) performance, and composition, with topics from these areas running throughout the four years of the program. However, as an elective subject, not all learners have access to music, because very few schools offer it as a learning subject. Where it is taught, most learners engage in it for the first two years of school, where they study all subjects before selecting the eight subjects for their secondarylevel national examinations. At this point, very few students select music studies. There appears to be a little trepidation at the mention of composition in the Kenyan secondary school environment, even among teachers. The author recalls a workshop during which the topic generated much silence among the participants, as did aural training and music analysis. The Kenyan secondary school music curriculum, with its grounding in the 225

Emily Akuno

formalities of Western education (Monte & Mochere, 2019), reflects principles and concepts that characterize Western classical music practices and forms. It is against this background that the experiences and perceptions of teachers and learners are interrogated below. Throughout the seven cases below and the author’s experiences, the analysis spans more than three decades (1980–2019). The study is representative of the practice in Kenya because the cases are drawn from a cross-section of stakeholders, specifically urban and rural schools, government and privately sponsored schools, male and female teachers, and students. The common entity in all these cases is the fact that they follow a common music curriculum that is followed nationwide (KIE, 2002). The study followed a descriptive design relying on qualitative data that was gathered from questionnaires sent to the two types of respondents: teachers and students. The responses from the two sets of respondents are analyzed, revealing common perceptions and/or incongruities and divergences in opinion or perception.

Teachers’ perspective The teacher’s role in facilitating learning is espoused in both the traditional African and formal Western education practices experienced in Kenya in recent centuries. Whether explaining, demonstrating, guiding, or correcting, the teacher’s understanding of a concept colors the learner’s conceptualization and application. For this qualitative investigation, the teachers were asked to report their practices and perceptions of teaching music composition. Spread across nine questions, the teachers were asked for information on when they started teaching composition, what they did to cover the content, about what resources they used, and how they assessed learning. Teachers were further asked if they received training for the role they played in the teaching and learning process, and what they did with the outcome of the teaching activities. The responses are consolidated below.

Teaching composition The teachers reported that the teaching of composition begins as early as in the first year of secondary school. The learning methods and activities include music literacy, practical musicianship, exercises in writing short rhythmic and melodic phrases, and using learnt concepts to create melodies. These activities appear to be within the parameters of the syllabus requirements – that learners create melodies of up to 16 bars by the end of the course (KIE, 2002) – and can therefore be said to be a fair reflection of what happens everywhere in the country. Teachers cater for learners’ diversity in interests and abilities by initiating group work and exposure to various types of music for motivation. Weaknesses around pitch and tonality are attended to through aural training. Teachers focus on developing the learner, hence working on cognitive skills and building competences in line with cognitive, behavioral, and constructivist learning orientations.

Curriculum objectives and implementation According to the teachers, the teaching of composition aims to develop and use music skills to create works on diverse topics and for different media, both for self-expression and to gauge their aptitude for music learning. Teachers see the tasks not just as simple exercises, but as precursors of musical behavior (application of skills) as well as identity formation (personal inclination). These responses expose a covert appreciation that the music composition class is 226

Did you write that song?

a site for the development of the individual and the musician. In recognition of this, the students’ output is used in class as excerpts for training in other areas, and learners apply them for specific creative projects. It is evident that this work is consumed as “real” music. In implementing the curriculum, the teachers reported using audio-visual resources, actual music from learners, and digital and print textbooks. Unlike elsewhere, where living composers may walk into class and engage learners, schools rely on other teachers as resource persons. Teachers focus on writing for voice, recorder, and piano, which are readily accessed instruments in the learners’ environment. The syllabus has a segment on setting music to given words, confirming preference for vocal output. These activities are in line with activities that develop and enhance learners’ self-perception and value. The use of musical examples provides a rich repertoire of musical sounds and idioms to feed the learners’ creative capacity.

Assessment Teaching in Kenya has previously been faulted as being examinations-oriented (Akuno, 2016). The teachers indicated that assessment consists of evaluating projects and material and is used to measure the level of understanding of compositional techniques. This response betrays a focus of assessment on meeting the requirements of the syllabus.

Teacher preparation Teacher preparedness to handle curriculum content is important for the success of any field of knowledge. The teachers indicated having received instruction during pre-service training and during in-service workshops and seminars. The teachers sampled are therefore well equipped for the tasks. In summary, it is evident that composition is a valued component of the Kenyan secondary school music curriculum through teacher education, the selection and use of resources, the types of activities that characterize teaching, and the early start in the curriculum of composition learning activities. The composition class, however, hardly reflects the culture-relevant procedures of engaging grounded musicians to mentor learners. This reveals a continuing alienation of the curriculum from the cultural context of its implementation. It does not deliberately encompass the music of the region, further alienating learners from the concepts and idioms of the music that are culturally at their doorstep, because it leans toward the Western canon, upon whose formal education principles of teaching and learning are built.

Learners’ perspective In order to present a full picture of the composition program in secondary school, five students were interrogated on their experience of the composition classroom. Drawn from a diversity of schools, their recollection of learning sheds further light on the place of composition in the music curriculum, and how teaching impacts learners’ career choices. The students responded to seven basic questions, to which the teachers also responded. Their views are summarized below.

Learning composition In corroborating the teachers’ response, the learners reported being taught in composition in secondary school, the earliest starting in Form 1 (Year 1) and the latest in Form 3 of the 227

Emily Akuno

four-year course. Given the types of activities that constitute learning “composition,” Form 3 as a starting date appears late. Considering this starting date, it is likely that there are activities that learners do not recognize as “composition.” They list the following activities as constituting the composition class: creating melodies by using rhythmic idioms from pieces they listened to, completing given melodies, developing themes, singing, and notating short melodies, setting music to text, harmonizing melodies for soprano, alto, tenor, and bass (SATB), using stated chord progressions, and writing for specific media, purposes, and groups. Said in many ways, it appears that writing melodies was a common activity in the composition lesson. Learners also recognized literacy and harmony as part of music writing. This corroborates the teachers’ reports on the learning activities. There is thus concurrence on what constitutes the activities of learning and teaching composition.

Learning output The students’ works varied but included popular tunes arranged for wind ensemble, harmonized melodies, pieces for melody instruments, arrangements for different media, and short vocal pieces (choruses). The melody writing was considered not just a class exercise, but also as something that generated “real” music. This corroborates the teachers’ submission of the output of the composition class. Learners were aware that they were making music as part of the learning process because the music they generated was performed at Kenya Music Festival, played on melodic instruments in the classroom, submitted for examination, or stored somewhere in archives, despite some of it being “Not released – nothing happened to it,” as put by one learner. Nevertheless, for the most part, composition was an academic exercise. There must have been an impact on the learners’ motivation from the feedback drawn in seeing their work used as a “real” piece of music.

Resources Some learners indicated that they had interactions with living composers who visited their schools. For the larger part, their own teachers were their motivation. Visiting national examination facilitators and examiners were requested to talk to and inspire them. This is encouraging, since it provided an opportunity for learners to engage with an aspect of the industry. The author’s experience is that living examples attract attention and create a desire in novices and youth “to be like” them. The value of interacting with legends includes presenting a complex task as real, common, and achievable, hence accessible.

Future prospects The learner who said nothing happened to their composition was one of the four who revealed that they had never considered composition as a career because they did not think they were good enough. The need for affirmation cannot be overemphasized if the composition classroom is to bring forth confident creatives. Despite that lapse, four students use the skills learned in the composition class effectively as they work with artists who are writing songs, giving advice, coaching, writing for their own band or children’s choir to perform, and producing other composers’ works. The remaining individual finds composition challenging and prefers to “arrange existing pieces for choir,” a revelation of long-held concepts of composition as excluding the creative work of arranging and adapting music for different media of performance. It is evident from these responses that learning occurs in the secondary school composition class. The fact 228

Did you write that song?

that there are no clear outlets for using generated works may be because the expectations of the curriculum are such that the output is more of an excerpt than a complete piece. From the learners’ responses, there is motivation in having one’s piece performed at a music festival, and this has had some impact on the learners’ perception of and attitude to the subject. The teachers and learners alike recognize the different types of exercises that build skills for composition activities. These may not be presented as composition exercises, but since they involve creative activities and output, they are recognized as being “pre-composition” activities. It is interesting to note that despite not considering composition as a career, most of the learners in the brief study are engaged in activities that utilize the skills they developed in the composition class. The author’s experience of the Kenyan music practice environment confirms that the number of musicians presenting “composing” as their music activity is very small compared to performers.

Discussion of the responses The responses in the section “Teachers’ perspective” above invite considerations for teaching and learning composition. The concept of teaching composition is more expansive than the time spent on the topic. It is the agglomerate of apparently unrelated experiences and exercises that build skills and capabilities to enhance the creative process. One of the earliest topics in the music curriculum is the learning of concepts around pitch and duration of sound, taught as the recognition and notation of symbols that represent pitch and duration, and their discrimination and replication in aural musicianship training. Ear training proved useful to the author as a teacher because it tooled learners to document what they conceived mentally. Music being a concept, an idea, in the musician’s mind (Akuno, 2016), the ability to convert it into an object, requires the use of symbols whose meanings are shared. Notes are some of these symbols, so music literacy is a valid component of teaching composition. The ability to see the parts of a whole, and to see the whole from parts, is a skill that is cultivated in music analysis where the component parts of a work are isolated and interrogated for their structure, nature, and role in the whole. From analyzing music, one deciphers the various elements of music, the different ways of putting them together, and the product of these various ways. But these might just be exercises, parallel activities that remain unconnected. Since the aim of teaching music is to tool an individual to behave musically, respond with understanding, and derive meaning from a music stimulus, teaching needs to create some rungs to connect these apparently parallel lines of teaching that cover music contexts and skills of composition. This will enhance learners’ creative capacity, which includes composition. Learning involves making connections between new and old information, a point emphasized by connectivism. Learners decipher relationships and discover content, some of which is ordinary but viewed in extraordinary ways. Provided with an appropriate environment, learners construct knowledge out of their experiences. The learning activities in other parts of the music curriculum provide the vocabulary of music materials and procedures that are necessary for composition, including quality of intervals, characteristics of rhythms, and expressive content of harmonic progressions. Teaching and learning composition are hence processes whose component activities may appear distant and removed from the commonly held notion of composing.

Breaking the rules – the author’s experience The author began high school with prior school- and church-singing exposure to part-songs, folksongs, and spiritual songs. High school music lessons introduced music literacy and instruments. In learning to play piano by note and rote, the author discovered avenues of 229

Emily Akuno

experimenting with sound and would respond to the questions above in similar ways as the students in the study. Learning activities included music literacy, harmonization, and the creation of short melodies. However, the author engaged in numerous live music-making events in and out of school. Ensembles in the school provided a ready “market” for learners’ creative output. The possibility of learners’ compositions and arrangements entering the national music festival competitions was a strong motivation. Though the syllabus required 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-bar melodies, their melodies evolved into music using the same principles of form, progression, note grouping, styles, text-music relations, harmonic sequences, etc. Learners’ works were colored and shaped by what they listened to and they readily merged what Monte (2009) refers to as music student and student musician, because the skills learned in class spilled into (school) community music-based assignments. The school environment spurred them to behave musically using skills acquired in the music composition classroom. In 1981, at the end of high school, the author’s composition for the inter-house competition was selected and presented at the national music festival competition by the school choir. “Did YOU write that song?” was the shocked expression of a competitor from another school. To the author, it was validation. The song was later presented alongside other high school choral performances for a recording session organized by the Ministry of Education at St. Andrews Church in Nairobi. In that time and space, composition transcended classroom activities and became a musical behavior outside of class, in the community where learning matures. With notions of decolonization gaining momentum, the Kenyan secondary school composition class can bridge the cultural divide. The narratives above do not indicate if there are African music practices in the composition lesson. The trends in the Africanization of the music classroom allude to the choice of content that is of Indigenous origin. Research on this body of knowledge demonstrates its viability as learning material (Owino, 2010), sufficiency in providing procedures (Ondieki, 2010), and principles for teaching (Mushira, 2010). One way of enhancing the learners’ African identity as composers is to ensure that they have African musical sounds and idioms in their environment. There is no clear evidence of this from the cases discussed above. Models for composition in African styles are, however, widely discussed by Onyeji (2019).

Conclusion The context of learning described in this chapter is a socio-cultural space recognized as a geographic region called Kenya. The exposure to music that the Kenyan learning environment offers provides the basis for learning. Prior knowledge and familiarity with concepts provide building blocks for learning. Cognitive skills depend on what has already been assimilated, so that new learning builds on prior knowledge. Since music learning is cumulative, when the learning environment is rich in activities and opportunities for experiencing music, the learning tasks challenge learners to engage with them. The environment enables learners to see themselves as musicians, propelling them to behave musically. The principles that determine Kenyan music are an appropriate guide to teaching composition, using procedures that develop Kenyan musicians. This environment includes a teacher who is confident in his or her mastery of the content and capacity to guide learners. A perceptive teacher can, besides pointing out the broken rules, guide learners along a path of creativity that develops their identity as musicians. Since skills develop over a period of time and talent is discovered early in life, the secondary school is a space to identify and nurture a learner’s composition talent. A syllabus is an enabler and not a constraint. It articulates the minimum level of achievement and not the boundaries of learning. The teacher can set goals that capacitate the student-musicians to engage with tasks of the real world of music, building and pushing them to excel while closing 230

Did you write that song?

any detected knowledge and skills gaps. Composition in the Kenyan secondary school music curriculum is an inclusive activity. Its output is a creative object whose success is optimal when the learner is socialized to be creative. Creativity does not develop in a vacuum, but within a context of music experiences from which the learner draws resources. Out of this rich soundscape, the learner assimilates music concepts and develops perceptual, analytical, and translation skills in order to engage with sound materials to create works in response to given tasks and stimuli. The Kenyan secondary school music syllabus caters for learners who may not have had prior experience with formal music instruction. They may have had some experiences of music and exhibit different skills and knowledge. This assumption is based on the abundance of music material and experiences in Kenya because, as stated by Zake (1986), music accompanies an individual from the cradle to the grave. In this space, music is taught in various ways. Traditional musicians, who are experts in their fields, pass down their skills to younger musicians. Teaching composition within this bigger socio-cultural space may be effective if handled through modeling. The composer with a keen eye for talent and innovation is best placed to guide learners/novices to develop their skills and individual styles. Teaching composition is showing someone how to harness their creative powers and to channel them toward meeting set goals. Though the secondary school curriculum asks for a 16-bar melody by the end of the academic cycle, it does not prohibit the writing of larger pieces. The teacher’s role is to guide learners to explore concepts and expand their skills within the rules of the syllabus. For this to happen, the teacher must know what music composition is. The teacher must have the skills of perception and communication. Finally, the teacher must spot talent, identify innovation, and guide the learner to explore these in their works. The teacher’s enthusiasm has an impact on the learners’ achievement and future engagement with the discipline.

Reflective questions 1 The practice of music seems to be a very cultural phenomenon. What is your understanding of music composition? What specific cultural environment informs this definition? 2 Would you consider learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of the practice of learning as being significantly different? Would it matter to you as the composition educator if that was the case? 3 There are countries with a national curriculum, and all learners are expected to engage with its content. Do you find any positive or negative elements in this practice? Which might these be?

Notes 1 Nyatiti is an eight-stringed lyre found among the Luo people of Kenya. 2 The author taught at Kenya High School in Nairobi where one student stood out as pianist, composer, arranger, and trainer.

References Akuno, E. A. (2016). Issues in music education in Kenya (2nd ed.). Kisumu: Emak Music Services. Andang’o, E. A. (2009). Music in early childhood education: Development of a multi-cultural music education programme (Unpublished PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnson, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, Special Issue. https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf Fredrikson, M. (2006). Body narratives – A key to study early singing experiences? In P. P. Fredrikson (Ed.), Music and development – Challenges for music education (pp. 260–262). Jyväskylä: Department

231

Emily Akuno of Music, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/musiikki/ projektit/ecdpm2005/proceedings.pdf Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. London: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Holtz, P. (2006). Subjective theories of music creating artists – A psychological insight into the minds of today’s composers. In P. P. Fredrikson (Ed.), Music and development – Challenges for music education (pp. 264–267). Jyväskylä: Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/musiikki/projektit/ecdpm2005/proceedings.pdf KIE. (2002). Secondary education syllabus (Vol. 4). Nairobi: Kenya Institute of Education. Kiiru, K. (2021). Cultural dances and the politics of culture in contemporary Kenya: Case studies of isukuti and gonda dances in western and coastal regions (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universite Paris Nanterre, Paris. Kwami, R. (1989). African music education and school curriculum (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of London, Institute of Education. Lamont, A. (2006). Developing engagement with music. In P. P. Fredrikson (Ed.), Music and development: Challenges for music education (pp. 109–146). Jyväskylä: Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from http://www.jyu.fi/hum/laitokset/musiikki/projektit/ecdpm2005/ proceedings.pdf McLeod, S. A. (2017, February 05). Behaviorist approach. Simply Psychology. Retrieved October 13, 2020, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/behaviorism.html Monte, E. P., & Mochere, J. M. (2019). “In class out of place”: The substance of secondary school music curriculum. In E. A. Akuno (Ed.), Music education in Africa: Concept, process and practice (pp. 135–148). Nairobi: Routledge. Monte, P. E. (2009). Instructional delivery in music: The role of teachers’ competence in the development of learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kenyatta University, Department of Music and Dance, Nairobi. Mushira, E. N. (2010). A critical analysis of indigenous Kenyan music procedures: Developing the embedded pathway approach model for interactive learning for secondary schools in Kenya (PhD thesis). Kenyatta University Department of Music and Dance, Nairobi. Musungu, G. (2014). Fifty years of music performance: The Kenya music festival. In E. A. Akuno (Ed.), Singing a nation: 50 years of music in Kenya (pp. 27–38). Kisumu: Emak Music Services. Nzewi, M. (2019). Pertinent concepts for advancing indigenous epistemological integrity for African musical arts education. In E. A. Akuno (Ed.), Music education in Africa: Concept, process and practice (pp. 59–75). London: Routledge. Oehrle, E. (1993). Education through music: Towards a South African approach. British Journal of Music Education, 10(3), 255–261. Omondi, W. A. (1980). Thum: Traditional lyre music of the people of Kenya (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Ondieki, D. O. (2010). An analysis of zilizopendwa for the development of instructional materials for music education (PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Department of Music and Dance, Nairobi Onyeji, C. (2019). Composing art music from indigenous African musical paradigms. In E. A. Akuno (Ed.), Music education in Africa: Concept, process, and practice (pp. 262–278). London: Routledge. Owino, C. G. (2010). Development of a teaching method for aural musicianship (Unpublished PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Department of Music and Dance, Nairobi Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press Stevens-Fulbrook, P. (2019, April 18). 15 Learning theories in education (a complete summary). teacherofsci. Retrieved October 13, 2020 from https://teacherofsci.com/learning-theories-in-education/ Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Zake, G. S. (1986). Folk music of Kenya. Nairobi: Uzima Press.

232

INTERLUDE V

Considering Gender, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Teaching Composing Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow The teaching and learning of composing is never neutral. Both students and teachers bring their beliefs of composing with them, which are formed by prior musical and educational experiences, musical socialization, environment and access to resources, as well as previously held expectations of composers. Therefore, it is important that we take the time to question our own cultural beliefs and assumptions about composing and composers in order to consider how issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion influence what and how we teach in terms of composition in the classroom. This interlude is written from the perspective of two white, female academics and music educators from Germany and England. We do not claim to represent the complexity of all voices and issues raised in the interlude, nor do we claim to discuss all questions relevant to the topic from a wide variety of perspectives. Instead we want to offer reflections, ask questions, raise provocations, and challenge potentially taken-for-granted, traditional assumptions about composing that continue to dominate pedagogical practices from our perspectives.

Defining terms The terms equality, diversity, and inclusion, although often grouped together, hold different meanings. In this interlude, equality is viewed as the notion that everyone should have equal access to opportunity and resources. A similar term often linked with equality is equity, which refers to recognizing that we do not all start from a level playing field; therefore, some people may need more support or resources than others in order for them to progress. Diversity describes the representation and visibility of people with different characteristics within a group. For example, these characteristics can be disability and neurodiversity, race, religion or belief, sex and gender, and sexual orientation. Inclusion aims to create spaces for those who may experience exclusion or marginalization, and to have their voices heard. Within this interlude, it is important to understand that people’s lived realities are vastly complex, unique, and nuanced; therefore, we recognize the value of taking an intersectional approach to identity, whereby multiple characteristics can contribute to a person’s identity, how they experience the world, and the disadvantages they may face. Concerning these “characteristics,” we follow the approach that “characteristics” or “categories” are socially (re)produced. Thus, this interlude will draw on aspects of the “Doing DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-21

233

Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow

Gender” approach (West & Zimmerman, 1987), whereby gender is viewed as a process category, not a structural or identity category. The concept of “Doing Gender” refers to the reproduction of gender in everyday actions through which gender appears as natural (Gildemeister & Herricks, 2012). This “doing” consists of behaving according to one’s self-assigned gender in situations as well as interpreting the behavior of others in light of one’s gender, both of which can occur consciously or unconsciously (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In this way, differences are established. In everyday terms of Doing Gender, the legitimization of inequalities usually relies on stereotypes. These comprise socially shared knowledge about characteristics of women and men. And although gender stereotypes offer orientation and thus relieve the burden of action, they inhibit individual development. Moreover, it appears particularly problematic that gender-stereotyped role models are linked to power structures, whereby they reproduce social injustice through sexist behavioral expectations. In terms of the concept of hegemonic masculinity, masculinity is connoted with (the gaining of) power. Orientation to this image of men continues to seem socially advantageous. Deviating from this dominant stereotype of masculinity is therefore difficult. Various studies show that Doing Gender is taking place in schools today, and that teachers play a significant role in (shaping) Doing Gender practices, (act) as role models, and (can) reinforce or dismantle stereotypes. Gender stereotypes and Doing Gender practices are also found in music education. Beyond gender, the concept has been applied to other categories as Doing Difference (West & Fenstermaker, 1995).

The Western classical canon and its reproduction For many people, composing is initially linked to “classical music” (see the interlude “What is Composing?”). Associations with composers and composing are thus fed by well-known composers of classical music. Fuller (1995) states, “for many…the creator of classical music is a dead white man wearing a wig” (p. 22). This canon can be found not only in concert programs, but also in school music books and as a subject of instruction. Research has repeatedly highlighted that women composers are underrepresented in concert halls and media music, as well as music producers, and within higher music education teaching positions (BASCA, 2016). This can be seen, for example, in the concert programs of the 14 largest German concert halls,1 where there were 519 pieces of music in the program for January 2022 that belonged almost entirely to European art music. Only 19 of those pieces (3.6%) were written by women composers. All of these pieces by women can be classified as Neue Musik (contemporary music), while a total of 149 of the compositions can be attributed to Neue Musik. These 19 pieces by women composers were performed in only four different concert halls. Thus, in ten of the largest and most famous concert halls, music by women composers cannot be listened to.2 Even when women’s music is included in a concert program, research in the UK has found that, on average, the time allocated for music composed by women is significantly less: Women take up disproportionately less time in the program…the average duration of a world premiere by a woman was 11 minutes and the average duration of a world premiere by a man was 19 minutes. (Ward, in Eastburn, 2019) The first Orchestra Repertoire Report by the Institute for Composer Diversity (2022) explores “the repertoire programming of professional orchestras in the United States in the 2021–2022 234

Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion

season and put[s] that programming into context through a longitudinal examination of repertoire since 2015” (Deemer & Meals, 2022, p. 1). They focus on “works by women composers and composers of color as well as living composers from all gender identities and racial/ethnic groups and explore[…] whether or not orchestras are programming differently now than in years past!” (ibid.). The Report stated that the “programmed works by women composers and composers of color increased overall from 4.5% in 2015 to 22.5% in 2022” (ibid). Further, the “programmed works by living composers increased overall from 11.7% to 21.8%” (ibid). “Those works from women of color moved from less than one percent in 2015–2016 to 6.1% in the 2021–2022 season” (ibid, p.8). The report concludes that “composers from these historically excluded groups (and women in general across all racial and ethnic groups in particular) saw great strides in their works being programmed, repertoire by deceased white males still comprised over two thirds of the works programmed in the 2021–22” (ibid, p.3). Within media music, the situation is not any better, as only three film women composers have won an Oscar since it started in 1934, none of whom was a person of color. Although there has been some improvement in representation for female and BME 3 composers in the current generation (Griffiths, 2020, p. 67), what women are able to compose can also be gendered. For example, historically, white European women were encouraged to write songs and parlor-music for private performances and were excluded from composing more ambitious forms such as operas and symphonies, which have historically carried greater professional standing. An analysis of the categories of the British Composer Awards in 2016 highlighted that women were more likely to be nominated for the amateur or educational composition awards compared to orchestral, wind, or brass bands or stage works, suggesting a gendering of musical forms. Women composers also face challenges with securing positions at universities. In Germany’s 23 music academies, there are only five women out of 57 composition professorships. Similarly, by analyzing publicly available data from current UK music conservatory websites, of the eight music conservatories in the UK offering a composition degree, all head of department positions are held by white men. Going deeper, we can see that women only make up 26% of composition tutors, and Black and ethnic minority composition tutors only make up 4%, with only two female composers of color listed. Although analysis of website faculty lists may not represent the most up-to-date picture of who is teaching at a conservatory, it is what prospective students see of a department, therefore potentially creating an impression about who the department is for.4

Problematizing the Western classical canon The Western classical canon is often viewed as a “static and complete” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 42) version of musical history (Burnard, 2012). This can place the music beyond social opinion or criticism; the notion of “pure art” (Soderman, Burnard, & Trulsson, 2015). The canon represents what is to be “preserved” and acts as a “gatekeeper for new-comers” (Griffiths, 2020, p. 61). However, Freire (1985) argues that knowledge is not static but is instead vast and changing. It is argued that the composers framed under the banner of the Western musical canon illustrate an ideology aimed to promote specific values that maintain and reinforce disadvantage of certain groups. In concert halls, it is often argued that audiences like to hear the familiar; therefore, other music (i.e., music by women and composers of color) sells less well. The actual reasons may lie deeper. One of the reasons, why the overly romanticized images of the “great” classical composers continue to dominate people’s understanding about who composers are, could be 235

Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow

down to the continued “glorification” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 29) of famous composers, whose life stories are often mythologized in the media and passed down like “legends and lore” (Thomson, 2008, p. 69). These stories reinforce unhelpful assumptions not just about who can become composers, but about the act of musical creativity itself: […] In the celebration of the composer’s genius and of the music’s transcendent greatness…such a delineation is misleading when viewed in the light of the working practices of many composers. (Green, 1997, pp. 82–83) As hinted by Green (1997), the myth that only those that are deemed to be a “creative genius” can compose is not steeped in the lived reality of the industry and, as explored further in the interlude “Ways to Teach Composing” in this present book, can be detrimental to the confidence and motivation of beginner composers who do not believe they can learn to compose (Devaney, 2022). Another significant problem with the “genius” narrative is that it is almost exclusively used to describe white men. A very limited version of the Western classical canon can be further found in school music textbooks where they often lack diverse examples of composers. Heß (2015) showed in an analysis of German school music books that only a few composers from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods (European art music) are represented. Funk (2010) further shows that women only have been added in as if as an afterthought l (and without reference) to the music history of men. Grow and Roth (2023) show that, in school music books, stereotypes of the genius of male composers are reproduced and even strengthened by the way female composers are presented. Research presented by Devaney, Ziegenmeyer, and Platz (2021) discovered that the composers most commonly used within the classroom in Germany and England came from a very narrow pool of Western classical composers, with the top names being exclusively white men.

(Re)production of inequality today There remain significant barriers for those who want to enter the music industry and create their own music. A major barrier to progressing as a composer including singer-songwriters is financial. Research has repeatedly shown how “gender, ethnic and class background” all influence someone’s chances of entering and succeeding in the classical music industry in the UK (Scharff, 2015, p. 4), with music being included in the “top 25 most elite occupations in the UK Economy” (Carey, O’Brien, & Gable, 2021, p. 12). Although becoming a composer can take many routes, especially with the introduction of music technology (see interlude “The role of digital technology in classroom composing” in this present book), having basic musical understanding as well as a certain level of ability on an instrument can be an important tool for composers. However, access to instrument lessons and high-level music education is not equal within or between countries. The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) found that children from less affluent households were significantly disadvantaged due to the “cost of learning to play [an instrument]” (2014, p. 10), and families in the UK with a lower income were half as likely to have a child learning a musical instrument as families on higher incomes (Musicians’ Union, 2018, p. 2). In addition to this, women from around the world are more likely to be undertaking unpaid caring responsibilities, for example, for children or elderly relatives (Pérez, 2019), and therefore do not often have as much time or money to participate in networking or education opportunities as their male counterparts. We know that a significant 236

Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion

amount of work in the cultural and creative industries comes through informal hiring practices such as networking at events (Carey et al., 2021, p. 20), and that this has disproportionately adverse effects on women and people of color: “The importance of networks to access work will mean greater difficulties for those without social, cultural, and economic resources” (Brook, O’Brien, & Taylor, 2020, p. 10). Research has also found that sexual harassment and abuse of women continues to be present within the music industry (ISM). One of the gatekeepers to the classical music industry remains higher education institutions. To be accepted to study at this level, students are often required to have a certain standard of proficiency on an instrument, as well as secondary school qualifications such as A-levels (Burt-Perkins & Mills, 2009). For studying composition (music studies), standards are often set so high that applicants must have knowledge of theory and already have a portfolio of their own compositions. In order to acquire this knowledge, students usually have had several years of instrumental lessons and additional music lessons in or beyond school. Therefore, if students do not have access to these in school, this will have a “knock-on” effect on the types of school students who are applying to study within higher education. By examining student entrance data, which is publicly available through the Higher Education Statistics Agency, we can observe trends in UK higher education. Through this process, it was discovered that music conservatories have some of the lowest numbers of state school students (HESA, 2020–21), even lower than the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. Further concern is raised due to the interruption to learning over the past years due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The importance of diverse role models in the music classroom Having a lack of diverse role models for young people can often mean students do not identify with the word “composer” and this, too, can lower aspirations. UK composer Kerry Andrew argued young women and girls needed to be “presented with examples of successful female creators in all genres” in order for them to “view composition as a viable profession for themselves” (Andrew, 2012, online). Without diverse representation, negative stereotypes continue to exist and be promoted in schools. In the UK, there have been calls to include female composers within examination specifications (Khomami, 2015). A few years ago, A-level school student Jessy McCabe publicly challenged a national exam board for failing to include any female composers in their list of set works.5 Similarly, there have been calls for the ABRSM to include more composers of color in their syllabi (REF). Repertoire at music conservatories also continues to promote the music of white and male composers, without recognizing “the contributions of female and BME composers” (Griffiths, 2020, p. 55). The music of composers – of all genders and diverse backgrounds – must be visible to all young people. Since the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, there have been further calls to decolonize the curriculum. In order to consider decolonizing the music curriculum, we must look beyond just who we are teaching about and as well reflect on what and how we teach music in and beyond the classroom. For example, although in the West we might recognize the divisions of labor of “composer,” “performer,” “listener,” in many musical cultures these clear distinctions do not exist in quite the same way. Therefore, teaching composing away from the act of performing or playing an instrument might not be representative of the ways in which the majority of peoples around the world conceptualize and operationalize music-making. However, legitimators and gatekeepers of culture define and control what (or whose) musical knowledge should be taught in schools via the use of curriculum content and syllabi. 237

Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow

In looking back on the role of music education and education more generally, OdoraHoppers and Richards (2011) argue that education takes center stage in second-generation colonization through controlling of the mind (in Grange, 2016). In attempting to “educate” and “civilise” (Ramogale, 2019) native populations, European education systems were implemented around the world through combined activities of Christian missionaries and colonial governments (Akrofi & Flolu, 2007, p. 143). The teaching of Western classical music played a significant role in this control with it being regarded as “the knowledge worth having” (Bradley, 2012, p. 669) over traditional, Indigenous, and native musics. To this day, Western classical music continues to be associated with high culture (Soderman et al., 2015) and holds high value and esteem in the education system, while other musical cultures, including popular music, can be viewed as lesser. This promotion of “West is best” (Stolp, 2018, p. 231) has contributed to the “denigration and decimation of indigenous [sic] knowledges” (in Grange, 2016). This can result in bias in the education system, whereby those in positions of power determine the success criteria in school (Apple, 1997), allowing the “dominant group” to remain “one step ahead” (Yates, 1985, p. 212). Therefore, students who already possess the cultural capital valued by the education system, such as the music in the Western classical canon, will continue to be at an advantage (Sullivan, 2002). This relates to Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1993). It is for these reasons we argue that it is not enough to just supplement the Western classical canon with more diverse composers, instead it is important to view the canon as a socially constructed phenomenon and only representing a selected version of European musical history. We want to promote musical knowledge as living and changing, and something that students do not just learn about but participate in; that they themselves can become active creators of new music and culture. However, research from other areas of educational science shows that it is not sufficient to have role models with different sexes, but that above all, the gender-reproducing or sensitive behavior of the teachers is decisive for the children to act accordingly (BMFSFJ, 2015). This must also be considered for music education, since corresponding ideas and behaviors can be shown among teachers as well as students, even though corresponding research still shows further desiderata. An example for this is in a study by Green (1997). Green discovered that music teachers believed girls to be less successful in composing/creating new music, despite being perceived as being more successful than the boys in almost every other aspect of music education measured. What is it about composing that teachers perceived girls to struggle with? By processes of Doing Gender, stereotypes might be reproduced by teachers. Grow (in preparation) shows that in group composing processes of students ages 8–12, Doing Gender processes are accompanied by the establishment of group hierarchies and are used to establish power. Students musically assign stereotypes to themselves or to other students. These are partly fed by social gender stereotypes. For example, boys are associated with loud, dominant sounds, with rhythms and percussion instruments, while girls tend to be associated with soft melodies. Doing Gender is particularly common in gender-heterogeneous groups. Changing the public opinion around who composers are, what they do, and what they look like is an ambitious challenge; however, we believe that starting with what and how we teach in the classroom will contribute to this change in attitude.

Changing the narrative How can we make changes to the practice of composing teaching so that it becomes inclusive? As Bourdieu explores with his theory of ‘habitus’, music teachers are part of a field of power 238

Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion

who have their own set of beliefs, practices, and tastes, which in turn influence pedagogic practices (Jenkins, 1992; Soderman et al., 2015). Research has found that how we teach is often influenced by how we were taught, and that these practices can become internalized (Engeström, 1999) and “taken for granted” (Kinsella, 2014, p. 307) if unchallenged. For example, if we are only taught that composers must look and sound like Mozart and Beethoven, a new teacher may continue to reproduce this belief in their own teaching. In order to break this cycle, teachers need to become reflective practitioners who are conscious of their own subjectivities (Savage, 2007, p. 201). People from diverse and non-Western backgrounds including people of color who have not grown up in this tradition can be key to this. Although the importance of reflection has been articulated extensively, there are barriers to reflective practice. Firstly, in some teaching cultures, it may be seen as a “sign of weakness” (Schön, 1983, p. 69), where teachers are seen to be experts. There may also be unwillingness to change practice. Secondly, finding time for reflection within schools can be a challenge when there are numerous other stresses (Savage, 2007), especially if it is not valued within the ethos of the leadership team of a school. One starting point of reflection could be to challenge your own beliefs about composition, composers, and music-making. Here are some questions to aid this reflection: Does composing always mean composing Western classical music or contemporary music, or is there a very broad concept of composition that also includes songwriting or producing, for example? Is composing an individual activity or is collaboration a key part of musical creation? What prior musical skills, knowledge, or experience does someone need before they can compose, or can anyone of any ability create new music? Is there a belief that composing can be learned, and therefore taught, or is there an assumption that is a natural talent? By engaging with the questions above, music educators can start to view possible areas where certain students might not fit your own conceptualization of a “composer,” and therefore be at a disadvantage. Whom do you use as role models of composers? Do they represent a diversity of voices and approaches? What instruments and resources are used to compose in the classroom? What starting points or composing tasks are used? Are tasks often fixed or open-ended to allow for creativity? What is your role as a teacher when teaching composition? By questioning our own conceptualization of composers, we can further become aware of the possible stereotypes and our own Doing Gender or Doing Difference processes. The questions above only provide a starting point for some of the possible considerations for what and how to teach. There is no one right way to teach composition; it will depend on your students, the resources you have, and the aims you have for teaching it. However, ongoing reflection can ensure that teaching does not become fixed and potentially discriminative against certain groups of students. Composing can be an inclusive activity and has the potential to become a mode whereby young people can share their own voice and for self-expression while learning how music is conceptualized and played in various places around the world. However, this might mean that what you believe composing to look like must change. Perhaps it means embracing technology whose inclusive benefits have been discussed in the technology interlude in this volume, or perhaps you ensure more time for musical collaboration, commit to showing a greater diversity of role models, or place greater emphasis on the creative process over the final composition and do not require a finished score. It may be that you start to introduce composing at a lower age group. Whatever you think is appropriate and possible for you, we ask you to pledge to make one change to your teaching practice that will work toward creating a more inclusive approach to composing teaching. 239

Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow

Notes 1 Festspielhaus Baden Baden, Konzerthaus Berlin, Philharmonie Berlin, Glocke Bremen, Konzerthaus Dortmund, Dresdner Philharmonie, Tonhalle Düsseldorf, Philharmonie Essen, Alte Oper Frankfurt, Elbphilharmonie, Kölner Philharmonie, Musik- und Kongresshalle Lübeck, Gewandhaus Leipzig, Philharmonie im Gasteig München, in Anlehnung an http://www.miz.org/static_de/themenportale/ einfuehrungstexte_pdf/03_KonzerteMusiktheater/stampa.pdf (6.1.2022) 2 The statistics differentiate binary and lack data for people who identify as trans or non-binary. 3 Griffiths (2020) uses the acronym BME that stands for Black and Minority Ethnic. The term is used especially by government departments. In this interlude, we avoid using the term as it has been found that many people are not familiar with it and furthermore, it is also not associated with white ethnic minorities such as Gypsy, Roma, and Travelers of Irish Heritage groups and thus, they would be even more marginalized. 4 It is important to note that there are other diverse characteristics of staff that cannot be seen through faculty lists such as disability, nondivergence, socio-economic background, and sexuality. Additional time has been spent to ensure those that identify as non-gender binary, or who have mixed heritage, are represented, but there are limitations to this level of detail that is publicly available. 5 Set works are a list of pieces that students are required to study as part of their examination.

References ABRSM. (2014). Making music: Teaching, learning and playing in the UK. https://gb.abrsm.org/media/12032/makingmusic2014.pdf Akrofi, E. A., & Flolu, J. (2007). The colonial influence on music education in Ghana and South Africa. In E. A. Akrofi, M. Smit & S.-M. Thorsén (Eds.), Music and identity: Transformation and negotiation (pp. 143–157). Stellenbosch: African Sun Media. Andrew, K. (2012, February 2). Why there are so few female composers. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/why-so-few-female-composers Apple, M. W. (1997). Introduction. Review of Research in Education, 22(1), xi–xxi. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0091732X022001011. BASCA. (2016). Equality and diversity in new music commissioning – Updated report from 2016 British Composer Awards entries. https://ivorsacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Equality-andDiversity-in-New-Music-Commissioning-2016-update.pdf Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bradley, D. (2012). good for what, good for whom?: Decolonizing music education philosophies. In W. Bowman & A. L. Frega (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 409). London: Oxford University Press. Brook, O., O’Brien, D., & Taylor, M. (2020). Culture is bad for you. Inequality in the cultural and creative industries. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bundesministerium für Familien, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (=BMFSFJ) (2015). Spielt das Geschlecht eine Rolle? Erziehungsverhalten männlicher und weiblicher Fachkräfte in Kindertagesstätten. Kurzfassung der Ergebnisse der „Tandem-Studie”. Burnard, P. (2012). The practice of diverse compositional creativities. In D. Collins (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 111–138). Farnham: Ashgate. Burt-Perkins, R., & Mills, J. (2009). Pitching it right? Selection and learning at a music conservatoire. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 817–835. Carey, H., O’Brien, D., & Gable, O. (2021, September 9). Social mobility in the Creative Economy: Rebuilding and levelling up? (Policy Review Series: Class in the Creative Industries, vol. 3). Creative Industries Policy & Evidence Centre. https://cdn2.assets-servd.host/creative-pec/production/assets/ publications/PEC-report-Social-mobility-in-the-Creative-Economy-Sept-2021.pdf Deemer, R., & Meals, C. (2022). Orchestra repertoire report. Institute for Composer Diversity. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9ee971fcf7fd7add652207/t/62960a5d2a1998349128b 94d/1654000223744/ICD_2022_ORCH_REPORT_MAY31.pdf Devaney, K., Ziegenmeyer, A., & Platz, F. (2021). Composing is what young people can do: Comparing German and UK music teacher beliefs about composing in the classroom. In: 28th European Association of Music in Schools. Freiburg University of Music and Freiburg University of Education.

240

Considering gender, equality, diversity, and inclusion Devaney, K. (2022). Investigating how composing teaching and assessment in English secondary school classrooms reinforce myths about composers and their creative practices. British Journal of Music Education,40(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051722000134 Eastburn, S. (2019, March 8). Take note – Why do women composers still take up less musical space?. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/08/sound-and-music-femalecomposers-musicians-susanna-eastburn Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.). (2012). Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Fuller, S. (1995). Dead white men in wigs. In S. Copper (Ed.), Girls girls girls – Essays on women and music (pp. 22–36). London: Cassell. Funk, V. (2010). Musikvermittlung und Gender. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Musik und Gender (pp. 94–109). Lilienthal: Laaber. Gildemeister, R., & Herricks, K. (2012). Geschlechtersoziologie. Theoretische Zugänge zu einer vertrackten Kategorie des Sozialen (Lehr- und Handbücher der Soziologie). München: Oldenbourg. Grange, L. (2016). Decolonising the university curriculum. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20853/30-2-709. Green, L. (1997). Music, gender, education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, A. (2020). Playing the white man’s tune: Inclusion in elite classical music education. British Journal of Music Education, 37(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051719000391. Grow, J., & Roth, A. T. (2022). Doing Gender im Musikschulbuch? Eine vergleichende Analyse von Musikschulbuchseiten zu Clara Schumann. In A. T. Roth & J. Grow (Eds.), Gender in den Fachdidaktiken ästhetischer Fächer. Leverkusen-Opladen: Budrich. Grow, J. (in preparation). Doing Gender in Überarbeitungsprozessen beim MusikErfinden. Heß, F. (2015). Die Auswahl von Unterrichtsgegenständen zwischen Originalitätszwang und Kanonbildung. Eine Analyse aktueller Unterrichtsmaterialien für die Sekundarstufe. In L. Oberhaus & M. Unseld (Eds.), Musikpädagogik der Musikgeschichte (pp. 187–206). Münster: Waxmann. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. New York, NY: Routledge. Khomami, N. (2015, December 16). A-level music to include female composers after student’s campaign. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/16/a-level-music-female-composersstudents-campaign-jessy-mccabe-edexcel Kinsella, V. (2014). Breaking the narrative: Addressing the loss of creativity in Secondary Key Stage Three Art and Design Education in England [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Birmingham City University. Musicians’ UNION. (2018). Understanding how income affects likelihood to learn an instrument. https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Files/Reports/Industry/Education-Statistics-Report.aspx Odora-Hoppers, C. A., & Richards, H. (2011). Rethinking thinking: Modernity’s “other” and the transformation of the university. Pretoria: Unisa Press. https://doi.org/10.18733/C38C70 Pérez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. New York: Abrams Press. Ramogale, M. (2019). Decolonise the curriculum for global relevance. Mail and Guardian. Available at https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-26-00-decolonise-the-curriculum-for-global-relevance/ Savage, J. (2007). Reflecting through Peshkin’s I’s. International Journal of Music Education, 25(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761407083574. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001. Scharff, C. (2015). Equality and diversity in the Classical Music Profession. King’s College London. https://www.impulse-music.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Equality-and-Diversity-in-ClassicalMusic-Report.pdf Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Routledge. Soderman, J., Burnard, P., & Trulsson, Y. (2015). Contextualising Bourdieu in the field of music and music education. In P. T. Burnard, Y. Hofvander Trulsson & J. Soderman (Eds.), Bourdieu and the sociology of music education (pp. 1–12). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Stolp, M. (2018). New music for new South Africans: The new music Indabas in South Africa, 2000–02. Journal of the Royal Music Association, 143(1), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02690403.2018. 1434354.

241

Kirsty Devaney and Joana Grow Sullivan, A. (2002). Bourdieu and education: How useful is Bourdieu’s theory for researchers? Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 144–166. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu key concepts (pp. 65–82). Slough, NH: Acumen. West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1995). Doing Difference. Gender & Society, 9(1), 8–37. https://doi. org/10.1177/089124395009001002. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0891243287001002002. Yates, L. (1985). Is ‘girl friendly schooling’ really what girls need?. In J. Whyte, R. Deem, L. Kant & M. Cruickshank (Eds.), Girl Friendly schooling (pp. 210–230). London: Methuen.

242

16 POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN TEACHING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN MEXICAN SCHOOLS Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo Introduction Musical creativity occurs through convergent and divergent thinking processes. Composition, in particular, is usually defined as the manifestation of creativity that involves creating a fixed and reproducible musical product, which can occur not only through the writing of traditional notation but also through the exploration of multiple musical ideas, which can be facilitated by new media and technologies (Randles, 2019). However, in formal music education, composition is still usually linked to traditional notation and music reading as a prerequisite. Therefore, developing notational reading skills has been a widely valued aspect of music teaching and has occupied a leading place (Burcet, 2017; Mills & McPherson, 2016) over other important creative skills such as composition or improvisation. As Shifres (2018) states, “most musicians read more than they write” (p. 36). This has also been the traditional approach to teaching music in Mexico at all educational levels, from basic to higher education. It has shaped music teacher education programs, and in consequence, how music is taught in schools. In this chapter, we aim to provide an overall description of how music composition is approached in basic education, and why it has usually been overlooked as an important musical ability that could and should be systematically included in schools. We based our analysis on two main sources, (1) arts and music education educational policies in Mexico, with a close examination of how music composition or creation is supposed to be approached in basic education, and (2) music teachers’ views and experiences of teaching composition in schools.

Arts education in basic education In Mexico, the national curriculum for basic education—which includes preschool, primary, and secondary school (grades K–9, age range 3–15)—is mandated by the Ministry of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP). As part of compulsory basic education, arts education is included within the “Personal and Social Development” component (Secretaría de Educación Pública [SEP], 2017),1 along with socio-emotional education and physical education; whereas Spanish, math, social and natural sciences, English, and technology conform to what it is called “Academic Training.” A third component, called “Curricular Flexibility,” intends to DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-22

243

Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

allow educational authorities to provide additional opportunities to extend this academic training to promote personal and social development, as well as to include new regional-relevant contents, and to address projects for social impact. Within this scheme, it is recognized that The arts in the school context contribute to the equity and quality of education by providing students with solid and challenging learning experiences in relation to artistic practice, aesthetic appreciation and the development of artistic thought, without this implying training of artists. (SEP, 2017, p. 470) Traditionally, this multidisciplinary approach to arts education has included four arts: music, visual arts, dance, and drama, and its provision varies according to the availability of art specialists in schools. In the absence of specialists, generalist teachers are expected to teach the arts, although, as has been documented in countries such as Australia (Collins, 2016) and the United Kingdom (Hennessy, 2000; Mills, 1989; Seddon & Biasutti, 2008), generalists do not feel confident and competent enough to teach the arts, particularly music. As can be observed, although music is part of the curriculum, it does not stand as an independent subject. As acknowledged in the national curriculum (SEP, 2017), music and the other arts are distinctive means for human expression through the creative use of basic elements such as sound, time, body, movement, shape, and color. It is also intended that arts education help students fulfill their right to a holistic and harmonious development through active cultural participation and enjoyment of the arts, but most importantly, “to provide students with opportunities to learn and value the processes of creation and appreciation of the visual arts, dance, music and drama, through the development of artistic thinking that integrates aesthetic sensitivity with complex thinking skills” (p. 467). As can be observed, the notion of original creation as a means of expression is implicit in the Mexican curriculum, and it is expected that students learn the basic processes to accomplish this goal. Based on this ideal, we analyzed the national curriculum for the arts, looking for pedagogical approaches, consistency across different school levels, and content related to the development of compositional or creative skills.

Creativity within the arts curriculum Across the three school levels of basic education, the national curriculum for arts education aims to provide equal opportunity for all students to develop an aesthetic sensibility and to exercise their imagination and creativity (SEP, 2017). This follows two fundamental orientations: artistic appreciation and artistic expression. The first orientation is characterized by an emphasis on identifying and valuing diverse artistic and cultural manifestations, developing emotional and intellectual capacities to appreciate the arts, promoting learning environments that allow respectful exchange and communication about the arts, and recognizing their importance in society. The second orientation toward artistic expression is meant to be approached by developing students’ creativity and imagination in the use of those resources particularly distinctive to each art form. It is expected that students explore and experiment with those resources in a way that it stimulates their “curiosity, sensibility, initiative, spontaneity, imagination, aesthetic taste and creativity” (SEP, 2017, p. 470). However, at preschool level, the creative process seems to be mainly oriented toward visual arts rather than music, dance, or drama. The curriculum states the importance of encouraging students’ free explorations of materials and tools used in the visual arts to promote personal creations and exploration, and to a lesser extent to use musical elements to create musical works. These musical 244

Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexico

elements seem to be intended to mainly serve other developmental areas through artistic appreciation, and even for recreational purposes. This could be explained by a preconception that allowing students to freely express by drawing or painting might require less specialized expertise than creating musical works. At primary level (grades 1–6), the pedagogical approach to arts education, called interdisciplinary artistic collective (colectivo artístico interdisciplinario, SEP, 2017, p. 473), aims to give continuity to artistic practice. However, it is a troubling aspect in the curriculum that potentially disrupts continuity from primary school to secondary school. As stated and observed in the curriculum content, it is only suggested that teachers (either generalist or specialist) in the first cycle (grades 1 and 2) focus on music and dance following an interdisciplinary approach; then during the second cycle (grades 3 and 4), there should be a focus on visual arts; and finally in the third cycle (grades 5 and 6) on drama. As it will be later described, the curriculum shows that musical content is approached only tangentially and might not provide a sequential and substantial preparation to allow an appropriate development of students’ creative and compositional skills. At secondary level (grades 7–9), the pedagogical approach is based on what it is called arts project (individual or collective, SEP, 2017, p. 473). Unlike the previous school levels, where arts education is allotted 30 minutes to 1 hour per week, the time allotted to arts extends to 3 hours a week. It is also much more likely to have specialists with experience in one of the four artistic disciplines, with each school offering the arts discipline according to the professional strengths of its teachers. In cases where a school offers two or more arts programs, the curriculum affords students the opportunity to choose one art form to study during the three grades. As part of this project-based approach, it is intended that arts specialists generate learning situations where students can be active individuals capable of producing their own learning; to allow them not only to acquire content knowledge, but also to transform it. This suggests the possibility that students develop abilities not only to use the basic elements of the arts and music, but also “to transform them and to transform themselves to shape their identity” (p. 475).

Music content and pedagogical strategies Based on a more detailed examination of musical content within the curriculum, a gap can be observed between the aims of arts education in basic education and the curricular content and learning objectives. Across all school levels, the curriculum is organized around four axes: (1) artistic practice, (2) basic elements of the arts, (3) aesthetic appreciation and creativity, and (4) arts and social context. In the first three axes, musical content seems to foster music creation at a very basic level. According to the expected learning outcomes at preschool level, students should be able to “construct sound sequences and interpret them,” “produce sounds to the rhythm of music with different parts of the body, instruments and other objects,” and “represent sequences graphically and with their own resources.” (SEP, 2017, pp. 482, 484). At primary level, in grades 1 and 2, students are expected to develop similar abilities but without a clear sequence or strategies to build new knowledge based on the previous one. In fact, two expected learning outcomes—that students should “improvise movements when listening to the music,” and “hear and experience sounds with different timbres, durations and rhythms, and identify the source that emits them” (pp. 487–488)—suggest a response to music rather than the use of the elements to develop basic musical ideas. Even in grade 3, the only music-related—although mainly dance-related—content comments that students must “create sequences of movement and shapes from sound stimuli” (p. 489). In grades 4–6, there is no explicit connection between music and the suggested areas of visual arts and drama in order to 245

Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

develop what has been called interdisciplinary artistic collective, nor any suggestion as to the development of any creative musical skills. As it can be noted, during four years, students are not provided with specific musical contents that may help them to develop any musical skills as part of the compulsory education unless specific efforts from schools and music specialists working in those levels to go beyond the official curriculum. The music curriculum at the secondary level proposes that students organize a vocal ensemble where everyone participates in rehearsals and public performances. It is expected that, throughout this participation, students “live the creative process from the process of assembling a collective interpretation of an already written piece of music, as well as the creation of new songs, which can be individual or collective” (p. 505). It seems completely unrealistic—when the curriculum does not include any sequential learning that allows students to develop their own compositional skills besides a very basic creative use of the elements of music from kindergarten until grade 2—that students should be required to compose original works in grade 9. It is even stated that “the teacher who is a specialist in music can deepen the musical and rhythmic notation, as long as this deepening serves to improve the final performance” (p. 505), which suggests that strengthening music reading skills is not a core activity within the music curriculum. From this basic overview, it is easy to understand the limitations in scope and depth of the current national curriculum in Mexico. Reading between the lines, music is still perceived as a highly specialized area in which music specialists may or may not be able to develop students’ composition skills. In addition to time and curriculum constraints, music provision differs if it is taught by generalist classroom teachers or music specialists.

An approximation of how music composition is taught in schools Due to the limited information on how music composition takes place in Mexican schools, we aimed to examine teachers’ perceptions about composition/musical creation in basic education, as well as pedagogical strategies, materials, and technology used to foster students’ creative skills. Additionally, we were interested in understanding more about teachers’ sense of competence to compose and teach composition, and to what extent their undergraduate programs prepared them to teach composition in schools. We developed an online survey and distributed it through several social media groups of music educators in the country. It consisted of 32 items, including closed questions for demographical information and open-ended questions for teachers’ perceptions about the curriculum and pedagogical strategies used. We also examined teachers’ sense of competence (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) in doing and teaching music composition, improvisation, and arranging by using a series of five-point, Likert-type scales. In order to validate the survey, we sent it to four experienced music teachers and, based on their recommendations, purposefully decided to ask teachers about their perceptions and experiences on “music creation” rather than “composition” for two reasons. Firstly, there is still the pervasive idea that composition involves very specialized musical abilities that are not possible to include in basic education, and where this high level of training is only possible within specialized music institutions. Secondly, we decided to maintain consistency with the vocabulary as expressed in the national curriculum. A sample of 83 Mexican music teachers from 12 states participated in the survey. All participants were teaching in one or more school levels in basic education (preschool, 65.1%; primary school, 78.3%; secondary schools, 60.2%) and in one or more types of schools (state schools, 43.4%; federal schools, 32.5%; private schools, 61.4%). These initial findings provide empirical evidence on how music composition or creation is conceptualized, perceived, and approached by music specialists in their daily practice. 246

Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexico

Music creation in basic education We asked music educators about what music creation would be like within the context of basic education. About a third of the respondents clearly described it as an initial experimentation of sounds that may result in original musical ideas, as a compositional or improvisational process in which students are allowed to manipulate rhythmic and melodic patterns intentionally. One of the teachers defined it as “the realization of compositions that involve different sound combinations either with the voice, the body itself, objects within the reach of the students, mixtures of electronic sounds, with or without conventional music notation.” It was also described as “a door to creativity” and as a way to “approach music not as something immovable, only to receive what has already been done, but as a means to develop new ideas.” However, two thirds of music teachers did not refer to music creation as that kind of initial exploration and experimentation of musical ideas. Surprisingly, many of them defined it as any other type of musical engagement such as performing on an instrument or singing, listening to music, playing in ensembles, reading music, learning music theory, or discriminating auditory stimuli. This suggests that they do not necessarily equate music creation with a compositional process but with a process of engaging in a musical practice, regardless of its nature (e.g., performative, theoretical, and even contemplative). Consistent with the arts curriculum, several teachers conceived music creation as a means for students to express their feelings, particularly in a playful way. It was conceived as an “opportunity for the discovery of sounds through play, just as a child or a young person experiments with colors for their visual creations” and as “the ability to make music for personal expression, understanding it with fresh and fun ideas.” Music teachers even suggested that in order to allow students to express their feelings, “music creation must be free, [and to] let the person experiment without prejudice or fear of error.” One teacher described composition as the “freedom to let children explore their creativity with established rhythmic foundations.” As documented in the literature in other countries (e.g., Burcet, 2017; Shifres, 2018; see also Mills & McPherson, 2016), there is evidence that Mexican music teachers emphasize the need of basic knowledge in music notation as a prerequisite to develop creative and compositional skills. As one teacher stated, “for me, music creation should come from music notation to allow students to explore different ways of representing music combining sounds of instruments.” The participants even suggested that music composition can only be taught at more advanced stages of music learning, not at preschool or primary levels, where students must be merely introduced to the basic elements of music. This notion might undervalue those initial explorations as the necessary steps in developing more advanced compositional skills. It is clear that teachers must create an enriching environment and act as a role model for the students through their own practice. In order to provide the necessary guide and help, teachers must possess specific training, skills, and experience in music composition themselves. One of the participants, who was also a composer, argued that “teachers should always be creating exercises and their own music to motivate students to do the same… because if they do not do it, how will they teach it?” However, this research demonstrated that not all teachers felt sufficiently competent in teaching composition or composing their own music, and not all teachers possessed compositional skills or developed them among their students. There was even a tendency to avoid referring to composition as a learning objective in basic education. For instance, one teacher was cautious when suggesting that the music class must be “a space where the student has the facilities and stimulation to create music, not as composers themselves, but 247

Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

also from the interpretation, musicality or technique (changes of rhythm, dynamics, insertion of sounds, etc.).” One of the participants expressed that music composition is not a topic for arts in basic education. It would be a simulation and a lie [that it takes place in schools], starting from the premise of not having a teacher trained in arts to teach the subject. At the national level, the subject is taught by a generalist teacher. However, the same teacher also acknowledged that, in her lesson plans, she usually included activities such as creating or improvising through musical games that emphasized the process, not the result of a musical composition. Despite the different conceptions of what music composition or music creation entails in basic education, most teachers considered that it should be formally included, but they were fully aware of the break within the music curriculum content in primary school and the fact that students may or may not continue music in secondary school as a significant aspect affecting students’ sequential learning. If this gap can be bridged with the inclusion of curricular content appropriately sequenced to teach creative skills across the three educational levels, teachers will have a better chance to teach composition in a coherent and systematic way. But it would also seem necessary for music teachers to reconsider their notions of what musical creativity, musical creation, and composition might entail within the general curriculum, and how these notions determine their teaching approaches.

Practices and strategies Despite the limited description of expected teaching strategies described in the curriculum and even the reluctance to consider composition as part of the curriculum, teachers seem to have found ways to foster music creation and composition skills in their daily teaching practice. The most frequent pedagogical strategy reported was allowing students to create their own rhythmic patterns and variations through games. It was suggested that starting with rhythmic patterns, instead of melodic or harmonic patterns, in their early stages would be more appropriate and realistic. Some of those strategies included call and response of rhythmic patterns and body percussion following a steady beat, the use of flashcards to combine rhythmic cells, a combination of rhythmic patterns using their names or other words, improvising rhythmic patterns over known songs or specific musical genres (e.g., rap), and changing the rhythm of songs. Based on a rhythmic foundation, the teachers also reported the common practice of creating melodic patterns (two or four measures) or short melodies with or without a musical instrument, exploring vocal sounds at different pitches and tempi, or combining other instruments with different rhythms. Melodic patterns were also created based on words, lyrics, or phrases that, according to some of the teachers, could be later harmonized individually or as a collective project. For example, one teacher provided a detailed description for this kind of sequential learning: More than creation [at preschool level] it should be an exploration of sounds, timbres, rhythms, and melodies with voice. In elementary school, beginning with writing in a simple way, rhythms a little more complex and alternating with others playing two melodies simultaneously as the basis for harmony, and beginning the instrumental performance before upper primary. Then, little by little, integrating other instruments and broadening the harmony. 248

Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexico

When teachers were asked about the type of abilities, students should develop in order to carry out their own musical creations, the most frequently reported ability was active listening as a way to promote sound exploration, followed by a good sense of tempo, rhythm, and physical coordination, which allow students to identify, repeat, and combine different patterns. Therefore, a wide range of listening experiences were considered necessary in order to develop a deeper understanding of the musical language. As stated by one of the teachers, [students] must have many auditory references that help them on the path of music creation, in turn we must teach them the different levels of musical listening so that they learn to have critical thinking about what they hear and an introduction to music, writing that is fun and invites them to create little rhythms and later melodies. Other musical skills that teachers considered necessary in music creation were reading standard notation, understanding basic music theory and harmony, the ability to play an instrument, and the capacity to express their feelings through sound. Interestingly, some teachers even mentioned some general skills such as imagination, resilience, inter- and intrapersonal intelligence, attention and the ability to follow instructions, and being spontaneous. Several teachers reported taking a collaborative approach to composing, starting from a simple phrase or melody until a song is developed with the help of everyone in the class. As described by one of the teachers, students can express phrases rhythmically, verbally, or melodically, and together make joint decisions to construct small musical pieces. In a few cases reported by the teachers, these kinds of collective projects were described as multi- and interdisciplinary, in which students are asked to use different materials from music and other arts during the creative process, just as the national curriculum recommends teachers do (e.g., activities where students respond creatively with body movements and dance, create soundscapes and visual representations of music, or create musical stories for theatrical representations; SEP, 2017). In order to specifically teach music creation, teachers reported using diverse materials and resources from the most basic ones (blackboards, flashcards, pictograms, recycled materials) to more advanced technological devices (audio players, iPads, laptops, desktop computers, smartphones, projectors). They reported mainly using percussion instruments, recorders, guitars, and keyboards, as well as educational videos through online resources (YouTube) and apps such as iReal Pro, DrumGenius, and Music Speed Changer. Only a few of them used software for music production such as a DAW (digital audio workstation) or music notation package (Sibelius). This research suggests that teachers’ knowledge and use of specialized technologies for music composition might be limited, or restricted to what is available and affordable in their classroom.

Agreement with the national curriculum In order to examine music teachers’ agreement with the arts curriculum, we asked them whether they believed the curriculum adequately developed compositional and creative skills. Although 15% of the participants responded affirmatively, 85% of them disagreed with the adequacy of the current curriculum. Those that agreed argued that it “takes into account different axes that allow the development of all areas of arts,” through interdisciplinary work, and how it gives them freedom and autonomy for their daily teaching practice, because it is not too prescriptive. However, most teachers considered that music, along with the other arts in the curriculum, is only used for entertainment, for basic musical appreciation and a general 249

Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

cultural understanding; therefore, it does not aim to provide a more specific and specialized musical training. It was also believed that the curriculum underestimates children’s abilities and potential. Teachers recognized that the curriculum allows teachers to make their own decisions on the content and pedagogical approaches. However, as one of the teachers stated, “many teachers do not carry out any activity in favor of music creation.” Another teacher explained this phenomenon arguing that “because music education has very conservative bases… teachers themselves do not have much inclination towards music creation or composition.” This trend is also supported by the teachers’ self-reports on their interest and sense of competence in creative musical activities. One of the main reasons why music teachers do not consider it feasible to include composition in schools is the allotted time to arts education, and the reduced amount of time for music. They also identify many other weaknesses in the curricular approach. They consider that the expected learning outcomes, as stated in the curriculum, are too general, very limited in scope, and lack a clear sequence. Although the curriculum aims to develop certain creative skills, very basic in their definitions, it does not offer tools or specific materials to accomplish that goal and teachers do not receive adequate support to acquire the necessary materials, musical instruments, or other resources. An implicit expectation exists that teachers should focus on other musical activities, but not in composition or music creation. As several teachers stated, the curriculum is mainly focused on providing musical experiences with songs and rounds, through repetition and preparation of repertoire for school festivals, but not on music creation or the development of music readings skills. Teachers’ responses provided evidence that, as stated in the curriculum, music and the development of creative skills is not considered a priority. This is also reflected in the lack of interest from generalist teachers and school administrators to support and encourage students’ creative musical learning.

Competence to compose and to teach composition Despite curriculum limitations and challenges faced by music teachers in their daily practice, it was surprising to find that most teachers considered it possible to develop students’ compositional skills in basic education (94%). They were convinced that children’s potential and innate creativity can thrive if the necessary resources and time are allotted to deepen their learning and acquire adequate musical content. Some teachers suggested that this was feasible when creating music was approached with games rather than formal compositions. Additionally, most teachers (80.7%) reported that it was very important that students develop skills for music creation in basic education and almost all teachers (96.4%) reported including some sort of basic compositional activities, thus highlighting the perceived importance of music creation/composition held by teachers. The teachers in the study reported their perceived competence in teaching composition or music creation, as well as their own competencies in composing, improvising, and arranging music. Despite our initial assumptions, we found that more teachers felt competent, not only to effectively teach and develop students’ music creation skills but also to compose, improvise, and arrange music, than those who did not. These results are encouraging given the fact that many of the teachers reported that they did not get sufficient training to develop those musical skills during their undergraduate studies, but it still enabled them to promote basic compositional skills in basic education. Further investigation would still be required in order to confirm this trend, examining the correlation between the teachers’ perceptions of competence with their level of achievement in composing, improvising, and arranging their own music, and with their effectiveness in teaching composition in basic education. 250

Policies and practices in teaching music composition in Mexico

Conclusions and implications Based on the analysis of the arts curriculum and the examination of music teachers’ opinions, perceptions, and experiences, we can conclude that composition in schools is still an underdeveloped curricular content. Despite the national curriculum emphasizing the development of creative and imaginative skills so that students can freely express themselves through exploration and experimentation with the basic elements of music, it is clear that it does not provide enough guidance on how to accomplish those goals in a sequential and realistic way. The proposed pedagogical approaches, as stated in the curriculum, are consistent with the notion of arts education as an integrative and interdisciplinary subject. However, as it has been previously documented (González-Moreno, 2015) that most university programs in the arts provide a specialized training in only one area, music education graduates are not necessarily prepared to teach in schools under this multidisciplinary model of arts education. On the other hand, their specialized training in music makes it feasible for them to promote a more meaningful musical learning that also includes composition, if they do not feel obliged to strictly follow the curriculum goals. It is clear that although arts education is supposed to be a compulsory subject, it remains at the edge of the curriculum. One of the main limitations for the development of musical creativity is the time allotted to art and music training in basic education. Additionally, music education has been characterized by a great emphasis on the preparation of music performances for school festivities, such as Mother’s Day, Independence Day, or Christmas festivals, as a mere entertainment, over the development of a wider range of musical skills (Pliego-Carrasco, 2011). Although these types of activities strengthen enculturation processes, useful to contextualize the musical phenomenon and to associate music with certain sociocultural patterns, they do not allow students to develop their own musical discourses (Reynoso-Vargas, 2010). Increasing the allotted time for music and the arts in schools would allow music specialists to adequately teach musical learning both in general and music composition in particular. Nonetheless, it would not be possible for generalists to teach a more specialized musical content in the absence of a specialist in the school. This particular condition could explain why “composition” is not clearly stated as an expected learning outcome within the curriculum as it is still perceived as an elite activity for professional musicians rather than a systematic process of sound exploration and experimentation for self-expression that could be developed from early stages of musical learning. While some music teachers strongly disagreed with the arts curriculum and did not consider it possible to include composition in their teaching, most teachers included activities that aimed to increase students’ musical engagement and creativity in order to create an enriching, playful space for them to develop their compositional skills and to make music for self-expression, even if just at a basic level. It is evident that, despite the ideal of continuity in the artistic practice, students are not necessarily exposed to systematic and relevant musical training. However, it is important not to underestimate children’s potential and those initial explorations that may later flourish into more advanced compositional skills. Finally, under current conditions, it is clear that music teacher education programs must be designed in a way that future teachers are able to increase their sense of competence, not only in music performance, as they have traditionally emphasized, but also in a wider range of musical and creative abilities, such as composing, improvising, or arranging. Similarly, if we aim to provide quality music education in Mexico for all children and young people, the educational authorities should offer adequate professional development programs that foster classroom teachers’ competence in teaching music, not only for their own musical development, but also to develop children’s musical creativities. 251

Patricia A. González-Moreno and Rubén Carrillo

Reflective questions 1 How can music composition and creation be discerned in different educational and cultural contexts? 2 What considerations must be taken to better position music composition within the school curriculum? 3 How can music specialists and generalist teachers work together to widen opportunities and expand current practices of music composition?

Note 1 National curriculum at the time of data collection and analysis, whereas the 2022 curriculum was still under development (https://www.sep.gob.mx/marcocurricular/).

References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Burcet, M. I. (2017). Hacia una epistemología decolonial de la notación musical. Revista Internacional de Educación Musical, 5(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.12967/RIEM-2017-5-p129-138 Collins, A. (2016). Generalist pre-service teacher education, self-efficacy and arts education: An impossible expectation? International Journal of Education & the Arts, 17(26), 1–23. http://www.ijea.org/ v17n26/. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(101859), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 González-Moreno, P. A. (2015). Music teacher education in Mexico: Current trends and challenges. In S. Figueiredo, J. Soares, & R. F. Schambeck (Eds.), The preparation of music teachers: A global perspective (pp. 104–122). Porto Alegre: ANPPOM, Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Música. Hennessy, S. (2000). Overcoming the red-feeling: The development of confidence to teach music in primary school amongst student teachers. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 183–196. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000243 Mills, J. (1989). The generalist primary teacher of music: A problem of confidence. British Journal of Music Education, 6(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700007002 Mills, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Musical literacy: Reading traditional clef notation. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 177–191). New York: Oxford University Press. Pliego-Carrasco, G. (2011). La formación de los educadores musicales en México: Retos y propuestas. Revista Panamericana de Pedagogía: Saberes y Quehaceres del Pedagogo, 18, 17–39. https://doi.org/ 10.21555/rpp.v0i18.1756 Randles, C. (2019). Assessing music learning through composition. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education (Vol. 2, pp. 611–628). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190248130.013.63 Reynoso-Vargas, K. M. (2010). La educación musical y su impacto en el desarrollo. Revista de educación y desarrollo, 12, 53–60. Seddon, F., & Biasutti, M. (2008). Non-music specialist trainee primary school teachers’ confidence in teaching music in the classroom. Music Education Research, 10(3), 304–421. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14613800802280159 SEP, Secretaría de Educación Pública (2017). Aprendizajes clave para la educación integral: Play y programas de estudio para la educación básica. Artes. SEP. https://www.planyprogramasdestudio.sep. gob.mx/descargables/APRENDIZAJES_CLAVE_PARA_LA_EDUCACION_INTEGRAL.pdf. Shifres, F. (2018). Realidad e idealización del dominio de la notación musical. Revista Foro de Educación Musical, Artes y Pedagogía, 3(4), 13–44. https://www.aacademica.org/favio.shifres/360.

252

17 MUSIC COMPOSITION AS PLAYFUL ACTIVITY Perspectives on Teaching Composing from the Netherlands Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

Introduction Music education in Dutch elementary schools for 4–12-year-olds is traditionally seen as a way of introducing young children to their cultural community’s music by singing songs and listening to popular and classical music. Over the years, advances have been seen that have broadened children’s experiences with music by introducing music and movement, and supporting active music listening and the playing of instruments, including reading scores. The main goals of Dutch elementary education are defined as so-called attainment goals. For education in the arts, there are three attainment goals (Greven & Letschert, 2006):

• Attainment Goal 54: Students learn to use visuals, music, language, play, and movement to express and communicate feelings and experiences.

• Attainment Goal 55: Students learn to reflect on their own works and those of others. • Attainment Goal 56: Students acquire knowledge about, and learn to appreciate, aspects of cultural heritage. In the Netherlands, schools are free to develop their own curricula to achieve these goals. Music composition activities carried out by children themselves are not among common classroom activities in most elementary school practices, as many classroom teachers do not feel competent enough to teach music (Nieuwmeijer, Marshall, & van Oers, 2021), let alone teach music composition (Kors & Van de Veerdonk, 2006; Mills, 2009). Despite the advances mentioned above, mainstream music education in the Netherlands has remained a school-based enterprise of a mainly reproductive nature. Children are involved in all kinds of activities and experiences that engage them in the reproduction of music of their own and other cultures, either by listening to popular or classical music, singing existing cultural songs, or playing (easy) sheet music. Without doubt, this approach succeeds in revealing and encouraging talents, but for the general student population, Dutch music education today does not seem to be very successful in raising its level of musical development beyond the DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-23

253

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

point of spontaneous growth and incidental moments of improvement, based on experiential learning in everyday practices. There has been innovation in many school subjects during the past decades by making the step from a reproductive approach to a more productive one, in which children are actively involved in the construction of the objects (subject matters) that are relevant in their respective disciplines. Mathematics education, for example, changed about three decades ago into an activity of productive mathematizing (students actively producing mathematical knowledge), rather than fast reproduction of errorless answers (see Freudenthal, 1978). This way of teaching productive mathematizing in elementary education is now a widely distributed common practice in most Western countries and has proved successful in developing mathematical thinking in schools (see, for example, Thompson, 2000). In our view, such innovations should be implemented in music education as well. Although similar steps toward productive music engagement have been proposed and taken in music education over the last decade by many music teachers (Barrett, 2011; Kaschub & Smith, 2013; Wiggins & Espeland, 2012), there are still important steps to be taken in order to truly innovate music teaching in elementary education. Niland (2009) notes that music educators traditionally aim to offer children activities to improve their musical skills. Although music educators commonly recognize the importance of making music enjoyable, the teaching of music education for young children is still mostly based on teaching them to sing songs selected by teachers and is structured around specific behavioral outcomes. Based on what is known about play as a phenomenon in young children’s everyday life and the research that has been done on play, we will claim in this chapter that play and music education can be combined in order to take a step toward a more productive music education, such as music composition. As yet, however, it is still unclear how such an approach can be theoretically underpinned, and what kind of practices should be implemented to enhance children’s music learning, as well as extra-musical developmental qualities (like social cognition, intellectual achievements, interests, and motor skills). The aim of this chapter is to develop an argument for a play-based curriculum in music education, with music composition as a core activity. The main question that we try to answer is as follows: “How can music composition with children be conceptualized as playful activity that establishes optimum conditions for (musical) learning outcomes?” It will be necessary to take a number of preliminary steps to answer this question. To begin with, this chapter will concentrate on the phenomenon of play and emphasize the essentially creative nature of play. From the perspective of cultural-historical activity theory, the chapter will advance an interpretation of play that can clarify the playful nature of music composition (see also Bundy, 1997; Lieberman, 1977), explain the necessity of participating experts, as well as explaining the possibility of goal-directed learning without destroying the quality of play. On this basis, we will ultimately propose a practical strategy for playful music education.

Composition pedagogy The word “composition” refers both to a process (the act of making up music or text) and a product (e.g., the resulting music) (Kratus, 2012). In music, a composer is the person who creates new pieces of music. The word “composer” derives from the Latin words “com” and “ponere,” which literally means “putting together.” Composing music can be accomplished by using musical notations as well as from an oral tradition. It can be conducted for interpretation and performance, or through direct manipulation of sonic materials. The roles of composers and performers can not only be distinct, but also merged. Barrett (2003) describes 254

Music composition as playful activity perspectives

the composition process as an intensely personal process of meaning-making (Bruner, 1986). With regard to children’s meaning-making in the domain of music, Barratt (2003) states: Musical meaning-making is an accomplishment of the child who – as musician and composer – is engaged in a dialogue with self and the emerging musical work, a dialogue that is mediated by the culture. The constant dialogue – among the roles of composer, critical listener, and performer – forms the heart of musical meaning-making. (Barrett, 2003, pp. 23–24) The words “composition,” “creativity,” and “improvisation” are often used interchangeably, which can make discussions on this subject diffuse (Kors & Van de Veerdonk, 2006). Both composition and improvisation can be creative processes (Kiehn, 2003). It should be added, however, that both activities can also be taught in very uncreative ways. According to Kratus (2012), the difference between composition and improvisation is that the act of composition allows time for reflection, development, and revision of the final product, whereas the act of improvisation does not. Kratus (2012) notes that improvisation is sometimes defined in terms of composition, as simultaneous composition and performance. He argues for defining composition in a more accurate way in terms of improvisation, i.e., as improvisation that allows time for reflection, development, and also revision. In this chapter, we define composition as a planned and deliberate realization of a creative process with a new piece of music as the outcome (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 2006). However, there are also other, sometimes more specific, definitions of the word “composing.” Berkley (2004), for example, describes composing as knowledge-rich, complex, multiple, and creative problem-solving, requiring the development of skills in students such as making hypotheses and verifying. She states that teaching composing is characterized by the main activities of instruction and training in composing skills and knowledge, management of a positive and creative learning environment, and facilitation of ownership, autonomy, and authority in students. She concludes that conceptualizing the teaching of composing as problem-solving enables music educators to rationalize the specific demands of the curriculum context in which they are operating by providing students with a framework for cognitive development in composing. Studies of children as composers are amply available in literature. Researchers have typically examined either the process or products of composition, or both. However, although there is a strong belief in the value of creative activities for all children, and in music composition in particular, composing music is still not a regular classroom activity in the Netherlands, despite all attention, the topic has had over the last 30 years. The studies described above show that music composition, as a form of music production, is a complex activity that can be executed by both adults and children and takes many forms. It is a planned and deliberate realization of a creative process with a new piece of music as the outcome. In the text below, we describe how classroom teachers and music specialists can organize this process.

Musical play Music can be considered an inherently playful activity, as is expressed in many languages, such as English, Russian, German, French, and Dutch. People play music, or play an instrument. One plays the drums, or can play in an ensemble. Are we just talking here about completely different meanings of the verb “to play” in these different utterances, or is there a deeper connection with a psychological activity to which this verb refers, comparable to the 255

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

referent of utterances regarding playful activities in which children casually enjoy themselves and learn? Marsh and Young (2006, pp. 289–290) define musical play as: The activities that children initiate of their own accord and in which they may choose to participate with others voluntarily. Like other modes of play, these activities are enjoyable, intrinsically motivated, and controlled by the players. They are free of externally imposed rules but may involve rules developed by the children who are playing. They are “everyday” forms of musical activity, happening in the places children inhabit when not engaged in organized educational, recreational, or economic activity. In these places, certain forms of musical play are possible, even encouraged by adults, and in others play may be severely constrained. The constraints imposed by space, the levels of acceptable noise, what might be used to produce a sound, and availability of others with whom to make music, all influence the ways in which children will play musically. Musical play is thus embedded in and blends across many features of its context. Research into play raises the question, “What is theoretically meant by musical play and what are the required conditions for its occurrence?” Moorhead and Pond (1941, 1942) published studies of young children’s spontaneous music making and provided some of the earliest pictures of children’s creative music making and musical play. They reported that children, regardless of experience level or giftedness, are capable of creative musical thought, as long as they are given a rich, musically stimulating, and supportive environment. If children get the chance to play with musical materials, such as musical instruments, sound objects and toys, and the conditions for play are optimal, children will explore the possibilities of these materials within the extent of their current interest and abilities. According to Niland (2009), children have a natural inclination to sing and play, and these activities form a vital part of their musical development (Niland, 2009). The playful nature of singing is emphasized by Marsh (2008) as well. Campbell (2010) concludes that children play, dance, create, and sing with their peers in everyday life. They develop their own repertoires of songs that are influenced by, but separate from, the surrounding adult world. Adults are often unaware of the complexity, values, and varied forms of children’s musical play. A large number of studies show musical play as a common feature of young children’s experiences in music. Most studies focus on vocal activities such as singing, chanting, and invented songs (Barrett, 2006; Gluschankof, 2008; Stadler Elmer, 2012; Tarnowski, 1999; Valerio, Reynolds, Bolton, Taggart, & Gordon, 1998). Music and movement (Gluschankof, 2006) and the use of instruments (Young, 2003) have also been studied. A number of studies address questions regarding the possible effects of involvement in music on different dimensions of human development. Musical development, supported by engagement in musical play, is found to spur creativity (Adachi & Chino, 2004; Barrett, 2006; Campbell, 2010; Gordon, 2003; St. John, 2010; Lau & Grieshaber, 2010; Littleton, 1998). Furthermore, musical play increases children’s musical skills (Niland, 2009) and generates social, emotional, and cognitive benefits (Tarnowski, 1999). According to Barrett (2011), musical play may also contribute to identity formation. From a developmental point of view, Greenfield (1996) states that play is fun with serious consequences. Play, and musical play in particular, is a form of human behavior that emerges after birth and continues during a person’s whole life. This is the reason why composer/music educators such as Carl Orff and Zoltán Kodály used play-based teaching and learning strategies in their approaches (Goodkin, 2004; Houlahan & Tacka, 2008, 2015). In order to emphasize the active nature of involvement in music, Small (1998) suggests interpreting the word “music” as a verb: musicking. “Musicking” refers to the active involvement in 256

Music composition as playful activity perspectives

music activities (either listening to it or playing it). In other words, the activity of actually doing music by active engagement. This can be interpreted from an activity theory point of view. Playing the piano and playing a CD are both musical activities in a comprehensive way and are described as musicking. Taking this active (constructive) engagement in music into account, a more detailed interpretation of musical play from an activity theory perspective will be described below.

Toward a description of (musical) play from an activity theory perspective As outlined above, there has been, and still is, much discussion on what can be considered play, and what its relevance could be for human cultural development (see Singer, Hännikäinen, & van Oers, 2013). From the point of view of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory of human learning and development, van Oers (2012a, 2012b, 2013) developed an activity theory interpretation of play that conceives of play as a particular way in which human activities may be carried out. Activity theory is an expansion of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory, accomplished by Leont’ev (1981). All human activities are collaboratively evolving products of cultural development that become manifest in different cultural practices (like communicating, trading, educating, and musicking). Children are educated to become self-dependent participants in cultural practices by appropriating the relevant tools and rules. All cultural practices (and activities) can be accomplished in more strict and mechanistic ways (direct instruction), or in more free and joyful ways. Below we will argue how this approach influences the reconceptualization of musical play. An important starting point of Vygotsky’s approach to play was his idea that all play is based on an imaginary situation (Fleer, 2010; Vygotsky, 1978, p. 93). Play, for Vygotsky and Leont’ev, closely relates to imagination (or fantasy), but they stress (see Leont’ev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978) that play does not originate from imagination but emerges in activities as children’s way of relating to their environment (Diachenko, 2011). Imagination or fantasy is a product of playing and not the origin of play. But what is meant by the notion of “imaginative situation” that is inherently associated with play?

The activity format as a way to characterize play From the perspective of cultural-historical activity theory, we conceive play as a mode of activity, defined by the three parameters of the activity format. Below we will describe each of the defining parameters of play, which will ultimately be used to define musical play specifically in the next section. It is important to keep in mind that the parameters are only described separately here for the sake of clarity. In reality, they are attributes of activities and should not be seen as subcategories of activity.

Rules By participating in socio-cultural practices, children are confronted with all kinds of rules (Veraksa, 2011; Vygotsky, 1982). Leont’ev (1983, p. 315) notes an indissoluble relationship between roles in play and rules of play. Some of them are implicit and included in the social practices the child participates in. Musicians, for instance, start playing when the audience is silent, and the audience starts applauding when the piece has ended. By getting children engaged in such cultural practices, opportunities are created for them to emulate these practices (and the implied social rules) in their role-play. There are also explicit technical rules dealing 257

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

with the instruments used that are controlled with differing levels of accomplishment. The possibility to use role-play as a meaningful context for learning is based on Vygotsky’s view of play, which incorporates the underlying wish of children to follow the rules of play and accept help of a knowledgeable person, if necessary. Many psychologists have noticed the essential meaning of rules for play activities. Important developments in play activities are often associated with learning to use explicit and increasingly complex rules (El’konin, 1978; Gray, 2013; Leont’ev, 1983; Piaget, 1951). As a consequence of the emphasis on rules in role-play, Vygotsky rejects the possibility of completely free play (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 103), as all activities imply some social, technical, conceptual, and/or strategic rules, which may be inconsistently applied, handled very loosely, or idiosyncratically employed. Rules are constitutive for specific socio-cultural activities and by definition also constrain freedom to a certain extent. Play is a partially rule-defined arena that allows the player considerable freedom of action.

Degrees of freedom The inevitable presence of rules in play activities does not mean that there is no possible allowance of a certain degree of freedom for the participants of an activity. Real human activities mostly cannot be interpreted merely as a process of strict application of rules. Human activity is a part of life and therefore also has – for Vygotsky – an essentially creative moment (see Vygotsky, 1991/1926, pp. 367–368; 1997/1926, pp. 346–347). Particularly in play, a certain degree of freedom is an essential feature. When the actions of the player are completely externally determined and thus are predictable, the activity will not be recognized as play by the actor, or by its environment. The degrees of freedom give players the right to make their own (idiosyncratic) versions of a socio-cultural activity. In his analysis “The psychology of the art,” Vygotsky (1968) establishes a link between the arts and play, particularly in terms of the freedom, both forms of expression have to some extent. This freedom is present in the interpretation of the meaning of symbols (e.g., the words), the imagination of the fictitious situation, the choice of means and goals, etc. It is this conditional freedom that is so characteristic of life as a “creation.” It belongs to the essence of imitative participation in everyday practices that constitute life (van Oers, 2012b). Creativity and imagination are crucial elements that can only exist by the grace of a certain degree of freedom in combining and giving meaning to the cultural practices that someone encounters in his or her environment (Vygotsky, 1967). Vygotsky again establishes a link between play and the creative possibilities of the child (see also Connery et al., 2010).

Involvement In his analysis of the meaning of the environment for human development (see Vygotsky, 1994/1935), Vygotsky inquires as to how the environment influences the development of children. This is not a process of direct adoption of information from the environment, but the building of a profound emotional experience of the environment, and building an empathic relationship with this environment and the activities that occur in that setting (Mahn & John Steiner, 2002). Such an experience develops in a unique relationship that the child has with the situation, and only in this relationship can the influence of the environment be understood (Vygotsky, 1994/1935). In this experience, the environment is represented by the actor in a certain way, both with regard to the content and how this environment is personally experienced (Vygotsky, 1994/1935). Also with regard to play, Vygotsky notes this intense personal 258

Music composition as playful activity perspectives

involvement which is based on the child’s own imagination of the situation and the play activity (Vygotsky, 1984).

The definition of musical play from a cultural-historical point of view Applying the activity theory for the interpretation of human practices reveals a number of different modes of activity. Traditional forms of music education that focus on training for strictly rule-regulated performances (of songs or instrumental pieces) with very limited freedom for the player to vary the performance and express a personal version of the music can be seen as essentially reproductive forms of music education in a narrow sense. This approach to music education is diametrically opposed to educational activities that engage students in musical activities which respect some rules (acknowledged by students) and allow them some freedom in interpreting the rules and in representing the melody (in terms of tempo, articulation, phrasing, etc.) according to their own aesthetic preferences. This latter type of music education can be seen as productive and playful. It is, however, important to note here that the distinction between reproductive and productive styles should not be seen as absolute and dichotomous. Expert performances of codified music can be seen as a form of reproduction, but under special conditions, such music can be accomplished with a high level of engagement and serious obedience of musical rules while still express the personal freedom of the performer in terms of dynamics, phrasing, and so on. In this sense, it abides by the basic characteristics of play, seen as a specific activity format. In the rest of this section, we will focus specifically on musical play from our activity point of view and detail some of its implications for productive music education practices (read: music composition). As said before: “Musical play is […] embedded in and blends across many features of its context” (Marsh & Young, 2006). Musical play can manifest itself in all kinds of socio-cultural activities that involve music. These activities vary from music listening to performing music, music composition, and improvisation. The wish to appropriate cultural tools used by adults is an important incentive for children’s play (Janssen-Vos & Pompert, 2012), including musical play. Challenging music activities are mostly open activities that place high demands on children and bring them into contact with both the cultural and academic achievements of modern life. As such activities tend to be complex, play is an excellent way for children to get access to them, for it allows them to create their own versions of this complex activity within certain social, or technical, constraints. These activities take the needs of the participants into account (Levine, 2002) and allow exploration and inquiries. In many other domains, music education can, in our view, make a step from a reproductive approach to a more productive one. Instead of rigidly following pre-defined instructions and reproducing codified music composed by others, students can be actively involved in the construction of objects relevant to music education, such as aspects of sound and form, and skills for playing instruments. The use of the activity format of play can be useful for clarifying this paradigm shift. In complex music activities, students can feel the need for new skills and actively produce musical skills and knowledge by creating their own music with the help of experts (Hogenes, 2012). It is exactly the playful accomplishment of such complex activities that provides children with acknowledged rules and freedom to make their own versions of these activities. Engagement in such playful activities with experiences of success and satisfaction may lead to the formation of a person’s disposition to participate in activities in ways that are rightfully characterized as play. The development of this “playfulness” is also deemed important for musical development, using “composition,” “creativity,” and “improvisation” as core dimensions. 259

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

Although there are many musical activities that allow for playful versions, we argue here that music composition activities in particular follow the play format of activity and offer children opportunities to create their own music, as well as in improvisation. The characteristics of the play format (rules, degrees of freedom, involvement) are clearly visible in music composition and improvisation as socio-cultural activities. As children may create their own music of their own accord, children are by definition usually highly involved in this activity. In the course of their composing and improvisation activities, they follow some rules, for example, conceptual rules with regard to musical content like musical form and organization, technical rules (for the use of the instruments), and social rules for the division of the musical roles. Children are allowed to interpret the rules in their own way, for example, in the choice of instruments they use and the kind of musical notation they think is most suitable for their composition. Involvement, for example, is manifest in children’s wishes to continue participation in the music activity. Encouraging and supporting children to improve their participation in cultural activities like music composition and improvisation confronts them with new needs and demands for learning. This is especially the case with regard to tools for communication (language and expression) and representation (notation). Language and notation, as cultural artifacts, play important roles in composition activities. Musical literacy, the ability to hear what is seen and see what is heard, is stimulated when the musical environment of children shows that musical notations are prominent elements for their musical activities. Children are curious about artifacts used by adults. Participating in sociocultural activities, like music making and music composition, offers children opportunities to explore these artifacts and use them for their own benefits. Moreover, writing music and texts is an important inspiration in the process of thinking and reflection. Literacy has become a feature of our culture. Musical literacy, the ability to read, write, comprehend and interpret staff notation (Mills & McPherson, 2006), and other forms of musical notation such as graphic notation, may yield a major contribution to the understanding of music in children. Cooperative learning can be used for music composition activities as well, particularly when an expert is involved. Based on the activity format of play, Hogenes (2010) developed a pedagogical model for playful music composition activities in the classroom. In this three-step model, the first step for promoting collaborative music composition activity in students consists of creating a common base. This base is related to the concept of “common knowledge” (Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Mercer, 1995). Common knowledge refers to the construction of knowledge as essentially a social process, producing common ground for successful joint activity. In joint playful activities like composing, children will also need to build this shared pool of knowledge, experiences and objectives, for solving the problems they encounter while accomplishing the composition activity. However, within this pedagogy, it is important to note here that there is a start in joint musical activity in which children can and want to participate, but not only work together to have fun; they work together to benefit from this cooperation for making their music. Step 2 of the three-step model for music composition is creating ideas and writing the composition, as well as the revision of the piece. Step 3 is the presentation and publication of it.

Conclusions and discussion This chapter explored the possibility of conceiving musical activity as play and particularly focused on the question: “How can music composition with children be conceptualized as playful activity that establishes optimum conditions for (musical) learning outcomes?” From the perspective of cultural-historical activity theory, we can answer this question in the following way: play can be conceived of as a way of carrying out human activities. All 260

Music composition as playful activity perspectives

human activities can be accomplished in stricter and more mechanistic ways or in freer and more joyful ways, and the same can be said of music activities. Musical play is a special mode of music activity defined by the three parameters of the activity theory format: rules, degrees of freedom, and involvement. Traditional forms of music education that focus on training for strictly rule-regulated performance can be seen as essentially reproductive forms of music education. Educational activities, on the other hand, can be considered productive and playful when they succeed in engaging children in musical activities that relate to their interests, build on rules that can be acknowledged by the children, and allow them freedom in interpreting the rules and the forms of performance. Like in many other subjects, music education can make a step from a reproductive approach to a more productive one. Although there are many musical activities that allow for playful versions, we argue here that music composition activities in particular follow the play format of activity and offer children opportunities to create their own music. Music composition can be offered as a playful activity in elementary school (Hogenes, 2016). Children are able to, and want to, participate in such activities and actively appropriate musical skills and knowledge while creating their own music composition(s). However, they need assistance to improve their ability to participate in cultural practices such as music composition. The music composition process is conceived of as a planned, deliberate realization of a creative process with a new piece of music as the outcome (Hogenes et al., 2015). The pedagogical implication of music composition as a regular playful classroom activity is that the participating and guiding expert (teacher) should never impair the quality of the activity as play, i.e., the expert should abide by the characteristics of the activity format of play – rules, degrees of freedom, and intense experience. A pedagogical model can be used consistently with this play-based approach as a three-step model, in which Step 1 is the creation of a common base, Step 2 is creating ideas and writing the composition, and Step 3 is the presentation and publication. An important part of the process is the revision phase, a part of Step 2. In this phase, the teacher focuses on the goal of making children think about their compositions and helping them improve their compositions. Using the developed model for music composition, every classroom teacher should be able to work with children on music composition. It offers classroom teachers tools to motivate, stimulate, and enable students to work on challenging assignments which offer them insight into musical concepts and help them to develop musical skills. The presumed potential of this pedagogical model is that it can enhance meaningful musical learning in elementary school children. The validity of this theory-based claim can only be verified by further empirical research, in which the model is implemented in everyday elementary classrooms (see, e.g., Hogenes et al., 2015). Further elaboration of the approach presented in this chapter requires the development of specific models that may support elementary school teachers in introducing more constructive music making activities in their classrooms. Music composition by children can be conceived of as a form of role-play in which the participants can adopt roles of composer, performer, audience, etc. These roles may raise the need for special skills and knowledge in order to improve their accomplishment. Especially here, they do need help from more knowledgeable others. When music composition is introduced in the classroom as a playful shared activity, classroom teachers and music specialists – as more knowledgeable partners of children – can participate and motivate, stimulate and enable children to work on challenging compositions. This contributes to children’s insight into musical concepts and development of musical skills. 261

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra

Reflective questions 1 How to deal with the tensions between the rules and the children’s degrees of freedom during a music composition process in order to produce their own music? 2 Who decides when revision of a first draft of a composition is needed: the composer, peers, or the teacher? 3 In which order would you address music notation, a composer’s intentions, and aspects of form during your assistance in the process of music composition?

References Adachi, M., & Chino, Y. (2004). Inspiring creativity through music. In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui, & G. Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When east meets west (pp. 305–340). Singapore: World Scientific. Barrett, M. (2003). Freedoms and constraints: Constructing musical worlds through the dialogue of composition. In M. Hickey (Ed.), Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education (pp. 3–27). Reston, VA: MENC. Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The ‘genesis’ of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–220. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669760600879920 Barrett, M. S. (2011). A cultural psychology of music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berkley, R. (2004). Teaching composition as creative problem solving: Conceptualizing composing pedagogy. British Journal of Music Education, 21(3), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505170400587X Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bundy, A. (1997). Play and playfulness: What to look for. In L. D. Parham & L. S. Fazio (Eds.), Play in occupational therapy for children (pp. 52–66). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S., & Scott-Kassner, C. (2006). Music in childhood: From preschool through the elementary grades. Boston, MA: Schirmer. Connery, C., John-Steiner, V., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (Eds.). (2010). Vygotskij and creativity. A culturalhistorical approach to play, meaning making and the arts. New York: Peter Lang. Diachenko, O. (2011). On major developments in preschoolers’ imagination. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1), 19–26. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen. El’konin, D. B. (1978). Psichologija igry [The psychology of play]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development. Cultural-historical concepts of play. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education. Dordrecht: Riedel. Gluschankof, C. (2006). Preschool children’s self-initiated movement responses to music in naturalistic settings: A case study. In: M. Baroni, A. R. Addessi, R. Caterina, & M. Costa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC) and 6th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM). Bologna: Bononia University Press. Gluschankof, C. (2008). Musical expressions in kindergarten: An inter-cultural study? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2008.9.4.217 Goodkin, D. (2004). Play, sing & dance. An introduction to Orff Schulwerk. New York, NY: Schott. Gordon, E. E. (2003). A music learning theory for newborn and young children. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn. New York, NY: Basic Books. Greenfield, S. (1996). The human mind explained. London: Cassell. Greven, J., & Letschert, J. (2006). Kerndoelen Primair Onderwijs [Attainment goals primary education]. Den Haag: OCW. Hogenes, M. (2010). The Child as Composer. Paper Presentation. ISME conference, Beijing, China.

262

Music composition as playful activity perspectives Hogenes, M. (2012). Componeren in de bovenbouw van de basisschool [composition in the upper grades of elementary education]. Zone, 11(1), 10–13. Hogenes, M., van Oers, B., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (2015). The effects of music composition as a classroom activity on engagement in music education and academic and music achievement: A quasiexperimental study. International Journal of Music Education, 4(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0255761415584296 Hogenes, M. (2016). Creative Music Making. Music composition as social-cultural activity in the elementary classroom. The Hague: The Hague University of Applied Sciences & VU University. Houlahan, M., & Tacka, P. (2008). Kodály today. A cognitive approach to elementary music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Houlahan, M., & Tacka, P. (2015). Kodály in the kindergarten classroom: Developing the creative brain in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janssen-Vos, F., & Pompert, B. (2012). Developmental education for young children: Basic development. In B. van Oers (Ed.), Developmental education for young children. Concept, practice and implementation. (pp. 41–63). Dordrecht: Springer. John, P. St. (2010). Crossing scripts and swapping riffs: A preschoolers make musical meaning. In M. C. Connery, V. P. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity. A culturalhistorical approach to play, meaning making and the arts. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2013). Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiehn, M. T. (2003). Development of musical creativity among elementary school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345655 Kors, N., & Van de Veerdonk, H. (2006). Componeren in de basisschool (Composition in the elementary school). Amsterdam: Hogeschool Voor de Kunsten. Kratus, J. (2012). Nurturing the songcatchers. In W. D. Bowman & A. L. Frega (Eds.), Handbook of philosophy in music education (pp. 367–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lau, W. C. M., & Grieshaber, S. (2010). Musical free play: A case for invented musical notation in a Hong Kong kindergarten. British Journal of Music Education, 27(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051710000045 Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Leont’ev, A. N. (1983). Psichologičeskie osnovy doškol’noj igry [psychological bases of toddler play]. In A. N. Leont’ev (Ed.), Izbrannie psichologičeskie proizbedenija. T. 1 [Selection of psychological works, Part 1] (pp. 303–323). Moscow: Pedagogika. Original publication of the chapter: 1944. Levine, E. (2002). One kid at a time. Big lessons from a small school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, J. N. (1977). Playfulness: Its relationship to imagination and creativity. New York, NY: Academic Press. Littleton, D. (1998). Music, learning and child’s play. General Music Today, 12, 8–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/104837139801200104 Mahn, H., & John Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 46–58). Oxford: Blackwell. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground. Global traditions and changes in children’s songs and games. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K., & Young, S. (2006). Musical play. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician (pp. 289–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mills, J. (2009). Music in the primary school. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mills, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2006). Musical literacy. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician. A handbook of musical development. Oxford University Press. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1941). Music of young children. Volume I: Chant. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation Studies. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1942). Music of young children. Volume II: General observations. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation Studies.

263

Michel Hogenes, Bert van Oers, and Rene F.W. Diekstra Nieuwmeijer, C., Marshall, N., & van Oers, B. (2021). Musical play in the early years: The impact of a professional development programme on teacher efficacy of early years generalist teachers. Research Papers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1998207 Niland, A. (2009). The power of musical play: The value of play-based, child-centered curriculum in early childhood music education. General Music Today, 23(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1048371309335625 Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge and Kegan, Paul (originally: La formation de l’intelligence, 1945). Singer, E., Hännikäinen, M., & van Oers, B. (2013). Promoting play for a better future. Special issue on play for European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 165–171. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2013.789192 Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meaning of performance and listening. New England: Wesleyan University Press. Stadler Elmer, S. (2012). Human singing: Towards a developmental theory. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind & Brain, 21(1 & 2), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094001 Tarnowski, S. M. (1999). Musical play and young children: A music teacher can enhance a child’s learning and development by encouraging musical play activities. Music Educators Journal, 86(1), 26–29. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3399573 Thompson, I. (Ed.). (2000). Issues in teaching numeracy in primary schools. Buckingham: Open University Press. Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (1998). Music play: The early childhood curriculum guide for parents, teachers, and caregivers. Chicago, IL: Gia Publications. van Oers, B. (Ed.). (2012a). Developmental education for young children. Concept, practice and implementation. Dordrecht: Springer. van Oers, B. (2012b). Meaningful cultural learning by imitative participation: The case of abstract thinking in primary school. Human Development, 55(3), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339293 van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualization of role-play from an activity theory perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1350293X.2013.789199 Veraksa, N. E. (2011). Development of cognitive capacities in preschool age. International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(1), 79–87 Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-040505036 Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Psichologija iskusstva [psychology of the art]. Moscow: Izd-vo Iskusstvo (original publication 1915/1916). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Het spel en zijn rol in de psychische ontwikkeling van het kind [play and its role in the psychological development of the child]. Pedagogische Studiën, 59(1), 16–28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1984/1931). Problema vozrasta [the problem of age]. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Sobranie sočinenij. Tom IV (pp. 243–385) [Collected works. Part IV]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Vygotsky, L. S. (1991/1926). Pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia [Pedagogical psychology] (2nd ed.). Moscow: Pedagogika (Original work published in 1926). Vygotsky, L. S. (1994/1935). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner(Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997/1926). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press. Wiggins, J., & Espeland, M. (2012). Creating in music learning contexts. In G. E. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, S. (2003). Time-space structuring in spontaneous play on educational percussion instruments among three- and four-year-olds. British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 45–59. Website: AOSA. org. Accessed April 28, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702005284

264

18 HOME-GROWN PROGRESSIVISM Composing in Aotearoa New Zealand primary and secondary schools Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

Introduction This chapter considers the central role of grass-roots level volunteerism, external organizations, and national competitions in generating, influencing, and supporting creative music making in New Zealand primary and secondary schools. Aotearoa New Zealand has a strong history of grass-roots progressivism in education, driven by a combination of forward-thinking individuals and volunteer organizations working at the community level. These have created a legacy of innovation in creative pedagogy and curriculum development that exists to this day (Fraser, Aitken, & Whyte, 2013). From the early 1930s to the 1960s, Director of Education, Clarence Beeby, led widespread, radical, and long-lasting educational reforms, underpinned by a progressive focus on childcentered, responsive education. Under Beeby’s leadership, strongly supported by the then Labour Prime Minister and former Minister of Education, Peter Fraser, a completely new educational system was established, characterized by openness to teacher experimentation and variation in teaching and learning (Renwick, 2000). This generated a wave of innovation and creativity in New Zealand schools still in evidence today (Bieringa & Bieringa, 2016; Jones & Middleton, 2009; Richardson, 2012). Just as significantly, in the past few decades, New Zealand’s Indigenous Māori population has established the Māori immersion education movement. Maori immersion schools and early childhood centers were established to revitalize Māori language, cultural values, and perspectives, which have significantly declined under 150 years of British colonization. In Kōhanga Reo (early childhood education centers) and Kura Kaupapa Māori (schools), children and young people receive 80% or more of their instruction in the Māori language and in Māori contexts. In essence, they are immersed in te ao Māori (the Māori world). Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, an original member of the National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust, describes this movement as the development of “organic policies, policies that actually came up from the people” (Rei & Hamon, 1993). It is important to emphasize in any discussion of composing in Aotearoa New Zealand that the notion of “composing” as a standalone musical practice is a Western one. This concept does not readily align with Indigenous perspectives on creativity which may be experienced holistically through “mind, body and soul” (Hindle, Hynds, Phillips, & Rameka,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-24

265

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

2015, p. 88). When considering bicultural and Indigenous perspectives on creativity in education, Hindle et al. (2015) assert that Māori immersion schooling and Kura Kaupapa are not just about the transmission of reo and tikanga (Māori language and customs). Māori perspectives also need to consider the creation of place-based Māori curriculum and the implementation of Māori pedagogy, particularly in relation to the preservation of cultural traditions. (p. 80) Classroom music education in Aotearoa New Zealand has been heavily influenced by a number of inspirational and forward-looking teachers who were prepared to challenge the traditional status quo in order to ensure that their students had the opportunity to achieve success in a range of genres and styles in music (Thorpe, 2008; Thwaites, 2018). As will be shown in two examples, historically secondary music teachers have been able to contribute to curriculum development as well as influence government entities. A clear result has been that a music curriculum that once constituted singing only has developed into one that has varied, inclusive, and complex components, and where 21st-century music practices are endemic (Sell, 2003; Wise, Greenwood, & Davis, 2011). In secondary schools, where music is taught by subject specialists, composing is a strong aspect of the curriculum at all year levels. However, this is not the case in primary schools, where there are no music specialists and only scant support for generalist teachers. Nevertheless, a progressive undercurrent of peer support and volunteerism, where teachers support teachers, has kept joyful, creative music making alive for primary school-age children, but only just.

Composing in curriculum context Nearly three decades of neoliberal educational policy have seen the devolution of the compulsory schooling sector to the local context. Schools are largely self-managing and teachers work within a high-trust professional model with relatively low accountability, except for student achievement in English literacy and numeracy (Webb, 2016). The New Zealand curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) is underpinned by socially constructive, student-centered theories of learning and is largely devoid of content. It has been described as “permissive” and “a framework rather than a detailed plan. This means that while every school curriculum must be clearly aligned with the intent of this document, schools have considerable flexibility when determining detail” (Abbiss, 2011, p. 37). There are eight learning areas, including “The arts” in the New Zealand mainstream curriculum. Music is one of four arts subjects along with dance, drama, and visual art. Each is treated as a discrete language of disciplinary expression and communication. The curriculum specifies a Developing Ideas strand of required achievement objectives related to all aspects of musical creativity. Creative music making is therefore a compulsory part of the curriculum in primary and secondary school years. There is also the Ngā Toi (Māori arts) curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2000), the world’s first Indigenous, standalone arts curriculum. Written in Te Reo Māori (Māori language) by Māori (the Indigenous people of New Zealand), and reflecting a Māori world view, Ngā Toi is not translated into English. Designed for teachers and students in Māori immersion schools, it identifies three arts disciplines: Ngā Mahi a Te Rehia (dance and drama), Toi Ataata (visual arts), and Toi Pūoro (music). Hindle et al. (2015) provide a valuable critique of Indigenous creativity and its relationship to curriculum and assessment. They note that while the Ngā Toi curriculum outlines the arts from a Māori perspective, pedagogy is not unpacked in ways that 266

Home-grown progressivism

are useful for teachers. As will be shown below, teachers in mainstream New Zealand primary schools face a similar dilemma.

Composing in the New Zealand primary school Primary school teachers have responsibility for teaching all learning areas, including music, and it is rare to have a music specialist working in a state primary school (which 85% of New Zealand students attend). A specialist music teacher will only be found in schools where additional funding has been sought from the community to make music a learning priority, including private schools. A lack of musical knowledge and skills, along with low confidence among generalist teachers, are significant barriers to the effective teaching of composing, or indeed any kind of music learning (Webb, 2016). Furthermore, teachers are expected, in line with the overall vision and principles of the New Zealand curriculum, to design all curriculum in a way that is responsive to their particular social and cultural learning contexts (Ministry of Education, 2019a). Specifically, teachers are required to acknowledge Aotearoa New Zealand’s bicultural heritage and its mandated obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (Ministry of Education, 2007). There is little support for teachers to do this successfully in music. For example, a review of composing resources reveals that little has been provided by the Ministry of Education in the last decade. Older resources, particularly the Into Music series (Ministry of Education, 2001), are still relied on by teachers. These emphasize exploration of sound sources such as found sounds and untuned percussion, followed by structured improvisation such as soundscape work in response to text, stories and poetry, or pentatonic layering. There is a focus on expressive musical elements such as tempo, dynamics, accent, and articulation and the use of music to express contrasting energies. Graphic or pictorial notation might be explored as a precursor to traditional notation in upper primary, as well as composing simple forms, considering repetitions and contrasting parts (Ministry of Education, 1992, 1993, 2001). In this digital age, informal music learning, often involving highly creative musical practices, has significant implications for curriculum (Starkey, 2016). Generalist primary teachers are not only challenged by their lack of musical skills and knowledge but also how they might cater for students engaged in multiple, informally learned composing practices (Burnard, 2012; Wise et al., 2011). There is now an urgent need to bridge the strong pedagogy offered by valuable but outdated resources, and how teachers might employ digital technologies available to both them and their students, both inside and outside the classroom. The future is looking brighter for creative music making in New Zealand schools, however. Recently, the national subject association Music Education New Zealand Aotearoa (MENZA) and Orff New Zealand Aotearoa (ONZA), both grass-roots music education organizations run by teacher volunteers, have received government funds to establish Networks of Expertise for music education (Ministry of Education, 2019b). They offer workshops, courses, conferences, and in-school teacher support for generalist primary teachers with a strong emphasis on creative music making. MENZA has recently adopted a bicultural strategic direction, Puawaiata (Poutokomanawa, 2020; MENZA, 2022). This move honors a commitment to more shared governance and significant partnerships with Indigenous Māori expertise at the local, grass-roots level. MENZA is currently using government funding to enable Māori-led initiatives to support bicultural collaboration, including creating bilingual resources for creative music making in both English- and Māori-medium schools (Poutokomanawa, 2020). Other initiatives include noho marae wānanga (live-in courses at local Māori family centers) where students, teachers, and experts live and work/compose side by side. Participants at a recent noho marae wānanga engaged students in making and playing taonga puoro (traditional 267

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

Māori instruments) through pūrākau (storytelling), taonga tākaro (exploration and play), and a ngā atua perspective (the spiritual and environmental realm), (Gain et al., 2022). This example of Māori-led, locally based curriculum development has exciting potential for creative music making in schools.

Composing in the secondary school Composing was not part of the senior secondary school curriculum until the late 1980s mainly because it was not assessed for secondary school qualification. New Zealand secondary music teachers, highly influenced by radical reforms in secondary school music education in England at the time, led a grass-roots revolt against the entirely paper-based examinations for music, creating their own locally produced certificates that recognized contemporary musical practices (Thorpe, 2008). Within three years, following significant political pressure from the national subject association and other teacher groups, the Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority incorporated composing, performing, and popular music study into secondary school qualifications, where they remain to this day (McPhail, Thorpe, & Wise, 2018). At the same time however, New Zealand “fell under the sway of neoliberal thought,” and a strange bi-polarity ensued, where pedagogical and curricular progressivism has continued amid what has been, until the recent election of a center-left coalition government, a national climate of radical neoliberal reform, strongly emphasizing the acquisition of English literacy and numeracy skills (Thwaites, 2018, p. 13). As has been discussed earlier, this had considerable and detrimental implications for music in primary schools. Unlike primary schools, New Zealand secondary schools employ specialist classroom teachers and provide free instrumental teaching. In contrast to high school music in North America, choirs and bands are usually treated as co-curricular activities and take place outside the classroom. Composing has been an intrinsic part of classroom music programs for at least three decades. As in many countries, the national secondary school qualification, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), tends to act as a highly defined, modularized, proxy curriculum for senior programs (Hipkins, Sheehan, & Johnson, 2016). Students are assessed in playing, singing, music analysis, music technology use, composing, song writing, and arrangement, thus ensuring that composing, song writing, and arrangement are part of the senior secondary school curriculum. “Assessment backwash” ensures that composing is also part of the junior secondary curriculum (Fautley & Colwell, 2012. p. 488). As suggested earlier, technology is transforming music and the traditional forms of musical engagement (Savage, 2010). Such innovation has provided access to creative and exciting music and sound worlds. However, the transition from a traditional music education environment to one that is technology-rich is “challenging both for teachers and students, because it generally requires a shift in their roles and responsibility for learning” (Chandra & Mills, 2015, p. 285). Nevertheless, educators have a responsibility to emulate authentic practices within the teaching and learning environment as technology continues to evolve. There is an increase in the capacity for digital devices and applications to facilitate greater levels of creativity and collaboration (Crawford & Southcott, 2016). Technology can be considered in music education as “a valuable asset in providing alternative strategies to learn about how music works, to foster confidence and creativity and to bridge the knowledge gaps that inevitably exist between students with more or less musical experience” (Kardos, 2012, p. 151). Individual student achievement in music at senior secondary level is summatively assessed through the national qualification, the NCEA. The NCEA is a modular, standards-based series of three certificates, generally corresponding to the last three years of secondary schooling. 268

Home-grown progressivism

NCEA Music achievement standards assess performing, aural perception, research, and analysis, using music technology, composing, arranging, and uniquely, song writing. As well as a recording of the music (video or audio), students are required to present a “visual representation” for assessment. For example, the NCEA level 2 assessment for composing states that: Visual representation must convey compositional intent as appropriate to the style/genre eg standard music notation, lyric and chord chart, lead sheet, tab with rhythmic indications, graphic notation, narrative description, or a combination of these. (New Zealand Qualifications Authority [NZQA], 2019a, p. 2) Students may select which achievement standards they wish to have assessed, and few opt to present compositions as conventional scores using Western European notation. While some student compositions such as those for orchestra, jazz band, chamber ensemble, or choir need to be represented as scores, often using notation software such as Sibelius, most students work in contemporary styles, often across diverse digital domains. For example, the NZQA National Moderator for music reported that a large percentage of compositions presented for external moderation (at least 95% of all song-writing assessments, for example) are visually represented as chord charts, lead sheets, or screen shots accompanied by annotations, narratives, and descriptions appropriate to style and genre (Glynn, personal communication, 2019). Various national music competitions have a highly influential role to play in secondary school composing in New Zealand. Probably the most influential is the “SmokeFree Rockquest,” an annual youth festival and competition, currently in its 33rd year (Lees, 2018). The festival takes its name from sponsorship by SmokeFree NZ, a government initiative that aims to make New Zealand cigarette-free by 2025. Founded in 1989 by secondary music teachers, Glenn Common and Pete Rainey during the “revolt” referred to earlier, Rockquest is a battle of the bands/singing/ original music competition that has become a national institution. Rockquest is partnered with the Tangata Beats competition, which has an Indigenous focus featuring bands playing original music underpinned by the cultural identities of Māori and Pacific Island peoples. Rockquest and Tangata Beats are significant drivers of group composing in secondary schools because bands must be entered for the competition through their school music departments (Thorpe, 2012). Composing in contemporary styles is also supported by the New Zealand Music Commission, funded by the Ministry of Arts and Culture rather than Education, which sponsors professional musicians to work in schools (Lees, 2018). Often, these mentors guide, teach, and support students to compose music for the competitions above. Another external organization supporting song writing for secondary students is the Play it Strange Trust. Established in 2003 by professional musician Mike Chunn, “Play It Strange” exists to “provide pathways of creativity through song writing - also the recording, performance and celebration of those songs” (Play It Strange, n.d.). The Trust is supported by highprofile New Zealanders such as musician Neil Finn, actor Sam Neil, and former All Blacks Captain Sean Fitzpatrick. Primarily, “Play It Strange” uses song-writing competitions (there are currently five available through their website), along with workshops and online mentoring run by professional musicians with the aim of supporting young people to record their songs in professional studios. There are on-going curriculum challenges, arising from recent, radical changes in the ways we learn music (Allsup, 2011; Green, 2008; McPhail, 2012). Over the last two decades, the traditional canon of European music knowledge that dominated music curricula in many countries, including New Zealand, has been joined by a multiplicity of world and popular music genres, along with associated skills tacitly or informally learned, often arising from 269

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

the use of highly diverse and increasingly complex digital technologies, encompassing diverse musical practices and notions of authorship. If students are working in multiple styles, using multiple digital tools, in acoustic, amplified, and digital environments that require multiple, genre-specific forms of representation, then the teacher must find ways to meet highly diverse educational needs (Tobias, 2013). Increasingly, secondary teachers find themselves lacking the expertise and knowledge needed to teach students composing in digital domains using such tools as Ableton and Push (Freedman, 2013; Humberstone, 2017). There are also anecdotal reports of a new kind of music student: the digital musician, for whom a laptop is the primary medium for self-expression and creativity. Another challenge for secondary teachers is the assessment of individuals in collaborative creative groups. While students may compose music in groups, often in bands working toward competitions, each student must receive an individual NCEA grade. As will be discussed in Example 2, this necessitates a shared conceptual understanding between teacher and group composers.

Three illustrative examples We now illustrate the Aotearoa New Zealand context with three examples related to current issues for teaching and learning composing: 1 Generalist primary teacher knowledge, expertise, and confidence 2 The assessment of individuals in collaborative creative groups 3 The symbiotic relationship between national competitions and song writing Example 1: The Orff approach ONZA was formally established in 2005 by a group of enthusiasts who had attended workshops with visiting international Orff presenters and/or who had completed Orff certification overseas. The establishment of ONZA enabled teachers to be certificated in the Orff approach and adapt it to a New Zealand context (Haselbach, Solomon, & Maubach, 2008; Locke, 2016a; Locke, 2016; Maubach, 2016). ONZA offers four levels of professional learning development for teachers that all focus on creative music making and composition. Through these courses, ONZA offers a pedagogical framework and explicit composition pedagogies that are, as far as the authors are aware, unique in New Zealand. Level 1 courses are available to generalist primary classroom teachers and are the only significant professional learning opportunities nationally available for primary teachers that include the teaching of composition. During the six-day Level 1 course, a general classroom teacher is introduced to arranging and composing simple speech pieces and both doand la-based pentatonic melodies. Teachers learn about the elements of music and how to engage children in rhythmic speech, body percussion, movement, and instrumental play on tuned and untuned percussion. These activities guide children to make their own music through simple creative processes and structured improvisation. Poetry and story are used as stimuli for the creation of rhythmic accompaniments and ostinati and soundscape work. In these ways, the Orff approach to arranging and composing can be effectively woven into literacy programs in primary schools and can support local curriculum development through local stories, legends, environment, and artworks as stimulus for creative music making. New Zealand Orff-related research focuses upon children’s creative and collaborative compositional work, student agency, and the role of teacher reflexivity in the design and delivery of curriculum (Baker, 2014; Hall, 2014; Locke & Locke, 2011, 2012; Stewart, 2013). Locke, T. (2016) and Stewart (2013) highlight playful discovery as well as rhythmic and melodic exploration. They present the artistic process as the “non-negotiable” feature of the Orff approach, asserting that it

270

Home-grown progressivism is central to any adaptation. Baker (2014) identified increased engagement and confidence among students, resulting from opportunities to explore and play with musical ideas in practical group music-making activities. These activities were found to foster deeper levels of understanding of the musical elements that make up composition and an increased ability to justify artistic decisions. He describes the successful process-centered approach as scaffolding students from imitation to exploration, and improvisation to composition. A safe, playful, and inclusive environment was seen to facilitate high lives of engagement and flow not seen previously among his students. This study also noted benefits of making personal connections to students’ lives and their musical identities beyond school. Locke (2005) focuses on artistry in teaching based on a shared responsibility between teachers and students in collaborative creative work. She considered how the Orff approach supports teaching through open-ended learning processes, shared decision-making/artistic judgments, and the development of student agency through plenty of opportunities to explore and experiment. There is a strong interest within the New Zealand Orff community to approach compositional work with children in ways that are responsive to local contexts. Gain (2018) found shared beliefs, values, and practice patterns among a group of highly experienced New Zealand Orff teachers, highlighting a strong focus on creativity, student agency, and teacher artistry in composition and improvisation work. Across the New Zealand-based Orff literature, there is reflection on the value of using New Zealand materials as the stimulus for creative music and movement work, including the use of Māori legends, the environment, historical events, and contemporary artworks (Gain, 2018; Locke, 2016b). Gain (2018) highlighted ways in which New Zealand Orff teachers can feel challenged and uncomfortable with considering Indigenous Māori knowledge and pedagogy in creative music making with children. While participants in her study were enthusiastic about working creatively with Māori content, there were concerns. Teachers said that they needed more local support to form relationships with Māori in their own communities in order to feel culturally safer. Below are excerpts of participant voices that reflect some of these tensions1: This issue of permission I wonder whether I’ve got a right to? I wonder whether I’m entitled to use that? over and over and over again the interesting thing is this fear and anxiety we have all developed around that how do we overcome that?

***

We are dealing with the results of colonisation it’s a much more complex situation that’s really where the issues come our own history here how do we feel about ourselves? how am I positioned by Māori? how do I position myself in response to Māori culture? where do I fit in this? what does it mean for us to identify as Pākehā in relationship to Māori? New Zealand identity is at the heart of it what does it mean?

***

271

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise that relationship building between our school and the Marae that’s one thing I’m wanting to do not buying into fast tracking things to suit a Pākehā Western framework not compromising that This study highlighted complexities surrounding issues of identity and teaching practice in creative music making and the ethics of drawing from Indigenous sources. It also highlighted a need for increased teacher awareness of multiple perspectives and discourses when addressing biculturalism in New Zealand music education. More research is needed, taking a critical multicultural approach, to explore effective socially and culturally responsive pedagogy that supports New Zealand Orff teachers in creative compositional work with children (Gain, 2018; Gain, 2022).

Example 2: Group composing and NCEA assessment In 2011, in response to teacher demand, group composing was added to the NCEA assessments (achievement standards) for music (Thorpe, 2012). New Zealand became one of the few places in the world where students may gain credit toward their high school qualification through collaboratively composing music. The NCEA requires secondary music teachers to award individual students grades of Not Achieved, Achieved, Merit, or Excellence. As well as grading the collaboratively composed music itself, teachers must therefore grade the creative contributions of each student (NZQA, 2011). Doing so is complex because summative assessment carried out by outsiders of individuals in collaborative groups can be very problematic (Johnson & Johnson, 2004; van Aalst, 2013). Perceiving what people are doing as individuals when working with others is not always possible because creativity and cognition may be distributed over space and time, as well as among and between collaborators (Fautley, 2010; Salomon, 1993; Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). This is particularly so in the case of the assessment of contemporary popular music, which is often created in digital domains, where multiple and diverse forms of authorship are the norm (Burnard, 2012). When working in ways that have been absorbed unconsciously through repeated listening and viewing, group composers may have never verbally articulated their processes (Green, 2002, 2008). They may not have the vocabulary associated with relevant disciplinary and conceptual knowledge to explain their compositional processes to their teacher or each other (Thorpe, 2008). Novice composers, whose contribution may be minimal, but who are learning a lot about composing through working in a zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1986) with more experienced peers, may claim a legitimate right to shared authorship of the group’s compositions (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). A qualification system such as the NCEA is not designed to take such sociocultural factors into account, but rather to measure and certify the learning and achievement of individuals. The assessment of group composing potentially challenges the validity of a teacher’s assessment judgments if the teacher does not perceive each student’s contribution to the group’s creative processes. The close and often tribal nature of young people’s group music making presents a significant danger to student wellbeing if teachers make uninformed summative judgments that are not sensitive to these factors (Campbell, 1995; Davis, 2005; Thorpe, 2017). In previous research into the song-writing processes of three Smokefree Rockquest bands, Thorpe found that band members seemed to work in divergent and convergent cycles of sociomusical cycles, and, although each band was unique, they seemed to engage in similar creative practices (Thorpe, 2008). In subsequent research with 2 teachers and two classes of 20 students in their third year of secondary school, she developed a theoretical model of group composing, using it as a conceptual, pedagogical, and assessment tool for both teachers and students (Thorpe, 2017). The aim was to support composers and their teachers to communicate about compositional processes using a shared conceptual language. In both schools, informal conversations between group composers and their teachers using model terms, such as “messy,” “focused,” and “work in progress,” generated valid and reliable assessment data. Generally, these discussions began with a

272

Home-grown progressivism request to “tell us the story of how you composed the music.” Teacher data took the form of running records and audio/video recordings collected during discussions with the students about how they composed together, and what each student contributed to the compositional process. Visiting every group and gathering on-going achievement data during a 50-minute class was very demanding for the teachers. Nevertheless, the model became a helpful framework for them to gather student data and give formative feedback. Students reported they liked the model because it gave them insight into their creative processes, as well as permission to “muck around,” be “messy,” unfocused, and seemingly without direction, while reassuring them that they were still on a path to achievement. Some said that it helped them to identify where they were in the compositional process so that they knew where to go next. A high degree of professional skill was needed to assess individual achievement and support novice composers, while awarding credit where credit was due. When it came time for the teacher to summatively grade the compositions however, there were few surprises because most students had been engaged in self, peer, and formative assessment practices throughout. For example, one Year 11 student, Jay, struggled with bass guitar (not his usual instrument) which he had elected to play because the band needed a bass player. Discussions with band members, using the model as a framework, revealed that Jay’s contribution to the first song had been minimal. This alerted the others that Jay needed to play a more active creative role. Following this feedback, Jay wrote the second verse of a second song, and his peers and teacher supported him in developing a more creative bass line for both blues/rock compositions. Ultimately, all members of the band achieved the composing standard, with the other members receiving high Merit grades, and Jay a low Achieved. Composing in a group with more experienced friends seems to have led to NCEA achievement for him which he may not have been able to attain through solo composing (Thorpe, 2018). This was not an isolated incident. Throughout the study, there were numerous instances of more confident, creative, or skilled composers supporting their friends in learning to compose. These more experienced composers also reported that they gained a lot of satisfaction from sharing their expertise with their less experienced friends. Some said the satisfaction of helping a friend to play and compose in the band was the best part of group composing. A subsequent study, (Thorpe, Gilmour, & Walton-Roy, 2017) had similar findings, and it seems that sharing a conceptual model of creative processes might support compositional learning as well as clearer and more informed communication between young musicians and their teachers.

Example 3: Song writing Teaching song writing is relatively new territory in the field of music education and one that poses challenges for music educators throughout the world. As part of a more general move toward individual student creativity (Burnard, 2012; Kratus, 2007; Williams, 2011; Woody, 2007), music educators might consider that the power that song writing has for individual creativity makes it a necessary part of any modern music curriculum (Hill, 2019). This indeed seems to be the case with the inclusion of song writing as an achievement standard in Level 3 NCEA Music, which is usually assessed in students’ last year of secondary school. In 2017, some years after the addition of group composing to the NCEA, a new achievement standard was added to Level 3 that assesses song writing specifically (NZQA, 2019b). Some teachers had expressed concerns about some of the requirements of the composition achievement standards because they required a written representation. A decade ago, these were required to be in Western European Arts notation, leading to a participant teacher in Wise’s study (2013) to express deep concern: Mrs Conductor then described a recent situation concerning a senior student who had recently completed NCEA Level 3 composition. This particular achievement standard is internally assessed and School B was required to submit the work for external moderation. Mrs Conductor said that she had assessed the particular composition, a contemporary song, as

273

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise an example of “Excellence” and was horrified when the external moderator returned the piece indicating that because it was not notated using formal music notation, it should have been assessed a “Not Achieved.” ‘Not Achieved’. Mrs Conductor then said she had written to the external examination body (NZQA) complaining that it was nearly impossible to capture the emotional intensity the song contained using traditional music notation and that it deserved to be assessed at “Excellence” based on that emotional intensity, the quality of the crafting of the song, and the overall impact of the completed work. She added that perhaps it was time music teachers reconsidered how composition in different styles and genres was assessed without relying on criteria associated with Western art music, and that perhaps different styles require different assessment criteria. (Wise, 2013, p. 225) These comments resonate with Hill’s (2019) work on the power of individual creativity that song writing can provide. Music educators believed that NCEA Music assessment was not meeting the needs of students (particularly Māori and Pacific Island students) working in aural traditions and contemporary styles. “Mrs Conductor,” along with many other secondary music teachers, lobbied the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the governmental body charged with managing secondary school qualifications, to institute change. This pressure led to the development of a specific and discrete song-writing assessment for senior students. Now students who may not possess traditional music theory skills and knowledge but are skilled performers on instruments such as guitar, or who compose using a range of digital technologies such as Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), are able to have their work assessed for qualification. Thus, song writing has become incorporated into the secondary school curriculum as a discrete musical practice. Smokefree Rockquest and SmokefreeTangata Beats now include solo singer-songwriters in the competitions. A teacher resource recently published by the Ministry of Education features a composition task and assessment schedule that not only aligns with assessment criteria for the NCEA song-writing achievement standard but also with that of the Lion Foundation Songwriting competition, one of the competitions featured on the Play it Strange website (Ministry of Education, 2018). Thus, one could argue that the ubiquity of song-writing competitions and their associated judgment criteria act as proxy assessment criteria or even composing curriculum at senior secondary level.

Conclusion The grass-roots level initiatives examined in this chapter, aimed at supporting composition and creative music making in schools, reflect a long history of community-led progressivism in New Zealand education. While composing has been integral to the secondary school curriculum for nearly three decades, mainly due to its assessment in national qualification by specialist music teachers, this has not been the case in primary schools, despite its presence in official curricula. Neoliberal education policies over the last 20 years have drawn resources away from the arts in favor of the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills. However, creative music making in classrooms still occurred because some teachers continued to support each other through various subject associations, such as MENZA and ONZA, run by volunteers. Recent changes to educational policy have led to some support of these organizations, and this is a hopeful sign. Teachers’ belief in the importance of creative music making has been a pervading theme over the past several decades. Driven by progressive ideals and a desire to effect positive change, primary teachers supporting each other’s professional learning about composing pedagogy has continued, even when governmental support for the arts and creativity in primary schools has been minimal or, at times, completely absent. At the same time, a series of very popular youth music competitions, notably Smokefree Rockquest,

274

Home-grown progressivism

Smokefree Tangata Beats, and the Lion Foundation Songwriting competition, have developed symbiotic relationships with the national secondary school qualification, the NCEA, leading to a proxy curriculum and informal assessment frame. These entities are very successful at engaging youth in popular music-making practices, and because the New Zealand curriculum and the NCEA have been designed to be responsive to local context, secondary teachers have been able to exploit these opportunities. Nevertheless, there is yet to be a coherent strategy that recognizes the value of creative music making across all school years. As these case studies illustrate, only some teachers in some schools, and at some curriculum levels, receive the support they need to teach composing to their students. There is still a lot of work still to be done to ensure continuity across all curriculum levels from primary to secondary. Perhaps the most urgent challenge facing music education in Aotearoa New Zealand is how best to support teachers, both generalist and specialist, to develop composing curriculum that genuinely recognizes bicultural partnerships between Māori and Pakeha, as mandated by our national curriculum. Hutia te rito o te harakeke Kei hea te kōmako e kō? Kī mai ki ahau He aha te mea nui? He aha te mea nui o te ao? Māku e kī atu He tangata! He tangata! He tangata, hī! Pull out the shoot, Pull out the shoot of the flax bush Where will the bellbird sing? Say to me What is the greatest thing? What is the greatest thing in this world? I will say The people! The people! The people!

Reflective questions 1 To what extent are teachers in your context able to draw from grass-roots/community organizations to develop composing pedagogies and curriculum? What are the potential opportunities or challenges in doing so? 2 Thinking about potential partnerships and collaborations, how much autonomy do teachers in your context have to shape their own curriculum for composing? If barriers exist, how might teachers work around these? 3 What is the place of student voice in teaching composing in your context?

Note 1 The research methodology used for the excerpted narratives presented here was based on the “Gateway Approach” (Mears, 2009). See Gain (2018) for further details on the qualitative research design used in this study.

275

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise

References Abbiss, J. (2011). Social sciences in the New Zealand curriculum: Mixed messages. Curriculum Matters, 7, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0136 Allsup, R. E. (2011). Popular music and classical musicians: Strategies and perspectives. Music Educators Journal, 97(3), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432110391810 Baker, D. L. (2014). Improving student motivation and engagement in high school music composition through Orff Schulwerk pedagogy (Master’s thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/8694 Bieringa, L. (Director), & Bieringa, J. (Producer). (2016). The heart of the matter [Documentary]. BWX: Blair Wakefield Productions. Burnard, P. (2012). Rethinking ‘music creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 5–28). Aldershot: Ashgate. Retrieved from http://VUW.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=823580 Campbell, P. S. 1995. Of garage bands and song-getting: The musical development of young rock musicians. Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9500400103 Chandra, V., & Mills, K. (2015, 2015/05/27). Transforming the core business of teaching and learning in classrooms through ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1475939X.2014.975737 Crawford, R., & Southcott, J. (2016). Curriculum stasis: The disconnect between music and technology in the Australian curriculum. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1475939X.2016.1247747 Davis, S. G. (2005). “That thing you do!” Compositional processes of a rock band. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 6(16), 1–19. http://www.ijea.org/v6n16/ Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fautley, M., & Colwell, R. (2012). Assessment in the secondary school classroom. In G. Welch and G. McPherson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 478–494). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fraser, D., Aitken, V., & Whyte, B. (2013). Connecting curriculum, linking learning. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Freedman, B. (2013). Teaching music through composition: A curriculum using technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gain, P. (2018). A study investigating how five experienced New Zealand Orff teachers responded to a six-day bi-culturally framed Orff course (Master’s thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.ketearonuiorff.com/ Gain, P. (2022). Aesthetic inquiry for bicultural arts education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Teachers and Curriculum, 22(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v22i1.395 Gain, P., McDonald, C., Sarich, W., & Kahukiwa, K. (2022). Upholding indigenous difference in Arts education: Noho Marae Wānanga as akin to a “mana of economy” in education. Teachers and Curriculum, 22(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v22i1.394 Glynn, D. Personal communication, 1 October, 2019. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn. A way ahead for music education. Aldershot: Ashgate. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hall, M. (2014). Patriotism versus privacy: What is the price of citizenship? A teacher’s story. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(2), 141–156. Retrieved from https://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/ journal/view.php Haselbach, B., Solomon, M. H., & Maubach, C. (2008, July 6). University of Waikato. International panel discussion of Orff educators. Hill, S. C. (2019). “Give me actual music stuff!”: The nature of feedback in a collegiate songwriting class. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(2), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X19826385 Hindle, R., Hynds, A. S., Phillips, H., & Rameka, L. (2015). Being, flow and knowledge in Māori arts education: Assessing indigenous creativity. Australian Journal of Indigenous Studies, 44(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2015.7 Hipkins, R., Sheehan, M., & Johnson, M. (2016). NCEA in context. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Humberstone, J. (2017). A pluralist approach to music education. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education: Oxford: Oxford University Press.

276

Home-grown progressivism Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jones, A., & Middleton, S. (2009). The kiss and the ghost: Sylvia Ashton-Warner and New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Kardos, L. (2012). How music technology can make sound and music worlds accessible to student composers in further education colleges. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 143–151. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051712000186 Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–48. https:// doi.org/10.1177/002743210709400209 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lees, S. (2018). “What a fantastic model!” Secondary school links to ‘real-world’ music communities. In G. McPhail, V. Thorpe, & S. Wise (Eds.), Educational change and the secondary school music curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 148–164). Abingdon: Routledge. Locke, L. M. (2005). Teaching and artistry (Master’s thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland New Zealand. Locke, L. M. (2016a). Formative assessment and Orff- Schulwerk practice. Orff-Schulwerk Heute: Elemental Music and Dance Pedagogy, 95(Winter), 35–38. Locke, L. M. (2016b). The Orff approach in the professional lives and practices of teachers in the Aotearoa/New Zealand school context (Doctoral dissertation). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/9990 Locke, L. M., & Locke, T. (2011). Sounds of Waitakere: Using practitioner research to explore how year 6 recorder players compose responses to visual representation of natural environment. British Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000209 Locke, L. M., & Locke, T. (2012). Introducing a mentor into a children’s composition project: Reflections on a process. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.12.001 Locke, T. (2016). A broad view on assessment and what Orff-Schulwerk pedagogy might teach us. OrffSchulwerk Heute: Elemental Music and Dance Pedagogy, 95(Winter), 7–9. Retrieved from: https:// www.orff-schulwerk-forum-salzburg.org/magazine-osh Maubach, C. (2016). Finding Rona: When Pākehā and Māori meet. Orff-Schulwerk Heute: Elemental Music and Dance Pedagogy, 94(Summer), 36–39. Retrieved from: https://www.orff-schulwerkforum-salzburg.org/magazine-osh McPhail, G. (2012). From singular to over-crowded region: Curriculum change in senior secondary school music in New Zealand. British Journal of Music Education, 29(3), 317–330. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051712000058 McPhail, G., Thorpe, V., & Wise, S. (2018). Mapping the field. In G. McPhail, V. Thorpe, & S. Wise (Eds.), Educational change and the secondary school music curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 1–11). Abingdon: Routledge. Mears, C. L. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research. The gateway approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. MENZA. (2022). Puawaiata. Retrieved from: https://menza.co.nz/puawaiata/ Ministry of Education. (1992). Music education standard two to form two. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (1993). Music education for young children: A handbook for early childhood staff and teachers of junior classes. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2000). Ngā Toi i roto i te marautanga and Aotearoa. Wellington NZ: Te Pou Taki Kōrero Whanganui a Tara. Ministry of Education. (2001). Into music 1: Classroom music in years 1-3. Wellington NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2018). Song writing competition. Retrieved from https://ncea.tki.org.nz/ Resources-for-Internally-Assessed-Achievement-Standards/The-arts/Music/Level-3-Music Ministry of Education. (2019a). Leading local curriculum: Guide series. Wellington NZ: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2019b). Networks of expertise. Retrieved from: http://services.education.govt. nz/pld/networks/ New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) (2011). AS91092.Compose two original pieces of music. Retrieved from https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/achievements/2011/as91092.pdf

277

Vicki Thorpe, Priya Gain, and Stuart Wise New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) (2019a). AS91271. Compose two substantial pieces of music. Retrieved from https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/achievements/2019/as91271. pdf New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) (2019b). AS91849. Compose three original songs that express imaginative thinking. Retrieved from https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/ncea-resource/ achievements/2019/as91849.pdf Play it Strange. (n.d.). Competitions. Retrieved from https://www.playitstrange.org.nz Poutokomanawa. (2020). Poutokomanawa projects. Retrieved from: https://www.poutokomanawa. com/projects Rei, T., & Hamon, C. (1993). Te kōhanga reo, 1982. In A. Else (Ed.), Women together: A history of women’s organisations in New Zealand ngā rōpū wahine o te motu. Wellington NZ: Daphne Brasell Associates Press. Renwick, W. (2000). External links and sources for ‘Beeby, Clarence Edward’. In Dictionary of New Zealand biography. Te Ara – the encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved from https://teara.govt.nz/ en/biographies/5b17/beeby-clarence-edward/sources (accessed 30 November 2019). Richardson, E. (2012). In the early world. Wellington NZ: NZCER Press. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savage, J. (2010). A survey of ICT usage across English secondary schools. Music Education Research, 12(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903568288 Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0013282 Sell, D. (2003). The changing face of music education in New Zealand. Sound Ideas, 6(1), 43–46. Starkey, L. (2016). An equitable curriculum for a digital age. Curriculum Matters, 12, 29–45. https:// doi.org/10.18296/cm.0012 Stewart, C. A. (2013). Facilitating elemental composition in an Orff classroom (Master’s thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ handle/10289/7575 Thorpe, V. (2008). We made this song. The group song writing processes of three adolescent rock bands (Unpublished master’s thesis). New Zealand School of Music, Wellington. Thorpe, V. (2012). Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualification. Music Education Research, 14(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.699957 Thorpe, V. (2017). Assessing complexity. Group composing for a secondary school qualification. British Journal of Music Education, 34(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051717000092 Thorpe, V. (2018). An activity theory analysis of the relationship between student identity and the assessment of group composing at school. British Journal of Music Education, 35(1), 5–22. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051717000158 Thorpe, V., Gilmour, H., & Walton-Roy, K. (2017). Shared understanding: Using a conceptual model to support the assessment of NCEA group composing. Assessment Matters, 11, 75–96. http://dx.doi. org/10.18296/am.0025 Thwaites, T. (2018). Curriculum and assessment changes in music education in New Zealand 1987– 2016. In G. McPhail, V. Thorpe, & S. Wise, (Eds.), Educational change and the secondary school music curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 12–26). Abingdon: Routledge. Tobias, E. S. (2013). Composing, song writing, and producing: Informing popular music pedagogy. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(2), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X13487466 van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment of collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 280–296). Abingdon: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Webb, L. (2016). Music in beginning teacher classrooms: A mismatch between policy, philosophy, and practice. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 17(12), 1–15. Retrieved from http://www. ijea.org/v17n12/ Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

278

Home-grown progressivism Williams, D. A. (2011). The elephant in the room. Music Educators Journal, 98(1), 32–37. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432111415538 Wise, S. (2013). Variations on the Loops: An Investigation into the use of digital technology in music education in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Wise, S., Greenwood, J., & Davis, N. (2011). Teachers’ use of digital technology in secondary music education; perceptions and issues. British Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 117–134. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051711000039 Woody, R. H. (2007). Popular music in school: Remixing the issues–For it to be authentic, we must teach popular music in a way that is true to the processes of vernacular music making. Music Educators Journal, 93(4), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/002743210709300415

279

INTERLUDE VI

Hegemony and Axiology in Composing Pedagogies Martin Fautley

Introduction In a consideration of teaching and learning composing, two aspects that frequently occur are those of axiology and hegemony, although they may not be explicitly labelled as such. In many ways, these two constructs are linked; axiology is concerned with values, and hegemony is concerned with cultural dominance, usually of one set of values over others. Biesta overlays the idea of axiology as asking “the question of what education might work for” (Biesta, 2015, p. 11), and that “… the axiology of education … has to do with the values that give direction to education” (Biesta, 2015, p. 18). Thinking about the what, why, and how of composing pedagogies, Lupton and Bruce undertook analysis and found that a series of themes emerged: The outcome of our analysis was a group of themes which we have constructed as a composition pedagogical model. The themes are: (1) Learning from the masters; (2) Mastery of techniques; (3) Exploring ideas; and (4) Developing voice. The first two themes deal with content to be learned, while the third and fourth themes deal with the creative process. In deciding on a theme as being related to content or creativity, we asked of the theme “what knowledge and skills; and what processes need to be developed in order to learn music composition?” We allocated these as content or creativity based on our judgement of what is taught (i.e. teacher-centred) versus what is learned (i.e. learner-centred) …. (Lupton & Bruce, 2010, p. 273) This division into two principal themes can be helpful when looking at what composing education programs actually do, and for those composing educators involved in its teaching and learning to reflect on what planning intentions actually are, but in doing so, it is also appropriate to think about the values implicit or explicit in such endeavours. It is that which this interlude draws attention to.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-25

281

Martin Fautley

Assumptions The constructs of axiology and hegemony tend to have integral but often unvoiced and possibly unexamined sets of assumptions associated with them. Composing is, as we can see throughout the various chapters of this present book, frequently associated with specific traditions of musicking, even down to the level of detailed genres and styles within traditions. The values of functional harmony, for instance, are likely to be very different from those of bhangra; where notions of axiology and hegemony come into play is when these differing kinds of music are ascribed status-related, stratified, or hierarchically ranked values within any given education system. In thinking about this in terms of teaching and learning, clearly many of these aspects will relate directly to the ages, phases, and stages of the learners involved. Children at the early stages of musical learning, for example in the West, are likely to be involved in very different-sounding music making than their peers living in other parts of the world. As Susan Young observes: Researchers working in different countries are drawing attention to how early childhood music education in their country is inscribed with distinctive values, understandings, concepts and goals and how they impinge on children’s musical activity … Theory and understandings of children as musical that have been forged in the affluent Euro-American countries cannot be lifted out of context to be applied to other countries. (Young, 2016a, p. 10) What this means for those working in composing education becomes apparent when we think of the differing intentionality of what can be taught and learned. Taking Young’s premise above, that early childhood music and the understandings children have of music derive considerably from their own culture, then the sounds that a group of young children produce when creating their own music in England, say, is going to be different from similarly aged children in South Korea. Alongside this, it is also highly likely to be the case that cultural differences affect the ways in which young children do or do not create original songs. Adachi (2013), for example, describes how Japanese children do not create original, spontaneous songs to the same extent that children seem to do in the West and describes why this is the case. For pedagogies, there will be concomitant activities associated with this. In addition to any societal cultural differences which may exist, we also have the matter of age- and stage-related trajectories of competencies and individual and social enculturation of children and young people. A teaching and learning program designed for young children in the early years of schooling, certainly in the West, is going to necessarily involve a very different set of values for teaching the creation of original pieces of music, in other words composing, to the older relatives of these children studying at advanced level at conservatory or university.

Values In a number of countries around the world, there are discussions that can all too easily become disagreements or even arguments concerning the relative or absolute value of different musical types. In the US, Peterson and Kern (1996) described the “cultural omnivore,” who can be distinguished from the “snob” by their wider musical taste, Among highbrows, the snob is one who does not participate in any lowbrow or middlebrow activity … while the omnivore is at least open to appreciating them all. Perfect snobs are now rare in the United States … in our national sample of 11,321 we found 282

Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies

just 10 highbrow respondents in 1982 and 3 in 1992 who said they did not like a single form of low- or middlebrow music. (Peterson & Kern, 1996, p. 901) This notion of cultural omnivore status does not mean that there are not still strata or hierarchies of musical styles, though. As Frith observed, back at the end of the last century, Underlying all the other distinctions critics continue to draw between “serious” (Europeanderived) and “popular” (African-derived) music is an assumption about the sources of musical value. Serious music, it seems, matters because it transcends social forces; popular music is aesthetically uninteresting because it is determined by them (because it is “functional” or “utilitarian”). The sociological approach to musical value has thus meant uncovering the social forces concealed in the talk of “transcendent” values; the populist reversal of the high/low hierarchy has meant praising the “functional” at the expense of the “aesthetic”. (Frith, 1996, p. 119) This is not just an outdated view from the last century though, more recently (J.O.) Young wrote that: In at least one respect, the popular music of the past sixty years falls short of the great masterpieces of the classical music tradition. Popular music can be, in certain respects, aesthetically rewarding. There may even be ways in which some popular music is more rewarding than a good deal of classical music. Still classical music … has more expressive possibilities. Classical music, at least the best classical music, has an expressive pallet that popular music seldom rivals. Consequently, classical music has a psychological depth and profundity that popular music rarely attains. (Young, 2016b, p. 523) There are those who would be happy to concur with Young’s observations, and indeed, at the superficial level these sorts of views are ones politicians know will play well with newspaper headline and article writers. Faux outrage can be easily manufactured in the media at the thought of children and young people studying pop and rock in schools: The triumph of popular culture over serious, classical culture seems complete … a recent report on music and the National Curriculum suggested that African drumming, reggae and pop music were as important as Mozart …. Teachers will be free to choose Madonna and MC Hammer over Mahler and Haydn, in spite of government promises …. (Hymas, 1991) More recently, in England, we have had what has become known as the “Stormzy versus Mozart” debate (Fautley & Kinsella, 2022), in which much media angst was stirred up by the prospect of the British rap artist, singer, and songwriter Stormzy’s music being taught in schools, possibly instead of Mozart. The “Stormzy vs Mozart” moral panic emerged from the charity Youth Music publishing a report on their project “Exchanging Notes.” [(Kinsella, Fautley, & Whittaker, 283

Martin Fautley

2019)] … Youth Music CEO Matt Griffiths wrote an open letter to Nick Gibb MP after the report was published, calling for “a music curriculum which reflect[s] [the students’] diverse interests and existing lives in music” (Griffiths, 2019). There is no explicit mention of Stormzy or Mozart in the report or letter, but there is frequent allusion to the idea that current music curricula taught in UK state schools do not sufficiently represent musics with which young people engage. (Lawlor, 2021) In this research, many musical organizations involved were doing good work with musical composing and creation to address issues of inclusion of children and young people in danger of being excluded from school, but what Lawlor calls a “moral panic” ensued. These issues affect our thinking about teaching and learning composing. We need to take into consideration what is valued by individual teachers and music educators, as well as what is being privileged, promoted, and placed onto musical and composing curricula system wide, as all of these things can have important, yet different ramifications.

Teaching and learning composing As one of the purposes of this book is to be international, then it follows that any one chapter on these matters needs to be aware of a range of possible compositional responses by children and young people, and the pedagogies that can be associated with these. The area of composing pedagogies involving teaching and learning with a range of learners exists in a number of forms, including teachers working regularly with classes, composers working with schools on projects, and orchestral or other performance groups’ educational programs. What all of these different ways of working show is that there are many formats in which composing as an educational activity can take place. In a similar fashion, all of these various aspects will have value systems associated with them, either in-built or tacit. These value systems can account for ways in which certain types of musical activity are inevitably going to follow from the ways in which they are presented and operationalized in schools. So, for example, an opera company working with children and young people on creating a new opera may not set out to present a punk band performance (although they might, and some certainly do!), and members of a string quartet are unlikely to present an opera. For schools and other educational settings, this may not matter overly much, as the presence of artists working with children and young people can be seen to be a good thing in itself. However, one of the problems that can bedevil many music education partnership projects is described by Kenny and Christophersen (2018, p. 3): Too often, such initiatives within education tend toward “victory narratives”. These dominant discourses ascribe the success of music-in-education initiatives to musicians’ presence and artistic abilities alone, thus ignoring what musical cultures, expertise, and knowledge already exist within these settings prior to the intervention. We need to be wary of these “victory narratives,” and we need, too, to be thinking about what the educational value is for the children and young people involved – this being another axiological question (Biesta, 2015). There are also differences between learning to compose and learning about composing. The English music educator Nancy Evans, for example, talks about “composerly thinking” (Kinsella, Fautley, & Evans, 2018; see also Interlude “Ways to

284

Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies

teach composing,” this volume), and this is a helpful construct when thinking about what is going on in composing sessions. What this leads to are matters associated with what the intentionality that any given pedagogic composing program involves, which can lead in turn to one of music education’s perennial conundrums, this being the process versus product dichotomy (again, see Fautley and Evans, this volume). Once more the age/phase/stage of the learners is important here. What is valuable for young children is going to be very different from what is valuable for higher education students. But alongside this will often be the development in the learners involved of the capacity for informed value judgments being made. This is both a formative assessment issue and an axiological one. It is formative assessment because as Sadler (1989, p. 121) observed, one of “[t]he essential conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher ….” This is what will be appropriate in educational settings. An adult simply saying to pupils that something musical is good “because I say so” is unlikely to result in the learners accepting this judgement unless there is some understanding too. In worst case scenarios, this attitude can develop into a slanging match of the “mine is better than yours” variety, which is not helpful educationally. After all, it is not difficult to get children and young people to make value judgements concerning cultural artefacts: […I]t’s the easiest thing in the world to get kids to make aesthetic judgements. They do it all the time. The hardest thing in the world is to stop them. Oasis are better than Blur. Eastenders is better than Brookside. The question is how well they articulate it …. (Sefton-Green, 2000, p. 21) But doing this in an appropriate education arena with suitable language being developed is no easy feat either: Quality – you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? (Pirsig, 1974, p. 178) Yet no one is going to offer to go into schools and undertake low-quality composing work, and no teacher is going to teach music lessons involving low-quality processes or products. But what of officially sanctioned or approved musical types? We know from the work of Michael Young that there are differences between “knowledge of the powerful” and “powerful knowledge” (Young & Muller, 2013), and that politicians and policy makers pull the policy enactment levers of what is taught and learned, what is valued, and what will be legislated for in policy documents: Policies themselves (as texts) are important; policy enactment is even more so; but paramount is how we come to relate to these policies and how they come to construct who we are and the actions we take. (Schmidt, 2020, p. 15)

285

Martin Fautley

Values and policy Policy may seem a long way from discussions of value in the teaching and learning of composing, but it can have a profound effect on the ways in which schools and educational institutions deliver curriculum (if, indeed, curriculum can be conceived of as being deliverable) to the learners. As the Norwegian music educator Magne Espeland observed: Knowledge is the basis for power and power produces knowledge. Curricular reforms are […] examples of a process where there is a close connection between the production of knowledge and power. (Espeland, 1999, p. 177) We have known for some years that music can have a variety of hegemonic status levels accorded to it. As Shepherd, Virden, Vulliamy, and Wishart (1977) observed, “whose music” it is that matters most in curriculum is clearly a value-laden set of judgments. This is a concern in many jurisdictions, as Buchborn et al. observe in their discussion concerning what has been taking place in Germany: […H]egemonies are still present in different areas of music education in Germany. However, studies on selected school curricula show changes, especially with regard to pop music. In this context, insights into the implicit level of curricula might lead to a clearer picture and help to explain the contradiction between normative claims and hegemonic structures. At the very least, one can say that systematic research analyzing hegemonies in German curricula … is still missing and could provide an additional part in this puzzle. (Buchborn, Schmauder, Tralle, & Völker, 2021, p. 38) Sometimes policy makers’ personal preferences can be overtly stated, and their impact can then find its outworking in various aspects of policy or policy support documentation. But policy does not have to be operationalized only at the macro level – at the micro level, it can also be impactful. The ways in which individual composers, composer educators, and teachers formulate and design what they will do with groups of learners show this. For every decision taken about what to include, the obverse of this is that many other things will have to be omitted. While decisions about what to include can be seen to be value judgments, the invisible aspect of this is that all the things that are tacit, or maybe even unthought, to be not included are also value judgments, with only the most important, the most worthwhile being considered worthy of inclusion. There are different curricula and program requirements for music education in various countries. In some places, school curricula are tightly framed and described, while higher education is allowed to be more self-regulating. In other jurisdictions, there is latitude across many areas of education, whereas in still others, there can be political or societal impositions made upon what is taught and learned. In areas where Western classical music can be considered part of the cultural heritage, then there is often an association between it and generalized notions of what “good” music entails. But as Anna Bull observes, this can be just an assumptive gloss on the old trope of the hegemonic superiority of middle-class values: […C]lassed and gendered values are still present in classical music education in three key ways. First, there is a fit between classical music culture and middle-class dispositions, 286

Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies

specifically the orientation to strategies of long-term investment in cultural capital as a way to accumulate value for the future; second, the disposition required to learn classical music fits in with a value-system where hard work has a moral significance; and third, classical music still works as a signifier of respectable femininity for young women today. Using classical music, which is closely entwined with the values and history of the middle class, as a social project for working-class communities can therefore be seen as a project to reform working-class children and their families …. This teaches them to value middle-class culture, and suggests that in their difference from middle-class young people, they themselves are deficient and need to change through the development of “character”… (Bull, 2016, p. 131) For politicians and policy makers, particularly those from privileged backgrounds themselves, there can be an assumption that their own musical tastes should be the blueprint for music education in schools. A case in point is the former English secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, who said: … I am unapologetic in arguing that all children have a right to the best. And there is such a thing as the best. Richard Wagner is an artist of sublime genius and his work is incomparably more rewarding – intellectually, sensually and emotionally – than, say, the Arctic Monkeys. (Gove, 2011) From here, it would be but a short step to enacting this into policy. But even saying this is providing messaging as to what a governmental minister believes should be valued in education systems. There is no sense of participation, creativity, joy, or any of the multiple other benefits that accrue from music education. For generalist teachers who are responsible for teaching music, or indeed for specialist teachers whose school or college administrations are keen to be following governmental pronouncements, then on reading that piece by Gove they may believe that they ought to be trying to teach their students about the music of Wagner. This can smack of the sorts of ideas Bull noted above, and of the ways in which neoliberal thinking tends to present itself as unproblematic: Music education takes place in socio-political systems that institutionalise cultural hegemony and social stratification through perpetuating symbolically violent practices and unconscious assumptions regarding the purpose of music and music education in society. Education systems serve to perpetuate class divisions and structures, excluding the music and aspirations of many people through the imposition of an increasingly neoliberal ideology. (Powell, Smith, & D’Amore, 2017, p. 734)

Concluding remarks In times of national, regional, or global austerity, seeking funding for composing programs can make a real difference in terms of the personal income generation that a composer can produce. An education program offers a known income, with a fixed timescale, and can be repeatable in different venues with very minimal preparation or adaptation to make the same 287

Martin Fautley

things work many times over; as one composer remarked, “I usually plan my sessions on the walk from the train station to the school” (spoken utterance). What this means is that when high-level policy makers’ statements align with the work that individual composers and composer educators do, then they will be happy to go along with this in promoting the work that they undertake with children and young people. This is not necessarily a problem, but there could potentially be instances when a school feels it more appropriate to look into pupil engagement, say, and may believe that music of some genres may be more able to do this than others. On this note, Wayne Bowman observes that: Only when we acknowledge the linkage among our musical choices (curricular, pedagogical, etc.), the ways we configure our music educator identities, and issues of social justice will music education be poised to move forward on this front. We are unlikely to make meaningful progress until and unless we recognize that the relationship between musical issues and social ones is not peripheral or contingent, but constitutive. (Bowman, 2007, p. 110) The choices that we make as music educators are determined by many factors: our backgrounds, our experiences, and our belief systems. In educating for composing, we need to be asking questions, not only of ourselves, but of the composing programs, educators, and composers who are working with the learners in whatever contexts they find themselves. This does not mean that all composing education is fraught with unexamined assumptions, but it may well prove worthwhile to try and disentangle what some believe to be an intrinsic good with what the learners in any given situation both want and need.

References Adachi, M. (2013). The nature of music nurturing in Japanese preschools. In P. Sheehan Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 449–465). New York, NY: Oxford UP. Biesta, G. (2015). On the two cultures of educational research, and how we might move ahead: Reconsidering the ontology, axiology and praxeology of education. European Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904114565162 Bowman, W. (2007). Who is the “We”? Rethinking professionalism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(4), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003108337 Buchborn, T., Schmauder, H., Tralle, E.-M., & Völker, J. (2021). Hegemony in German school music education and music teacher training? An analysis of current curricula. Zeitschrift für Kritische Musikpädagogik: Polarizing Interpretations of Society as a Challenge for Music Education (Polarisierende Deutungen von Gesellschaft als Herausforderung für die Musikpädagogik), Special edition, 35–60. Bull, A. (2016). El Sistema as a bourgeois social project: Class, gender, and Victorian values. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 15(1), 120–153. Espeland, M. (1999). Curriculum reforms in Norway: An insider’s perspective. Arts and Learning Research, 15(1), 172–187. Fautley, M., & Kinsella, V. (2022). Cultural capital and secondary school music education in England, featuring the ‘Stormzy vs Mozart’ furore. In T. Buchborn, T. De Baets, G. Brunner, & S. Schmid (Eds.), Music is what people do (pp. 203–218). Innsbruck: Helbling. Frith, S. (1996). Music and identity. In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 108–128). London: Sage. Gove, M. (2011, November 25). Speech: Michael Gove to Cambridge University. Department for Education & The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-tocambridge-university Griffiths, M. (2019). Exchanging notes. Youth Music. https://youthmusic.org.uk/sites/default/files/202004/EXCHANGING%20NOTES_0.pdf

288

Hegemony and axiology in composing pedagogies Hymas, C. (1991, July 7). The great composers expelled from school; National curriculum. Sunday Times [London, England]. Kenny, A., & Christophersen, C. (2018). Musical alterations: Possibilities for musician–teacher collaborations. In C. Christophersen & A. Kenny (Eds.), Musician-teacher collaborations (pp. 3–12). Abingdon: Routledge. Kinsella, V., Fautley, M., & Evans, N. (2018). Musician–teacher collaborations in composing contemporary music in secondary schools. In C. Christophersen & A. Kenny (Eds.), Musician-teacher collaborations: Altering the chord (pp. 180–192). Abingdon: Routledge. Kinsella, V., Fautley, M., & Whittaker, A. (2019). Exchanging notes: A four year longitudinal research study. Birmingham: Birmingham City University/Youth Music. Lawlor, I. (2021, September 25). Stormzy vs. Mozart: Moral panic against UK rap in the British media. Ethnomusicology Review. https://ethnomusicologyreview.ucla.edu/content/stormzy-vs-mozart-moralpanic-against-uk-rap-british-media Lupton, M., & Bruce, C. (2010). Craft, process and art: Teaching and learning music composition in higher education. British Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051710000239 Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 900–907. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096460 Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. London: Vintage. Powell, B., Smith, G. D., & D’Amore, A. (2017). Challenging symbolic violence and hegemony in music education through contemporary pedagogical approaches. Education 3-13, 45(6), 734–743. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1347129 Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 Schmidt, P. (2020). Policy as practice: A guide for music educators. New York, NY: Oxford UP. Sefton-Green, J. (2000). Evaluating creativity. London: Routledge. Shepherd, J., Virden, P., Vulliamy, G., & Wishart, T. (1977). Whose music? A sociology of musical languages. London: Transaction Books. Young, S. (2016a). Early childhood music education research: An overview. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X16640106 Young, J. O. (2016b). How classical music is better than popular music. Philosophy, 91(4), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819116000334 Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017

289

19 TEACHING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN NIGERIAN CLASSROOMS Current practice, training, and creative developments (with particular reference to institutions in southern Nigeria) Christian Onyeji Introduction Composition teaching is integral and a prominent component of music education, particularly at the tertiary level of learning in Nigeria. Study programs in music are anchored in the National Policy on Education, which states: “In order to encourage aesthetic, creative and musical activities, Government will make staff and facilities available for the teaching of creative arts and crafts and music …” (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1981, p. 13). While aspects of composition are taught at the secondary and primary levels as creative activities prescribed by Cultural and Creative Arts (CCA) curriculum (Nigeria Educational Research and Development Council, 2009), formalized teaching of composition takes place at the tertiary level (universities and teacher colleges known as colleges of education). The CCA curriculum stimulates the development of creative talents of learners through cultural experience and expressions in schools. Learners are engaged from their cultural backgrounds through oral creative activities in music, dance, and drama, combined as one subject. Dominance of oral composition process as well as folkloric expressions exist at this level. Composition teaching at the tertiary level explores various creative ramifications, combining written and oral methods. Composition is a standalone course in these institutions but is also integrated into the teaching of other courses such as harmony, form and analysis, performance workshops, and aural training. The term composition is adopted, accepted, cultivated, and formalized for creative processes of the structuring, realization, and making of music in Nigerian institutions. This is in agreement with the creative processes of Western art music and notions of orality in Indigenous Nigerian societies where composition is known as iro egwu among the Igbo (Onyeji, 2004, p. 56), for instance. It is unequivocal that written and oral composition processes have their places in Nigerian schools. Composition is frequently taught as a written art at the tertiary level of Nigerian schools in consonance with formal education bequeathed by the West. Teachers employ the tools of literary music for its conceptualization, structuring, and execution. This includes various forms 290

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-26

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

of notation (typically staff and tonic solfa) and creative dynamics in the expression of the art. Music drawn from non-literary traditions is assimilated and has become part of formal composition teaching, arising from the bi-cultural (Ekwueme, 2004, p. 155) tradition of music departments in Nigeria. Cultural backgrounds of learners provide potent resources which enrich teaching and learning experiences, resulting in various arrangements of folk music and ensemble works. Thus, teachers and learners deliberately draw from folk music of their communities in their creative engagements. Laid on the background of musical activities of the Western missionaries and schools (Adegbite, 2001, p. 78; Herbst, Zaidel-Rudolph, & Onyeji, 2003, p. 146; Idolor, 2001, p. 136; Onyeji, 2016, pp. 12–13; Vidal, 2012, p. 85), composition study regularly attracts gifted Nigerians who specialize in it. This accounts for why many trained Nigerian musicologists are composers. These Nigerian composers have trained as such in institutions within and outside Nigeria or developed a very strong capacity for composition while specializing in other areas of music. Quite striking, therefore, is the catalytic role ethnomusicology has played in composition in recent times. The two distinct areas of specialization have been finely knitted, such that many of those that specialized in ethnomusicology in Nigeria have drawn extensively from their expert knowledge of Indigenous music practice and creativity to develop and push the boundaries of composition teaching, learning, and output forward. To my mind, composition teaching is tacitly haunted by two schools of thought. On the one hand is the group that believes that composition cannot be taught. They argue that it falls outside of the teachers’ boundaries to teach learners their creative instincts and how they surge at given moments. They believe in the power of talent and what nature bequeaths a learner. The second group believes in the possibility of guiding a learner in harnessing his/her given talents through learning of skills, aspects of composition (melody writing for instance), the technical knowledge required to string sounds, etc., together in a musical composition. Indeed, composition teaching has endured open biases leading to school curricula of some institutions providing little or no guides in the way of specific curricula specifications for the subject. Depending on the learning of the curriculum planners, composition either gets fair attention or the opposite becomes the case. Experience gathered from practical engagements of composition teachers in various institutions shows, however, that composition can be taught as any other music subject. Thus, teaching of composition in Nigerian schools is quite distinct and robust in some instances. Presentations made in this chapter are based on my experience from being an external examiner of various institutions, article reviewer, editor of national journals, and conferee at national and local conferences. Specific examples were drawn from six institutions for the purposes of this presentation. These are University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State; Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Anambra State; University of Uyo, Uyo Akwa Ibom State; Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State; University of Lagos, Lagos State; and Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, Osun State. Curricula provisions of these institutions on composition and the actual teaching processes in the institutions were discussed in this chapter.

Teaching of composition at different levels of study in Nigeria The primary school level Music education was formally introduced in the primary school’s program in the 1980s. Despite the existence of music in the school curriculum, the program was made up of singing, dancing, folktale songs, storytelling, background music for school dramas, etc., without the 291

Christian Onyeji

teaching of theory of music. Most primary schools adopted this posture, particularly in the rural areas. In some urban schools however, some aspects of teaching of rudiments of music were combined with the activities mentioned above and learning of recorders, marching bands, and keyboard music. Curricula provisions were sidetracked by many schools due to non-provision of manpower and resources. Many schools had their classroom teachers responsible for all the subjects, some without music skills or training. Music was taught by such classroom teachers. However, music was taught and examined as an autonomous subject in some university staff schools (demonstration schools), elite expatriate schools, and some private schools. The examinations were done in two components: a written part and a practical part based/depending on the teaching activities in the terms. Structural changes were set in motion with the introduction of the 6-3-3-4 system in 2008, the current nine-year Universal Basic Education (UBE), (NERDC, 2009). (The 6-3-3-4 system of education was put in place by the Nigerian government as a structure that gives six years of primary education; three years of junior secondary education called Junior Secondary School (JSS); three years of senior secondary education called Senior Secondary (SS); and four years of tertiary education. This structure has national examinations at the different levels to qualify for the next. A learner can stop at the JSS level and go with the national certificate or may continue to the SS level and take the examination to qualify for tertiary education.) This changed the status quo of many school subjects, including music. The CCA curriculum was introduced to the teaching and learning of music at this level. Three subject areas (music, fine arts, and drama) were collapsed into one subject. This creates the problem of area(s) of focus for the teachers. Considerations follow the lines of their subjects of strength and interest. A classroom teacher whose area of strength is fine arts gives emphasis and attention to that subject, to the disadvantage of the rest. Consequently, CCA teachers relegate music to the background in favor of subjects such as fine arts or drama. With many classroom teachers not equipped to teach the new subject, focus is shifted to any aspect that they judge interesting to the pupils. The fine arts component has been generally favored, followed by drama. With prejudices against the music subject, it is usually sacrificed for others or employed as background to the teaching or performance of drama. Contemporary Nigerian formal music education has continued to witness challenges at the primary level in the areas of non-provision of facilities, lack of qualified teachers, curriculum implementation issues, misconceptions, hegemony of other subjects, and socio-religious biases. Nevertheless, teaching the creative development of students’ talents as part of CCA proceeds in oral form. Learners are encouraged to develop and explore their potential in music creativity through oral melody or song compositions for performing groups. Arising from the teaching process, written composition exercises are not the norm. Learners draw from their cultural background to formulate music for dramatic displays or for choral groups and dances. Again, this could be said to be steeped in informal methods due to the informal/oral process employed in developing musical materials by the learners. This does not follow the literary process of musical composition but certainly impacts the learning process in music composition. Creative improvisations of song and dance by learners are generally motivated by teachers. In essence, learners are taught and motivated to explore their sound worlds to generate songs, rhythmic patterns for instruments for the accompaniment of dances and songs, dance and choreographic patterns/steps, and transformations of folk songs for school presentations. These may be done under the supervision of teachers when they prepare for school events. At other times however, the learners carry on at their own time and pace. Overall, composition is not an autonomous subject in the primary schools. Creative activities are essentially conducted as vital parts of the CCA experience. Even when oral melody 292

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

composition may be taught in some of the schools, evidence from teachers shows that attention is given more to integrative learning of the combined subjects than the exclusive presentation of any aspect of the subjects. Thus, creative activities in music are situated in the learning contexts of other subjects.

The secondary school level The current form of formal music education was introduced at the secondary school level in the late 1970s but became active in 1981 following the Nigerian National Policy on Education. It took about ten years of formal music existence at the tertiary level for its establishment at the lower level. Music was formally taught at the junior classes at Government Secondary School, Owerri, Imo State, in 1981. From then on, music teaching was active in selected urban schools and some privately owned schools, mostly in Western Nigeria. Government colleges, federal colleges (“unity schools,” as they are called), mission schools, and elite private schools introduced the subject of music in their school program. By the latter part of the 1980s, some government schools had introduced some form of formal teaching and learning of music in the urban areas in southern Nigeria. Music teachers were employed in some of the schools offering music, while some used enthusiastic teachers to carry on with music and dance groups in the schools. In many such schools, it was a recreational subject which prepared students for end-of-year school activities. They formed choirs, dance groups, and marching bands; some went further to teach learners aspects of rudiments of music and creative work in music, such as singing and playing recorders. Although learning music as a school subject is not so popular in Nigeria, many students have always shown great enthusiasm for practical music making. This motivates very strong participation and commitment to group and solo presentations as well as creative development of the required performance materials done sometimes by personal improvisations. One major development in recent times is the collapsing of music, as an autonomous subject, into a new curriculum called CCA which came into effect in 2008 (NERDC, 2009) at the Upper Basic Level (JSS 1–3). The CCA was first proposed in Nigeria in the Lagos Curriculum Conference of 1969 (Olaosebikan, 1982). The curriculum combines music, fine arts, and drama into one school subject the same way it is at the primary level. In fact, the junior secondary level is considered a continuation of the basic level of studies; that is why it is called the Upper Basic Level. A recurring outcome of this development is further relegation of music in favor of the other subjects, owing to many factors bordering on lack of school authorities’ interest in music, students’ disinterest in taking music as a subject, lack of teaching resources, and general poor perception of the subject. Currently, music is taught at the JSS level in this new form. It is almost nonexistent at the senior level in most Nigerian schools due to lack of foundational capacity, continuity, elective status of the subject, and parental misconceptions about the subject. In a way, the new curriculum does not promote serious music studies at the SS level. While the school syllabus provides for autonomy of the subject at the senior level, there are new components and higher tasks that the junior level does not prepare learners for. The recurring response has been to abandon the subject or to resort to private coaching. Music education at this level has remained in this unbalanced and shallow cultivation mode since then. Lack of proper grounding and capacity of many teachers at this level constitute additional major setbacks in the cultivation of the subject in recent times. Writers have discussed poor quality of teachers, curriculum implementation challenges, lack of teaching resources, religious and societal biases, and misconceptions as some of the challenges of music education at this level. 293

Christian Onyeji

Despite all this, aspects of composition are integrated in the teaching and learning activities of the schools. This is essentially in the form of oral composition of songs, dances, or choral works in both African and Western styles. Students are motivated to develop their creative skills in music as part of classroom activities. The process is often oral due to the inability of students to compose in staff notation. Sometimes students that belong to choirs in their churches go further to create songs in solfa notation. My experience in Federal Government Girls College Lejja, in the Nsukka area of Enugu State, revealed how much students with creative talents in music are depended upon to initiate songs for various school activities. These sometimes follow an informal process but they nevertheless feed into classroom work. At the University Secondary School, Nsukka, there are various musical groups, including a marching band, that provide outlets for students’ creativity in music. Students explore their creative gifts through composing the required music. Because music teaching is more active at the lower basic level, where learners do not possess the skill for written music, the formal teaching of composition is not conducted. However, the substitute is in the form of general stringing of notes to form melodies, rhythmic patterns, and songs as part of classroom exercises. These sometimes lead to creation of songs by students. At the JSS in Nigeria, the CCA curriculum does not have composition as an autonomous subject. Rather this is integrated in the teaching program, allowing the students the opportunity to explore music creativity with their teachers. Special talents and creative flair are acknowledged and promoted in classroom sessions through oral process. It is safe to say that at the SS school level, music is almost nonexistent in the schools due to lack of selection of the subject by students. Although composition is a unit in the syllabus, no teacher is engaged in its teaching in the schools. Music is also not a required/compulsory subject for admission into music studies in Nigerian universities due to this development. Most of those that take up music at the universities undergo private coaching to take the matriculation examinations. To my knowledge, active teaching and learning of composition is done at the tertiary level specifically.

The tertiary level The establishment of formal music studies at the tertiary level of study in Nigeria took place in 1961 at the first Indigenous University of Nigeria at Nsukka in Enugu State. Tertiary institutions in Nigeria number over 120 at the moment, made up of universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. Various disciplines are taught in the institutions, including music, which has provided the opportunity for various specializations, including music composition. Composition teaching practices in various tertiary institutions in Nigeria can be described as a kind of cocktail featuring individualized application of teachers’ understanding of curricula provisions. Similarly, curricula provisions for composition teaching and learning at the tertiary level lack homogeneity in content and stages of commencement of the study. The autonomy of the subject at this level influences its form and application from institution to institution. This also impacts specific teaching processes and procedures adopted by the institutions as well as the attitude of learners to the subject component. Examples from three of the selected institutions (Delta State University, Abraka, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Awka, and University of Uyo, Uyo) show variations in the subject contents, semester of commencement, and degree of emphasis on the subject as a core or elective course. At Delta State University, composition teaching starts in year three as an elective course in one semester and as a core course in the fourth year for those specializing in composition. They then present their graduation project on composition. University of Uyo, on the other 294

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

hand, starts composition teaching in year three in one semester but without much detail on the curriculum content. The course is then taken in the fourth year, during which students specializing in composition are expected to submit their project in the area. At the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and Nnamdi Azikiwe University, the teaching of composition as a core course starts in the second semester of the third year. This is taken in the fourth year for specialization and presentation of a project in composition. At the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, composition studies (MUS 429 and MUS 430) are taught in the fourth year only before a composition project (MUS 434) is presented for graduation. There is a general notion among curriculum planners that, being a creative area, at the level of synthesis in learning, learners must first acquaint themselves with the basic knowledge of other aspects of music (harmony, theory, form and analysis, aural perception, history, etc.) before engaging in music composition. This thought underlies the notion and insistence on starting composition at a later stage in the learning program. Composition teaching is quite robust in the institutions, both at the universities and the teacher colleges. With the intention being to equip and develop the skills of learners in creative music realization and structuring, different components of composition are taught to students by those with visible evidence of expertise in music composition. Aspects of composition taught to students include melody writing in both African and Western forms. This entails the development of skills in the composition of original melodies in various formal structures (binary, ternary, or rondo). Issues of acceptable elements of melody, such as judicious mixture of different pitches, note values, stepwise movements and leaps, identifiable cadences, meter, tempo, tonality, medium, climax, avoidance of monotony of an interval or a particular note, proper use of rests and the signs, dynamic marks, and voice leading, are discussed with students to enable them to know what to apply in their melody writing. The writing of melodic figures, phrases, sentences, etc. is discussed with relevant examples. These aspects of melody writing are applied to different musical traditions: Western classical music, African traditional music, or popular music. Similarly, folk melodies are transcribed and dissected for application in the realization of the above elements in written composition. In some instances, an oral composition process may be adopted to enhance the synergy and understanding of the two creative approaches. Students are also taught two-part writing in the style of a two-part invention to enable them to develop the ability to match two independent melodic lines conceived in polyphonic style. This is taken further at the final year where they study fugue and Schoenberg’s 12-tone technique. They are also taught to write simple accompaniment for different works in Western and African forms. The keyboard (piano) is often used due to its ubiquity in the country. They also learn to write for selections of African/Nigerian musical instruments in ensemble forms and Western orchestral instruments, taking note of the transposing and nontransposing nature of the instruments. The roles of instruments in typical African ensembles are explained to them to ensure they grasp the detail of writing for an African ensemble. Such roles as the pulse marking instrument, the phrasing referent, the action rhythm instruments, the master instrument, and the obbligato instrument are discussed with them. They are also taught to set texts to music in Western and African forms. The teaching covers aspects of scansion, syllabification, metering, tonal inflections in local languages, accented and unaccented beats of texts, and deciding on the melodies for the texts. They are then taught to write for choral groups such as children’s choirs and for mixed voices, also in both Western and African forms. This is approached using Western anthems and emerging choral styles in Nigeria such as the native Air and African Vocalism, particularly for those specializing in composition. The teaching covers aspects of melody writing, harmony, polyphony, text setting, tonal inflections, and other details and peculiarities needed to compose the work. 295

Christian Onyeji

Teachers of composition also provide opportunities for students to learn aspects of modern compositional techniques, particularly those specializing in composition. This takes them through developments in modern and, sometimes, postmodern music. It also enables them learn the features, peculiarities, and norms of creative styles developed in Nigeria such as African pianism, research-composition, drummistic piano composition, and African vocalism. These compositional styles are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections of the chapter. While students are taught composition generally, the flair and ingenuity of students in composition show in different degrees. In whichever way one looks at the curriculum features, composition teaching clearly lacks homogeneity in Nigeria. Teachers of composition apply various methods and techniques in the realization of the objective of the teaching. While the curricula present similarity in what is taught, the teaching method varies from one teacher to another in the institutions. However, three major teaching processes have emerged over time. These are the in-class creative exercise method. Here the teacher explains and presents samples of components of composition for different media in the class and works with students through how to apply them in their composition exercises. The project method sometimes entails recordings of folk music and arranging them for various media. Sometimes also, group composition of original works in different genres is done by the students and recorded in studios. The project method attempts to harness the creative autonomy and decision of individual students within a group in creative activities for various results outside the supervision and control of lecturers. The appliedcum-performance method entails the presentation of composed works for performance in various performance workshop groups for practical assessment of the music and the style through panel consensus evaluation. Student composers are strongly encouraged to present their works for performance according to the various media. This has proven to be a great method for assessing creative outcomes of the teaching and learning processes. With many young lecturers from various institutions, there is an increasing mesh of teaching methods and styles emanating from different institutions, such that any observer can only attempt a sifting of routine norms. Composition teaching patterns in Nigerian institutions may then be described as fluid and somewhat individualized, according to the creative flair and learning of teachers. While the teaching of composition draws from Western classical and traditional music of the various cultural entities of Nigeria, evidence shows that far more attention is paid to concepts and processes from Western music. Due to the general reliance on ubiquitous literature and resources on Western classical music, teachers in Nigeria have noted, with concern, the heavy leaning of music curricula on formal procedures of Western music. This has been argued against by some music pundits in Nigeria such as Nzewi (1988, p. 8, 1999b, p. 72), Okafor (1992, pp. 8–9), etc. Nigerian scholars, composers, and educators (Nzewi, 1997; Nzewi, 1999a; Omojola, 1997; Uzoigwe, 1992) have variously and in concert raised the concern and need for a best practice for developing Africa-sensitive music education model(s). Thus, the question of curricula learning remains a critical issue in Nigerian music education discourse.

Training of music teachers/composers in Nigeria There are three components of tertiary institution engaged in the training and production of music teachers for schools. These are the universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. Although the bulk of music teachers come from the colleges of education and universities, a few graduates of polytechnics also engage in music teaching in private schools in Nigeria. The colleges of education, by law, are mandated to produce the manpower needs of primary and 296

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

junior (Lower Basic) secondary schools. There are over 30 such teacher education colleges in Nigeria with at least 12 of them offering music as the teaching subject of students. These are offered as double major (those offering only music) or single major (those combining music with other subjects) in the colleges. Music teachers trained at the universities take up music education as their discipline, enabling them to focus on the relevant processes of education using music as the teaching subject. They graduate with a Bachelor of Arts Education (BA, Ed.) in Music, while those at teacher education colleges graduate with a National Certificate in Education (NCE). Those in polytechnics graduate with National or Higher National Diploma (ND or HND) depending on the level a student stopped at in the training program. A student may stop after the national diploma program and obtain an ND or may continue to obtain an HND, if the student obtained a qualifying result at the ND level. It must also be noted that music students who take up regular music studies and graduate with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A. [Hons.]) in Music also get jobs as music teachers in schools, especially in private schools. In essence, there is a mix in the training of employed music teachers, particularly at the secondary level of education. In Nigeria, there is a mix of government-owned schools and schools owned by private individuals. These employ music teachers, but more music teachers are employed by privately owned schools, primary and secondary. Universities generally draw manpower for music from university graduates. In all the tertiary institutions engaged in producing music teachers, composition is a critical and important course in the program. Students are taught formal music composition as a written art and process. It is expected that, upon graduation, they draw from their skills and training to develop the creative capacity of learners in schools as well as be productive in composition. Composition is indeed an integral part of teacher education in music. The intention is to enhance the capacity of the students in identifying the creative potential of learners and assisting them in developing those learners. Various performance workshop groups in the institutions provide learners with the needed platform to perform their compositions for necessary feedbacks. These have greatly influenced the creative outcomes of students in music composition of various genres. Composition is therefore a very significant part of music student teachers’ training in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Some of the student teachers take up specialization in composition in their final examination projects. (Every final year student is mandated to take up a stress area and submit a project in music education, African music, composition, music technology, performance, music and media, or musicology. This is in the form of long essay, musical performance, or composition work/folio as part of the registered courses for graduation.) Student teachers with strong creative flair are generally encouraged to major in composition. This is often the case for students taking the double major option of music in colleges of education and those in the universities. This further affirms the significant place of composition in the training of student teachers. Whether as an area of specialization or as a critical component of the study program, composition has become the mainstream in the training of student music teachers in higher institutions in Nigeria.

Informal engagement/training of children by composers outside school program Creative music activities go on in formal and informal settings in Nigeria. Within the schools, creative activities take place formally. However, part of this process is conducted outside the school space, mostly in church choirs, private music groups, and individual coaching. Many Nigerian choral groups and church choirs are led by people with creative talents in composition. Some have formal training and some do not. As already pointed out, Nigeria boasts of 297

Christian Onyeji

more choral music than instrumental works and many of the composers are music graduates, teachers, and lecturers who are committed to running church choirs. A good number of them specialize in composition and many others have developed their capacity to compose works for their choirs. Many of such choirs have children and youths as members. Indeed, in the Anambra area of Igbo land, the Anglican Church has made it compulsory for choirs to have children as members for the sake of continuity, if they must participate in their highly prized annual choral festivals and competitions. This naturally motivates healthy interaction between composers and children in the course of their choral activities. In many of such choirs, children have grown up learning to compose choral music, while some have actually taken up music studies. Learning by imitation and active participation have engendered new generations of music composers in different parts of southern Nigeria. Some of these new composers have been spotted and given needed support to develop their skills and capacity by the older generation of composers. Some are given private coaching on melody writing, harmony, setting of texts to music, and general music forms by their mentors. One can safely conclude that at least 60% of the new generation of Nigerian composers took their first steps in composition in the choirs. Many of them now have formal music education and are contributing choral works for different events and needs. This accounts for why many of such composers write with tonic solfa, having learned music themselves in tonic solfa in the choirs. Most of such composers write native airs and church anthems following the examples and styles available to them from their mentors. In all, composers have influenced and developed new generations of young composers outside formal institutions due to their work with choirs and other music groups.

New composition approaches taught in Nigerian institutions Teaching and specialization in composition in Nigeria have led to new creative paradigms and approaches to composition. These resulted from deliberate integration of Indigenous resources and Western idioms in new art music forms. Earlier I pointed out this creative marriage between African music and composition as a dominant development in Nigeria since the last century. New musical arts styles emanating from trained Nigerian composers are the native air, African pianism, research-composition, drummistic piano style, and African vocalism (specifically from the Nsukka Choral School [NCS]) (Onyeji & Onyeji, 2015). These creative styles are taught to students to enable them to grasp their approaches and apply them in their compositions. As creative developments anchored in the local culture, it is quite significant for them to understand them. Those specializing in composition are generally taken through these major creative approaches. They are discussed below.

Native air Native air is a unique style of vocal (choral or solo) music developed in Nigeria. Being a significant vocal style in Nigeria, students are taught its creative features and devices. The style explores and combines the vocal idioms of Indigenous music of Nigeria and Western music in its delivery of a story song which may be drawn from biblical stories, folk songs, or moral lessons. It is in both secular and sacred versions as may be found appropriate for different occasions and church worship. The solo versions are taught as solo song arrangements of folk songs or creative composition of original solo songs. For the solo folk song arrangements, students are taught to identify original folk songs, extend them in length and form, and provide accompaniments for their performance. Composition students are generally taught to 298

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

write in the style of native air as alternative to the Western classical (often in foreign language) vocal works. Commenting on the musical and textual themes for such works, Nzewi (1991, p. 144) says they are very often “based on traditional folk songs and folk tales,” while Omojola (1997, p. 216) says they are “transformations of traditional folk songs into art songs conceived in a European contemplative idiom.” Students majoring in composition are taught the features and distinctions of native airs, which include consistency in the preferential use of native language, fairly long storytelling deemed captivating for a listening audience, strong bass line, contrapuntal and polyphonic lines interspersed with homophonic passages, sometimes on topical issues, strong reliance on tonal inflection, Western chordal material, functionalism of tonal harmony, sometimes retaining Indigenous choral norms such as glissandi, parallelism, untranslatable syllables (vocalizations and onomatopoeias) to enable them to apply them in their compositions of the vocal style.

African pianism Another major style that students are taught is the African pianism (see Euba, 1993, p. 8 for definition). The style is essentially for the keyboard instrument. The concept of African pianism was developed in the early 1960s, to capture African identity in modern composition (Euba & Kimberlin, 2005, p. 1). African pianism is an approach to using the piano as a medium of expressing African music (Konye, 2005, p. 19). Students are taught to appreciate the creative style and understand the technique and creative devices. They are taught to understand the broad scope of Akin Euba’s definition and to attempt to approach African pianism composition from several perspectives. They are made to realize that “the basis of African pianistic style is the adaptation of performance techniques from instruments like xylophones, thumb pianos, plucked lutes, drum and chimes to the piano” (Herbst, Zaidel-Rudolph, & Onyeji, 2003, p. 159). Akin Euba’s style has generated a lot of international discourse and compositions which the students are motivated to study to enable them to develop their creative perspectives of the style (Aponte, 2000, p. 16; Burman-Hall, 2000, pp. 8–10; Kimberlin & Euba, 2005; Xin & Euba, 2009). Student composers in Nigeria are taught to explore the pianistic style in their creative works and projects for graduation for those that choose to write for piano.

Research-composition Research-composition is another compositional approach that student composers are given training on. The style is anchored in in-depth ethnomusicological research on the Indigenous music of a given culture, which informs the creative and compositional theory of a modern art music composition. The approach seeks a continuum of traditional musical arts of Africa in modern art music form (Onyeji, 2002a, p. 1). Students are taught the process which enables a composer to produce African art music of any length or magnitude by the study and application of creative elements and idioms from identified African musical type or tradition. The procedure entails ethnomusicological study of identified music type (ethnographic and musicological), which enables the identification of distinctive features of the music type as well as the application of the creative features and idioms in the composition of art music of choice. Quite often, the/a project method is used in teaching this approach which entails transcription and analysis of Indigenous music for creative application in a composition. The students are taught to realize that the essence is to ensure that the composed art music captures the spirit 299

Christian Onyeji

of the Indigenous music, while at the same time existing as a transformation of the music in literary form. The relationship and distinctions that exist between ethnomusicology and composition as scholarly and creative fields are clarified while assisting them to construct a bridge from one to the other. The result has been the composition of many works using the approach.

The drummistic piano style The drummistic piano style is specifically taught to students as a sub-genre of African pianism. This is because it targets specifically the nuances of drumming in Africa in the composition of piano works. It is therefore an approach to piano composition and performance that transfers the techniques of African drumming to the piano (Onyeji, 2008, p. 164). Teaching this approach to piano composition brings to the fore the uniqueness of piano in simulating African drumming techniques, which students are encouraged to employ in their works. Coming from the cultural background also enables them to find connection and access to the piano composition approach. The understanding of the basic tenet of the approach in synthesizing the creative and performance idioms of traditional African drums (wooden or membrane) in art music composition for the piano is central to the teaching process. They realize that the approach entails perceiving, responding, and relating to the piano instruments as one would to normal traditional drums. Examples of drummistic piano works used to demonstrate the approach to students are “Ufie,” “Oga,” “Ekele,” and “Ekele Diri Chineke by Christian Onyeji.” These are piano compositions exploring the style discussed above.

African vocalism African vocalism is also a unique style of vocal composition that student composers are taught. The creative concept loosely laces together emerging vocal compositional works within and outside Nigeria that seek to explore idiomatic and inherent features and elements of African Indigenous music for an art music composition for the human voice in unique ways that relate to the examples developed at Nsukka. In the teaching process, emphasis is laid on the adaptation of performance techniques from Indigenous vocal and instrumental ensembles and the synthesis of the idioms, performance behaviors, and dynamics of such ensembles in the composition of a vocal piece of music. The approach insists on Africanisms and lays emphasis on elements of rhythm, percussive sound, dance, fragmented melodic style, cyclic motives, thematic repetitions, linear textural organization, and tonal organization that characterize most African ensemble music. They are taught to deploy tones, melody, rhythm, melo-rhythm, and harmonic structures from Indigenous music; to consciously transfer the roles of ensemble instruments to the voice in art music form; and to simulate drum passages as well as dance and multilinear polyphony normative in traditional ensemble music for the human voice in such music. Some of the creative features of the choral style which learners must grasp are the dominant use of ostinato variation as a canvas on which music of considerable length is constructed in a variety of moods and textures. This ostinato could be in the form of repetition of the main theme. This serves as a unifying material in the composition. In some instances too, the element of communal performance is evoked to enhance the contrapuntal and polyphonic textures. This element gives the impression of many layers of sound in operation at a given time. Teaching students this approach to composition aims to further reveal the depth of creative resources available in Indigenous music for art music composition. This style of choral music composition developed from the NCS of vocal music composition (Onyeji & Onyeji, 2015). 300

Teaching music composition in Nigerian classrooms

Conclusion Composition teaching is a significant component of formal music education in Nigeria, being part of the learning processes bequeathed to the country from the contact with the West. Its development and trajectory as a creative process have given rise to spin-offs of new creative approaches and perspectives discussed in the chapter as contributions from the teaching of the subject in Nigeria. It was highlighted in the chapter that, while aspects of composition are taught as part of CCA at the lower tiers of learning, composition teaching as an autonomous subject is conducted only at the tertiary level of study where composition teachers get their training. The chapter revealed the lack of homogeneity of teaching methods, institutional structures, and curricula contents as well as emphasis laid on the teaching of the subject as a core or elective subject in Nigerian universities. However, three general approaches to the teaching of composition emerged from the study. Evident in the discourse is the great value placed on composition in Nigeria, not just as art but as vocation and means of livelihood. Composition teaching remains very prominent, relevant, and attracts very talented and creative students and practitioners in the study programs of various institutions.

Reflective questions 1 Briefly describe the levels and structures of education in Nigeria. 2 Summarize composition teaching at the various levels of music education in Nigeria. 3 Discuss the creative developments and styles taught to students in composition in Nigeria.

References Adegbite, A. (2001). The present state of development of African art music in Nigeria. In M. A. Omibiyi (Ed.), African art music in Nigeria: Fela Sowande Memorial (pp. 77–82). Ibadan: Stirling-Horden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd. Aponte, P. R. (2000). Confronting otherness: African pianism as postcolonial discourse. Intercultural Musicology, 2, 1–2. Burman-Hall, L. (2000). African pianism: Placing an emerging repertoire in context. Intercultural Musicology, 2(1–2), 8–18. Ekwueme, L. E. N. (2004). Essays on African and African-American music and culture. Lagos: LENAUS Publishing Ltd. Euba, A. (1993). Modern African music: A catalogue of selected and archival materials at IwalewaHaus, Bayreuth: Iwalewa-Haus, University of Bayreuth. Euba, A., & Kimberlin, C. T. (2005). Introduction. In C. T. Kimberlin & A. Euba (Eds.), Towards an African pianism: Keyboard music of Africa and the diaspora (Vol. 1, pp. 1–11). Point Richmond: MRI Press. Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1981). The national policy on education. Lagos: Federal Government Press. Herbst, A., Zaidel-Rudolph, J., & Onyeji, C. (2003). Written composition in the African context. In A. Herbst, K. Agawu, & M. Nzewi (Eds.), Musical arts in Africa: Theory, practice and education (pp. 142–178). Pretoria: Unisa Press. Idolor, G. E. (2001). Formal education and the development of African art music in Nigeria. In M. A. Omibiyi (Ed.), African art music in Nigeria: Fela Sowande Memorial (pp. 135–149). Ibadan: StirlingHorden Publishers (Nig.) Ltd. Kimberlin, C. T., & Euba, A. (Eds.). (2005). Towards an African pianism: Keyboard music of Africa and the diaspora (Vol. 2). Point Richmond: MRI Press. Konye, P. (2005). Conceptualizing African pianism. In C. T. Kimberlin & A. Euba (Eds.), Towards an African pianism: Keyboard music of Africa and the diaspora (pp. 19–24). Point Richmond: MRI Press. National Education Research and Development Council. (2009). Development of instructional materials from local resources. Basic education handbook. Abuja: NERDC Press.

301

Christian Onyeji Nzewi, M. (1988). State of literary music in Nigeria: A review. Nigeria Magazine, 56(3/4), 5–24. Nzewi, M. (1991). Musical practice and creativity – An African traditional perspective. Bayreuth: Iwalewa-Haus, University of Bayreuth. Nzewi, M. (1997). African music: Theoretical content and creative continuum, the culture – Exponent’s definitions. Oldershausen: Institut für Didaktik Populäre Musik. Nzewi, M. (1999a). Modern art music in Nigeria: Whose modernism? (Unpublished Seminar at Department of Music, University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban, South Africa). Nzewi, M. (1999b). Strategies for music education in Africa: Towards a meaningful progression from tradition to modern. IJME (conference edition), 33, 72–87. Okafor, R. (1992). Music in Nigerian education. African Music, 1(2), 5–12. Olaosebikan, W. A. (1982). Cultural and creative arts: A source book for teachers. Ibadan: Evans Brothers (Nig. Publishers) Limited. Omojola, B. (1997). Compositional style and national identity. In B. Omojola (Ed.), Music and social dynamics in Nigeria (pp. 209–219). Ilorin: Department of Performing Arts. Onyeji, C. (2002a). The study of Abigbo choral-dance music and its application in the composition of Abigbo for modern symphony orchestra (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pretoria, South Africa. Onyeji, C. (2004). Abigbo music and musicians of Mbaise, Igbo: An introduction. Ethnomusicology, 48(1), 52–72. Onyeji, C. (2008). Drummistic piano composition: An approach to the teaching of piano composition from a Nigerian cultural perspective. IJME, 26(1), 161–175. Onyeji, C. (2016). Composing art music from indigenous African musical paradigms, the 102nd inaugural lecture of the university of Nigeria, Nsukka. Nsukka: University of Nigeria Press. Onyeji, C., & Onyeji, E. (2015). An introduction to Nsukka Choral School (NCS) as an approach to the composition of Nigerian choral music: Towards a model of African art music composition. In A. N. Akwanya (Ed.), The village within a global village: art and culture in a globalizing world: Readings from the Chinua Achebe International Biennial Conference, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 23-27 April, 2012 (pp. 247–266). Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers Ltd. Uzoigwe, J. (1992). Akin Euba, An introduction to the life and music of a Nigerian composer. African studies Series. Vidal, A. O. (2012). Selected topics on Nigerian music: General nature, history and musicology/music education. In F. Adedeji (Ed.), Ile-Ife: IMEF African Music Publishers. Xin, L., & Euba, A. (Eds.). (2009). Anthology of African piano music. Shanghai: SMPH.

302

20 COMPOSITION IN THE CLASSROOM IN NORWEGIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

Introduction The society and politics within a nation is constantly changing and so it is with curricula. A new curriculum involves a new framework and new content that should give teaching and learning an intentional direction. In further reading, this chapter will take a closer look at main trends regarding the composition part of the subject of music in the elementary school, which was a nine-year study beginning in 1969 that expanded to ten years beginning in 1997. From the curriculum Forsøksplan, 1960 (FP60), when the subject of song was changed to music, instrumental music became more equated with vocal, and so it is up until today, with the latest curriculum from 2020, Kunnskapsløftet (LK20). In another context, it could also be interesting to focus on composing in the School of Music and Performing Art, since, in Norway, all municipalities are obliged to offer a cultural school for children and young people (cf. “Opplæringslova,” §§ 13–16, 1997) where making, in our context making music, is one of five main activities in the latest Curriculum Framework, Mangfald og fordjupning (Diversity and Deeper Understanding, 2016). The authors of this chapter are music teachers from different levels of education, from primary school to university, and we are also performers with many years of experience of different approaches to composing, both in the classroom and in various music ensembles. We have experienced creative joy, and seen students succeed in creating something they are very happy with, and seen frustration when they do not succeed, whether individually or in small or large groups. But how and to what extent do Norwegian music teachers work with composing in the classroom, and what opportunities and challenges do they face? In order to find answers to the latter, we have, in addition to building on some of our own experiences, interviewed five music teachers with broad and different experiences of composition, curricula, and trends.

Curricula and creative activities Historically, since the mid-1800s, there has been a close link between cultural politics and school politics in the Norwegian school system. Varkøy (2001, p. 22) views curricula as documents that absorb trends in discourses on a national level. The content of the school is “in dialogue” with the rest of society. Harald Jørgensen points out that reform educators wanted DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-27

303

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

to improve music education through discussion and committee work in the first part of the 20th century. The most important aspects were to increase the competence of music teachers, work more systematically with the content of the subject, and emphasize activities that were based on the students’ point of view and increase the use of instruments in teaching (Jørgensen, 1982, p. 15). Skoleloven (1860) provided schools all over the country with educational requirements for teachers, and since then, the school has been an arena for national optimism and social modernism. Until the curriculum of 1939, Normalplanen for byfolkeskolen (1957), the content of the music teaching profession was to sing songs and hymns, where the goal of the students was to sing “correctly, in tune and beautifully” (Jørgensen, 1982, p. 9), but already in that curriculum, there was a hint of composing elements mentioned as creating melodies and a little practice in making short songs (1939, p. 181). But Jørgensen (1982, p. 18) points out that this activity had only a small impact, and became mostly a theoretical statement among the teachers. In other countries, reform ideas related to the music profession started in the 1930s, but in Norway reform ideas did not have much impact then due to the Second World War. With the post-war years came a general optimism that also set the tone in the music profession. The discourse leading up to “Læreplanen for forsøk med 9-årig skole” (1960), or FP60, was more about structure and organization of the plan than pedagogy and education (Tommelstad, 2017). But the time had come to broaden the horizon, and make changes both in name and content of the subject from song to music. At the same time, the pendulum shifted from learning about music towards strengthening the pupils’ competence in music, and the instrumental focus became more equated with the vocal (Lillemyr, 1983, p. 4). But although the focus here was on the subject, there was little genuine creativity in practice. The students were often given instructions on how to listen and create, according to Jørgensen (1982, p. 42). This was also the case with the Orff methodology, which received a lot of attention in the 1960s. Westby (2004, p. 151) asks why it was difficult to implement new ideas in practice and she believes that possible causes were lack of teacher competence and the teaching traditions. The content in FP60 was discussed by reform educators in “The National Organization for Music in the School” (translated), founded in 1955, to “support all activities aimed at improving music education in all schooling” (Jørgensen, 1982, p. 14). One thing that emerged and changed the discourse around the content of the subject of song and music in schools was the awareness of the goal of song and music education. Jørgensen (1982, p. 25) and Varkøy (2001, p. 101) associate the individual’s development and expression of lasting value with the concept of growth that originated from Mursell and the mindset of American music education (Jørgensen, 1982, p. 15). Varkøy (2001) points out that the overall view in FP60 is that music becomes an instrumental subject, where music is used to achieve something else. Jørgensen (1982, p. 25) thinks the curriculum has many good intentions but lacks a clear direction. But, having said that, FP60 takes the subject of music towards a more consistent content, partly because the students were given more music throughout the school and the number of music lessons increased. Through “Mønsterplan for grunnskole” (1974), M74, the subject of music became broader in terms of educational aims. But although M74 would legitimize personality-enhancing values, it carried a clear mark on music-historical and music-theoretical thinking, according to Jørgensen (1982). In M74, creation is still not a separate activity, but one of the goals of music education is to unleash and cultivate creative forces (M74, p. 216). Song became vocal activity, and play became instrument activity. Varkøy refers to a linguistic shift from elitism to the more popular tendency. An example of this is when goals such as unleashing and cultivating (…) aesthetic sensitivity are taken out of the FP60, and a new 304

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

element is developing students’ musical abilities. Under the heading “Teaching Material,” active music development is emphasized as a prerequisite for achieving the subject’s goals and that “music is to a large extent social in nature” (2001, p. 215), cf. socio-cultural learning theories (inter alia, Vygotsky). This social perspective is even stronger in the next curriculum, “Mønsterplan for grunnskolen” (1987), or M87. This curriculum emphasizes students’ active role, their well-being, and that the curriculum should mirror their everyday musical life (Kalsnes, 2017). In a similar fashion to the rest of society, the subject of music opens up and addresses the students more broadly. For example, students will learn to appreciate different types of music, discuss music’s function in youth cultures, and dance folk dances. There are reasons to argue that M87 takes youth culture into account, and from FP60 to M87, there is a shift from music thinking towards an individual and community-oriented thinking. This is articulated in the curriculum M87 (p. 252): “By increasing our understanding of the use and functions of music at different times, society and cultures, the music subject can be involved and lay the foundation for active participation in and design of the environment and society.” The extract above illustrates that, in a social context, M87 tends to provide a balance among music, school, and society. It is interesting that Kalsnes (2017) makes a connection between music and identity, and how music can define you as a person. From a creative perspective, the next national curriculum L97 (Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen, 1997) was worth waiting for. For the first time in Norwegian history, the national curriculum introduced composing as a major educational activity, together with listening, performing and musicking, and dancing (Espeland, 2007). Kalsnes (2017) refers to composing in L97 as a sound-based activity, where the students experiment with sound from different sources. A new discourse appears when every sound the students create could be defined as composing. Is “composing” an activity that can be done by anyone, or do you need some competence or skills to compose music? Kalsnes (2017) remarks that the content of the subject of music has developed significantly from singing in Normalplan (1957) to experimental compositions in L97. According to Varkøy (2001, p. 164), L97 takes care of different forms of musical activity and can therefore seem pragmatic in form. Through practical music, students’ compositions and active creation are emphasized as an important element of music education. Espeland (2007) argues that composing is a natural and creative part of being human, as it should be for the students in the classroom. Another significant change was that L97 quite strongly focused on a detailed controlled plan that the teachers were obliged to follow. Westbury (2008) argues that L97 was controversial largely because of the content which he refers to as subject-based, centrally developed curriculum. The master plan was that wherever one attended school in Norway, students should have the same education and the same curriculum. And for two decades the teacher had substantial freedom in how to perform in the profession, not only in method, but also due to teacher-led development. Despite the criticism against L97, Westbury says that most educators regarded L97 as a success. Kalsnes (Sætre & Salvesen, 2010), however, is concerned about the music education profession turning towards an instrumental direction to support learning in other subjects. The reason for this fear is that the basic skills can be understood as having to read and count towards knowledge of music. It can cause music to become a method of learning fractions and musical notation as a way to read. Kalsnes points out that such thinking removes the musical aspects from the subject’s own premises (2010, p. 62). Despite some concern around how the subject of music is evolving in L97, a new national curriculum was released in 2006 named LK06 (Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet). Kalsnes (2017) points out that LK06 continues along an axis where the students are active in a performative and creative way. The term music is defined within a broad educational subject of 305

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

art, where the students should reflect, experience, understand, and take part in making music. Another new feature in the curriculum is that LK06 expresses an expectation regarding digital competence: “Being able to use digital tools in music is about developing music technology competence related to listening, music and composing.” Since the youth culture of our time is often based on technology and digital tools, it is natural that music education activities in the school should also focus on digital tools. However, Vinge (in Sætre & Salvesen, 2010, p. 61) points out that the use of technology in the music education profession is challenging due to lack of equipment and teachers’ competence. In addition, reports such as the School Study Survey (Espeland & Grønsdal, 2010) and ITU Monitor (Krumsvik & Almås, 2009, p. 109) point out that it is especially the teachers’ competence that is a challenge, which prevents the intentions of the curriculum. Peder Haug (2020, p. 27) refers to LK06 as a curriculum that defines the competence that the students should achieve, and not a specific syllabus that the students have to relate to. This change of perspective relates to advice from OECD based on their assessment and evaluation of LK06. The outcome was that OECD recommended that the curriculum should strengthen focus on goals and performance management. Both L97 and LK06 have an introduction to the curriculum, projecting a contemporary narrative about schooling. This introduction can be seen as a way to construct a framework to understand how math, science, the national culture, and traditions can form and develop a high-quality and modern school (Westbury, 2008). The introduction to the latest curriculum LK20, the core curriculum, is less comprehensive and presents some important concepts such as human dignity, diversity, critical thinking, democracy, co-determination, and adapted education. Haug (2020) points out that there is a challenge in how to merge these conceptions in the core curriculum with the main content of the curriculum. Haug seems also to argue that teachers have to work hard to bind these concepts together to make the curriculum work as a whole. The core curriculum in L97 is the same as in K06 and has the name: den generelle del (the general part). This introduction describes overall ideas about seven different types of individuals such as the creative individual and the working individual. The teachers have not been related to the general part in L97 and LK06, but in LK20 teachers are obliged to make teaching plans that include both the core curriculum and the curricula. In order for the students to go deeper into every subject for specialized knowledge, there has been a reduction in learning goals. The students have to accumulate fewer objectives compared to LK06, but they have to achieve higher competence and dig deeper into the concept of knowledge. A main trend in the subject of music is that students relate to music in an active manner. LK20 continues to argue for a subject where the students learn to play and make music, and less about the history of music. The core elements in the subject of music (LK20) also reflect an active participation: to exercise music, to make music, and to experience music. From a creative perspective, it is interesting to notice that the term composing has been changed into making music. This can be seen as an attempt to advocate a less academic approach towards a competence that historically has been for the few. Or maybe Espeland and Grønsdal have a valid argument when they refer to low teacher competence as a problem that prevents the intention of the curriculum.

Teaching materials for composition Only a handful of didactical composition books for music education have been published in Norway with regard to music educators and music teacher students. Internationally, several of the experienced music teachers we have interviewed point to John Paynter as an important guide in the composition profession in Norway, on a par with Carl Orff. Andersen, Espeland, 306

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

Husebø, and Husebø also mention Zoltán Kodály as a pioneer, pointing out that: “A great many of the reformers in music education have been or are active composers, not primarily educators” (1997, p. 11). John Paynter and Peter Aston published “Sound and silence” in 1970, with the subtitle: “Classroom Projects in Creative Music.” Here, they show us an ideology that has certain similarities with Dewey’s thoughts on taking the student’s perspective and having the student and activity at the center. They talk about “liberal education,” and that the community outside of the school and “experience of living” must be given plenty of room (p. 3) and ask the question, “What is creative music?” They answer, “First of all, it’s a way of saying things that are personal to the individual” (p. 7). Paynter’s book, “Hear and now: An introduction to modern music in school” (1972), provides basic pedagogical arguments and explanations for why and how everyone can work with music. Here, Paynter shows through his inclusive ideology that he takes the music education profession and the young people seriously, also in relation to the arts: “Art must engage us by helping us to make new discoveries – new ideas, new means of expression” (p. 14). Vea and Lerens’s “Musikkpedagogisk Grunnbok” (1972) was used by students and teachers in music-teacher studies in Norway in the 1970s and 1980s and became a guide for several music educators. Vea and Leren emphasize both the unity of the music profession and the importance of “listening, playing and creativity” in the subject and believe that the auditory has been given surprisingly little space compared to the massive focus on reading music (p. 23). They therefore wanted more of Pestalozzi’s thinking to see the “co-operation of the head, the heart and the hand” in a holistic way and that the hearing and the physical should be given more space, as Emile Jaques-Dalcroze also emphasized in his pedagogy (pp. 28–29). In 1976, Bakke published the book “Lag med lyd: innføring i lydforming” (Layers of Sound – An Introduction to Sound-modelling), which is a work inspired by that of John Paynter. In the preface, Bakke makes it clear that all teachers should be able to use the book, not just music teachers. Bakke makes a point of enabling everyone to compose, because he believes music and humanity have followed each other from time immemorial. Bakke argues that humanity has made music for as long as it has existed. Therefore, whistling a stanza or humming a melody has its root in the existential. Bakke also blames us for not being open to this innate ability, because: “We have our heads full of good tunes both by Bach and Bacharach (…) who consciously or unconsciously act as a sort of censorship for our own composition attempts” (Bakke, 1976, p. 6). In his book “Rock & Pop i klasserommet” (1981), Ruud shows that popular music gradually gained a foothold in the music teaching profession. Here, Ruud argues for the importance of young people’s music being given more focus in school and that teachers’ attitudes, syllabuses, and exam forms should be changed so that they are updated and can use the youth culture and music so that students get greater identity/ownership of the subject of music (p. 5). Ruud is influenced by music educator Dörthe Hartwich-Wiechel (1974) and her thoughts on a more student and pop-focused music education (p. 36). The second part of the book gives room for didactics and methodology related to popular music, and as a music teacher in the latter part of the 1980s, I (Waade) experienced this as a “breath of fresh air.” There were few in Norway who had written about the importance and use of popular music in the classroom. Ruud also proposes didactic and methodological methods in relation to listening to music and creating lyrics and music. In addition, he describes important, newly developed recording and playback equipment (which he calls “tertiary components”) that should eventually become of great importance to the development of music, including its use in composition in the classroom (p. 49). 307

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

Andersen, Espeland, Husebø, and Husebø’s book, “Komponering i klasserommet – en praktisk metodikk” (1997), is the most complete work we have found about composing in the classroom. Here, the history of the subject of music and a view of different curricula, although the book is specifically linked to L97, are given as well as concrete examples of different ways of composing, based on, among other things, sound, melody, form, texture, and dance. They ask the big question: What is composing? and argue that composing and improvising are two sides of the same coin. Sætre and Salvesen’s book, “Allmenn musikkundervisning” (2010), is written for music students and music teachers in both regular schools and cultural schools. They also focus on the fact that society has changed a lot in recent years, with globalization, increased multiculturalism, and diversity as well as strong technological developments and new cultural arenas. These have increased demands that schools, cultural schools, the Cultural Schoolbag fund (DKS), and voluntary cultural life must cooperate to a greater extent. We also find here a separate chapter on improvisation and composition, which they believe should not be seen as isolated activities. They refer to Pamela Burnard (2000), who researched 12-year-old students’ relationships to improvisation and composition, and who believes that improvisation and composition are inseparable and have the same intention. They also refer to Carl Orff, who puts it this way: “Three keywords in teaching are imitating, exploring, and improvising. In other words, it is about recreating, transforming, and innovating” (Sætre & Salvesen, 2010, p. 217).

The authors experience with composing in the classroom My (Waade) “narrative” from the music teaching profession in elementary school can probably give a rather typical picture of the development of the music subject from the late 1960s, with a focus on singing, playing recorder, and learning about the great composers. I started out as a music teacher in 1986 and I can recognize Bakke’s statement from his first time as a music teacher in secondary school (1976) where one had to make the most of what equipment you had. I felt a kind of educational courage. And then there was the response I got with these kids, because they became immensely interested in it (Andersen et al., 1997, p. 33). In addition to reduced possibilities according to equipment and rooms, the lack of didactical literature was also something I felt strongly about. The music training I had received at the teacher’s college was not adapted to the youth’s music, so there were many challenges. The composing part of the subject was also a challenge and was a bit randomly taken care of in the early years. In M87, for fourth to sixth grade (as I taught then), under the heading: Experimentation and Composition (p. 259), we tried to create different soundscapes, preferably from programmusical themes, like frost, spring, air, and scary moments. This was done both with small groups and the whole class, but it could also be a part of a familiar song, where we could insert small pupil-compositional elements, for instance as a bridge in a song, whether it was improvisations on xylophone or keyboard, or rhythm variations from a common starting point, more or less arranged in advance. This was a way of trying to include all students, using instruments at our disposal, the voice (both for singing and percussion), the body (for instance some body percussion), etc., at their level. I found that several students thought it was exciting to try out new things and experiment a bit, but the challenge was also that some of them found it too abstract, obscure, and difficult, and, for example, there were several who called for melodies and fixed rhythm when we were working with sound-shaping. My experience was that a combination of the abstract and the more familiar (with melody, rhythm, and harmonics) often worked best. And I often have the same experience when I am working today 308

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

with the American sign-language Soundpainting as an “instant composing tool,” whether it is together with students or musicians. In my approach (Reknes), students meet for different activities. We listen together. We dance together. We sing together. We play instruments together. We program together. Pupils come with their life experiences and use them to put together new experiences. Experiences are woven into each other, and new expressions are created. Through discussion, reflection, and filtered through their own emotions and skills, new dances, new rhythms, and new melodies emerge. In my teaching with the creative use of digital tools, I have used the same method as in the analog sound formation (Bakke, 1976). Students have been challenged to use a soundscape in arenas that are often unknown to them, to gain new experiences. At the same time, students are challenged to collaborate, communicate, and develop ideas within a process. Students can, for example, record a sequence of less than a minute and then listen to the recording. Students communicate about what needs to be changed and what needs to be added. They use the properties of digital tools to produce and remix their compositions. Students continually listen to new expressions that emerge, in order to experiment and test changes in the next phase. The process is repeated until the students are satisfied and agree on the composition. Equally important is that when the product is finished, it is conveyed to others. There are good digital web resources that can help increase interest in composing. A Norwegian venture is the digital online resource, Veslefrikk (https://skapia.no/veslefrikk/). The “Veslefrikk method” consists of six steps that take the student or group of students from idea to performance. Another example is NoTam’s sound processing program, DSP, described by Vinge (in Sætre & Salvesen, 2010).

The interview material: how, and to what extent, do teachers work with composing? We will now present some of the questions we asked and the answers we received that we think are the most relevant. In the tradition of a phenomenological research interview, we made a semi-structured interview guide with eight main questions (see the end of this chapter) and recorded all the interviews. After we had transcribed the interviews, we used the Giorgis method (1975, in Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015) when analysing the material, to get a condensed text and an essence. The five music teachers are anonymously described as L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5. First of all, we want to present the voice of each teacher, but in some parts we discuss and compare some of their thoughts and experiences. The interviews from the five music teachers should not be seen as representative data but instead show parts of the teachers’ understanding and work with composition in the classroom. L1 has worked for more than 20 years as a primary school music teacher (and in other educational institutions) and answers the question: “To what extent did you focus on the composing part of the music profession and how do you work with it?”: L1:

“I did not think about the composition part explicitly, but I saw it especially in the context of interaction, improvisation and interdisciplinary themes and projects. Work especially with pentatonics, ostinatos, some modal scales and text creation.”

L2 and L3 work at the same secondary school, so we did a group interview with them. L2 has worked for over 20 years in primary school and the last 6 years in secondary school. L2 has also worked in the cultural school, has interdisciplinary music, and has performed as 309

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

a musician. L2 has used some data-based material in a compositional context. In primary school, he used a program called Doremix in particular, working on inserting various instruments into sequences that can be put together into larger parts and a song. L2 has also worked with “Stomp” and “Band-in-a-box” and has also allowed the pupils to choreograph dances in primary school. In secondary school, L2 has worked somewhat improvisationally, especially with the use of pentatonic scales on guitar and piano. In addition, the students have been able to create their own texts, and they have also used the computer program “Soundtrap” in their theory lessons. L2 would like to use the “Garage Band,” but they do not have access to it. (Some students have iPhones, but students are not allowed to use cell phones during school hours.) L3 has a Bachelor of Music degree, has worked for 15 years in secondary school, and has also been instrumental teacher in the cultural school, upper secondary school, and college. L3 has worked mostly with compositions within African-American music and especially with blues, where the students have improvised to create melodies and lyrics and improvised a little with the pentatonic scale. Both teachers state that they do not work very much with composition. This is due to the fact that they work mostly with pop- and rock-bands when they have practical music lessons because that is what the students like and want the most. In addition, they have little time available (they only have 1 hour per week) and practical music only every four weeks (then the class is divided into two parts with the natural sciences). They also point to important framework factors, such as the fact that composing requires self-confidence, and many students do not want to present things they have created themselves. Furthermore, the teachers believe that they themselves need more competence, and that composing is also a challenge in relation to evaluation and grading. The teachers express that the students show great interest in the subject of music, but that it was even more popular earlier. L3:

“Earlier, the students fought to enter the music room during the break time.”

The two teachers believe that the declining interest in playing instruments during their break time may be due to a trend where interest in band is decreasing. L4 has decades of experience from secondary school and college, continuing education courses for teachers, and has been inspired by John Paynter and his work around “Sound and silence” (1970) and tells us: L4:

“I saw how Paynter, with his professional weight as a trained professional composer, opened up in using sound as material and not just tones. As a result, composition did not necessarily require as much traditional music understanding. Paynter used the same method for professional composers and children to create music. If a professional composer is to make a concert for a symphony orchestra and double bass solo, then the composer must find out what can be done on a double bass and what cannot be done on a double bass. Then you have to figure it out, either try it yourself, or talk to someone who knows it and see what is possible. A child must go through exactly the same process to compose for xylophone. It’s about opening up and seeing opportunities.”

L5 has been a music teacher both in secondary and high school for decades. His background is mainly from rhythmic music and he had been playing in bands for a number of years when

310

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

he started teaching. He mentions, among others, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, and Ritchie Blackmore as inspiration for his interest in music. L5:

Interviewer:

 It is the music that gives us access to ourselves. And our feelings. (…) And “ why does everyone have a relationship with music? (…) I’m trying to get students to write for themselves here (…) Why Paul McCartney? Why Jimi Hendrix? Brad Mehldau and Pat Metheny? Why are they famous then? Yes, they have written their own music (…) My main mantra is to create, produce, not just reproduce.” “What framework do you work within: What controlled your choice of activities/ focus areas? Were there particular curricula, “trends in time”, other impulses from outside, etc.?”

L1 explains that he was not governed very much by the curricula, but by “trends in time, other educators (especially Danish percussionists) and musicians, jazz musicians and various seminars.” L4 has worked on composing and creating music within a period of different curricula from M74 to LK06. And L4 notes that it felt like every new Minister of Education came with a new curriculum. Despite different curricula, L4 thinks they were pretty similar: L4:

L5: Interviewer: L1:

 There were not many years between these curricula, so we took it easy. It’s a “ bit new, but it was pretty much the same. It’s about playing, singing, composing and dancing. The curricula have a slightly different wording, but really there was no need to rush around to stake out a whole new course. We saw that a new minister was coming in to set footprints.” “What should we say? (…) Of course, the curricula were the guiding principle for the reflection that was made. But the guidelines for the subject were quite ambitious (…), I would say, goals and guidelines in the plan.” “How did you experience working with composing in the classroom? Were there any musical or educational challenges? For example, in relation to frame factors such as equipment, rooms etc.?” “There were always some didactic challenges, but again, if you have a good framework it goes well. Then you avoid the worst turmoil/chaos in the classroom, but you also have to endure a bit of that.”

At the elementary school where L1 worked, they had sufficient equipment and well-functioning rooms for composing. This was something L1 had fought to achieve. L4 has instructed seminars in schools with little equipment. When the teachers who were going to attend the course asked what instruments L4 brought, they were surprised that L4 had not brought instruments. It was more about looking for what could be used as instruments, and also making some in the craft room. There was always something to play on. L4:

 There will always be limiting factors. Lack of rooms, instruments and so on. “ And I was very conscious of that all the time. This was not really about students getting better at making music, it was about developing their creativity, that is, they are creative people, and then it is, to exploit the opportunities that are there, to see opportunities where others do not see them.”

311

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

L5 indicates that with L97 there was a reorganization of the subject of music, where music received 1 hour per year from eighth to tenth grade. And that this caused the music teacher to lose the relationship with the students and that the limited time became a challenge. L5:

Interviewer:

 The concepts and subject areas such as composing were legitimized and con“ cretized in a completely different way than before (…) and at the same time the subject was honed with the time quotient (…) For example before there were electives in music (…) at least you got most interested students then.” “If you were to try to make some bullet points for what has characterized the composition profession for the last 30-40 years, what would you say?”

L1 does not see clear bullet points here, but for L1’s part, interaction has always been at the core of the subject. And so you have “connected” composition, listening, movement, etc., from there. When it comes to other relevant answers from the interviewees, we can mention L1’s statement: “Children always create (they both improvise and compose) so it’s about giving them the right framework/scope for this.” L1 also thinks that the concept of composition is problematic, because it becomes: “…pretentious and often linked to the great composers, while in a school context it is about everything from lyric writing and songwriting to dance and movement.” L5 points out that the curricula are very ambitious and to some extent lean towards classical music’s premise. When a teacher is not educated in the subject, composition often falls by the wayside. L5 repeatedly says that he fears for the future of the subject. He points to colleges where it is more important to publish research material than to be a good teacher. He also points to a lack of political will to strengthen the subject, when he sees the cuts, especially in music education, at the college level. L2 points out some other challenges: Because of a new model, they now have music interaction only once in a month. “So in recent years, it has become a very light version, where you have prioritized musical interaction, and interaction like reproduction or imitation of something they listen to… So there has been little composition.” Another challenge is that the classes have been larger and that reduces the possibilities for composition work in the classroom, according to L2.

Some reflections Altogether, L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5 show a broad range and excitement of the composition field in the curriculum, although it seems like L4 and L5 have the biggest focus on the discipline of composing, but in different ways: L5 believes that composing belongs to those with heavy formal music skills, while L4 thinks that children without formal skills in music can also compose. The five teachers interpret composition differently and have different backgrounds, philosophies, and preferences that will also characterize the composition part, and therefore composition will also be understood and practiced differently. All the teachers consistently believe that composition is important in the music profession and that teacher competence is essential. They also express that composing can quickly be neglected if framework factors such as time, equipment, and rooms are not available for such activities. The three teachers L1, L2, and L3 all see the great potential in student composing, but it is also challenging to run it as a separate discipline, so it has therefore mostly been connected to different musical interaction. It seems that L2 and L3 have found their small compositional areas that they feel work well, perhaps without thinking much about alternative methods such as soundscaping and the use of graphic notation or signs. For them, the compositional work 312

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

is particularly related to songs, text work, putting together different expressions and grooves into parts and tunes, and where something is also a bit improvised. This is partly true for L1 also, where interaction, improvisation with the use of pentatonic scales, ostinatos, some modal scales and text creation were central, and interdisciplinary themes and projects in particular had a more central place. We can closely link these statements from L1, L2, and L3 to the earlier-mentioned experiences of Sætre and Salvesen (2010), which tell us not to see improvising and composing as isolated activities. L4 sees composition as something bigger than ensuring that the students are good at writing music. It’s about using the student’s creativity to see opportunities they couldn’t see before: finding sounds they didn’t know they could make, and putting this together into a composition. L4 is moving away from traditional music understanding and wants to “make safe” the composing element for both students and teachers. L4 has worked with composition, with a basic view that people from the dawn of time have made/created/composed music, and that this is something that all people can do. It’s about being curious and opening up so you see opportunities. Here we can also see a similar “existential perspective” to L1’s statement: “Children always create (they both improvise and compose) so it’s about giving them the right framework/scope for this.” L5 expresses that the one who is composing is the one who has musical understanding, both in skills and performance. The composer is the one who has the deepest understanding of how music is created. L5 has a basic view of the composer as a person with thorough musical understanding and knowledge but has also worked with composition more from an improvisational point of view. Neither of the teachers express that they have been significantly guided by the curricula in their composition teaching, but at the same time they seemed quite up-to-date with the content and goals in the curricula. Having said that, we sense that the music teachers we interviewed have a huge passion for doing music in the classroom, and it could be that their drive for being teachers of music relates more to their passion than taking part in the discourse around composing in the curricula.

Summary and conclusion In this chapter, we have presented three main areas: the curricula for the music-subject in elementary schools in Norway, didactic composition literature (mostly Norwegian), and interviews with five experienced Norwegian music teachers. From the first to the last curriculum we have presented, the subject of music has gone from being a singing-based and partly theoretical knowledge subject to becoming a more performing and creative subject. By using composing and making (music) in the curricula as one of the main activities, a clear signal is given that the students’ creativity is taken seriously, and the term also plays on the authentic, personal, and existential. There is considerable agreement among the aforementioned authors and teachers that composing is an important part of the subject of music, both in terms of developing creative and personal expressions, and often in connection with musical interaction and partly improvisation. We may claim that there has been a movement away from elitism, with, for instance, the great composers as ideals, to a more postmodern thinking, where the everyday culture has been given a bigger place. Varkøy (2001) refers to a linguistic shift from elitism to the more popular tendency with M74, where active music development is emphasized as a prerequisite for achieving the subject’s goals and that “music is to a large extent social in nature” which meant that the students’ music should be given more prominence. 313

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

Kalsnes (2017) refers to composing in L97 as a sound-based activity, where the students experiment with sound from different sources, and a new discourse appears when every sound the students create could be defined as composing. The concept of composing is experienced as both problematic and pretentious, and to make music is closer to the teachers’ own terminology, as LK20 now names it. We can say that the development of Norwegian curricula has gone clearly in the direction of Paynter and Aston’s aforementioned ideology (1970) which had certain similarities with Dewey’s thoughts on having the student and activity at the center, and their thoughts about liberal education, where the community outside of the school and experience of living should be given plenty of room (p. 3). The books we have presented show us mostly ideological thinking about the importance of composition and creativity in music, and to a certain degree some methodical teaching principles. But we argue that more didactic and methodical material could have been published in this large field. As music teachers and teacher educators, we should be aware of this responsibility and improve the competence of future music teachers in the field. An important development over the last years is that of digital web resources, which can help increase interest in composing. We have mentioned the Veslefrikk method and NoTam’s sound processing program DSP, as examples of popular web resources in Norway. But is composition as a subject practiced and focused as a main activity (according to the curricula) by the teachers interviewed or is there a gap between the maps and the terrain, i.e. curricula and practices? Even though our five teachers all agree that creativity and composition is an important part of the music subject, they practice it differently, with different amounts and focus. Most give priority to musical interaction when they have practical music, and L1, L2, and L3 mainly focus on pop- and rock-music in band (with some differences), because that is what the students want most, and also the teachers have more competence in this area. To a certain extent, the lack of composing as an activity is justified by the fact that they have little time available and other factors are also pointed out: composing requires security and confidence, something both students and teachers may lack, and composing is also a challenge in terms of evaluation and grading. Based on this, we tend to see signs that there are gaps between curricula and practice in this area for most of the five teachers. Finally, some of the challenging framework factors mentioned must also be addressed by the schools themselves. Not least, it is important to increase focus and awareness of the composing part of the subject of music and give it the needed frames.

Reflective questions 1 An overall finding in this chapter is that there are multiple views on what defines composing in schools. It could be interesting to go further and find out if composing in schools represents a broad variation of activities? 2 One of the things the teachers point out in this chapter is that composing is a process that requires a certain level of competence. If this is the case, we need to find out more about the descriptive side of composing in music education and study the complexity of composing in music education. 3 In this chapter, we point out the concept of composing is experienced as both problematic and pretentious, and that “to make music” is closer to the teacher’s own terminology. What challenges in short and long terms will this shift lead to?

314

Composition in the classroom in Norwegian elementary school

References Andersen, V., Espeland, M., Aalberg Husebø, B., & Husebø, P. K. (1997). Komponering i klasserommet – en praktisk metodikk. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, Musikk i bruk. Bakke, S. (1976). Lag med lyd: innføring i lydforming. Oslo: Norsk Musikkforlag. Bakke, S. (1995). Kreativ med musikk. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Burnard, P. (2000). How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composition: Rethinking pedagogy in music education. Music Education Research, 2(1), 7–23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/14613800050004404 Espeland, M. (2007). Compositional process as discourse and interaction: A study of small group music composition processes in a school context (Doctoral dissertation). Haugesund: Høgskolen Stord. Espeland, M., & Grønsdal, I. (2010). Skolefagsundersøkelsen 2009, Fagrapport musikk. Haugesund: Høgskulen Stord. Hanken, I. M., & Johansen, G. (2013). Musikkundervisningens didaktikk (2nd ed.). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Haug, P. (2020). Fagfornyinga i reformhistorisk perspektiv. Bedre Skole, 32(4), 26–29. https://www.utdanningsnytt.no/fagartikkel-fagfornyelsen-historie/fagfornyinga-i-reformhistorisk-perspektiv/263362 Jørgensen, H. (1982). Sang og musikk: Et fags utvikling fra 1945–1980. Oslo: Aschehoug. Kalsnes, S. (2010). Allmenn Musikkundervisning. In J. H. Sætre & G. Salvesen (Eds.). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademis. Kalsnes, S. (2017). Musikkfaget i grunnskolen – fra salmesang til musikkopplevelse som eksistensiell erfaring. In S. W. Nielsen & Ø. Varkøy (Eds). Utdanningsforskning i musikk – didaktiske, sosiologiske og filosofiske perspektiver (pp. 69–91). Oslo: Norges Musikkhøgskole. Krumsvik, R. J., & Almås, A. G. (2009). The digital didactic. In R. J. Krumsvik & E. Wenger (Eds.), Learning in the network society and the digitized school (pp. 107–139). Oslo: Nova Science Publishers. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen (L97). Oslo: Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2016). Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet. Midlertidig utgave juni 2006. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju (3rd ed.). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Lillemyr, O. F. (1983). Musikkpedagogikk: Generelle synspunkter og resultater fra et skoleforskningsprosjekt. Oslo: Norsk Musikkforlag. Læreplanen for forsøk med 9-årig skole. (1960). Forsøksrådet for skoleverket. Oslo: Aschehoug. https:// www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/78a7b5fbbb8f0f471bceae2667c53111?lang=no#0 Mønsterplan for grunnskolen. (1974). Oslo: Aschehoug. Mønsterplan for grunnskolen. (1987). Oslo: Aschehoug. Normalplanen for byfolkeskolen. (1957). (3rd ed.). Oslo: Aschehoug. Paynter, J. (1972). Hear and now: An introduction to modern music in school. London: Universal Edition. Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence – Classroom projects in creative music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruud, E. (1981). Rock og pop i klasserommet. Oslo: Norsk Musikkforlag. Sætre, J. H., & Salvesen, G. (2010). Allmenn musikkundervisning. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Tommelstad, K. (2017). Nasjonale læreplanreformer som styringsverktøy i skolen (Doctoral dissertation). Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/ handle/11250/2484391/Kjersti%20Tommelstad_PhD.pdf?sequence=1 Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2019). Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet (2020). Grunnskolen. Oslo: Pedlex. Varkøy, Ø. (2001). Musikk for alt (og for alle) – om musikksyn i norsk grunnskole (Doctoral dissertation). Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole. Vea, K., & Leren, O. (1972). Musikkpedagogisk Grunnbok. Oslo: Norsk Musikkforlag. Veslefrekk (8.6.2020). https://skapia.no/veslefrikk/ Westbury, I. (2008). The making of formal curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Westby, I. A. (2004). Komponering i klasserommet-tradisjoner og visjoner. In G. Johansen, S. Kalsnes & Johansen, G.: Musikkpedagogiske utfordringer (pp. 149–163). Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

315

Roy Waade and Jan Erik Reknes

Appendix Interview guide 1 Can you tell us about your own musical background? 2 To what extent have you focused on the composition part in the music subject – and how did you work? 3 What framework did you work within: What guided your choices of activities/focus areas, was it the curriculum, trends, other impulses from outside, etc.? 4 What is/was your main focus in the composition part of the music subject? Is it an important part, or less important? If so, why? 5 How did you experience the student’s interest and efforts in this subject area? 6 How did you experience working with composing in the classroom: Were there any musical or pedagogical challenges? For example, in relation to framework factors such as equipment, room-facilities, and didactic methods? 7 If you were to try to make some “headlines” for what has characterized the subject of composition in the last ten years, what would you say then? 8 Are there other things you want to mention or elaborate on?

316

21 CREATIVITY IN THE POLISH MUSIC CLASSROOM Historical perspectives and recent actions Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

Introduction This chapter focuses on music composition and creativity in children and youth within the general music education sector in Poland, with a particular focus on classroom practice in primary schools. To gain insight into the variety of practices related to music composition in classroom settings of Polish compulsory schools, as well as an overview of some of the innovative projects in the field of informal music education, a short summary of relevant scholarly literature in the field is presented and discussed. Furthermore, curricular documents and recent educational policy changes are reviewed in the historical context to provide a better understanding of the driving forces of music education in Poland with examples of recent educational projects. Finally, the chapter discusses possible future directions for composition, improvisation, and creativity in music education in Poland.

Composition in the classroom In Western classical music, the stereotype of a composer working on notation at their desk, similarly as a novelist works on a new chapter, is prominent. Almost every known culture has developed ways to notate and re-create music (Paton, 2012) and composition is certainly a skill that can be taught and that improves with practice (Kaschub & Smith, 2013). However, there are many other ways of engaging with the creative process in music. For example, folk musicians often rely on melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic patterns characteristic of the specific genre as well as the instrument they play, and songwriters commonly choose improvisation with a guitar or piano as their point of departure. Composition can be individual and collective, taking years or even minutes (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). Various studies from different countries reported high effectiveness of group composing, in particular with regard to children (Webster, 2009). From the point of view of praxial music education (Elliott & Silverman, 2015), composition within the classroom setting is a musical action, rather than just an intellectual process preceding music making. Regardless of how long the composing process takes, how we design it as teachers, or if it is meant to fit into the setting of a music class, the “doing” aspect of composing will certainly be apparent and significant (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). Both the element of knowing and doing are essential ingredients of the composing process; DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-28

317

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

composing should rely on “knowing within and of music” and lead to outcomes that incorporate “both a musical product and an expanded self-knowledge for the composer” (Kaschub & Smith, 2013, p. 7).

The place of creativity in contemporary concepts of music education in Poland Recent debates about classroom composing seem to be strongly connected to the growing importance of the general discourse on creativity in education. This context has become increasingly significant over the past two decades due to shifts toward more creative teaching models in educational policies in many countries. Creativity as a concept is multidisciplinary by nature: when it comes to defining creativity in education, all attempts will take us away from the safe shore of any single academic discipline. Nevertheless, in recent years, creativity has become one of the key terms in curricular documents in many European countries (Leong, Burnard, Jeanneret, Leung, & Waugh, 2012) where it is often both one of the outcomes and a desirable ingredient of educational practice (Jeanneret & Forrest, 2008). Despite being emphasized by policy makers as an important ingredient of every child’s education, creativity in schools remains a problematic concept for many teachers, both in terms of teaching methods and assessment. In the 1960s, during the first major reform in the Polish general music education system, the authors of the new pedagogical framework referred both to the theory of aesthetic education and the experience gained from teaching practice as the main pillars of their concept (Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). The changes were the result of an agreement among educators and policy makers, which stated that the existing school curricula for music education did not meet the needs of contemporary students and teachers and had become irrelevant regarding a changing cultural context. In post-war Poland, singing was the only form of musical activity regularly practiced in compulsory schools. The creators of the new Polish concept of music education built on the experience and diversity of foreign music education systems. Some of the major influences that shaped their pedagogical approach were the methodical frameworks proposed by Emil Jaques-Dalcroze, Carl Orff, Zoltan Kodály, James Mursell, Celestine Freinet, and Dmitri Kabalevsky (Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). The next major contribution to the development of general music education in Poland was the “Contemporary Polish Pluralistic Concept of Music Education” introduced by Maria Przychodzińska in the 1970s (Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). Przychodzińska structured the content and classroom activities of music classes according to two major categories: performance expression (singing and ear training, playing instruments, movement with music) and musical creation (free expression as well as teacher-led music creation). An important element of her approach was the integration of music, visual arts, spoken word, literature, movement, dance, film, and theatre, while also retaining specialized education in each of the particular fields (Lipska & Przychodzińska, 1999; Przychodzińska, 1989). An alternative approach was formulated under the name “Cracow Concept of Music Education” (CCME) by a team of musicians and pedagogues from Cracow University led by Zofia Burowska—an influential music theorist and pedagogue (Burowska, Kurcz, & Wilk, 1993). Their concept was based on a diagnostic and experimental study examining two major educational challenges: the effectiveness of music education in training elementary school children’s auditory skills using relative solmization, as proposed by Kodály, and the more established system at the time in Poland, which was the absolute solmization system, and the correlation between musical creativity and the children’s competences related to the perception of music. Based on research results, the first significant attempts to adapt elements of Zoltán Kodály and Carl Orff’s systems into 318

Creativity in the Polish music classroom

general compulsory education in Poland were made. Moreover, Burowska emphasized the importance of the following two forms of educative activity: listening to music and creating music. According to this concept, the autonomous activity of musical creation was supposed to serve as a tool for a better comprehension of music (Burowska, 1980; Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). Since the collapse of communism in Poland in 1989, the educational system has undergone several crucial changes. Actions aimed at integrating the Polish legislative system with the frameworks of the European Union and following EU directives were implemented, particularly through the education system reform that commenced in 1999. The reform introduced a new decentralized structure of the general schooling system and provided new school curricula (Konkol, 2013). In the years 2012–2014, a program designed by Anna Kalarus aiming to investigate the preventive function of creative activities against school stress among schoolchildren was implemented in six primary schools in Cracow. Effects were measured through experimental research. During the program, exercises on the creation of rhythm, melody, dynamics, and other elements of a musical work were proposed as supporting activities in overcoming anxiety caused by public speaking. The program was observed to be successful in lowering measurable stress levels among the participating children. As a result, further active and creative methods of teaching have been developed (Kalarus, 2018). The results of the study emphasized the vital importance of creative musical activities involving composing, singing, playing an instrument, and movement to music in general education (Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). The most recent education reform, published in the fall of 2017, introduced substantial changes to the structure of the Polish educational system. The new national curriculum for music in compulsory education emphasizes creativity as being one of the core ingredients of music classes. According to the authors of the curriculum, the general framework of the document was dictated by new educational strategies and recent research in fields such as pedagogy and music psychology, as well as the needs expressed by schoolteachers. The document puts strong emphasis on the significance of recognizing and understanding the needs of the students (Kołodziejski, Kilbach, Gromek, & Kisiel, 2018), and the authors acknowledge the important role of music education in the process of shaping the pupil’s personality and supporting the development of interpersonal skills. The new curriculum promotes music classes as something that should be provided to every child, regardless of their presumed musical abilities.

Music as a subject in the Polish National Curriculum In the years 1999–2017, the general education system in Poland consisted of three main levels: primary school, lower secondary school, and upper secondary school (Kalarus & Konkol, 2017). The core curriculum for general education (Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland, 2014) indicated that in Grades 1–3 of primary school (ages seven–nine), creativity should be encouraged in music classes through the following activities: creating simple sound illustrations to text and images; creating movement improvisations to music; improvisations using voice and musical instruments within a framework proposed by the teacher. In Grades 4–6 of primary school (ages 10–12), pupils were expected to create their own forms of musical expression, improvisation, and composing of simple musical and choreography structures. More specifically, the pupils were asked to:

• Create simple rhythmic and sound structures, spontaneous accompaniments using musical instruments; create musical illustrations for simple narratives of different kinds, i.e., theatrical scenes, literary texts, and images. 319

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

• Perform movement improvisations to musical pieces. • Perform vocal and instrumental improvisations within a given framework, spontaneously and following the teacher’s instructions, using a set of Orff instruments, or simple instruments of their own design. • Illustrate music through drawings, paintings, writing their own lyrics. In Grades 1–3 of lower secondary school (ages 13–15), pupils were expected to create different forms of musical expressions, such as through games, singing, dance, and writing lyrics, as well as learn the basics of sound recording techniques. In particular, the curriculum suggested activities such as:

• Creating vocal and instrumental musical structures of different kinds and functions (e.g., instrumental accompaniment to songs, musical illustrations to text and other art forms, songwriting). • Simple group and solo improvisations. After the most recent reform in 2017, the core of the Polish system of general education now consists of pre-school institutions, eight years of primary school, and four years of general secondary school (Eurydice, 2023). Primary schooling is divided into two stages: the first stage (Grades 1–3, pupils aged from 7 to 9), offering integrated teaching in the elementary classroom (no subject division), and the second stage (Grades 4–8, ages 10–15), in which subject teaching is provided. In primary school, music classes are only a part of the curriculum in Grades 4–7 through 1 hour per week lessons. In secondary school, music as a subject may be offered for one year, 1 hour per week, but only as an alternative to other subjects, such as fine arts, philosophy, Latin, and ancient culture (Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland, 2019). According to the curriculum, the main task of music classes in compulsory schools is to foster the children’s sensitivity, imagination, and creativity. The core curriculum specifies five main areas of music activities: singing, playing instruments, listening to music, movement to music, and creating music. In Grades 1–3 of primary school, the pupils are expected to create simple sound illustrations to text and images, movement improvisations to music, and to improvise using voice and instruments, following pre-established rules. In Grades 4–7, the children should be prepared for more advanced forms of individual and group artistic expression through improvisation and composition of simple sound and movement structures. They are also expected to recognize the characteristics of a given music track and experiment with combining music and literary texts. The core curriculum document emphasizes the importance of the artistic quality of music education in all the specified fields (Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland, 2018). Music education in secondary schools is expected to further develop the pupils’ theoretical and practical competencies in music. Moreover, the students are expected to actively participate in artistic projects in order to explore, study, interpret, and create (Kołodziejski et al., 2018). The national curriculum also recognizes the important role of teachers’ musical development. Musical activity is seen as the main tool for introducing necessary theoretical knowledge to the students. It is the teacher’s role to adjust the type and complexity of musical activities in order to optimally support individual pupils according to their skillset. Importantly, the curriculum documents highlight that all introduced musical activities should be joyful for pupils and every child should be given the opportunity for creative expression.

320

Creativity in the Polish music classroom

Composition in the broader context of Polish national education Traditionally, “classroom composing” is a very rarely used term in pedagogy in Polish subject literature, usually replaced by other, more general expressions related to children’s creativity. “Composing” in Poland is associated rather with higher professional music education. The new Polish National Curriculum for music in compulsory schools, despite its strong emphasis on supporting pupils’ creativity, remains true to this tradition and does not use the term composition (in Polish: komponowanie), substituting it for instance with “creating simple musical structures” (Kołodziejski et al., 2018). It is worth noting here that music-related professions rank very low in terms of social prestige in Poland. According to a recent study conducted by the Polish Music Council, all musicrelated professions, with the only exception of a composer, hold the second-lowest place in the ranking of all professions, scoring higher only than politicians. This places professional musicians lower in the ranking than unqualified physical laborers (Walczak, Wyrzykowska, & Socha, 2016). The relatively strong position of the composer within the spectrum of musicrelated professions, significantly higher than folk musician or DJ, seems to indicate a rather conservative social perception of composing practice as being linked to classical music rather than folk or other contemporary music genres. The above provides an important context for the debate about the importance of music in the Polish general schooling system: the social perception of music as a profession is one of a not very desirable activity, reserved for a small group of extraordinarily gifted individuals committed to becoming professional composers.

Teaching materials for music education in Poland A selection of schoolbooks is available for music teachers in compulsory schools in Poland, varying in quality, especially in terms of sound methodical foundation. The teaching content is usually built around the following five basic forms of musical activities: singing, playing Orff instruments, listening to music, movement to music, and creating music (Przychodzińska, 1989). Although the term “classroom composing” is not commonly used, many of the proposed classroom exercises are based on improvisation, both free and structured—a popular reference is the Carl Orff approach. However, the most popular form of musical activity is singing. It is a popular concern among music teachers that the range of knowledge and skills suggested in the national curriculum as well as in schoolbooks is too broad, considering the limited number of music classes offered in the school week as detailed above.

Recent innovative practices supporting musical creativity of young people in Poland In this section, we present three innovative projects in the field of informal music education implemented in Poland in the recent years. Each of the projects reached out to a slightly different age group: 7–14-year old (“Dream Up”), 7–18-year old (“Grajmy w szkole”), and 13–21-year old (“Imagine”) and was open for participants regardless of their former musical training. The projects relied mostly on extracurricular musical activities, although in one case (“Grajmy w szkole”), the design of the project was meant to also improve the musical infrastructure within public schools and was considered an extension of regular music classes rather than a self-standing initiative in informal education. The projects can be seen as a response to the concerns formulated and distinctly expressed by many educators and scholars in Poland over at least two decades. Andrzej Rakowski, in

321

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

his widely quoted essay published in 2010, refers to the contemporary condition of general music education in Poland as “national failure” (Rakowski, 2010). According to Rakowski, the main systemic issues responsible for the crisis are, first, a badly designed teacher training system as a result of assigning the responsibility for music teacher education to the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, while compulsory schools remain within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Education. Secondly, he comments on the low quality or even complete absence of music classes in early childhood education up to the third grade of primary school. Research reports emphasize the urgent need of establishing nationwide programs supporting music and arts education in compulsory schools (Krajewski & Schmidt, 2014). A 2016 nationwide study of the level of musical competence among pupils in primary school Grades 1–3 showed that the average level of competences related to perception of music measured with a specially designed test (TMUP) for this age group is lower than ten years before (Weiner & Waluga, 2016). Andrzej Białkowski and Viola Łabanow point to the lack of diversity in terms of repertoire and low sensitivity toward technological and cultural changes, as well as the lack of a consistent pedagogical framework including all levels of general compulsory education as the major issues of national music education policies (Łabanow-Jastrząb & Białkowski, 2020). The Polish Music Council has been involved in research since 2006, aimed at providing substantial data for a change of paradigm in Polish general music education (Rakowski, 2010). Unfortunately, none of the above efforts has resulted in a sustainable change in educational policies.

Grajmy w szkole One of the recent attempts to support children’s musical creativity in Polish schools, and make it more accessible to a larger part of the population in Poland, was the “Grajmy w szkole” (“Let’s play at school”) program (Grajmywszkole, n.d.), which consisted of three basic components representing three different forms of music making in schools: school bands, school choirs, and school brass bands. All musical genres were welcome to be included in the repertoire, and even during the preliminary part of the program a wide variety of musical styles was represented, including classical music, Polish traditional music, brass bands, hip-hop, and rock. “Grajmy w szkole” aimed at fostering the creativity of the pupils by providing the necessary space and resources. This was especially the case within the school bands component, as original compositions from the students became a key ingredient of the project activities. This form of classroom composing resulted in several original songs being written by school band members and performed, in several cases with a high level of proficiency, during the final concert to an enthusiastic audience. “Grajmy w szkole” derived from a social media campaign launched in January 2017 by an unprecedented coalition of educational and art institutions as well as independent non-profit organizations active in the music education field, such as the Polish Association for Music Education (PSEiAM), the “Music is for All” Foundation, JM Poland, and Fundacja Nowa Orkiestra Kameralna (The New Chamber Orchestra Foundation), united under the flag of the Polish Music Council. Initially triggered by the launch of new nationwide educational policies that reduced the number of music classes in public education, it soon went viral, gaining interest and support from music teachers, educators, and even celebrity musicians. The campaign turned out to be a strong voice demanding a more inclusive, diverse, and practice-based music education accessible to a larger population of children. Directed by the Polish Music Council and the Institute of Music and Dance, the program “Grajmy w szkole” received funding from the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage and also gained 322

Creativity in the Polish music classroom

supported from the Ministry of National Education. The preliminary program was launched in September 2019, involving new partners: The National Forum of Music in Wrocław and Dolnośląskie Towarzystwo Muzyczne (The Music Society of Lower Silesia), providing funding for 35 school ensembles in different parts of Poland, reaching 1,104 pupils and 64 teachers. The initial project design placed high emphasis on creating a clear and sustainable framework for the program’s further development, based on constant evaluation, with practice- and research-based knowledge at the core. Institutions and organizations active in the field of formal and informal music education, representatives of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, Ministry of National Education and independent experts, as well as schoolteachers, were involved. Along with the program, a nationwide research project was launched to better diagnose the needs and challenges of music teachers across Poland and shed new light on the status of music classes within a broader educational context. The collected research and evaluation data was meant to provide a substantial foundation for future development of the nationwide program. Due to a relatively short duration of the data collection period restricted by the pilot program’s timeline, the overall response rate was lower than expected. However, a response rate of 54% from a representative sample of primary schools brought findings that appear to support or even strengthen the alarming conclusions drawn from previous nationwide studies, including (Socha, Świtała, & Walczak, 2020):

• Only 14.23% of the primary schools included in the study had a dedicated music classroom.

• Only less than 9% of schools had recording equipment or other digital tools for creating music.

• Listening to classical music recordings and learning music theory elements were being mentioned as the predominant activities in music classes, much more often than any form of music making. • Overall, 49% of music teachers expressed the opinion that more time within the school schedule should be dedicated to music making and school band activities. Diversity and pluralism among the stakeholders were a strong advantage of the preliminary phase of the program. However, an apparent lack of ready-to-apply formal procedures and legal solutions for this kind of broad coalition in Poland led to many unprecedented problems and growing tensions between the institutions and organizations involved. After a spectacular start, the program began to struggle with fundamental issues, such as a lack of sustainable funding and an apparent lack of agreement between stakeholders upon the basic principles and goals of general music education in Poland.

Dream up Another example of innovative practices in Poland with children’s musical creativity and classroom composition was “Dream Up,” an “international programme for education through artistic practice” (Group.bnpparibas, n.d.). This program for informal music education was conducted in Warsaw between 2016 and 2017 by the Music is for All Foundation, in association with the BGŻ BNP Paribas Foundation. The program aimed to provide extracurricular music classes to children aged 7–14 attending after-school centers in an underprivileged district of Warsaw. The main principles of this applied pedagogical approach included having an 323

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

open-ended learning process based on the concept of practical curriculum making (Elliott & Silverman, 2015) and following the children’s individual preferences in terms of musical genre and choice of instrument. The children were offered free access to a variety of musical instruments, and classroom activities were divided into three main categories:

• Musical exploration—understood as discovering the sounds and qualities of particular instruments as well as exploring the potential of collaborations in small and bigger groups.

• Musical improvisation. • Composition.

The music lessons were taught by three educators twice a week and attendance was voluntary (Sarnowska, Switala, & Wyrzykowska, 2018). Although the main emphasis of the program was on the social benefits of inclusive music education, the quality of the musical outcomes remained high and the participating children took part in several concerts, sharing the stage with professional musicians. In particular cases, children who, according to their class teachers’ reports, had not been showing much interest in music in regular school education, changed their attitudes significantly during the program. Some of them achieved similar results in terms of playing technique and memorizing music as their peers in music schools within a relatively short time, despite having fewer classes and often not being granted access to musical instruments at home. The repertoire of the classes was very diverse and open to the participants’ suggestions, creating a space where all musical genres were welcomed and appreciated. Interestingly, the children seemed to openly prefer acoustic arrangements of their favorite hits, newly created with the teachers, to the original recordings. Reading music notation was not obligatory, but most of the participating children were eager to use both classical and alternative forms of graphic notation to some extent. Younger participants became deeply involved in creating their own sheet music, usually in the form of abstract graphic representations of musical structures. In some cases, participants were interested in learning traditional notation in order to write down their own compositions—in their own words, “like a proper composer” (Sarnowska, Świtała, & Wyrzykowska, 2017). Although improvisation was usually the point of departure in the sessions, both individual and collective composition was introduced during the classes. Sometimes participants brought pre-composed ideas to the classes: melody parts, whole phrases, or chords. The role of the teachers as facilitators of this process was mainly to notice and highlight structures in the children’s improvisations that seemed to have a potential to be developed into a full composition. For instance, the class might have started with a pre-composed phrase from one of the participants, then the other children would freely choose instruments and try improvising together, along with the initial phrase. Often there would be a discussion about which instruments worked well in this setting and which didn’t, with suggestions for trying out other instruments. The student who was the “leading composer” would usually have the definitive decision regarding the final choice of the instrumentation. The children were usually very clear about which elements or moments in the improvisation they liked, and which they did not. During public performances, which were part of the program, the children often prioritized their own compositions over other composers’ (and songwriters’) repertoire. Activities related to composition and improvisation were essential ingredients in the music lessons. Over time, music turned out to be an effective supporting tool for building new social relations, especially across age differences, and a positive change of social attitudes among the 324

Creativity in the Polish music classroom

participants of the music classes was observed (Sarnowska et al., 2017). The results highlight the significance of providing stable funding for informal music education. Many of the positive outcomes observed can only be achieved via long-term initiatives.

Imagine Poland “Imagine” is described as an “international all-styles competition and training program for young musicians between ages of 13 and 21” (Imaginefestival, n.d.) organized by JM International (Jeunesses Musicales International). Imagine Poland is the Polish edition of the competition, facilitated by JM Poland. Young bands from all parts of the country sign up to take part in the national competition. The event is open to solo artists and youth bands, up to eight members, and consists of three rounds: online eliminations, regional auditions, and a national finale. The winner of the national finale represents Poland during the international Imagine Festival. There are no limitations regarding music genre chosen by the participants; however, all songs must be original compositions, or original interpretations of other artist’s songs (Imaginefestival, n.d.). Participation is free and professional sound and light equipment as well as backline (instruments, amplifiers, stands, etc.) are provided by the organizers. The first edition of Imagine Poland took place in 2017 and the national finale was broadcast by Polish Radio III. The competition clearly emphasizes the value of participants’ own musical compositions and the vast majority of repertoire presented was original. The high artistic level of the performances recognized and praised by the jury, as well as the impressive technical skills of the performers, indicate a strong need for this kind of initiative for empowering the diverse voices of young people in Poland. Formal education in Poland does not provide a reliable system of support for extracurricular, group music-making activities, such as school bands of any kind, and most schools can’t offer suitable rehearsal and practice space for pupils eager to follow their musical passions. Just like many other programs in informal music education, Imagine Poland has been struggling with sustainable funding; hence, its social outreach is limited and cannot be considered a sufficient substitute of long-term programs supported by the state. Despite the challenging circumstances, the young Polish band Red Lust won second place in the Imagine International Final 2021 (imaginemusicexperience, n.d.), which seems to be a clear sign of the significant potential of the young Polish music scene.

Future directions The wide recognition of musical practice as an essential ingredient of inclusive, democratic music education, presented by the International Music Council as a human right (Imc-cim, n.d.), has opened new perspectives for classroom composition. Considering the wide range of benefits of practice-based music education, it seems even more necessary to emphasize the importance of making music education more inclusive and accessible to the majority of the population. In Poland, many schoolteachers still openly prioritize children whom they refer to as “talented,” despite the growing evidence of “talent” being a rather problematic term (Jaap & Patrick, 2015). While the majority of arts teachers in compulsory Polish schools mention creativity and fostering students’ self-confidence as one of the key educational goals, at the same time only 25% acknowledge supporting the artistic development of “not-talented” pupils as important (Krajewski & Schmidt, 2014). Even less (11%) view empowering pupils in terms of self-expression through art as significant. 325

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol

A recent report from a nationwide research project in Polish compulsory schools conducted among Grade 4 pupils (age ten), investigating their competence in fields such as understanding of musical structure, sound, meaning, and emotions carried by music, has shown the practice of music making to be the most significant factor for the above competencies to be developed (Weiner & Waluga, 2016). Recommendations from the 2017 IIIrd Polish Music Convention, organized by the Polish Institute of Music and Dance, highly emphasize the necessity of re-evaluating core classroom practices with music making in classrooms in mind, as well as providing more opportunities for children to experience live music performances within and outside of the school environment, this in addition to access to trained and competent music teachers on all educational levels, including early childhood education (Waluga, Paterek, Świtała, & Zalewski, 2017). Classroom composition, as an essential creative activity in music, can be highly beneficial for classroom practice and should be considered an important ingredient of teacher training programs (Younker, 2013). However, this great potential of classroom composition in compulsory education requires the observed shift in paradigms toward more creative teaching to be followed by sustainable nationwide programs providing inclusive practice-based music education to large populations of school children.

Reflective questions 1 What are the main obstacles for making music education more inclusive in Poland? 2 What is the relationship between current educational policies regarding music and classroom practice in Polish compulsory schools? 3 What are the desired directions for future reforms in the field of compulsory music education in Poland?

References Burowska, Z. (1980). Słuchanie i tworzenie muzyki w szkole. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warsaw. Burowska, Z., Kurcz, J., & Wilk, A. (1993). Krakowska koncepcja wychowania muzycznego w świetle przeprowadzonych badań. The Academy of Music in Kraków, Kraków. Elliott, D., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, New York. Eurydice. (2017). The Polish education system in brief 2017/2018–2022/23. https://eurydice.org.pl/ system-edukacji-w-polsce/the-polish-education-system-in-brief-202122 Grajmy w szkole. (n.d.). NIMiT. Retrieved 19 April 2023, from https://nimit.pl/dzialalnosc/grajmy-wszkole/ Dream Up, the international programme for education through artistic practice, is renewed for another three years. (n.d.). BNP Paribas. Retrieved 19 April 2023, from https://group.bnpparibas/en/news/ dream-up-international-programme-education-artistic-practice-renewed-years Imagine. (n.d.). Retrieved 19 April 2023, from http://www.imaginefestival.net/info/what-is-imagine imaginemusicexperience. (n.d.). Belgium indie-pop group Ventus take the international Imagine Music Experience title. Retrieved September 12, 2021, from https://www.imaginemusicexperience.net/post/ belgium-indie-pop-group-ventus-take-the-international-imagine-music-experience-title Five Music Rights. (n.d.). International Music Council. Retrieved 19 April 2023, from https://www.imccim.org/about-imc-separator/five-music-rights.html Imagine. (n.d.). Retrieved 19 April 2023, from http://www.imaginefestival.net/info/participate Jaap, A., & Patrick, F. (2015). Teachers’ concepts of musical talent and nurturing musical ability: Music learning as exclusive or as opportunity for all? Music Education Research, 17(3), 262–277. Jeanneret, N., & Forrest, D. (2008). Policy and music education: A ‘New’Culture of creativity. In C. C. Leung, L. C. R. Yip, & T. Imada (Eds.), Music education, policy and implementation: International perspectives. Hirosaki University Press, Hirosaki.

326

Creativity in the Polish music classroom Kalarus, A. (2018). Muzyczne działania percepcyjno-zabawowo-twórcze jako formy aktywności prewencyjnej wobec szkolnego stresu uczniów szkół podstawowych [Perception, Game, Creative Music Activities as Prevention against Stress in Primary School Students]. The Academy of Music in Kraków, Kraków. Kalarus, A., & Konkol, G. K. (2017). Music education in Poland in the historical aspect and the present day. HERJ Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.14413/ HERJ/7/3/2 Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2013). Embracing composition in music teacher education. In M. Kaschub & J. Smith (Eds.), Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. (pp. 3–13). Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199832286.001.0001 Kołodziejski, M., Kilbach, G., Gromek, M., & Kisiel, M. (2018). Regulation of the ministry of national education. https://www.ore.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/muzyka.-pp-z-komentarzem.-szkolapodstawowa.pdf Konkol, G. K. (2013). Integracja europejska – Proces Boloński. Implikacje dla edukacji muzycznej [European Integration – Bologna Process. Implications for Music Education]. Wydawnictwo Athenae Gedanenses, Gdańsk. Krajewski, M., & Schmidt, F. (2014). Raport końcowy z badań nad procesem wprowadzania nowej podstawy programowej z plastyki i muzyki. Retrieved 19 April 2023, from: http://mkidn.gov.pl/media/ docs/2015/20150325_raport_koncowy.doc Leong, S., Burnard, P., Jeanneret, N., Leung, B. W., & Waugh, C. (2012). Assessing creativity in music: International perspec­tives and practices. In G. E. McPherson & G. E. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education, 2. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfor dhb/9780199928019.013.0026 Lipska, E., & Przychodzińska, M. (1999). Drogi do muzyki. Metodyka i materiały repertuarowe. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warsaw. Łabanow-Jastrząb, V., & Białkowski, A. (2020). Powszechna edukacja muzyczna. Krótka diagnoza. Fundacja “Muzyka jest dla wszystkich”, Warsaw. https://www.muzykajest.pl/muzyka-w-edukacji/ analizy-i-badania/viola-labanow-andrzej-bialkowski-powszechna-edukacja-muzyczna-krotka-diagnoza/ Paton, R. (2012). Lifemusic: Connecting people to time. Archive Publishing, Dorset. Przychodzińska, M. (1989). Wychowanie muzyczne – idee, treści, kierunki rozwoju. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warsaw. Rakowski, A. (2010). Powszechna edukacja muzyczna historia narodowego niepowodzenia. In A. Białkowski, M. Grusiewicz, & M. Michalak (Eds.), Edukacja Muzyczna w Polsce. Diagnozy, debaty, aspiracje (pp. 119–129). Fundacja ‘Muzyka jest dla wszystkich’, Warsaw. Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland (2014). Retrieved on 19 April 2023, from: https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja-i-nauka/rozporzadzenie-ministra-edukacji-narodowej-z-30-maja-2014-r-zmieniajace-rozporzadzenie-w-sprawie-podstawy-programowej-wychowania-przedszkolnego-oraz-ksztalcenia-ogolnego-w-poszczegolnych-typach-szkol-dz-u-poz-803 Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland (2018). Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Poz. 467. Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 30 stycznia 2018 r. W sprawie podstawy programowej kształcenia ogólnego dla liceum ogólnokształcącego, technikum oraz branżowej szkoły II stopnia. http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20180000467/ O/D20180467.pdf Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Poland. (2019). Dziennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Poz. 639. Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 3 kwietnia 2019 r. W sprawie ramowych planów nauczania dla publicznych szkół, p. 12. http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/ isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20190000639/O/D20190639.pdf Sarnowska, M., Świtała, A., & Wyrzykowska, K. (2017). Participatory approach in music education and its influences on social behaviour and participation in culture. Fundacja “Muzyka jest dla wszystkich”, Warsaw. Sarnowska, M., Switala, A., & Wyrzykowska, K. M. (2018). Participatory Approach in Music Education. Searching for Guidelines for a Dynamic and Diverse Learning Environment. In D. Forrest (Ed.), Proceedings from the 33rd ISME World Conference. Socha, Z., Świtała, A., & Walczak, W. (2020). Diagnoza zasobów infrastrukturalno-kadrowych powszechnej edukacji muzycznej w Polsce. The Institute of Music and Dance, Polish Music Council, Warsaw.

327

Adam Switala and Dr. hab Gabriela Karin Konkol Walczak, W., Wyrzykowska, K. M., & Socha, Z. (2016). Dynamika karier muzyków w obszarze całego środowiska muzycznego. Polish Music Council, Warsaw. Waluga, A., Paterek, K., Świtała, A., & Roy Zalewski, W. (2017). Muzyka dla dzieci—Rekomendacje (A. Waluga, Ed.). The Institute of Music and Dance, Warsaw. Webster, P. R. (2009). Children as creative thinkers in music. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 421–428). Oxford University Press, New York. Weiner, A., & Waluga, A. (2016). Kompetencje muzyczne absolwentów I etapu edukacyjnego podstawowych szkół ogólnokształcących i ich wybrane determinanty. The Institute of Music and Dance, Warsaw. ISBN: 978-83-941622-4-5 http://imit.org.pl/uploads/materials/files/kompetencje%20muzyczne.pdf Younker, B. A. (2013). Enacting the vision: Creating and sustaining meaningful composition programs. In M. Kaschub & J. Smith (Eds.), Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. (pp. 341–357). Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199832286.003.0020

328

INTERLUDE VII

The Role of Digital Technology in Classroom Composing Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes

The entrance of new media has always provoked discussions about how digital technology can serve and affect music making as well as how we may teach music in the classroom. Reflecting on the role of music technology is specifically important within composition as technology can open up whole new soundworlds to explore and offer new tools and methods of musical creation, as can be seen right from the beginnings of experimental music technology in Musique concrète and later within popular music with bands such as The Beatles. Composer Pierre Schaeffer described seeking out sounds that could be manipulated and therefore “needed tools that would permit sound manipulation and modification, with the objective of producing sounds that will be perceived primarily as forms and structure and less as anecdotes or language references” (Terugi, 2007, p. 2014). Over the last 20–30 years, digital technological advancements have drastically changed how we engage with music both inside and outside of the classroom (Green, 2002; Savage, 2012). The dawn of microprocessor technologies introduced a new prism (Boehm, Hepworth-Sawyer, Hughes, & Ziemba, 2018) by which music recordings could be conceived and constructed (Theberge, 1997). The democratization of composing that Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) facilitated spawned countless new genres and sub-genres of popular music in the 1980s and 1990s. The increased affordability and availability of equipment and software have also meant that certain forms of music making have become more accessible, not just for young people, but also for those with disabilities (Cormier, 2016). Despite the increased use of music technology for composing both professionally and within the classroom, it is still an under-researched area. This interlude offers a space for discussion on the roles digital technology can have on composing in schools, highlighting not just the advantages of technology, but also the potential challenges it presents.

Digital technology: an opportunity for change? Music and music education continue to be bound with cultural values. As a result, music education can become politically charged, with differing views about what and how music should be taught in the classroom. This has especially been the case with the introduction of technology into the classroom, causing a great number of debates in the music education community (inter alia Cain, 2004; Folkestad, Hargreaves, & Lindstrom, 1998; Green, 2002; Kardos, DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-29

329

Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes

2012; Nilsson & Folkestad, 2005; Reynolds, 2005; Savage, 2005, 2010, 2012; Vulliamy, 1980; Wise et al., 2011; Wise, Greenwood, & Davis, 2011). The global COVID-19 pandemic has also caused radical changes within the field of music education, “accelerating a ‘turn’ toward online digital musical experiences” (Camlin & Lisboa, 2021, p. 129). Since “live” practices of music making in the classroom were forbidden, the possibility of using computer devices or mobile phones for creative music making stepped into the foreground. Not only could students download apps and software (free of charge), but even more importantly, they could create and share their music from home online. Digital music technology has opened doors for many young people who may not have been able to engage in traditional or formal music education due to physical, social, or financial barriers (Folkestad et al., 1998; Kardos, 2012; Nilsson & Folkestad, 2005; Reynolds, 2005). This more inclusive and “egalitarian” approach (Folkestad et al., 1998, p. 83) promotes music education as “a living force that continues to drive and shape people’s lives in so many ways” (Mills, 2005, p. 5). Not being confined to the available instruments in the classroom means that students can use technology to create a much wider range of musical styles in the classroom, some of which may be more “culturally relevant” (Gall & Breeze, 2005, p. 427), thus linking the music students listen to outside of the classroom with what they are creating inside the classroom (Wise et al., 2011). Moreover, computer programs such as Garage Band and Logic Pro, also known as digital audio workspaces (DAWs), allow students to enter the world of music production, as they can experiment with plugin software, such as compressors, equalizers, and modulation effects, including chorus, flanger, and phaser, to create variations of sound. However, some teachers believe that the drive to modernize the music classroom with the use of digital technology undermines fundamental concepts, traditional values, and principles of music education (inter alia Cain, 2004; Savage, 2012; Wise, 2016). An example of this within composition is the notion that students must first learn to play an acoustic musical instrument and have a high level of Western classical music notation and theory understanding before being able to compose, despite links between instrumental proficiency and composing ability being inconclusive (inter alia Mellor, 2008; Seddon & O’Neill, 2003; Seddon & O’Neill, 2006). Advancements in DAWs have allowed beginner musicians to create music through the use of pre-composed samples and loops that can be moved and layered to compose a convincing piece of music, with limited prior knowledge of music theory or how to write it down in Western classical notation. However, it can be argued that students still benefit from more traditional prior music-related knowledge when using a DAW, for example when using the piano roll function. Through his study of Hip-Hop Djing, Katz (2012) viewed the DAW as an instrument in its own right. He suggests that instruments are classed as such by following a social process and has the following to say about what criteria constitute a musical instrument:

• • • • •

It involves real-time sound manipulation. It has a body of techniques developed specifically for it. It has its own distinct sound. The object itself is either specifically designed or modified for making music. The sound it generates is considered to be music by a community of listeners. (Katz, 2012, p. 62)

This list is problematic for a DAW because, although you can use real-time manipulation when programming automated movement, it is still programming, which occurs before the music is heard. Interestingly, Duve showed in a study on group composing with digital media that, on a visual level, the laptop becomes an active co-creator of the composition process and 330

The role of digital technology in classroom composing

is actively included by the students (leaning forward, looking at the screen) as well as excluded (positioning away from the laptop) (Duve, 2020). The use of DAWs raises the question as to what constitutes the act of composing; as Cain (2004) questions, “Does the term ‘composing’ include manipulating sound samples composed by other people?” (p. 217). Although the use of sampling and loops is commonplace within the professional music sphere,1 their use in the classroom may challenge traditional notions of composing (Gall & Breeze, 2007). The use of pre-composed loops can remove some of the key decisions composers make when creating a new piece, such as meter, key, chord sequence, and melodic line. Instead, students must engage in the act of listening and make these decisions aurally, perhaps through a trial-and-error approach that Bell refers to as “click and consequence” (Bell, 2018, p. 91), or Green’s “haphazard learning,” a phrase of her own coining (Green, 2008, p. 23). This trial-and-error approach to composing is commonplace in music technology and encouraged by some teachers of secondary aged children (Bolden, 2009). However, the process of substantial learning through trial and error requires determination and strength of character (Sternberg, 2003, p. 96), which some young people might not possess, thus hindering certain students from meaningful learning processes with technology. Therefore, how technology is introduced, used, and supported by the teacher within the classroom as a creative tool is important to consider. Underlying these discussions is what music educators consider the purpose of technology to be in the music classroom. Does it open up new possibilities for engaging with music in new ways, with music technology being valued as a form of musicking (Small, 1998), or is music technology a tool for teaching traditional musical concepts? Savage (2007) termed these two types of uses of technology in the music classroom as: 1 Extrinsic – Technology is used as a method to support teaching of traditional musical tasks. 2 Intrinsic – Technology is used to explore new possibilities and sounds. Savage (2007) discovered that many music teachers in the UK preferred taking an extrinsic approach, allowing them to teach in ways that “they have always done” (p. 286), and that digital technology was viewed as a tool to speed the process up. Some have criticized the use of technology as merely reinforcing “traditional compositional practices” (Beckstead, 2001, p. 47) and norms (Savage, 2012; Wise, 2016), instead preferring to promote technology as a way to rethink music education and “offer something different” (Wise et al., 2011, p. 119). It is important to consider and perhaps even challenge how we view music technology and what we believe the educational goals to be when introducing a new piece of technology into the classroom when composing.

Does technology change how students compose? Technology has become fundamental to the practices of many composers (Folkestad et al., 1998); however, it potentially “opens up a very different kind of access to the composition process” (Gall & Breeze, 2005, p. 430). How a piece of software is set up might influence the parameters of the music. For example, when setting up a new “project” in Logic Pro, the program sets the music to 120 beats per minute. Similarly, Sibelius asks users to indicate the key and time signature of the music at the start of creating a new score. This sets strict boundaries about the music being created from the very start and often requires a certain level of expertise within the computer programs in order to break or change the standard parameters. The artist Burial used the audio editing software Sound Forge to create his groundbreaking album Untrue, in which, unlike most other music programs, there was not a grid to snap 331

Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes

musical events too. Instead, Burial created his music by lining up his audio samples by sight and through feel (Burial, 2012). By co-opting Sound Forge, which is not intended to create music but rather edits, Burial created a unique sonic palette and rhythmical feel to his music: I’ve seen people using sequencers and I’ve tried hard to use them but it’s blocks in different colours and I’m only used to just seeing the waves. I don’t need to listen much to the drums because I know they look nice, like a fishbone, rigged up to be kind of skitty, sharp. (Burial, 2012) Reinforcing Burial’s assertion that seeing the colored MIDI blocks is detrimental to creativity when using a sequencer, Zagorski-Thomas (2014) states that the MIDI blocks in a conventional DAW’s design “would seem to encourage the user to think in terms of sound as an object rather than a stream” (Zagorski-Thomas, 2014) and that the “choice of visuals, of what is represented, when and how, is a very powerful influence on the user” (ibid., pp. 134–135). This concept of separate sound objects is also observed by Marrington: The capacity to zoom out of the arrange window deconstructs the established notion of the composition as a design made apparent through unfolding in time and emphasizes the composition as object in visual space – in other words, the piece is essentially a block to be sculpted. (Marrington, 2016) Considering if and how creativity might be influenced by the visual setup of a piece of software is an interesting point of reflection. One significant benefit of music technology is the playback option, allowing students to listen to and edit their work with ease. The role of “playing, listening and evaluating” (p.88) was noted by Folkestad et al. (1998) as an important part of composing with digital technology. However, the visual aspect of the software may hinder their ability to listen deeply; therefore, there are plugins for producers that black out the screen while listening to the playback of the recording. If students use the playback function regularly on a DAW or notation software program, it might be worth turning off the screen or asking them to listen to it without looking at the screen and asking them if they notice/hear anything different. Recent research on composing with technology reveals how the composing process can be altered as a result of the construction and the limitations of the software. Devaney (2019) discovered that unrealistic MIDI sounds could discourage students from using certain instrumental sounds in their compositions due to not liking what they hear via the MIDI playback function. Students in the study discussed how the “fake” sounds did not inspire new ideas or motivate them to compose. In some circumstances, this encouraged students to select different instruments or sounds for their composition that sounded better on the software rather than what might work best in a live performance. Related to this disconnect between the expectations of a live performance and the electronic playback is the fact that computer software can play incredibly complex music accurately that may be impossible to play on acoustic instruments. This was noted in a report by the UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills: “The particular timbre and characteristics of each instrument were not exploited and the music produced was extremely difficult to play on the instrument chosen” (Ofsted, 2009, p. 35). Learning the practicalities of instruments and the limitations of musicians can influence compositional decisions. Likewise, there are many subtleties and effects that acoustic musicians can do, but that music technology cannot produce very easily; 332

The role of digital technology in classroom composing

for example, music that involves extended techniques, changes to timbre, or music that moves between pulse and pulseless sections. This can lead to students creating music that, although intended to be for acoustic instruments, is created to get the best version of playback and works to the strength of the particular software.

Barriers to digital technology in the classroom As music in schools becomes more socially responsive, inclusive, and diverse over time, music educators have had to respond to these changes by considering the place of music technology in the classroom. Although music technology opens new routes to music making for people who may have been otherwise excluded from making their own music, there are still areas to be carefully considered in ensuring equality of access, as access to digital technology is still far from equal. Although the pandemic seemed to be a catalyst for the exploration of the new possibilities offered by digital learning settings, it also highlighted the digital poverty and inequality that exists both internationally and on a local level within countries and communities. Barriers to access may include the cost of digital technology, accessibility of the types of equipment, training and expertise to use it, as well as attitudes and confidence toward using new technology. When digital media are used in the music classroom, the question of how to select and adjust the technology to the needs of the setting and the students is crucial (Dammers, 2013). Altogether, technology should be selected in a way that it always “serves music instruction (and not vice versa)” (ibid.). Music teachers need to carefully consider the desired learning outcomes, as well as students’ skills and prior knowledge, the available space and current hardware resources (see Dammers, 2013, p. 201), as well as budget. Unsurprisingly, many music teachers have expressed feeling uncertain about using new technology due to limited experience with music technology and a lack of training in how to use it in the classroom. In some areas such as mobile devices, technological advancements take place very quickly, meaning that, even if teachers receive adequate training, it may be out of date in a few years, therefore requiring continued training opportunities. One challenge that comes with composing in technology-based environments is how to motivate students in revising and reworking their ideas over time. There can be a tendency when working with digital technology for students to delete and re-write musical ideas very quickly, or for students to complete works very quickly without taking care to evaluate and amend their work. Burnard and Younker (2004) identified different composing processes, with “linear” composing being described when the process of composing is broken down into individual elements with no re-visiting of any ideas once they are created and finished. Could the affordances of the DAW software create more “linear” composers? Therefore, the role of the teacher in facilitating students’ creative processes through offering feedback and guidance remains similarly important as with acoustic composition: While technology can be extremely useful in allowing students to successfully compose, it is still just a tool. The teacher’s ability to understand his or her students and how to best support their learning is still the critical factor. (Dammers, 2013, p. 209) As discussed above, some music software programs can be incredibly narrow and limiting for students’ creativity, however more complex and professional software programs may overwhelm students with too many options. Therefore, depending on the abilities of the students, finding a careful balance between openness and structure is important. 333

Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes

Another area to acknowledge is the potentially gendered division of music technology. Similarly, with composing, research has shown that, in many countries, women are significantly underrepresented in the music technology industry (Yorkshire Sound Women Network, 2018). Is this because young women and girls do not have access to music technology in school, or is there something about music technology that is excluding them? Traditionally, music technology has been viewed as “masculine” (Boise, 2018, p. 33), with men seen as “expert users” (Armstrong, 2011, p. 2) compared to women. A small amount of research discovered that teachers found female students to be reluctant in engaging with music technology: “Where boys automatically use the equipment, you have to lead the girls to it like a horse to water” (Comber, Hargreaves, & Colley, 1993, p. 132). One suggestion to this is that boys often have wider access to technology such as playing video games (Pegley, 2006) so are more familiar with it. In light of this previous research, we must ask if composing in the classroom becomes solely based on digital technology and whether this puts female students at a disadvantage. It is important to actively encourage and support young girls and women to engage in music technology as a medium to create music, allowing them to explore their own self-expression and open new possibilities, as well as provide opportunities for musical creation in other ways.

Reflections moving forward Technological advances originating from the industry will continue to change the way music is made all over the world and therefore need to be addressed in the way music is taught in schools. There is no doubt that technology has the creative potential to open doors for many young people who may be unable to engage in music making through more traditional routes. Whereas the use of digital technology might not be optimal for every composition project, it can provide many advantages (Dammers, 2013, p. 201). However, the use of technology for composing does not go without its challenges, all of which should be considered and reflected upon as any new method or tool for teaching should be. Knowing that many classroom music teachers often come from a background in classical performance (Barrett, 2006; Odam, 2000; Sheridan & Byrne, 2002), training and ongoing support for music teachers are essential to upskill the workforce to respond to the changes in digital technology. Having a more integrated approach to digital technology, so that it can be used alongside other creative practices (such as group composing), has the potential to offer a diversity of opportunities for musical engagement, thus breaking down creative boundaries. The ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic has caused radical changes within the field of music education, “accelerating a ‘turn’ toward online digital musical experiences” (Camlin & Lisboa, 2021, p. 129). Ongoing projects and research continue to be conducted, reflecting on the role(s) of technology, musical creativity, and composing both within formal education and non-formal educational spaces. Even if the use of digital technology in educational settings is not new, this perceived digital “turn” intensified by the pandemic “is likely to influence the future of music education in a variety of complex and inter-connected ways” (Camlin & Lisboa, 2021, p. 129). Perhaps this is the moment in time where music educators must challenge previously held assumptions and beliefs about how music technology can be used in composing and in the classroom, allowing for new creative possibilities.

Note 1 Some examples of sampling in popular music include the use of a free Garage Band drum loop used in 2007 song “Umbrella” sung by Rihanna, as well as “Levels” by Avicii and “Good Feeling” by Flo Rida (2011), both featuring the same vocal sample from “Something Got A Hold On Me” (1962) by Etta James.

334

The role of digital technology in classroom composing

References Armstrong, V. (2011). Technology and the gendering of music education. Farnham: Ashgate. Barrett, M. (2006). Creative collaboration: An ‘eminence’ study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356060618 Beckstead, D. (2001). Will technology transform music education? Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399 Bell, A. P. (2018). Dawn of the DAW: The studio as musical instrument. New York: Oxford University Press. Boehm, C., Hepworth-Sawyer, R., Hughes, N., & Ziemba, D. (2018). The discipline that ‘became’: Developments in music technology in British higher education between 2007 and 2018. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 11(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.11.3.251_1 Boise, S. (2018). Gender inequalities and higher music education: Comparing the UK and Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 35(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051717000134 Bolden, B. (2009). Teaching composing in secondary school: A case study analysis. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 137–152. 10.1017/S0265051709008407 Burial. (2012). Transcript of interview. The Wire. https://www.thewire.co.uk/in-writing/interviews/ burial_unedited-transcript, accessed on 25/07/2022. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2004). Problem-solving and creativity: Insights from students’ individual composing pathways. International Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 59–76. https://doi. org/10.1177/0255761404042375 Cain, T. (2004). Theory, technology and the music curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051704005650 Camlin, D. A., & Lisboa, T. (2021). The digital ‘turn’ in music education (editorial). Music Education Research, 23(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1908792 Comber, C., Hargreaves, D., & Colley, A. (1993). Girls, boys and technology in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 10(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700001583 Cormier, Z. (2016). And on the MiMu gloves … the ingenious devices helping disabled musicians to play again. The Guardian, 27.5.2016. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/27/and-on-themimu-gloves-the-ingenious-devices-helping-disabled-musicians-to-play-again?CMP=share_btn_tw Dammers, R. (2013). Capitalizing on emerging technologies in composition education. In M. Kaschub & J. P. Smith (Eds.), Composing our future. Preparing music educators to teach composition (pp. 201–210). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Devaney, K. (2019). “Waiting for the wow factor”: Perspectives on computer technology in classroom composing. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 12(2), 121–139. Duve, J. (2020). Komponieren am Raster. Fallanalytische Perspektiven auf Prozesse des Musik-Erfindens mit digitalen Medien. In U. Kranefeld & J. Voit (Eds.), Musikunterricht im Modus des MusikErfindens. Fallanalytische Perspektiven (pp. 97–110). Münster: Waxmann. Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindstrom, B. (1998). Compositional strategies in computerbased music-making. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051700003788 Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2005). Music composition lessons: The multimodal affordances of technology. Education Review, 57(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910500278314 Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2007). The sub-culture of music and ICT in the classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390601168015 Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Aldershot: Ashgate. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and school: A new classroom pedagogy. Farnham: Ashgate. Kardos, L. (2012). How music technology can make sound and music worlds accessible to student composers in further education colleges. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 143–151. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051712000186 Katz, M. (2012). Groove music? The art and culture of the hip-hop DJ. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Marrington, M. (2016). Paradigms of music software interface design and musical creativity. In R. Hepworth-Sawyer, J. Hodgson, J. L. Paterson, & R. Toulson (Eds.), Innovation in music II (pp. 52–63). Shoreham-by-sea: FutureTechnology Press. Mellor, L. (2008). Creativity, originality, identity: Investigating computer-based composition in the secondary school. Music Education Research, 10(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802547680 Mills, J. (2005). Music in the school. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

335

Kirsty Devaney, Annette Ziegenmeyer, and Nick Hughes Nilsson, B., & Folkestad, G. (2005). Children’s practice of computer-based composition. Music Education Research, 7(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500042042 Odam, G. (2000). Teaching composing in secondary schools: The creative dream. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000218 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). (2009). Making more of music: An evaluation of music in schools 2005/08. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//308/. Pegley, K. (2006). “Like horses to water”: Reconsidering gender and technology within music education discourses. Women & Music, 10(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1353/wam.2007.0011 Reynolds, N. (2005). The computer as scaffold, tool and data collector: Children composing with computers. Education and Information Technologies, 10(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639005-3004-9 Savage, J. (2005). Sound2Picture: Developing compositional pedagogies from the sound designer’s world. Music Education Research, 7(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500324481 Savage, J. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for change. In J. Finney and P. Burnard (Eds.), Music education with digital technology (pp. 142–155). London: Continuum. Savage, J. (2010). A survey of ICT usage across English secondary schools. Music Education Research, 12(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903568288 Savage, J. (2012). Those who can, play; those who can’t, use music tech? In C. Philpott, & G. Spruce (Eds.), Debates in music teaching (pp. 169–184). Oxon: Routledge. Seddon, F.A., & O’Neill, S.A. (2003). Creative thinking processes in adolescent computer-based composition: An analysis of strategies adopted and the influence of instrumental music training. Music Education Research, 5(2): 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085513 Seddon, F. A., & O’Neill, S. A. (2006). How does formal instrumental music tuition (FIMT) impact on self- and teacher-evaluations of adolescents’ computer-based compositions? Psychology of Music, 34(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606059103 Sheridan, M., & Byrne, C. (2002). Ebb and flow of assessment in music. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000220 Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan. Sternberg, R. (2003). The development of creativity as a decision-making process. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development counterpoints: Cognition, memory, and language (pp. 91–138). Oxford: Blackwell’s Terugi, D. (2007). Technology and musique concre’te: The technical developments of the Groupe de Recherches musicales and their implication in musical composition. Organised Sound, 12(3), 213–231. Theberge, P. (1997). Any sound you can imagine: Making music/consuming technology. London: Wesleyan University Press. Vulliamy, G. (1980). Music and the mass culture debate. In J. Shepherd (Ed.), Whose music? A Sociology of musical languages: Piscataway, New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Wise, S. (2016). Secondary school teachers’ approaches to teaching composition using digital technology. British Journal of Music Education, 21(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051716000309 Wise, S., Greenwood, J., & Davis, N. (2011). Teachers’ use of digital technology in secondary music education; Perceptions and issues. British Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 117–134. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0265051711000039 Yorkshire Sound Women Network. (2018). Volume up! How you can support equality in the audio industry. Retrieved from https://yorkshiresoundwomen.com/base/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/YSWN_ Volume_Up_DIGITAL.pdf Zagorski-Thomas, S. (2014). The musicology of record production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

336

22 MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE MUSIC CLASSROOM The role of music composition in reframing pupils’ attitudes toward music education in a Portuguese classroom context Ana Luísa Veloso

Introduction This chapter is an attempt to reframe the role that music composition might play in transforming children’s ideas and beliefs about music education, and the ways they engage in and relate it to their lives. This view is framed in this particular study by offering a new perspective on how music composition might be approached in the classroom, departing from some of the most important theoretical ideas developed by Deleuze and Guattari in their book “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia” (1987), used here as an analytical theoretical lens. The chapter is divided into five main sections: a first one, “Introduction,” where I present the main ideas and structure of the chapter. A second one, where I give an outline of music education in Portugal and of the role and place of music composition in Portuguese classrooms and curricula. After these two opening sections, a third one follows, introducing the analysis based on Deleuze and Guattari’s theoretical perspective. In this section, I seek to highlight the possibilities given by the concepts of “the refrain,” “deterritorialization,” and “reterritorialization” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) in rethinking, on the one hand, music and education in a non-dogmatic and plural way, and, on the other, music composition as an activity capable of initiating strong transformations in the ways children understand and perceive music education. In the fourth section, I continue my analysis based on concepts from Deleuze and Guattari, presenting music education and music composition from the conceptual perspective of the “rhizome,” and how that might open a door to individual alternative pathways and pedagogical differentiation. During these two sections, I try to keep on connecting the data and the findings from the study with the specific ways through which music composition has been approached in Portuguese schools, not only to give a proper contextualization to the study, but also so that readers across the world might connect the ideas that are addressed here with the particularities of the contexts in which they live and work.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-30

337

Ana Luísa Veloso Table 22.1  Music education in Portugal Number of Pupils’ age Music education as a Professional academic curriculum subject responsible for years teaching music education First Cycle of Basic 4 Education Second Cycle of Basic 2 Education Third Cycle of Basic 3 Education

Secondary School

3

6–9

Compulsory

Primary teacher

10–11

Compulsory

12–14

Specialist music teacher Specialist music teacher

Optional in the two first years of the cycle. Non-existent in the third. Non-existent Non-existent

15–18

Data from Sections Three and Four were collected mainly during the implementation of a music workshop with a class of 22 pupils, occurring once a week in a Portuguese state school during two main periods2:

• First period: 2015/2016, when the pupils were attending the fourth grade (first cycle of basic education) (see Table 22.1);

• Second period: 2016/2017, with the same pupils when they made their transition to the fifth grade (second cycle of basic education) (see Table 22.1).3 This music workshop was implemented as part of the project “Seeds of art: building opportunities for success in school”4 that aimed at improving children’s academic and personal growth as a preparation for autonomy and a fulfilled pathway throughout their lives. This project was grounded in a teaching and learning approach that promoted pedagogical differentiation, interdisciplinary practices, and included the arts as pivotal areas of the curriculum. The music workshop, included in the project as another means to reach pupils’ interests and develop their creativity, was based on a collaborative and creative approach to music, intentionally valuing children’s musical backgrounds, their musical preferences, and informal ways of learning (Green, 2008). A fifth section closes the chapter. Here, I try to draw some conclusions from the findings, pointing also to possible directions to the place music composition might grant in the future in Portuguese general schools, and to its consequences to teaching and learning in the music classroom. In these sections, I use many of the characteristics of narrative analysis; accordingly, the literature review is delineated in a permanent dialogue with the presentation and analysis of data, not only to better explain their relationship while telling the stories and meanings that were created as the workshop unfolded, but also in an attempt to transform the theoretical body into something that has a vivid connection with the lived experiences offered by the music workshop (Bowman, 2006).

338

Making a difference in the music classroom

Music education and music composition in Portuguese general schools Introduction In Portugal, compulsory education is divided into four learning cycles: three included within “basic education” and one cycle corresponding to “secondary education.” As shown in Table 22.1, music education is a compulsory subject only in the first cycle of basic education, corresponding to what usually is named “primary school,” and on the second cycle of basic education, corresponding to what is commonly known as the first years of “middle school.” According to the document “Essential Learnings – Music” (Ministério da Educação 2018a, 2018b), the most recent curricular directive published by the Portuguese Ministry of Education, music composition is an integral part of the curriculum during the two cycles of education in which music education is mandatory. Aligned with sociocultural theories of learning (Barrett, 2011; Bruner, 1986; 1996; Vygotsky, 2007) and with the “Profile of the 21st century student in the end of compulsory education” (Ministério da Educação 2017; Roldão, Peralta, & Marins, 2017), the document5 assigns a special place to creativity in the music curriculum. In this sense, music composition appears as part of the topic “Experimentation and Creation,”6 which is considered a “foundational domain for the occurrence of meaningful learning experiences” (Ministério da Educação, 2018a, p. 2; 2018b, p. 2). The topic includes the development of competences related to sound exploration, experimentation, music improvisation, and music composition. Specifically considering music composition, the authors stress that, in the end of the first cycle of basic education, pupils should be capable of composing “soundscapes and small musical pieces, related to their daily lives and using different sound sources” (2018a, p. 7). In a similar way, at the end of the second cycle of basic education, pupils should be capable of composing “different musical pieces with different aims” using “different sound sources and tools” such as “the voice, the body, sounding objects, musical instruments, or apps and other technologies” (2018b, p. 7). It is thus quite clear in this document that music composition should, as part of the topic “Experimentation and creation,” occupy a central role in music classroom practices. However, this directive is used in combination with two older ones that were never excluded by the ministry of education: the general syllabus of the first cycle of education, and the music education syllabus of the second cycle of education, both published in 1991(Ministério da Educação, 1991a, 1991b). This brings some ambiguities to the ways teachers plan and implement musical activities in their classrooms, as they often feel many difficulties in articulating all the legal documents presently in effect. Consequently, the regulations published in 2018 – and specifically those respecting creativity and music composition – are many times left aside, remaining almost forgotten in both cycles of education (Veloso, in press).

Zooming in: the first cycle of education During the first cycle of education, there is one class teacher – the primary teacher – who is responsible for teaching all curriculum areas, including music. However, in most cases, primary school teachers do not feel confident enough about their music skills to develop music activities in the classroom, let alone music composition activities and projects. Therefore, quite often music, and by consequence, music composition, are absent from classroom activities (Mota, 2001, 2007, 2014; Veloso, in press; Veloso & Mota, 2021; Veloso, Ferreira, & Bessa, 2019). To overcome this gap, and following a philosophy based on a “full-time school” maxim, in 2006, the Ministry of Education launched a program that consisted of “ten weekly hours of extra-curricular activities (English, music, sports) taught by specialist teachers,7 that 339

Ana Luísa Veloso

children should attend on a voluntary basis” (Boal-Palheiros & Encarnação, 2008, p. 98). A music syllabus was created with specific guidelines intended to help teachers to develop their work. The Portuguese Ministry of Education entitled these activities “Curriculum Enrichment Activities” (CEA) (Ministry of Education, 2007).Since music education is part of the official curriculum, the implementation of the CEA has been the cause of some ambiguity, as there is repetition of music in both curricula. Mota (2007), outlining some concerns about the implementation of music as an enrichment activity, highlighted that with the new program, music education could be discarded from the elementary school curriculum in some schools, and pupils not attending after-school enrichment activities could be in danger of not receiving any music education. As a possible solution, Mota (2007) advocated for collaborative work between the primary teacher and a music specialist. This collaborative work could be done through the implementation of projects that, on the one hand, would have their focus on making music through performance, composition, or audition and, on the other hand, would embrace a real interdisciplinary process relating music to other arts and also to other curriculum subjects. However, until now, this has not become general practice, and pupils receive music education in primary schools within the voluntary CEA, while provision of musical activities in school hours depends on the particular primary teacher. There is, however, one exception to this rule. On Madeira Island, which has political autonomy regarding the implementation of its curriculum, the current education model in primary schools is similar to the one advocated by Mota (2007). In fact, in Madeira, children attending primary school have music classes with a specialist music teacher during curricular hours. However, a recent three-year case study developed by CIPEM/ INET-md8 about music and drama education in primary schools on Madeira Island shows that musical activities in these schools focus mainly on vocal and instrumental performance, and that music composition is, once again, almost absent from the activities and projects planned and implemented in the classroom (Mota & Abreu, 2014; Mota & Araújo, 2013).

Zooming in: the second cycle of education During the second cycle of education, music education is taught by a specialist teacher with a higher education degree in music education obtained at a university or college of education. Nevertheless, and as noticed by Mota (2001): Although the curriculum prescribes the three areas of composing, listening and performing, composition is largely excluded. Children, instead do a lot of notation, music reading and aural training activities, which often diminishes their motivation to continue learning music. (p. 155) Thus, as clearly stated by Mota, at the date her chapter was written, the problem related to the implementation of music composition activities in the classroom persisted also in the second cycle of education, despite being taught by a specialist teacher. In the exact same year that Mota wrote these words, one of the most important legal references for the Portuguese educational system was published: the “National Curriculum for Basic Education – Essential Competences” (NCBE). The idea of this document was not to replace the syllabi from 1991, but to be the basis on which these syllabi should be approached in the classroom. The section of the document assigned to music education – and that was of seminal importance, especially to the second cycle of education – was formulated alongside

340

Making a difference in the music classroom

different ideas that had been the base for several debates and discussions among music education teachers and scholars since the last decades of the twentieth century. From these, I would like to highlight the following: a The idea that musical learning should be based on the experience of “making music,” specifically on listening, performing, and creating, much in the sense outlined by Swanwick (1979, 1988). Although this perspective was already present in the syllabus of 1991, this view was reinforced in 2001, both theoretically and in practical terms. b The idea that learning does not exist in a vacuum but is strictly tied to the social and cultural context in which it takes place (Bruner, 1986, 1996; Vygotsky, 2007). This is an idea that clearly highlights the importance that we nowadays attribute to children’s informal learning and the role music plays in their daily lives outside the music classroom and the school (Green, 2008; Wright, Younker, & Beynon, 2016). c The ideas introduced in the 1960s and 1970s by several composers/educators such as Paynter (Paynter & Aston, 1970) or Schafer (1976), known nowadays as part of the creative music movement (Green, 2008), which had a great impact on Portuguese music educators. Following this rationale, music education appeared in the NCBE as a part of artistic education, which was itself organized around four building blocks: creativity, expression and communication, artistic languages, and arts in context. Within this whole, music education was then approached around a series of musical competences, highlighting music as a social practice. These competences, in turn, also focused on four main building blocks: perception, performance, creation, and musical cultures in context, suggesting also different possibilities to relate music with other arts and with other subject matters. Music composition, included in the block “creation,” was clearly considered a practice in its own right that should be promoted and developed by teachers in their classrooms. The philosophy underlying this proposal was highly innovative and in line with contemporary theoretical understandings forecasting music education as a social practice and seeing pupils as active and creative practitioners. In this sense, the NCBE served as a new tool for teachers and scholars to heighten those teaching philosophies and practices that emphasized the creative work of pupils. This was undoubtedly a step ahead in strengthening the training and daily practices of many music teachers in what regards music composition, leading to the emergence of several innovative and original projects in Portuguese classrooms. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education revoked the NCBE in 2011, explaining that education should be focused on knowledge content and measurable goals, and not on key competences. The Ministry of Education argued that it was their intention to create a curriculum based on target goals, but the truth is that these goals were not defined to music education. Instead, and at that time, the government proposed again the old syllabi from 1991 that were, by that point, completely out of date. Therefore, the ideas presented in the NCBC would only be institutionally reconsidered again in 2018, with the document “Essential Learnings,” which, as we have seen before, continues to be of problematic use because of the documents from 1991 that have never been revoked. Thus, the truth is that the problems with music composition remain, which cause Portuguese children and teenagers in general schools to have few opportunities to approach music in a creative manner and to engage in meaningful music composition activities and projects.

341

Ana Luísa Veloso

Deterritorialization – escaping the Deleuzian refrain In their book “A Thousand Plateaus – Capitalism and Schizophrenia,” Deleuze and Guattari (1987) define the refrain as any worldly stabilized territory, a common and safe space that is created by beings to give sense to the rawness of things as they appear in the world. As regards music and musicians, and as noted by Gould (2012, p. 76), the refrain “consists of musical materials” that include “territories of genre and stylistic practices and conventions on which music performances and compositions stabilize.” It refers to musical structures, forms, and skills that musicians use as rules and norms to orient their performances and creations. Translating this concept to music education, Lines (2013, 2017) points out that the Deleuzian refrain is mostly visible in the materials that the music teacher uses in the classroom, namely the repertoire, which usually consists mainly of a set of musical pieces that are commonly accepted by the field as “good” for teaching and learning music. This view is perceived by Lines (2013, 2017) as a dangerous one, as it risks reducing music and music education to a static platform of practices and ways of knowing that ignore the fluid, dynamic, and interactive nature of music and music making. It is in this sense that music pedagogies and curricula, when delivered in terms of the refrain, constrict music teaching and learning to focus on what is accepted as the norm, moving music education away from practices more related to creative and active processes. The ideas of Lines (2013, 2017) described here clearly echo the claims made before by Mota (2001) about the prominence, in Portuguese music classes, of activities related to musical listening and theory and, as regards performance, the insistence on the use of Orff instrumentation. These activities seem, somehow, to be the “safe space” in which music teachers have moved for decades now, even when the official documents (such as the NCBE or the Essential Learnings) clearly recommend the development of activities focused on improvisation and composition. It is in this sense that, in this study, music composition – understood as a place of freedom where multiple dialogues are possible – is envisaged as an opportunity for Portuguese music teachers, together with their pupils, to move away from the refrain, reflecting about their daily practices in the classroom, and embarking on a journey truly opened to the “beautiful risk of education,” as Biesta (2013) would put it. This was, indeed, what I tried to do with the music workshop mentioned in the introductory section, which was developed with the firm intention of becoming a place/space characterized by openness to all voices, freedom to choose, acceptance of moments of dissensus and of development of differentiated pathways by the pupils. This point of departure is much related to my own training as a teacher. At this point, it is perhaps important to mention that I started my graduation in music education in the year of 2001, the same year in which the NCBE was published in Portugal. In this sense, I developed a theoretical/practical perspective closely associated with some of more important ideas of this document, which connect, as we have already seen, with (a) the view that music learning should be based on the experience of “making music” (Swanwick, 1979, 1988); (b) the perspective that this process cannot be separated from its social and cultural context (Barrett, 2011); and also (c) with a set of innovative ideas introduced by the so called creative music movement (Paynter & Aston, 1970; Schafer, 1976). This body of knowledge was, in fact, constantly reinforced by my professors in multiple subjects, both theoretical and practical, which in turn strongly encouraged me to plan and implement activities of sound exploration, experimentation, music improvisation, and music composition. As far as this study is concerned, the idea to implement the workshop came about from the pupils themselves, back in 2015. At that time, I was in the school collecting data for another 342

Making a difference in the music classroom

research project related to music listening (Veloso et al., 2019). One day, when I entered the classroom, I was surprised by a group of pupils that enthusiastically invited me to sit down and listen to the music they had composed. As I came to know later that day when talking to their primary teacher, the pupils, knowing that I was a music teacher and researcher, began to ruminate on the possibility of widening the “musical moment” they usually had once a week. Initially, this moment was only devoted to the research project about listening that I mentioned before, but the pupils clearly stressed their will to include other activities here, such as composing, singing, or playing musical instruments. Thus, working on their own, using old and borrowed musical instruments, these pupils began to compose a musical piece with the intention, as they later recognized, to convince me and their primary teacher to initiate a “music project” – as the pupils themselves called it – in their classroom, where they could have the opportunity to compose and to play their favorite songs and musical pieces. At that time, I talked to the primary teacher and we both concluded that this could be a very fruitful project to foster the artistic, personal, and social growth of the class. Thus, in a very informal approach, and developing a very experimental attitude toward sounds and music, from that moment on, several pupils began to compose musical pieces and songs, embarking on a new voyage that became, as they clearly expressed during the group interviews and several informal conversations, a new space for individual and collective expression and reflection. It is at this point that the concept of deterritorialization enters the scene as a possibility for a departure of what is already normalized. As Perry explains (2013, p. 98), “[d]eterritorialization describes the attempt to depart from or disrupt a territory or organization of ideas and actions.” It is a process based on the emergence of new “lights of flight” that have the creative potential to emerge as new possibilities, new ways of doing and becoming. In this particular case, pupils, at an informal pace, and very much in line with some of the ideas introduced by the creative music movement, initiated a process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, in which they reconstructed new ideas while transforming previous ones, not only about the meanings of music and making music, but also about learning and teaching music. This was plainly visible in many of the pupils’ answers given during the group interview. Rute, for example, a shy but enthusiastic girl, explained how she came to love music, something she was not very fond of previously, when her music education practices were mostly reduced to playing the soprano recorder and learning notation. On the other hand, Daniel, a highly participative pupil who slowly began to compose some songs and musical pieces on the guitar, enthusiastically shared that he was now thinking about pursuing a career as a musician, explaining how that thought came up during his participation in the music workshop. The workshop, as he clarified, gave him several opportunities to learn while composing, while creating something like a song or a musical piece that was meaningful to him, not only because it was deeply related to his life, to his thoughts and feelings, but also because he could share all this with his peers and his friends. It is in this way that music composition and music education might be understood in terms of processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization: when pupils defy what is standardized as the norm, venturing on the quest for other possibilities, they discover new opportunities to gain ownership of musical activities, creating other musical possibilities through dynamic, dialogical, and multidirectional ways of relating with each other and with music (Lines, 2013; Lum, 2016). Following this perspective, we might perhaps suggest that the work developed around music composition activities during this workshop was crucial to the ways these pupils began envisaging the teaching and learning of music. In the beginning of the project Daniel thought about making music as something quite distant from his life, almost as an impossibility. As he began developing his own musical pieces and songs, these 343

Ana Luísa Veloso

beliefs changed drastically. For Daniel, Rute, and their colleagues, making music thus became an adventure, a process of looking out through the windows of what is safe and known and going beyond that. The children’s composed musical pieces were, in this sense, a materialization of the emergence of new lines of flight related to the process of deterritorialization. They acted as points of departure to new musical worlds, inviting children to use sounds and music in their own ways, and reaffirming the powerful role that music composition activities might play in making the difference toward the development of a truly meaningful music education in Portuguese schools.

Through the spectrum of the rhizome: lines of flight and relations with music The notion of deterritorialization explored above is closely related to another concept widely explored by Deleuze and Guattari in “A Thousand Plateaus” (1987, p.12): The rhizome is a map and not a tracing. … The map is entirely oriented toward experimentation in contact with the real. …The map constructs the unconscious … The map is open and connectable in all of its dimensions. … It can be drawn on a wall, conceived of as a work of art, constructed as a political action or as a meditation…Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of the rhizome is that it always has multiple entryways. If we think of music education from the perspective of a rhizome, we are faced with a structure that metaphorically allows pupils to grow and develop pathways in new and unexpected ways (Ferreira, 2014; Lines, 2013; Schmidt, 2012). As Lines (2013, pp. 27–28) argues: The rhizome suggests a different view of music education than what is commonly presented in western culture. Rather than seeing “music knowledge” as tree-like—what Deleuze calls arborescent—with a firm root structure, solid trunk, and branches and leaves (as in disciplinary, institutional music education which draws its source from prevailing mentalities of music), the rhizome offers a contrasting stance on knowledge. … What is important here are the directions of new flight rather than predetermined pathways of curricular flight. The Deleuzian music educator looks forward to the emergent and moving flight paths that come out of music learning experiences. This is one of the main ideas behind Deleuze’s rhizomatic provocation—to focus on the emergent new rather than the systematic old. Taking on the idea of the rhizome in music education means crafting a whole new vision of what is taking place in the music event. Much in line with the scientific discourse that lies at the base of both the NCBE and the “Essential Learnings,” this new perspective on music education considers inclusion, democracy, and pedagogical differentiation, encouraging pupils to take pathways that are idiosyncratic with their preferences, personal characteristics, and lived experiences, and that do not exist as “better than” or “worse than” any other. From this point of view, there is no better or worse. There are only new and different paths, paths that are distinguished by their uniqueness and that have to do with the context of each child’s life experiences and the specific relationships that emerge between pupils, music, and those around them – colleagues, teachers, parents. In this workshop, and essentially by engaging pupils in music composition activities and projects, each child was challenged to search for new lines of flight, to craft her own way of becoming one with sounds and music. During this process, some of the pupils developed preferences and more advanced skills in singing, others in playing a certain instrument; still others 344

Making a difference in the music classroom

discovered new connections with fields of study that were sometimes developed in association with the workshop, like painting, reading, writing, or studying philosophy. What I think is important to underline regarding the role of music composition in Portuguese music education in schools is that these differentiated pathways and the enthusiasm with which they were pursued seem to have been made possible by the opportunities given to these pupils to work creatively with the musical material, mainly through the composition of original musical pieces or songs. In fact, during the group interviews, pupils clearly stressed how this creative approach to music slowly became a means not only to develop certain personal traits like self-confidence, self-esteem, or the capacity to listen and engage in dialogue with others, but also to “discover what they were really good at,” be it within the music domain or not. As one pupil assertively pointed out, “It’s not mandatory to like or to be good at everything. What is mandatory is that we always do our best! And with the workshop, we learned what we are good at, what are our strengths!” In this way, it is indeed surprisingly interesting to notice the degree of consciousness that pupils achieved not only of their preferences within music and other subject matters, but also of the impact that this involvement with music had on them. I think that this is mostly due to the degree of presence and commitment that pupils demonstrated throughout the process. And I suggest that this was possible because, through the workshop, music education was conceived rhizomatically (Hess, 2015; Szekely, 2012), having music composition as a central point of departure. I believe that, by working creatively, having several opportunities to explore, experiment, formulating and reformulating new musical ideas, pupils were encouraged not to be afraid to cross divergent pathways, not to be afraid to take risks, to try to listen, to play once and again, to engage in dialogue and pose questions about their own learning processes. As a consequence, they began feeling that they had a voice, that what they had to say musically mattered a lot. In this way, and in parallel with the sociocultural perspectives mentioned in the sections before (Barrett, 2011; Bruner, 1986, 1996; Vygotsky, 2007), they felt that their identities and life experiences were being recognized, that the processes of teaching and learning were organized in a non-hierarchical way, that the music they already knew and the music they created from scratch was as important as other repertoire pieces that were later introduced in the class. During the group interviews, for example, pupils significantly related composing music with their daily lives, as they explained how, when feeling a kind of urge to express themselves, they would pick up a musical instrument or use their singing voice to express their problems, their feelings, or talk about significant events occurring at school, at home, or at a friend’s house. One of the pupils, Miguel, who played both guitar and drums, classified these moments as something “magical,” which appeared in a “completely automatic” way, usually occurring not in a separate process, in which he first imagined the musical piece and then he played it, but as an exploratory act, a movement enacted as he played his guitar or began humming or singing a few words. In this way, playing an instrument or singing became a part of these pupils’ creative process. While they were composing, and very much because they were composing, pupils felt the need to develop other musical and non-musical competencies, something they did much in line with their unique interests and desires, in a totally differentiated and rhizomatic way. Music composition was the bridge for a truly rhizomatic music education, as it encouraged pupils to move through “multiple lines of flight,” to make advancements following unique pathways and routes that had, as a destination, new points of departure, new possibilities to move further, in a never-ending movement that hopefully will become a lifelong enterprise. At this moment, and also as part of the reflection of reconsidering a rhizomatic music pedagogy, I think it is important to say that although pupils began studying other repertoire 345

Ana Luísa Veloso

and other ways of making music later in the workshop, their perspectives were always taken into account, not only in relation to what was being done, but also to how it was being done, just in line with the approach that had been developed before. Therefore, for these pupils, Mozart was not more important than Nirvana or John Legend. And the songs composed by these bands and musicians were not more important than their own. They were different. Each one had emerged in a unique context, specifically related to the ways in which it had become materialized as music. I recall, at this point, the words of Hess (2015, p. 8): “Other” musics deserve a place in the classroom – and not a place on the margin – and certainly not in a “bait and switch” capacity in order to get to Western classical music. Skills accrued through learning music informally, aurally, and through a range of different formal systems and notational practices are invaluable and should not rank as hierarchically inferior to skills that require Western notational literacy and formal learning settings. “Other” musics have much to offer both students and teachers. … Students are encultured in their music; it functions as a large part of their lives and deserves classroom recognition. For everything that has been mentioned so far, it seems rather important that we conceive of music education in Portuguese schools with an open mindset, relating our philosophical perspectives and legal directives to the particularities of each context, considering teaching “not merely in terms of helping to develop students’ musical skills, but also in terms of understanding the role music plays in their lives, of how music is relevant to students’ explorations of creativity, identity, and culture” (Szekely, 2012, p. 176). And as framed and analyzed in this chapter, music composition stands out as an open door to achieve this goal, not only because it allows pupils to meaningfully connect with the worlds of sound and music, but because in doing so, it offers them an immense world of pathways and possibilities that they might trace at their own pace and according to their singularities and unique idiosyncrasies.

Final thoughts: toward a rhizomatic music pedagogy in Portuguese general schools Music education, as a subject of the Portuguese curriculum, might be considered in Deleuzian terms as a territory with defined boundaries, norms, strategies, and practices that are valued both by the institutions where music is taught and by the teachers who teach it. The problem is that this account of music education is, quite often, at odds with the ways music becomes meaningful to children and youth, thereby undermining issues of inclusion, participation, and democracy. In this chapter, I suggest that a movement of deterritorialization from the refrain might be achieved through the implementation of projects and activities that respect children’s interests, desires, and singular ways of exploring musical sounds and tools. At the same time, I also suggest that this might be done while also attending to the legal norms at stake in each context and the theoretical underpinnings that lie at the base of teaching practices. More specifically, I advance that, within our theoretical and legal backgrounds, by approaching music creatively and giving space to children to develop differentiated and meaningful connections with musical materials, a new concept of music education might appear in Portuguese schools. A concept based on a rhizomatic perspective, in which pupils might develop their musical pathways through unique movements and “lines of flight,” in a horizontal, non-hierarchical way. A concept that has at its core the development of music composition activities, inviting children to actively communicate with others and dialogue with the world. 346

Making a difference in the music classroom

As we previously saw, while developing composition activities, while exploring new sounds and musical ideas, pupils from this study engaged in multiple learning pathways that involved a series of differentiated musical and non-musical skills. Moreover, they also began to understand that music education was not a space to develop a set of predefined musical competencies and skills included in the curricula as if written in stone. On the contrary. As they evolved in composing new musical pieces and songs, these pupils redefined music education in diverse points, such as: 1 No differentiation between making music and learning music. 2 Music as an active, collaborative, and creative activity that involves experimentation, and an open mind toward all possibilities. 3 Music as something deeply related to our inner selves and our lives. 4 The existence of a diversity of pathways to learning music. 5 Music as a place for many “musics” – styles, genres, approaches. 6 Learning music as a dialogical activity that is open and requires their full participation and commitment in all the decisions that are taken and all the pathways that are chosen. Based on what was analyzed before, I would therefore suggest that there is an urgency for music teachers in Portugal to rethink the place that should be assigned to music composition in the curricula. A place that might clearly favor an educational perspective that accounts for creativity, plurality, multiplicity, uniqueness, and that seriously takes into account pupils’ feelings, thoughts, and perspectives about music and about music making. In my understanding, music classes are only meaningful for children and youth if they are given the possibility (a) to look at music as a powerful means of communication through which they can express their thoughts and feelings; (b) to look at music as a site of experimentation where there are no dichotomies regarding good or bad; (c) to look at music as a means through which they can trace their own individual paths, creating from unique places, through the development of singular interactions established within the various ecosystems to which they belong. If conceived in this way, we might therefore no longer talk about music lessons in the formal way that we used to. We might eventually talk about dialogue, about multiple positions and paths, about dissensus, about different points of departure and different points of arrival, about music education as a rhizome. The important thing that I would like to stress is that, whatever the pathways followed, it is deeply important that a large space might be opened in Portuguese music classes in which pupils might approach sounds and music in creative ways. A space in which music composition activities might emerge as a means through which pupils and teachers take ownership of what they are doing together, without fear of movements of deterritorialization and reterritorialization that unsettle the refrain, the status of what is normalized and set as the rule.

Reflective questions 1 How might we, music educators, promote pedagogical differentiation through a “rhizomatic music education” in the contexts in which we work? 2 How might the concepts explored in this chapter help children and youth to take ownership of music education classes? 3 What would this entail in terms of the relationships that are promoted between teachers and pupils and among pupils themselves? 347

Ana Luísa Veloso

Notes 1 When pupils moved to Grade 5, the workshop became voluntary. A total of 5 out of the 22 pupils in the class – along with their families – decided to leave the workshop. 2 Data for this chapter were already presented and analyzed elsewhere (Veloso & Mota, 2021), in light of different theoretical perspectives, always within a school context. 3 Please see note 1. 4 As part of this project my research center, CIPEM/INET-md loaned several musical instruments to the class such as guitars, a set of drums, or a bass guitar. Other instruments were brought by the pupils themselves, borrowed from their families and friends. 5 This document was developed in a collaboration by members of the board of the Portuguese Society of Music Education (APEM) and members from the Program of Aesthetic and Artistic Education from the Ministry of Education. 6 The other two topics are “Interpretation and communication” and “Appropriation and reflection”. 7 Teachers and musicians with a relevant background in music or music education. 8 Center for Research in Psychology of Music and Music Education, a pole at the Porto Polytechnic of the Institute of Ethnomusicology – Music and Dance Studies.

References Barrett, M. (2011). Towards a cultural psychology of music education. In M. Barrett (Ed.), A cultural psychology of music education (pp. 1–16). Oxford University Press, Oxford. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). The beautiful risk of education (1st edition). Routledge, London. Boal-Palheiros, G., & Encarnação, M. (2008). Music education as extra-curricular activity in Portuguese primary schools. Proceedings of the 22nd International Seminar on Research in Music Education, 96–104. Bowman, W. (2006). Why narrative? Why now? Research Studies in Music Education, 27(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010101. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Ferreira, T. T. (2014). Por uma Educação Musical rizomática: estudo sobre o livro Sound and Structure de John Paynter. Anais do SIMPOM, 3(3). Gould, E. (2012). Uprooting music education pedagogies and curricula: Becoming-musician and the Deleuzian refrain. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33(1), 75–86. https://doi. org/10.1080/01596306.2012.632168. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, Farnham. Hess, J. (2015). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415581283. Lines, D. (2013). Deleuze and music education. In D. Masny (Ed.), Cartographies of becoming in education: A Deleuze-Guattari perspective (pp. 23–33). Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Lines, D. (2017). Jazz departures: Sustaining a pedagogy of improvisation. In C. Naughton, G. Biesta & D. R. Cole (Eds.), Art, artists and pedagogy: Philosophy and the arts in education (pp. 52–61). Routledge, London. Lum, C.-H. (2016). Shifting landscapes in the 21st century: Adaptability and flexibility in general music teaching. In C. R. Abril, & B. M. Gault (Eds.), Teaching general music: Approaches, issues and viewpoints (pp. 264–285). Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ministério da Educação. (1991a). Organização curricular e programas ensino básico—1° Ciclo. Retrieved from http://curricula-depot.gei.de/handle/11163/1348 Ministério da Educação. (1991b). Programa de Educação Musical do 2° Ciclo do Ensino Básico. Retrieved from https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/ficheiros/eb_em_programa_2c_i.pdf Ministério da Educação. (2017). Perfil dos Alunos à Saída da Escolaridade Obrigatória. 30. Ministério da Educação. (2018a). Aprendizagens Essenciais—1° Ciclo do Ensino Básico. Retrieved 14 May 2021, from https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/Aprendizagens_Essenciais/1_ ciclo/1c_musica.pdf

348

Making a difference in the music classroom Ministério da Educação. (2018b). Aprendizagens Essenciais—2° Ciclo do Ensino Básico. Retrieved 14 May 2021, from https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/Aprendizagens_Essenciais/2_ ciclo/2c_educacao_musical.pdf Ministry of Education (2007). Education and training in Portugal. Ministry of Education Editorial, Lisbon, PT. Mota, G. (2001). Portugal. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), Musical development and learning: The international perspective (pp. 151–162). Continuum, London. Mota, G. (2007). A Música no 1° ciclo do Ensino Básico – contributo para uma reflexão acerca do conceito. Revista de Educação Musical, 128–129, 16–21. Mota, G. (2014). A educação musical em Portugal – uma história plena de contradições. DEBATES Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Música, 0(13). Mota, G., & Abreu, L. (2014). Thirty years of music and drama education in the Madeira Island: Facing future challenges. International Journal of Music Education, 32(3), 360–374. https://doi. org/10.1177/0255761413515803. Mota, G., & Araújo, M. J. (2013). Music and drama in primary schools in the Madeira Island – Narratives of ownership and leadership. Music Education Research, 15(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14613808.2013.772130. Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence: Classroom projects in creative music. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Perry, M. (2013). Devising theatre and consenting bodies in the classroom. In D. Masny (Ed.), Cartographies of becoming in education (p. 93, 108). Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. Roldão, M. C., Peralta, H., & Marins, I. P. (2017). Currículo do ensino básico e do ensino secundário para a construção de aprendizagens essenciais baseadas no perfil dos alunos. Ministério da Educação. Retrieved from https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Curriculo/Projeto_Autonomia_e_Flexibilidade/ae_documento_enquadrador.pdf Schafer, R. M. (1976). Creative music education: A handbook for the modern music teacher. Schirmer Books, New York. Schmidt, P. (2012). Ethics or choosing complexity in music relations. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(1), 149–169. Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education (1st edition). Routledge, London. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. Routledge, London. Szekely, M. (2012). Musical education: From identity to becoming. In W. Bowman, & A. Frega (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy in music education (pp. 136–179). Oxford University Press, Oxford. Veloso, A. L. (in press). Music composition in Portuguese classrooms: Searching for possible routes. In M. Kaschub (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of music composition pedagogy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Veloso, A. L., & Mota, G. (2021). Music learning, engagement, and personal growth: Child perspectives on a music workshop developed in a Portuguese state school. Music Education Research. (world). Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14613808.2021.1929140 Veloso, A. L., Ferreira, A. I., & Bessa, R. (2019). Adapting a music listening app to engage pupils in personal and social development: A case study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (220), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.220.0063 Vygotsky, L. (2007). A Formação Social da Mente. Martins Fontes, São Paulo.

349

23 CREATIVITY AND COMPOSITION IN SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOL CURRICULA Alethea de Villiers

Introduction In this chapter, the place of creativity and composition in the South African school context is discussed with focus on primary as well as secondary school education. From Grades R to 6, general music education as part of a broadly banded arts curriculum is compulsory for all learners. In primary schools, the focus is on improvisation and creativity activities in which children explore sound and other music concepts. These can be individual or group activities and can be notated or only performed. Those creative activities are based on the methodologies of Orff, Kodály, Dalcroze, and Pestalozzi. Music as a subject in the secondary schools requires higher levels of music literacy and a knowledge of composition techniques, such as rhythmic motives and rhythmic sequences, which are listed in the curriculum and derived from the music studied through performance, music history, and score analysis. Here, the product of composition is always notated and is an individual activity. Therefore, this chapter provides a description and discussion of current school curricula, which date from 2010 to 2011. These curricula are for all schools. References to previous curricula will be for comparative purposes only. It is not the intention of the author to provide a historical account of music education in South Africa. However, it should be noted that, prior to 1994, different race groups had different school curricula and unequal spending on education based on race. Some races had more comprehensive music curricula that included listening to music, singing, notation, playing Orff instruments, and moving to music, while the music curricula for other race groups consisted of vocal exercises and singing folk songs and learning solfège. The current music curriculum used in primary schools in South Africa shows the influences of Pestalozzi, Dalcroze, Orff, and Kodály. The influence of these music pedagogues can be found in activities where children are supposed to explore creativity through sound. Additionally, the musical activities of singing, dancing, acting, and playing instruments are integrated. This curriculum also states that classroom activities can be organized around themes, such as a story, poem, or song that can combine rhythmic movement, singing, playing classroom instruments, and dramatization. This is similar in many ways to the principles of Orff and Kodály, as presented by Wheeler and Raebeck (1975). In their book, they describe similar activities such as rhythmic dramatization of songs, poems, chants, or stories and rhythmic 350

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-31

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula

improvisation through questions and answer clapping and chanting exercises (Wheeler & Raebeck, 1975, pp. 78–94). In the South African music education context, learners in primary school can also develop their creativity and musicality through creative games, music, poems, songs, and stories that are part of their culture; learners can imitate sounds from the stories and create sound pictures for songs, poems, and stories (Department of Education [DoE], 2010b, 2011a). Also, in this curriculum, the Orff methodology as described by Wheeler and Raebeck (1975, pp. xix–xx) and Liess (1966, pp. 57–62) is apparent in the use of speech and movement that is natural to the child, and which serves as a starting point for music experiences and improvisation. In secondary schools, from Grades 7 to 12, music literacy is given greater prominence. The music curricula for these grades enable learners to develop increasing higher levels of performance abilities, historical, contextual, and theoretical knowledge, and skills which they can apply in improvisation and composition (DoE, 2011a, 2011b). This approach is reminiscent of Csikszentmihalyi (1996) who states that one cannot be creative if one does not know the domain. Music as a subject in secondary schools has always included creating or composing, and music literacy is based on a prescriptive music canon, which is Western art music and jazz.

Creativity and general music education: looking to the past From 1993 onward, multicultural education was introduced in South Africa. At the same time, the government began the process of merging the racially segregated education departments into one department. The creation of one education department also led to the development of a new curriculum for each subject (De Villiers, 2001). In March 1995, the Department of Education published a Supplementary Material Interim Core Syllabus for general music education, which was to be implemented by all primary and secondary schools, for all years of schooling, and had multicultural content (DoE, 1995). This curriculum included activities for general music education, which are: listening to music, singing, moving to music, playing instruments (classroom, found, and Orff), creating (composing/improvising), as well as reading and writing notation. The different music activities were also integrated. Reflecting the influences of Orff, Kodály, Pestalozzi, and Dalcroze, the curriculum was structured in a spiral manner, becoming increasingly complex with each grade. Composing and improvising were described as experimenting with music concepts and integrating creativity with other music activities and other art forms. The creative activities included activities that explore music concepts, such as (?) sound and imagination, which were performance-based, and those that were written down. Creative activities included (1) writing a short song with few pitches, such as using the pentatonic scale, (2) altering the rhythm and/ or text of a song, (3) creating an ostinato accompaniment, (4) writing a melody, (5) creating a song and accompanying it with simple chords, (6) writing a jingle, (7) using the voice to create sound pictures, (8) making a vocal soundtrack for a video, (9) exploring tone possibilities, (10) using instruments to accompany a poem or story, (11) creating compositions for percussion instruments to illustrate music concepts, (12) using listening activities to create a story, (13) creating original rhythm patterns, (14) writing sounds they hear as graphic notation, and (15) drawing to music. Other creative activities integrate different art forms, such as using listening examples to create a text, choreographing dances, using movement, and then creating sounds or a poem (DoE, 1995). In 1998, this interim curriculum for music was replaced by a broadly banded arts curriculum, consisting of dance, drama, music, and the visual arts. In contrast to the previous curriculum, the arts were integrated and not presented as distinct art forms. Moreover, the 351

Alethea de Villiers

curriculum focused on the values of the constitution of the new democracy. These values included nation-building, human rights issues, and patriotism. The arts, including music, were the means to achieve these values. A theme such as heritage would then be presented as learning about a culture, which could include songs, music instruments, dances, art (including attire and artifacts), and drama, whose goal would be the enactment or dramatization of a cultural practice (DoE, 1997). The teachers could determine their own content as the curriculum outcomes were described in broad terms. Creative activities, derived from the 1995 curriculum, were listed intermittently throughout the 1998 curriculum, but the development of musicianship through a systematic presentation of music concepts by means of music activities was not apparent. Similarly, the revised version of the curriculum, published in 2002, was also organized around the values of the constitution, such as human rights, social and environmental issues, and cultural heritage. Creative activities were again listed seemingly randomly in the curriculum and also reflected the influence of Orff, Kodály, Pestalozzi, and Dalcroze. These creative activities included call and response games, rhythmic movement, exploring sound to create sound pictures, creating and presenting melodies, creating poetry and song to depict social and environmental issues, such as drug abuse and pollution (DoE, 2002). Like the previous curriculum, creativity was expressed in terms of exploring sound using music concepts and not written down. The implication of the various iterations of these curricula was that learners were only introduced to a formal music curriculum in Grade 10 unless they attended feepaying schools and were able to enroll in extra-curricular or co-curricular instrumental music, study music theory, and participate in external graded music examinations. In 2010, new iterations of the curricula were introduced for Grades R–6, and in 2011, a new iteration of the curriculum was introduced for Grades 7–9. A revised curriculum for music as a subject for Grades 10–12 was also introduced in 2011.

Composition and general music education in South African schools Grades R–6 The “Creative Arts” component of the curriculum for Grades R (reception year) to 6 combines music, dance, and drama as performing arts and reflects Orff’s objectives for music education, as music is to be experienced as sound and by means of experiences before the introduction of notation. The curriculum for the performing arts component is organized around four main activities, which are: warm up and play, improvise and create, read, interpret, and perform, as well as appreciate and reflect on (DoE, 2010b). Learners are to experience music concepts, explore sound and rhythm, and cultivate their music imagination through participation in ensemble or group activities (DoE, 2010b, 2011a). This is similar to Orff’s approach as described in Wheeler and Raebeck (1975, pp. xix–xx). Orff also advocated that singing, dancing, and playing instruments are equally important and connected forms of expression (Wheeler & Raebeck, 1975). Mirroring Orff’s approach, the South African curriculum integrates dance, drama, and music and includes activities for self-expression and exploration within a safe environment (DoE, 2010b, 2011a). The activities for the performing arts are improvising and creating; reading, interpreting, and performing; appreciating and reflecting on (DoE, 2011a, p. 9). In the creative activities, literacy or the ability to read music is secondary to active participation and learning through playing, which is developmental; the product of creativity is improvised and not notated. Examples of creative activities include improvising and creating rhythm patterns, musical 352

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula

phrases, exploring pitch, dynamics, and musical form; improvising stories from music which learners have listened to; creating sound pictures, and making instruments from found objects (DoE, 2011a, p. 9). These activities are similar to activities listed in music education books by both Russell (2010, pp. 275–313) and Birkenshaw (1982, pp. 239–255), who advocate the exploration of sound, and experiencing music concepts through creativity, as well as including activities to explore graphic notation (Birkenshaw, 1982, pp. 242–244; Russell, 2010, pp. 288–289). In Grades R–3, the activities for the performing arts are creative games and skills in addition to improvisation and interpretation with the learners engaged in playing, exploring sound, rhythm, and form as well as communicating creatively through dramatizing stories with voice, movement, music, sound pictures, props, objects, and dance. Learners can also express moods and ideas through movement and song (DoE, 2010b). For Grades R–6, there is no prescribed musical canon or prescribed stories. This means that the teacher can choose stories, songs, and listening examples for learners to explore creativity through content that is familiar to their culture and environment, which is similar to the approach of Orff, Kodály, and Pestalozzi. The curriculum becomes increasingly more complex with each grade, enabling the development of a music vocabulary, which would be applied in improvisation and creativity. This is similar to Pestalozzi’s approach (Chernin, 1986, p. 63).

Grades 7–9 The “Creative Arts” curriculum for Grades 7–9 presents the arts as distinct subjects. Schools can choose two art forms, according to the teacher’s specialization, from dance, drama, music, and the visual arts. Music is organized around three main activities: music literacy, music listening, and performing and creating music (DoE, 2011a). Music literacy serves as the foundation for specialized music in Grade 10, and the content includes note names, scales, intervals and triads, note values, and time signatures (DoE, 2011a). Being able to read and write music could lead to the notation of compositions. Listening to music and performing have more culturally diverse content. Some of the creative activities are more performance-based and can be inclusive of diverse music cultures. More culturally inclusive activities that are performance-based, either as solo or group activities, include (1) creating instrumental music, (2) using clapping or drumming to explore rhythmic repetition, (3) rhythmic question and answer, (4) rhythmic improvisation on African drums or other traditional instruments, (5) exploring melodic repetition and melodic question and answer, (6) improvising vocally or melodically and rhythmically on an ostinato or riff, and (7) creating an advertisement (DoE, 2011a). Many of these creative activities for music correlate with the philosophies of Orff and Pestalozzi, which is to explore sound (similar to the lower grades) and also mirror the activities described in Birkenshaw (1982) and Russell (2010). These activities are also reminiscent of the 1995 music curriculum. Additionally, the current curriculum reflects the human rights values of the South African constitution. Creative activities from the curriculum, which can be individual or group-based and be notated, include (1) creating a graphic score, or sound picture, (2) creating instrumental and vocal music within groups or solo context based on a social issue, such as human rights, or environmental issues, (3) completing rhythms and melodies, (4) creating melodic and rhythmic question and answer, (5) adding music to lyrics (poem), and (6) composing a musical piece and adding another art form (DoE, 2011a). The curriculum suggests stimuli for writing a melody, such as a poem, or that learners can compose lyrics. Another art form, such as dance, drama, or the visual arts, can also be integrated with music performance (DoE, 2011a). This 353

Alethea de Villiers

curriculum enables the development of a broad and diverse music vocabulary, high levels of music literacy, and interacting with diverse musical styles through listening, singing, and playing instruments, which could be further stimuli for improvising and composing.

Pedagogies and texts for teaching creating in general music education In the South African curriculum, creativity is expressed as the ability to apply music concepts for self-expression and follows on from knowledge of the domain of music, which is experienced through other classroom activities, such as listening to music, singing, playing classroom instruments, and reading and writing music. Creativity is not a separate activity but leads on from and is a natural consequence of experiencing and learning music, which is also similar to the ideas of Orff, Kodály, and Pestalozzi. This process is also similar to how creative activities are described by music scholars, such as Jorgensen (2008) and Whitcomb (2013). For example, Jorgensen (2008, pp. 161, 180) and Whitcomb (2013) believe that all music activities, such as listening, performing, and music theory should be taught from the perspective of composing. The teacher could ask the learners to identify the generative idea or ask the class to identify how the composer develops an idea regarding rhythm, tone color, key, or register. When learners engage critically and analytically with music, they begin to understand compositions; they learn to understand and appreciate how concepts are applied. Several academic articles mirror what is stated in the South African curriculum and which in turn echo Orff and Kodály. Fyfe (1985, p. 32) and Byrne (2014, pp. 151–161) state that there should also be stimuli for the learners, which could include a poem, lyrics, or melodic motif. Other researchers, such as MacDonald, Byrne, and Carlton (2006, p. 292), Pang (2015), Peterson and Madsen (2010, p. 26), and Simpson (1963, p. 44), also state that, while music literacy is important, teachers should not lose sight of the fact that, when the learners are creative, they are exploring with sound, which can be another stimulus. Learners should therefore also be encouraged to improvise with sound. Moore (1990, pp. 38–42) as well as Hickey and Webster (2001, p. 21) are of the opinion that when composing, learners should also be able to use instruments to play and hear what they have composed. Melody-writing activities, as described in textbooks, foreshadow the secondary-school music curriculum, where creativity is an individual activity and always written down. For example, in textbooks for Grades 7–9, activities such as completing or creating a melody are presented as following a harmonic approach. An example of this practice is evident in a textbook for Grade 9, which provides guidelines for completing a melody, using the solfège system, and includes instructions that the third bar should have a “soh” or “ti” on the last beat and the fourth bar should contain “doh” (Elliott et al., 2013, pp. 198–199). The curricula for general music education introduced in 2010 and 2011 present a systematic approach to learning music. In Grades R–6, learners are to experience music as a language through activities, including creativity and experimenting with music concepts. From Grade 7 onward, more emphasis is placed on music literacy, and in some creative activities, the established rules of composition may apply.

A brief background to music as a subject in the secondary school Historically, in South Africa, the subject of music in the secondary school was almost exclusively taught at better resourced schools, and mainly at schools designated for white learners during apartheid, and Western art music was the style that was taught. In the new, democratic South Africa, the subject of music is not accessible to the majority of learners and is mainly 354

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula

taught at better resourced schools in more affluent communities. Less than 1% of all Grade 12 learners are enrolled for the subject of music. Government policy states that music as a subject in the secondary school can only be taught by a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in music, a Bachelor of Arts degree with a music major, or a licentiate in music. Multicultural education was introduced in South Africa in 1992, which meant that all schools could accept learners from different cultures and races. Multiculturalism is also evident in the curriculum content. In music as a subject, in the primary school, the multicultural content is evident in styles of music that are included in music listening, such as reggae, kwaito, and African jazz, as well as in learning about African instruments and singing songs from different cultures. In the curriculum for the subject of music in secondary school, multiculturalism is manifested in the choice of three different streams, namely Western art music, jazz, and Indigenous African music. Nevertheless, schools may choose to follow the Western art music stream exclusively. Multiculturalism is also evident in the South African composers listed for study in the Western art music stream and in jazz, which includes South African jazz, such as maskanda and kwaito, as well as in the Indigenous African music stream. This stream is to be taught by an Indigenous African music practitioner (DoE, 2011b). For the Indigenous African stream, learners are to play two instruments from two different families, such as a chordophone and an idiophone. Performance is to be taught and assessed according to technical work, dance, oral text proficiency (e.g., praise singing), instrument roles, and dramatization. General music knowledge, for this genre, includes the study of (1) cultural practices, (2) performance styles, such as onomatopoeic singing, crepitation, and ululations, (3) forms such as call and response, (4) music instruments, (5) Indigenous music experts in research such as Mama Madosini and Princess Magogo, (6) music artists such as Hugh Masekela and Miriam Makeba, (7) genres, such as indlamu, tshikona, maskanda, isicathamiya, and free kiba, and (8) South African musicals such as Ipi Tombi and Sarafina. There is flexibility in combining styles for music performance and general music knowledge. For example, learners can play African instruments, and choose Western art music for general music knowledge. Another alternative could be jazz performance on the piano and African general music knowledge. Nevertheless, music literacy is either in Western art music or jazz (DoE, 2011b). Although Indigenous African music perceptions, such as pulse, melody, and melorhythm, are included in music literacy, for Grade 12, they have not been assessed in the external exams set by the national department of education. The music theory exams for Grade 12 include Western art music and jazz for analysis and harmonization activities.

Grades 10–12 The activities for the subject of music in Grades 10–12 are music performance and improvisation, music literacy, and general music knowledge and analysis (DoE, 2011b). Music literacy, a music canon consisting of either Western art music or jazz, is learned. The canon is consolidated through learning about the instruments in performance, the context of the repertoire in history and society, and music literacy. In Grade 10, the curriculum for music proposes to start with a revision of the music literacy taught in Grade 9, including creative activities. In Grades 10 and 11, similar to the lower grades, the learners are taught and assessed at school by the teacher. In Grade 12, students are assessed by the national department of education. From Grade 7 onward, students learn the domain of music through the building blocks of music, which include note names, scales, intervals, duration, time signatures, grouping of notes, triads and harmonic progressions, and cadences. Furthermore, from Grade 10 onward, compositional techniques are learned by means of score analysis of the music canon, melody 355

Alethea de Villiers

writing, and harmonization. Compositional techniques in Grade 10–12 curriculum, which learners study from the music canon and are to apply in their own compositions, are: rhythmic motifs and sequences, melodic sequences, augmentation, diminution, imitation, inversion, variation, and themes. Other compositional techniques are: dynamic levels, timbre, instrumentation and orchestration, melodic and rhythmic repetition, rhythm and pulse, harmonic progression, and development of themes (DoE, 2011b, pp. 14–51). Additionally, one of the aims of music as a subject states that “learners will develop creativity through improvisation and working with their own music ideas.” (DoE, 2011b, p. 8). The other aims refer to proficiency in performance and to stylistic and notational knowledge and skills (DoE, 2011b, p. 8). In Grades 10–12, the composition activities consist of melody writing and harmonization. These activities become progressively more advanced with each grade. In Grade 10, learners begin with writing a four-bar melody and progress to an eight-bar melody. For these activities, the teacher is to provide a rhythm, and the curriculum states the harmonic progression for the melody. Grade 11 is more complex, and melody writing includes writing an eight-bar melody, using a given chord progression, adding a bass line to the melody, and using approach notes, steps, skips, and direction. Learners can also write their own melody using their own chord structure in any known clef or key. In Grade 12, learners compose a 12-bar melody, give a structure, use motifs and sequences, and add a simple bass line or chords to accompany the melody (DoE, 2011b, pp. 14–51). Melody writing in the curriculum is related to the Western classical music canon and harmony, with the melodic contour following chordal progressions. Learners are able, in some instances, to develop their own ideas but are still expected to compose according to the parameters described in the curriculum. Harmonization1 is included under creativity. In Grade 11, harmonization includes writing cadences in four parts and harmonizing a simple melody in four parts using mainly primary chords. Grade 12 has the addition of adding alto, tenor, and bass lines to a given melody, and using primary and secondary chords (DoE, 2011b, pp. 26–51).

Pedagogies that support creativity in the subject of music The importance of developing creativity in different school subjects is evident in the South African school curriculum, which, from 1997 onward, has had four of the seven critical outcomes developed for general education contain the words “problem-solving, critical and creative thinking” (DoE, 1997, 2010b, 2011a). Music curricula describe the outcomes or product of creativity that will be assessed, without explaining the pedagogy of creativity. While we do not know how teachers approach teaching composing, we do know that the difference between music education in primary schools and secondary schools is that in primary school, musicianship is developed and compositional skills are explored through improvisation and music concepts. For the subject of music from Grade 10 onward, composition is purposeful and deliberate, with a sequential ordering of music literacy and through score analyses of compositions. Csikszentmihalyi’s central thesis is that knowledge of the domain is essential for creativity, which is similar to how composition in the curriculum for both primary and secondary schools is presented, albeit with different levels of musical literacy and performance skills (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Moreover, he also says that creativity results from the interaction of a system consisting of three elements. These are a culture that contains symbolic rules, a person who contributes novelty into the symbolic domain, and a field of experts who can recognize and validate creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, p. 6). These latter three elements correspond with the views of music scholars and are apparent in the South African curriculum 356

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula

as well. The culture and rules for music literacy are prescribed in the curriculum, as well as what is considered to be creative, while the experts who recognize and validate the learners’ work are the teachers and the external examiners. Nevertheless, creativity, as expressed in the South African school curriculum, is similar to what Craft (2003, 2004) describes as everyday creativity or creativity with a small “c,” as all learners are considered to be creative beings and compose within set parameters. The South African music curriculum for the upper grades corresponds with views of music scholars and those expressed by Csikszentmihalyi (1996), insofar as learners apply the knowledge and skill of the domain (Barrett, 2012, p. 57; MacDonald et al., 2006, p. 292). Nettl (1974, p. 13) also acknowledges that all music, whether composed or improvised, is the embodiment of a system or domain, which is taught and learned over time. Nettl (1974, p. 13) furthermore states that composers use music concepts, such as tonal systems, melodic motifs, harmonic intervals, and interval sequences as building blocks in their compositions. Based on these perspectives, a music curriculum should therefore be structured so that learners can learn the domain of music and analyze compositions, which is similar to the South African curriculum in secondary school. Furthermore, there is also agreement among music researchers, including Peterson and Madsen (2010, p. 26), MacDonald et al. (2006, p. 292), Pang (2015), Kokotsaki (2012, pp. 129–130), Cropley (2001, pp. 5–6) Gibson, Folley, and Park (2009), that the product of creativity should be unique.

Texts for teaching composition in the secondary school Melody writing, as described in the South African curriculum, is prescriptive. An analysis of texts that support teaching composition in secondary school in South Africa reveals two diverse approaches. One approach is very similar to the prescriptive approach of the school curriculum. For example, van den Heuvel (n.d.) provides a text that includes a step-by-step approach to writing a four-bar melody and an eight-bar melody based on harmonic progression. Similarly, Brydson’s (1973) book, written for a different context, has a chapter devoted to each aspect of composition, often assessed in external music theory exams, and which mirrors the South African school curriculum. Brydson (1973) provides descriptive steps and explanations which, like the school curriculum in South Africa, also refer to chordal progressions that underpin melody. Other topics that are similar to the South African school curriculum are: building a melody, composing a melody in a given rhythm, writing tunes to words, using a minor key in a melody, continuing of a given opening, and writing melodies with modulations in addition to writing extended melodies (Brydson, 1973, pp. 30–32). Billings (2016) adopts a more imaginative approach. Her theory workbook is aimed at preparation for externally graded exam preparation and refers to cadential points and the connection of melodies to their supporting harmonies. Billings’ book provides practical considerations, such as focusing on music concepts, including rhythm, mood, melodic shape, performance directions, and general musicality (Billings, 2016, pp. 268–271). Billings (2016) also describes setting a poem to music and composing vocal and instrumental melodies. She focuses on the implications for performance. South African music theory classroom texts are based on the school curriculum and are similar in scope, content, and pedagogies to the texts by Brydson (1973) and Billings (2016). Hoek (2014a, 2014b), van den Heuvel (n.d.), and Du Preez, Robertson, Lewis, and Grobler (2005) are South African texts that imitate the curriculum by approaching creativity and composition from the perspective of studying compositions and composing a melody based on underlying harmonies and following a framework. 357

Alethea de Villiers

Jorgensen (2008, pp. 167–168) provides an answer to the question, “How does a composer compose?” She says that Western composers begin with a musical idea that they develop. According to Jorgensen, the practice of imitation of the musical canon has been the norm in Western music and it is also how composition is framed in school curricula (Jorgensen, 2008, pp. 168–170). In the texts noted previously, as well as in the South African curriculum, the learner as composer seldom develops a music idea of her own. The generative music idea and stimulus, together with the parameters for the composition, are provided by the teacher during classroom practice and by the examiner in assessment. In this context, the activities of creating and composing prepare learners for assessment and are not a means to develop self-expression. This chapter now turns to describing how creativity and composition have, over time, become smaller components of the assessment for the subject of music in secondary schools, mainly due to less time being given to it. Music as a subject, taught by a specialist teacher, occurs from Grade 10 onward. With only three years devoted to the subject of music, creativity has been reduced to melody writing, with the Grade 12 theory exam paper also including basic music theory content, such as scales, intervals, and identification of triads. Before 1994, when the subject of music was introduced from Grade 8 onward, the basic concepts and knowledge were consolidated in the earlier grades so that Grade 12 assessment only consisted of creative work.

Reflecting on the assessment of composition in music as a subject The commonality from the 1970s to the present day is that melody writing in the curriculum and its assessment are organized around tonality and underlying harmonies as prescribed by the curriculum. In South Africa, from the 1970s through to the 1980s, music was taught for five years at high school, which was preceded by extra-curricular or co-curricular music in primary school. With more time to study music, learners would have had a more comprehensive foundation in the domain of music. This also meant that Grade 12 music exams of the 1970s and 1980s were only based on creativity and composition, and according to the Western art music canon. Question papers show high-level cognitive skills and high levels of creative engagement, with the theory exams equivalent to the external examining body of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) Grade 8 theory exams. Grade 12 theory papers contained composition activities similar to those described by Brydson (1973) and Billings (2016). Examples of composition questions included writing a melody for a poem and modulating to a suitable key, with a return to the original key; completing two-part counterpoint, four-part harmonization, writing a 12- or 16-bar melody with a given 2-bar opening, in the style of a gavotte or minuet, and with modulations, and harmonizing a melody for a string quartet. A generative idea in the form of a melodic motif or rhythmic motif was always provided (DoE, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982). By the 1990s, music as a subject was only introduced from Grade 10 onward. Composition questions in the Grade 12 exam consisted of completing a given 2-bar opening to write a melody of 16 bars with modulation, a return to the original key, and setting words to music. This is similar to the activities described by Brydson (1973). In the 1990s, the multicultural content was apparent in the choice of three poems in either English, Afrikaans, or Xhosa, as well as a choice of writing in either solfège or staff notation (DoE, 1999). Regardless of the language of the poem, the melody writing had to conform to the rules of Western art music. The rest of the question paper was in the Western art music tradition and consisted of questions on harmonic analysis of a chorale, harmonization of cadences, and the transcription of a melody by G.F. Handel, from solfège notation to staff notation (DoE, 1999). 358

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula

By 2003, music as a subject from Grades 8 to 12 was replaced with a new music curriculum for Grades 10–12 only (DoE, 2003). In primary school, learners were following a broadly banded arts curriculum and if they wished to enroll for music as a subject, they needed to participate in extra-curricular music in primary school, which was only offered at fee-paying schools in higher socio-economic communities, or opt for private tuition. The Grade 12 exams included rhythmic improvisation, melodic variation of a motif, arrangement of a song or traditional folk melodies, composing and arranging music to enhance a performance about a social issue, and using scales and rhythmic patterns to harmonize folk melodies (DoE, 2003). While this curriculum has similar topics to those described by Brydson (1973) and Billings (2016), it differs because there was scope for a more multicultural approach to composition, inclusive of the diverse music traditions practiced in South Africa. However, the two creative questions in an exam paper from this time do not reflect multiculturalism. The exam paper consisted of four-part harmony, using specified non-chord notes, with a given soprano line. The alternate harmonization question required candidates to write chords on the treble clef to complement the bass line, to which non-chord notes need to be added. There was also a choice of composing a 12-bar melody in a minor scale, in ternary form, using given rhythmic motifs, a choice of instrument, and indicating performance directions. No opening was given, so learners were free to develop their own generative idea, which could have been from any music tradition. The alternate melody-writing activity was composing a 12-bar melody with a given opening based on a blues scale, using given rhythmic motifs, indicating voice or instruments as well as performance indications (DoE, 2008). A revised version of the curriculum was introduced in 2010 for Grades 10–12 (DoE, 2011b). There are many similarities with this curriculum, the assessment of the curricula of the 1970s and 1980s, and the texts by Brydson (1973), van den Heuvel (n.d.), Hoek (2014a), and Billings (2016). In the exam in Grade 12, learners had to complete a given 2-bar opening to compose a 12-bar melody in ternary form and to complete a 4-part harmony activity (DoE, 2011b). From 2009 onward, the Grade 12 music theory exam was benchmarked at the Grade 4 level of the ABRSM (DoE, 2009), which is at a lower level than in the 1970s and 1980s. From 2014 through to 2020, composition in the Grade 12 exam paper consisted of fourpart harmony and melody writing. For the melody writing, learners are to complete a 12-bar melody for a melodic instrument in ternary form from a given 2-bar opening. For harmonization, learners need to add an alto, tenor, and bass line to a given melody (DoE, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). The choice of genre for music theory from 2017 onward, as evident in the Grade 12 assessment, shows the inclusion of classical, jazz, and contemporary music (DoE, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). From the 1990s through to 2020, music literacy as well as composition were assessed.

Conclusion Composition in the South African school curriculum is a continuum, with exploration of music concepts at one end, which can be mainly performative, and composition based on indepth knowledge of the domain, which includes literacy and is written down, at the other end of the spectrum. To counter existing practice in secondary school, where the focus in Grade 12 is on the assessment of creating, the author proposes that learners be given the opportunity to develop as composers and explore diverse music styles. This could be a musician-teacher collaboration (Kinsella, Fautley, & Evans, 2018). Alternately, schools and music teacher organizations could sponsor a composer in residence for schools to teach creativity and composition, so that the curriculum outcomes of developing critical and creative thinking are met. 359

Alethea de Villiers

Reflective questions 1 What did we learn from these curricula regarding creating and composing in schools? 2 How could one approach the inclusion of different genres and styles of music when teaching creativity and composition in schools? 3 What are the commonalities and/or differences with the approach to creativity and composition in other countries?

Note 1 The Examination Guidelines of 2009, published by the Department of Education, explains how Bloom’s taxonomy should be applied. It states that 30% of the music exam paper for Grade 12 should be remembering and understanding; overall, 40% of the paper should be applying and analyzing and 30% should be evaluating and creating. The Examination Guidelines provides examples for evaluating and creating in Grade 12, which are writing a 12-bar melody and completing 4-part harmony.

References Barrett, M. (2012). Preparing the mind for musical creativity: Early music learning and engagement. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 51–71). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Billings, R. (2016). All in one to Grade 5. New 3rd edition. A fast track from beginner to Grade 5 music theory. Warwickshire: Aaron Publications. kenshaw, L. (1982). Music for fun. Music for learning (3rd ed.). Austin, Texas: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Brydson, J. C. (1973). The composition of melody. London: Bosworth & Co. Ltd. Byrne, C. (2014). Creative engagement in and through music. The challenge for undergraduate and postgraduate students. In P. Burnard (Ed.), Developing creativities in higher music education. International perspectives and practices (pp. 151–161). London: Routledge Research in Higher Education Series. Chernin, M. (1986). A practical application of an eighteenth-century aesthetic: The development of pestalozzian education. College Music Symposium, 26, 53–65. Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00229 Craft, A. (2004). Creativity and early years education: A lifewide foundation. London: Continuum. Cropley, A. (2001). Creativity in education and learning. A guide for teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page Ltd. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Department of Education. (DoE). (1975). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1976). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1977). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1978). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1981). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1982). Senior certificate examination. Music higher grade. Cape Town: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1995). Supplementary material interim core syllabus. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (1997). Senior phase. (Grades 7–9). Policy document. Pretoria: Government Printer.

360

Creativity and composition in South African school curricula Department of Education. (DoE). (1999). National senior certificate. Grade 12 music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2002) Revised National Curriculum Statement. Grades R–9 (Schools) Policy: Arts and Culture. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2003). National curriculum statement. Music. Grades 10–12 (General). Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2008). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2009). National curriculum statement (NCS). Examination guidelines. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2010a). Music. National curriculum statement. Grades 10–12 (General). Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2010b). National curriculum statement (NCS). curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS). Intermediate phase Grades 4–6. Creative arts. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2011a). National curriculum statement (NCS). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS). Senior phase Grades 7–9. Creative arts. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2011b). National curriculum statement (NCS). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS). Further education and training phase Grades 10–12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2014). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2017). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2018). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2019). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Education. (DoE). (2020). National senior certificate Grade 12. Music. Pretoria: Government Printer. De Villiers, A. C. (2001). Teaching strategies for multicultural music education in the Intermediate Phase (Unpublished masters’ thesis). Gqeberha: University of Port Elizabeth. Du Preez, M., Robertson, N., Lewis, F., & Grobler, J.-P. (2005). Improvisation composition arranging Grade 10 curriculum. Johannesburg: iMusic weAfrica. Elliott, K., Feenstra, M., Gramanie, P., Hardie, Y., Mkhize, S., Notcutt, B. … van Papendorp, J. (2013). Via Afrika creative arts. Grade 9 learner’s book. Sandton: Paarl Media. Fyfe, B. (1985). Encouraging creative thinking in children. Teacher Education Quarterly, 12(1), 30–35. Gibson, C., Folley, B. S., & Park, S. (2009). Enhanced divergent thinking and creativity in musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and Cognition, 69, 162–169. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.07.009 Hickey, M., & Webster, P. (2001). Creative thinking in music. Music Educators Journal, 89(1), 19–23. Hoek, A. (2014a). Music literacy: Music theory. Pretoria: A. H. Publishers. Hoek, A. (2014b). Music workbook for learners. Pretoria: A. H. Publishers. Jorgensen, E. (2008). The art of teaching music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kinsella, V., Fautley, M., & Evans, N. (2018). Musician–teacher collaborations in composing contemporary music in secondary schools. In Musician–teacher collaborations (pp. 180–192). London: Routledge. Kokotsaki, D. (2012). Pre-service student-teachers’ conception of creativity in the primary music classroom. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1321103X12466770 Liess, A. (1966). Carl Orff. London: Calder & Boyars Ltd. MacDonald, R., Byrne, C., & Carlton, L. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition: An empirical investigation. Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research, 34(3), 292–306. https://doi. org/10.1177/0305735606064838 Moore, J. (1990). Strategies for fostering creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3401076 Nettl, B. (1974). Thoughts on improvisation: A comparative approach. The Musical Quarterly, 60(1), 1–19.

361

Alethea de Villiers Pang, W. (2015). Promoting creativity in the classroom: A generative view. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000009 Peterson, C., & Madsen, C. (2010). Encouraging cognitive connections and creativity in the music classroom. Music Educators Journal, 97(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432110386613 Russell, D. (2010). Music is…an integrated music resource book for teachers. Brookvale, New South Wales: Educational Supplies Pty Ltd. Simpson, K. (1963). Keyboard harmony and improvisation. London: Alfred Lengnick & Co., Ltd. van den Heuvel, J. R. (n.d.). Success series. Graded theory of music workbooks. Theory Grade 3. Elsburg: Kruger Publishers & Distributors. van den Heuvel, J. R. (n.d.). Success series. Graded theory of music workbooks. Theory Grade 5. Elsburg: Kruger Publishers & Distributors. Wheeler, L., & Raebeck, L. (1975). Orff and Kodály adapted for the elementary school. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers. Whitcomb, R. (2013). Teaching improvisation in elementary general music. Facing fears and fostering creativity. Music Educator’s Journal, 99(3), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432112467648

362

24 MUSIC COMPOSITION IN SPANISH SCHOOLS Towards student-centred pedagogies Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

The role of composition as a student-centered learning strategy As there are different understandings of the term “composition” in the music literature, we will first define its use in the review presented in this chapter. We will focus not on the creation of music with historical relevance, but on the creation of music that happens in a school setting and is new to the students who create it, and to their class or school audience. When professional composers create pieces presenting novel characteristics, their creativity is considered by Sági and Vitányi (1988) as constructive because its novelty is historical, coinciding with what Boden (1990) calls “H-creativity.” Sági and Vitányi call the creativity of “famous” composers constructive because they construct new structures and sonorities (while generative creativity, following Chomsky, requires the manipulation of a discrete amount of already existing elements). When involved in compositional tasks in school, students create pieces that are new only to themselves, and their “P-creativity” (Boden, 1990) can be considered generative (Sági & Vitányi, 1988). By exploring and manipulating a series of discrete and already established musical elements or techniques, they are creative in the same way any person can be creative when speaking by being able to generate multiple ideas or propositions with the discrete amount of words available for each language (Chomsky, 1965). Thus, we will use the term not as musicologists understand it when researching about music history or contemporary professional or community musical practices, but as researchers in music education understand it (see, for example, Barrett, 1998; Burnard & Younker, 2004; Hickey, 2001; Major, 2007). Thus, the literature about the training of professional composers will not be examined here but, instead, we will review the literature about compositional experiences in primary and secondary schools, in extracurricular settings (such as conservatories and music schools for amateurs), and in teacher education in Spain. While composition refers to creating an original piece of music, either vocal or instrumental, with some kind of structure created orally or in written form as a new piece of music, improvisation refers to inventing and performing music simultaneously. The differences between composition and improvisation are temporal and psychological, related to the production process. While a composition is planned and structured a priori as a more closed production system (Pozo et al., 2022), in an improvisation, the production process is open and performed in real time. Within the music education research literature, composition is conceptualized as DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-32

363

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

a student-centered strategy for learning music in a school setting, which often derives from hands-on improvisation activities (Burnard, 2000) more than from paper-based, theoretical conservatory learning approaches. This learning strategy provides students with inductive ways to explore, manipulate, intuitively understand, and sometimes conceptualize elemental music elements and techniques, developing at the same time their musical skills, creativity, and self-efficacy (Rusinek, 2012a). In our own research (Casas-Mas et al., 2015; Rusinek, 2004, 2007), we found that the use of compositional tasks facilitated students’ intrinsic motivation and fostered learning agency by socially valuing their intuitive musical knowledge. We also found that it enabled students to visualize the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) of their music abilities when demanding peer or adult help for certain problems they could not solve by themselves and provided them with authentic situations—these being parallel to real-life musical situations— to anchor their musically situated cognition (Brown et al., 1989). Moreover, group composition appeared even more motivating because of peer interaction and collaborative learning, while at the same time opening a window to assess students’ musical understanding by systematically observing their autonomous creative and social interactions. There is an extended practical literature internationally on how and why to teach composition in schools (e.g., Glover, 2000; Hickey, 2003; Wiggins, 2015), and several reviews of research on school composition (Webster, 2009, and Wiggins, 2007, serve as two examples). In the following section, we will review the situation of composition in Spanish schools by contrasting what is written in the national curriculum with what has been reported by teachers and, importantly, with what has been empirically investigated in real classrooms.

Composing in the Spanish national curriculum Besides its nominal presence in previous educational reforms of the official curriculum and its practice in some private schools, music was not universally taught to all students in all Spanish primary and secondary schools until the 1990 educational reform. This national curriculum (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1990), the first fully democratic reorganization of the Spanish educational system after the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco, 1939–1975 (for a historical review, see Rusinek & Sarfson, 2016), was crucial in instituting music teaching in compulsory schooling. It not only stated that music would be a compulsory subject (on its own in secondary school, and as part of arts education, along with visual arts and drama, in primary school) but, most importantly, that it should be taught by music specialists. This requirement eventually led to many universities establishing pre-service and in-service music teacher training programs, and to the systematic hiring of teachers (with the status of a civil servant, in the case of public schools). Notwithstanding some changes in the 2002, 2006, and 2013 reforms of the national curriculum—usually diminishing the amount of weekly hours of music teaching—and small differences among the 17 autonomous regions, with their own educational legislation derived from the main national curriculum, the situation has remained more or less the same. Although there are music teachers in every school, Spanish public schools do not provide opportunities for learning orchestral or popular instruments or for participating in bands or orchestras, as it common in other countries (e.g., in the United States). These learning opportunities are provided by private or municipality owned “music schools” for amateurs, which are separate institutions. For those families who want their children to receive a more systematic training that might lead to higher education in music, there are public and some private conservatories. Children can study there for ten years, beginning at the “elementary 364

Music composition in Spanish schools

stage” (four years, usually for ages 8–12, concurrent to Grades 3–6), and continuing to the “medium stage” (six years, usually but not necessarily for ages 12–18, concurrent to secondary education). The music education offered at Spanish primary and secondary schools would be called elsewhere (e.g., in the United States) “general music.” It is somewhat related to the Orff-Schulwerk in primary school from its origins in the second half of the 20th century (with note-bar and small percussion instruments available in most music classrooms since then), and to music history and appreciation courses in secondary since the 1970s (Rusinek & Sarfson, 2016). The current music classroom practice is heterodox, not attached to any music education method, but we can affirm, supported by our research (Rusinek, 2006) and continuous observations in schools, that the mainstream practice includes guided listening, recorder playing in unison and sometimes with pre-recorded playback, ensemble playing with percussion instruments, some pedagogical dances, and theoretical learning, commonly supported by textbooks. Creative elements and compositional demands for primary school were mentioned only tangentially in the 1990 national curriculum reform, with “composition of small musical pieces made from improvisation processes in group” included as a proposed learning procedure (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1991). These demands were even more emphasized in the 2002 reform, with assessment criteria such as “actively participate in instrumental creations” (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2004). Only the 2006 national curriculum reform firmly included “[i]nterpretation and musical creation” as a “block of contents” (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 2006a) and explicitly demanded learning procedures such as the “creation of introductions, interludes and codas, and accompaniments for songs, and instrumental pieces,” or the “use of audio-visual media and computer resources for the creation of musical pieces and for the sound of images and dramatic performances.” The latest reform of the national curriculum, in 2013, returned to a more behavioristic approach, with assessment based on learning standards that, in spite of formally mentioning creativity a few times, reduced musical practice to more reproductive behaviors. The 1990 national curriculum reform also introduced a more practice-based approach to secondary music, which had been originally a course in music history and kept for many years an approach focused on verbal learning of music theory and history. However, it was not until the 2006 national curriculum reform that music creation was formally included, defined as “exploration of musical elements and experimentation and combination of sounds through improvisation, elaboration of arrangements, and individual and collective composition” (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 2006b). Different learning procedures were described and the assessment criteria explicitly included the development of musical creative abilities such as “developing an arrangement for a song or instrumental piece appropriately using a series of given elements,” to “developing an arrangement for a piece of music from the transformation of different parameters (timbre, number of voices, form, etc.) into a MIDI file, using a sequencer or a score editor,” or “creating a sound track for a sequence of still or moving images using different computer resources.” As with primary school, the 2013 reform returned to an approach in secondary school where creative experiences were understood only as a means to acquire conceptual knowledge, including “performing improvisations and compositions based on previously established guidelines” as one of the learning standards. However, a deeper contact with musical creativity was left for the fourth year of secondary school—when the subject is elective—with more sophisticated learning standards such as “knowing and properly using different techniques, resources, and compositional procedures to develop musical arrangements, improvise, and compose music” or “using different computer resources autonomously at the service of musical creation” (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2014b). 365

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

However, what the official curriculum states does not coincide with what has really been happening in primary and secondary schools throughout Spain. To have a nationwide understanding of the actual impact of the music education system, we carried out a national evaluation project1 with another 18 researchers from different Spanish universities from 2015 through 2018, focusing on young people who had attended music lessons in schools approximately from 2000 to 2010. Besides case studies and life histories, we inductively designed a questionnaire based on qualitative exploratory interviews to recall young people’s memories about their school musical experiences. The questionnaire, which included some items about composition, was validated and then administered to 2,000 subjects between the ages of 22 and 32, randomly selected from across Spain (representing the Spanish population approximately born between 1985 and 1995), through a quantitative survey (Cremades Andreu, 2019). In spite of what was stated in the national curriculum at the time, 50% of the respondents answered that they had never participated in improvisation or composition tasks in school, and most of those who had participated were completely dissatisfied with their experience.

Reports and research about composition in Spanish schools After commenting on the situation of composition in the national curriculum and its global evaluation, in this section, we review articles in professional journals written by teachers which concern composition projects carried out in their classrooms, as well as doctoral dissertations and research articles from academic journals, most of them with action-research designs. Among the doctoral dissertations, we found some with a generalist approach, aimed primarily at analyzing creative abilities. Within this first group, Valverde Martínez (2015) studied the correlation between different evaluation and systematization tests of general and musical creativity against those that measure only musical aptitudes, largely non-creative. Other dissertations focused on the pedagogical foundations of composition and its rationale within the curriculum. The largely theoretical pedagogical application of musical improvisation, its curricular inclusion, and its teaching were discussed by Peñalver Vilar (2006). However, most reports analyzed the results of classroom projects. In our review, we found reports about individual and group composition in primary and secondary schools, including projects where classroom instruments had been used, projects where musical creativity was connected with body movement and dance, and projects based on the use of ICT. Focused on more empirical aspects, there are doctoral dissertations that analyze classroom projects with note-bar instruments, small percussion, and traditional instruments (Bernabé, 2015; Hernández Moreno, 2009; Lage Gómez, 2016). The elements described by Hernández Moreno (2009) are improvisation and musical composition based on sequential patterns in relation to students’ generative skills, greater or lesser decision-making, self-regulation, group work, and cooperation. These are common elements to Lage Gómez (2016), who made a classification of compositions based on the teaching approaches to facilitate students’ creativity, including the creation of soundtracks through collaborative composition and the use of group improvisation as a learning strategy. He also analyzed visual supports in the projects, used as creative guides in the activities, and as a formalization of the compositional products. Oriol López’s (2006) early research focused on students’ attitudes when creating musical compositions in groups, analyzing self-esteem, motivation, and socialization. Concerned about multicultural issues, Bernabé (2015) used classroom musical creations to discuss how a particular organization of music education could contribute to intercultural dialogue. Her students used the same instruments in their creations as the previous ones, but she emphasizes 366

Music composition in Spanish schools

the more traditional orchestral organization of high-pitched instruments in front and lowpitched behind, as well as percussion in the same position, but behind the note-bars. In our own research—which we afterward transferred to teacher training—we explored group composition with classroom instruments as a strategy for collaborative music learning in a secondary school, focusing on the analysis of students’ intuitive musical understanding, their social interactions through sound, and the development of their creative processes (Rusinek, 2004, 2005, 2007). A few projects emphasized the use of the body in students’ creations. Ros Barrachina (2016) carried out a case study of students composing through voice, movement, and playing recorders along with traditional and non-traditional instruments. Tornos Culleré (2014) aimed at fostering students’ musical participation through the body, the voice, and the performance of instruments such as keyboards, note-bar, and non-pitched percussion instruments, in order to explore texture, timbre, and rhythm. Herrero Valín (2013) discusses creativity and musical composition in school and the use of technological media, which does not always make tasks more attractive to students and also analyzes how gestural work with the voice or with the body facilitates the understanding of a piece, and especially of elements such as form or spatialization. Other papers inform about projects where classroom composition is related to contemporary dance (Santo Anastácio, 2019) or with the Dalcroze method (Cernik, 2019). Computers have been increasingly used as a key tool to enhance creative processes in the classroom. For her doctoral dissertation, Alegret (2004) explored the use of a freeware score editor as a composition tool for her students in a secondary school in Barcelona. Murillo (2007) provided his students in a secondary school in Valencia with a compact disc with freeware already installed in the school computer room. This was to be used with their home computers in order to explore sound editing, sampling, and looping within projects such as creating music for advertising spots, improvising live within different pop styles, or creating “electronic miniatures” within the scope of a composition competition. However, there has been an exponential advance in the last years, thanks to the expanded use of smartphones and tablets, of the availability of free sound apps. This means that young people now have access to simplified versions of hardware and free software that years ago was unaffordable and only available to professional studios. Music teachers in Spain, as elsewhere, have been exploring these resources. Payno Rodríguez (2019) offered students technological content, proposing strategies and practices that ranged from hearing and sound production to the construction of instruments. Samplers and loops, as well as the use of varied applications, were the means that students took to with high motivation. The utilization of these technologies stimulated new expressive resources for performing, improvising, and composing, and enabled musical experiences that reflected the reality of the classroom and transcended it by, for example, collaboratively creating a soundtrack about harassment (Cremades Andreu & Lage Gómez, 2018). Creative proposals also have been made by teachers (Camino Rentería, 2019; Estornell Boscà, 2019) in order to improve digital competencies in students and teachers while enhancing composing, mixing, editing, and publishing their results using different software. Sánchez Sánchez (2019) informed about a “talking boxes” project, which, by transforming the classroom into a hackerspace, enabled students to become a community where people with common interests (such as computers, machines, technology, science, digital art, or electronic art) could meet, socialize, collaborate, and create music. As we will discuss in the final section, this type of music education projects, where the objective is the empowerment of individuals and communities, responds to what the information society is currently demanding from arts education by the use of creative and alternative approaches that have students’ future employment as a goal. 367

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

Educational programs: musicians in residence and students’ operas Many orchestras and concert halls throughout Spain, as is the case in many other countries, have educational departments with youth programs aimed at educating children and adolescents, generally in order to ensure future audiences as a response to the continuously diminishing interest in Western classical music. Usually these programs include concerts for schools designed to familiarize students with Western classical music or to teach them specific musical notions, e.g., with the help of a presenter or narrator. A very special case among the many programs was the 2004–2017 project, “Adopt a Musician,” organized by the Spanish National Orchestra and Choir and an in-service teacher training center in Madrid (Ortega, 2012), which was based on similar musician-in-residence projects in other countries. The participant teachers attended a training workshop with the orchestra musicians in order to organize a creative process with their classes for around three months, and during that period, one orchestra member (the “adopted” musician) visited the school and worked creatively with the teacher and the students at least twice. Every year, a different orchestral piece was chosen by the organizers to be played by the orchestra and to serve as inspiration for the students’ creative processes. The students attended a dress rehearsal of the piece at the Madrid National Auditorium, where they could also see their “adopted” musician playing within the Spanish National Orchestra. With the help of with a guide exploring the elements and creative possibilities of the selected orchestral piece, the teachers guided the students’ re-creations. Finally, there was a dress rehearsal at the Madrid National Auditorium with all the participant schools playing with their “adopted” musicians—where they could listen to the other students and get to know different creative solutions to the proposed task—and a concluding public concert for parents. In their independent evaluation of “Adopt a Musician,” Cañas-Escudero and Rodríguez-Quiles (2017) highlighted the participant students’ motivation and agency as compared with other orchestras’ outreach programs focused on “pedagogical concerts.” This was due to their active participation as composers and musicians, their contact with real-world professionals, and their own public performance in a highly symbolic concert hall. Another, and now extended, educational program, including music composition, focuses on the creation of “students’ operas” in schools. Sáez (1999), a Spanish teacher who had received training in workshops at the Royal Opera House and the Metropolitan Opera, was one of the pioneers in creating students’ operas in primary schools in Spain. However, it was only after the visit to Madrid of Mary Ruth McGinn, an American primary teacher, thanks to a Fulbright scholarship, that this pedagogical approach blossomed. McGinn taught the first workshop for primary teachers in 2008 at the Madrid Royal Theater on how to guide children in creating an opera. After successful performances by three schools in Madrid, guided by teachers who had participated in that workshop (García Fernández et al., 2009), the idea eventually evolved into the Opera as a Vehicle for Learning Project, or LÓVA (LÓVA, 2021). The LÓVA Project is currently an educational program sponsored by the Madrid Royal Theater and the SaludArte Foundation, and coordinated by Pedro Sarmiento (2012), based on similar programs carried out for many years by American and British opera houses, such as Creating Original Opera (at the Metropolitan Opera) or Write an Opera (at the Royal Opera House). Since its creation, LÓVA has trained more than 500 teachers and contributed to the creation and performance of 330 “students’ operas” along Spain, involving more than 8,000 students. In each participant school (most of them at the primary level), a class works as a kind of opera company for a full school year, with well-defined roles for each student chosen by consensus: composers, screenwriters, actors/singers, producers, stage designers, clothes designers, 368

Music composition in Spanish schools

makeup artists, and public relations. A good example of project-based educational approaches, LÓVA enables students to work autonomously in small groups, solving artistic and logistical tasks and integrating the arts and music into the full curriculum. The teacher acts as a facilitator, sequencing the tasks and helping children solve problems, usually supported by other teachers in the school and sometimes with the involvement of parents in practical issues. Although the musical composition elements are important in the creation of opera, it needs to be said that musical composition is only experienced by a small part of the class—those students in charge of creating the songs and instrumental parts, and usually of performing them as a “school orchestra” of bar-tone instruments, small-percussion instruments, and keyboards. Most of the publications about this program are enthusiastic reports by the teachers themselves, but few by external observers. In her case study of the development of LÓVA opera projects in third and sixth grade of a public school near Madrid, Cuadrado (2021) highlighted that, because of their focus on the creative process, their potential as an individual and social transforming tool could be achieved independently of the quality of the musical and artistic products. With a different, original approach, and more focused on the musical composition component, Ocaña (2010), a music teacher in a public school near Madrid, got his students involved in the creation of operas for two years. As a part of his early doctoral research, he carried out an action-research project, taking the challenge of teaching all subjects to the same class for two years (fifth and sixth grade) in order to integrate music into the curriculum within the creation of the operas. In his project, all the students in the class participated to some extent in the music composition processes and successfully learned most of the subjects, with their opera as a highly motivating medium.

Research on composition in other educational contexts As we explained in the second section of this chapter, instrumental tuition and ensemble practice are not provided in Spanish primary and secondary schools but in private or municipalityowned “music schools,” or in elementary- or medium-stage conservatories for those pursuing a more professional training.2 Teaching in these institutions has commonly had a reproductive approach to some degree inherited from the French training tradition in music theory and solfa. Although music theory (which includes ear training) as a conservatory subject has changed its name in Spain from “solfege” to “musical language,” classroom practice has not necessarily changed. Depending on their music theory and instrument teachers’ viewpoint, during the elementary stage (four years, usually for ages 8–12), students receive a traditional technical training that rarely incorporates elements of improvisation or composition. Among the few researchers studying group composition processes in elementary-stage conservatories, Viladot (2009) focused on collective meaning construction in relation to specific musical elements. Composition has traditionally been conceptualized in conservatories as comprising creative skills that can only be developed after the analytical ones have been achieved and, of course, is always linked to traditional notation. Even in subjects that use improvisation, such as jazz subjects offered in conservatories, sometimes the approach derived from its institutionalization (Corrado, 2005) makes them closer to the reproductive canon of patterns and prescriptions, reducing the degrees of freedom and self-regulation that jazz culture originally had (Casas-Mas, 2015a). Some authors (Després & Dubé, 2014; Méndez & Pozo, 2022; Molina, 2011) have contributed to helping conservatory teachers integrate musical improvisation and composition in the teaching of instruments. Some dissertations analyze the application of Molina’s (2011) methodology to conservatory subjects: López García (2018) to accompaniment and piano, and Cotolí Miguel (2017) to chamber music and oboe. 369

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

Subjects in medium-stage conservatories (usually for ages 12–18), such as harmony, music analysis, or fundamentals of composition, have been conceived in a very theoretical and analytical manner rather than a creative and productive one. The problem of piano players’ employability, together with the introduction of popular music and technology, has slowly fostered a shift toward more practical and creative approaches (Casas-Mas, 2022; Casas-Mas et al., 2015b; Lasuén Hernández, 2014, 2017), although still not widely implemented. Among a few examples, we found the incorporation of creative skills to the accompaniment of dance, as studied in Sánchez’s (2017) doctoral dissertation, and the introduction of electroacoustic music and of composition for audiovisual media (Román, 2018). As explained in the first section, music schools provide music education for amateurs, from children to seniors. Connecting with young amateurs’ worlds and musical preferences, these institutions are keener to use new technologies as a way of democratizing the access to musical creativity. For example, Ases Alborch (2019) writes about composing with loop stations with music school students. These devices and software have the advantages of accessibility (in that anyone can make it sound), immediacy (everything happens now), and cyclical time (continuous repetition), which shows students’ new fields of exploration. As she explains, this is the way to develop musical realities beyond what a student can play when he or she is studying alone. Jara López (2019), concerned not only about democracy but also about gender issues in composition, focuses on women’s creative role in electronic music and in female students’ identification processes toward a field traditionally controlled by men.

Preparing teachers to teach composition Preparing teachers to foster children’s musical creativity and to include composition tasks in their teaching is crucial, but this endeavor has not necessarily been shared by those involved in music teacher education in Spain. To teach in a primary school in Spain, a Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education is required, along with a music education major or specialty in order to teach music. From 1991 to 2009, this specialty consisted of around 500 hours of training in music education within the Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education together with a semester of supervised teaching practices, and since 2009 (following the Bologna process of unification of the European Higher Education System), the specialty was reduced to 180 hours of training together with the teaching practices. The current requirement to teach music in secondary school is a Bachelor of Music (obtained at a “superior” conservatory) or of Musicology, plus a specific Master’s Degree in Secondary Education. At the Complutense University of Madrid, we have been taking this professional demand into account by including musical creativity experiences in the training of primary teachers for more than 15 years now. For the prospective generalist teachers, in order to help them to understand the role of the arts in education through group composition and, most importantly, to foster their understanding of constructivist approaches to teaching (Pozo et al., 2006) by means of experiencing the collaboration that is inherent to the performing arts; for the prospective music teachers, besides the latter, to prepare them to design, coordinate, and evaluate compositional tasks and projects. The strategy we have been following (Rusinek, 2012b) is to immerse prospective teachers in creative experiences, first exploring or improvising with basic musical elements and then completing short one-session compositional tasks in groups. Finally, a longer group composition is required as a project to complete the course, which has to be performed in an authentic context (e.g., a theater or a school for primary or secondary students). For certain music education subjects, the required project is a “students’ opera,” with the added complexity of choosing a topic, writing a libretto and lyrics for the arias and recitatives, 370

Music composition in Spanish schools

composing the overture and songs, rehearsing the music, rehearsing the scenes and choreographies, preparing costumes and props, and solving production problems. Equally as important as the musical aspects of the learning experience is the reflection on social and creative interactions. Our prospective teachers are prompted to elaborate a rehearsal diary, taking turns to write participant observations, which they have to analyze, connecting their viewpoints with the social psychology and music psychology, review suggested bibliography for a reflective essay within the final evaluative portfolio. Thus, we provide prospective teachers with a motivating, hands-on, practical-to-theoretical understanding (Clàra & Mauri, 2010) about why and how to teach composition in schools, and of the teaching potential of opera in schools. An optimistic aspect derived from the introduction of compositional experiences in the Bachelor in Primary Education is the increasing number of pre-service teachers choosing composition as a topic for their Bachelor of Education final project. This project is an essay usually linked to their experience in the teaching practices in schools during the eighth semester of studies. Some young people are starting to be interested in, for example, composition with percussion instruments (Muñoz-Reja Gallardo, 2013), composing songs (Rodríguez Antúnez, 2017), creating hip-hop pieces (Pérez de Ziriza Mas, 2016), creating rap (Hernández-Martínez, 2013), composing with on-line tools (López Rubio, 2016), or producing music with digital audio workstations (Cundín Rández, 2018).

The future of composition in schools In the concluding part of this chapter, we discuss how music composition entrenches itself with other mainstream teaching strategies in Spanish music education. We analyze why it collides with the ideologies behind those strategies almost half a century after its introduction in schools in other countries (e.g., Paynter & Aston, 1970), and why it is still resisted by many Spanish teachers and teacher educators. Finally, we elaborate upon what its potential is nowadays in an educational system aimed at preparing young people for the challenges of the knowledge society. Music was included from the beginning of compulsory schooling in Spain as a singing activity (Ministerio de Instrucción Pública y Bellas Artes, 1901), as elsewhere. But the use of recorded music opened a new role for teachers as guides into the world of classical music— that is, into supposed “high” culture—as early as the brief Second Republic (1931–1936) when teachers’ “pedagogical missions” as part of their literacy campaigns naïvely carried gramophones to enlighten the illiterate countryside masses. Or, as Small (1999) would elegantly contend, music teachers acted as inductors into the beliefs of the middle classes of 20th-century industrial societies about the stability of the material and value conditions they live in, cherished in the stability of the concert etiquette. This reproductive conception of music education, eventually incorporated into secondary education as a mandatory music history course (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1975), still remains, unconscious, in the educational perspectives of many music teachers. The introduction of European mid-century music education methods (mainly the Orff-Schulwerk but also the Dalcroze eurhythmics and the Kodály method) into the teaching practiced by the few Spanish music teachers working in private schools in the 1960s and 1970s, and their incorporation of the viewpoints of the Orff-Schulwerk to the nominal curricula—that is, to official curricula which were not universally applied—opened the door to child participation. However, this so-called active participation when manipulating music elements was, and still is, mainly reproductive of ideal representations teachers have in their minds. Children, most of the time, must reproduce as mirrors what their teachers propose and respond in groups in a kind of accompanied melody pedagogical texture where any dissonance, any deviation from the 371

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas

teacher’s plan, is rejected or penalized as disruptive. This mid-century expressive ideology, stated in naïve objectives in the national curriculum, such as “children should love music,” “children should respect silence” or “children should express their ideas and emotions through music” (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2014a, pp. 19404–19405), is still implemented as copy-the-teacher teaching strategies, and even in the official name of the music education departments in Spain: “didactics3 of musical expression.” Teachers who teach with these expressive viewpoints have often misunderstood composition as a laissez-faire approach, where any proposal by a student is appropriate. Constructivist approaches are not laissez-faire but, on the contrary, well structured. The difference is that, where expressive music methods sequence every step of students’ learning, in a constructivist approach, teachers strategically design a series of scaffolding tasks (Wood et al., 1976) toward a learning objective, and students decide which steps they need to take to solve the problems that the tasks demand. In the constructivist approach, beneath the inclusion of individual and group composition in schools, the focus is put not only on compositional products, but on students’ creative processes, and, in the end, on their processes of change. Thus, teachers propose compositional experiences where the social interactions trigger emotions and thoughts that mobilize critical perspectives and, hopefully, autonomous ways of being. Taking into account the challenges of the information society, an expressive music education approach where activity only means child action, not child autonomy or self-regulation, might condemn music to step out of the educational system. Neither teachers nor teacher educators, and of course neither politicians nor curriculum planners, know what the demands of future society will be (e.g., the competencies that will be required for jobs or technologies that do not exist nowadays). In this context, school music education must contribute to preparing young people for an uncertain future. In a rapidly evolving societal context, music composition reaffirms its potential in inducting students into thinking creatively, into learning to work collaboratively, valuing their peers’ contribution, and into participating in socially meaningful artistic projects. Music composition, a clear example of constructivist pedagogies, lets students understand that problems have different ways of being solved, that information is important in an era of uncertainty but only as a means to reach their goals. And, most importantly, that if educators are no longer the source of knowledge in the internet age, they need to start to rethink their role as learning facilitators.

Reflective questions 1 How is composition regarded within the national curriculum or standards for school music education in your country or region? 2 How is composition included in daily music teaching practice among your colleagues in your country or region? 3 What is your own approach regarding the use of composition as a music learning strategy in your classroom?

Notes 1 IMPACTMUS: The impact of music education on the knowledge society and economy (funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, EDU2014-58066-P, and coordinated by Prof. José Luis Aróstegui). 2 This training is completed, at a higher education level, with a four-year Bachelor of Music within the “superior” conservatories, which is not reviewed here. 3 “Didactics” in Spanish (“didáctica”) refers to teaching methods and is a word related to the German “didaktik” (Kertz-Welzel, 2004) without the pejorative connotations it sometimes has in British English.

372

Music composition in Spanish schools

References Alegret, M. (2004). La creación musical a través de la información: Estudio de un caso en primer ciclo de secundaria. (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Barcelona. Ases Alborch, C. (2019). Vive el “loop” y deja el (j)aula: La repetición como herramienta de autonomía. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 79, 37–40. Barrett, M. S. (1998). Researching children’s compositional processes and products: Connections to music education practice? In B. Sundin, G. McPherson, & G. Folkestad (Eds.), Children composing (pp. 10–34). Malmö: Malmö Academy of Music. Bernabé, M. M. (2015). Organización intercultural en el aula de música de secundaria. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 18(3), 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/ reifop.18.3.182971 Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. London/New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032 Burnard, P. (2000). How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composition: Rethinking pedagogy in music education. Music Education Research, 2(1), 7–23. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2004). Problem-solving and creativity: Insights from students’ individual composing pathways. International Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0255761404042375 Camino Rentería, M. J. (2019). Bandas sonoras, el arte de combinar música. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 79, 29–35. Cañas-Escudero, M., & Rodríguez-Quiles, J. A. (2017). Evaluación de programas educativos en instituciones musicales El caso Adoptar un Músico. Revista Electrónica de LEEME, 39, 21–54. https://doi. org/10.7203/LEEME.39.9926 Casas-Mas, A. (2022). Learning outside the music classroom: From informal to formal learning as musical learning cultures. In J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez-Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez, and J. A. Torrado (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the music studio. A student-centred approach, (pp. 325–341). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0634-3 Casas-Mas, A., Montero, I., & Pozo, J. I. (2015a). Discourse on practice of a semi-professional jazz guitarist: A case study of constructive musical learning. Journal of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music. IASPM@Journal, 5(1), 54–80. https://doi.org/10.5429/2079-3871(2015)v5i1.5es Casas-Mas, A., Pozo, J. I., & Scheuer, N. (2015b). Musical learning conceptions as sociocultural productions. Lexicometrical analysis of discourse in classical, flamenco and jazz cultures. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 46(9), 1191–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115603124 Cernik, P. (2019). La evaluación del proceso creativo en clases de música y movimiento. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 80, 27–34. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Clàra, M., & Mauri, T. (2010). Una discusión sobre el conocimiento práctico y sus relaciones con el conocimiento teórico y la práctica. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10. 1174/021037010791114643 Corrado, O. (2005). Canon, hegemonía y experiencia estética: Algunas reflexiones. Revista Argentina de Musicología, 5–6, 17–44. Cotolí Miguel, M. V. (2017). Haciendo/creando el aprendizaje del oboe. Aplicación experimental de la improvisación y la creación en la clase de Música de Cámara y de Conjunto en el conservatorio. Acciones Estratégicas (2014–2017) (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat de València. doi:10.4995/ Thesis/10251/89089 Cremades Andreu, R. (2019). Impacto de la educación musical en jóvenes españoles después de finalizar su etapa de educación obligatoria. In J. Pérez-Moreno & C. Carrillo (Eds.), El Impacto de la educación musical escolar: Una mirada retrospectiva (pp. 29–47). Barcelona: Octaedro. Cremades Andreu, R., & Lage Gómez, C. (2018). Educación para la paz y violencia escolar a través de un proyecto musical en secundaria. Publicaciones, 48(2), 319–336. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ articulo?codigo=6930433 Cuadrado, A. (2021). El Proyecto Lóva como experiencia de educación transformadora. In J. L. Arostegui, G. Rusinek, & A. Fernández (Eds.), Escuelas musicales: Buenas prácticas docentes en centros de primaria y secundaria que educan a través de la música (pp. 215–242). Barcelona: Octaedro.

373

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas Cundín Rández, R. (2018). Cómo enseñar a hacer música en las aulas del siglo XXI: FL studio (B. Ed. final project). Logroño: Universidad de La Rioja. Després, J. P., & Dubé, F. (2014). Marco conceptual para ayudar al maestro de instrumento a integrar la improvisación musical en su práctica pedagógica. Revista Internacional de Educación Musical, 2, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.12967/RIEM-2014-2-p024-035 Estornell Boscà, M. (2019). Tecnología e informática musical: Unidad didáctica para abordar las competencias digitales. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 79, 7–13. García Fernández, M., López López, B., & García Gómez, M. J. (2009). Crecer en compañía creando una ópera. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 183–184, 30–33. Glover, J. (2000). Children composing 4–14. New York: Routledge. Hernández-Martínez, N. (2013). Estimular la capacidad crítica del alumnado. La música rap en Educación Primaria (B. Ed. final project). Logroño: Universidad Internacional de La Rioja. Hernández Moreno, A. (2009). La improvisación y composición musical como recurso pedagógico en la educación secundaria obligatoria. (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Murcia. Herrero Valín, M. R. (2013). La pedagogía de la creación musical: Una reflexión sobre la escucha y la creatividad en el contexto de la música contemporánea (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Salamanca. Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234–244. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3345709 Hickey, M. (Ed.). (2003). Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Jara López, J. (2019). Escuela de oficios electrosonoros: Experiencias educativas en torno a la música electrónica. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 79, 14–20. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2004). Didaktik of music: A German concept and its comparison to American music pedagogy. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0255761404049806 Lage Gómez, C. (2016). Música e imágenes: un estudio de investigación acción sobre creación musical en tercero de educación secundaria obligatoria (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad Complutense. Lasuén Hernández, S. (2014). La ausencia de las músicas populares urbanas en las programaciones de los conservatorios españoles: una incoherente tradición normalizada con fecha de caducidad. Cuadernos de Etnomusicología, 4, 37–59. Lasuén Hernández, S. (2017). La armonía como elemento de comunicación en procesos creativos globales: Evidencias empíricas e interpretación valorativa en el cine español de los noventa. Revista de Musicología, 40(1), 325–332. doi:10.2307/24938872 online: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/pdf/24938872.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A0bd64e0d02a1046928f75105c81e6864&ab_ segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1 López García, A. (2018). Aplicación de la metodología IEM para el desarrollo de la creatividad musical a través de la improvisación y composición en las asignaturas de Acompañamiento y Piano Complementario (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. López Rubio, J. (2016). Herramientas online para la composición musical en educación primaria (B. Ed. final project). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. LÓVA (2021). LÓVA. La Ópera como Vehículo de Aprendizaje. Retrieved April 18, 2023, from https:// www.teatroreal.es/proyectolova/ Major, A. E. (2007). Talking about composing in secondary school music lessons. British Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051707007437 Méndez, E., & Pozo, J. I. (2022). Learning music by composing: Redescribing expressive goals while writing them. In J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez-Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez, and J. A. Torrado (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the music studio: A student-centred approach, (pp. 245–260). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0634-3 Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (1975). Decreto 160/1975 de 23 de enero de Plan de Estudios de Bachillerato.Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (1990). Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. (1991). Real Decreto 1006/1991, de 14 de junio por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas correspondientes a la Educación Primaria. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado.

374

Music composition in Spanish schools Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. (2006a). Real Decreto 1513/2006, de 7 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas de la educación primaria. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. (2006b). Real Decreto 1631/2006, de 29 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas correspondientes a la educación secundaria obligatoria. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2004). Real Decreto 115/2004, de 23 de enero, por el que se establece el currículo de la Educación Primaria. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2014a). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2014b). Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato. Madrid: Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ministerio de Instrucción Pública y Bellas Artes. (1901). Real Decreto de 26 de octubre de 1901. Madrid: Gazeta de Madrid. Molina, E. (2011). Aportaciones del análisis y la improvisación a la formación del intérprete pianista: El modelo de los estudios Op. 25 de Chopin (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Muñoz-Reja Gallardo, J. (2013). La composición musical como vehículo de aprendizaje en el aula (B. Ed. final project). Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Murillo, A. (2007). La clase de composición colectiva: Las TIC como recurso para la composición. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 39, 46–58. Ocaña, Á (2010, June). Crear óperas escolares: Una propuesta de formación integral. Scherzo, 253, 134–135. Oriol López, M. A. (2006). Actitudes que desarrollan los alumnos de secundaria al crear una composición musical en grupo (Doctoral report). Universidad Complutense. Ortega, M. (2012). «Adoptar un músico». Música y participación: Un proyecto educativo innovador de la OCNE y el CRIF Las Acacias. In A. Giráldez (Ed.), Música: Investigación, innovación y buenas prácticas (pp. 65–74). Barcelona: Ministerio de Educación – Graó. Payno Rodríguez, C. J. (2019). La revolución procedimental: TIC en un aula de música de primaria. Eufonía: Didáctica de la Música, 79, 21–28. Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence: Classroom projects in creative music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peñalver Vilar, J. M. (2006). La aplicación pedagógica de la improvisación musical y su didáctica en la enseñanza de la música en la educación obligatoria (Doctoral dissertation). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. Pérez de Ziriza Mas, F. (2016). La música popular en el aula: La cultura hip-hop y sus elementos como herramientas del proceso educativo (B. Ed. final project). Madrid: Universidad Complutense. Pozo, J. I., Scheuer, N., Pérez-Echeverría, M. P., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & de la Cruz, M. (Eds.). (2006). Nuevas formas de pensar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Las concepciones de profesores y alumnos. Barcelona: Graó. Pozo, J. I., Torrado, J. A., & Baño, L. F. (2022). Teaching music: Old traditions and new approaches. In J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez-Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez, and J. A. Torrado (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the music studio: A student-centred approach, (pp. 21–46). Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-19-0634-3 Rodríguez Antúnez, J. (2017). Expresión de emociones y desarrollo de la creatividad a través de la composición de canciones en educación primaria (B. Ed. final thesis). Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Román, A. (2018). Ensimismamiento e introspección en la música. Un ejemplo desde el análisis musivisual de una secuencia cinematográfica. Creatividad y sociedad: Revista de la Asociación para la Creatividad, 28, 71–96. Retrieved from http://www.creatividadysociedad.com/numeros/cys28.html Ros Barrachina, V. (2016). Los conciertos en el aula de educación musical de primaria: Creación e interpretación cooperativa (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat de València. Rusinek, G. (2004). Collaborative composition in a Spanish secondary school general music class. In M. Mans & B. W. Leung (Eds.), Music in schools for all children: From research to effective practice. Proceedings of the 14th International seminar of the music in school & teacher education commission (pp. 87–95). Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada – International Society for Music Education. Rusinek, G. (2005). La composición en el aula de secundaria. Musiker. Cuadernos de Música, 14, 191–208. Retrieved from https://www.eusko-ikaskuntza.eus/en/publications/la-composicion-en-elaula-de-secundaria/art-13768/

375

Gabriel Rusinek and Amalia Casas-Mas Rusinek, G. (2006). Music in a Spanish secondary school: A look at the past and a look at the present. In M. Moore & B. W. Leung (Eds.), School music and teacher education: A global perspective in the new century (pp. 58–68). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education – International Society for Music Education. Rusinek, G. (2007). Students’ perspectives in a collaborative composition project at a Spanish secondary school. Music Education Research, 9(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800701587670 Rusinek, G. (2012a). Action-research on collaborative composition: An analysis of research questions and designs. In Ó. Òdena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 185–200). Farnham: Ashgate. Rusinek, G. (2012b). Composing “school operas” in teacher training: Integration, motivation and reflection. Paper presented at the 30th World conference of the International Society for Music Education, Thessaloniki. Rusinek, G., & Sarfson, S. (2016). Spain: A journey from a nominal towards a universally implemented curriculum. In G. Cox & R. Stevens (Eds.), The origins and foundations of music education: International perspectives (2nd ed., (pp. 112–125). London: Bloomsbury. Sáez, M. (1999). Escribe una ópera. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 17, 89–104. Sági, M., & Vitányi, I. (1988). Experimental research into musical generative ability. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation and composition (pp. 179–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sánchez, I. T. (2017). El acompañamiento pianístico de la danza: La improvisación como recurso creativo. Revista de Musicología, 40(1), 332–340. doi:10.2307/24938873 Sánchez Sánchez, A. J. (2019). Cajas parlantes: Dejarse construir por nuevas músicas. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 79, 41–44. Santo Anastácio, M. B. (2019). Pon más cuerpo en tu aula. Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 80, 21–26. Sarmiento, P. (2012). La ópera, un vehículo de aprendizaje (LÓVA). Eufonía. Didáctica de la Música, 55, 40–47. Small, C. (1999). Musicking-the meanings of performing and listening. A lecture. Music Education Research, 1(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380990010102 Tornos Culleré, A. M. (2014). Escuchar música. Diseño y creación de un método experiencial y creativo desde la percepción del movimiento en la música para los alumnos de la ESO (Doctoral dissertation). Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Valverde Martínez, F. J. (2015). Creatividad y aptitudes en alumnos de educación secundaria en los dominios figurativo y musical (Doctoral dissertation). Cartagena: Universidad de Murcia. Viladot, L. (2009). Anàlisi d’una proposta d’innovació didàctica a l’escola de músicaestudi del procés de composició col·lectiva a l’aula de 3r elemental (Doctoral dissertation). Barcelona: Universidad Autónoma. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. Webster, P. R. (2009). Children as creative thinkers in music. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 421–428). New York: Oxford University Press. Wiggins, J. (2007). Compositional process in music. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 453–469). Dordrecht: Springer. Wiggins, J. (2015). Teaching for musical understanding (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

376

INTERLUDE VIII

Why Compose in Music Education? Arguments between Curricular and Extracurricular Settings Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

The question as to why and how composing is taking place in music education differs according to the respective contexts where it is taking place as well as with regard to the situations and people involved. Further, the definitions of composing vary. Within the school context, music teachers might integrate composing in their teaching for different reasons, for example curricular guidelines, personal background and interest in composing, and specific teaching materials. Nevertheless, the lack of good teaching materials for composing in the classroom, as well as the assumption that composing is too complex to carry out with a normal school class, can also cause it to be excluded. In many countries around the world, the teaching and learning of composing still seems to be more associated with practices happening outside the school context, such as in formal settings of music education (e.g., music schools), cultural institutions (with specific programs in composing pedagogy), as well as more informal learning contexts, for example composing in band practice, songwriting, and music production with personal digital devices. The way composing is taught and learned outside the school context might differ from the ways it appears within the school. Moreover, it becomes clear that the understanding of composing varies depending on the respective context. In a rather narrow definition, composing is a very specific activity that only few gifted people can perform, thus the circle of involved people remains rather small and mostly takes place within specialist institutions of music learning (which not all people have access to). In contrast, composing in its broadest sense appears more as a multicolored activity that fulfills more than just the purpose of designing a product, but a lot of other targets, such as finding one’s own voice of expression in music, understanding music. This interlude will have a close look at these targets with regard to composing in curricular and extracurricular settings.

Composing in schools In music education literature, there are a range of positive reasons to make composing part of the music lessons. Some promote the experience of authorship. As a benefit, it is described that, through one’s own composing, the view of other people’s compositions is changed, whereby respect and understanding for compositional decisions arise and, with regard to instrumental DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-33

377

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

playing, interpretations are also examined. Composing can thus be used as a tool for accessing new and unknown music, such as contemporary art music. Another reason for composing in music education is that it supports the learning of musical thinking and understanding, such as embedding theoretical content. Further, composing enables esthetic experiences and provides opportunities for esthetic argumentation (Schlothfeldt, 2019, p. 330). Finally, composing is seen as a suitable object of instruction to enable communication between students, and to realize that students can participate in what is taking place in music lessons. Thus, composing in schools finds itself in a field of tension. Composing can either be the actual content of the lessons or be used as a tool to learn other musical skills. However, these are not only two separate and binary aims but rather can be seen as a continuum.

Music curricula Next, this interlude focuses on music curricula as official documents. Especially in their preambles, one can find general aims concerning composing in the music classroom. Curricula do not give a picture of what is actually done in the music classroom, which more depends on the teachers’ ideas, their competences, and the circumstances whether music lessons really take place. Curricula cannot represent the respective situation of music education in schools in various countries; all countries show, more or less, a varied picture of what is happening in schools (de Vugt, 2017, p. 41). With respect to the various curricula themselves, it becomes obvious that they differ considerably. Some curricula describe aims, while others describe content or learning outcomes for music as a school subject. Some documents show a clear philosophy and describe clear starting points for music education and are less concerned with defining specific content. Others give detailed lists of musical skills, knowledge, and repertoire that should be taught in clear steps for all age groups. Most documents include statements about ways of learning. They focus on practical knowledge for performing, composing, listening, and understanding of social and cultural contexts of music. Although improvising and arranging are often mentioned, composing is less usual, especially in primary education (Schlegel, 2001, p. 50). An analysis of selected European curricula of the subject of music (Schlegel, 2001) shows that a majority of curricula are structured by learning areas. However, inventing music is not a separate learning area in all curricula but is sometimes included in the learning area of making music, for example. Reasons for composing and, moreover, for teaching music – no matter which system the curriculum is based on – are often stated in the preambles of the curricula. Here, for example, can be found:

• • • • • • • •

Encouragement of creative powers in the child. Joy of musical expression. Promotion of the ability to feel/perceive and express oneself. Development of expressive possibilities. Instruction in listening to music. Care for and development of the voice. Understanding of musical notation. Organization of school festivals, school life.

However, the justifications or goals are not equally found in the concrete manifestations of the curricula (Schlegel, 2001). 378

Why compose in music education?

A look at selected curricula will clarify possible learning goals used for inventing music. It becomes apparent that composing is anchored in curricula when creativity as a personality trait is also given special prestige for social development. A first wave of designing curricula in this sense and giving space to creativity appears in the 1970s. For example, in England, Paynter and Aston were able to establish their ideas about inventing music as a creative process in schools and then also in the curricula. In the context of the Sputnik shock, England also reacted with an educational offensive, which, however, did not (only) focus on competence development, but (also) on creativity education. A contribution to this was also seen in music education (cf. Finney, 2011, p. 11). Furthermore, a child-centered pedagogy was propagated during the time of the Plowden Report (1967), which emphasized the importance of process, exploration, and experience in learning. Also, in Scotland, composing has been an essential feature of music education for children and young people in schools since the 1970s and is seen by policymakers as a valuable creative activity that also has a positive impact on performance and listening. In the 2000s, the importance of creativity as a 21st-century skill seems to enter the public consciousness and the curricula again. Thus, Iceland released a new curriculum (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2014) in which creativity was given a new relevance with a holistic educational agenda for all subjects. The principles of the Icelandic National Curriculum emphasize the importance of preparing students to participate in a democratic society. The new relevance of creativity has a strong influence on the competencies that are aimed at in the music curricula. Creating is now one of the musical activities along with listening and performing. Thus, tasks related to musical creativity are listed among the competency criteria established for the end of each grade level. This is also the case in Turkey. With the reorientation of the curriculum according to a constructivist approach from 2006, “musical creativity” has been stated as one of the connatural and independent learning fields and has become a relatively new concept, while music lessons had been formed in the axis of singing and music theory for many years (Kalyoncu & Özeke, 2016).

Cooperative school projects with professional composers Very often, composing in the music classroom takes place as a time-limited project in cooperation with external professional composers (who are, for example, hired through a specific education program). One concept of composing pedagogy which made its way into many schools throughout the world (in many countries around the globe) is the concept and idea of “response.” Originally conceived and first implemented in the mid-1980s by Gillian Moore together with musicians from the London Sinfonietta, response projects are usually initiated by a cultural institution (concert hall, orchestra, festival, etc.) and carried out in cooperation with one or more schools (as well as, if necessary, other extracurricular partners). Over a certain time-period (usually around three months), students compose their own pieces under the guidance of an invited professional composer or music educator. The study of a so-called reference work plays a central role in the idea of the project: by exploring themes and questions that also occupied the composer of the reference work, and approaching his/her sound language/ techniques, an understanding of the respective reference work is initiated. At the end of the project, the students present their own compositions in a public performance and attend a reference concert in which the reference work is played by professional musicians (or themselves). These main characteristics of “response projects” can be found in many other forms of composition-projects that were developed throughout the world. The purpose to facilitate experiences in composing is often accompanied with other purposes such as the experiencing of new music. 379

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

Composing as an activity outside the school context Beyond the school context, composing is taught and learned in many contexts that vary from formal educational music institutions (e.g., music schools, conservatories, universities of music, and universities) to contexts of informal learning (e.g., band practice, collaborative composing via digital media). The reason as to why, where, and how composing is taught and learned in these different contexts depends largely on factors such as the organization and the purposes behind the respective programs and projects, and the people involved. Thus, it covers a wide range, from more traditional approaches of teaching composition in a master-apprentice setting over various formats of composition pedagogy (for small and larger groups of students) up to informal contexts in popular music, in which creative music making just happens as an inherent element of practicing new songs in a band (but might not be labeled composing). In the following paragraph, insights are given in selected contexts in order to show the broad range that becomes visible here.

Composing as formal learning in educational music institutions Composing as a musical activity is taught and learned in educational musical institutions such as music schools, conservatories, music hubs. In this regard, the teaching and learning format of individual lessons (following a rather traditional master-apprentice approach) may have the longest tradition in composition pedagogy in the Western classical music tradition. With the intention to encourage and support young people in learning how to compose (their own) music, music educational institutions like music schools offer various formats in which composing is carried out: on the one hand, composing is taught and learned in individual classes where the one-to-one situation allows a very individual approach and support of the respective needs of the single student. Along with this, composing is also taught in the format of group lessons within special composition classes (see Schmidinger, 2020, pp. 145–149, for example) who, besides the individual approach, also take social and communicative aspects of creative music making into account. Usually, when composing is taught and learned within an educational institution such as the music school, it goes along with lessons in music theory. Besides these specific courses focusing on composing as a subject, creative music making can also be taught and learned within instrumental/vocal classes as a natural (inherent) element of learning how to understand musical structures and in finding one’s own ways of expression. Furthermore, composing is carried out in a growing number of time-limited workshops and projects as well as in competitions. Music composition is an established subject that can be studied on an academic level at universities of music worldwide. But even if this is the case, pedagogical strategies and skills of how to teach composition (to professionals and non-professionals) are not yet part of those specific studies that traditionally were and still are mainly artistic (see also Schlothfeldt, 2019) and focus on contemporary art music, electronic music, film music production, jazz, and popular music. Nevertheless, the growing interest of music educators in the pedagogy of composing in and outside school contexts (with non-professionals) contributed to ways of extending the portfolio of the typical composer in a more pedagogical framework. This development can be seen, for example, in the design of specific study programs and/or profiles dedicated to composition pedagogy (for example, see the programs at two Austrian universities of music, Vienna and Graz, where the study of composition and music theory pedagogy is structured according to the fields of school, music school, and music education [see Schmidinger, 2016, 2020]). In the last decades, learning how to teach composition in the classroom has also become an important aspect in programs of continuing education and training that have been intensified by the use of digital media for creative music making. The lack of systematic preparation 380

Why compose in music education?

of future teachers, especially in facilitating the creation of music making (also with digital media), has led to an enormous demand in these areas. Programs of continuing education and training concerning music composition pedagogy in the classroom address not only music teachers but also composers who want to learn more about the pedagogical strategies and approaches (see the digital platforms providing information on methods, theories, and strategies on composing in teaching composition). Programs specifically addressing music teachers (with a focus on digital media) have emerged, for example, in Finland with Future Songwriting; this program has also already been carried out in many European countries.

Composing in informal contexts Along this formal side of composing, creative music making happens in many other contexts with the difference that it might not be called/labeled composing. This is the case in popular music, for example, where collaborative, creative music making within bands as well as songwriting and/or creation of electronic music with digital audio workstations appear as normal practice. Especially the use of digital media in the context of songwriting and beat making and other ways of composing (electronic music, for example) has grown considerably and made composing accessible to people without a rather “classical” instrumental or theoretical expertise. “Access, compositional context, and the very definition of who can be a composer all have been expanded by technological means. […] Technological innovations now allow composers to overcome the challenges that have historically limited compositional engagement. […] Software for notating and recording music, iconographic interfaces, and sound manipulation programs have made the exploration, generation, and manipulation of musical ideas available to anyone who cares to imagine in sound” (Kaschub & Smith, 2013, p. 5). Creative music making is also considered a key process in community music practice (de Bánffy Hall, 2020, p. 57) where it appears mostly through open approaches of group improvisation and composition. In contrast to formal music education in schools and music schools, which are usually referred to as music lessons and follow a curriculum, community music is not based on a curricular program. Instead, within the principle of facilitation, it gives room to the members of the group who shape the creative process with their individual potential. Which style of music is to be played depends on the group, its members confidences and preferences, although in principle all musical genres are possible. Thus, creative music making as understood within community music is mostly about cultural and social participation and less about music learning goals. Moreover – and this might be the biggest difference to formal and traditional contexts – it is not guided by cultural norms and stylistic specifications as taught top-down in music classrooms. Interestingly, the idea and concept of creativity varies and shows different perspectives that affect and challenge a more traditional understanding of “composing”: Thus, according to de Bánffy-Hall, creativity in community music strongly resonates with anti-elitist concepts of creativity such as “democratic and political creativity,” “ubiquitous creativity,” and “wise humanising creativity” (de Bánffy-Hall, 2020, p. 61).

Outlook Altogether, it becomes clear that context can highly shape and influence how composing is performed, taught, and learned (and whom it reaches). Thus, the way composing is taught and learned in music schools seems to follow a different target than the way composing is carried out in the context of band practice and/or community music: do people learn composing because they want to become professional composer or in the context of following the academic 381

Joana Grow and Annette Ziegenmeyer

way of studying at a university of music? Or is composing used as a tool/medium to trigger creativity and group dynamics/communication?

References de Bánffy-Hall, A. (2020). Creativity and community music. In W. Mastnak & A. Sangiorgio (Eds.), Creative interactions: Dynamic processes in group music activities (pp. 57–65). München: Digitale Sammlung der Hochschule für Musik und Theater München. de Vugt, A. (2017). European Perspectives on music education. In J. Rodriguez-Quiles (Ed.), Internationale Perspektiven zur Musiklehrerausbildung in Europa (pp. 39–60). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Finney, J. (2011). Music education in England, 1950–2010: The child-centred progressive tradition. Ashgate Press: Farnham. Future Songwriting. (2022, March 30). http://futuresongwriting.com İlköğretim Müzik Dersi Programı. (2006). T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı İlköğretim Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. Kalyoncu, N., & Özeke, S. (2016). The place of creativity in music lessons in Turkish primary and secondary education. Looking for the unexpected: Creativity and innovation in music education, proceedings of the 24th EAS conference, Vilnius, Lithuania, 16–19 March 2016, (pp. 31–34). Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. P. (Eds.). (2013). Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2014). The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools – with Subjects Areas Reykjavik. https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/ Ministry-of-Education/Curriculum/adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf Schlegel, C. (2001). Europäische Musiklehrpläne im Primarbereich. Eine vergleichende Inhaltsanalyse. Augsburg: Wißner. Schlothfeldt, M. (2019). Kompositionspädagogik – Ein Überblick über ihre Bereiche sowie aktuelle Tätigkeiten und Entwicklungen. In KULTURELLE BILDUNG ONLINE. https://doi.org/10.25529/ 92552.175 Schmidinger, H. (2016). Das Bachelorstudium in Kompositions- und Musiktheoriepädagogik in Graz. In Jeunesses Musicales (Ed.), Musik erfinden. Symposion zur Kompositionspädagogik Weikersheim 2015 (pp. 55–60). Weikersheim: JMD. Schmidinger, M. (2020). Kompositionspädagogik. Theoretische Grundlegung als Fachrichtung der Musikpädagogik. (= Forum Musikpädagogik. Band 148. Augsburger Schriften ed. By Rudolf-Dieter Krämer). Augsburg: Wißner. The Plowden Report. (1967). Children and their Primary Schools. A Report of the Central Advisory council for Education (England). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

382

25 COMPOSITION AND CREATIVE MUSIC MAKING IN SWEDISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS Peter Falthin A discussion of terms and concepts The concept composition, with all its connotations, stirred emotions and caused vivid debate when it first entered the Swedish curriculum for primary school (Skolöverstyrelsen, 1980) and has continued to do so ever since. Even with the introduction of the subject of music in the first curriculum for compulsory school in the early 1960s, there were skeptical reactions as to the realism of the high ambitions, given the limited space in the time-plan and the varying musical competence among primary school teachers (Bodén, 1963). The tasks concerning music theory, arranging, and composition seemed especially challenging to Bodén. During the fall of 2019, there was an open submission for comments on the revision of the course-plans of the current syllabus LGR 11 (Skolverket, 2018, pp. 159–165), and this debate was revived again. Some music teachers argued that composing should be restricted to composition class at college level and above, revealing a genre-laden conceptualization of the word as pertaining to art music, in addition to the pedagogically dubious idea of putting an age limit on music composition. Others just thought the curriculum too dense in general, and the Music Teachers National Association (MR) wanted the curriculum to display a progression by saving the word composition for the last three years of compulsory school (i.e., junior high school), and even then it should be combined with creative music making (musikskapande), which was the term they suggested as a substitute for composition in the early school years (Musiklärarnas Riksförening, 2019). The suggestion itself points to several problems with substituting an established term for something meant to represent the same activity, yet signals that it is something else. If we are to use one concept for children putting together musical material and another when adolescents and adults do it, at what point should the shift be allocated and why? The suggestion by MR is not conceptually motivated but relies on an at once extrinsic and yet strictly local incentive: that it would signal a progression. The opposite argument seems at least as applicable. Progression needs continuity, and the use of different terms aims to break a sense of progression by demarcating one activity from the other. It is a reasonable assumption that composition at a college level in general would be more advanced than composition in primary school, just as an engineer would have a more complex conception of arithmetic or algebra than a primary school pupil, but does that mean the activities DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-34

383

Peter Falthin

are fundamentally different and hence need to be termed differently? A consistent terminology could imply an affordance to relate compositional activities in school to music in society at large. A child who has taken part in compositional activities in primary school and then, for some reason, comes across an event of a composer presenting her/his work would have a better chance of associating that with what took place in school (and turning it into a learning experience) than if what happened in school were to be called “creative music making,” which is a term one is unlikely to come by in the music community. These were arguments pertaining to the semantic sense of the word and problems of consistency in the vertical plane, in other words, as a term encountered throughout different stages of a curriculum. Turning to the lateral implications of terminology, considerations in relation to a broader discourse pose other problems of both a communicative and ontological nature. Up to this point, I have been using the phrase creative music making, which is an idiomatic adaptation into English of the Swedish expression musikskapande. The Swedish expression is a one-word phrase compiled of two nouns: musik, meaning music, and skapande, leaning more toward creation/creating than making. Etymologically speaking, “to compose” means to put things together, things that presumably already exist. Thus, composition can be understood as the art of constructing coherent relations between musical elements. Juha Ojala (2009, p. 76) describes music composition from a pragmatist semiotic perspective, as spatially embodied processes. “[M]usic, which is here regarded as a semiotic process, is in a fundamental way logically connected to the spatial characteristics of the tangible world we live in” (Ojala, 2009, p. 1). He thereby recognizes two different aspects of musical space: (1) intra-musical conceptual space concerning melody, rhythm, harmony, and physical space and (2) sound as vibrations, sound distribution, acoustic space. To create is a much wider concept connoting the possibility to make something out of nothing. The everyday sense of the word has a romantic, essentialist flare to it that craves to be considered from an ontological point of view. Research on creativity as a phenomenon and concept is spread across many knowledge fields. Researchers in artificial intelligence and computational modeling struggle to demystify the concept and frequently arrive at combinatory and evolutionary models (Bentley, 2000; Boden, 2004, 2007; Dahlstedt, 2012, 2015). Falthin and Dahlstedt, working to pedagogically extend the boundaries for individual creativity by means of algorithmic methods, suggested a formalized model: “We use what we know to design an algorithm that projects into the unknown” (Falthin & Dahlstedt, 2010, p. 839). Another problematic aspect of create/creative is that it is value laden and requires some kind of evaluation. Boden lists three criteria for creative making: that it should be “new, surprising and valuable” (Boden, 2004, p. 1, emphasis in original). This entails an instance of assessment of what can be categorized as creative music making, which is not in the same way inherent in composition, which depends solely on the compilation of musical materials. Using the formulation creative music making in the assessment situation thus imposes a new level of qualitative classification: before student work can be graded, it must be evaluated as new, surprising, and valuable. Furthermore, Boden (2004) differs between psychological creativity (P-creativity), designating ideas and solutions new to the person who comes up with them, and historical creativity (H-creativity), concerning ideas and solutions unheard of before. Pcreativity points to the creative process and seems to be an adequate approach for pedagogical application. But how to form a school-subject that can accommodate individual psychological progress? H-creativity points to externalization; it focuses on the relation of the creative product to the world and thus is compatible with the idea of creating artistic works like pieces of music. Still, can it be a feasible ambition for a school-subject to expect outcomes that are new to the world? Maybe the dichotomy is insufficient, and the pedagogical context requires 384

Composition and creative music making

a third category yet to be formulated. Whether substituting the rubric composition for creative music making is less intimidating and makes things easier is at least debatable. The early curricula describe two forms of creative music making: (1) The fixation of musical events into a sequence that is learned and possibly notated in a score. (2) Improvisation, the ability to invent and perform unprepared musical patterns (Kungliga Skolöverstyrelsen, 1960, p. 301; Skolöverstyrelsen, 1964, p. 301, 1969, p. 148). Creative music making was the overarching rubric that comprised both these categories of composition and improvisation; however, to apply this one phrase in a different sense to a new curriculum is likely to cause confusion. The final formulation for the revised curriculum has not been decided as of the time of writing, but the suggested compromise is to keep the concept of composition in the sections concerning core content, i.e., what is to be taught, and issue a compromise suggestion in the section entitled knowledge requirements, which is difficult to translate but almost as awkward in Swedish: “The pupil (…) composes musical expressions that have a (…) functional form” (Skolverket, 2019, p. 4, author’s translation). Moreover, there internationally seems to be a readiness to embrace the word “composition,” such that local constructions may find it hard to compete with. Thus, for international comparison in terms of research or politics, composition seems to be the communicative choice of word. Another concept that is gaining momentum is “songwriting,” used interchangeably with the Swedish term låtskrivande, for which there is no exact counterpart in English. The last element of the word means writing, but the first element etymologically stems from the Swedish word for sound. The word låt has been used for a long time in colloquial language in the sense of song or instrumental piece of moderate format. Traditionally, it denotes instrumental folk music tunes, but over time, it has been applied in most popular music genres. The singersongwriter constitutes a special branch of songwriting. The origin of the expression is debated, as is its designation. Some suggest it dates back to the tradition of the medieval bard, and indeed a bard might fit the description of writer and performer of original songs. As a term though, its instigation is probably associated with popular music in the Anglo-Saxon language sphere starting from the middle of the 20th century. As a concept, its application swings between denoting a person writing and performing her/his own material, and connoting a musical genre. Till (2016) extensively discusses the ramifications constituting different facets of the concept. Some of these regards focus on the material rather than performance or production, choice of subjects and perspective for lyrics, and typically being capable of accompanying oneself on an instrument. That being said, and properly deconstructed, Till arrives at the definition “A singersongwriter is an accepted and descriptive popular cultural term for a composer/performer working within a specific genre” (Till, 2016, p. 8). The concept of that genre has naturally fluctuated over the years and between communities. Up until the middle of the 20th century, it might have been relevant to talk about songwriters (?) but nowadays the writing aspect seems largely abandoned, in part substituted by digital medialization, in part by aural tradition. The two concepts, singer-songwriter and songwriter, tend to morph and overlap in Swedish discourses, with songwriter as the more overarching and wider concept, still with some discriminative connotations. Though, as Till mentions, the product of the singer-songwriter emerges in interaction with musicians, producers, agents, editors, and so on, and the term still evokes the concept of a “lone ranger.” Songwriter, however, in spite of the singular form, is a more overtly collective category. Traditionally, a songwriting team typically consisted of a composer and a lyricist. In recent years, these teams have expanded greatly, first locally among fellow musicians sharing the same studio premises, by way of casual collaborations growing into large international communities, with the effect of an increasing specialization and segmentation of the workflow. These collectives become social institutions with a prominent role 385

Peter Falthin

to position their members in the hierarchies of the music community and to ensure their songs are catered for by the music industry. Over the last two decades, the concepts of songwriting and singer-songwriter have entered and flooded music education in Sweden and have become more frequent than composition at most levels of music education below university college. Alongside this, music production has gained attention as a creative discipline, comprising composition and songwriting as well. The boundary among songwriting education, singer-songwriter education, and music production education is not altogether clear. Sometimes it seems to be genre-laden and sometimes connected to craft. Concepts morph and boundaries blur. In most cases, though, all three types of education include elements of both composition and of music production. To sum up: in general education, Swedish music teachers and educators are torn between the concepts of composition and creative music making. This seems to be due to a narrow conception of the word composition as something genre-laden and restricted to professional or academic contexts. In specialized music education, there are four main concepts of composing occurring: (1) Composition, comprising score composition (typically orchestral and chamber music), jazz composition (with a wide definition of jazz), electroacoustic composition, and, to some extent, music for film and video games, which can cut across all the above genres. (2) Songwriting. (3) Singer-songwriter education, which sometimes falls under the jazz composition label. (4) Music production education. Songwriting and singer-songwriter education are sparse at the academic level but more frequent at the levels below. Music production education is common throughout the educational spectrum. The trend is probably still toward diversification as this field of music education is growing.

Curricula for compulsory school and upper secondary school New curricula for both compulsory and upper secondary school were introduced in 2011. The curriculum for compulsory school was not entirely new, but rather a revision of the previous curriculum, LPO94 (Regeringen, Utbildningsdepartementet, 1994, p. 94; Skolverket, 2011a, 2011b). The syllabuses were new, though, due to a new grading system that entailed a transition to alignment-based syllabuses. The curriculum and syllabuses were submitted to minor revisions in 2019. Since July 2022, there have been new curricula and syllabuses for compulsory school (Skolverket, 2022) The revision aims to reduce the complexity and the number of knowledge requirements—now termed criteria for grades. An aim in both the current and the former syllabus states that pupils should have “the opportunity to develop their ability to create music as well as represent and communicate their own musical thinking and ideas” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 159, 2022, p. 147). The core content for teaching music in Years 1–3 prescribes simple forms of creating music using rhythm, tone, dynamics, and pitch as building blocks for playing and composing music; and musical symbols, pictures, and characters to document and communicate music (ibid, p. 160). For Years 4–6, the core content states that pupils should be creating music based on musical patterns and forms, such as chord progression and bass (ibid, p. 161). The tools for implementing comprise rhythm, tone and dynamics, pitch, tempo, periods, time signatures, verses, and choruses as building blocks for composing music in different genres and musical symbols, graphic notation, notes and chord names, as well as digital tools for audio and music creation (ibid, p. 161) The core content for Years 7–9 comprises creating music in different genres such as ballads, sound compositions, songs, and musical representation where different forms of expression are combined (Ibid, p. 161). This is accomplished with certain tools and concepts: rhythm, tone and dynamics, pitch, tempo, periods, time signatures, verse, chorus, and chords 386

Composition and creative music making

as building blocks to make and compose music in different genres and with different instrumentation using musical symbols and notation systems, notes, tablatures, chord descriptions and graphic notation and digital tools for music creation, recording and processing (ibid, pp. 161–162). Knowledge requirements after Year 9 for the grade C (on an A-F scale) include: Pupils, on the basis of their own musical ideas, can create music by using voice, instruments or digital tools and explore and see how different combinations of musical building blocks can form compositions which, after further work, have a functioning form and an appropriate style. In addition, pupils can combine music with other forms of expression so that they interact relatively well. (Skolverket, 2018, p. 162) [Note: the words in bold are varied throughout the different grades] In the curriculum of 2011, for upper secondary school (Skolverket, 2011a), all music courses and music theory courses, with very few exceptions, were designed for the Esthetic Program. Out of the 16 courses pertaining to the subject of music, 2 are music production courses, including aspects of creative music making. Moreover, the three ensemble-playing courses contain knowledge requirements that presuppose creative music making. In the subject of music theory, there are two courses that are entirely about composing and arranging. The other three courses in music theory deal with technical aspects of composition. The last decade has seen a growing trend to establish composition, songwriting, and music production as main subjects alongside instrumental and vocal specialization. The subject of creative work with digital tools (author’s translation), comprising two courses, is not media specific but could include creative music making.

Music program and music profile An important addition to the Swedish music education complex was the instigation of a twoyear music program in upper secondary schools in 1970, with a twofold mission to prepare students for working life as musicians, and to prepare for higher education both in music and in other subjects. From the start, there were only five schools in the country to offer the music program, and they grew only slowly in number until the broader Esthetic Program was introduced with the 1994 curriculum. From that point in time, the two programs existed side by side. The Esthetic Program, with music as one of four strands, was to begin with more of a liberal-arts-inspired program compared to the music program, which was explicitly aimed at preparing for professional musicianship and higher education in music. In the music program, half of the timetable consisted of music subjects. In the early syllabuses for the music program, although the general section stressed the importance and central role of creative music making, there was no mention of the subject of composition. A reasonable interpretation is that composition should be part of the music theory subject, and—to some extent—the entire music subject. Starting from the curriculum of 1994, which allowed for local courses, several courses evolved in the field of composition and creative music making. In 1992, a new legislation opened the opportunity for private enterprises to establish schools funded by tax money. Quite a few of the new private upper secondary schools started music programs, either with a local design or following the structure of the Esthetic Program. Eventually, by the introduction of the curriculum of 2011, all the music programs were subsumed under the Esthetic Program as part of the striving for stringency in the 387

Peter Falthin

schooling system at large. However, there were still schools with a special status which were considered excellent and entitled to recruit students nationwide. These were allowed more music courses than the regular Esthetic Program. The reforms of 1992 also meant a drastic increase in numbers of compulsory schools with a music profile. Since the 1930s, there had been occasional music profile schools, but they were predominantly choir-oriented. The trend in the 1990s had a much wider scope, including instrumental tuition and ensemble playing.

From music school to arts school Music and arts schools are part of the legislation of local municipal decisions, and there is no national level or uniform framework apart from one association, the Swedish Arts Schools Council (Kulturskolerådet), which does not have the formal status of an authority. As a consequence of the local affiliation, arts schools are often neglected in national strategies for education and higher education. They typically fall outside the domains of institutions and governments dealing with education at large and become nobody’s responsibility. Since its beginning in the 1940s, the municipal music school has played an important part in fostering young musicians-to-be, as well as supplying the local music community with amateur players in orchestras and ensembles. One development with an impact on the issue at hand is the transformation of former music schools into a much broader enterprise, comprising many different art forms, an issue to which we will return. There is no requirement or provision for towns and municipalities to maintain music and arts schools, but most of them do. In 2018, there were music or arts schools in 285 out of 290 municipalities (Statens Kulturråd, 2019). About 12 percent of the population between ages 7–19 participate in arts schools in Sweden. Close to 80 percent of them are music students (ibid). The amount of participating students has been steadily growing for the last 20 years, both in absolute numbers and as a share of the total population. Statistics for the share of music students does not go as far back, but since 2011, there has been a significant decline in both absolute numbers and relative share of music students. Unfortunately, there is no separate account for the amount of compositional activities, or how many students are involved in them. A reasonable estimation would be that many of the music students take part in compositional activities sometime during their study, but few specialize in composition at that level. It seems probable that the mainstay of composition tuition in arts schools concerns songwriting in popular genres. Music schools historically focused on performance: singing and playing instruments, and the long-term commitment implied in that endeavor, was understood as part of the offer. Brändström and Wiklund (1995) described a shared culture to the point of a symbiotic relation between higher music education and the music school. Since then, changing societal demands toward an urge for instant reward and impatience with long processes have prevailed, which some arts schools have tackled in a radical way: students are encouraged to try different art forms and expressive means over time rather than linger with an instrument for several years. Alongside that, the scope of instruments taught has narrowed dramatically, with the effect of a shortage of some woodwind and brass instruments, and difficulties in recruiting players of those instruments to higher music education and orchestras in Sweden. Since the late 1980s, when the transformation from music schools to arts schools began, changing demands in society, together with the omnipresent process of digitalization, have skewed music tuition in arts schools into more of a focus on music composition and music production. It is, of course, a very positive thing that there are arts schools offering not only music performance tuition, but 388

Composition and creative music making

also music composition, theater, sculpture, painting, film making, and other art activities, but the repercussions on the music community and its cultures need also be considered. The above is to be understood as interpretations of trends and developments—not as a description of a plan designed to drain the music life of instrumentalists. Music and arts schools reacted adequately to the changing culture and were in no position to steer these developments. The decline in the number of applicants for wind instruments had been going on for many years, and many music schools had allocated great resources to recruiting students of wind instruments (Sandh, 2015). For the sake of this study, I made a small inquiry in the Facebook group of Swedish Arts Schools about composition activities. Out of 17 schools that responded the results were as follows:

• • • • • •

Songwriting with digital tools: 12 Composition/songwriting course with continuous tuition: 10 Composition and arranging using notation: 6 Other forms: 6 Composition/songwriting as a project or part of a course: 5 (3 of these also continuously) No composition courses, but the subject is sometimes touched on in instrumental lessons: 3

The results are by no means conclusive. What can be deduced is that all these alternatives exist in at least as many instances as indicated above. It is not very surprising, though, that there were considerably more responses to songwriting with digital tools than to composition and arranging using music notation. It is also notable that very few schools say they do not offer composition courses. Another development for the music and arts schools concerns different forms of collaboration with compulsory school (Hellgren, 2011; Stålhammar, 1995). These collaborations range from determinate, short-term projects over longitudinal orchestral and ensemble projects to supplying the tuition for the regular music subject.

Folk high schools and the Gotland School of Music Composition, conservatory level The original idea behind folk high schools was to extend the possibility of offering senior high schooling to students who had not been given that opportunity in the old parallel school system. It still performs that function for students who, for various reasons, do not complete a senior high school degree directly after compulsory school; but in addition, it has become an important step for artistic study between high school and university college—a Swedish (i.e., Nordic) variant of conservatory studies. Some of these folk high schools have achieved very high rankings in designated fields of music studies, and their entry requirements are high. A keyword search among Swedish folk high schools renders 93 hits for composition, 63 hits for singer-songwriter, and 85 hits for music production. Probing a bit deeper reveals that composition and music production matches are often courses pertaining to instrumental and vocal study programs, whereas singer-songwriter typically refers to entire study programs. A simple manual survey has been able to establish that:

• • • •

At least four folk high schools offer composition education in the field of art music. One school has a sound art education. Songwriting education is given in at least nine schools. Music production study programs are offered in at least six folk high schools. 389

Peter Falthin

A few of the folk high schools that offer study programs for music composition and/or music production are Härnösands Folk High School, Kappelsberg School of Music, Geijer School, Fryshuset Folk High School, Fridhems Music-lab, and Österlen Folk High School. At Hola Folk High School, there is a sound art program. Gotland School of Music Composition is not a folk high school in a formal sense, but rather a conservatory-level education focusing entirely on music composition in the art music tradition. It is a two-year study program aimed at preparing students for composition education at university college, comprising courses in music theory, electroacoustic composition and studio work, analysis and orientation in recent and contemporary compositions and compositional techniques, as well as continuous composition tuition. Collaborations with other music education and professional ensembles ensure the students’ works are performed. The school hosts an annual festival arranged and administered by the students, performing the compositions made during the year. Situated in Visby Harbor, Gotland School of Music Composition shares the building with Visby International Centre for Composers—composition studio premises for composers in residence—which makes for a certain cultural impact. Most Swedish composition students attend this school before they enter university college. Besides the two-year education, the school also has a one-year program for professional artists, primarily sound-artists and electroacoustic musicians and composers, who want to develop their competence in composition. Applicants present a project that they want to carry out within their education and publicly present or perform by the end of the study year.

Extracurricular composition activities There is a wide range of projects aimed at children and young people propagating music composition and songwriting. Some of these have a clear pedagogical focus, while other examples comprise festivals, competitions, and songwriting camps. Below are just a few examples, which have not been chosen to be representative. The Swedish Society of Composers instigated a project in 2004 for young people to encounter and interact with contemporary art music. The Stenhammar Project, inspired by the Swedish Composer Wilhelm Stenhammar (1871–1927), who had a similar ambition at the beginning of the 20th century, enables resources for composers to work with students in various school settings. Up until 2018, the Stenhammar Project carried out 25 projects of varying design, many of which entailed students composing under the supervision of a composer, often in collaboration with the local music teacher(s). Sometimes professional musicians are engaged to give seminars on repertoire and instrumental techniques, and to play and perform the students’ compositions. Kulturverket in Umeå is at once a project and an institution. The administrative structure is part of the Umeå municipality, but the projects they carry out are new each time, each with a unique organization, which typically involves collaborations among universities, professional artists, musicians and/or composers, schools, and sometimes researchers. The name itself is a play on words, where the last element, verket, is a homonym signifying both a work of art and an official authority, as is the subtitle en omyndighet, an invented word that can be translated both as an un-authority and a minor in the sense of somebody irresponsible for her/his actions. Their slogan, “Children telling professionals what to do,” is quite descriptive of the general method applied in the projects. An example of such a project would be the football musical Fair Game from 2013, which took off from an earlier project in which teachers from Kulturverket worked in a hospital with children with long-term illnesses, their families, and their classes at school to make songs, 390

Composition and creative music making

design characters, and write texts. These materials were handed over to professional writers, composers, arrangers, musicians, and choreographers, who elaborated the materials and compiled them into a musical that was performed at a big sports arena, involving some very prominent musicians and 20 professional football players. The pedagogical effect of projects like this is not necessarily that students learn to compose, but the encounter with professionals will make them aware of some of the processes and crafts involved in artistic production, and the possibility that their inventions and ideas could be developed into a performance like this may plant a seed for future conceptualizations. A case in point is that compositions need not only composers, but also performers and audiences.

Higher education/university college There are six music colleges in Sweden, all but one affiliated with universities. Moreover, there are a number of universities providing sporadic education in music or music teacher education, and one foundation college with music pedagogical education. All music colleges offer composition education in one way or another, and courses in composition, arranging, and songwriting are integrated in many other education programs. Composition education in the Western art music tradition is offered at the bachelor level in five music colleges. At the Royal College of Music in Stockholm (RCM), the Malmö Academy of Music (MAM)—Lund University, the Academy of Music and Drama (AMD)—Gothenburg University, the Music School at Luleå Technical University (MS), and the School of Music, Theatre and Art at Örebro University (SMTA). In the first three, there is also master-level composition education. RCM has a separate program for electroacoustic composition, whereas that is integrated in the composition education at MAM and AMD. Jazz composition at the bachelor level is offered at MAM and RCM; at the latter there is also a master’s program. A master’s program for film and media music is given at MAM and RCM. Music production education is available at all the music colleges and most of the other institutions studied. Songwriting is explicitly mentioned in four of the colleges but is offered as an educational program online at SMTA and ISM. Table 25.1 lists the kinds of composition-related education at bachelor (B) and master (M) level offered at the different music colleges in Sweden: Among the universities that do not have music colleges but offer music education, there is Dalarna University, which offers a bachelor program in Sound and Music Production and a two-year education in Music and Sound Design; and the University of Skövde, which has a program in composition for computer games within the bachelor program for game development. Table 25.1 Composition-related education at bachelor (B) and master (M) level at the different music colleges Type of composition education offered

Score

EAM

Jazz

RCM, Stockholm AMD, Gothenburg MAM, Lund SMTA, Örebro MS, Luleå ISM, Karlstad

B&M B&M B&M B B

B&M

B&M

Songwriting

Production B B

B B 120 credit points

391

B

Peter Falthin

Teacher education in Sweden is structured around a major and a minor teaching subject. For music teachers, both subjects could be music subjects. The major subject would always be general music teaching in class, and the minor subject could be vocal or instrumental teaching, music theory, music production, or, in some cases, composition. Oddly enough, this second subject is officially termed “in-depth subject specialization,” although the second subject is situated within the undergraduate level. MAM offers singer-songwriter specialization and arranging and composition as second subjects. SMTA has both music production and arranging and composition as minor subject specializations, whereas RCM has music theory and music production, and HSM offers all three. Music teacher education students who do not have composition or music theory as a second subject generally get very little methodological training in creative music making, and indeed in the subject of composition itself. The music teacher education programs of Umeå University and Linné University have not specified different electives for second subjects as have the music colleges, and from the official description, it looks more like a broadening of musical knowledge. Music teacher education given at the music colleges is aimed at upper secondary school but includes qualification for compulsory school as well. At the University College of Music Education in Stockholm (UCMES), there is undergraduate education for instrumental and vocal teachers which comprises courses in musical craft, including arranging and composing. They also have shorter pedagogical education for music production, songwriting, and DJ-ing.

Closing reflections This chapter gave a brief overview of composition, in a wide sense of the concept, as an object for study in Sweden. Most of the issues presented here would merit a study of their own. Still, there are many schools and other forms and formats of study that were left out for lack of space. There are, for instance, a multitude of commercial educations in music production and songwriting, and an informal learning going on in networks and communities of music producers and songwriters that would deserve mention in this context. There could also have been sections about summer courses, festivals, and competitions, not to mention private tutoring. In this particular context, though, it was a natural choice to keep the official education systems in the center and make only small deviations from there. A few tendencies can be traced across the different sections. 1 Composition and creative music making have been important elements in Swedish curricula since the instigation of the subject of music. Creative work and competence are seen as fundamental for personal development and important for the education of good, democratic citizens. It is hinted in the syllabus that the act of composition represents the application of knowledge and the synthesis aspect in the Concept Development Process (Vygotsky, 1986). 2 It is evident from the curricula even from the 1960s that the evolving youth culture and popular music were assimilated in the music subject early on, and that this trend has increased in strength over time, and popular music genres have long since been dominant in compulsory school and upper secondary school. 3 This transformation has also had an impact on the vocabulary of the field of composition; both the terminology used and the span which terms and concepts comprise have changed (Falthin, 2017). 4 The inertia for structural adaption to changes in societal culture seems to be greater at the top of the educational system, which is only natural, given the long-term commitment involved in becoming a musician and the dependency of institutional stability that entails. 392

Composition and creative music making

The discursive ascendancy of popular music in the educational system and societal culture at large, together with the rise of digital tools for music making and the digitization of society in a broad sense, have contributed to an increased interest in music composition and related activities at the expense of relatively less interest in instrumental endeavors in the generations growing up in the 21st century. I am not really suggesting a negative causal relation between the two activities, but rather that there has occurred a shift of focus, probably largely due to the fact that the means for music production and distribution have become increasingly accessible. However, the growing interest for songwriting and music production and the leveling of the social status for popular music and art music has brought with it a broader base for recruitment of composition students in score composition as well as in electroacoustic composition. At the Gotland School of Music Composition, for instance, many of the students have a background in popular music genres (even if they would disagree as to that description) but have become interested in moving in new directions. Even in the university colleges, it is not always easy to tell, based on their musical output, who is a composition student and who is a music production student. This also means that the frame for what is a culturally acceptable musical reference has moved beyond the boundaries of genre.

Reflective questions 1 In perspective of the broad scope in the chapter: How are these different aspects of composition and music making pedagogy related or interconnected? 2 What challenges could emerge from the ever-diverging spectrum of genres craving space within the educational system on the one hand and the [partial] convergence of art forms on the other? 3 The terminology around creative music making (in a broad sense) is complicated. The term to compose etymologically means to put together and could apply to most musical activities, yet its application seems restricted both by genre and method. To write music on the other hand seems to imply the use some kind of music notation technique but is often used for music making in aural traditions with no or very little writing involved. What are the cultural stakes involved in different discursive positionings around this kind of terminology? What could be the short- and long-term effects of music notation (in a broad sense) on musical development: structurally, culturally, politically?

References Bentley, P. J. (2000). Exploring component-based representations – The secret of creativity by evolution? In I. C. Parmee (Ed.), Evolutionary design and manufacture (pp. 161–172). London: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0519-0 Bodén, B. (1963). Lågstadiet i Läroplanen – Musik, Gymnastik och Slöjd. Svensk Skoltidning, 15–16, 14–16. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Londond/New York: Routledge. Boden, M. A. (2007). Creativity in a nutshell. Think, 5(15), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S147717560000230X Brändström, S., & Wiklund, C. (1995). Två musikpedagogiska fält: En studie om kommunal musikskola och musiklärarutbildning. Umeå: Umeå University. Dahlstedt, P. (2012). Between materials and ideas: A process-based spatial model of artistic creativity. In J. McCormack & M. D’Inverno (Eds.), Computers and creativity (Vol. 2012). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

393

Peter Falthin Dahlstedt, P. (2015). Turn-based evolution in a simplified model of artistic creative process. Evolutionary Intelligence, 8(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-014-0123-5 Falthin, P. (2017). Form and order – Dimensions in musical meaning making. Nordisk Musikkpedagogisk Forskning Årbok, 18, 219–239. Falthin, P., & Dahlstedt, P. (2010). Creative structures or structured creativity: Examining algorithmic composition as a pedagogical. Proceedings from International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC12), University of Washington, Seattle. Hellgren, J. (2011). “I min familj är vi omusikaliska”: En studie av barns musikaliska identitet. Institutionen för konst, kommunikation och lärande, Avdelningen för musik, dans och teater. Luleå: University of Technology, Luleå. Kungliga Skolöverstyrelsen. (1960). Läroplan för Grundskolan LGR62. P.A. Norstedt & Söner. file:/// Users/aa11484/Downloads/gupea_2077_50232_1.pdf Musiklärarnas Riksförening. (2019). Remissvar till revideringen av kursplan i musik, LGR11. Musikläraren, 2019(3–4), 4–5. Ojala, J. (2009). Space in musical semiosis: An abductive theory of the musical composition process. International Semiotics Institute at Imatra: Semiotic Society of Finland. Imatra: Department. Of Musicology, University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-5431-28-5 http://hdl.handle. net/10138/19374 Regeringen, Utbildningsdepartementet. (1994). Läroplaner för det Obligatoriska Skolväsendet och de Frivilliga Skolformerna (Lpo94 & Lpf94). Stockholm: Statens skolverks förtattningssamling. Sandh, H. (2015). Kulturskolorna – lika och unika. Umeå: Mandatus. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1964). Läroplan för Grundskolan LGR62 (2:a upplagan). Stockholm: SÖ-förlaget. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/50804 Skolöverstyrelsen. (1969). Läroplan för Grundskolan LGR69. Stockholm: LiberFörlag. Skolöverstyrelsen. (1980). Läroplan för Grundskolan LGR80. Stockholm: Liber UtbildningsFörlaget. Skolverket (Ed.). (2011a). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för gymnasieskola 2011 (December 2011). Skolverket (Ed.). (2011b). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011. Skolverket. (2018). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare 2011, revised 2018. Norstedts Juridik. https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=3984 Skolverket. (2019). Slutgiltigt förslag till kursplan i musik för grundskolan. Skolverket. (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. Lgr22. Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=9718 Stålhammar, B. (1995). Samspel: grundskola-musikskola i samverkan: en studie av den pedagogiska och musikaliska interaktionen i en klassrumssituation. Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet, Musikhögskolan, Avdelningen för musikvetenskap. Statens Kulturråd. (2019). Kulturskolan i siffror: sammanfattning av tillgänglig statistik 1997–2018. Till, R. (2016). Singer-songwriter authenticity, the unconscious and emotions (feat. Adele’s ‘Someone Like You’). In K. Williams & J. A. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the singersongwriter (1st ed., pp. 291–304). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CCO9781316569207.027 Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Edited by A. Kozulin. http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/ login?url=http://cognet.mit.edu/book/thought-and-language

394

26 COMPOSING IN SCHOOLS A perspective on the multilingual context of Switzerland Sabine Chatelain

Introduction Since the progressive introduction of new curricula for compulsory schools in 2010, music creation has gained increasing attention in general education in Switzerland. In order to shed some light on existing practice and reflect on future challenges, the following questions will guide my reflection: How is composing is defined and what is its place in curricula? How is it taught? What collaboration exists between composers and teachers? How are teachers trained? In my view, the variety of cultural influences present in research and teacher training as well as the diversity of educational systems have to be considered when trying to identify and analyze composing practice in Swiss schools. My reflection is based on an overview of research in composing at school in Switzerland, school curricula, 20 short informal interviews with teachers, teacher educators, and composers from the three linguistic regions, and other information available on the internet or in publications on this topic. In order to better understand the specific context, a brief look at the Swiss educational system and the place of music education are presented. Switzerland is a small federal state composed of 26 cantons with three official languages: German is spoken in 19 cantons (FSO, 2021), French in 4 cantons as well as in 3 bilingual cantons (together with German) and Italian in the canton of Ticino. According to federal principles, each canton has its own educational department and system. Nevertheless, curricula at compulsory schools (11 years of schooling, pupils aged 4–15) have been harmonized (project HarmoS) in order to offer better possibilities for students to move from one canton to another. The new curricula have been introduced progressively from 2010. Music education has rather a marginalized place within these curricula (one or two lessons of 45–50 minutes per week). Generalist classroom teachers teach music in primary schools (pupils aged 4–12), and specialist music teachers are active in secondary schools (students aged 13–15 for lower secondary and 16–19 for higher secondary). In some cantons, specialized music teachers are engaged to teach Dalcroze Eurythmics in primary schools. Collaborations with composers or professional musicians can be organized within specific projects. Outside of schools, music schools offer instrumental lessons and solfege as well as beginner courses inspired by the principles of Orff, JaquesDalcroze, Willems,1 or Kodály.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-35

395

Sabine Chatelain

Composing in schools – definitions and research in three linguistic contexts How to define “composing” in the music classroom? The understanding of the term “composing” varies depending on the context (Losert & Bornhöft, 2018). According to existing research, “composing” does not mean the same thing for professional composers and music teachers, as shown by Austrian composer and pedagogue Helmut Schmidinger’s writings (2020). Beside the different professional contexts, the question becomes even more complex in Switzerland, where three official languages coexist. It can be argued that the definitions of composition and its pedagogy vary not only from one educational and professional context to another, but also between the linguistic regions. In Switzerland, as in other European countries, specific qualifications such as a Master of Arts in Composition and Theory (for example in Basel, Bern, Geneva, Luzern, or Zurich) or a Master in Composition for Film, Theater, and Media (Zurich) exist to train professional composers. Composing is considered to be a highly specific musical expertise, linked to music theory and analysis. In optional courses for professional musicians, basic composing skills are taught in order to better understand music analysis or to develop “writing skills” (écriture musicale).2 In both contexts, composition is closely linked to notation skills and esthetical aspects in order to form highly competent musicians. But in the context of general music education, the term composing should be defined in a broader sense. As claimed by composers and music educators such as John Paynter and Peter Aston since the late 1960s (Paynter, 1992, 2000; Paynter & Aston, 1970), composing and improvising can be learned by students without specific musical knowledge. I agree with Schmidinger, who defines composition pedagogy as the “development of alternative didactic models which enable an introduction to composing with little previous knowledge of music theory and/or little previous instrumental practice” (2020, p. 67, translated by the author). This definition underlines the need for an open understanding of composing as an activity beside others in general music education. Since the 1980s, Swiss music educators have tried to integrate creative music making with pupils by adopting active pedagogical methods (Joliat, 2008). Historically, music lessons were initially based on singing and taught by generalist teachers only (Mráz, 1984). As shown by an analysis on discourse in Swiss music education in the German-speaking part, pedagogical approaches are more empirical than theory based (Huber, 2021). Models and concepts developed in adjacent countries have an influence on current practice in Switzerland. In German-speaking literature (Austria, Germany, Switzerland), a “substitute terminology” (Ersatzbezeichnungen, Schmidinger, 2020, p. 49) is used to describe composing within pedagogical contexts. Schmidinger argues that terms like invention (Erfinden) or creation (Gestaltung), pedagogy of production (Produktionsdidaktik), or creative processes (Kreationsprozesse) distinguish specific pedagogical content from “composing” for professional musicians. Composing with children is understood in a broader sense and is nurtured by “musical actions” (Musizieraktionen, Schneider, 2012, 2017) and inventions (Musik erfinden, Kranefeld & Voit, 2020; Reitinger, 2018). The idea of composing for non-experts is described by Elementares Komponieren (Senker, 2020, for a short overview), understood as playful interaction with musical material with the goal of developing musical perception and experiencing composing processes. These terms can be found in school curricula as explained in the next section. In contrast to recent research orientations in Germany (Buchborn, Theisohn, & Treß, 2019; Bulling, 2019; Grow, 2018; Kranefeld & Voit, 2020) and Austria (Aigner, 2017, 2018; Losert & Bornhöft, 2018; Schmidinger, 2020), teaching and learning composing in schools is actually not an important theme in Swiss-German music education research. 396

Composing in schools

In the French-speaking part of Switzerland, ideas of French pedagogues like Guy Reibel (1984), François Delalande (1984, 2011), and Claire Renard (1982) have influenced educational practice since the late 1980s. Teachers are supposed to encourage young pupils to explore, invent, and create by using sounds from everyday life or vocal sounds. Playing with sounds and the voice (jeux vocaux, Reibel, 1984) is considered a first step for composing. As shown by research on primary music education, these activities can be understood as a way to foster creativity and are considered to be an aspect of music learning (Chatelain & Aliaga, 2016; Giglio, 2015, 2016). Students are supposed to explore or represent sounds (representation, expression, experimentation) and to develop cognitive strategies to organize them. In this context, composing is defined as “the result of students’ work leading to the elaboration of an original musical product, individually or in groups, which can be performed several times by its composer(s) or by other performers, without the presence of the composers” (Giglio, Joliat, & Schertenleib, 2010, p. 121). This definition eludes traditional forms of music notation by focusing on the capacity of repetition. Nevertheless, teachers are encouraged to “compose” songs with their students (Schertenleib, 2013). Alternatively, the term “creation” is currently used in educational settings and curricula (pensée créatrice, création). Research on pedagogical content knowledge for creation (didactique de la création) in arts and technology education has been initiated by the CREAT Lab of the University of Teacher Education HEP Vaud in Lausanne in collaboration with the University of Strasbourg (France) (Giacco & Coquillon, 2016; Giacco, Didier, Chatelain, & Verry, 2020). In recent work, interdisciplinary approaches to music creation linked to other art forms described as intermedial transcreations (transcréations intermédiales, Chatelain, 2019) have been investigated in the context of lower secondary schools. Research on composing in regular classroom settings in higher secondary schools is not available yet. In the Italian-speaking area, references from different linguistic regions are currently used in teacher education: the German concept of Musikalische Grundschule3 (musical primary school) (Bertelsmann Stiftung & Hessisches Kultusministerium, 2011; Dartsch, 2021), the Italian Lab for Integrated Music Education de Pietro Gambini, the composition workshops of Heinz-Werner Henze in Montepulciano (Italy), the work of the French pedagogue and researcher François Delalande as well as well-known methods such as Orff, Dalcroze, and Kodály. Research done by Italian researchers such as Gaja Maffezzoli (2017), on children’s use of digital tools for music creation, or Stefani Luca (2017), on sound design, does not play a role in actual programs. New technology and music creation have been approached through an interdisciplinary research project Paesaggi sonori, based on Murray Schafer’s concept of soundscapes (Rocca, 2020). The project, which links geography, history, and music, has been implemented by the University of Teacher Education in Ticino (SUPSI) and comprises artistic performances in music and theater based on the collaboration among artists, teacher educators, and researchers.

Swiss curricula for compulsory schools: the place of composing In Switzerland, the new curricula for compulsory schools specify that pupils will learn how to play with sounds and express themselves through musical language. Due to the multilingual background, each curriculum uses specific vocabulary to describe these kinds of activities. In order to get some idea about the place of composing and the vocabulary used in educational practice, the three curricula for Swiss compulsory schools (pupils aged 4–15) are compared. Curricula for compulsory schools exist in three slightly different versions: the Lehrplan 21 (L21; Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich, 2017) for the German-speaking 397

Sabine Chatelain

part, the Plan d’Études Romand (PER; CIIP, 2012) for the French-speaking part, and the Piano di studio del Cantone Ticino (PS; DECS, 2021) for the Italian-speaking part. Each curriculum integrates activities of musical creation. This new orientation encourages composing without using this specific term. The activities are described in terms of substitutes (Schmidinger, 2020). Pupils are supposed to explore, invent, and create by using the voice, objects, instruments, or digital tools. They are supposed to learn to express an idea or emotion by using the language of music (PER, PS) or to carry out “creation processes” (Gestaltungsprozesse, L21). Despite some differences, the main guidelines of each curriculum are similar and are oriented toward the development of musical competencies. The table below shows some aspects of composing from Grade 1–11. Each curriculum is divided into three cycles. A slight difference in age groups exists in Ticino:

• Cycle 1: aged 4–7 (Primary school) • Cycle 2: aged 8–11/12 (Primary school) • Cycle 3: aged 12 or 13–15 (Lower secondary) Pupils are encouraged to express their creative potential by exploring and organizing sounds produced by objects, everyday sounds, or instruments in order to express a musical idea or an emotion during early years in primary school. Progressively, pupils should be able to express their ideas by specific means (video clip, performance, musical notation) and by specific techniques (improvisation, creation). As shown in Table 26.1, the Lehrplan 21 gives specific guidelines for music creation in the music classroom in each cycle (creation process). Collective music creation is explicitly mentioned as linked to creative problem-solving. The three curricula mention inventing and improvising as competencies to be developed. The use of sound-producing, soundprocessing, and sound-editing digital tools is introduced at latest during Cycle 3. The Piano di studio del Cantone Ticino (PS) varies from the other two Swiss curricula as it explicitly emphasizes expressive skills. For example, students should be able to make sound productions (realizzare produzioni sonore) by improvising and inventing, using their voice and/or instruments. During an optional music course (11th year), students are encouraged to create original compositions (composizioni originali) collaboratively or with digital tools. As pointed out by Schmidinger (2020), the term “composing” is rarely used in the context of education. In the curricula for compulsory schools, activities related to composition are described in terms of creation, invention, and expression. Related to the German-speaking Lehrplan 21, new teaching material has been edited (Rohrbach, 2019). To foster their creative competencies, students are supposed to create a song text, to play with rhythm and sound elements (Cycle 2), or produce music on a computer, invent music for a given situation, produce a jingle, or combine voice and sounds to create a rap (Cycle 3). The situation is different in the French- and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland, where no actual teaching material is available for the new curricula.

Composing for music learning – an example from primary school Even if music creation is explicitly mentioned in the curricula, these kinds of activities are perceived as challenging, not only by generalist teachers, but also by specialist music teachers (Giglio, Joliat & Schertenleib, 2010; Joliat, 2011). Carrying out composing activities in the

398

Composing in schools Table 26.1  Creating music as part of curricula in Swiss compulsory schools Curriculum

Sections/axis

Descriptions of some specific goals: pupils are able to …

Lehrplan 21 (L21) German

Section 5 “Creation process” (Gestaltungsprozesse)

• Participate in group improvisations; define the rules of the game and can communicate with each other playing music (Cycle 1). • Invent and play musical impressions of moods and emotions and discover contrasts (Cycle 2). • Find creative solutions to musical problems. • Develop and produce a musical collage on a relevant topic. • Produce and set in music (vertonen) a performance or a video clip on a theme decided by the group (Cycle 3). • Communicate musical ideas using conventional notation (Cycle 3). • Create an atmosphere of sound, express an idea or emotion musically, and invent melodies (Cycle 1). • Create an atmosphere of sound, and melodies on given notes (Cycle 2). • Invent, improvise, or create based on a given theme (Cycle 3). • Explore sounds; apply them in improvisation and inventions (Cycle 1). • Make simple sound productions (sonorizzando) to develop invention and improvisation skills using pitched and unpitched instruments (Cycle 2). • Improvise varied musical gestures in order to convert an emotional, visual, or linguistic cue into coherent sound language; conceive and write rhythms/melodies/a song (Cycle 3). Optional class (11th grade): create a personal project Use multimedia tools … to create effects, sounds, short soundtracks, or original compositions (composizioni)

5A. Exploring and presenting themes musically Section 6 “Musical knowledge in practice.” 6B. Notation Plan d’Études Romand (PER) French

Axis 1 “Represent and express an idea, an imagination, an emotion through musical language” + Axis 3 “Techniques” Piano di studio Axis 4 “Represent and del Cantone express an idea, an Ticino (PS) imagination, an Italian emotion through musical language” + Axis 3 “Techniques”

classroom seems to be related to personal motivation and experience as well as to methodological skills of the teacher. This can be illustrated through a long-term project undertaken over two years in a regular music classroom by a specialist music teacher between September 2011 and June 2013 with 10- to 12-year-old pupils. In this project, composing serves music learning and vice versa. The project took place in a primary school in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The music teacher, who had 25 years’ teaching experience, is also a composer-songwriter and considers composing and music learning as a system where one activity sustains the other. At the end of this project, pupils were expected to be able to create and perform a musical comedy via progressive tasks that develop musical skills (listening, performing, theoretical knowledge, and composing). The project was also meant to develop pupils’ transversal skills (collaboration, creative thinking, and artistic autonomy). The teacher considers both goals as equally important. Six classes of about 20 pupils worked in an interdisciplinary setting in collaboration with the visual arts teacher. The final performance had been accomplished with external technical

399

Sabine Chatelain

support in the local theater. In order to develop composing, pupils engaged in diverse activities such as:

• Creating short rhythmical and melodic motifs and play with sounds to understand musical knowledge.

• Using musical knowledge to compose short songs or instrumental pieces for Boomwhackers, Orff instruments, or objects (percussion with wooden sticks).

• Creating an ambiance by using various sounds (voice, body, instruments). • “Translating” music into visual form and vice versa. • Using graphic and conventional notation to write down musical ideas. For this project, the teacher, who had been carrying out similar programs for more than ten years, developed her own method based on existing models (Authelain, 1995; Duvillard, 2011). The project has been partly documented by video and analyzed through the lens of creativity (Chatelain & Aliaga, 2016). The concept, which explicitly mentions composing as a core activity for music learning, had been integrated in primary teacher education (University of Teacher Education, HEP Vaud) and examples of this project are used as teaching material. The theoretical framework refers to music learning theory (Gruhn, 2017, 2018) and research on collective composition and creativity (Giglio, 2015, 2016).

Composition as a specific practice in high school programs Curricular prescriptions and music courses are quite varied at the upper secondary level (16to 19-year-old students), as each of the 26 cantons has its own education system. Moreover, each high school can elaborate its own music curriculum, and thus practices vary from one region to another and even from one school to another. For this reason, no systematic curricula comparison can be proposed, but some issues linked to composing can be mentioned. In order to give a common frame for curricula at this level, the revision of the federal curriculum from 1994, available in three languages, is currently in process. Duration (three or four years) and goals for each discipline should be harmonized between the linguistic regions (EDK, 2021). In music education, the category creation is proposed. It is divided into two sections, improvisation and work studies, which suggest a clear distinction between aural and arranging/writing skills. A new category related to computer-assisted music making has been added, which represents a challenge for teachers and subsequently for teacher education. Despite the emphasis put on music creation, the term “composing” is absent in the draftversion of the curriculum, which is currently being revised. In the current system, regular music lessons and optional courses allow students to develop their skills through collective music making supported by theoretical knowledge. Moreover, students have to complete a personal project in one discipline during their second and/or third year. Teachers coach students individually, for example in music education, on individual or collective composition projects. In some cases, students compose a short musical, a song, a canon, or an instrumental composition. All genres can be used, but – as related in interviews with six teachers – no common pedagogy is used. How do teachers support students’ creative processes? Solutions differ depending on the project and the musical genre (musical comedy, rock or pop songs, choir or orchestral music, etc.) which makes individual coaching rather challenging. The goal of these personal projects is to develop theoretical understanding of musical knowledge as well as competencies in music creation, performance, and music production. On the one hand, teachers try to provide students with theoretical knowledge before 400

Composing in schools

starting creative projects; on the other hand, students are supposed to develop this knowledge through the creative process. In my view, the issues mentioned by the teachers are linked to the place of composing in the learning process: should composing be embedded in a course on music theory or analysis (Schlothfeld, 2015) or is it a goal in itself? In other words, should composing develop analytical skills and understanding of music theory or should analysis and music theory be the basis for composing? The answer depends on the context and learning goal of each project.

Composing as a current activity in a high school program In the German-speaking part of Switzerland, several high schools integrate composing in their curricula. I will illustrate one way to take into account various styles and genres by the following example of a high school (Gymnasium) where composing activities have been undertaken for more than a decade. During their music courses, students are supposed to develop musical skills according to the curriculum, where specific goals for each level are described as “creation: create and design” (Kreation: Erschaffen und Gestalten). The example described here concerns 14- to 18-year-old students. In order to develop their musical competencies, students progressively use sounds and formal structures to improvise and compose. Composing activities are conceived in order to work on different themes like organology, musical parameters, music notation, styles and genres, historical periods, musical structure and interartistic relations. Stylistic aspects are developed through the study of specific genres (Lied or jazz). Various productions are created, such as a free arrangement of existing chamber music from the Classical or Romantic period, a conceptual composition inspired by techniques of 20th-century art music, theme and variation, canon, a pop song (band workshop), or a polyphonic composition over an ostinato. Composing is focused on the development of musical skills linked to music theory, instrumental/ vocal practice, and music history. In this curriculum, theory and practice are tightly linked and focused on active music making. Both traditional and graphic notations are used. Students start their work by exploring sound material and analyzing existing compositions. The activities are mostly inspired by composition practice of classical music but also take into account informal practice inspired by pop music culture. Composing is considered a way for systematic music learning, allowing students to apply and develop their musical knowledge.

Composing in extracurricular or interdisciplinary programs Cultural projects among orchestras, cultural institutions, or professional musicians and schools occupy an increasingly important place in Switzerland. In this context, forms of collaboration and pedagogical approaches vary from one project to another, depending on the goals and the partners. Orchestras, opera houses, arts companies, or associations like Kulturvermittlung Schweiz4 support extracurricular settings for learning. Some of the projects are sponsored by private foundations. The following examples show that composers’ roles and applied methods seem to depend on musical genres, composers’ professional backgrounds, and the goals of each project. Inspired by professional songwriting practice, the project Une chanson pour l’éducation (A song for education) is connected with a non-governmental association based in Geneva. Thirty-six Swiss classes (three classes per school, 11- to 15-year-old students) and some classes in Burkina Faso or Senegal were involved from 2011 to 2019. In this context, each school is coached by an artist from its region. Through this project, students learn how a song is 401

Sabine Chatelain

produced and how music can support an overall goal: the right to education. In this project, the composing process is inspired by professional songwriting practice based on oral interactions. Roles are clearly divided, as students co-create the lyrics and interpret the song and the professional musician takes over the essential part of music composing. Firstly, the musician is invited to the school to explain the goals and write the lyrics with the students. Secondly, the music is composed by the musician who records an instrumental version in his or her studio. Thirdly, the final performance is rehearsed with the music teacher in order to prepare the recording. Finally, all participants are invited to record the vocal part and a video clip in a professional studio and give a concert with the musicians. According to their professional band practice, the musicians involved act as composers, performers, and producers, and less attention is put on traditional notation skills. Contrastingly, the project Les Arti’sons – construire – jouer – composer is clearly oriented on sound composition within an interdisciplinary setting in a primary school in the region of Lausanne. In this interdisciplinary project, a professional musician, Noëlle Reymond, who invented a simple two-string instrument, and a professional composer, Benoît Moreau, collaborate with a classroom teacher for one year. Students (9- to 10-year-olds) learn how to build a simple string instrument, play it, and use it to compose music together. Both musicians work with the children and the teacher for about 90 minutes per week. A final concert with existing songs and children’s sound compositions is presented for parents and students. In this project, composing constitutes only one part of the whole learning process. Listening, exploring musical gestures, and composing are constantly combined. The composer invites the young students to become aware of specific sound qualities by rubbing, tapping, or playing with the bow. Starting from the sounds produced by each student, ideas are tested by the whole class, analyzed, and finally assembled into short compositions. An important step in the learning process is notation. Students try to find their own way to write down the sounds, to organize them, to play them again, and improve the graphic score. The composer considers the visual aspect as essential to foster each student’s musical imagination. Students, who have no specific preliminary music training, are actively involved in all stages of the project. The composer acts as a coach, who fosters co-creation and orients children’s attention toward esthetical aspects right from the beginning. He describes the method developed during several projects as “personal,” inspired by his own practice of contemporary music creation. The project Kinderoper Winterthur is an impressive example of collaboration between various actors: the Swiss-German city of Winterthur, a private foundation, the professional orchestra Musikkollegium Winterthur, the theater, professional coaches and primary, secondary, and music schools under the direction of the composer and pedagogue Andreas Nick. Each project takes about two years to be completed. Four projects have been undertaken with the above-mentioned professional orchestra: Fealan (2009), Das verbotene Land (2012), and Musikwerkstatt für Kinder – Das Drachencamping (2017). Andreas Nick, who taught music theory in Zurich and has had his own class of child composers for over 35 years, initiated the projects. The goal is to build a “sustainable cultural project” that involves a wide range of young people, and to create an emotional relationship with classical music in general and with the orchestra specifically. More than 750 people were involved in the project Das verbotene Land (2012), of which 350 children were on stage. Each group of children chooses an activity (libretto, costumes, stage design, dancing, acting, choir, soloists, musicians, etc.). The composing activities are performed by two categories of participants: the 18 child composers, aged 7–18, who take extracurricular music lessons in a music school, and the music creator classes (Musikerfindungsklassen) from primary schools. During the first year, 402

Composing in schools

the music is created together based on a libretto which is elaborated by other classes. During the second year, the child composers write the final version of the music based on ideas of the music creator classes. During this process, the focus is on musical ideas and esthetic choices, which are discussed within the group under the guidance of the professional composer. The more experienced students support their peers. Finally, 52 compositions (including an orchestral introduction) are completed. With the support of a professional publisher, an orchestral score is edited and the music is performed on stage by the professional musicians together with some young students. The child composers participate in the rehearsal together with the conductor. As explained by Andreas Nick, he developed his personal method, inspired by H. W. Henze’s Cantiere Internazionale d’Arte di Montepulciano, in order to create an opera with nonprofessionals. A wide range of composing skills are developed during this project, with each child working at their own pace, according to their individual development. The professional composer acts as a project leader and coach, whose final goal is to stimulate and develop students’ creativity and imagination in order to co-create a collective cultural project of high esthetic quality. In these three projects, the methods used can be linked to the professional backgrounds of the composers and musicians. During the songwriting project, inspired by pop music culture, teaching methods are inspired by professional practice based on oral/aural improvisation and composition. During the two other projects, specific work around sound material in order to develop students’ listening and composing skills is proposed by the classically trained composers. As soon as possible, different forms of musical notation are integrated into the process. Both composers said they elaborated a “personal method” inspired by their own teachers as well as their personal artistic practice. During the interview, one of them argued that students’ activity and artistic practice don’t need to be “theorized.” This view, regularly put forward by professional musicians during teacher training courses (Chatelain, 2017; Joliat, 2011), brings forth more questions: how are teachers trained to teach composing in the music classroom? What about the relation between pedagogical practice and the place of concepts and theories?

Composing in teacher education programs Examples from teaching practice presented in the previous section have shown a variety of projects led by music teachers and/or professional musicians and composers. Theory-based pedagogical models for composing activities seem to be rather rarely used, according to the eight teacher educators interviewed (three French-, three German-, and two Italian-speaking participants). These assumptions have been confirmed in a survey about composing pedagogy in Switzerland (n=43; 27 German-, 13 French-, and 3 Italian-speaking participants, autumn 2021). Most of the teacher educators and music teachers declare developing their own methods based on their practice, sometimes inspired by existing models. Models and theoretical inputs are sometimes used in order to analyze observed or experienced activities with the students. To illustrate existing practice in primary, lower, and upper secondary teacher training, I will briefly present three examples. In Switzerland, generalist teachers for primary schools generally are trained in universities of teacher education, with a small range of music pedagogy courses within the bachelor program. As student teachers are non-specialists in music, how can they be provided with tools to create music with their pupils? Based on research in generalist and music teachers’ practice, a theoretical framework and concept for teaching collective composing has been developed at the University of Teacher Education for the cantons of Bern, Jura, and Neuchâtel (the HEPBEJUNE). Simple tasks, like creating a short rhythmic piece with Orff instruments or creating 403

Sabine Chatelain

a short song, are planned, performed, and analyzed by student teachers in an iterative process (Giglio & Perret-Clermont, 2012). The concept of creative collaboration developed by Giglio (2015, 2016) within a framework of cultural psychology and creativity supports the teacher by focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. This model describes teachers’ concrete actions as creative scaffolding, a concept inspired by the work of Miell and Littleton (2004). In other words, the teacher becomes the observer and facilitator of students’ actions by orienting students’ attention toward the task, giving a frame for social interactions and providing students with technical knowledge without giving them creative solutions for the composing task. A reflective phase to make learning outcomes explicit has been introduced into a pedagogical concept for generalist teachers’ education by Marcelo Giglio. Student teachers learn, for example, how to design a songwriting task, how to guide classroom dialogue and how to foster self-evaluation (Giglio, 2013; Giglio, Joliat & Schertenleib, 2010). Specialist teachers for secondary music education generally start to study in music universities with a consecutive master’s degree or Master of Advanced Studies in Arts of Education. They chose a major (often piano) and get overall musical training. However, composing is nearly absent in most of the programs or can be chosen as an option with a small amount of credits (for example 8 credit points out of 120 in a Master for Music Education in Lausanne). During their courses on teaching and learning methods (Musikdidaktik/Didactique de la musique/Didattica della musica), students get some insights into existing concepts and models of composition pedagogy but have no possibility to deepen their knowledge. Is it a lack of time, as claimed by the teacher trainers, or an absence of theoretical framework? Future research could give a more detailed answer. In the French-speaking part, where students from five cantons attend a common course over one year (12 credit points), concepts and models developed by research on teaching practice are presented. Composing and musical creativity are two related topics, among others. The whole course is based on the main idea that learning by creating is possible and valuable. The concepts from Giglio described above and the dynamic model of creation (Giacco & Coquillon, 2016) are used by the student teachers to create collective composing tasks. The evaluation of the creative process concerning esthetical aspects (Sacchi, 2016) has been identified as a particular challenge by the student teachers. As observed in practice, the main problems are guiding interactions during group work and fostering classroom dialogue in order to construct and share knowledge (Chatelain, Giglio, & Moor, 2019). In Switzerland, the Master of Music Education for higher secondary schools (Schulmusik Sekundarstufe 2) at the Music University in Basel offers the only possibility to choose composition as a major. This unique combination between artistic and pedagogical competencies is centered on the one hand on composing techniques and on the other hand on teaching methods. During the pedagogical training (Musikdidaktik), students learn to conceive creative learning situations based on free improvisation techniques (Rüdiger, 2015) and on Jürgen Terhag’s concept of live arrangement (Terhag, 2007). The concept of live arrangement links composing and arranging techniques with pedagogical knowledge by developing short pieces over a transformative process. Action is followed up by a reflective phase, which leads to new actions. As explained by the teacher trainer, existing models are combined with his own method, inspired by composers like Ligeti or Cage. The aim of his “personal concept,” which combines activities of arranging, improvising, and composing, is to give students tools for teaching with a wide range of pupils who have varied experience in music. Finally, student teachers are required to perform a composition project at school that allows them to combine their artistic practice with pedagogical content knowledge. 404

Composing in schools

Conclusions Four aspects gave shape to my thoughts about composing in the multilingual Swiss educational landscape: definitions, curricula, teaching practice – including extracurricular projects – and teacher education. In Switzerland, composing has been integrated into recent and future school curricula using various terms. Interestingly, the word “composing” is rather absent in these texts, whatever the language used. It can be argued that composing is still associated with an exclusive form of artistic expertise. To go beyond this idea being linked to a specific professional context, I would argue, like Schlothfeld (2015), for the explicit use of the term “composing” to enhance the value of students’ productions. The value attributed to students’ composing is revealed by teaching practice. Within the range of classroom and extracurricular projects described here, the term “personal methods” and “personal concepts” have been used by some teachers, teacher trainers, and composers to characterize their pedagogical settings. In connection with the mainly empirically based Swiss cultures of school music education (Huber, 2021), underlying concepts or theoretical models for teaching are not always explicit. Specific approaches witnessed by teachers and composers for this chapter can be partly related to research and practice in the French-, German-, and Italian-speaking literature, but systematic research is needed to confirm this assumption. Currently, the links between research and teaching concepts in the three linguistic regions are quite rare. The place and the role of composing pedagogy in teacher education has not been discussed on an intercantonal level yet, except during the annual conference of the Association of Music Didactics Switzerland (Verband Fachdidaktik Musik.ch) in 2021. In her analysis of French-speaking music education research in Switzerland, Zulauf (2021) affirms that research should enrich education and vice versa. What could be the next steps for practice and research on composing in schools? The recent publication of Helmut Schmidinger (2020) on composition pedagogy gives us some interesting pathways to follow up on. His systematic analysis of research and practice, including historical aspects, shows a wide range of settings and offers a typology of tasks. In my view, a similar project could be done in order to systematically observe and map practice in schools from primary to upper secondary level. The development of “flexible tools” instead of rigid formulas (Giglio, Joliat & Schertenleib, 2010) for teaching composing could be a goal for future work. Moreover, a network like the German Kompaed could be a way to facilitate professional exchange about teaching and research methods and foster collaboration among teachers, teacher educators, and composers. The multilingual context in Switzerland can be considered as an opportunity for cross-cultural approaches on composing in schools to be explored.

Reflective questions 1 Which is the problem about definitions of composing in educational contexts? 2 How can you link your own school curricula to the situation in Switzerland? 3 To what extent can interdisciplinary approaches foster composing projects in schools?

Notes 1 Edgar Willems (1880–1978) has developed an internationally recognized method for music education, based on active music making starting from early childhood, with the aim to develop the whole human being through music. His method is widely used in music schools in the French speaking part of Switzerland for initial music training. See also the International Federation Willems, https:// fi-willems.org/en/.

405

Sabine Chatelain 2 For example, in the University of Music in Lausanne and in Geneva. 3 Musikalische Grundschule (developed in 2005) is a holistic educational concept for schools where music is integrated in all activities of daily life. A similar concept for education through music has been promoted by Daniel Barenboim for younger children (Musikkindergarten Berlin). 4 Association that supports collaborative projects between artists and different target groups and institutions (schools). For a translation of the term “Kulturvermittlung” see https://www.kulturvermittlung.ch/zeit-fuer-vermittlung/v1/?m=1&m2=3&lang=e.

References Aigner, W. (2017). Komponieren zwischen Schule und Social Web: eine entwicklungsorientierte Studie. Augsburg: Wissner. Aigner, W. (2018). Musik erfinden im Spannungsfeld zwischen Schule und Technologie. In M. Losert & A. Bonhöft (Eds.), Anregen–Vertiefen–Ausbilden: Komponieren im didaktischen Kontext (pp. 23–44). Wien: LIT. Authelain, G. (1995). La création musicale grandeur nature. Les Momeludies, une aventure à suivre. Courlay: Fuzeau. Bertelsmann Stiftung & Hessisches Kultusministerium. (2011). Die Musikalische Grundschule. Ein neuer Weg in der Schulentwicklung. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Bildungsdirektion des Kantons Zürich (Ed.). (2017). Fachbereich Musik. Lehrplan Volksschule Kanton Zürich. https://zh.lehrplan.ch/index.php?code=b|8|0&la=yes Buchborn, T., Theisohn, E., & Treß, J. (2019). Kreative musikalische Handlungsprozesse erforschen. Einblicke in ein Verfahren der videobasierten Rekonstruktion von Gruppenimprovisations-und -kompositionsprozessen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. In V. Weidner, C. Rolle (Eds.), Praxen und Diskurse aus Sicht musikpädagogischer Forschung (pp. 69–85). Münster; New York: Waxmann. Bulling, C. L. B. (2019). Interaktives musikalisches Lernen und Möglichkeiten der Realisierung in der Grundschule unter Beachtung deutscher Bildungskonzeptionen. Eine empirische Studie am Beispiel des Komponierens in der Gruppe (Doctoral dissertation). Hochschule für Musik für Musik und Theater F. Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Leipzig. Chatelain, S. (2017). Arts visuels Musique «aller-retour»: Analyse des transformations esthétiques dans un projet pédagogique à partir de Kandinsky Thirty. In G. Giacco, J. Didier, & F. Spampinato (Eds.), Didactique de la création artistique: Approches et perspectives de recherche (pp. 77–90). Louvain-laNeuve: EME. Chatelain, S. (2019). Transcréer pour comprendre. Interactions entre la musique et les arts visuels pour développer l’écoute de la musique du XXe siècle (Doctoral dissertation). University of Lausanne. Chatelain, S., & Aliaga, M. (2016). Développer la créativité et l’autonomie artistique des élèves à travers un projet de spectacle musical. Formation et pratiques d’enseignement en question. Hors-série, 1, 13–28. Chatelain, S., Giglio, M., & Moor, M. (2019). Teacher techniques for talking with students about knowledge mobilized during creative musical productions. In E. K. Orman (Ed.), Informing the teaching and learning of life’s journey through music (pp. 39–47). Dubai: Canadian University Dubai. CIIP. (2012). Arts (A) Musique. Plan d’études romand musique. https://www.plandetudes.ch/web/guest/ musique Dartsch, M. (2021). Elementare Musikpädagogik. Zur Theorie und Praxis einer Disziplin Kultureller Bildung. Kulturelle Bildung Online. https://www.kubi-online.de/artikel/elementare-musikpaedagogikzur-theorie-praxis-einer-disziplin-kultureller-bildung DECS. (2021). Piano del studio del cantone Ticino Area arti. https://scuolalab.edu.ti.ch/temieprogetti/ pds/Pagine/Discipline-di-insegnamento/Area-arti/Signi%EF%AC%81cato-e-%EF%AC%81nalitaformative-dell-area-arti.aspx Delalande, F. (1984). La musique est un jeu d’enfant. Paris: Buchet-Chastel. Delalande, F. (2011). Ontogenèse des conduites musicales: des explorations sonores de la petite enfance à l’invention. In J.-L. Leroy, P. Terrien (Eds.), Perspectives actuelles de la recherche en éducation musicale (pp. 227–236). Paris: L’Harmattan. Duvillard, J. (2011). Voies et enjeux des conduites créatives: Un outil au service de la pédagogie musicale. In F. Joliat (Ed.), La formation des enseignants de musique. État de la recherche et vision des formateurs (pp. 111–123). Paris: L’Harmattan.

406

Composing in schools EDK. (2021). Rahmenlehrpläne. https://matu2023.ch/de/ FSO. (2021). Languages in Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/ bevoelkerung/sprachen-religionen.html Giacco, G., & Coquillon, S. (2016). On the process of sound creation: Some models for teaching artistic creation in music using a soundpainting project in a French primary school. Visions of Research in Music Education, 28. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/vrme/vol28/iss1/4 Giacco, G., Didier, J., Chatelain, S., & Verry, F. (2020). Définir l’identité de la recherche-création. Louvainla-Neuve: EME. Giglio, M. (2013). L’autoévaluation de l’élève pour apprendre à collaborer créativement: des aprioris à découvrir et dépasser. Actes du 25ème colloque de l’ADMEE-Europe, Fribourg 2013, Switzerland. Giglio, M. (2015). Creative collaboration in teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Giglio, M. (2016). Étayages créatifs. Gestes des enseignants pour soutenir une collaboration créative entre élèves. In I. Capron Puozzo (Ed.), La créativité en éducation et formation (pp. 133–152). Bruxelles: De Boeck. Giglio, M., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2012). Prédire, agir, observer. Une méthodologie pour développer séquences pédagogiques et savoirs professionnels. Pratiques de recherche dans les institutions de formation des enseignant-e-s, 14, 127–140. Retrieved from http://revuedeshep.ch/pdf/14/09_giglio.pdf Giglio, M., Joliat, F., & Schertenleib, G.-A., (2010). Dispositif multimodal d’activités de création et d’exécution musicales pour l’enseignement et la formation. Recherche en éducation musicale de l’Université Laval, 28, 119–122. http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/reem/REEM_28_Dispositif.pdf Grow, J. (2018). Komponieren im Musikunterricht der Grundschule (Vol. 10). Münster: LIT. Gruhn, W. (2017). Musikalische Gestik als Modus von Perzeption und Performanz. In J. P. Hiekel (Ed.), Body sounds. Aspekt des Körperlichen in der Musik der Gegenwart (pp. 178–189). Mainz: Schott. Gruhn, W. (2018). Audiation – Grundlage und Bedingungen musikalischen Lernens. In W. Gruhn, P. Röbke (Eds.), Musiklernen. Bedingungen, Handlungsfelder, Positionen (pp. 94–109). Innsbruck: Helbling. Huber, J. (2021). Die Nullerjahre in der Schulmusik. In J. Huber, M.-A. Camp, O. Blanchard, S. Chatelain, F. Joliat, R. Steiner, & J. Zurmühle (Eds.), Kulturen der Schulmusik in der Schweiz. Les cultures de l’enseignement musical à l’école en Suisse (pp. 43–62). Zürich: Chronos. Joliat, F. (2008). L’effet de l’aptitude musicale dans la détection de la désynchronisation audiovisuelle: l’oeil musical ou le syndrome de Ludwig van Beethoven (Doctoral dissertation). Université de Fribourg. Joliat, F. (2011). La musique dans les classes de Suisse romande: l’affaire des pédagogues, des méthodologues ou des chercheurs? In J.-L. Leroy, & P. Terrien (Eds.), Perspectives actuelles de la recherche en éducation musicale (pp. 141–151). Paris: L’Harmattan. Kranefeld, U., & Voit, J. (2020). Musikunterricht im Modus des Musik-Erfindens: Fallanalytische Perspektiven. Münster; New York: Waxmann. Losert, M., & Bornhöft, A. (2018). Anregen–Vertiefen–Ausbilden. Komponieren im didaktischen Kontext. Wien: LIT. Luca, S. (2017). Le design sonore comme pratique pédagogique. Pour introduire l’enfant à la création musicale d’aujourd’hui. In G. Giacco, J. Didier, & F. Spampinato (Eds.), Didactique de la création artistique: Approches et perspectives de recherche (pp. 261–278). Louvain-la-Neuve: EME. Maffezzoli, G. (2017). Je crée donc je joue. Une approche nouvelle à la pédagogie de création pour les jeunes à travers les techniques numériques. In G. Giacco, J. Didier, & F. Spampinato (Eds.), Didactique de la création artistique: Approches et perspectives de recherche (pp. 253–260). Louvainla-Neuve: EME. Miell, D., & Littleton, K. (2004). Collaborative creativity: Contemporary Perspectives. London: Free Association Book. Mráz, P. (1984). Leitende Lernziele des Schulfaches Musik der Gegenwart und die Möglichkeiten seiner Legitimation. Zürich: ADAG. Musikalische Grundschule. (2020). https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/ueber-uns/was-wir-erreichthaben/musikalische-grundschule Paynter, J. (1992). Sound and structure. Cambridge University Press. Paynter, J. (2000). Making progress with composing. Oxford University Press. Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence classroom projects in creative music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reibel, G. (1984). Jeux musicaux. Volume 1: Jeux vocaux. Paris: Salabert.

407

Sabine Chatelain Reitinger, R. (2018). Musik erfinden mit Kindern im Vor- und Grundschulalter. Umriss eines methodisch-didaktischen Konzeptes. Handreichungen zur Kompositionspädagogik. https://www.kompaed. de/fileadmin/files/Artikel/KOMPAED-Reitinger_31.1.18.pdf Renard, C. (1982). Le geste musical. Paris: Hachette/Van de Velde. Rocca, L. (2020). I suoni dei luoghi. Percorsi di geografie degli ascolti. Roma: Carocci. Rohrbach, K. (2019). Im-puls 1 & 2. Das Schweizer Musikbuch. Innsbruck: Helbling. Rüdiger, W. (2015). Ensemble & Improvisation. Regensburg: ConBrio. Sacchi, S. (2016). Les enjeux esthétiques dans le processus de création. Paris: L’Harmattan. Schertenleib, G.-A. (2013). Composer une chanson avec ses élèves: quels savoirs musicaux pour l’enseignant?. Actes du Colloque 2011 d’éducation musicale. HEP-BEJUNE, Bienne. http://doc.rero. ch/record/306866/files/actecolloquemusique2011_Georges-Alain_Schertenleib_.pdf Schlothfeld, M. (2015). Komponieren im Unterricht (2nd ed.). Hildesheim: Olms. Schmidinger, H. (2020). Kompositionspädagogik.Theoretische Grundlagen als Fachrichtung der Musikpädagogik. Augsburg: Wissner. Schneider, H. (2012). Neue Musik vermitteln: Ästhetische und methodische Fragestellungen. Hildesheim: Olms. Schneider, H. (2017). Musizieraktionen – frei, streng, lose: Anregungen zur Vermitttlung experimenteller Musizier-und Komponierweisen. Saarbrücken: Pfau. Senker, M. (2020). Elementares Komponieren. Üben und Musizieren, 4, 10–14. Terhag, J. (2007). Live-Arrangement. In W. Jank (Ed.), Musikdidaktik (2nd ed. pp. 167–176). Berlin: Cornelsen. Zulauf, M. (2021). Le rôle de la recherche dans le développement de l’éducation musicale scolaire. In J. Huber, M.-A. Camp, O. Blanchard, S. Chatelain, F. Joliat, R. Steiner, & J. Zurmühle (Eds.), Kulturen der Schulmusik in der Schweiz. Les cultures de l’enseignement musical à l’école en Suisse (pp. 19–42). Zürich: Chronos.

408

27 THE TEACHING OF MUSIC COMPOSITION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad Introduction: creolization and the context of composition in Trinidad The Caribbean region has for centuries absorbed diverse cultural influences. European elements were imposed in the days of empire, African culture arrived amid the horror of the transatlantic slave trade, indentured laborers imported their traditions from India, and immigration from countries such as China and Syria has also impacted upon the cultural landscape. This process of cultural syncretism in the region came to be known as “creolization” and has impacted upon all aspects of life, including cuisine, religion, and artistic expression. Creolization in the Caribbean represents the dynamic interaction between peoples with different heritages and from different social classes, a process that, over time, gives rise to new traditions and cultural practices. It should be noted that creolization is far more complex than being simply a happy blending of artistic styles in a context of mutual respect; on the contrary, many enduring innovations in the arts arose from a climate of racism and repression, even after slavery was abolished. Creolization is therefore the result of dialogues and tensions between different ethnicities and classes from the time that Europeans first arrived in the Caribbean. This is a fundamental aspect of the Caribbean context, and of particular significance to composers is the fact that there continues to be widespread interest in and encouragement of those seeking to express local culture in new ways. With its history of cultural fusions, the Trinidadian context is a particularly apt one for a composer exploring ways to mesh stylistic features of different musical traditions. Unsurprisingly, given its eventful history, there are plentiful musical traditions in Trinidad and the opportunities for the cross-fertilization of sounds and styles have yielded many popular genres, most famously including calypso, soca, and chutney.

Musical creation in Trinidad: an overview The creation of new music in Trinidad and Tobago is fundamental to national identity in many different contexts. Each Carnival season there are new calypso songs providing a vehicle for current satirical commentary, new arrangements for steelpan orchestras competing in the annual Panorama championships, and new soca songs defining in collective memory DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-36

409

Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

the sound of that year’s Carnival. This amounts to a huge new canon of work each year and serves as a testimony to the constant creative impulse of this small twin-island nation. Beyond the Carnival context, new compositions in all styles are showcased in concerts throughout the year by solo singer-songwriters and jazz musicians in bars, prominent soca artists in largescale national stadia, steelpan orchestras, symphony orchestras and choirs in formal concert halls, and chamber ensembles in university performance spaces. Composers of certain well-known styles often learn (and share knowledge of) their craft informally. A pertinent example of this is in the quintessentially Trinidadian environment of the nation’s numerous panyards (the homes of the steelpan orchestras located across the country). Here, young steelpan players (known locally as “pannists”) witness experienced arrangers invent and develop intricate contrapuntal lines from initial material. This proximity to the creative process allows young musicians interested in arranging to absorb not only the techniques of composition and arranging required of successful practitioners, but also the all-important peripheral skills of teaching and rehearsing music in the panyard context. Most composers of calypsos have not received formal musical training but rather developed their sense for melody and lyrics by listening to pre-existing songs in the genre. Calypsonians are almost always singer-songwriters who write and perform their own material. Most often they play an accompanying instrument, such as the guitar, on which they devise suitable harmonies for their melodies. Successful composers and arrangers in the realms of calypso (such as Lord Kitchener, Mighty Sniper, and Chalkdust) and steelpan (Len “Boogsie” Sharpe, Leon “Smooth” Edwards, Carlton “Zanda” Alexander, for instance) are hailed as national treasures, who developed their extraordinary creative talents more by persistence and passion for their art than by access to formal musical education. In addition to the ubiquitous pride in the national traditions of steelpan and calypso, composers of what may loosely be called “art music” (according to the definition offered by Caribbean art music scholars Gangelhoff & LeGrand [2013]) have a small but significant presence both in Trinidad and Tobago and overseas.

Syncopation, notation, and composition teaching Traditional Trinidadian musical styles are characterized by rhythmic syncopation. This is unsurprising, as the vast majority of Trinidadian musics – particularly those connected historically to African and Indian heritages – drive dance and movement in cultural and religious contexts. Prominent examples of syncopation in Trinidad include the melodic material and big band accompaniments of calypso and soca songs, the drumming that accompanies Orisha and Spiritual Baptist worship, the tassa bands that feature in Hindu and Muslim ceremonies, and the individual steelpan lines of Panorama arrangements. The creation of most Trinidadian Indigenous music is – as elsewhere across the world – done without using notated scores.1 Large repertoires of songs or instrumental pieces are held in the collective memories of, for example, religious groups, tassa bands, and steelpan orchestra members, and new members to these musical communities learn the music by repeated participation over a long period of time. The musical feel (often referred to locally as the “vibe”) of the music is paramount, and syncopation is a fundamental component of this. There is very often a disconnect between the ease with which many music students are able to compose complex rhythms, and notating such passages using Western classical conventions. A culturally specific issue for composition teachers in Trinidad, then, is assisting students in notating the often highly syncopated music they invent. Many pannists, for example, develop a highly virtuosic technique after many years of playing in steelpan orchestras but 410

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago

come to study music theory much later on, if at all. This can be a source of much frustration to individuals who wish to write down their scores for composition assignments at university, for instance, or for posterity. While music theory classes at degree level certainly go a long way toward addressing this issue, composition teachers have a responsibility in their classes, too, to help their students understand how to write down their music accurately. In so doing, they enable these young composers to capture the “vibe” that they achieve when inventing their music in a live setting.

The teaching of music composition in the school system of Trinidad and Tobago Primary level The Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) sector of the Ministry of Education of Trinidad and Tobago outlines six classroom activities to facilitate music learning at each primary-school level (ages 4–11). One of these six activities per level is designed to develop skills for composing at the secondary level. According to the VAPA curriculum, during their time in the school year known as Standard 1 (children aged 6–7), students engage in clapping and body percussion exercises; in Standard 2 (ages 7–8), students create a simple “answering phrase” on a melodic instrument; in Standard 3 (ages 8–9), students create a rap or jingle vocally; in Standard 4 (ages 9–10), students create a short phrase on a melodic instrument and record it (usually with a smartphone or other device); and in Standard 5 (ages 10–11), students record and analyze a compilation of local music representing Trinidad. Teachers report that these activities are not graded or evaluated.

Secondary level (ages 11–14) Preparation for music composition continues from the beginning of secondary school, which children attend from the age of 11. The Ministry of Education of Trinidad and Tobago provides a national teaching guide that aims to direct teachers on how to equip Form One students (children aged 11–12) with the early skills and tools needed for composing music. This guide introduces teachers to philosophies of music education, theories of learning, and contemporary music education methods such as the Dalcroze method, Kodály method, Orff approach, Suzuki method, and the Gordon music learning theory (Graham et al., 2014, pp. 4–7). While teachers may not specifically adopt these particular methods, they do influence the teaching strategies used in the classroom. Finally, a content framework is set out, structured according to the different musical parameters: beat, time signatures, tempo, duration, rhythmic patterns, melody, texture, dynamics, timbre, form, performance, and music appreciation (Graham et al., 2014, pp. 8–10). This framework is unanimously followed. The first teaching and learning strategy that is employed is the synthesis-analysis-synthesis approach, where a quick overview of a topic is given, detailed sections are then studied and a return to the overall topic brings a more complete understanding. Another strategy is the compare-and-contrast method, whereby the teacher invites students to listen to two versions of a piece of music and students are asked to point out what they notice to be similar or different between them in terms of interpretation, tempo, or other stylistic elements. Students may be required to examine if a group of notes is identical to another group, or to describe similarities between what two different instruments are playing. In this way, students are encouraged to articulate their own musical observations and analyses. For example, a video of local traditional music may be played, and students must list features that they have learned 411

Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

or noticed. Students may be asked to point out recurring pitches throughout a few bars of music or point out similar structures in a simple piece. Brainstorming is another strategy – for example, students may be asked to demonstrate as many different rhythms as they can on a drum (Graham et al., 2014, p. 14). These strategies introduce creative thinking that facilitates composing at later stages. As students develop, they are asked to complete certain tasks, such as memorizing a simple piece to be performed at a music festival or recital, sight-reading very elementary musical material, and creating some degree of instrumental accompaniment for a poem (Graham et al., 2014, p. 14). This accompaniment is, in effect, their first task in composition. (There is no requirement to notate their music at this stage.) In Form One, students focus on simple concepts of pitch, duration, rests, and the larger structures that these elements form. In Form Two (students aged 12–13), however, students start scoring and using music notation to write out simple melodies. This is the next integral step in preparing students for composition. Students learn to recognize notes that they hear, point out rhythms, and notate a few notes played to them. At this stage, focus is given on other elements of music, such as dynamics. As part of the learning process, a performance may be asked from the student, showcasing a variety of different dynamics, and the student must explain why he or she made those choices in specific places in the music. In Form Two, students are assessed on their writing of at least four lines of a song, where at least four words must be related to a theme. The student must sing at least three lines, and marks are given for rhythm, pitch, tempo, dynamics, tone quality, and balance (Graham et al., 2014, p. 40). This exam ensures that teachers execute all the previously mentioned teaching strategies with the skillset for composition in mind. As students move on to Form Three (students aged 13–14), teaching strategies and assessment practices are maintained, but teachers delve deeper into each topic. The result is a steady, organized, and nationally standardized system that remains relatively unchanged from Form One to Form Three. It is at this point, however, that national standardization stops, and Caribbean-based standardization begins.

Secondary level (ages 14–16) From Form Four (students aged 14–15), teachers follow the official music syllabus for the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC, 2018) exams provided by the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), which are taken at the end of Form Five at the age of 16.2 Composition makes up 22 percent of the overall grade in the CXC’s CSEC, compared with 12 percent accorded to the performance component. The CSEC Music Syllabus reflects the close relationship that exists in Trinidad among composing, arranging, and improvising, as set out on page 20 of the 2011–2019 syllabus for the composition component of the examination: Students should develop the ability to select and sequence sound in order to express and communicate musical ideas, thoughts and feelings, which include adding new parts or ideas to an existing piece (arranging), as well as spontaneously experimenting with new ideas, while in the act of performing (improvising). The syllabus and teaching guidelines do not prescribe what sort of music students should write for their CSEC assessment. Rather, the emphasis is on writing well-crafted music that draws on musical and extra-musical stimuli, is well structured, is well defined stylistically, and can be presented both in recorded versions and by means of traditional or alternative notation. 412

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago

The teaching guidelines for composition in the CSEC Music exam state that teachers should assume the roles of facilitator, guide, and musical model, providing students with opportunities to explore musical ideas and learn about the salient characteristics of different musical styles. Teachers are also expected to play a participatory role in classroom composition sessions, providing, in the words of the 2011–2019 syllabus (page 21) “technical expertise to guide the process of composing by drawing on personal musical knowledge and experience.” Teachers look toward a variety of resources for content on music theory, music analysis, and music history.3 The CXC also recommends reading material specific to the Caribbean such as The Trinidad and Tobago Steel Pan: History and Evolution, by Felix I.R. Blake, and Jamaican Music, by Michael Burnett, although the teachers approached in this study did not express particular use of these. Many teachers create their own resources, and most also use a variety of YouTube videos that are suitable for the learning of composition by students. Unlike in Forms One to Three, during Forms Four and Five, there is very little teaching guidance provided in government documents; teachers must therefore use the CXC’s syllabus to inform themselves about what is expected of the students, and what is needed for the successful completion of school-based assessments and CSEC exams, to then create strategies for the teaching of music composition. At this stage of development, students learn to control various instruments or devices to express emotions, apply transformations found in different types of music, utilize the elements of music to produce an elegant product, and use various technologies to score and record their own composition. Teachers instruct students on how to use motives, chord progressions, and different timbres to create compositional ideas. Students are encouraged to consider poetry, paintings, or scenery as inspiration for composing. Exposure to different styles of music is an important factor as well as arranging for such. As students develop, they are additionally taught about different time signatures, call and response, ostinatos and syncopation, although these are not stipulated for CSEC exams. Using the Caribbean Examination Council’s syllabus as a starting point, teachers develop their own strategies for instruction of a wide range of content and are supported by occasional workshops run by the Ministry of Education of Trinidad and Tobago. These workshops are led by experienced educators of the VAPA sector of the Ministry of Education at schools across Trinidad and Tobago in an effort to standardize teaching practices and aid teachers with instructing composition at the CSEC level. This has resulted in something of a consensus on approaches to teaching music composition in various ways. First, the students are taught how to use music notation software with audio playback capabilities. While this may already be taught by individual teachers, a professional from VAPA visits schools to install software and teach students how to use it. On the day of one of these visits, students bring their laptops to school (many of which have been provided to thousands of students for free by the government of Trinidad and Tobago), and any student who does not have a laptop is provided with a school computer. Notation software such as Sibelius and Finale are often purchased by schools or by parents but, otherwise, free notation software such as MuseScore is used. Ongoing instruction on using software is taken on by individual teachers. In cases where students have no access to computers for regular class sessions, teachers use their own laptops attached to a projector and speakers.4 Students learn to create a few bars of rhythm and begin to associate the audio midi playback of the software with the visual of the written music notation as the software scrolls and highlights notes. After this skill is developed, pitches are assigned to the rhythms to create a melody, after which harmony is added. Some teachers choose to use a lead sheet type of approach to chords and others choose to notate simple triads. Students apply their knowledge of cadences at this point and are encouraged to make harmonic changes when bars repeat. Next, students develop the music further and 413

Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

then produce an entirely new section that complements the first. Students are encouraged to compose first in binary form and complete a piece. As students improve in this process, they are encouraged to write specifically for their instrument, paying attention to the instrument’s range and capabilities. Students also learn to write in different musical genres. Teachers work closely with students on composition exercises until they are able to compose their two pieces for CSEC exams; at this point, the teacher merely acts as a guide. Teachers are careful not to accidentally compose for the students in any way because the examination is designed to counteract fraudulence; all students are required to have an oral discussion where they must thoroughly discuss, with a CSEC examiner, their composing processes and their reasons for writing specific material. The final products for the composition element for CSEC examinations are two pieces (minimum 2 minutes each) that are both scored and recorded, one being an arrangement and the other being a completely original work (one of which must be performed live) along with an assessed discussion. Teachers have not reported any government documentation that guides them in assessing the progress of students through Forms Four and Five, but a standard practice approach has evolved nonetheless. Even though the Caribbean Examination Council has not provided a framework for ongoing assessments throughout Forms Four and Five, it does set out (in its Practical Music Examination (General Proficiency) Mark Sheet Paper 02: Composing, 2020) how CSEC exam submissions are assessed – students must use musical and extra-musical stimuli creatively, show musical form, utilize vocal or instrument techniques, feature two musical elements, use tempo, dynamics, and articulation, understand facets of a genre, and score and record. With the Caribbean Examination Council’s framework being the only source of this type of information, teachers have used these criteria to inform their rubric for ongoing assessment. As mentioned previously, workshops by VAPA play a key role in the standardization of practice across the country. Many teachers report being part of a large (unofficial) online group chat where they share knowledge and resources and have discussions regarding the CXC syllabus and VAPA workshops. Additionally, they say that they are strongly influenced by their experience as students. The result is that there is a pseudo-standardization of assessment practices across the teaching community. As mentioned previously, the teaching practices for composition give students the opportunity to create some music using notation software (just a few bars of rhythms alone at the very beginning). For each stage of these composition teaching practices, teachers give an assignment focused on that topic. Teachers grade unofficially and give feedback to the students to improve a student’s skills in that topic and repeat this for subsequent assignments. Each assignment utilizes the students’ musical material from the previous assignment. This allows for continuous improvement; for example, Assignment One may be to create eight bars of rhythm, for which a grade and feedback will be given, then Assignment Two will be to assign pitches to create a melody. Here, a grade and feedback will be provided for melody, and any reworking of the rhythms written previously will now be re-graded with new feedback given. This process of assessment continues until all the requirements of a composition for CSEC are met. At this point, teachers ask students to compose new short musical pieces from scratch (including all elements that have been taught – rhythm, pitch, and harmony) with a specific goal in mind, such as to write in a specific genre or for a particular instrument. These short pieces are then unofficially graded by the teacher using the complete grading scheme set out by the Caribbean Examination Council, and feedback is given to the students. With this approach, students get a feel for what they must produce for the two pieces they must submit as their final CSEC submission, one of which, as noted above, must be an arrangement, the other an original work. For this original piece, each 414

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago

student chooses one of the short pieces they have already written and builds on this, extending and refining it for eventual submission. With teaching methods and assessments in place for the composition aspects of music education, there is no standardization or consensus for how class time should be divided to incorporate composition practices with other topics, such as performance, history, or written analysis. For perspective on the teachers’ challenge on this matter, it is important to note just how extensive the preparation of these other topics needs to be in order to prepare students for CSEC examinations: in addition to composition, the Caribbean Examination Council requires students to write analyses based on musical perception and musical literacy, perform solo and ensemble pieces, play or sing scales and arpeggios, participate in an oral discussion regarding six of the students’ performances throughout Forms Four and Five (in addition to the previously mentioned viva voce for composition), and complete a number of school-based assessments.5 All of this must fit into the time that teachers have with the students. This is a daunting task because, even though the Caribbean Examination Council recommends a minimum of seven 40-minute periods per week, most music teachers are allotted only five 35-minute periods per week (a few have seven and no one has reported having more). For this reason, some teachers generously give up their personal time to meet with students outside of normal hours and give classes during holidays in order to ensure that students are well prepared and meet the standards set out by the Caribbean Examination Council. During normal class hours, some teachers assign one period per week for composition, and others include shorter stretches of composition time during double-period classes. Outside of normal hours, teachers usually help students with notation software techniques or other individual struggles that could not be resolved in class. Time with students is not the only factor that affects how well teachers can impart skills associated with music composition; facilities and instruments available to teachers and students also play a role. The Caribbean Examination Council suggests that students and teachers have, at minimum, access to a music room, recording and listening equipment, a piano, two guitars, two congas, six recorders, several pitched percussion instruments (such as steelpans, a xylophone, or glockenspiel), several unpitched percussion instruments (such as tambourines, cymbals, claves, and guiros), three computers with relevant software, music for listening (listed in in the syllabus), and a collection of music texts and scores. All of these in combination are not always present in each school. However, there are usually sufficient alternatives and sometimes well over the minimum for certain instruments (such as steelpans). All schools have a music room, as well as a full steelpan theater or a steelpan room with several steelpans. Most schools have two pianos or keyboards, an African drum, some sort of sound system with speakers, and one or more computers. Many schools have guitars, microphones, and projectors, and some schools have a few orchestral instruments, too. Teachers often purchase or bring their own equipment when necessary. Due to the specificity and standardization of the systems in place for becoming a teacher at a secondary school (see below), teachers have similar training, qualifications, and skills; and so, along with other previously mentioned standardizations of classroom strategies and assessments, students across Trinidad and Tobago are fortunate to receive equal (and equitable) education regarding music composition. With this education equality in mind, students’ artistic individuality and cultural influences shine through. This becomes evident in the wide range of compositions that students produce for CSEC submission, as well as their work throughout study. Teachers have reported students composing in styles as varied as chutney, mumble-rap, classical, reggae, pop, soca, love-ballads, calypso, soundscapes, R&B, jazz, abstract storytelling music, and steelband arrangements. The most popular instrument is the steelpan, and 415

Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

this is often used to play many of the above-mentioned styles (not only steelband music) – resulting in a unique musical landscape in secondary schools. Many students use simple diatonic harmony in their final CSEC submission, and teachers have reported that many of these compositions contain syncopated rhythms not often found in European classical music but prevalent in the traditional musics of Trinidad and Tobago. Cultural influence can also be seen in the learning styles of the students. Students appear to have an aptitude for certain rhythmic structures and for learning music by ear. This is a tradition found in the panyards of Trinidad and Tobago, where many young musicians enjoy their first exposure to live instrumental music performance; the vast majority of steelpan players learn music by repetition and bring that learning style into the classroom. The non-steelpan players often learn other instruments and genres in a similar fashion from parents or friends, by ear and repetition. Older people of Trinidad and Tobago have stronger ties to local traditions and culture, which then gets passed down to the youth. Students then come into the music classroom rich with cultural influences and learning habits. On the other hand, with the rise of social media, some teachers have reported a strong decrease in this phenomenon and, instead, students are heavily influenced by foreign media. Nevertheless, local culture still remains an important aspect of students’ learning and composing and has a significant influence on the output of student composers in the schools of Trinidad and Tobago.

Secondary level (ages 16–18) The Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) is available to students in the Caribbean who have completed five years of secondary education. The syllabus for CAPE in the Performing Arts has a particular emphasis on nurturing the Caribbean aesthetic: “The [CAPE] course of study is designed to encourage awareness of the concepts and principles that will guide the responsible development of the diverse Caribbean artistic community towards successful integration into the world of work, new artistic expressions and preservation of the existing art forms” (CAPE Performing Arts Syllabus, Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), 2015, p. 20). The emphasis on a Caribbean aesthetic is clear in the composition component of Module 1 of the syllabus’s “Music Option,” which requires candidates to compose a piece of Caribbean music (specifically in 2/2 time, with lyrics and at least 64 bars in length) and to state what Caribbean genre or genres are being used. There are three assessment criteria. These are: consideration of melody (including how this “interprets a Caribbean style” and how it “is married to words while observing the syllabic structure and accent of the language”), lyric development, and notation, including the accuracy of “conventional notation in writing the score” (CAPE Performing Arts Syllabus, Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), 2015, p. 211). In addition, CAPE students are required to arrange their composition for a minimum of three instruments, and there are separate assessment criteria for this arrangement. This composition component is clearly designed to encourage composition in local genres such as calypso or soca and, as such, provides students with an invaluable opportunity to have culturally specific work formally evaluated by specialists from within that culture. There is also a small composition component in the syllabus’s Module 2 which is focused on European art music. In this, students are required to compose “simple melodies using chord tones (triads), passing notes, auxiliaries and repeating notes” (CAPE Performing Arts Syllabus, Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), 2015, p. 192). This exercise allows students the experience of applying their understanding of functional harmony and melodic structure (covered in the musical analysis section of the syllabus) in a creative exercise. 416

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago

Teacher training in Trinidad and Tobago The route to becoming a secondary school teacher in Trinidad and Tobago is highly standardized and regulated. There are three classifications of secondary school teachers: “Teacher I,” “Teacher II,” and “Teacher III,” with Teacher III requiring the highest qualification of all. Teachers at the secondary school level are normally Teachers II or III. The minimum requirement for becoming a secondary school teacher is a bachelor’s degree in the relevant subject area with specific teacher training modules taken during undergraduate study. No separate education program or teacher training is required for entry into a teaching post because the teacher training courses are integrated into the bachelor’s degree programs as options for those aiming to become teachers. The criteria for the classification for Teacher III are reported to be very specific: during undergraduate study, a teacher-to-be must consult with their professors to find out what courses are currently available at the university that will allow an application for the position of Teacher III. The specificity and strictness of this system is worth noting. For example, one teacher reported being evaluated as Teacher II despite having higher qualifications, such as a master’s degree in music education, and many teachers within this study concur that this is indeed a normal occurrence. A Teacher III may or may not have more responsibilities than a Teacher II. However, a Teacher III receives a higher salary than a Teacher II (the salary system is based on classification and duration of employment). After two years of service, teachers are allowed to pursue an official – though optional – teacher training. This training is a standardized two-year training course called the Diploma in Education (Dip.Ed.). While not mandatory, the course is recommended, as it allows teachers the possibility of future promotion. Teachers have reported that this course was helpful from an education system standpoint, but that it contained little to assist with the teaching of music composition.

The teaching of composition in Trinidad at the tertiary level Specialist courses in composition are taught at the University of the West Indies and at the University of Trinidad and Tobago. Composition components of the music degree at the University of the Southern Caribbean (USC) are integrated into music theory classes and led by Boyd Gibson. Gibson’s explanation of the approach below demonstrates the importance placed on mastering traditional techniques: While our composition program is limited, meaning that we do not have a composition major or even a composition course, we believe that our students must learn the skills that will help them to be capable composers and arrangers. We believe music students should be able to have composing and arranging skills since these skills will be called on as they become teachers and musical leaders in their communities. Compositional elements are built into every theory class that they take… In Counterpoint we go beyond species counterpoint and begin to use the skills acquired there to write various canons at a variety of intervals. In Form and Analysis, they are required to show that they understand the forms by composing something to demonstrate some of the forms, i.e., binary, ternary, rondo, and theme and variations. I have limited these assignments to simpler forms and have not asked them to compose in sonata allegro form or a fugue. Vocal Arranging and Orchestration are the two classes that require the most writing and students are expected to write a significant number of works in each class, and they are responsible to have them performed by their peers.6 417

Adam Walters and Renaldo Ramai

The Academy for the Performing Arts (APA) is an arts school run as a conservatory within the University of Trinidad and Tobago and has been nurturing young composers since it opened its doors to students in 2011. The composition courses available reflect the musical landscape of Trinidad and Tobago and are aimed at providing students with compositional skills relevant to the nation’s music industry. Students can elect courses entitled Calypso Composition, Arranging for Steelpan, Jazz Composition, and simply Composition, the latter giving composers a free choice of the musical style (or styles) in which they wish to write.

Conclusions The musical landscape of Trinidad and Tobago is exceptionally varied as a result of the numerous influences (especially European, African, and Indian) that have shaped the different local genres, so the teaching of composition in Trinidad necessarily takes many forms. The Indigenous genres of calypso and steelpan arranging for Panorama are very clearly defined stylistically, and the traditional working methods of composers and arrangers in these styles have been passed on to young practitioners in informal learning environments (such as panyards) for many years. The formal teaching of calypso composition and pan arranging at secondary and tertiary levels is relatively new, however, and allows for teachers and lecturers to take an approach that sets practice within a theoretical framework. The teaching of music composition at the secondary level is supported by detailed documentation from exam boards. Adherence to these and regular workshop-type visits organized by the Ministry of Education, as well as teachers’ membership of informal social media groups, have helped create a standardization of approach to music composition in schools. The fact that Indigenous music is characterized by syncopated rhythms means that notation of such compositions can be complicated, especially for students whose level in music theory may lag behind their abilities as players and composers. For this reason, composition teachers recognize a responsibility to assist students in writing their music in score form. While the innate talent of the nation’s most eminent and successful composers and arrangers continues to be celebrated, the breadth of composition teaching now available at schools and universities in Trinidad and Tobago is today nurturing an ever-greater number of young practitioners, exposing them to a wide variety of different styles and influences.

Reflective questions 1 What does “creolization” mean, and how has it affected the musical landscape of Trinidad and Tobago? 2 Explain some of the contexts in which music is created in Trinidad and Tobago. 3 Identify some of the positive and negative aspects of using Western classical notation to express musical ideas from different musical traditions.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the following for their contributions to and assistance with the writing of chapter: Simon Browne, Boyd Gibson, Seion Gomez, Roger Henry, Desmond Waithe, Anthony Woodroffe, and numerous music teachers in secondary schools across Trinidad and Tobago. 418

The teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago

Notes 1 A notable exception is the big bands that accompany calypso singers. The singer engages the services of an arranger who notates parts for wind, brass, percussion, guitars, and keyboards. 2 As expressed on Trinidad and Tobago’s governmental website, “Form Five students at Public Secondary Schools and anyone over the age of ten at private institutions are eligible to write the CSEC. In addition, private candidates who are at least 16 years of age are eligible to write the exam.” 3 One popular resource is the Associated Board of the Royal School of Music (ABRSM) books such as the AB Guide to Music Theory Part 1 by Eric Taylor and the Music Theory in Practice (grades 1–5) also by Eric Taylor. The Theory of Music Workbooks by Trinity College London are used as an alternative to the ABRSM books for teachers who are more familiar with such. Some other books used for the teaching of music composition in Trinidad and Tobago are “Listen, Compose, Perform” by Geoffrey Winters, “The Study of Orchestration” by Samuel Adler and the “GCSE Music Composition Workbook” by Alan Charlton. The Caribbean Examinations Council recommends reading material for teachers that are specially geared toward composition such as the “History of Music,” “Form and Design,” “General Musicianship,” and “Fortissimo” all by Roy Bennett, as well as “Composing in the Classroom” by Ruth Harris and Elizabeth Hawksley, “Learning to Compose” by John Howard, and “A Student’s Guide to GCSE Music” by David Bowman, Michael Burnett, and Ian Burton. “Fortissimo” is reportedly the most popular of these recommendations among local teachers. 4 It is important to note that this approach works financially and technically because the average number of students at the CSEC level (Forms Four and Five) is only five students per class; this is in contrast to an average of 30 students per class for Forms One to Three. This disparity is due to a low number of students choosing music as a final CSEC subject, as opposed to music usually being a compulsory subject in Forms One to Three. 5 These school-based assessments require students to record eight musical advertisements from radio or television and comment on structure, expression and effectiveness with regard to their sociocultural significance; record 20–30 minutes of an artist’s live performance and explain a rationale, give background data and comment on structure, expression and the sociocultural significance of the music; or interview a prominent Caribbean performer to gain information on their influences, mode of performing, career development and analyze the performer’s music to comment on its structure, expression, and sociocultural significance. 6 Boyd Gibson, personal correspondence, 2020.

References CAPE Performing Arts Syllabus. (2015). Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC). Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate CSEC: Music Syllabus 2011–2019. (2018). Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC). Gangelhoff, C., & LeGrand, C. (2013). Art music by Caribbean composers: Introduction to Volume 2. The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 19(2–3). Practical Music Examination (General Proficiency) Mark Sheet Paper 02: Composing. (2020). Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC). Secondary school Teacher’s guide: Music. (2014). Curriculum Planning & Development Division, Ministry of Education, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

419

INTERLUDE IX

Notation – Its Place and Role in Composing Pedagogies Martin Fautley

Notation is so embedded into Western classical modes of thinking about composing and pedagogies that sometimes it can be hard to disentangle thinking about the one from the other. Indeed, many of the chapters in this current book concern themselves with notation, either as a starting point or as a means to developing composerly thinking in children and young people. The purpose of this interlude is to endeavor to problematize thinking about notation. It is important to state that this is the case, rather than trying to problematize the issue of musical notation itself. Furthermore, this interlude tries to unpick what is taking place when people discuss notation in relation to the teaching and learning of composing, especially with reference to composing at the novice stages. It seems to be the case that the place and role of musical notation in teaching children to compose is deeply embedded, and to such an extent that, for some, it is thoroughly ingrained in the ways in which they talk about, think about, and operationalize composing pedagogy. Sometimes, as we shall discuss later, this is so entrenched that it is not so much conceptualized as simply taken for granted. Indeed, so deep-rooted in this way of thinking about notation that, in the English language, “to write a piece of music” is considered isomorphic with composing; in other words, writing = composing. But if we try to take a step back from this stance and look at what is going on from a different angle, then it might be the case that what we are seeing here could possibly amount to a category error, that involves transference from one cognitive domain, that of the auditory, to another and totally different one, that of the visual. For expert musicians schooled in the Western classical notation system, there is such an obvious linkage between “writing” and “composing” that it probably has not been given a second thought. Consider, as instantiation of this, those composing schemes of work for children that do not start with sounds but begin withdrawing a shape, and then the children are to express what they think the shape will sound like. So, let us now consider the task from the opposite perspective. The children are going to draw a picture, say of a tree. But the teacher says, “before we can draw a picture of a tree, we need to think about sounds, so let us sing a song about trees.” Now it may be the case that this is a perfectly reasonable way of working, yet we do not often hear singing coming from art classrooms in schools, and there does not seem to be the same automatic linkage between sound and visual in art lessons as there does between visual and sound in some music classes. There is a much-cited aphorism

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-37

421

Martin Fautley

of unknown attribution which says, “writing about music is like dancing about architecture”; maybe thinking about composing only in terms of visual representation may be something along those lines? Problematizing the role of notation in teaching and learning music for children and young people has been taking place in scholarly research literature for some time. Back in 2001, Swanwick made the observation that: Music is a primary symbolic system. Notations, verbal descriptions or graphic representations are secondary systems, offering a translation from one representational domain to another. (Swanwick, 2001, p. 232) This is an interesting statement, as it brings the principal subject matter of music (i.e., sonic musical materials) to the fore, what Swanwick calls “a primary symbolic system,” and makes the visual representation of music into a secondary symbol system, an entirely different representational domain. In some instances, it seems likely to be the case that the secondary symbol system of Western staff notation has assumed a tacit or unexamined privileged position. Kivijärvi and Väkevä characterize this positionality in this fashion: […B]ecause skills of decoding WSMN [Western standard music notation] are useful in learning certain kinds of music in a certain context (historically, a Western music and Western music pedagogy context), they are useful in learning any kind of music (or at least most musics), and thus should be taught to all …. We believe that this way of thinking often frames curricular and pedagogical decisions over the role of WSMN in music education. Captivated by this logic, music educators may emphasize WSMN in the classroom without critical reflection on its relevance in different cultural learning contexts …. (Kivijärvi & Väkevä, 2020, p. 154) This view that notation is privileged by some music educators and composer educators “without critical reflection,” as Kivijärvi and Väkevä put it, is an important one. This is not only the tacit, but also unexamined stance mentioned above. However, in addition to this, according to the English musician and academic Nate Holder, this stance smacks of racism. In his poem, “If I were a racist,” he writes: If I were a racist, I’d insist that all music was taught from notation, Removing all the nuances That paper could ever express. … If I were a racist, I would insist that children learn western music notation, Forgetting that many civilisations, Flourished without it for centuries. (Holder, 2020) This undoubtedly places such unexamined reflections into an uncomfortable position for some music educators and may well give pause for thought. 422

Notation – its place and role in composing pedagogies

It is not only music educators who have steered themselves toward the category of potentially mistaking notational ability for musical or compositional competence. Back in 1983, Bennett observed that: Some academic musicologists even claim that the printed score is the primary manifestation of music. Such misplaced concreteness … indicates that the signals and symbols which were intended to evoke music have been elevated to such importance that they are being mistaken for music itself, a pitfall characteristic of the visual emphasis in literary cultures. (Bennett, 1983, p. 220) This introduces another useful distinction that the reason for the privileging of the visual in thinking about music is a cultural one, where the prevailing feature is one of visual emphasis. A few years after Bennett, Davidson and Scripp (1988, p. 195) made the observation that: Parents know that young children take great delight in listening to music, singing songs, and inventing songs of their own. However, they rarely suggest that their children write out songs they know. Performance ability alone is taken as the index of musical ability. Unlike language, mastery of the written form of music is neither viewed as necessary for musical ability, nor as an index of musical understanding. This is interesting, as here they are saying that parents privilege the sounds that the children are making. However, the authors then go on to state that: It is our contention that for a more complete knowledge of children’s understanding of music, their representations of music are critical “windows” for viewing their musical cognitive development. (Davidson & Scripp, 1988, p. 196) This is a somewhat different case, where to investigate children’s musical understanding, their visual representations are studied instead. Indeed, there have been many studies which look at the notations of children, often invented notations, and then go on to attribute musical competencies to the young people concerned. It is pertinent at this stage to note that many of these studies are not concerned with standard Western classical staff notation, but with graphic scores, pictograms, symbolic representations, and other non-staff-based notational systems, including, as just stated, children’s own invented notations. As a counterargument to this, Swanwick cautions against reading too much into children’s notational utilization as a potential indicator of their musicianship: It is therefore questionable whether the study of visual representations of music can, by itself, comprehensively inform us about children’s musical development. In terms of our other criteria, it is also problematic as to whether this procedure would hold for non-western cultures, or indeed for western people with musical backgrounds where the emphasis is strongly aural/oral, such as pop and rock music. Thus, these studies appear to be strongly biased towards musical traditions involving staff notation, arguing that the closer a student’s notations resemble staff conventions, the more musically developed the student may be …. This is not necessarily so. (Swanwick, 2001, pp. 231–232) 423

Martin Fautley

However, by way of yet another contrast to this view from Swanwick, Margaret Barrett offers the suggestion that children’s invented notations do allow investigation of the ways in which they are thinking about music: Children’s invented notations have been viewed as “windows” onto their musical thinking and the study of these notations has provided fertile ground for the investigation of aspects of children’s musical perception and conception. A common feature of children’s invented notations is the “borrowing” of symbols and strategies from a range of symbol systems, including drawing, music, number, and writing systems. Does this activity indicate that children operate from a common semiotic function or do they observe constraints in their use of symbols from different systems? Importantly, do these notations operate as referential communicative tools or are they formal problem-spaces for children as they think about the representation of music experience? (Barrett, 2004, p. 19) For our purposes in this current book in thinking about composing, it may well prove helpful for us to be asking questions concerning the use of notation as a starting point for composing, which could be very different from its use as a way of the investigation of children and young people’s thinking about music, or about the ways in which these young people react to music that they have listened to. In thinking about starting points for composing (see also Interlude III, this volume), there is often going to be a place for imagery, but what the careful music educator needs to think about is the automatic and immediate assumption of a translation from the sonic art form into a visual one. All of this presupposes to some extent the primacy of the Western art music form of staff notation, after all, and, as Holder (2020) observed above, this has the effect of demoting all other musics which do not use it, whether this be the music of Ghana, Tibet, or pop, or rock, to a secondary position. Then there is the case of technology, which has changed the ways in which music can be composed. The democratization of music technology means that all sorts of creative and composing facilities are available in home computers and mobile phones that were undreamed of when Paul Terry made this observation back in 1994: The learning of staff notation will only be of value to specialist performers who intend to spend the greater part of their professional lives performing or studying an existing musical literature … there is no practical reason why they need to be burdened with an anachronistic notational system: technology allows students to compose directly onto a retrievable system. (Terry, 1994, p. 110) There are possibly many music educators who will bristle at this notion of Western staff notation being “anachronistic,” as Terry termed it. However, given all of these complexities and worrisome issues, the question might well be asked as to why some music educators feel that they need to invoke musical notation of any sort, staff or otherwise, at the outset of a composing task. One possible answer might be that for those composers fully instilled in a Western art music modality, notation is how they compose, and so when asked to work with children and young people, they begin with what they know. After all, as Gudmundsdottir (2010, p.333) observed, “[a]s with other complex skills, music reading does not seem difficult to those who have mastered the skill,” and it may prove to be the case that, for an expert 424

Notation – its place and role in composing pedagogies

composer, notation is how they work, and also how they have become successful, and so notation is how they conceptualize music being created. From a pedagogically theoretical case, what may be happening in these instances is that the music educators who are starting composing tasks with children and young people by using a notation-based activity are doing this because it is believed that this is how composing should be taught and learned. As Devaney (2022, pp. 2–3) observed, Pedagogy can be driven by a teacher’s beliefs, tastes and experiences … therefore how they teach composing will be influenced to some extent by their own past encounters and perceptions about composers and teaching methods. The emphasis on the beliefs about composing teaching and learning styles places it in line with what Shulman referred to as a signature pedagogy: A signature pedagogy has three dimensions. First, it has a surface structure, which consists of concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing. Any signature pedagogy also has a deep structure, a set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and know-how. And it has an implicit structure, a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional attitudes, values, and dispositions. (Shulman, 2005, p. 55) Maybe it is the case that for some music educators notation is the way that they feel composing should be taught. Shulman’s description of “implicit structure,” which involves beliefs and values, is interesting and useful at this point. We do not yet know a great deal about the ways in which composer educators are trained. Shulman’s notion of signature pedagogies, when applied to teaching and learning composing, can be helpfully used to disentangle some of the issues associated with different ways in which composing pedagogies take place in schools. If it is the case, as was suggested above, that for some composer educators and music teachers, their belief is that composing pedagogies need to start from notation, then it may well also be the opposite case for non-Western art music educators. For example, when watching informal learning-based music, workshops take place with young people, it is frequently the case that notation is nowhere to be seen (Kinsella, Fautley, & Whittaker, 2019), and the young people involved simply get on with creating their own music directly into sound or using technology. This means that those involved in informal and non-formal learning practices and nonWestern classical musics for composing have their own signature pedagogies, which involve their beliefs about how composing is facilitated. It is important to clarify at this juncture that informal and non-formal learning practices can also take place in the location of formal schooling, “… the non-formal mode of learning can take place in formal, non-formal and informal educational settings” (Mok, 2011, p. 12). However, as Folkestad observed, distinctions between formal and informal are not set in stone. Indeed, composing, and learning how to compose, involves both: […O]ne might say that one formal practice, the practice of composing – formal in the sense that the mind is directed towards the creation of music – also involves the informal learning process of how to compose music. (Folkestad, 2006, p. 138) 425

Martin Fautley

There are implications from these potentially competing ways of approaching, fostering, and nurturing early composing which require careful handling by the classroom music educator or workshop leader involved in the many ways that young people have of composing. The multiple simultaneity of different composing modalities means that the teacher has to navigate their way warily through the different schemes. This is particularly the case for those working with younger children in schools and kindergartens. They will only get one first go at doing their composing, so it is important to try to get it right! The implications are different when composers work with a teacher on a composing scheme of work in a school. We know that there can be tensions in this way of working (Christophersen, 2013; Christophersen & Kenny, 2018), and it may well be the case that these tensions can be ascribed, among other things, to clashes in signature pedagogies. To paraphrase another old aphorism, maybe “composers teach composing, and teachers teach children.” Perhaps! But to return to notation, its use clearly has a highly problematic relationship with composing pedagogies in some instances, and an utterly straightforward relationship with it in others. At this stage, it is worth thinking about what composing actually is, what it entails, and why notation can be a contentious issue for some. In order to do this, let us think about what we mean by the terminology “notation” itself, and what the baggage that the word carries with it might be. We use notation for a wide variety of purposes: composers notate music for performance and publication; they sketch ideas that would otherwise be forgotten, allowing themselves time to reflect; performers read from notation to get to know a piece and also to perform it; musicologists often depend greatly on notation for analysis; and many musicians acquaint themselves with works via score-reading. In general, in classical music, notation is considered to be as important as – if not more important than – performance and recording, in learning what we consider to be the essence of a musical work. (Kanno, 2007, p. 231) What we can take from this writing by Kanno is that often notation is taken to mean Western staff notation: Those of us who have been influenced by the world of Western European art music … tend, when we think of notation, to visualise staff lines, bars, hollow and solid black egg shapes, and a host of other print on paper. (Bennett, 1983, p. 217) But as we have seen throughout this interlude, this is not the only form of notation. Indeed, even in Western art music, as we travel back in time, we find other forms of notation employed. Rankin (2018) describes the very early days of the invention of musical notation in Europe, Parrish (1978) writes about the transition from the notation of plainsong toward the sorts of note-shapes we recognize today, and Whittaker (2017) draws our attention to notational practices in the fourteenth and fifteenth century in Europe. All of these are somewhat different from our contemporary use and understanding of staff notation. Building on this, there are many different types of musical notation systems that will be encountered in educational settings. Some are region-specific, such as the Jeongganbo system from Korea, some appertain to specific musical genres, such as the rap music graph system, 426

Notation – its place and role in composing pedagogies

described by Krims (2000), and some are instrument-specific modalities, such as guitar tablature. Whatever the system of notation employed, it needs to fulfill a number of criteria: A musical notation requires, in essence, two things: an assemblage of “signs” and a convention as to how those signs relate to one another. A written musical notation requires further a spatial arrangement of the signs on the writing surface that makes a “system” of the assemblage; it is this system that forms an analogue with the system of musical sound, thus enabling the signs to “signify” individual elements of it. (Bent, Hughes, Provine, & Rastall, 2014/2001) When thinking about notated composing, what we are looking at, in essence, is a way of creating a schema which can then be realized into sounds. Here is where we need to think about the implications of this for both composing and for teaching it. What we are doing at this point is trying to unpick Swanwick’s notion, cited above, of primary and secondary symbol systems. A common definition of music is that it is organized sound, and so a composer creating organized sounds will use notation to present the fruits of their labors in creating music. In other words, the sounds have been organized, the notation gives instructions as to how to perform these. But this is not always the case. For some composers, and some musical styles, this can be a variation on the old “chicken or the egg” question! Certainly, some music exists in the form of the sounds being organized first, and then whatever notation system is employed, its purpose is to recreate these same sounds by others on future occasions; for example, this is the way in which many singer-songwriters work, and children and young people in schools working in this way will do similar, along with employment of audio recording in order to capture the actual sounds involved. But we know too that notation itself can be the way in which sounds are organized, but without previous sonic experimentation. Some forms of serialism employ this technique, and ordering of the notes of the chromatic scale is done in a precise and purposeful way. Some aleatoric notated compositions also begin from notation, and then sounds are realized in performance, with no two performances being identical. Players in dance bands can often be presented with sheet music which contains a mixture of staff notation and bars where only chord symbols are shown, a practice not too far removed from figured bass. Other scores are designed to look appealing, a famous example being “Stripsody” by Cathy Berberian, where the score looks almost like a cartoon in places. What all this means for pedagogies of composing is that one of the first decisions that needs to be made is that of chicken versus egg. Is the intentionality that the children and young people involved organize sounds qua sounds, and the purpose of the task is to create music from sounds, or conversely, that children and young people are asked to start from visual representations, and subsequently see (and hear) how those graphics could be translated into sounds. Asking this question is an important way for composers, composer educators, and music teachers to think about what the purpose of any scheme of composing work might be, and to ask questions of the reasons as to why what is being done takes the fashion it does. This may seem to be an obvious thing, but bearing in mind Shulman’s discussion of signature pedagogies above, is one which those working with children and young people probably ought to have early on in the planning process. It may also require those working in music education to think outside of the box of their own expert ways of working, which have been honed over many years, and to consider what the possible and potential ways are of working with novices, for whom there is no automatic link between organizing sounds and organizing graphical symbols. 427

Martin Fautley

References Barrett, M. S. (2004). Thinking about the representation of music: A case-study of invented notation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 19–28. Bennett, H. S. (1983). Notation and identity in contemporary popular music. Popular Music, 3, 215–234. Bent, I., Hughes, D., Provine, R., & Rastall, R. (2014). Notational systems (2nd ed.). Grove Music Online. Oxford UP. (Original work published 2001.) https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630. article.20114 Christophersen, C. (2013). Helper, guard or mediator? Teachers’ space for action in the cultural rucksack, a Norwegian national program for arts and culture in schools. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 14, special issue 1.11. 1–17 Christophersen, C., & Kenny, A. (2018). Musician-teacher collaborations: Altering the chord. Abingdon: Routledge. Davidson, L., & Scripp, L. (1988). Young children’s musical representations: Windows on music cognition. In J. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 195–230). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Devaney, K. (2022). Investigating how composing teaching and assessment in English secondary school classrooms reinforce myths about composers and their creative practices. British Journal of Music Education, 40(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051722000134 Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051706006887 Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2010). Advances in music-reading research. Music Education Research, 12(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2010.504809 Holder, N. (2020, July 8). If I were a racist. Nateholdermusic.com. https://www.nateholdermusic.com/ post/if-i-were-a-racist Kanno, M. (2007). Prescriptive notation: Limits and challenges. Contemporary Music Review, 26(2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07494460701250890 Kinsella, V., Fautley, M., & Whittaker, A. (2019). Exchanging notes: A four year longitudinal research study. Birmingham: Birmingham City University/Youth Music. Kivijärvi, S., & Väkevä, L. (2020). Considering equity in applying Western standard music notation from a social justice standpoint: Against the notation argument. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 19(1), 153–73. https://doi.org/10.22176/act19.1.153 Krims, A. (2000). Rap music and the poetics of identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Mok, O. N. A. (2011). Non-formal learning: Clarification of the concept and its application in music learning. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 11–15. Parrish, C. (1978). The notation of medieval music. New York, NY: Pendragon Press. Rankin, S. (2018). Writing sounds in Carolingian Europe: The invention of musical notation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. https://doi. org/10.1162/0011526054622015 Swanwick, K. (2001). Musical development theories revisited. Music Education Research, 3(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800120089278 Terry, P. (1994). Musical notation in secondary education: Some aspects of theory and practice. British Journal of Music Education, 11(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000991 Whittaker, A. (2017). Signposting mutation in some fourteenth- and fifteenth-century music theory treatises. Plainsong and Medieval Music, 26(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0961137116000097

428

28 COMPOSITION-ORIENTED CREATIVE ACTIVITIES IN MUSIC LESSONS OF TURKISH GENERAL SCHOOLS Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu Introduction Humanity’s relationship to music is versatile, and creative implementations with sounds are one aspect of this. Creativity is a state of creating something new (original idea or thing) as a result of the interactions of intelligence, thought, and imagination. Creativity in today’s world is not only desirable in the arts but also applies to many areas of science, technology, and other various industries (Aslan, 2017; Nyfeler, 2019). However, defining and perceiving creative action differs throughout history. While the notion that divine power affects a few gifted individuals has been prevalent from antiquity to the Renaissance, this view has changed toward a more democratic and pragmatic view of the place of creativity in the mid-20th century (Kampylis & Valtanen, 2010; Lothwesen, 2014). According to this contemporary view, it is accepted that every person possesses a certain amount of creative ability, and creativity is learnable. One of the main pedagogical outcomes of this view is that creativity or creativity-oriented activities have been incorporated into the curricula of general education in schools in many countries. In Central Europe, creative action began to take its place in music education based on the idea that “the productive self-activity and the creative [endeavors] are the axiom of music education” (Kramer, 1997, p. 335), which emerged in the context of Reform Pedagogy (Progressive Education) in the early 20th century (Kramer, 1997; Nimczik, 1997). Creativity has been discussed thoroughly in music education literature, especially since the mid-20th century, and remains an important aspect in general music classrooms. As an extension of this, music curricula of various countries, such as Germany, England, USA, Hong Kong, and Ireland, also contain learning outcomes related to musical creativity (Commonwealth of Virginia [CoV], 2015; Department for Education [DfE], 2013; The Education and Manpower Bureau [EMB], 2003; Government of Ireland [GoI], 1999; Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen [MfSW], 2011). Creative contents involved in music lessons are not solely aimed toward composing complete musical works but also cover a variety of activities ranging from sound experimentation to analysis: for instance, (1) sound and composition related activities such as playing with sounds, variation, improvisation, arrangement, composition; (2) explorative activities such as interpreting musical works with constructive freedom; and (3) cognitive activities such as DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-38

429

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

creative analysis in music, critical thinking or evaluation (Lothwesen, 2014; Nimczik, 1997). This wide range of activities in school music lessons provide opportunities to design creative activities that appeal to everyone, from individuals with no special musical talent to highly gifted individuals. Under the heading of creativity, composition takes a greatly valuable place. It is reported in the literature that “[t]eaching music without allowing children to compose would be like teaching art without allowing children to draw or paint, or teaching writing by having children copy other people’s work” (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995, p. 246). Once children improvise and/or compose, they perceive ideas both intellectually and musically by active learning. Within the creative process, improvisation is essential to developing freedom in manipulating the language of music and to stimulating children to express themselves freely and spontaneously. Acts of composition, on the other hand, are described as “planned realization of the creative process” (Campbell & Scott-Kassner, 1995, p. 253). Composing is a process of developing an external or internal musical idea into a structure by processing it within certain rules of aesthetic and compositional theory. In societies dominated by written culture, the composition, in contrast to oral-formulaic composition, often includes a fixed writing of work as well as the right to intellectual or artistic property. Composing has social, cultural, psychological, and aesthetic determinants, and every composed work reflects a certain context. However, as Schmitt (1997) emphasizes, the term composing represents a more flexible field in the context of school music education. Schmitt argued that school music lessons are not meant to necessarily train composers, but what is essential in the course is that children, through their experiences, can discover the aesthetic synthesis possibilities of sounds, as well as developing their creative potential. The concept of creativity found a relatively wider place after the 1990s and 2000s in the musicology and music education circles of Turkey. The term was also clearly and purposefully adopted in music lessons around this time. It is possible to come across some concepts, sentences, learning objectives, and outcomes regarding creativity in Turkish music curricula of the 20th century, especially in the 1960s. However, musical creativity was officially defined as a new and connatural learning field in the 2006 Music Curriculum for Primary Education, which was structured in the context of the constructivist approach (MEB, 2006). Since that time, composition-oriented creative activities have increased in Turkish music classes. This chapter aims to outline the place of composition in Turkish general school music lessons within both in primary and secondary education,1 and more specifically in elementary, lower secondary, and general high schools. The authors will first give a historical overview of the place of creativity and compositional works in Turkish music classes based on music curricula and related publications as well as reflect on current situation of music lessons in schools. For the aim of the study, didactic materials have been examined and the contents of music curricula, students’ workbooks, and teachers’ guidebooks have been analyzed in qualitative and quantitative ways. Using the results, composition-oriented creative activities have been outlined and described according to main school levels of general education.

An overview of the place of creativity and composition in the Turkish music curricula In history Historically, Turks can be classified as one of the societies that taught music through oral tradition. When looking back at the Ottoman period, it can be seen that traditional genres like folk music (especially minstrels), military music, and also art music had the tradition of 430

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons

training musicians through a master-apprentice relationship (Behar, 2006; Çobanoğlu, 2000; Popescu-Judetz, 1998), which is also known as the Meşk method. Oral transmission from master to apprentice has been an important chain in music training and has been kept alive, with few exceptions, for many centuries. Therefore, the musical tradition in Turkish society has been shaped in accordance with this culture. At the beginning of the 20th century, traditional music education in existing institutions gradually began to transfer to a formal structure where the written culture of music teaching began to be recognized. While music education moved in this direction in schools, informal music education from master to apprentice has also kept the traditional teaching culture through oral transmission. As oral practice dominated the culture, the founding of the republic (in 1923) after the Ottoman era led to major changes in education. In the early years of the republic, new developments were made, and Westernization, which started in the first quarter of the 19th century in Turkish society, became a driving theme in education. This theme came to the fore in the context of the modernization movements of the new state and became an umbrella concept that covered all social, legal, cultural, etc. reforms made in this period. During this process, a new understanding began to govern, and as a result, there were some significant developments. Among these developments, the institutionalization of music education, the establishment of music teacher training programs (1924), the development of new programs for school music education, co-education, and formations of applied education such as village institutes are a few examples of numerous changes in education in Turkey. In particular, the village institute movement (1940–1953) took its place as a pioneering formation in the history of Turkish education, aiming to carry education to rural areas, and emphasizing applied education. Music education at these institutes was one of the areas in which quality instruction was given, and the education was done in a more practical way to support learning by doing (Williamson, 1987). Nevertheless, during all these developments, the previous educational method of learning by rote was still prominent. Therefore, in this structure, there was little opportunity for students to express their feelings or thoughts in their educational environment. As a result, “creativity” was not fully embodied in this educational condition. From the early Republic period until now, both in primary and secondary education, there have been many new and diverse approaches, as well as curricula developments and revisions in music education.2 During this process, the word creativity appeared for the first time in the 1948 Elementary School Program, under the general purposes of the lesson as “[e]ncouraging each child according to their interests and abilities to sing, play a musical instrument, listen to music, participate in rhythmic exercises and creative activities” (MEB, 1948, p. 260). Here, creativity was spoken of for the first time in the history of music education in Turkey, but on the other hand, the program did not include any other explanations, nor did it reveal any creativity-based examples in the detailed course contents. There were several other positive developments in the 1960s. In a 1962 published draft music curriculum for elementary school by the Ministry of National Education (MNE), the phrase “developing the creative capability” (MEB, 1962a, p. 180) was defined as one of the purposes of music teaching. In addition, it was written that in the fourth grade, “experimenting with beautiful melodies” (p. 201) should be undertaken, and in the fifth grade, “writing small pieces for the children’s orchestra” (p. 202) consisting of rhythm instruments and simple melodic instruments (p. 194) were clearly outlined. This draft program was first used throughout the country, and after receiving nationwide feedback about the implementations from related institutions, teacher associations, and particularly from schools, the program was re-developed in 1968, and teachers received training for the application of the program (Arslan, 2000). In the 1968 program,

431

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

one of the general aims of music lessons was “to develop the creative skills and expressions of students” (MEB, 1968, p. 233). There was an explanation about the principles of music lessons on the aforementioned curriculum, which said that students should dramatize songs with movements, accompany songs with their own rhythmic patterns, create pieces similar to the ones they know, and complete musical sentences on their own (p. 235). These were later updated in lesson examples in the program. Similarly, in the 1962 Program of Lower Secondary School, the general purpose for creative activities of students was formulated (MEB, 1962b). In the explanations of this program, some suggestions and strategies of how to teach melody invention were given (p. 321) and creative exercises were also suggested in the context of ear training (p. 324). Although creativity and composition found a place in the curricula of the 1960s, the situation changed in the following years. In the programs of secondary schools and high schools in the 1970s and 1980s, creativity was mentioned rarely, and then only with brief sentences, under the general purposes of music lessons (for exp. MEB, 1971; MEGSB, 1986, 1987). In 1994, the Primary Education Music Curriculum was developed in a very different way to previous documents in terms of its structure (Uçan, 2018). Under the influence of American curriculum theory, the concept of the program became the concept of curriculum. Consequently, diversified learning objectives and contents were included in the curriculum for the first time, and some concrete learning objectives were formulated in relation to composition (Kalyoncu, 2002; MEB, 1994). The pedagogical philosophy behind this curriculum was a behavioristic approach that supported the tradition of teacher-centered instructions. This curriculum was used up until 2006.

In the present The year 2006 can be counted as a milestone of Turkish music education in relation to creativity and composition. In this year, the constructivist approach was adopted in primary education and later in 2009 at the secondary stage. As a result of this change, more student-centered activities appeared in the curricula (MEB, 2006, 2009) and creativity began to be recognized as one of the compulsory learning fields in schools, both in a written and practical format. With these new curricula, major changes came into the lives of Turkish teachers and schools, who had to adapt their environment according to the new systems of constructivism. Later in 2018, revised versions of these curricula came from the MNE and carried the same structure, philosophy, and applications as the previous ones, with only some minor revisions (MEB, 2018b, 2018c). With these major adaptations in 2006 and 2009, the directions of music education and music lessons have been subjected to a major systematic change. With this change, “Musical Creativity” has been stated as one of the connatural and independent learning fields and has become a relatively new concept, while music lessons were formed in the axis of singing and music theory for many years (Kalyoncu & Özeke, 2016). In these recent curricula, the aim of art education has been directed towards reaching individuals who “produce new works, who are creative, and can express themselves freely” (MEB, 2018c, p. 12) at every level of education. In addition, one of the aims of music lessons was outlined with an eye towards “develop[ing] creativity and talent through music” (MEB, 2018b, p. 7). With this development, policymakers also took an active role by preparing textbooks and other related materials, as well as lesson plans and teachers’ guides. They also considered the training of teachers and kept track of the “innovative approaches in music education” (Kalyoncu & Özeke, 2016, p. 32). 432

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons

One of the results of these developments was the increasing amount of research regarding creativity. If we take a look at the existing research, we can summarize the studies into three groups. The first of these groups of studies is related to curriculum analysis. For example, Özgül (2009) focused in his study on curriculum analysis and emphasized that the compositional works in music classes have a methodical role and provide cognitive support for the understanding of musical meaning and the musical elements like beat, rhythm, melody, form, tempo, dynamics. Kalyoncu and Özeke (2016) also analyzed the music curricula for Turkish primary and secondary education and detected that the proportion of the learning outcomes related to creativity was 20.77% for Grades 1–8 (ages 6–13) and 9.92% for Grades 9–12 (ages 14–17). The second group of studies have been found to focus on the implementation of the curricula and drew attention to the problems in school practice (Aras, 2010; Barışeri, 2013; Göktürk, 2010; Küçük, 2008). In these practice-based research projects, the role of teachers in the process of implementation was highlighted, and suggestions were provided to overcome the deficiencies in schools. In the third group of studies, issues related to the compositions used for school music making were investigated (Baylam, 2011; Bayşu, 2018; Kalaycıoğlu, 2009; Sevgi, 2001). These studies examined the songs and anthems used in school music lessons in terms of composition techniques. All these studies clearly show an increasing interest in composition in music education and create awareness for future research in different topics of composition.

Composition-oriented creative activities in Turkish primary and secondary education Turkish primary and secondary education music curricula are structured in a spiral format that contains the four learning fields of Listening-Singing, Musical Perception and Knowledge, Musical Creativity, and Music Culture, which are common for all grades. In this section of the chapter, composition-oriented creative activities obtained through a detailed review of all the learning outcomes from these learning fields will be presented. During the study, composition-related learning outcomes were classified and analyzed according to composition type, learning content, methods and materials of teaching/learning, and assessment procedures. The analysis was conducted on the current Turkish music curricula (MEB, 2018b, 2018c), standarized students’ workbooks (Baştürk, Candan, Gönül, Öztürk, & Tezcan, 2018; Çelik & Şendağ, 2017a, 2017b; Çelik, Efendioğlu, Özer, & Özkan, 2018a, 2018b; Gökmen, Marul, & Yavuz, 2018; Yaşar, 2017; Yaşar, Çelik, & Şendağ, 2017) and teachers’ guidebooks (Ersöz et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ersöz, Gümüş, & Alpaslan, 2018; Kaya, Acar, Özel, & Koç, 2018). When analyzed, different composition types were found among all of them, and while most of them were directly related to musical compositions as the main aim, others used composition as a tool to create awareness mostly in the forms of movement, acting, painting, and written expression. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this chapter, only the compositionoriented creative activities which are directly related to musical composition will be covered and discussed under each school level from Grades 1 to 12.

Elementary school (Grades 1–4) The elementary school (ages 6–9) curriculum shows that the learning outcomes and contents of music lessons are not just influenced by music-specific concepts and theories. Music education is closely related to learning outcomes of writing-reading, life science, mother 433

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

language (in this case, Turkish), or mathematics education. In particular, the contents of the first two grades have a strong cross-disciplinary connection, so in this context, composing is not an independent topic. Therefore, it is difficult to speak of conscious compositional works at this school level. Instead, it is possible to classify the compositional activities as musical exploration. There are ten composition-oriented learning outcomes in the elementary school music curriculum that relate to sound experimentation, improvisation, and composition (see Appendix 28.I). Because of the spiral format of the curriculum, learning outcomes repeat, but with some differences at all levels. Therefore, a summary of the learning outcomes in the elementary school curriculum related to musical composition can lead us to the following activities:

• • • • • •

Creating sound games and playing them. Accompanying songs/music pieces (more improvisational). Creating sounds for stories. Experimenting with melodies. Creating rhythm patterns and rhythm accompaniment. Creating melodies and performing them.

In the first two grades, games with sounds, accompaniment, and sound creation are in the foreground when it comes to musical exploration. These activities are not directly expected to carry out the pure purpose of composing the music but integrated in the context of games, stories, rhymes, movement, dance, body percussion, listening to music, singing, the building of rhythmic materials, etc. In these activities, one can speak more of children’s experiences and improvisation than of composition. In the later grades, new learning outcomes are added to improvisation, for example, experimenting with melodies in the third grade, and in the fourth grade, the formation of rhythmic patterns and melodies are clearly formulated. Such activities in an elementary school play an important role in the preparation of students for regular and conscious compositional activities and create awareness among students. The learning contents of the activities mentioned above are cross-disciplinary and spiral-shaped, i.e. the same learning content can be presented in each grade. In elementary school, the learning contents are shaped mostly around singing, listening, dancing, etc., and in the theoretical sense, the terms of basic sound parameters such as duration, pitch, speed are more common. In the fourth grade, the activities related to rhythm and melody experimentation are concurrent to learning note values. It is possible to distinguish such activities as the application of quarter notes and eighth notes, as well as rests. In the elementary music curriculum and resource books, it is recommended that teachers use various teaching and learning methods for improvisational and compositional activities. These teaching/learning methods and recommended materials are analyzed and listed synoptically in Table 28.1 in relation to the learning outcomes. As seen in Table 28.1, in elementary school, improvisation and innate listening are the methods that are predominantly suggested. Improvisation is envisaged mostly in the form of improvised accompaniment, while students are expected to use more cross-disciplinary materials instead of musical notations and symbols. Chain activities and workshops are also noteworthy as they constitute a significant place in the constructivist approach. In addition to the methods, accompanying materials used during the process are not always musical; they could also be in non-musical forms, such as stories or photos. These suggested materials support the gradual process of learning, from improvisation to product, and provide imagination and age-appropriate activities. 434

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons Table 28.1  Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 1–4 Learning outcomes

Teaching/learning methods

Teaching/learning materials

Sound games

Imitation, exploration, improvisation, game playing Demonstration-performance, improvisation, innate listening

Letters, syllables, rhymes, sound materials, objects, instruments, voice Songs, lullabies, stories, pieces, simple graphic notation, photos, song texts, self-made instruments, rhythm instruments Sound materials, objects, voice, instruments Instruments, voice, simple verbal sentences Songs, pieces, melodic phrases, worksheets Worksheets

Accompaniment

Creating sounds Melodic experimentation Creating rhythmic patterns Creating melodies

Inventing, active listening, dramatization, workshop Chain activities: experiencing, improvisation, transformation Innate listening, rhythmization, solmization, writing, playing Chain activities: complementary writing, inventing, innate listening, singing, playing

Throughout the analysis of the documentation and policy, we found no evidence of concrete suggestions, guidelines, or examples regarding the process of measurement and evaluation of the improvisational and compositional activities. However, the elementary school curriculum provides general explanations as guidance to teachers about how to perform measurement procedures. These explanations emphasize that the assessment process should be done in line with the curriculum content, that the process and outcome are evaluated together, with individual differences taken into account, and that one single measurement instrument is to be avoided in favor of multiple, flexible, and creative measurement tools, which should be used so that the pupils’ cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and social aspects are evaluated in a versatile way. In students’ workbooks, there is a three-point scale which should serve for the feedback and self-evaluation of students. In this feedback table, emotional expression symbols are used because students in the first grade cannot read and write.

Lower secondary school (Grades 5–8) Similar to elementary school, the lower secondary (ages 10–13) curriculum is designed not only concerning music-related but also cross-disciplinary items. In continuation of the previous curriculum, conscious learning starts at this school level so musical concepts are taught in connection with music theory. Since composition-oriented learning outcomes at this school level also start to be supported with theory, musical exploration in the previous grades is more embedded. Looking at the learning outcomes of the lower secondary school, a total of 12 musical composition-oriented items were found in the curriculum (see Appendix 28.I). Expected activities from children in these learning outcomes can be summarized as follows:

• • • •

Creating rhythm patterns and performing them. Accompanying music with their own rhythmic pattern. Creating melodies and performing them. Using music technologies for compositional works. 435

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

By looking at the learning outcomes overall in terms of musical composition, in the fifth-grade curriculum it is found that the teaching/learning environment extends from action to theory, meaning that students are expected to use more musical terms. As mentioned earlier, theoretical knowledge with writing begins at this level, but compositions are mainly in the form of rhythmic creations. In the sixth grade, musical composition still shows itself in the same format as previous grades, but this time melody creation has also begun to be developed. In addition, in the seventh grade, students are expected to use their knowledge/theory in a versatile way when using worksheets, playing/singing, creating complementary rhythm patterns and accompaniments, etc. in a group setting. And finally, in the eighth grade, students create independently by completing incomplete rhythm patterns and creating rhythm patterns for folk songs, to name two examples. In addition to these, it is seen that technology-based tools are integrated into the compositional works at all grades of secondary education. In this context, it is expected that the students learn to use music notation software as well as software for sound/music recording and editing. The learning contents of the composition-oriented learning outcomes of lower secondary school essentially go hand-in-hand with the theory. Within this framework, frequently suggested content areas include note values, staff notation, measures, and melodic phrases that provide a basis for musical responses. And at this school level, there is also an introduction to systematic knowledge, starting with the “definition of composition” and extending to the theory. As with the elementary level, the teaching/learning methods and materials are analyzed and listed synoptically in relation with the activities of learning outcomes in Table 28.2. It can be observed that all the symbolic and iconic representations found in elementary school are now focused on writing skills, with guided compositional works at the lower secondary level. Students are introduced to staff notation and are expected to write rhythm patterns using this tool and to perform together by singing. Together with theory, group work is suggested, and as a result, students experience writing musical accompaniments. In addition to writing, the methods of improvisation, innate listening, playing, and singing constitute the inherent part of the constructivist process. Age-appropriate materials like body percussion and verbal rhythmic sentences are of particular interest and help support musical development of the children. In the frame of the compositional work, computerized music recording technologies are introduced and used as supporting tools and materials. Table 28.2  Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 5–8 Learning outcomes

Teaching/learning methods

Teaching/learning materials

Creating rhythm patterns

Completing and writing, demonstration-performance, improvisation, innate listening, exploring, rhythmic reading, playing Improvisation, listening/ innate listening, singing, playing, writing, group work, inductive method Experiencing, singing, playing, innate listening, composing, completing melodies Composition, recording, editing

Rhythm instruments, body percussion, voice, worksheets

Rhythmic accompaniment

Creating melodies

Music technologies within compositional work

436

Recorded folk songs, worksheets, rhythm instruments, staff notation, rhythmic patterns Verbal rhythmic sentences, worksheets Music notation software as well as software for sound/music recording and editing

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons

As with the elementary school curriculum, there are no specific suggestions or directions related to assessment processes. Measurement and evaluation techniques are described more generally. The evaluation of students’ work is mostly in the form of feedback (self-evaluation) or sometimes in the shape of quizzes. If there are worksheets in the activities, they can be used as one of the assessment tools as well. Unlike elementary school, where students are assessed at the end of a whole learning unit, lower secondary-school students have assessments after each. These assessments are mostly seen in the form of a three-point scale, feedback, worksheets, or quizzes with true-false questions.

General high school (Grades 9–12) After conscious musical learning with the introduction of musical concepts, theory, and music notation, students in general high school are expected to develop their reading and writing skills. Students are able to use their learned acquisitions, therefore, and after the presentation of the musical concepts, they are given a chance to practice the learned items through composing. There are 12 composition-oriented learning outcomes in the general high school curriculum (see Appendix 28.I). These outcomes are constructed with the learning outcomes of the previous levels, and musical composition-related activities can be summarized as follows:

• Creating melodies and performing them. • Creating rhythm patterns and rhythm accompaniment. • Using music technologies for compositional works. From the curriculum, it is understood that students are encouraged to create melodies, rhythmic patterns, and rhythmic accompaniments in accordance with the learned items. Previously learned meters are expanded to another level and some writing activities are organized with them. The composition activities directly depend on music theory in all grades of general high school. As with the previous levels, the learning contents of the learning outcomes in general high schools are built upon previous knowledge developed in earlier grades, such as more complex note values, measures, forms, as well as knowledge of intervals are indicated in the curriculum. The teaching/learning methods and materials of Grades 9–12 are analyzed and listed in relation to the activities of learning outcomes in Table 28.3. Table 28.3  Main teaching/learning methods and materials for Grades 9–12 Learning outcomes

Teaching/learning methods

Teaching/learning materials

Creating melodies

Singing, playing, demonstrationperformance, complementary writing, rhythmic-melodic reading and writing, group work, question-answers Writing, listening, singing, playing, rhythmic clapping, group work

Prepared melodies, worksheets, known songs in simple meter

Creating rhythm patterns and rhythm accompaniment Music technologies within compositional work

Recording, arranging, composing, listening, editing, presentation, independent work

437

Pieces in simple and compound meters, rhythmic ostinati,3 rhythm cards, cups Music notation software as well as software for sound/music recording and editing, given pieces and their accompaniment on recording software

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu

Writing constitutes a central place among the teaching/learning methods. At this age level, group work comes to the fore; however, students are also asked to take part in compositional activities independently, especially while using music technologies. As in lower secondary school, students record their own work either individually or as a group. The assessment processes of this level are described mainly as a guide for teachers. Since composition activities directly depend on music theory at this level, the assessment process and techniques are realized through the products of students, with melodic and rhythmic sight readings, teachers’ observation forms, etc. The completion of half-finished melodies is also considered a means of assessment.

Conclusion In this chapter, the place of composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons in Turkish general schools has been described through analyzing the curricula and main published teaching materials. As discussed, teaching musical composition gained acceleration in Turkish schools within the last decade, and this development can be appreciated as a positive one. Historically, the concept of creativity that entered the Turkish music curricula in the mid20th century occurred during the same period, in which creativity gradually became more popular in international circles, and it is understood that the reactions of Turkish music educators show a parallel to international interest. Nevertheless, the positive tendencies in the 1960s were not continuous and sometimes stagnated; therefore, there was a marked break until the 1990s. This silence was concurrent to different political changes and debates which also affected music education policy in Turkish schools. During this period, music lessons were mostly centered around singing and music theory. In the present, with the adaptation of the constructivist approach, which enables students’ more active involvement in the process of learning, a greater number of varied creative activities have been taken into consideration. Among them, musical composition has been one solid part of the activities emphasized in the current curricula of Turkish general schools. When examining each school level as a consequence of the spiral curriculum, it was clearly observed that compositional activities (which were mostly integrated with the forms of improvisation, listening, singing, playing, analyzing, reading, and writing) appear at every educational stage, but in different forms. Compositional works planned in elementary school were integrated into cross-disciplinary subjects, and “action-oriented learning”, which focuses on activities such as exploration, improvisation, and drama, has come to the fore. In addition, chain activities allowed students to construct the knowledge step by step. In the lower secondary school, there was a shift from the previously dominant, action-oriented activities to purposeful completion and writing, while ties were established with music theory and composition studies were supported by music technology. At this level, non-musical connections were also considerably reduced, and only verbal sentences form the basis of composition studies. At the general high school, compositional works were handled entirely in the context of musical content and are mainly rhythmic and melodic. In summary, one can understand that the creativity and compositional works in these three levels were organized in stages and ranged from the most general experiences to branch-specific competencies and more theorysupported activities. This construction of content shows that the classical understanding, that is, age-specific progression, is based on the curricula. When we consider the contents critically, it is possible to say the following: although purely music-oriented work resolved from interdisciplinary contexts came to the fore at high school level, the compositional works were limited to the creation of rhythm and melodies. On the other hand, questions of form 438

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons

and style were not clearly incorporated in detail in the learning process, which could create students’ awareness regarding the components of the compositions. Again, it is debatable whether the concepts related to composition are included in the teaching process holistically and systematically. Although the findings from the curricula and teaching materials provide a basis and framework for the implementation of composition-oriented activities into practice, some arguments may question why composition in music lessons should be practiced. We argue that composing is an indispensable part of the nature of music, and the children learning and experiencing composition should receive a holistic perception of music. It is important to note that composition in music lessons is in itself a valuable learning goal, as well as a tool for teaching additional functions in the music classroom; “composition is an excellent means of teaching and reinforcing musical concepts” (Wiggins, 1990, p. 2). As a result of composing, creative thinking occurs, and students eventually develop an understanding of the musical concepts, which in turn motivates further learning. Another argument for the inclusion of composition into music lessons is that children are born creative (Wiggins, 1990), and the studies of Swanwick and Tillmann (1986, as cited in Gembris, 1995, p. 292) show that children play around with sounds, imitate, improvise freely, and in later ages, their creative musical products gain more structure step by step within a music-cultural context. Therefore, the lesson in composition could provide support, so that the children’s musical products gradually gain structure and can accommodate musical conventions. Lastly, in contrast to knowledge transfer in the traditional sense, creativity in music lessons contains productive behavior, focuses on experience, and is characterized by a participative process (Lothwesen, 2014). Therefore, children can be free and are able to be open-minded; as UNESCO states, this “can open up a wide horizon, and by introducing a wealth of fresh ideas can make the future members of the emerging global society more productive and versatile” (1993, pp. II–2). Composition-oriented creative activities discussed in this chapter are only a few of many other musical activities happening in Turkish music classrooms but still count as a new understanding and important part of music teaching. Since the new music curricula supports student-centered activities, many positive developments in terms of music education and music teaching are found to be valuable for composition-oriented activities in classroom. If these developments are supported with more teaching/learning materials and better in-service teacher training, then younger generations will be inevitably equipped with respect, self-confidence, understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of music.

Reflective question 1 Were there any topics in this chapter that surprised you the most and aroused your curiosity? If yes, please discuss your opinion. 2 Do you think the activities presented in the curricula in this chapter provide an opportunity for the students to gain a basic perspective and experience in composition? If not, what could have been different? 3 Keeping in mind the social and media environment of today’s children, would the activities provided in the curricula meet the children’s interest? Please write your thoughts with your argument.

Notes 1 The Turkish School System is structured in four educational stages and explained as follows (Kal­ yoncu & Özeke, 2016): pre-school, primary, secondary, and tertiary (higher) education. Pre-school

439

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu education covers children ages 36–72 months and involves various musical events in the educational process. Pre-school is not mandatory in the Turkish education system yet, but officials have been discussing this topic in recent years. Primary and secondary education, however, are mandatory and consist of three school phases, known collectively as the 4+4+4 system. Primary education is divided into two school levels: “elementary school” (ages 6–9) and “lower secondary school” (ages 10–13). In these schools, a 1-hour music lesson is required from the Grades 1–8 and there are additional 2- or 4-hour elective music lessons from Grades 5–8 (MEB, 2018a). Secondary education consists of the school level known as “high school” (lycées; ages 14–17), which includes various types of schools such as general high school, vocational high school, technical high school, science high school, fine arts high school. In general high school, from Grades 9 to 12, there are 2-hour mandatory lessons where students choose either “music” or “visual arts.” In addition to this, there are 2-hour elective music lessons offered during all four years (MEB, 2018d). In all these school levels, central music curricula developed by the Ministry of National Education (MNE) are used across the country. Tertiary education, on the other hand, includes universities, vocational high schools, and institutes as in European countries. 2 The most fundamental curricula for primary education were the ones developed in 1924, 1926, 1927, 1936, 1948, 1968, 1994, 2006, and 2018 (Uçan, 2018). 3 Although ostinato is used in earlier stages, it has been clearly defined as a concept for the first time at this level.

References Aras, T. (2010). 2006 ilköğretim müzik dersi 6. sınıf öğretim programı içerisinde yer alan ‘müziksel algı ve bilgilenme’ ile ‘müziksel yaratıcılık’ öğrenme alanları arasındaki ilişkisel durumun değerlendirilmesi (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (279274). Arslan, M. (2000). Cumhuriyet dönemi ilköğretim programları ve belli başlı özellikleri. Millî Eğitim, 146, 42–48. Aslan, G. (2017). Yaratıcı endüstrilerin yükselişi: Geçmiş, bugün ve gelecek. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(4), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.417385 Barışeri, N. (2013). Müziksel yaratıcılık öğrenme alanında yapılan ders planlarının öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerinin incelenmesi. İDİL Dergisi, 2(6), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.7816/idil-02-06-13 Baştürk, Z., Candan, P., Gönül, M. A., Öztürk, Ö. M., & Tezcan, H. (2018). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu müzik ders kitabı 7. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Baylam, G. Z. (2011). Türkiye’deki ilköğretim okulları birinci kademe 4. ve 5. sınıf müzik dersinde öğretilen şarkıların, eğitim müziği besteleme teknikleri bakımından incelenmesi (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (311045). Bayşu, N. (2018). 4+4+4 sistemine göre ortaokullarda müzik dersinde kullanılan öğretmen el kitaplarında yer alan şarkıların eğitim müziği besteleme teknikleri bakımından incelenmesi (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (527614). Behar, C. (2006). Aşk olmayınca meşk olmaz: Geleneksel Osmanlı/Türk müziğinde öğretim ve intikal (3rd ed.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Campbell, P. S., & Scott-Kassner, C. (1995). Music in childhood. New York, NY: Schirmer Books. CoV [Commonwealth of Virginia]. (2015). Sample music curriculum for Virginia public schools: Kindergarten-grade twelve. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://docplayer.net/7904378-Sample-musiccurriculum.html Çelik, M., Efendioğlu, Y., Özer, H., & Özkan, İ. (2018a). İlkokul müzik ders kitabı 1. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Çelik, M., Efendioğlu, Y., Özer, H., & Özkan, İ. (2018b). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu müzik ders kitabı 5. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Çelik, M., & Şendağ, B. A. (2017a). İlköğretim müzik 6: Öğrenci çalışma kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Çelik, M., & Şendağ, B. A. (2017b). İlköğretim müzik 8: Öğrenci çalışma kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Çobanoğlu, Ö. (2000). Âşık tarzı kültür geleneği ve destan türü. Ankara: Akçağ.

440

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons DfE [Department for Education]. (2013). National curriculum in England: Music programmes of study. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculumin-england-music-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-music-programmesof-study#key-stage-1 EMB [The Education and Manpower Bureau HKSAR]. (2003). Arts education key learning area: Music curriculum guide. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/arts-edu/curriculum-docs/music_complete_guide_eng.pdf Ersöz, B., Armağan, E., Kaya, F., Gümüş, K., Kocamanoğlu, K., Savaş, Ö., & Alpaslan, U. (2018a). Ortaöğretim müzik dersi 9: Öğretmen kılavuz kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Ersöz, B., Armağan, E., Kaya, F., Gümüş, K., Kocamanoğlu, K., Savaş, Ö., & Alpaslan, U. (2018b). Ortaöğretim müzik dersi 10: Öğretmen kılavuz kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Ersöz, B., Gümüş, K., & Alpaslan, U. (2018). Ortaöğretim müzik dersi 11: Öğretmen kılavuz kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Gembris, H. (1995). Entwicklungspsychologie musikalischer Fähigkeiten. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.), Kompendium der Musikpädagogik (pp. 281–332). Kassel: Gustav Bosse Verlag. GoI [Government of Ireland]. (1999). Primary school curriculum: Music. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/6d3a3e34-69ed-464e-9d3e-002ab7e47140/ PSEC04c_Music_Curriculum.pdf Gökmen, İ., Marul, Ö., & Yavuz, F. (2018). İlkokul müzik ders kitabı 2. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Göktürk, D. (2010). The role of constructivist approach on creativity in primary school music curriculum in the Republic of Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3075–3079. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.468 Kalaycıoğlu, Ş. G. (2009). Türkiye’deki ilköğretim okullarında müzik eğitiminde kullanılan okul şarkılarının, eğitim müziği besteleme teknikleri bakımından incelenmesi (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (240527). Kalyoncu, N. (2002). Musikunterricht in der deutschen und türkischen Grundschule: Eine vergleichende didaktische Analyse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Kalyoncu, N., & Özeke, S. (2016). The place of creativity in music lessons in Turkish primary and secondary education. In R. Girdrzijauskienė, & E. Sakadolskienė (Eds.), Looking for the unexpected: Creativity and innovation in music education. Proceedings of the 24th EAS conference (pp. 31–34). Klaipėda: Klaipėda University Press. Kampylis, P., & Valtanen, J. (2010). Redefining creativity: Analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010. tb01333.x Kaya, F., Acar, M., Özel, M., & Koç, S. (2018). Ortaöğretim müzik dersi 12: Öğretmen kılavuz kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Kramer, W. (1997). Musik erfinden. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.), Handbuch des Mu­ sikunterrichts. B. 2: Sekundarstufe I (pp. 335–363). Kassel: Gustav Bosse Verlag. Küçük, B. (2008). Müziğin çocuklarda ve yetişkinlerde uyandırdığı duygu durumlarının belirlenmesi ve ilköğretim müzik dersi müziksel yaratıcılık alanında kullanılması (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (220046). Lothwesen, K. S. (2014). Kreativität in der Musikpädagogik: Anmerkungen zu Begriffsverständnis und Thematisierungskontexten. In J. Vogt, H. Frauke, & M. Brenk (Eds.), (Grund) Begriffe musikpädagogischen Nachdenkens: Entstehung, Bedeutung, Gebrauch (pp. 183–212). Berlin: LIT Verlag. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1948). İlk okul programı. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1962a). İlkokul programı taslağı. Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1962b). Ortaokul programı. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1968). İlkokul programı. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1971). Orta dereceli okulların birinci devre sınıfları ve 2. devre 1. sınıf müzik programı. Tebliğler Dergisi, 1661(June 14, 1971), 279–282. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (1994). İlköğretim kurumları müzik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2006). İlköğretim müzik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2009). Ortaöğretim müzik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2018a). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokul ve ortaokul) haftalık ders çizelgesi. Retrieved February 17, 2019, from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/haftalik-ders-cizelgeleri/kategori/7

441

Sezen Özeke and Nesrin Kalyoncu MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2018b). Müzik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara: MEB Yayınları. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2018c). Müzik dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar). Ankara: MEB Yayınları. MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı]. (2018d). Ortaöğretim kurumları haftalık ders çizelgesi. Retrieved February 17, 2019, from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_02/21173451_ort_ogrtm_hdc_2018. pdf MEGSB [Milli Eğitim Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı]. (1986). Ortaokul ve lise müzik dersi öğretim programı. Tebliğler Dergisi, 2208(April 21, 1986), 134–136. MEGSB [Milli Eğitim Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı]. (1987). Lise müfredat programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. MfSW [Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen]. (2011). Kernlehrplan für das Gymnasium-Sekundarstufe I in Nordrhein-Westfalen: Musik. Retrieved August 10, 2019, from https://www.schulentwicklung.nrw.de/lehrplaene/lehrplan/54/KLP_GY_MU.pdf Nimczik, O. (1997). Erfinden von Musik. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.), Handbuch des Musikunterrichts. B. 3: Sekundarstufe II (pp. 169–188). Kassel: Gustav Bosse Verlag. Nyfeler, J. (2019). Die Fabrikation von Kreativität. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10. 14361/9783839449929 Özgül, İ. (2009). Türkiye’de ilköğretim müzik dersi öğretim programının çözümlenmesi. In Z. Dilek et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of ICANAS 38 International congress of Asian and North African studies (Vol. II, pp. 609–625). Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Yayınları. Popescu-Judetz, E. (1998). Türk musıki kültürünün anlamları. Translated by B. Aksoy, (2nd ed.). İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık. Schmitt, R. (1997). Musik erfinden. In S. Helms, R. Schneider, & R. Weber (Eds.), Handbuch des Mu­ sikunterrichts. B. 1: Primarstufe (pp. 187–236). Kassel: Gustav Bosse Verlag. Sevgi, C. (2001). Türkiye’deki ilköğretim okullarının 2. kademesinde müzik eğitiminde kullanılan marşların eğitim müziği besteleme teknikleri bakımından incelenmesi (Masters thesis). Retrieved August 25, 2019, from National Thesis Center of Higher Education Council of Turkey (114799). Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s compositions. British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051700000814 Uçan, A. (2018). Müzik eğitimi: Temel kavramlar-ilkeler-yaklaşımlar ve Türkiye’deki durum (4th ed.). Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınları. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. (1993). Final report: International Conference on Education 43rd Session, Geneva, 14–19 September 1992. Retrieved August 20, 2019, from http://www. unesco.org/education/pdf/31_42.pdf Wiggins, J. (1990). Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching. Reston, VA: MENC. Williamson, B. (1987). Education and social change in Egypt and Turkey: A study in historical sociology. London: Macmillan Press. Yaşar, N. (2017). İlköğretim müzik 3: Öğrenci çalışma kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. Yaşar, N., Çelik, M., & Şendağ, B. A. (2017). İlköğretim müzik 4: Öğrenci çalışma kitabı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.

442

Appendix-28.I  Distrubiton of Learning Outcomes according to the school levels, and number of composition-oriented learning outcomes Grade Number of all LO* according to the learning fields

All type*** Listening-singing

Primary

Elementary school (85 LO)

443

Lower secondary school (93 LO) Secondary

Total

General high school (92 LO)

Number of CO** learning outcomes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12

11 7 7 5 6 7 7 10 7 8 7 5 87

Musical perception Musical Music Total and knowledge creativity culture 3 5 7 6 7 4 4 2 5 5 5 3 56

5 2 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 3 4 3 51

* LO: Learning outcomes ** CO: Composition- oriented *** Compositional works in terms of music, movement/dance, acting, painting, writing, etc.

5 4 4 5 4 6 6 9 9 6 8 10 76

24 18 22 21 23 23 22 25 25 22 24 21 270

Musical composition

f

%

f

%

7 4 6 5 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 57/270

29.17 22.22 27.27 23.81 26.09 26.09 22.73 20 16 13.64 12.50 14.29 21.11

4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 34/270

16.67 11.11 9.09 9.52 13.04 13.04 13.64 12 12 13.64 12.50 14.29 12.59

Composition-oriented creative activities in music lessons

Educational School level stages

29 TEACHING AND ASSESSING COMPOSING IN ENGLISH SECONDARY SCHOOLS An investigation into music teacher confidence Kirsty Devaney

Introduction Composing has been an important and statutory part of English classroom music education for over 30 years. The landmark introduction of composing into the National Curriculum, heralded as “one of the most significant developments in the history of UK music education” (Mills, 2005, p. 36), ensured all young people experienced composing in school. After the age of 14, students can opt to study music to gain qualifications such as the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) or A level; this is known as key stages 4 and 5. Composing is a required and assessed part of these qualifications, often involving students composing individually to produce two compositions: one set to a brief created by the examination board, and one “free” composition of their choice. Sometimes their compositions must be based on certain genres or musical periods, and they are required to submit a score and recording of each work. Drawing from the findings of an exploratory research study involving five case study schools and a survey of 182 English music teachers, this chapter will focus on the underresearched area of composing teaching at key stages 4 and 5.

Composing to the classroom: policy and practice Teachers do not work within a “social or political vacuum” (Torrance, 1995, p. 3) and are therefore influenced by changes in governmental policy. This study took place within a time of great educational change and uncertainty for music education in England; therefore, key past events and policy changes need to be considered to provide context and a greater understanding of the challenges music teachers face when teaching composing in upper secondary schools. Classroom music education has continually evolved over the last century (Spruce, 1996), moving toward more practical musical engagement (Cox, 2001); not just viewing students as inheritors of musical culture (Swanwick, 1988) but also allowing them to actively participate in music making (Mills, 2005). During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a considerable drive toward creative music making practices in schools (Mills, 2005) with composers such as Paynter, Dennis, and Schafer developing new approaches to composing teaching in schools.

444

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-39

Teaching and assessing composing in English secondary schools

Their teaching resources such as New Sounds in Class (Self, 1967), The New Soundscape (Schafer, 1969), Sound and Silence (Paynter & Aston, 1970), and Experimental Music in School (Dennis, 1970) promoted diverse composing practices (Finney, 2011) and advocated for “active involvement with music” (Paynter, 1992, p. 6). This progressive approach revolutionized classroom music teaching by challenging traditional and “passive” (Spruce, 1996, p. 1) teaching methods; instead viewing young people as “inventors, improvisers, composers” (Swanwick, 1988, p. 14). The advancements made by these composer-educators and the Schools Council Secondary Music Project during this time played a vital role in the implementation of composing as a statutory part of the National Curriculum and the music GCSE qualification. Despite this positive advancement for composing in schools, classroom composing had “a rocky start” (Mills, 2005, p. 37) and created “conflicting philosophies” (Swanwick, 1988, p. 2); as Cox (2001) outlines: On the one hand, there was a feeling of exhilaration in developing the innovatory ideas stemming from the Schools Council secondary music project, but, on the other hand, there was a mood of desperation. (Cox, 2001, p. 15) This left many teachers feeling unable to support students with unfamiliar compositional techniques, such as graphic scores (Laycock, 2005; Rainbow, 1996). Previous research has emphasized the lack of composing experience and skills of classroom music teachers (Francis, 2012; Hickey, 2012; Lewis, 2012; Mills, 2005; Sheridan & Byrne, 2002; Webster, 2003; Winters, 2012), often attributing it to the fact that many come from a background in western classical performance (Barrett, 2006; Odam, 2000; Sheridan & Byrne, 2002). It is argued that the one-year postgraduate teacher-training courses in England are not always able to cover composing teaching in the short time available (Odam, 2000). This, alongside the shortage of up-to-date teaching resources for classroom composing (Hickey, 2012; Mills, 2005) and a lack of ongoing training for composing teaching, is a concern. Francis (2012) problematizes this, stating how teachers with limited composing experience may have to rely exclusively on using assessment criteria, materials, and training designed by the examination boards, to support their own teaching. Although the inclusion of composing into the English National Curriculum for Music is intended for all young people to experience composing in the classroom, in reality composing provision varies greatly. In primary school, music education can often be taught by a generalist classroom teacher, therefore their experience and capability of composing teaching may be limited. In addition, research has found that primary schools often deliver the National Curriculum through whole-class ensemble teaching delivered by a specialist instrumental teacher (Fautley, Kinsella, & Whittaker, 2017, p. 62), meaning that most musical opportunities are centered around performance. Priorities in music education at a policy and funding level are not focused on creative composing, as can be seen in the distribution of national funding for music education which often prioritizes the learning of a musical instrument. In the pivotal review of music education in 2011, conducted by Darren Henley, composing was only mentioned twice in a report of over 13,000 words, producing no recommendations for how to implement composing in schools (Henley, 2011). With this in mind, many young people may begin secondary school with little or no previous experience of composing.

445

Kirsty Devaney

Challenges of assessing composing As this chapter is focusing on composing, which is formally assessed at key stages 4 and 5, it is important to look at the literature surrounding the challenges of assessing a creative domain such as composing. The design of summative testing, normally conducted at the end of study as a means of measurement and certification (Torrance & Pryor, 1998), should “provide a sample of an examinee’s behaviour on performance in a specified domain” (American Educational Research Association, 2014, p. 33). However, within a domain such as music and composing, there are many facets of learning that may not be easy to assess in an examination format. Fautley (2010) argues that in the crusade to raise reliability in testing, examinations often prioritize what is easy to measure. Similarly, Aspin (1986) criticizes formal assessment as relying on “what is easily examinable, regardless of its relevance as musical experience”. This can result in music teachers concentrating on what is easy to teach in composing, such as music theory (Colwell, 2003, p. 16), rather than encouraging creativity in composing. As Eisner stated: “not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that is measured matters” (Eisner, 2002, p. 178). This brings into question the validity of the composing examination at key stages 4 and 5. Validity in testing is concerned with if a test “measures what it purports to measure” (Smith & Wright, 1926 in Sireci, 2016, p. 227), for example, are the composing examinations at GCSE or A level assessing creative composing ability, or are they testing the ability to pass a music theory test? In England, high-stakes national examinations play a significant role in influencing what and how teachers teach a subject. In an effort to raise school standards in England, the 1980 Education Act required national examination results, such as GCSEs and A levels, to be published and available to the public. These examinations have since acted as performance indicators for schools (Gipps & Stobart, 1993) with repercussions when schools fall below expected standards (Moss, 2017). A consequence of this has been increased monitoring of students’ grades and introducing penalties to teachers, such as lower pay, when students do not achieve predicated grades. Mansell (2007) termed this “hyper accountability”, whereby teachers are “forced not merely to pay attention to results but that they live and die by them” (p. 14). Ball (2003) believed this process of “performativity” (p. 216) could be used to change the behaviors of teachers. Research has discovered that teachers are forced to focus exclusively on getting students to pass national examinations (Moss, 2017) and “teach to the test”. Within a composing context, Francis (2012) discovered music teachers created a “one-size-fits-all approach” (p. 166) to composing teaching, resulting in students composing in an almost identical way. She discovered that students often learned how to compose music to fit the examination criteria, rather than learning to think, or act like a composer (Francis, 2012). Fautley and Savage (2011) called this practice “examination composing” (p. 149), something that was found to be widespread in this study. Even with this focus on reliability in national examinations, we must remember that “no test is perfectly reliable” (Black & Wiliam, 2012, p. 245), and “no measuring instrument is perfect” (Wiliam, 2001, p. 17). One concern in composing examinations is the potential for subjectivity and bias in the marking. Students taking these composing examinations often come from a wide range of musical and cultural backgrounds, and therefore may compose in diverse musical styles. Simmonds (1988) conducted a study asking a panel of music teachers to rate different styles of music composed by students. Results indicated that subjectivity was commonplace, and more traditional pieces often received higher marks (Simmonds, 1988). Likewise, Gipps and Murphy (1994) believed that musical genre could influence an examiner, expressing concern that musical taste and cultural differences could 446

Teaching and assessing composing in English secondary schools

create bias. This creates a challenging situation for music teachers who are faced with high accountability pressures from school leaders, whilst negotiating the potential for subjective and unpredictable marking. This conflict will be explored further within the context of the findings of this study.

Confidence in teaching and assessing composition This section will draw upon the results of this study in relation to secondary music teachers’ confidence of composing teaching in the classroom. As discussed earlier in the chapter, much has been written about music teachers’ inexperience of composing, and therefore lack of confidence. However, much of this research was conducted when composing was relatively new to the education system. Composing has since been a statutory part of classroom music teaching for over 30 years; therefore, many current music teachers will have had experience of composing in their own school education. With that in mind, using an online survey this research uncovered that only a small proportion of current music teachers (17%) had little or no composing experience. Interestingly the reasons stated for this were often due to not receiving the opportunity to compose in school as their education predated before composing had become statutory. Instead, teachers in this study demonstrated a diverse range of composing experiences ranging from songwriting, choral composing, electronic and media music composition, to composing for dance and theatre. Interestingly, regardless of the level of composing experience, most teachers expressed their enjoyment of composing, with only one teacher openly admitting their dislike of composing altogether. Although most music teachers appeared to be relatively confident in their composing capabilities and ability to teach it, this research found that a teacher’s confidence was often connected to how well their students did in the key stage 4 and 5 examinations, as one teacher expressed: I think one’s confidence sort of fluctuates - when you get it right you feel quite confident, and then when people [students] do worse [in the exams] than you hope, you feel a bit less confident Many teachers in the study reported how composition marking at key stages 4 and 5 could be unpredictable, calling it a “lottery” and a “stab in the dark”, with some teachers receiving dramatically different results in the examinations every year. Shockingly only 26.8% of teachers felt confident to accurately predict grades for composition at key stage 5, with 90.1% teachers experiencing surprising examination results. Not only were examination grades lower than expected, they could also be much higher than anticipated. The situation was a little better at key stage 4 due to teachers marking their own students’ work and a sample is sent off for external moderation, whereas, at key stage 5, all composition coursework is marked by an external examiner. Discrepancies in the marking seemed most common at the extreme ends of the grade spectrum; for example, a very high-achieving student could receive significantly poorer results than anticipated and vice versa. Teachers overwhelmingly reported how they felt creative approaches to composing were not valued in the assessment criteria. As one teacher stated: “very creative ideas aren’t recognized by the mark scheme”. Instead, many believed that examiners preferred pastiche composing and students who “tick the boxes” of the examination, over creativity or originality. Several stories emerged illustrating how high-achieving students, some who had planned to go to university to study music, had gained a place at a 447

Kirsty Devaney

music conservatoire, had works performed by national ensembles, or had even won national competitions, could receive low marks in their examinations: [The examination has] put some very able, potentially fantastic composers right-off and I can think of, off the top of my head, five or six people straightaway who have dropped music after AS-level altogether because of that experience of composing marks…I think we might have actually lost some genuine great musicians through the examination system. This raises serious questions regarding the validity and real-world application of the examinations, as well as highlighting the fragility of students’ confidence in a creative process such as composing. One potential reason for the inconsistent marking was due to the wording of the assessment criteria which teachers called: “ambiguous”, “wishy-washy”, “vague”, and “woolly”. Teachers felt that words such as “imaginative” and “creative” resulted in greater subjectivity in the marking, as one teacher highlights: If you look at structure, there will be standard structure, it’s a clear and proportional structure…But then you go to things like where it says it has an imaginative structure…I don’t know what an imaginative structure is, does that mean it has lots of sections? Does that mean that it has to have contrast? If you have a piece that is with a really whacky structure it might not be proportional any more. This perhaps goes some way to explaining how high-achieving students may receive poorer marks than expected in the exams; however, in making the examination criteria more prescriptive by removing words such as “imaginative”, this could further restrict students’ creativity. Due to the apparent subjectivity of the marking, questions were asked regarding the quality of examiner training, arguing that some examiners lacked necessary knowledge in certain genres. Three past examiners involved in the study disclosed not feeling adequately trained or prepared for the range of compositions they would have to mark: [I] felt the training was not long enough and the amount of papers you were expected to mark for the money was terrible. The pressure was very intense and very sadly it doesn’t surprise me that marks for the composition papers are so sporadic. Teachers explained how there was often very little opportunity for dialogue between teachers and examiners, thus calling for greater transparency from examination boards.

“Composing by numbers” Due to concerns that compositions deemed as creative, unusual, or “whacky”, could be a risk in the examination; some teachers ensured students followed very strict procedures and processes in order to pass the exam. This “composing by numbers” formulaic approach was viewed to be much more consistent and reliable in securing marks. Some teachers were unashamedly proud that they had discovered a “bulletproof” approach to teaching that would guarantee the grades they and their students needed. These methods were viewed as essential for students with very little composing experience, confidence, or knowledge of music theory, allowing these students to just “follow a set of rules” to pass the examination. 448

Teaching and assessing composing in English secondary schools

Restricting student choice was one of the ways to ensure greater reliability in the examinations, for example limiting the musical styles students could compose in. Some teachers expressed a belief that some musical genres did better than others in the examination. Therefore, certain styles and structures, such as theme and variations, sonata form, or string quartets, were deemed as “safer”, unlike popular music which was deemed by some teachers as too simple in terms of harmony at key stage 5. Concerns were raised as to this apparent preference for western classical music, along with the use of staff notation. Although examination boards do not specify that a composition has to be in western classical notation, there was apprehension that other forms of notation would be “look down on”. Some teachers admitted feeling conflicted with the current examination system. Although they were under intense pressures to ensure their students passed the examinations, many also wanted to give students a meaningful and creative composing experience. In attempting to “tick the boxes” of the examination, they were aware that “teaching to the test” was detrimental to students’ learning, with many feeling as if they were “clipping the wings” of their students. One teacher expressed this feeling as being “stuck between a rock and a hard place”, whereby on the one hand, if they allowed creative freedom, their students could do worse in the examination, but on the other hand if they taught composing in a formulaic way, although it would guarantee a more reliable result, it could restrict learning, creativity, and discourage their students from composing in the future. As alluded to earlier in the chapter, secondary school teachers in England work under highly pressured circumstances. Education policy and accountability measures place teachers at the center, with severe consequences when students under-achieve. Teachers in the study expressed how school leaders would investigate teachers and departments whose grades fell below expected standards, illustrating a culture of blame (Moss, 2017). One teacher in this study was even told they were “unfit for purpose” when their students did poorly in the composing examinations. For some teachers, the uncertainty of examination results created unbearable stress and fear and they shared with me how their jobs were in danger if their students did badly. Stories emerged of mental health issues and of teachers leaving the profession as a result of the pressures illustrated in this chapter.

Conclusion After 30 years of composing in schools, on the whole, secondary classroom music teachers in England appeared to be relatively confident at teaching composing. However, confidence in teaching was often diminished due to receiving unexpectedly low examination results at key stages 4 and 5. This often materialized as a critical moment in their teaching, making them doubt their abilities and teaching methods, causing them to change their teaching to become more formulaic. These formulaic approaches confirm how “examination composing” (Fautley & Savage, 2011; Francis, 2012) can become commonplace in schools and raise questions as to the validity and real-world application of what is being taught through the examination.

Reflective questions 1 What support is there for classroom music teachers to raise their skills and confidence in composing teaching? 2 How do summative assessments influence what and how composing is being taught? 3 What is the place of creativity in composing, and how can we assess it reliably? 4 In what ways can we ensure composing assessment is reliable and fair, without creating a bias toward certain musical practices? 449

Kirsty Devaney

References American Educational Research Association (2014). Standard for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Aspin, D. (1986). Objectivity and assessment in the arts: The problem of aesthetic education. In M. Ross (Ed.), Assessment in arts education - A necessary disciple or a loss of happiness curriculum issues in arts education (pp. 55–71). England: Pergamon Press. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065. Barrett, M. (2006). Creative collaboration: An ‘eminence’ study of teaching and learning in music composition. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061852. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). The reliability of assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 243–263). London: SAGE. Colwell, R. (2003). The status of arts assessment: Examples from music. Arts Education Policy Review, 105(2), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632910309603457. Cox, G. (2001). Teaching music in schools: Some historical reflections. In C. Plummeridge, & C. Philpott (Eds.), Issue in music teaching (pp. 9–20). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dennis, B. (1970). Experimental music in schools. Slough: Oxford University Press. Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fautley, M., Kinsella, V., & Whittaker, A. (2017) Whole Class Ensemble Teaching Research Report. https://www.musicmark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WCET-Report-FINAL-141117.pdf Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2011). Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in the English National Curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 28(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051710000410. Francis, J. (2012). Teaching composing with an identity as a teacher-composer. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000216. Finney, J. (2011). Music education in England 1950–2010: A child-centred progressive tradition. England: Ashgate. Gipps, C. V., & Murphy, P. (1994). Assessing assessment. A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity. Maidenhead, BRK, England: Open University Press. Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (1993). Assessment: A teachers’ guide to the issues. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Henley, D., Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education (2011). Music Education in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/music-education-in-england-a-review-by-darren-henley-for-the-department-for-education-and-the-department-for-culture-media-and-sport Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines, ideas for composing in k-12 music classrooms. USA: Oxford University Press. Laycock, J. (2005). A changing role for the composer in society. Bern: Peter Lang. Lewis, R. (2012). Composing the curriculum: Teacher identity. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000198. Mansell, W. (2007). Education by numbers: The tyranny of testing. Great Britain: Politico’s Publishing. Mills, J. (2005). Music in the school. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moss, G. (2017). Assessment, accountability and the literacy curriculum: Reimagining the future in the light of the past. Literacy UKLA, 51(2), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12104. Odam, G. (2000). Teaching composing in secondary schools: The creative dream. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000218. Paynter, J. (1992). Sound & structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and silence – Classroom projects in creative music. London: Cambridge University Press. Rainbow, B. (1996). Onward from butler: School music 1945-1985. In G. Spruce (Ed.), Teaching music (pp. 8–18). London: Routledge. Schafer, M. (1969). The new soundscape – Handbook for the modern music teacher. Canada: Clark and Cruickshank. Self, G. (1967). New sounds in class. London: Universal Edition.

450

Teaching and assessing composing in English secondary schools Sireci, S. G. (2016). On the validity of useless tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1072084. Sheridan, M., & Byrne, C. (2002). Ebb and flow of assessment in music. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000220. Simmonds, R. (1988). An experiment in the assessment of composition. British Journal of Music Education, 5(1), 21–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700006306. Spruce, G. (1996). Assessment in the arts - Issues of objectivity. In G. Spruce (Ed.), Teaching music (pp. 160–174). London: Routledge. Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. New York: Routledge. Torrance, H. (1995). Introduction. In H. Torrance (Ed.), Evaluating authentic assessment: Problems and possibilities in new approaches to assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press. Webster, P. R. (2003). Conference keynotes: Asking music students to reflect on their creative work: Encouraging the revision process. Music Education Research, 5(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1461380032000126337. Wiliam, D. (2001). Reliability, validity, and all that jazz. Education 3-13, 29(3), 17–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03004270185200311. Winters, M. (2012). The challenges of teaching composing. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000489.

451

30 ASSESSMENT OF COMPOSING IN THE LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL IN ENGLAND Martin Fautley

Introduction Assessment is never innocent. Every assessment judgment made is, as Broadfoot reminds us, a political act: “Assessment procedures are the vehicle whereby the dominant rationality of the corporate capitalist societies typical of the contemporary Western world is translated into the systems and process of schooling” (Broadfoot, 1999, p. 64). Assessment is not a matter for schools alone to decide upon; assessment uses, at all levels of education and in many countries, are driven by policy from government, and, as Colwell observes, “[p]olicy can hurt as much as it can help” (Colwell, 2007, p. 5). In England, there is a national curriculum (NC) for music in the lower secondary school which has always included composing as one of its three key strands, along with listening and performing. This privileging of composing makes England somewhat unusual in some respects when compared with many other countries. In this chapter, the nature of this classroom composing is described, and ways in which it is assessed are discussed. It is important to note at the outset what is meant by composing in the context of the lower secondary school in England. The NC regulations which govern this stage of education are actually quite brief, comprising only six bullet points: Pupils should be taught to:

• Play and perform confidently in a range of solo and ensemble contexts using their voice, playing instruments musically, fluently, and with accuracy and expression.

• Improvise and compose; and extend and develop musical ideas by drawing on a range of musical structures, styles, genres, and traditions.

• Use staff and other relevant notations appropriately and accurately in a range of musical styles, genres, and traditions.

• Identify and use the interrelated dimensions of music expressively and with increasing sophistication, including use of tonalities, different types of scales, and other musical devices.

• Listen with increasing discrimination to a wide range of music from great composers and musicians.

• Develop a deepening understanding of the music that they perform and to which they listen, and its history. (DfE, 2013, p. 219) 452

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-40

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

What makes this different from some other national contexts is that this is a generalist music education curriculum, which is to be taught to all pupils within the lower secondary school; in England, this means for young people aged between 11 and 14. This places an immediate delimitation on the sorts of musical endeavor that can take place within a classroom. For example, although staff notation is mentioned within the NC, its use is not mandatory throughout, and so composing does not necessarily entail learners sitting with music manuscript paper and a pencil (although it can). What is far more likely to be the case is that the young people are engaged in composing directly into sound.

Assessing composing From this description, it follows that a central question for teaching, learning, and assessing classroom composing in the lower secondary school is as follows:

• What is being taught and learned under the heading of composing at this stage? It also gives rise to some subsidiary questions:

• What is good composing? • Should we separate the process of composing from the product that arises, the composition? • What happens if there is good composing (whatever that is) but a poor composition results? And, as a lot of generalist classroom work in England takes place in groups:

• How can we distinguish the contributions of individual children and young people to a jointly organized endeavor? These questions are framed here at the outset of this chapter, as they foreground many of the issues which need to be explored. One of the main issues that needs to be considered is that of the purpose of composing in general classroom music education in the first place. This has been a long-standing issue, certainly in England, but also in many other countries, too. For example, Heidi Westerlund asks: …[S]hould we educate devoted listeners through selected classics or transmit musical hands-on knowledge for amateurs to enjoy in their future lives, or should we simply feed the existing musical institutions, symphony orchestras and the ilk, with new practitioners? (Westerlund, 2012, p. 9) The very act of asking this question immediately places responsibility onto the teacher to think about what they are doing, and why they are doing it. But in England, as we have seen, a NC is in operation, and so teachers have to follow its strictures, of which composing is a part. A useful observation was made by Swanwick when he observed that the purpose of having composing in education was not to create composers, but to enable musical learning to take place in all children and young people in schools: Whatever form it may take, the prime value of composition in music education is not that we may produce more composers, but in the insight that may be gained by relating to music in this particular and very direct manner. (Swanwick, 1979, p. 43) 453

Martin Fautley

It is this which is the purpose of composing in the English curriculum. The types and forms that composing takes in the English school classroom are varied. They range from songwriting to the avant-garde; however, what they have in common is that they are often realized directly into sound using classroom instruments such as guitars, keyboards, tuned and unturned percussion, and any instruments that the children and young people are learning to play outside the classroom. This composing approach is often: […]deliberately non-notational. By emphasizing performance and composition over reading and writing, students acquire musical skills in a natural way and often times at accelerated pace. This creates a context rich in musical experience for young learners. (Wish, 2015, p. 23) Composing here needs to be thought of as “the act of making a music object by assembling sound materials in an expressive way” (Swanwick, 1979, p. 43), and although this point is being labored somewhat here, it is nonetheless important to understand as we move toward a more detailed consideration of the assessment of composing in the classroom, as otherwise those outside of the immediacy of the English context may not fully appreciate the nuances of what is taking place.

Composing and assessment Teaching and learning composing in the English secondary classroom is a complex and multifaceted arena, and assessment of it even more so. Over the years that the NC has been in operation, there have been policy changes which have affected what teachers are required to do statutorily, as well as changing conceptions of what is involved in good assessment practice in the classroom. In earlier incarnations of the NC, assessment of pupil attainment was undertaken by teachers grading completed work using what was known as a National Curriculum level statement. These level statements provided a generalized set of wordings, purportedly representing holistic achievement across all areas of music education within a single paragraph. The level statements were organized such that Level 5 was intended to represent the average attainment by a pupil aged 14 years, at the end of the then-statutory period of musical study. One of the many problems with this system can immediately be grasped in the wording of the level statement: Level 5 Pupils identify and explore musical devices and how music reflects time, place and culture. They perform significant parts from memory and from notations, with awareness of their own contribution such as leading others, taking a solo part or providing rhythmic support. They improvise melodic and rhythmic material within given structures, use a variety of notations, and compose music for different occasions using appropriate musical devices. They analyse and compare musical features. They evaluate how venue, occasion and purpose affect the way music is created, performed and heard. They refine and improve their work. (QCA, 2007) From this statement, it can be seen that the three pillars of music from the NC – composing, listening, performing – are assessed holistically, with the three being bundled together.

454

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

Fortunately, the government recognized problems with this and in 2014 issued the following statement: As part of our reforms to the national curriculum, the current system of “levels” used to report children’s attainment and progress will be removed from September 2014 and will not be replaced. By removing levels we will allow teachers greater flexibility in the way that they plan and assess pupils’ learning. (DfE, 2014) The removal of level statements was widely heralded as good news by the teaching profession, as they had been felt to be highly problematic (Fautley, 2012; Fowler, 2008; Sainsbury & Sizmur, 1998). Since 2014, there has been no national requirement for assessing musical attainment, including composing, in any standardized fashion. For many teachers, however, the removal of the NC levels left a vacuum that they then needed to fill. Advice came from the then Ofsted inspector for music, Ofsted being the arms-length governmental inspection service, who wrote in a blog: A powerful creative act cannot be contained by a neat spreadsheet of numbers and letters. As national curriculum levels disappear, I’d ask you respectfully not to replace them with another set of numbers. But pupils’ musical work does need assessing. This should be simply constructed and ideally in sound – the music itself – not mainly about what pupils produce on paper. (Hammerton, 2014) This is clearly an important piece of advice, but for many teachers, this caused consternation. Having been used for many years to being able to record attainment in a spreadsheet, they were now being asked not to. Alongside these anxieties were long-standing concerns with the ways in which composing should be taught and learned in the first place. Back in 2001, Rebecca Berkley had asked, “[W]hy is teaching composing so challenging[?]” (Berkley, 2001). In a similar vein, Burnard and Younker had observed that “…understanding the role of creativity in composing in schools remains a fragmented and difficult issue” (Burnard & Younker, 2002, p. 245). Indeed, a not uncommon observation is that made by Winters: Visits to school music departments reveal a range of pupil music-making but often the area which is least confidently facilitated and supported (and perhaps misunderstood) is composing. (Winters, 2012, p. 19) Given that there are many concerns about teaching composing, it follows that there are also likely to be areas of concern associated with assessing composing in the classroom. In the English context, a further confounding factor needs to be taken into account, this is a shift in focus in schools driven in part by the inspectorate, Ofsted, to look at progress as a distinct issue, where attainment had previously formed the main locus of attention in schools. What this shift in focus has done is to move teacher thinking toward demonstrating shifts in attainment to prove that pupils have been making progression in their composing work. Again, this is a problematic area (Devaney, 2018).

455

Martin Fautley

This issue, and a number of others besides, have been recognized for many years. Writing back in 2000, John Paynter, one of the pioneers of classroom composing in England, wrote of the potential pitfalls with the assessment of composing: We accept without question that a school curriculum must show progression, not only in the programme overall but also in the content of each subject. In reality, however, things may not be that simple. In the first place, there are different kinds of progression and what would be a reasonable expectation in one area may not be so in another. Also, to be effective, the scheme must include regular appraisal of students’ work, and again that is not necessarily a straightforward matter. Some subjects - music among them - may include group activities, so that defining the nature of the progression becomes part of the larger problem of how to recognise individual pupils’ achievements. We are not helped by the continuing confusion about assessment and evaluation; the one an informed judgement which can be challenged and if necessary revised, the other awarding values on a scale representing agreed, and therefore - at least for the time being - fixed, criteria. Either way, there is pressure upon teachers to produce verifiable evidence of progress. If, to do that, it becomes necessary to compromise by making important whatever is easiest to assess/evaluate rather than assessing/evaluating those things which are truly important to a subject, then students’ achievements may be trivialised. (Paynter, 2000, p. 5) Paynter was being very prescient when he wrote that. There are many aspects in that quotation which warrant careful unpicking in the light of what has happened in the intervening years. Paynter alerts us to issues of progression, personalization, assessment and evaluation, and assessing an individual within group work. All of these have daily relevance to teaching and learning taking place every day in school classrooms. What this all means in practice is that there is a concerted effort by teachers to do three things with their composing pupils: 1 To construct schemes or work that enable progression in composing to be achieved. 2 To design assessment systems that enable such progression to be delineated. 3 To be able to prove to external viewers that such progress has been made. To this can sometimes be added a fourth component, that of “meta-proof,” where the teachers go beyond point 3 above and need to prove to their principals or the inspectorate that the proof they have provided of attainment and progress is valid (Fautley, 2016, p. 142). So, not just proving progression, but also proving they have proved it!

Formative and summative assessment of composing All of this presents a complex and multiple simultaneity of issues which the classroom music teacher needs to give consideration to when assessing composing in the classroom. Before turning to a more detailed consideration of how this is – and might be – done, some essential aspects of assessment language as well as uses and understandings in the specific peculiarity of the English context need to be discussed. The terminologies of formative and summative assessment are well known both in education generally (Harlen, 2005; Harlen & James, 1997; TGAT, 1988; Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; 456

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

Wiliam & Black, 1996) and in music education specifically (Colwell, 2007; Fautley, 2010; Schneider, dePascale, & McDonel, 2019). In terms of assessment of composing, it follows that assessment of process is probably best undertaken formatively, while summative assessment can normally be expected to come into play when considering the finished product, the composition, and it is to this point we now turn.

Composing as a classroom activity One of the many issues with the assessment of composing in the classroom in the lower secondary school is that of what exactly should be assessed. David Bray makes this point when he observes […]it may be helpful not to assess the composition, but to focus on the skills and understanding the students demonstrate whilst composing. The finished composition was actually less important than the skills that students demonstrated whilst they were composing. These skills will be much easier to assess than the finished composition [emphasis in original]. (Bray, 2002, p. 80) This distinction between process and product raises some useful and informative points about teaching and learning composing in the classroom. The prevailing culture of Western music privileges the final piece of music (Goehr, 1992), whereas for educational purposes, a carefully crafted learning program needs to be designed which enables children and young people to get to the stage of producing a finished piece. In the English public examination systems of GCSE and A-level music, it is the final piece only which is submitted for external grading. Unlike some fine art examinations, where works in progress – sketchbooks – are considered counting toward the final grade, in music it is only the final piece which matters for assessment purposes. What this means for pedagogy is that it is up to each individual teacher to decide on the most appropriate pathway for them to adopt with their learners, as there is no official direction as to how this can be achieved. Unlike performing, which has long-established pathways and progression routes involving graded music examinations, with publications, tutor books, studies, and anthologies to help en route, the pedagogy of composing has none of these. This means that, in many cases, the teacher has to devise their own materials. It can also be the case that the teacher has personally had little by way of direct involvement with composing since their own time at school, as some performance degrees and other forms of higher education require little or nothing by way of acquaintance with the act of composing. All of this means that the teacher’s own preparedness can be patchy. A further issue is that of the modality of composing. The archetypal Western romantic view is of the solitary composer struggling against seemingly overwhelming odds and possibly starving in a garret somewhere! Even in today’s Western, classical-derived musical world, it is the triumph of the individual composer which is celebrated. Things can be different in the pop, rock, and jazz spheres, where collective composing is recognized as being “a thing.” In English secondary school classrooms, where classes normally number around 30 pupils, with lessons typically lasting for an hour a week, the individuated composer model comes into some difficulties. Group composing is normal in English classrooms, often involving subdividing the 30 pupils into smaller units, maybe 5 pupils to a group, who then work as described above, with classroom instruments composing directly into sound. 457

Martin Fautley

To recap, what we have, then, in the English lower secondary music classroom are groups of young people using readily available musical instruments, working directly with sound, and undertaking conjoint composing activities which are realized in the form of pieces of music, which may or may not be performed publicly, but will most likely remain in the classrooms in which they were created.

Assessment of classroom composing Having moved away from the system of NC levels described above and faced with the competing demands of demonstrating attainment and proving progression, teachers in England have had to devise their own strategies to deal with this. One of the ways in which many have chosen to do so is by privileging the spoken word, as Colwell notes: Formative assessment is friendly and widely accepted. Music teachers, however, believe that formative assessment refers to any assessment conducted by teachers who then tell students the results. Formative assessment does not occur unless some learning action follows … Assessments are formative only if something is contingent on their outcomes and the information is used to alter what would have happened in the absence of the information… (Colwell, 2007, p. 13) This is what has become normal assessment procedure, and, historically, there is little that is new and original in this. Music teachers were effectively doing formative assessment before it was invented! Armed with the knowledge that giving good verbal feedback about how to improve is a form of assessment, this is how teachers have been working. Helping students make a difference to their learning and doing by talking to them is a key component of good formative assessment. The process of composing in groups is one which teachers feel they can help with, however inexperienced they themselves are in composing, as much of it involves “normal” performance modalities – starting together, coming in at the right time, and controlling dynamics, all things within any music teacher’s comfort zone. But what is harder for teachers to do is to comment constructively on the quality of the music being produced. As an example of this, in one piece of research, it was found that when both professional composers and teachers were working with children and young people, composer interactions were often focused on qualitative developmental work, whereas teacher interactions were frequently characterized by task completion matters (Fautley, 2014, p. 18). In other words, what was taking place was that professional composers were engaging the children and young people in discussion about their music, whereas the teachers were primarily concerned with how much time remained in the lesson, and whether the pupils would have any substantial work to show for it at the end. This discrepancy between composers and teachers gets to the very heart of what is often taking place in English classrooms. This is the effect of what has come be known as the performativity agenda: […] performativity, a key element of current educational reform worldwide, has marked a disturbing phase in the resetting of education… Teachers are required to measure and test students, to report using mandated standards and systems and to teach in statesanctioned ways. Pedagogy has been shaped and reshaped by reform policies focused on school organisation, the curriculum and student attainment, with assessed teacher 458

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

performance now itself the direct focus of change which has substantially impacted on the work of teachers. (Burnard & White 2008, pp. 667–668) Indeed, performativity has become so pervasive and invasive that Ball (2003) called it a battle for “the teacher’s soul.” What Burnard and White described above finds its outworking in the issues of meta-proof discussed earlier. This means that music teachers, fully aware that their principals and senior management teams in school will know little, if anything, about quality in composing, are forced to demonstrate (“prove”) that learning and progress have taken place in the hour-long lesson. Composers, accustomed to organic time-scales, are more concerned with the music, and less so with the impending schoolroom bell. This key difference goes a long way toward explaining music teacher actions; performativity has forced them to be more concerned with the measurable than with quality of music. This leads inexorably to the situation described by Gert Biesta, who asks: […] whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measuring what we can easily measure and thus end up valuing what we (can)1 measure. (Biesta, 2010, p. 13) A similar sentiment was expressed by Dylan Wiliam: We start out with the aim of making the important measurable and end up making only the measurable important. (Wiliam, 2001, p. 58) And, to pursue this theme back into the music class, Paynter elaborated on the same issue: […] we may all too easily allow ourselves to be trapped by compromise, making important what can most easily be evaluated rather than valuing what is important. In which case, why do we bother with … anything that relies upon the exercise of imagination, creative response, and the expression of independent views. (Paynter, 2002, p. 216) Clearly we do not want teachers to be simply measuring and assessing things for the sake of it, or to prove, or meta-prove, to their school administration that they have done something (anything!) simply to avoid trouble.

The way forward Many of the descriptions in this chapter so far describe the ways in which the assessment of composing as a generalist classroom activity can be problematic. It is important to observe that this need not be the case, and so in this section, we turn to matters of how composing in schools can be taught, learned, and assessed. One of the key factors in assessing composing is that the teacher needs to have an open mind as to what the outcomes of a composing task will be. Defining assessment criteria, or what Americans call “rubrics,” too tightly in advance can mean that a creative and interesting composition scores lowly in a summative assessment exercise, as it does not fit what was expected. Although doing, say, Bach chorale harmonization can be viewed in a similar fashion 459

Martin Fautley

to completing a crossword puzzle, composing can be more open-ended. The first task-decision the teacher needs to make is as follows:

• Do I want a closed composing task (like a harmony exercise), or do I want a freer composing activity? There is no right answer to this question, and how teachers address it will depend to a large extent on where both they and their learners are in their program of study. The second and third questions are much harder:

• What do I want them to do, and • What do I want them to learn? This is now getting to difficult pedagogical matters. For instance, a children’s composing activity creating a soundscape about the sea is a doing task, the question that educators will be asking is, “What is the learning that is taking place while they are composing a sea soundscape?” Again, answers will depend on where the learners are in their journey. A group of primary school children are perfectly capable of doing this task, but both the doing and the learning will be somewhat different if done with older students. Although formative and summative assessments are not necessarily conceived of as being different, it is also appropriate to think about what will be done with the information generated: Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a formative assessment. The distinction between formative and summative applies not to the assessment itself, but to the use to which the information arising from the assessment is put. The same assessment can serve both formative and summative functions, although in general, the assessment will have been designed so as to emphasise one of the functions. (Wiliam, 2000, p. 118) In the case of the sea soundscape, what the teacher will be looking to do is give verbal feedback to the children and young people – whatever stage of learning they are at – that is designed them to help improve their music. This is formative assessment proper: Formative assessment, therefore, is essentially feedback … both to the teacher and to the pupil about present understanding and skill development in order to determine the way forward. Assessment for this purpose is part of teaching; learning with understanding depends on it. To use information about present achievements in this way means that the progression in ideas and skills must be in the teacher’s mind – and as far as possible in the pupils’ – so that the next appropriate steps can be considered. (Harlen & James, 1997, pp. 369–370) This is fundamental to understanding assessment of composing in school classrooms. In order to help pupils improve at composing, teachers need to interact in meaningful ways with the young people while composing is taking place. At the beginning of this chapter, a number of key questions were posed. Let us take a moment to think about these in the light of the matters discussed. Let us begin by taking the first two together:

• What is good composing? • Should we separate the process of composing from the product which arises, the composition? 460

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

These are to some extent interrelated. The process of composing needs to be done in a way that is suitable for the learners in the class. If advanced musicians, with a thorough grasp of theory and technique, they may be composing with MS paper, or with digital technology. If they are novices, they will be composing with instruments directly. Important to note, though, is that any assessment of composing can all too easily degenerate into assessment of performance instead. Teachers who feel less confident in composing pedagogies can fall into this trap. The performance is important, especially when composing takes place directly into sounds, but teacher and pupils need to be aware of the differences between the two and have different assessment criteria for each. Key in the formative assessment of composing-as-process will be that the teacher has considered appropriateness and designed the learning program accordingly. So, the teacher needs to know: a b c d e f g h

What a good process is. What a good process looks and sounds like. What a good outcome is. What a good outcome looks and sounds like. That this is communicated to the learners so they know too. What the learners will be doing. What the learners will be learning. How they will be doing this.

This requires reactive teaching. The teacher has to be prepared to “think on their feet” and to be able to respond to the needs of the learners. Which takes us to another question:

• What happens if there is good composing (whatever that is) but a poor composition results? This is where there needs to be a clear separation of process from product. To use an analogy, when learning to drive a car, it is unlikely that the first driving lesson will involve undertaking a practical driving test. The student needs to first learn how to use the clutch, change gear, steer, and so on; they also need to become acquainted with the rules of the road. The same is true of composing. It is unreasonable to expect learners to produce a complete composition at their first attempt. The teacher needs to produce a structured scheme of work that gets the students to this point. Here Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) comes into play. The teacher will know their class and the stage of learning they are at and should plan and act accordingly. This makes it hard, if not impossible, to be prescriptive about composing pedagogies from a distance: PCK is not a single entity that is the same for all teachers of a given subject area; it is a particular expertise with individual idiosyncrasies and important differences that are influenced by (at least) the teaching context, content, and experience. It may be the same (or similar) for some teachers and different for others, but it is, nevertheless, a corner stone of teachers’ professional knowledge and expertise. (Loughran, Berry, & Mulhall, 2012, p. 7) In practice, this means that the teacher will need to think through stages of development in composing, and of associated learner activities that are stage-appropriate. What should be done is privileging learning, and so the outcome is of lesser importance at this stage. 461

Martin Fautley

Having said this, at some point, both learners and teachers will want to move onto producing finished compositions. It is at this juncture that we will be moving toward thinking about the last of our initial questions:

• How can we distinguish the contributions of individual children and young people to a jointly organized endeavor? This is difficult and needs careful consideration. It is the equivalent of disentangling Lennon’s contribution from McCartney’s in Beatles songs. If the assessment being undertaken is primarily formative in purpose, then the teacher will be commenting on the work that the group has made as a whole, as well as in part. Assessment for summative purposes will be rather different, and so let us now turn to a consideration of that. Thorpe makes an important observation when she states: The last thing an assessment model needs is a surprise, and yet creative artists seek to do just that. This can pose a dilemma for classroom music teachers who may not have a clear understanding of how to go about assessing creative work anyway…. Furthermore, the objective assessment of creative products is fraught with difficulty and controversy. Even the idea of declared assessment criteria for creative works is a fairly recent one…. (Thorpe, 2012, p. 420) On this basis, maybe the first question for summative assessment of group composing ought to be, “Why am I assessing this, and what happens to the results?” The use of criteria statements here can be problematic, and as Thorpe observes, assessment models do not need “a surprise.” What they do need, however, are ways of assessing attainment. Knowing why the work is being assessed in the first place goes some way toward this. A teacher working with their own class of learners and assessing for reporting purposes is a very different thing from one assessing for external certification. But what of assessment of group composing? Here the teacher faces a dilemma, do they assess the group and give the same grade to all? Or do they, as many teachers in England do, assess the group, and then “shade” a mark for each individual within it? Here a crucial factor is the teacher’s own judgment. Teachers have been wary of this and prefer to rely on external criteria, but musicking requires professional judgments being made all the time, and composing is no different from this. After all, a rating scale that can encompass music by musicians as disparate as Webern, Bach, Stormzy, Kraftwerk, and John Barry equally within its frames of reference is going to have to be either all-encompassing, which is unlikely, or selective, which is going to disadvantage some musics.

Conclusion The assessment of classroom composing is, as this chapter has hopefully shown, fraught with difficulty. This does not mean that composing should not be taught in the lower secondary school, nor does it mean that it should not be assessed. Learning from the English experience for an international audience, what it does mean is that teachers should begin by asking themselves the question, “Why am I assessing composing?” and the corollary to this question, “What is going to happen to the results?” The answers to both of these will determine to a significant extent what the teacher then does as a result. What this chapter has hopefully shown is that composing assessment needs to arise from a thoughtful consideration of the differences 462

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England

between the process of composing, and the product that results from it, and to not confuse assessment of composing with assessment of performing. For an international audience, this chapter has outlined learning that can be gathered from the English experience of assessing composing in the lower secondary school. The various pedagogic forays into composing in other jurisdictions can build on these foundations and take from them matters which are appropriate in their own circumstances. In the world of performativity and measurement of every aspect of education, music educators need to be able to confidently assert that composing is a valuable classroom activity, and that assessment of it can be undertaken. Wishy-washy views of creativity being too special to assess will hold no sway with neoliberal policy makers. We music educators need to be confident in our curricula and our assessments, and we need to take heart from the fact that, in music education, we have been teaching, learning, and assessing for many years, and that, although there may be difficult questions to be asked, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. To do otherwise is to open up the very real possibility of music being sidelined, and that is surely something that no music educator can face with equanimity!

Reflective questions 1 In your professional practice, are you able to distinguish between composing, the process of creating a new piece of music, and composition, the musical product that results from this? 2 What, for you, does good composing look like and sound like? 3 In your professional practice, what does progression in composing entail? What does it sound like?

Note 1 Parentheses in the original.

References Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065 Berkley, R. (2001). Why is teaching composing so challenging? A survey of classroom observation and teachers’ opinions. British Journal of Music Education, 18(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051701000225 Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Abingdon: Routledge. Bray, D. (2002). Assessment in music education. In G. Spruce (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary music (pp. 79–93). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Broadfoot, P. (1999). Assessment and the emergence of modern society. In B. Moon & P. Murphy (Eds.), Curriculum in context. London: Paul Chapman/Open University. Burnard, P., & White, J. (2008). Creativity and performativity: Counterpoints in British and Australian education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01411920802224238 Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2002). Mapping pathways: Fostering creativity in composition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380022000011948 Colwell, R. (2007). Music assessment in an increasingly politicized, accountability educational environment. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), Assessment in music education. Integrating theory and practice. Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on assessment in music education. University of Florida. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

463

Martin Fautley Devaney, K. (2018). How composing assessment in English secondary examinations affect teaching and learning practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Birmingham City University. Birmingham. DfE. (2013). Music programmes of study: key stage 3. Retrieved April 2023 from https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239088/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Music.pdf DfE. (2014). National curriculum and assessment from September 2014: information for schools. Retrieved April 2023 from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/358070/NC_assessment_quals_factsheet_Sept_update.pdf Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fautley, M. (2012). Assessment issues within national curriculum music in the lower secondary school in England. In T. S. Brophy & A. Lehmann-Wermser (Eds.), Proceedings of the third International symposium on assessment in music education. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Fautley, M. (2014). Listen, Imagine, Compose – Research report. Retrieved from London: https:// listenimaginecompose.com/app/uploads/2017/03/Final-Report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf Fautley, M. (2016). Policy and assessment in lower secondary school music education–the English experience. In H-P. Chen & P. Schmidt (Eds.), ISME commission on music policy: Culture, education, and mass media (p. 132). Retrieved from Victoria, Australia: International Society of Music Education: https://www.isme.org/sites/default/files/documents/2016%20ISME%20Commission%20on%20 Music%20Policy%20Proceedings.pdf Fowler, A. (2008). Assessment – A view from the classroom. NAME (National Association of Music Educators) Journal, 23, 10–12. Goehr, L. (1992). The imaginary museum of musical works. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hammerton, R. (2014). Music in schools: Where words finish, music begins. Retrieved from https:// web.archive.org/web/20141010165655/http://community.tes.co.uk:80/ofsted_resources/b/weblog/ archive/2014/06/16/music-in-schools-where-words-finish-music-begins.aspx Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning - tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136093 Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessments. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0969594970040304 Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Loughran, A. Berry, & P. Mulhall (Eds.), Understanding and developing science Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Professional learning, Vol. 12). Rotterdam: Sense. Paynter, J. (2000). Making progress with composing. British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000115 Paynter, J. (2002). Music in the school curriculum: Why bother? British Journal of Music Education, 19(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000311 QCA. (2007). Music: Programme of study for key stage 3. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/ web/20120515100514/http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/m/music%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%203.pdf Sainsbury, M., & Sizmur, S. (1998). Level descriptions in the national curriculum: What kind of criterion referencing is this? Oxford Review of Education, 24(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305498980240203 Schneider, C., dePascale, C., & McDonel, J. S. (2019). Performance assessment and rubric design. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education, volume 1. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. TGAT. (1988). Task group on assessment and testing: A report. London: DES. Thorpe, V. (2012). Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualification. Music Education Research, 14(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.699957 Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192960220402 Westerlund, H. (2012). What can a reflective teacher learn from philosophies of music education. In C. Philpott & G. Spruce (Eds.), Debates in music teaching (pp. 9–19). Abingdon: Routledge.

464

Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in England Wiliam, D. (2000). The meanings and consequences of educational assessments. Critical Quarterly, 42(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8705.00280 Wiliam, D. (2001). What is wrong with our educational assessment and what can be done about it? Education Review, 15(1), 57–62. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537–548. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0141192960220502 Winters, M. (2012). The challenges of teaching composing. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000489 Wish, D. (2015). Music as a second language: Little kids rock pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www. littlekidsrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MusicAsALanguageAndModernBand.pdf

465

INTERLUDE X

The Place of Assessment in Teaching and Learning Composing Martin Fautley

Assessment is a key aspect of all forms of education, whether in schools, music schools, universities, music colleges, conservatories, or anywhere that music is taught and learned. Indeed, as Swanwick observed, “to teach is to assess” (Swanwick, 1988, p. 149). There are a number of references to assessment with regard to teaching and learning composing throughout this book; what this present interlude endeavors to deal with are some of the more general principles of assessment when considering composing as an educational activity. However, the purpose of this interlude is not to provide an overview of the state of the field in this regard,1 but to problematize assessment when used for teaching and learning composing. The term “assessment” carries a weight of different meanings, sometimes location dependent, and other times affected more by the context in which the term is being used. In the anglophone sphere, there are differences too between assessment and evaluation. These differences include assessment of student work, which can be referred to as assessment of attainment, and that of teaching and learning programs, which are referred to in some jurisdictions as evaluations, rather than assessments. Assessment in education has a significant literature underpinning it. General studies on assessment in education are legion, including Black and Wiliam (1998); Airasian (1991); Koretz (2009); Gardner (2012). More specifically, in music education, there are also assessment studies, including Fautley (2010); Brophy (2000, 2019); Colwell (2007); Colwell and Richardson (2002); Lebler, Carey, and Harrison (2015); Philpott (2007, 2012). Despite the significant number of publications, arriving at a coherent philosophy of assessment in music education can itself be problematic (Mantie, 2019), and music educators need to be on their guard that they do not fall into the trap of dropping onto what Elliott et al. refer to as a “default philosophy” of assessment in music education: A default philosophy arises from a lack of careful thinking and an absence of democratic dialogue. … Default philosophies grow and feed on unexamined assumptions. We often fail to notice them because they sneak up on us …. (Elliott, Silverman, & McPherson, 2019, p. 10) It is useful at this juncture to consider the differences between two key assessment terminologies, these being formative and summative assessments. Summative assessment concerns itself DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-41

467

Martin Fautley

with measuring and grading the attainment of a pupil, and summing this up in a grade, mark, level, percentage, or other necessarily reductive format. Formative assessment, on the other hand, involves: … assessment designed to inform and enhance pupils’ learning […] [i]t is usually teachers, assistants and learners themselves who do the assessing in order to benefit current and future learning. It does not have to wait until the end of a course, nor be carried out under controlled conditions. (Blanchard, 2009, p. 1) Formative assessment is also known as assessment for learning, or AfL, and is an important aspect of teaching and learning composing and composition. However, understandings of it are not necessarily either universal or easily portable between contexts. Even within the anglophone world, there are different interpretations of what formative assessment means and what it entails (Fautley & Colwell, 2012). However, it is formative assessment which is of significance for day-to-day use with composing classes. The way in which formative assessment is conceptualized here is more akin to that which was articulated by Tunstall and Gipps (1996, p. 389): Formative assessment is that process of appraising, judging or evaluating students’ work or performance and using this to shape and improve their competence. In everyday classroom terms this means teachers using their judgements of children’s knowledge or understanding to feed back into the teaching process and to determine for individual children whether to re-explain the task/concept, to give further practise on it, or move on the next stage. While this is not referring specifically to composing, or indeed to music education more generally, hopefully from this definition, a transference to composing can be readily made. Formative assessment is not giving a grade, mark, level, score, or percentage to a piece of work but entails active involvement and interventions by the teacher. It therefore includes:

• Observing pupils – this includes listening to how they describe their work and their reasoning.

• Questioning, using open questions, phrased to invite pupils to explore their ideas and reasoning.

• Setting tasks in a way which requires pupils to use certain skills or apply ideas (Assessment Reform Group, 1999, p. 8). This places formative assessment as being something which is “done with” the learners, which is very different from summative assessment, which is normally “done to” them. Underpinning these matters are two fundamental principles: 1 Composing as a process is amendable to improvement. 2 The role of the teacher is to work with the student in order to help bring about this improvement. These principles may seem to be statements of the obvious, but sometimes educators can be heard making statements along the lines of “composing can only be caught, not taught,” 468

The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing

which tend to suggest that the people making such statements do not agree with the first premise above. What is worth stating at this juncture, however, is that there are significant variations in this, depending on the age and stage of those involved, and some of the things which are appropriate for working with early-years children will necessarily be very different from those for older children and young people. What formative assessment as outlined here means, then, may entail something which does not look, feel, or even sound like assessment as commonly understood in its summative form. As has been discussed, formative assessment can take a number of varieties, but these are characterized by being interactive: Music teachers have long been using formative assessment as a key element of their work with pupils …. To listen to a group of pupils working at a composing task and to suggest ways in which they could develop their work is to undertake formative assessment. (Fautley, 2010, p. 9) This means that formative assessment can entail something as simple as a conversation between teacher and student. It does not have to be a formal event, nor does it have to be written down, recorded, or, as has been discussed earlier, have a grade assigned to it. It is this aspect of formative assessment, that it is embedded in everyday teaching and learning, that has caused some educators to make the observation that formative assessment does not “feel like” assessment. However, it is also important to note that, even without the label of formative assessment, what is being described here can be regarded as simply good professional practice for teaching and learning composing anyhow. Moreover, teachers and educators have been doing it for many years without thinking of it as being formative assessment, but being able to think of it using assessment terminologies helps clarify both the uses and purposes of this important interaction. As if this mixture were not already complicated enough, in education we also need to be asking questions of – and knowing the answers to – the reasons as to why composing or compositions are being assessed in the first place. This is not as simple a question as it may seem. In some countries, educator efficacy is purportedly measured by learner assessment results. This is what Ball (2003) has referred to as the “terrors of performativity.” A music educator who knows their salary increase is likely to be affected by assessment results will take a very different view of grading than one who simply wants to know how well their pupils are getting on! All of the problems outlined so far in this interlude raise a question which is worth music educators giving some thought to, namely, “Who is the assessment for?” (Fautley, 2010, p. 70). A formative assessment, such as a verbal comment made by a teacher, is intended to help the learner improve their composing. A summative grade given to a finished composition is designed to give some value to a pupil or student’s work, and it is to this aspect of assessment that we now turn. In order to move to a consideration of composing, it is useful here to distinguish between assessment of composing, in other words, assessment of the creative process, and assessment of composition, of the piece of music that results from the process, in other words, the product. It is appreciated that in everyday English usage composing is a verb, whereas composition can function as both a noun and a verb, nonetheless in this interlude, composing will be taken to mean the activity, and composition of the piece of music which results from this process. This becomes important because thinking about the learning processes of composing involves children and young people, in fact students of any age, being helped to improve, to make 469

Martin Fautley

progress in creating music. This is very different from judging and awarding a mark to a piece of music which has resulted from the process of composing. The chapters in this current volume deal with the teaching and learning of composing, and while many of them also mention assessment, it would be helpful to think about what this means. The process of composing involves creativity (see creativity Interlude II, this volume) and making something which is realized in sound. It is here that yet more questions need to be asked. Composing music does not happen as a genre-free activity. Even a fragment of a sonic idea will portray its cultural reference points. A song is not a rap, a melody for distorted eclectic guitar is not isomorphic with one for descant recorder. Any music created can normally be situated into a style, type, or genre. This has implications for the way in which the contents of composing can be taught. For example, in the English National Curriculum (Department for Education [DfE], 2013a, 2013b), what are referred to as the interrelated dimensions of music,2 namely, pitch, duration, dynamics, tempo, timbre, texture, structure, and appropriate musical notations, are considered the building blocks of music, and therefore musical learning. McPhail (2017, p. 527) concurs with this approach, although noting that it does have overt Western classical overtones: I argue that it is to music’s collectively evolved generative concepts, those concepts that generate new knowledge, that we need to look for music’s “powerful” essence and the key to its potential as powerful knowledge for education …. Such generative concepts could include conceptualisation of musical elements, structures, and processes such as the organisation and subdivision of time, the construction of melody, modes, and musical space, the use of instruments, and the place of musicians in context. These concepts [are] necessarily limited to the consideration of only Western classical music. The notion of Western, classical-centric composing and associated assessment will be appropriate in some instances but not in others, and music educators teaching composing will need to reflect on their own contexts in this regard. We know, too, that tacit enculturation is taking place all the time, including with young composers: […] All composers are deeply encultured in the styles in which their own music is situated and particularly those who are at the forefront of rapidly changing sub-styles are likely to be regularly exchanging opinions with peers. (Green, 2002, p. 77) This means composing will usually be associated with a style or genre of music, and although it may be possible for teachers to try and separate out what the English National Curriculum (op. cit.) refers to as the interrelated dimensions of music, and what McPhail (2017) called “generative concepts,” the resultant music produced by the learners is nonetheless often likely to be placeable into a recognizable style or genre. This inevitably invokes notions of stylistic conformity, which will be included in any form of assessment criteria that the teacher produces. This immediately creates a potential conflict in the ways in which assessment of composing is conceptualized. Adherence to a style or genre has the potential to mask ways in which creative thought and responses are produced. As an extreme example, consider a generalist classroom setting where pupils are tackling primary chords I, IV, and V. Using these three chords, it would be entirely possible to construct a piece of music using the conventions of the 12-bar blues, but it would be equally possible to produce a 470

The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing

solo keyboard piece resembling a Baroque-era composition. The assessment criteria for such eventualities would need to be broad enough to encompass both of these possible outcomes – as well as many other possible compositional products – alongside any notions of what creativity in this task might entail. This discussion of compositions which arise from the creative process of composing leads to another problematic area, and one which is inevitably bound up with the assessment of composing, this being the difference between assessment of composing per se, and assessment of performance. There will be a degree of inevitability about this, because, as Swanwick (1998, p. 2) observed, “Musical processes are inaudible without musical products.” It is in the making audible that this issue concerning assessment confusion can be seen to occur. There is relative security for the music teacher who may be personally somewhat inexperienced in composing to find something to latch on to in assessing performance, and commenting on such matters as “… performance aspects, such as being on the beat, playing together, dynamic contrast, and so on” (Fautley, 2010, p. 144). This aspect is far more likely to fall within the experience of most music teachers. However, it is important to be aware of this trap. It is possible that this may constitute what the assessment literature refers to as construct irrelevance, where the construct of performing is broadly irrelevant to the construct of composing; although this is problematic in light of Swanwick’s observation cited above. In a similar fashion, it is also worthwhile considering whether this forms a category error, with the categories being as outlined in the previous sentence. While this may seem to be an area only of interest to specialist assessment researchers, this is nonetheless something which music educators, particularly those involved in more generalist spheres of activity, for example in primary or lower secondary schools, are likely to need to be aware of. One of the key areas of assessment that impacts both formative and summative assessment of pupil or student work is that of assessment criteria. Again, language is an issue here, as the terms “assessment criteria” and “assessment rubrics,” although related, have different meanings across the anglophone world. As Sadler observed, […] Many of the terms we use in discourse on assessment and grading are used loosely. By this I mean that we do not always clarify the several meanings a given term may take even in a given context, neither do we necessarily distinguish various terms from one another when they occur in different contexts. For example, the terms “criteria” and “standard” are often used interchangeably. Criteria can mean properties or characteristics. (Sadler, 2007, p. 388) Compare this with Brookhart (2018, p. 1), who was writing from an American perspective and observed that: A rubric articulates expectations for student work by listing criteria for the work and performance level descriptions across a continuum of quality …. Thus, a rubric has two parts: criteria that express what to look for in the work and performance level descriptions that describe what instantiations of those criteria look like in work at varying quality levels, from low to high. This is clearly a problematic and context-specific area, and beyond the scope of this interlude to provide a simple and straightforward response with regard to the assessment 471

Martin Fautley

of composing, but nonetheless it is again worthwhile for music educators to consider. For formative assessment of the composing process, it is quite likely that criteria are tacit rather than written. This can often be the case with higher level composing in the university and the conservatory. For high-school purposes, where public examinations are entered, there may well be published criteria that the examination board employs. For younger pupils and students, teachers frequently have to produce their own criteria for composing. This can be no easy task: Writing good criteria that do not trivialise what is being assessed is difficult. As written criteria look authoritative and then tend to be treated as the right criteria, if they have not been well-conceived, clearly this causes all kinds of problems. (Freeman & Lewis, 1998, p. 20) Writing general criteria for use in classrooms is not easy. Specific instances are available, including Brophy (2000) in the USA, and Daubney and Fautley (2014) in the UK. As criteria are likely to depend very much on the various elements of what is being taught and learned, why it is being taught and learned, and the age range or level of the learners, producing definitive international criteria for composing is an elusive prospect. The English experience of assessment of composing in classrooms, where it is part of the statutory National Curriculum, has been that teachers have found it problematic to devise their own assessment criteria for lower secondary school students which are both valid and reliable, and at the same time straightforward to administer. In the upper-secondary school, students normally follow external examination syllabi, and these delineate composing assessments. However, these are more specialist, in that music is an elective subject, but teachers still find it problematic to assess work done in classrooms (Devaney, 2019, 2022). There is also considerable assessment backwash onto the curriculum, with teachers preparing children for examinations quite early in their schooling, and with this being, in some instances, composing for examinations, rather than composing with intentionality arising from the ideas that the students have themselves. From this experience, a message for the international community is that, even when composing figures on the statutory curriculum for all pupils, this does not mean that associated teaching, learning, and assessment will be unproblematic or systematized in the same way in different schools and with different teachers.

Concluding remarks Hopefully this interlude has helped with both framing and problematizing issues surrounding assessment of composing in education so that readers can think about potential what and why issues from their own perspectives and can react according to each individual situation and context. In a similar fashion, this interlude has deliberately not dealt with specialist aspects of composition assessment in conservatories and music colleges, for example, as in these situations many of the problematic areas outlined herein will have been dealt with by careful consideration of module or program requirements. This is not to say that assessment of composing and composition at those higher levels is entirely unproblematic – far from it – but that in these circumstances such assessments are likely to be predicated on a different basis, with specialist modules and programs designed specifically to deal with this. What this interlude has tried to show is that assessment of composing is a difficult area in education, particularly at the junior and high-school stages, and that it requires careful thought by the teachers and educators concerned.

472

The place of assessment in teaching and learning composing

Notes 1 For this the various proceedings of the international symposium on assessment in music education edited by Timothy S. Brophy and published by GIA (Chicago) are a good source of up-to-date information. 2 In previous iterations of the English National Curriculum, these interrelated dimensions had been referred to as the “elements of music,” a terminology which remains in quotidian usage.

References Airasian, P. (1991). Classroom assessment. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Nuffield Foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/beyond_blackbox.pdf Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144. Blanchard, J. (2009). Teaching, learning and assessment. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3(22), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022 Brophy, T. S. (2000). Assessing the developing child musician: A guide for general music teachers. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Brophy, T. S. (2019). Assessment in music education: The state of the art. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education (Vol. 2, pp. 904–931). New York, NY: Oxford UP. Colwell, R. (2007). Music assessment in an increasingly politicized, accountability-driven educational environment. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), Assessment in music education. Integrating theory and practice. Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on assessment in music education. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Colwell, R., & Richardson, C. P. (2002). The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the music educators national conference. New York, NY: Oxford UP. Daubney, A., & Fautley, M. (2014). The national curriculum for music: An assessment and progression framework. ISM (Incorporated Society of Musicians). http://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/7003/1/ An_Assessment_and_Progression_Framework_Primary_Music.pdf Devaney, K. (2019). ‘Waiting for the wow factor’: Perspectives on computer technology in classroom composing. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 12(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1386/ jmte_00002_1 Devaney, K. (2022). Investigating how composing teaching and assessment in English secondary school classrooms reinforce myths about composers and their creative practices. British Journal of Music Education, 40(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051722000134 Department for Education (DfE). (2013a). Music programmes of study: Key stage 2. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239037/PRIMARY_ national_curriculum_-_Music.pdf Department for Education (DfE). (2013b). Music programmes of study: Key stage 3. https://www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239088/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Music.pdf Elliott, D. J., Silverman, M., & McPherson, G. E. (2019). Philosophical and qualitative perspectives on assessment in music education: Introduction, aims, and overview. In D. J. Elliott, M. Silverman, & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophical and qualitative assessment in music education (pp. 2–26). New York, NY: Oxford UP. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190265182.013.1 Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford: Oxford UP. Fautley, M., & Colwell, R. (2012). Assessment in the secondary school classroom. In G. Welch & G. McPherson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 478–494). New York, NY: Oxford UP. Freeman, R., & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and implementing assessment. London: Kogan Page. Gardner, J. (Ed.). (2012). Assessment and learning (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. London: Ashgate.

473

Martin Fautley Koretz, D. M. (2009). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Lebler, D., Carey, G., & Harrison, S. D. (2015). Assessment in music education: From policy to practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Mantie, R. (2019). The philosophy of assessment in music education. In T. S. Brophy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education (Vol. 1, p. 33). New York, NY: Oxford UP. McPhail, G. J. (2017). Powerful knowledge: Insights from music’s case. The Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1358196 Philpott, C. (2007). Assessment in music education. In C. Philpott & G. Spruce (Eds.), Learning to teach music in the secondary school (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Philpott, C. (2012). Assessment for self-directed learning in music education. In C. Philpott & G. Spruce (Eds.), Debates in music teaching (pp. 153–168). Abingdon: Routledge. Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701592097 Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. London: Routledge. Swanwick, K. (1998). The perils and possibilities of assessment. Research Studies in Music Education, 10(1), 1–11. Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404.

474

31 THE PLACE AND VALUE OF COMPOSITION IN THE MUSIC CURRICULUM IN SCOTLAND Angela Jaap

Summary Composition has come a long way as part of the musical learning experience in Scotland; its inclusion as one of the three core areas of the music curriculum has been positive, providing space for children and young people to respond to sounds around them and to express their thoughts and feelings through creating their own music. However, while there has been great progress in terms of presence and visibility of composition within the curriculum, it remains an area of contention for practitioners, with many pointing to difficulties in delivering composition lessons in addition to a lack of knowledge and understanding around assessment of the creative process and product. To ensure that composition remains part of the core music curriculum, there is a need to ensure that teachers have access to high-quality professional learning which fosters confidence in this area and encourages them to develop the appropriate pedagogical skills to teach composition as part of the curriculum.

Introduction In Scotland, the creative industries make a significant contribution to the national economy, with over five billion pounds generated annually through creative pursuits (Scottish Government, 2018a). Given the contribution to the nation’s wealth and reputation, the creative industries are deemed by the Scottish government to be one of six growth sectors where Scotland “has a distinct comparative advantage” (Scottish Government, 2018b). As part of the creative industries, music adds greatly to the country’s cultural identity, attracting visitors and students from around the world who are keen to gain experience of and participate in a rich and vibrant creative arts sector. In terms of formal music education in Scotland, the landscape is equally colorful, with a host of broad and diverse opportunities available nationwide from early years through to tertiary education. The What’s Going On Now? (Broad et al., 2019) project identified a range of music education and youth music-making experiences in Scotland, with the project pointing to a real appreciation and understanding of the value of learning with and through music. Indeed, such is the vibrancy of music learning and education opportunities in Scotland, the final report states which great confidence that “music education is a universal good at which Scotland excels” (Broad et al., 2019, p. 6). DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-42

475

Angela Jaap

From the What’s Going on Now? report and analysis of wider educational data available in Scotland, it is evident that many children and young people are engaging with formal musical learning opportunities within school, including: 60,326 pupils participating in instrumental music lessons in session 2017–18 (Improvement Service, 2018); stability in the number of pupils being presented for National Qualifications (NQs) in secondary school, with Advanced Higher, advanced qualifications, usually taken in the sixth year of high school or at college, being the sixth most popular subject of study with 1,712 candidates in 2017–18 (Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2019); and approximately 244,000 children accessing music-based activities through the Youth Music Initiative (YMI) (Broad et al., 2019, p. 5). These figures reflect the whole-scale philosophical change in music education in the country, moving from a model perceived to be for the musically highly able to one where learning experiences are pupil-centered; promoting development of interest in the subject, involving more solo and group performance, and, encouragingly, supporting pupils to create – or compose – their own music. This chapter will explore the key developments in the music curriculum in Scotland over the last 60 years, specifically the increasing visibility and presence of composition within the curricula. It will also examine the current curricular structures, expectations, and requirements around composition for pupils studying at NQ level and the challenges which may arise. Finally, some implications for composition in the music curriculum will be discussed, with suggestions for future directions.

Developments in the school music curriculum in Scotland In Scotland, a range of terms have been utilized, somewhat interchangeably, to describe the act/process of composing, arranging, and improvisation by pupils, teachers, and in curriculum documentation. The 1980s saw a lean toward the term “inventing” prevail across curricula developments and resources until the 2000s; however, the language gradually moved back to composition and composing with the introduction of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) in 2010 and the revised NQ. The term “composition” as part of the music curriculum in Scotland encompasses a range of creative musical competencies, including the exploration, development, and creation of new musical work and ideas, arranging, and improvisation. The sheer breadth of skills that the component covers leads to it being recognized as a key feature of schoolbased music learning for children and young people, having been deemed by policy makers as being a worthy creative pursuit which can “inform and enhance their [pupils’] understanding of performing and listening to music” (Byrne, MacDonald, & Carlton, 2003, p. 277). From analysis of curriculum policy documentation since the early 20th century, it is evident that composition as part of the core musical learning experience for pupils in Scotland has never been as prevalent; indeed, such is the place of composition in the music curriculum today, it is difficult to comprehend a time where such activities did not feature within a music department’s curriculum. Through CfE, Scotland’s national curriculum for children and young people from ages 3 to 18, teachers are encouraged to foster learners’ interest in music through designing musical learning activities that let pupils develop new performing and creating skills, “explor[ing] sounds and musical concepts, and us[ing] their imagination to create musical ideas and compositions” (Scottish Government, 2008, p. 9). While building on pupils’ interests and abilities when designing learning experiences is commonplace in classrooms nationwide, this approach has not always been encouraged through previous curricular structures. Indeed, prior to the publication of the seminal Curriculum Paper 16: Music in Scottish Schools (Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum, 1978), music education in Scotland was largely perceived to be for musically highly able pupils, i.e., 476

The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland

those pupils who were likely to be considering further specialized music education and training within the university and/or conservatory context. Music was available for the wider pupil population but, even since the early 20th century, would serve as a means of socialization and “recreation” (Scotch Education Department, 1909, p. 1); one which promoted the virtues of the subject as a means of nurturing the values for life, for positive health and well-being, and in encouraging pupils to develop a wider appreciation of the subject through performance, generally singing and extensive aural training. In the secondary school curriculum, there was scope for creative activities but, again, these were largely teacher-led activities consisting of exercises in harmonization, counterpoint, and analysis of traditional Western forms of classical music. As such, the uptake for musical activities beyond the basic curriculum offered in primary school and early years of secondary school (S1–S3, ages 11–14) was low; the activities contained within the curriculum were seen to be too distant and remote from the lives of most pupils, simply reinforcing a constricted view of musicianship for the few and not for all. Indeed, there was little or no reference made to the value of pupils participating in and creating their own music until the publication of the Primary Education in Scotland (also known as the Primary Memorandum) in the 1960s (Scottish Education Department, 1966).

A shift to pupil-centered learning: music for all Unlike its predecessors, the Primary Memorandum made a more concerted effort to include creative work (Scottish Education Department, 1966, p. 181), which includes the making of music, in the primary curriculum. In the chapter on music, acknowledgement is made toward the natural urge young children have to create their own music, noting that they should be encouraged through the learning experiences of the curriculum to channel these innate interests. The memorandum detailed that pupils should be “given scope to invent their own rhythms and melodies” (Scottish Education Department, 1966, p. 181) using their voice and/or basic tuned and untuned percussion instruments, with teachers encouraging the older and musically more able pupils to “‘compose’ simple rhythmic or melodic figures…” (Scottish Education Department, 1966, pp. 181–2) which could accompany, for example, simple folk tunes. This is an interesting distinction implied within the memorandum; inventing was considered to be a simple and accessible creative activity for all learners, with composing deemed a more detailed pursuit requiring a greater comprehensive understanding of music and/or musicianship. The Primary Memorandum also served as a foundation for further curricula change, with the period 1978–2000 deemed as one of the most radically progressive times in music education in Scotland (Davies, 2008; Sheridan, 1999). The publication of Curriculum Paper 16: Music in Scottish Schools (Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum, 1978) provided a seismic shift in philosophy in music education in Scotland, acting as a watershed between the largely Western, classical-dominated curriculum of the past to the promotion of a new, more ability-inclusive curriculum which would promote music for all (HM Inspectors of Schools, 1998; O’Dowd, 2008). Curriculum Paper 16, which was for both the primary and secondary sectors, reflected a wider educational shift toward child-centered learning but musically aimed to build and develop interest in the subject for more children as opposed to being seen as a subject for the musically highly able (Davies, 2008). This message of music being for all was evident from the outset of the document, with teachers in both sectors challenged to introduce practical music-making activities for their pupils; developing creative music projects to enrich and enlighten pupils’ musical experiences (Sheridan, 1999) and incorporating their pupils’ abilities and interests in a way that previous curricula had not. 477

Angela Jaap

While creating and composing were not necessarily new concepts at the time of publication of Curriculum Paper 16, it again acknowledged creative work (inventing) as a worthy pursuit for all learners and posited it on equal par with performance and listening within the curricular structures. Engaging with inventing could provide a range of personal benefits for learners, including acting as a vehicle for self-expression, allowing them space to develop their own pieces of music, experiment with sound, technology, and recording devices, as well as acquire an understanding of musical structure to help enrich their appreciation of music as a whole.

Comprehensive musicianship: performing, inventing and listening The developments contained in Curriculum Paper 16 were largely well received by generalist primary teachers and subject specialist secondary music teachers alike (Davies, 2008; Sloggie & Ross, 1985). The new philosophy contained within the paper, including the move toward a more practical, experiential learning experience for pupils, required teachers to take a “root and branch” review (Sheridan, 1999, p. 536) of their teaching approaches and curricula. As a result, Curriculum Paper 16 would become the main stimulus and driver of change in music education for the years that followed. In light of this review of practice and curriculum, the Standard Grade framework, for young people aged approximately 15–16 years of age, was introduced and charged with replacing the previous Ordinary Grade curriculum in 1988. The design of Standard Grade music built on the groundwork of Curriculum Paper 16, aspiring to cater for all abilities in the class and to “promote [m]usic as a medium within aesthetic education that could involve pupils in performing, creating and in expressing ideas, moods and emotions through [m]usic” (Scottish Examination Board, 1988). Utilizing three ability levels of Foundation, General, and Credit, Standard Grade music would provide more solo and group performance opportunities for pupils, more active learning activities to develop their listening skills, and space within the coursework to support the development of skills for inventing. Now firmly established as an equal to performance and listening, the Standard Grade Arrangements in Music (Scottish Examination Board, 1988) points to the value that participating in inventing activities could bring to deepening knowledge and understanding in the other two elements (performance and listening) of the music curriculum. For the inventing element of the Standard Grade music curriculum, pupils were not required to produce “something profound or original” (Scottish Examination Board, 1988, p. 10) but through the coursework would develop the skills which would help them to create a musical piece which would explore their own diverse feelings and ideas. As a result, there was now a much broadened concept of what constituted inventing coursework; with teachers supporting and encouraging pupils to produce a variety of creative projects, arrangements, and improvisations as part of their final submission. The Scottish Examination Board considered that the new Standard Grade music framework would allow for a “lack of uniformity” (Scottish Examination Board, 1988, p. 10) in the style and presentation of the inventing coursework which could, in terms of the Standard Grade music arrangements, “make musical invention so remarkable” (Scottish Examination Board, 1988, p. 10). The increased breadth and variety of opportunities available for pupils made Standard Grade music an exceptional success (Sheridan, 1999); yet, while the reception toward Standard Grade music was largely positive, there were areas of challenge for teachers, particularly around the compulsory teaching and assessment of inventing (Davies, 2008). To fulfil the aims and expectations of the Standard Grade curriculum, teachers were now encouraged to design active learning activities and coursework which would help to realize the aims of “imaginative 478

The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland

response” (Scottish Examination Board, 1988, p. 10) – a distinct move from previous curricular expectations.

Inventing and the introduction of technology The 1990s saw the development of two aspects of the curriculum in Scotland; the 5–14 National Guidelines which catered for pupils between primary and the first two years of secondary school, and Higher Still, which would incorporate the certificated music curriculum from S5 and S6 (ages 16–18). Within the 5–14 National Guidelines Expressive Arts (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992), music was one of four subjects which comprised the expressive arts, the others being art, drama, and physical education. A strong feature of the 5–14 National Guidelines was the active and experiential structure of the music curriculum. In music, pupils were encouraged to participate in experiments and investigations by using the voice and instruments to respond to sounds around them. Inventing and creating, particularly under the second attainment outcome (expressing feelings, ideas, thoughts, and solutions), provided the foundations for pupils to be involved in “composition, in the making of arrangements, and in spontaneous improvisation” (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992, p. 6). While the 5–14 Expressive Arts Guidelines did provide a smoother transition for pupils into Standard Grade music, unlike previous curricula, there were no suggestions for teaching approaches or activities which could support learners with their inventing. Instead, through the attainment outcomes, it aimed to provide teachers with more space to exert their professional judgment (Davies, 2008). Given their understanding of the Standard Grade curriculum framework for secondary school music teachers, developing such strategies in S1 and S2 would likely be easier than for the generalist primary teacher, whose professional decisions were likely to rest on their own confidence and efficacy in the subject. In terms of upper school, the development of Higher Still in the mid-to-late 1990s brought further curriculum reform, promoting progression across the ability range from “basic” (Access 1) to “most difficult” (Advanced Higher), and increased use of formative and summative approaches to assessments both internal to the school and external (Murphy, 2015; Raffe, 2015). In terms of music, the Higher Still framework firmly established inventing as one of the three core areas of the music curriculum. Once again, the language of inventing within the support documentation for Higher Still utilized “composition” and “inventing” interchangeably, but regardless of the terminology applied, inventing was to be seen as the principal means of creative musicianship; a place in the curriculum for young people to express themselves through original pieces of work, arrangements, and/or improvisations, allowing them to draw upon and develop musical concepts, to learn and apply compositional techniques and to understand inventing as both a process and a product (Higher Still Development Unit, 1999, pp. 2–3). Another factor began to influence curriculum development: technology. The growth of technology and recording facilities available to schools opened new opportunities for the delivery of the music curriculum, including inventing. The development and implementation phase of Higher Still music, which would cover the S3–S6 (ages 14–16) period of study, coincided with the wide range of music technology software programs, such as Sibelius and Cubase, which could facilitate inventing in the classroom, increasing its accessibility for pupils (Sheridan, 1999). Likewise, the growth of both software and hardware opened additional possibilities for each school, with the Higher Still documentation also incorporating the opportunity for pupils to learn techniques and skills associated with multitracking, MIDI, 479

Angela Jaap

sequencing, arranging, and improvisation as part of their musical education. (Higher Still Development Unit, 1999). It is largely accepted that Higher Still increased options and opportunities for inventing as part of the music curriculum, providing a place for inventing through its inclusion in coursework and subsequently the requirement for assessment. Through support materials such as the Music Advice on Composing Teacher’s Resource Pack (Higher Still Development Unit, 1999), teachers were encouraged to create practical activities which would integrate the three elements of performing, inventing, and listening “already familiar to teachers” (Higher Still Development Unit, 1999, p. 12). These practical activities “should provide opportunities for candidates to acquire knowledge and a practical understanding of musical concepts” (Higher Still Development Unit, 1999, p. 12) with space for learners to share through group performance. While designing and implementing practical types of activities were familiar to music teachers, this aspect still proved to be a challenge (O’Dowd, 2008; Sheridan & Byrne, 2003). While assessment of inventing would provide status and value, it required a “radical change” (Sheridan & Byrne, 2003, p. 575) in terms of how it was taught. In previous curricula, attainment for inventing at Higher level was low in comparison with levels in performance and listening; through Higher Still, teachers were expected to address this. However, for inventing to be successful in the curriculum requires time and resources; likewise, there is also a need for a certain working level of skills, knowledge, and understanding in addition to an exposure to a wide range of musical experiences (O’Dowd, 2008). While O’Dowd points to these attributes as being important for pupils, arguably they would be equally applicable for teachers.

Current curricular structures in music education in Scotland Music education in Scotland has been on an interesting journey, moving from a largely teacher-led, passive subject to a pupil-centered subject which embodies and embraces an experiential approach to learning and teaching. Within the curriculum content, composition, as it is now termed in curriculum and assessment documentation, is now firmly established as a valuable element of the school-based music experience in Scotland, and this value continues to be seen in the current curricula frameworks: CfE, which covers preschool to the end of mandatory education in secondary school, and the NQs, the examination framework for pupils in approximately S3–S6 of secondary school. Both CfE and the NQs continue the evolution of previous years, keeping pupil-centered learning at the fore and incorporating a wider range of resources than ever before. One of the key drivers in the curricula is technology, which adds a further dimension and accessibility to the creative activities within the classroom. The increasing range of software, apps, and portable devices can help to bridge the “gap” between pupils’ own musical worlds and those of the classroom. Likewise, the use of music-specific technology, indeed the presence of music technology as a subject, can again broaden the appeal of music to pupils and encourage more accessibility for pupils with a range of different abilities and needs. Within CfE, this is best exemplified in the overview to music-specific Experiences and Outcomes, noting that curriculum-based musical learning activities should afford pupils the chance to develop new performing and creating skills, “explore sounds and musical concepts, and use their imagination and skills to create musical ideas and compositions” and to “use ICT to realize or enhance their composition and performance, and to promote their understanding of how music works” (Scottish Government, 2008, p. 9). 480

The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland

National qualifications The NQs were developed in 2014 to replace the qualification framework from S3 to S6. While there would be similarities in terms of course content, the NQs introduced a revised Higher and Advanced Higher program of study. In music, the course content still contained composition within each of the levels from National 4 to Advanced Higher. Learners would be expected to “create original music and review the composing process” (Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2018a, p. 12) with an expectation, at National 5 and Higher, for pupils to create one piece of Music which would allow exploration and development of ideas which would be accompanied by a score, recording, and a composing review which would identify the strengths and areas for developments of the piece of work. The expectations of the National 5 and Higher composition assignment are largely similar: both comprise 15% of the final coursework grade; both require engagement with melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, and structure, with National 5 expecting use of at least three of these components within the composition, with a Higher composition utilizing at least four, one of which must be harmony. Unlike National 5, which does not have a time limit, the Higher assignment stipulates that the piece submitted should last between 1 minute and 3 minutes 30 seconds in length. From Session 2019–20, Advanced Higher pupils will be expected to undertake a similar creative project. As part of this assignment, they will be expected to compose a piece of music which would utilize all five components (melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, and structure) and last for a maximum of 4 minutes 30 seconds. In Session 2017–18, the National 5 composition assignment would be externally assessed by the SQA. This would be followed by Higher in Session 2018–19 and Advanced Higher in 2019–20.

Future directions of composition within the curriculum in Scotland As noted elsewhere in this chapter, the increasing presence of composition as part of the music curriculum in Scotland is a positive one, yet it is not without its challenges. At different points in this chapter, these challenges have been identified, including teacher confidence, assessment, and resources, to name but a few. This section of the chapter will explore three challenges:

• The role of the teacher, including identity. • Professional learning. • Assessment. Role of the teacher With the growth in pupil-led learning and as the presence of composition in the music curriculum has increased, the more important the role of the teacher has become. In terms of wider curriculum implementation, teachers are increasingly viewed as “agents of change” and “professional developers of the curriculum” (Priestley, Minty, & Eager, 2014, p. 189); as such they must be able to comprehend the requirements and expectations of the curriculum and be able to utilize the appropriate knowledge and skills to apply the changes in practice (Young, 2012). With a music curriculum which encourages practitioners to be creative in their pedagogical approaches, the role of a professional developer may bring challenges, some practical and some philosophical. From a philosophical standpoint is teacher identity. In Scotland, teachers are expected to utilize the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s (GTCS) Standards for Registration 481

Angela Jaap

(General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2021) to reflect upon their teaching identity and their professional beliefs and values. As a music teacher, there is an additional layer to reflect upon – the teacher’s identity as a musician (Hallam, 2006b). These underpinning philosophical beliefs and values around one’s efficacy as both a musician and as a teacher, whether articulated or not, can shape a practitioner’s teaching approaches and their musical self-esteem (Barnes, 2001). From a teaching perspective, this is important: the way in which a music teacher perceives themselves musically, i.e., the degree of their own musical skills, knowledge, and understanding, influences their views about, and definitions of, musical ability in their pupils and subsequently how they devise learning experiences as part of the curriculum (Jaap, 2011). If this is explored in relation to composition, the element of the curriculum that teachers are most likely to experience the greatest challenge (Byrne et al., 2003; Hallam, 2006b; Odam, 2000), teachers may find it difficult to consider themselves a “composer” (Lewis, 2012). The findings from Lewis’s (2012) study are not new per se, but they are useful at reinforcing the findings of earlier studies that show teachers tended to have very fixed constructs of who could be a composer, who could teach composition, and what should be the basis of a composition learning activity (Byrne et al., 2003; Gebbie, 1984; Hallam, 2006a, 2006b). If previous curricula have attempted to challenge the thinking of who was or could be a musician, then these curricula (CfE and the NQs) – and all that follow from this point forward – should support pupils and teachers in critically reflecting upon the question, “Who is a composer?” There is a need for teachers not only to challenge their own constructs of teaching and musicianship but also to challenge and critique who is and can be musically creative – realizing that they, too, are able to make music (Barnes, 2001).

Professional learning In terms of practical challenges and supporting the development of creative skills for composition, there is still work to be done. There have been inroads toward addressing the development of music-specific pedagogical skills, namely within the Initial Teacher Education (ITE) phase of study. The ITE phase is the period of professional degree study for a student seeking to teach in Scotland. This consists either of a four-year professional undergraduate degree program (i.e., a BEd Primary, BA Primary Education, MEduc Primary or concurrent degree such as the BEd Music for a specialist degree as a secondary school music teacher) or oneyear, professional Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) in either Primary or Secondary (specialist) for students who already have completed an undergraduate program of study. The ITE phase of a teacher’s professional learning aims to support the development of the core pedagogic skills a practitioner will be required to teach. However, in what is already a timeconstrained, intensive period of study, it can be difficult to ensure that student teachers have access to the appropriate range of learning experiences to aid the development of these more specialized, discipline-specific skills. In terms of the development of music-specific skills, students studying on a BEd (Primary) or PGDE (Primary) will have some general, entry-level music-making activities to aid them as they deliver the CfE Music Experiences and Outcomes. For those students in BEd (Music) or PGDE (Music) programs, where students are specializing as music teachers, they are likely to have experienced some form of creative music-making experience as a learner and also be supported in developing the basic skills in supporting their pupils to create. This, however, for both generalists and specialists, is only the initial phase of teacher education, and in a country which values career-long professional learning, more music-specific professional learning opportunities should be accessible for all teachers. 482

The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland

There is a need to provide teachers with access to further support and study across the teaching career in general terms, but there is also a music-specific requirement for professional learning that can help raise confidence and challenge any misconceptions regarding musicianship and composition. To realize this aim, a multi-partnership approach, which could provide practical, hands-on experience to foster confidence in teachers, would be a meaningful step forward. This is also shared by Hallam (2006a) and, more recently, albeit with a preference in the creation of physical resources, in the What’s Going on Now? (Broad et al., 2019) project. There is scope for a collaborative approach between the education (general) and musicspecific bodies in the country in providing further study and support for teachers. Collaboration among Education Scotland, the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA), and Scottish Association of Music Educators (SAME), in addition to the ITE providers, is essential to ensure that all future and current practitioners have access to high-quality professional learning to upskill their abilities in composition.

Assessment The development and implementation of Standard Grade in the late 1980s led to “inventing” being an assessed element of the music curriculum. As such, teachers expressed concerns regarding both delivery and the assessment of this component of the curriculum. Even today, 30 years after the development of Standard Grade music, the assessment of pupils’ creative work via compositions still poses a challenge for teachers. Is it a lack of knowledge of how to assess in an area which a teacher is already uncertain about? Or is it due to ambiguous criteria and how these align for the evaluation of creative outputs? Arguably, it could be a combination of both. Deutsch (2016), in his article, highlights several challenges around assessment of composition, largely centering on the criteria used to assess. While a teacher may be impressed by the musical creativity and expression contained within pupils’ work and feel that it is musically appropriate, it may not align with the assessment criteria (Deutsch, 2016). Deutsch (ibid) proposes a move toward a more dynamic approach to assessment based on discussion and dialogue between the learner and teacher, which aims to gain insight into the pupils’ understanding of the process and their expressive intentions. An assessment approach based on discussion could be a useful way forward but may present additional issues, for example, the time commitment required to conduct in a meaningful way. There is a need for clarity around assessment guidelines and professional learning from the examination body to ensure appropriate implementation and support for pupils as they undertake their coursework. Sheridan (1999, p. 538) suggests that the inclusion of composition within the assessment process in the Scottish music curriculum gave it status and value, encouraging teachers to embrace it as part of what he terms as “comprehensive musicianship.” While there have been issues around assessment for composition if there is a no external assessment (or moderation), it may lead to a lack of motivation from teachers to teach and/ or pupils to experience creating music and may lead to it disappearing completely from the curricular structures. In the NQ structure, composition is assessed as part of the core coursework and, since 2018, is subject to external evaluation. There are some difficulties, not unlike the issues identified above, around this assessment process but it does ensure that the work is completed and that it is not removed from the curriculum. A useful place to start for music-specific professional learning could be assessment and teaching of composition. There is scope for a multi-partnership approach, i.e., with ITE providers and the SQA to devise professional learning activities which not only support the 483

Angela Jaap

upskilling of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge and understanding for composition but also provide room for understanding the assessment process for creative products. At present, the SQA does offer support through the Understanding Standards (Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2018b) materials, which are available for each subject on their website, but practical, experiential activities may be useful for supporting this process further and aiding transparency around examination expectations.

Conclusion The presence and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland is a positive one. Since the 1970s this creative component, with all of its interchanging terminology and labels, has evolved and developed considerably, moving from one highly based on replication of the Western classical style to a much valued and practical activity which acts as a means of selfexpression for learners and which encourages the celebration of uniqueness of style and diversity in presentation. The extent to which the incorporation of composition in the curriculum is successful is down to the most important resource: the teacher. It is the teacher who creates the conditions for successful learning, and if a teacher is unable to act as a “professional developer of the curriculum” (Priestley et al., 2014, p. 189), the less likely they will be able to engage and enthuse the learners in their classes. Likewise, if they do not challenge their own values and constructs, particularly around the identity of the composer, then the field of who can create narrows even further. Scotland has made great strides in raising the value and presence of composition as part of the core music curriculum; however, to ensure its continued growth, there is a need for teachers to be supported to enable the best outcomes for Scotland’s children. Teachers must be nurtured through high-quality professional learning to challenge their professional beliefs and values, to upskill their pedagogical knowledge and understanding and, most importantly, to grow their confidence and self-efficacy in this area.

Reflective questions 1 A number of challenges in the teaching of composition have been identified in this chapter. What do you consider to be the main challenges for the teaching of composition in the classroom and how can these be addressed? 2 A vast array of music technology software and hardware is becoming ever present in Music classrooms. How can music technology be used to facilitate the development of the knowledge and skills required for composition? 3 This chapter has highlighted the need for professional learning for teachers to develop the appropriate skills to teach composition. What could the professional learning look like and what role could teacher-led professional learning networks have in supporting teachers?

References Barnes, J. M. (2001). Creativity and composition in music. In C. Philpott & C. Plummeridge (Eds.), Issues in music teaching (pp. 92–104). London: Routledge. Broad, S., Hunter, K., Moscardini, L., Rae, A., Smillie, G., & Wilson, A. (2019). What’s Going on Now? Retrieved from: https://www.rcs.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Whats-Going-On-Now-report.pdf Byrne, C., MacDonald, R., & Carlton, L. (2003). Assessing creativity in musical compositions: Flow as an assessment tool. British Journal of Music Education, 20(3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051702000220

484

The place and value of composition in the music curriculum in Scotland Davies, L. (2008). Curriculum change: An exploration of its impact upon school music in Scotland between 1978 and 2000. British Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265051707007735 Deutsch, D. (2016). Authentic assessment in music composition feedback that facilitates creativity. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115621608 Gebbie, C. (1984). Towards a creative approach in Scotland – A personal experience. British Journal of Music Education, 1(1), 38–47. General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2021). Standards for registration. Retrieved from https://www. gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-teachers/ Hallam, S. (2006a). Composing and improvising. In S. Hallam (Ed.), Music psychology in education (pp. 70–90). London: Institute of Education. Hallam, S. (2006b). Teachers and teaching. In S. Hallam (Ed.), Music psychology in education (pp. 165–178). London: Institute of Education. Higher Still Development Unit. (1999). Higher still support materials: Music – Advice on composing teacher’s resource pack. Edinburgh: Higher Still Development Unit. HM Inspectors of Schools. (1998). Effective learning and teaching in Scottish secondary schools: Music. Edinburgh: HM Inspectors of Education. Improvement Service. (2018). Instrumental music services: Results from the IMS survey May–July 2018. Retrieved from https://www.improvementservice.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/10723/IMSSurvey-Report-2018.pdf Jaap, A. S. (2011). Recognising and developing musical gift and talent (Doctoral dissertation). University of Glasgow. Retrieved from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2994/ Lewis, R. (2012). Composing the curriculum: Teacher identity. British Journal of Music Education, 29(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000198 Murphy, D. (2015). Comprehensive schooling in Scotland, 1965–2015. In D. Murphy, L. Croxford, C. Howieson, & D. Raffe (Eds.), Everyone’s future: Lessons from fifty years of Scottish comprehensive schooling (pp. 2–38). London: Institute of Education Press. Odam, G. (2000). Teaching composing in secondary schools: The creative dream. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000218 O’Dowd, J. (2008). Music education. In T. G. K. Bryce & W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education third edition: Beyond devolution (3rd ed., pp. 534–539). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Priestley, M., Minty, S., & Eager, M. (2014). School-based curriculum development in Scotland: Curriculum policy and enactment. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14681366.2013.812137 Raffe, D. (2015). The post compulsory stage. In D. Murphy, L. Croxford, C. Howieson, & D. Raffe (Eds.), Everyone’s future: Lessons from fifty years of Scottish comprehensive schooling (pp. 89–109). London: Institute of Education Press. Scotch Education Department. (1909). Memorandum on the teaching of music in Scottish primary schools. Edinburgh: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum. (1978). Curriculum paper 16: Music in Scottish schools. Edinburgh: HMSO. Scottish Education Department. (1966). Primary education in Scotland. Edinburgh: HMSO. Scottish Examination Board. (1988). Standard grade arrangements in music. Edinburgh: Scottish Examination Board. Scottish Government. (2008). Experiences and outcomes: Expressive arts. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. (2018a). Creative industries. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from https://www.gov.scot/ policies/creative-industries/ Scottish Government. (2018b). Growth sectors statistics. Retrieved July 17, 2019, from https://www2. gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/Publications/GrowthSectors/Database Scottish Office Education Department. (1992). Curriculum and assessment in Scotland national guidelines: Expressive arts 5–14. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education Department. Scottish Qualifications Authority. (2018a). Higher course specific: Higher music. Dalkeith: Scottish Qualifications Authority. Scottish Qualifications Authority. (2018b). Understanding standards: Music. Dalkeith: Scottish Qualifications Authority. Scottish Qualifications Authority. (2019). Annual statistical report: Advanced higher. Dalkeith: Scottish Qualifications Authority.

485

Angela Jaap Sheridan, M. (1999). Music education. In T. G. K. Bryce, W. M. Humes, D. Gillies, & A. Kennedy (Eds.), Scottish education (pp. 536–540). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sheridan, M., & Byrne, C. (2003). Music education. In T. G. K. Bryce & W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education: Second edition post devolution (2nd ed., pp. 575–579). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sloggie, J., & Ross, J. (1985). Music in Scottish secondary schools: Towards a new vision. British Journal of Music Education, 2(3), 267–277. Young, V. (2012). Professional development and music education. In C. Philpott & G. Spruce (Eds.), Debates in music teaching (pp. 242–258). London: Routledge.

486

32 PEDAGOGICAL MODELS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING MUSIC COMPOSITION IN HIGHER EDUCATION Practices and perspectives from Uganda Lawrence Branco Sekalegga Introduction Globally, the pedagogical paradigms of teaching and learning music composition in schools and universities have continued to spark interest among music educators. In Uganda, music curricula taught in schools are still largely based on a Eurocentric knowledge system. This Eurocentric teaching and knowledge given to students have dominated music curricula since 1960s. Indeed, there is limited incorporation of Indigenous systems in teaching concepts, philosophies, and aesthetics of music, and that in secondary as well as in tertiary level curriculum prescribed by the National Curriculum Development Center (NCDC) and National Council for Higher Education (NCHE). Consequently, the epistemological framework in which composition students in schools and universities learn and practice composition knowledge and practices still continues to follow a Western canon. In Uganda, the Christian church played a fundamental and ubiquitous role in the history of music education. Upon their arrival in 1870s, the missionaries settled in Buganda (central Uganda) where they established a base for their operations (Uzoigwe, 1982). Given the strong and well-established musical community they found in Buganda (Gray, 1995; Kigozi, 2008), the missionaries found it easy to introduce Western music culture, mostly in form of hymns based on Western models. As such, Christianity became the vehicle through which formal music education was introduced and established (Low, 2009Marsh, 1995). It could therefore be concluded that music education in Uganda started with the advent of missionaries and later migrated from its informal usage to formal spaces in schools. In this chapter, the researcher interrogates the discourses of composition pedagogy that are used at the undergraduate degree program in music by locating its centrality, functionality, and relevancy to students’ artistic and creative endeavors. Data for this chapter was gathered from a search of international literature on composition pedagogy. Perspectives and insights were also drawn from interviews with five composition teachers/music educators from Makerere University and Kyambogo University – the two universities that offer undergraduate

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-43

487

Lawrence Branco Sekalegga

music degree programs in Uganda. To give a contextual background to my discussion in this chapter, a brief discourse on the role of composition in schools in Uganda is necessary.

Composition in primary and secondary school in Uganda Generally, music education in Uganda is still viewed as a luxury, mainly for the wealthier locals who are able to pay for private music lessons. Many schools are reluctant to offer music as a subject in the classroom, arguing that it is expensive and generally a difficult subject. Furthermore, music is perceived as an area in which teachers have a low level of teaching efficacy as a result of inadequate training, lack of musical resources, and the perceived irrelevance of musical content (Kigozi, 2008). Even students who join teacher education programs have limited musical backgrounds and experience and, consequently, have low levels of confidence in their ability to teach music (Kigozi, 2016). These perceptions affect students in schools who would be interested in learning music. In order to mitigate these challenges, the National Curriculum Development Center (NCDC), which prescribes curricula for primary and secondary education levels revised the curricula of the primary and lower secondary level. Initially, music was taught as an independent subject. In the revised curricula, however, music was combined with dance and drama and placed under creative performing arts. The revised curricula, particularly at the lower primary level, emphasize the use of songs that can support student learning of academic concepts of all other subjects. At the secondary school level, students learn how to compose short melodies on a given text, harmonize simple melodies, and orchestrate or create a simple accompaniment. Since the inauguration of the new curricula, their implementation has been sporadic and varies widely from school to school (Kigozi, 2008) and they are only taught intermittently (Wabyona, 2021). The opportunities for students to learn how to compose in primary and secondary schools in Uganda are limited. The few available prospects for students to engage in composition processes are mainly through annual music, dance, and drama festivals, which are organized by the Ministry of Education at both district and national levels as part of extracurricular activities. In these festivals, students compete in composing music pieces in Western and African styles. Through active participation in the different aspects of music-making activities (Currie, Gibson, & Lam, 2020; Higgins, 2012; Higgins & Willingham, 2017), participants learn some important rudiments and theory that may guide and inspire sustained participation in music (Sekalegga, 2021).

The role of composition within the university context in Uganda In East Africa, Makerere University (one of the earliest higher institutions of learning, established in 1922) and Kyambogo University took center stage in the formation of early tertiary education (Mamdani, 2008). Kyambogo University started its Department of Music in 1964, under the guidance of Peter Cook, a British ethnomusicologist (Wabyona, 2021). In 1971, Makerere University established its Department of Music, Dance and Drama, but only employed Western trained music teachers (Kigozi, 2008; Sekalegga, 2021). Since then, the existing curriculum and programs of teacher education remain heavily focused on Western education philosophies (Kamuntu, 2002; Kigozi, 2008; Sekalegga, 2021). In higher education, there are limited numbers of teachers who majored in music composition studies at a graduate level. Most of the current music teachers have a Master of Arts degree, a PhD in Music Education and/or a doctoral degree in music (performance majors). Furthermore, there is currently no university in Uganda that offers a graduate program in 488

Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition

music composition. Because very few secondary schools in Uganda offer music education, many students who join the university to study music academically have limited musical skills and abilities. Therefore, the lack of graduate programs in music composition and professors of music composition at a graduate level limits its inclusion as a major learning component in the curriculum. Because many music students in higher education have had prior experiences or exposure to ethnic music performance, teachers tend to intersect and teach composition through improvisation as a creative process embedded in the one act of creation (Barrett, 1996; Davies, 1992; Elliott, 1995; Folkestad, 1998; Kratus, 1994; Lawrence, 1978; Loane, 1984; Marsh, 1995; Ward-Steinman, 2011; Webster, 1990). As such, composition students compose and orchestrate music in ethnic music styles as part of the degree requirements. Therefore, Ugandan ethnic music acts as a constant companion to teaching and learning composition in higher education in Uganda. So, while composing has received significant attention for music educators in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom (Hopkins, 2015), composition studies in Uganda are still an insignificant domain, and composition lacks an autonomous place in the curriculum. There is also little documented information about current practices in teaching composition in higher education in Uganda.

Situating Ubuntu philosophy as a pedagogical model In Uganda, music learning derives its pedagogies from the principle of Ubuntu, which represents different ways through which (African) people (individuals and communities) interact with, perceive, and learn music (Agawu, 1992; Kubik, 1968, 1994; Nzewi, 2001). Ubuntu emphasizes that a person is a person (human) through other people (Xulu, 2010). By placing value and significance on human existence as being-with-others (Gade, 2012; van Niekerk, 2007), Ubuntu prioritizes and celebrates the individual and communal relatedness in the way of doing, thinking, and being (Mabingo, 2018; Nzewi, 2001). With Ubuntu, “an individual is a person only through other people” (Herbst, de Wet, & Rijsdijk, 2005, p. 263), which emphasizes Africa’s integrated learning and Indigenous knowledge systems. Through community apprenticeship, Ubuntu symbolizes diverse methods through which African people perceive and learn music (Agawu, 1992; Nzewi, 2001). In the learning processes, Ubuntu allows synchronization and interaction with and guidance from “others” (learners/facilitators). It appears to position and justify music in Uganda as a performative object that is constructed through individual and communal interdependency (Sekalegga, 2021). Specific to collaborative music composing, Ubuntu helps participants to receive critical skills such as negotiation, compromise, and consensus (Luce, 2001). As already stated, Eurocentric methods are still predominant, and while Ubuntu is central in the informal music teaching and learning processes, it has not been fully incorporated both in schools and in institutions of higher learning. As such, music instruction in schools and universities in Uganda continues to follow a Western canon and place biases in adopting other alternative instructional designs that are native and local to a Ugandan music student.

Music composition at the university: Contextual background Out of approximately 24 chartered or licensed universities in Uganda, only about two universities offer undergraduate music programs as a degree course. The music programs mainly prepare students to become classroom music teachers and performers. At the undergraduate 489

Lawrence Branco Sekalegga

level, composition knowledge is taught as part of the general degree in music. This study, however, focuses on two universities (Makerere and Kyambogo) that offer an undergraduate degree in music and whose curriculum constitutes music performance, music theory, and composition courses. In these two universities, students admitted into a music program come with different prior music experiences and pursue a structured program which requires them to study specific courses. At Makerere University, for instance, courses are structured in such a way that they complement each other. For example, students learn ethnic dance to focus their understanding of how Indigenous learners study dance music. Students study composition through music theory and practice basic composition skills through writing fugues, inventions, and chorales. The curriculum also requires students to compose a song cycle, which connects with students’ acquired experiences of ethnic music since the song cycle composition uses African melodies and orchestration. See Table 32.1 for current major courses offered in music theory and composition at Makerere University. Several studies have shown that “composition” is considered to be far beyond the capabilities of an ordinary student because it is predominantly regarded as “innate” and therefore limited to the “gifted” students or those “special” students who gravitate toward composing (Webster, 2016). For instance, at Makerere University, only those students holding the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE), a certificate with music as subject, or have a diploma where they specialized in music, can opt for the academic music strand. With its two strands (i.e., popular music strand and academic music strand), the Bachelor of Arts degree in music at Makerere University offers training in the fields of music to students who have had prior background in music education as well as those who have not. Students with an academic music background are offered a more conventional, critical, and theoretical approach to the appreciation, composition, and performance of music and research. Students without an academic music background focus on training in popular and community music. Due to the differences in qualifications of prospectus music students, a composition syllabus is supposed to be developed in a manner that allows the gradual comprehension and consequential application of knowledge. According to Lwanga, a composition teacher, the composition syllabus should entail the simultaneous analytical, theoretical, and application dimensions that would enhance learning while doing (personal communication, April 2020). Nonetheless, the current curriculum used in higher education endeavors to incorporate African ethnic music training gives students an opportunity to question, relate, and apply African musical arts knowledge in terms of composition and performance. Table 32.1  Music theory and composition courses offered at Makerere University Year one MUS 1110: Elementary Harmony, Counterpoint and Ethnic Music Writing MUS 1201: Advanced Harmony, Counterpoint and Ethnic Music Writing Year two MUS 2101: Introduction to Writing Inventions and African Songs MUS 2220: Invention and African Song Cycle Writing Year three MUS 3111: Basics in Writing Fugue and African Song Cycle MUS 3201: Fugue and African Song Cycle Project

490

Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition

Perspectives from Ugandan music educators in higher institutions of learning Five music educators who teach music programs at Makerere and Kyambogo Universities, where young composers (students) have the opportunity to compose songs and other music pieces (both in Western and African styles), were interviewed and shared their perspectives concerning composition pedagogy. Perhaps because of their training in music theory, most of these teachers are more Eurocentric in their pedagogical choices. Many of them believed in giving students opportunities to write pieces/works using functional tonality and critically examined the semantics of atonal music. Teaching music composition has also been approached from an analytical perspective; challenging students to analyze particular compositions based on the stylistic approach at hand. According to the interviewed teachers, supervising students’ thought processes and approaches to music composition is critical in stimulating their creative processes. Many of these teachers derived their teaching approaches from the Ubuntu paradigm, since most students come to class with prior exposure to the most simplistic ideas of music. Consequently, they approached teaching composition through improvisation since many of the students have been introduced to improvisation through exposure to their traditional musics. As aptly affirmed by one composition teacher, “every individual can learn to compose, although at different level of sophistication” (personal communication, May 2020). When teaching composition in African style, composition teachers often leverage the traditional music materials already known to the students. Because many of these teachers first learned music through listening and imitating, they preferred to unpack the various composition elements from the aural to the written; the African oral tradition of music teaching and learning. This approach seemed laudable in visualizing how the music would be performed so as to inform several composition considerations. According to the music teacher from Kyambogo University, teaching composing should be approached through rudiments of music, including learning notes and note values, rhythm, time and key signature, staff/ stave, and fixed and relative pitches and intervals, phrasing, form, and cadences. Specific to African music composition, students need to first be taught the basic characteristics of African traditional music, such as the basic rhythmic patterns commonly found in specific ethnic zones of interest, so that they can easily analyze and later begin to compose melodies in the style of the ethnic group of interest. It appears, from the aforementioned composition educators’ perspectives, that composition pedagogy in higher education is as varied as teachers’ background training, students’ musical experiences and curriculum design.

Limitations to composition pedagogy Researchers have shown that the strategies of teaching composition as a field of study are not quite explicit (Carbon, 1986; Kaschub, 2016; Simon, 2019). As such, there still exist several limitations to composition pedagogy in Uganda’s higher education. First of all, the music curricula in higher education are highly compartmentalized into distinct courses such as music theory, aural skills, music history, piano proficiency courses, performance classes, and private studio instruction (Palmer, 2014). Also, the existing lack of plurality of music and learning styles of 21st-century global society (Palmer, 2014) requires flexibility in curriculum designs and pedagogical paradigms. Although a traditional composer can typically work alone, aiming at a totally new product, students usually find it challenging to create and accomplish novel and substantial composition projects. Another concern directly involves pedagogy of the various composition aspects. For instance, composing in Luganda (a tonal language spoken by people in central Uganda) requires 491

Lawrence Branco Sekalegga

negotiation since the language has close affiliation between song text and speech (Gray, 1995). So using Western harmonies and/or counterpoint to teach and compose in Luganda, in which text is considered the most important factor, requires reconciliation of pedagogy. In addition, teaching composition using Western approaches (e.g., scales, harmonies, forms) to a traditionally encultured Muganda (i.e., a person from Buganda, central Uganda) might be challenging. For instance, Gray (1995) observed that “a traditionally encultured Muganda would find singing a minor third easier than a major third as it is closer to one Kiganda tone and singing intervals of perfect 4ths or 5ths causes fewer problems because of their closeness in [terms of] pitch to the Kiganda scale” (p. 139). Furthermore, music composition in Uganda largely prioritizes acoustic composition over computer or electronic music composition due to a lack of qualified staff, adequate equipment, and studios. Without these tools and facilities, students are unable to experiment with their compositions and provide self-assessment. So, the lack of performance possibilities of students’ works is a demotivator for increased creativity. Also, although studies have indicated that the integration of improvisation and composition in music education methods is effective pedagogy (Palmer, 2014), the current curricula in the two universities leave very little room for this critical aspect. It was observed that there is limited conceptualization of what “composition” in the curriculum means. In other words, pedagogy does not seem to fit the new music trends to which a contemporary composition student is exposed. Similar to other creative disciplines (such as dance, applied theatre, and studio recording), composition pedagogy covers different ways teachers monitor the progress of learners. For instance, feedback – as an instructional strategy – facilitates students’ knowledge retention or action (Audia & Locke, 2003). Composition pedagogy, therefore, needs to follow Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of higher level thinking; remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. In Ugandan higher education, feedback is often fulfilled through performance of class projects, analysis of compositional works, composition projects, and examinations. Research has indicated that feedback can contribute positively to both social and academic responses or behaviors (Duke & Henninger, 1998; Price, 1983; Yarbrough & Price, 1989) and “their placement within an instructional sequence can have an effect on a student’s ability to accomplish a musical goal” (Henninger, Flowers, & Councill, 2006, p. 73). According to Gibbons (2004), feedback is sometimes verbal, visual, and kinesthetic – hands-on corporal demonstration. As such, weekly evaluations, according to Lwanga (personal communication, April, 2020), are a good basis of assisting those that still need to comprehend a given topic. Another limitation to composition pedagogy is centered on assessment. Music teachers tend to prioritize grading of the final compositions yet “the process and experience are ultimately more important than the quality of the final product” (Torres, 2017, p. 5). In addition, university students in Uganda have limited access to educational technologies in music that would support collaboration in an active learning environment. Perhaps pedagogy derived from available technology, such as digital notation software, sequencing, and looping software applications, can help composition students as well as music educators in higher education who feel uncomfortable teaching composition (Deemer, 2016).

Recommendations Although studies have shown that the idea of musical composition cannot be dissociated from the question of its pedagogical transfer (Arveiller, Bull, & Roads, 1982), composition pedagogy, curriculum design, and instruction processes in Uganda’s institutions of higher education are yet to acquire centrality and autonomy. The nature of complementarity between 492

Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition

Western and Ethnic pedagogies used in higher education should be inculcated and accentuated so as to give essence of interdependence between the two approaches. Composition teachers need to decolonize the teaching of composition and music theory and instead take cues from Indigenous music learning systems. Composition can be taught and done in several other genres and forms beyond the writing of fugues and inventions, as is the current practice at Makerere University. As observed by Torres (2017), it is important to allow students to compose in the style of their choosing, and to identify and encourage what they do well. It is crucial to train teachers appropriately to help them understand perspectives in music composition in both African and Western music dimensions. Emphasis should be made on music performance programs such as vocal, instrumental, and in all different styles, including popular and classical styles, on which composition students can base their creative processes. To inspire students into the art of composing and to create frameworks onto which they can develop creativity, the curriculum should provide opportunities to involve various role models when teaching composition (Baker, 2002; Simon, 2019). For example, a Ugandan student would relate easily to and pick inspiration from a musical example of a work written by his or her former colleague or teacher, possibly more than they would connect with “great composers” such as Johann Sebastian Bach. More so, organizing refresher courses for all teachers who teach composition in higher institutions of learning would inspire and equip composition tutors with new practical, creative, research, and pedagogical ideas. Through refresher courses, composition teachers would be willing to offer and facilitate creative activities involved in composition and improvisation (Hickey & Schmidt, 2019). Additionally, teachers should be retooled in modern approaches for teaching music composition using technological devices that enable quick comprehension of the art of composition (Louth, 2013). So, although teachers should prioritize compositional experiences (Stringham, 2016), teacher education programs should support teachers who struggle with incorporating composition in curricula and help them experience composition themselves and develop pedagogical skills related to a variety of specializations within the discipline of composition (Deemer, 2016). Relatedly, to effectively teach and appropriately engage students in a variety of composition styles, composers and/or music educators in higher education need to become not only performers and teachers, but also arrangers, composers, improvisers, musicologists, and theorists (Stringham, 2016). In addition to “inventions,” “fugues,” and “song cycles,” there is a need to include other options for composition, such as vocal solos, duets, trios, orchestration, and music for small ensembles, so as to inspire new creative alternatives. Inclusion of such projects would resonate with the current music trends and new genres that have been developed over time. It has been suggested that teaching composition calls for both teachers and learners to draw out compositional craftsmanship through divergent thinking (Randles and Sullivan (2013; Stringham, 2016). More so, tapping into improvisation processes, which are largely marginalized and least integrated into the curriculum (Palmer, 2014; Song, 2013), can help students understand and appreciate the parameters of composition processes. As noted by Torres (2017), a great deal of composition begins with improvisation. In fact, many musical traditions value creative music making in the form of composition and improvisation (Palmer, 2014; Stringham, Thornton, & Shevock, 2015). In other words, composition educators need to help their students dispense with the idea that Western music pedagogies are universal and absolute. When we reconcile the Western pedagogies with the Indigenous learning systems, we allow the Ubuntu view to partake in music composition processes and, as such, encourage studentcentered pedagogies that promote the historical, social, and cultural values and understanding of Ugandan composition students. 493

Lawrence Branco Sekalegga

Although the current curriculum provides an opportunity for students to compose African compositions such as an African song cycle,1 the approach is mostly Westernized and focused on Western musical idioms. It is also essential that we provide opportunities to composition students to compose, improvise, and perform music of others with creative intention (Webster, 2016) to help them develop enhanced composition craftsmanship.

Conclusions Perspectives on pedagogical models shared in this chapter underscore the need for composition educators to pursue further research into the rationalization and contextualization of pedagogical models that are culturally relevant to students’ academic, creative, and performance achievement. To inspire creative thinking through composition and new possibilities in the preparation of composition teachers (Menard, 2013), focus should be placed on the role of composition in music teacher education programs. By no means has it been suggested that composition is easy and that everyone can do it to a highly artistic level. However, it is my hope that the perspectives shared in this chapter will provide valuable musical insights that can inspire new curriculum design and pedagogical paradigms for enhanced students’ experiences and professional aspirations. By adapting and incorporating the diversified formal and informal pedagogies into the curriculum, students can deeply enhance their musical understanding. Additionally, composition pedagogy should explore social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and audio sharing sites like SoundCloud and Bandcamp to encourage interaction, collaborative/cooperative learning, listening, assessment, and feedback on student’s musical works. More research is needed to explore how composition educators in secondary school education solve problems related to composition pedagogy in their classrooms. Further studies should also question the pedagogy and its place in the transnationally, ethnically, and culturally diversified higher education in Uganda. Finally, as I look back at my early experience, where learning happened mostly through active participation (Dzansi, 2004; Kubik, 1968, 1994), I am now able to fully comprehend how social and cultural constructs influenced music-making processes. The pedagogy of creating music was largely rooted and modeled through the stories, games, and singing of folk songs that we collectively explored. I have also come to learn that the general music background of each student both in relation to their ability to perform, hear, and read, and the theory they have acquired in the past, plays a central role in determining the choice of composition pedagogies used. Despite the sustained use of Western music pedagogies, there is a growing interest by Ugandan music educators to revisit, tap into, and explore the Indigenous pedagogies or learning systems (Oehrle, 1993) so as to facilitate the culturally diversified student populace. As Simon (2019) has noted, as more musicians from diverse backgrounds enter music programs, the formal conventional classical instructional paradigms may be less assured. As composition teachers and/or music educators continue to explore pedagogy, the following pertinent question requires consideration: Should all students in higher education pursuing an undergraduate degree in music, including those who aspire to be film and media composers, electronic musicians, or pop musicians, be offered the same curriculum? There is perhaps no easy answer to this question but being open to new possibilities and being aware of the diversified student population can serve as a benchmark toward making better decisions in regard to music curriculum and pedagogy.

494

Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition

Reflective questions 1 Should all music composing students be subjected to the same composition curriculum? 2 How does one’s past experience influence composition pedagogic choices? 3 How should composition teachers and students leverage modern technologies?

Note 1 Where the main emphasis is on notational accuracy that is usually complicated to sing/perform and not as simple as they look on paper (Kubik, 1968).

References Agawu, K. (1992). Representing African music. Critical Inquiry, 18(2), 245–266. Arveiller, J., Bull, H.-L., & Roads, C. (1982). Comments on university instruction in computer music composition. Computer Music Journal, 6(2), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/3679681. Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Benefiting from negative feedback. Human Resource, Management Review, 13(4), 631–646. Barrett, M. (1996). Children’s aesthetic decision-making: An analysis of children’s musical discourse as composers [Doctoral Dissertation]. Monash University, Australia. Baker, T. (2002). The composers’ studio: An alternative model. College Music Symposium, 42, 9–19. Carbon, J. (1986). Toward a pedagogy of composition: Exploring creative potential. College Music Symposium, 26, 112–121. Currie, R., Gibson, J., & Lam, C. Y. (2020). Community music as intervention: Three doctoral researchers consider intervention from their different contexts. International Journal of Community Music, 13(2), 187–206. Davies, C. (1992). Listen to my song: A study of songs invented by children aged 5 to 7 years. British Journal of Music Education, 9(1), 19–48. Deemer, R. (2016). Reimagining the role of composition in music teacher education. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 41–45. Dzansi, M. (2004). Playground music pedagogy of Ghanaian children. Research Studies in Music Education, 22(1), 83–92. Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (1998). Effects of verbal corrections on student attitude and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 482–495. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters. Toward a new philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Folkestad, G. (1998). Musical learning as cultural practice as exemplifed in computer-based creative music-making. In B. Sunsin, G. E. McPherson, & G. Folkestad (Eds.), Children composing (pp. 97–134). Sweden: Lund University. Gade, C. B. N. (2012). What is Ubuntu? Different interpretations among South Africans of African descent. South African Journal of Philosophy, 31(3), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136. 2012.10751789. Gibbons, E. R. (2004). Feedback in the dance studio. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(7), 38–43. Gray, C. (1995). Compositional techniques in Roman Catholic Church music in Uganda. British Journal of Ethnomusicology, 4, 135–155. Henninger, J. C., Flowers, P. J., & Councill, K. H. (2006). Pedagogical techniques and student outcomes in applied instrumental lessons taught by experienced and pre-service American music teachers. International Journal of Music Education, 24(1), 71–84. Herbst, A., de Wet, J., & Rijsdijk, S. (2005). A survey of music education in the primary schools of South Africa’s Cape Peninsula. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(3), 260–283. https://doi. org/10.2307/3598684 Hickey, M., & Schmidt, C. (2019). The effect of professional development on music teachers’ improvisation and composition activities. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 222, 27–43. Higgins, L. (2012). Community music: In theory and in practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

495

Lawrence Branco Sekalegga Higgins, L., & Willingham, L. (2017). Introduction. Engaging in Community Music, 1–8. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315637952 Hopkins, M. (2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 405–424. Kamuntu, K. J. (2002). The state of music education in Ugandan schools: Selected schools in Kampala and Mpigi districts (Unpublished M. Mus Thesis). Makerere University. Kaschub, M. (2016). From the guest editor: Advancing composition in music education. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 24–25. Kigozi, B. (2008). An evaluation of music education on elementary schools in Buganda: A way forward [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria]. Kigozi, K. (2016, February 04). Music education in Uganda [Web log post]. Retrieved from http:// musicinafrica.net/music-education-uganda Kratus, J. (1994). The ways children compose. In H. Lees (Ed.), Musical connections: Tradition and change, Proceedings of the 21st World Conference of the International Society of Music Education (Auckland, New Zealand). Kubik, G. (1968). Music in Uganda: A brief report. African Music, 4(2), 59–62. Kubik, G. (1994). Theory of African music (Vol. 7). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lawrence, I. (1978) Composers and the nature of music education. London: Scolar Press. Loane, B. (1984). Thinking about children’s compositions. British Journal of Music Education, 1(3), 205–231. doi:10.1017/S0265051700000450 Louth, P. (2013). Examining instruction in MIDI-based composition through a critical theory lens. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.21.2.136. Low, D. A. (2009). Fabrication of empire: The British and the Uganda kingdoms, 1890–1902. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Luce, D. W. (2001). Collaborative learning in music education: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 20–25. Mabingo, M. B. (2018). Deconstructing pedagogies of African cultural heritage dances: Reflections, rationalities, and practices of dance teachers in central Uganda (Doctoral dissertation). ResearchSpace, Auckland. Mamdani, M. (2008). Higher education, the state and the marketplace. Journal of Higher Education in Africa / Revue De L’enseignement Supérieur En Afrique, 6(1), 1–10. Marsh, K. (1995). Children’s singing games: Composition in the playground? Research Studies in Music Education, 4, 2–11. Menard, E. (2013). Creative thinking in music: Developing a model for meaningful learning in middle school general music. Music Educators Journal, 100(2), 61–67. National Curriculum Development Center Website (n.d). Retrieved from www.ncdc.go.ug Nzewi, M. (2001). Music education in Africa: Mediating the imposition of Western music education with the imperatives of the indigenous African practice. In C. Van Niekerk (Ed.), PASMAE 2001, Selected conference proceedings from the conference held in Lusaka, Zambia, 21-25 August 2001 (pp. 18–55). Pretoria, South Africa: PASMAE. Oehrle, E. (1993). Education through music: Towards a South African approach. British Journal of Music Education, 10(3), 255–261. Palmer, C. (2014). Learning basic music theory through improvisation: Implications for including improvisation in the university curriculum. College Music Symposium, 54. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/26574363 Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement, attentiveness, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31(4), 245–257. Randles, C., & Sullivan, M. (2013). How composers approach teaching composition: Strategies for music teachers. Music Educators Journal, 99(3), 51–57. Song, A. (2013). Music improvisation in higher education. College Music Symposium, 53. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/26564917 Sekalegga, L. B. (2021). An analysis of four instructional strategies used by secondary school music teachers in Uganda. International Journal of Music Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614211050985. Simon, G. (2019). Tell me a story: Teaching music composition through narrative design. College Music Symposium, 59(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.18177/sym.2019.59.sr.11443.

496

Pedagogical models of teaching and learning music composition Stringham, D. (2016). Creating compositional community in your classroom. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 46–52. Stringham, D. A., Thornton, L. C., & Shevock, D. J. (2015). Composition and improvisation in instrumental methods courses: Instrumental music teacher educators’ perspectives. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (205), 7–25. 10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.205.0007 Torres, M. (2017). Incorporating composition into the applied saxophone pedagogy in higher education. College Music Symposium, 57. www.jstor.org/stable/26574472 NCDC. https://ncdc.go.ug/sites/default/files/publications/Curriculum%20Magazine%20Issue%2002%20MAY%202020%20PRINT. pdf Uzoigwe, G. N. (Ed.). (1982). Uganda: The dilemma of nationhood. Studies in East African Society and History. New York, NY: Nok Pub International. van Niekerk, J. (2007). In defence of an autocentric account of Ubuntu. South African Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 364–368. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v26i4.31494. Wabyona, M. (2021). Trends in Music Teacher Preparation in Uganda from 1950 to 2020: A Historical Study [Doctoral Dissertation]. Texas Tech University. Ward-Steinman, D. (2011). On composing: Doing it, teaching it, living it. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 19(1), 5–23. 10.2979/philmusieducrevi.19.1.5. Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 22–28. Webster, P. (2016). Creative thinking in music: Twenty-five years on. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 26–32. Xulu, M. (2010). Ubuntu and being Umuntu: Towards an Ubuntu pedagogy through cultural expressions, symbolism and performance. Skills at Work: Theory and Practice Journal, 3(1), 81–87. Yarbrough, C., & Price, H. E. (1989). Sequential patterns of instruction in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(3), 179–187.

497

33 WHEN CREATIVE STARS ALIGN Music composition in K–12 schools in the US Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

Introduction When first invited to write for this project – that is, to provide a perspective of music composition in schools in the US – I confess I (Maud) felt a bit overwhelmed! While I needed to focus my perspective on one that would help international educators understand the context of music education in schools from, at least, the Midwest part of the US, I felt that the addition of the voice of an elementary music educator from this part of the world would add authenticity. So, I invited one of the most creative music teachers I know (Gary) to collaborate with me in this writing. Together we frame this piece within a historical timeline: from just before 1994 to the present. We chose 1994 as the pivot point because it is the publication date of the US National Arts Standards – the first document that is most explicit about “standardizing” music composition in classrooms. Gary was chosen as a collaborator for this project because he stood out to Maud as a teacher who was not typical for the times. Gary was (and still is) a teacher who has always included music composition and improvisation with his students, despite the dearth of materials or awareness of music composition as a “thing” in elementary classrooms. While Gary’s voice might be unique, it provides an authentic perspective from an elementary music teacher. It is important to note that we are by no means describing how every music teacher teaches in the US, much less the Midwest. That would be impossible, as the diversity of places and people and communities is grand here – even within small geographic distances! Much of our writing is anecdotal, based on our experiences as a music teacher (Gary) and music teacher educator (Maud). However, we can say pretty confidently that music composition was not a common activity in US music classrooms before 1994 and is only slowly beginning to emerge post-1994. But there are certainly music classrooms around the US where teachers, like Gary, have been going against the norm and incorporating all sorts of creative music composition activities in their classrooms for many years. In the following sections, we first introduce ourselves to the readers. This is followed by a description of composition in K–12 schools pre-1994. Woven into this time are reflections and descriptions of Gary’s teaching. The 1994 Standards are introduced, followed by a section that describes the research examining the actual status of composition in schools and pre-service music education institutions. We also briefly describe some of the music 498

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-44

When creative stars align

textbook series and other practical materials that have been used before and since the publication of the 1994 Standards. Our conclusion offers thoughts about what the future may hold for composition in schools in the US, and a reflection of the factors that contributed to Gary’s success.

Definitions Before going further, here we provide definitions of terms or abbreviations we use related to school grades and ages in the US:

• K: Kindergarten. In the US, this usually includes 6-year-old children. • Elementary: Elementary schools in the US usually consist of children ages 6 to 10. The grades in elementary school often range from first to fifth grade. Variations might be a K–4 school, meaning kindergarten (age 5) through fourth grade (age 9). • Secondary: Secondary education in the US includes middle schools (or “Junior Highs”) and high schools. Middle schools often house grades 6–8 (ages 11–13 years). High schools span grades 9–12 (ages 14–18 years). • General Music refers to music teaching that does not include ensemble performance. It is the most common music experience for children in elementary schools in the US.

Who we are When my college students and I turned the corner in the brightly lit and buzzing elementary school hallway, we suddenly found ourselves in a dark, quiet hallway and saw several small children stepping softly, with fingers to their lips as if to shush us. As our eyes and ears adjusted to the stark change, we noticed eerie, cosmic-like sounds coming from clear plastic dome-shaped objects hanging from the ceiling. The ceiling of the hallway also held colorful paper and cloth materials that moved as the children walked through. It was if we were suddenly transformed into a different time and space. We followed the line of quiet little 8-year-old children as they tip-toed ahead of us through the hallway and then into the general music classroom of Gary Wendt. Gary welcomed Maud’s group of freshmen music education students and introduced us to the children, now quietly sitting in a circle on a brightly colored rug. And then he explained: the hallway we went through was their recently finished original sound installation. The young students created the concept for this hallway space, and then composed and recorded the music that was played through the sound system. Needless to say, Maud’s collegiate pre-service music educators were blown away. They never experienced doing something like this in their K-12 education, and they simply couldn’t believe that children in elementary school could be such creative beings.

Gary I began teaching elementary music in 1990 in Janesville, WI. After three years there I moved to a suburb of Chicago, and over time taught some 5 years in Chicago Schools before moving to a suburban elementary school just north of Chicago where I remain as the elementary school general music teacher. My undergraduate work was at a University in Wisconsin where I majored in elementary music education, with an emphasis on voice and organ performance. Composition 499

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

with children was not part of my undergraduate music education training. I had not even imagined composing with children when I first started, as it wasn’t something I was comfortable doing myself and it wasn’t anything I understood to be part of an elementary music curriculum. I started teaching from a listen/respond, sing/play model grounded in the elements of music: melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. I wouldn’t have called myself traditional, though, because within those parameters there was a lot of student choice, creative connections with other subjects and collaborations with dynamic colleagues.

Maud My initial training at the undergraduate level was as a band director. I envisioned myself leading high school bands for a long, long time in my career. Neither this focused training, nor vision was unusual in the US, and for many, still prevails. What caused me to stop and rethink this educational priority was an awakening from the podium one day, when I realized that my students were not doing any creative thinking– despite this being a music class. I came to understand that of all of the creative arts taught in our US K-12 schools (and they are rich and extensive), music is the least creative. This led me to pursue my PhD at Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) where I began to study and do in-depth research on music creativity, and relatedly, composition and improvisation in schools. I had never had a composition lesson in my life (not unusual), but I began to see the importance of this the more I learned about creative thinking in music. Luckily, when I became a music teacher educator at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL (in 1997), I learned about Gary Wendt. Gary was teaching elementary general music in the schools nearby and had a reputation as being a very creative teacher. This was a perfect opportunity for me to bring young pre-service music education students to actually see composition and improvisation in action with children.

Pre 1994 Before the publication of the 1994 National Arts Standards, composition was simply not on the radar of most music teachers in the US. It was not present in the commonly used elementary general music textbooks and nowhere to be found in the pedagogical minds of performance ensemble educators. From about 1926 to the current time, the US music education system has been dominated by outstanding band, orchestra, and choir programs. These were not the exception, as likely every secondary school could boast at least one, if not all three of these ensemble genres (Keene, 2009). The elementary music programs consisted mostly of singing and playing classroom instruments – and eventually – learning to read standard notation, often in preparation for entering a performance program in a secondary school. What is unique about the entire music education system in the US is that, while music is required in nearly all elementary schools and is largely present in the secondary schools through large ensembles, music composition was simply not part of a curriculum before 1994. The exceptions consisted of historical projects or pop-up curricula (e.g., Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program [Thomas, 1970] and Creating Original Opera [Joy, 2002]) that offered potential for creative activity in classrooms and did have an influence on a small population of teachers.

500

When creative stars align

General music materials It was not unusual for elementary general music teachers (EGMT) to purchase and use multigrade general music textbook series. The Silver Burdett Music textbook series (Crook, Reimer, & Walker, 1974) was one of the most comprehensive and popular series for general music teachers in the US upon its debut. The series, designed for K–6th grade, was structured around the seven “behaviors” of perceiving, reacting, producing, conceptualizing, analyzing, evaluating, and valuing. Composition or improvisation was not part of these “behaviors.” Another popular textbook series at the time, The Music Book (Boardman & Andress, 1981), introduced the idea of iconic notation which may have inspired teachers to try music composition because it erased the barrier of standard notation. However, neither of these series (or others), before 1994, included music composition activities. The Orff and Kodaly methodologies that took hold in the US in the late 1960s also became curricular material for many elementary music teachers (who either followed these pedagogies strictly or mixed parts of them into their general music teaching). While these methodologies do include some composition and improvisation components, they tend to be quite controlled and sequential. Kodaly uses composition in a carefully structured way in order to apply and practice newly learned elements (such as rhythmic or melodic patterns). Orff options are mostly improvisatory in the form of interludes, intros, outros, and bringing stories to life – often over an accompanying “bordun” for a developmentally appropriate rhythmic base. Gary had training in Orff methodology, but from his perspective, he “just didn’t personally see much composition happening in my districts among those who were trained in Orff. Perhaps it was a time thing…maybe composition got left off because there were only 60 minutes in a week to accomplish mountains of outcomes that music teachers heaped upon themselves in their curriculums.” And none of the pedagogies permitted any sort of “letting-go for kids to get messy with sound and notes.”

An unusual exception Given these pre-1994 times with the absence of music composition in most music classrooms, what was it that motivated Gary to be an exception? When Maud asked Gary about what it was that made him so unique – that is, a teacher who fully embraced creative composition and improvisation activities in his elementary and middle school classrooms pre-1994 – he pointed to three influences: the Creating Original Opera (COO) curriculum, colleagues who were inspiring and creative, and teaching in schools where administrators encouraged creative risk-taking.

Creating Original Opera COO began in New York City in 1983 by the Metropolitan Opera Guild (MET). Two years later, a statewide program was started in New Jersey. The MET made it National in 1989, and then International in 1994 (Joy, 2002). The Met continues to host this program, though the name is changed to Students Compose Opera (see https://www.metguild.org/ SCO/?TM=13menuid=18262). COO was more popular on the East Coast of the US (where it originated) than in the Midwest. Any schools from the Midwest that did participate were mostly clustered in urban areas with only a smattering of other schools. Gary was one of those exceptions.

501

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

Gary: After my first year of teaching in Janesville (Wisconsin) the district arts administrator approached me with a workshop opportunity he thought would fit ‘my style’ of teaching. It turned out to be Creating Original Opera. It began with an intensive, 5-day workshop in Milwaukee (summer of 1991) that completely changed my life in so many ways. I was sent along with a former Wisconsin Teacher of the Year who was my first aspirational and inspirational colleague. She was my first role model of kidcenteredness as opposed to content-centeredness. The COO curriculum uses a story creation process that starts with building characters from a set of adjectives/attributes and moves into relationships between characters based on these attributes. The composition process begins with creating musical character motifs based on their attributes, and mood and action motifs based on their relationships. These motifs are then chained/woven/connected during whole-group composing sessions with a “master editor” (the music teacher) for younger grades, or with smaller breakout groups at older levels. Fresh from the COO workshop, and in his second year of teaching, Gary created his first original opera with his colleague’s fourth-grade class. “It was magic! This was when and where I learned kids could compose. This was when I learned that by focusing on process, kids made connections that were deeper, more engaging and long-lasting than anything I could ‘spray and pray’ to them.” In 1993, Gary began teaching in the Chicago suburb of Glenview, Illinois. A fine arts planning grant had just been awarded to this district, which allowed an hour of interdisciplinary arts time when all grade-level teachers would collaborate with the fine arts team to work on collaborative and integrated projects. It was a brand-new idea to the teachers as well as the district. “There was no curriculum, just a ‘here’s a group of 90 kids for the 4 of you to do what you want with – make some good stuff happen and let us know how it goes’ type of thing.” This was all Gary needed to fuel his own creative teaching ideas. Gary credits Mary, the new art teacher at his school as a major inspirational influence: “She and I continue to this day to finish each other’s sentences. We became fast education soulmates because of our shared interest in process over product, constructivism, putting kids in the driver’s seat, etc.” And the school district was giving them time and money to be creative. In addition, school-supported professional development opportunities allowed them to learn about Multiple Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1993), and Marzano’s Dimensions of Learning (Marzano et al., 1992), among other constructivist approaches to learning. His school supported project- and problem-based, cross-graded classes. Gary and Mary took advantage of this culture and their own energy: We were in our 20s and were of the work-hard-play-hard Gen X stock! We would be at school until 1 AM cranking out units/lessons/long-term plans. Here is where I learned that composition and improvisation were at the heart of a constructivist environment. The following list provides a sampling of the composition projects Gary and his colleagues completed in those years:

• Bringing Paintings to Life – dramatic storytelling of various artworks with improvised, original musical accompaniments.

• Bringing Books to Life – creating original, multi-arts collages of everyday life. These were all based on inspirational art/music/dance/drama works.

502

When creative stars align

• Small compositions/improvisations based on the “elements” of music. • Whole-group compositions such as the creation of the school song, using the motif technique of COO.

• Composer’s Club at lunch for anyone interested in using their instruments (band, orchestra, piano, etc.) to compose with.

• COO in the fourth-grade class. In 2006, after 5 years working in a Chicago school, Gary moved back to the suburb he left and was reunited with art teacher Mary in a school that housed kindergarten through second grade. Gary describes this time in the following paragraph. We picked up where we left off and did a deep dive into the early childhood practices of Reggio Emilia. Part of this included understanding that our physical space was another teacher – that our learning environment needed to be a space of wonder and curiousness, of nature and beauty. One of the Reggio processes was “Conversations with Space” where kids interviewed the walls, the furniture, the floor, the lights, etc. to see what they needed or wanted. The children had a conversation in a long, gray hallway leading to the music and art rooms. From that conversation, they decided that the hallway needed color, shapes, and lines. We then studied sound installations. I called Experimental Sound Studios [a business that had done a sound installation at the Lincoln Park Conservatory in Chicago] and they provided me with sound installation connections to show my students the possibilities. We ended up using the underground tunnel of the United terminal at O’Hare as our inspiration.1 The neon lines and the soundscape they created at O’Hare became our inspiration for the hallway. Mary’s students created the lines and shapes to put on the wall of the hallway, then as we were learning about melodic direction on the xylophone, we took our instruments to the hallway, chose a group of lines to play, and made a recording of an improvisation on the hallway lines. I played the bass bars to keep everyone together. We wrote a grant for a sound system in the hallway, and the hallway was transformed. (This is the scene Maud came upon described in the introduction.) Gary was an exception among EGMT. Gary’s constructivist philosophy of teaching, along with the support of colleagues and administrators, allowed him to use music composition in its most open sense, as a way to facilitate creative activities in his classrooms.

1994 and beyond The National Arts Standards In 1994, the Music Educators National Conference (now known as National Association for Music Education), in collaboration with the other professional arts education groups, released the National Standards for Arts Education (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994). These were published during a political climate in which National Standards for all subjects were being pursued. This push for standards was prompted by politicians and educational policy makers, first under George W. Bush’s 1991 America 2000 strategy, and then President Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Clinton’s initiative finally authorized the production of National Standards in all subjects, to be managed by state agencies (Kenna & Russell, 2018). The National music standards were largely adopted and published by individual State departments of education. The 1994 National Music Standards2 are broken down into three levels, elementarylevel grades K–4; middle-level grades 5–8, and high school grades 9–12, and consist of the

503

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

following nine “Content Standards” (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Playing instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines. Reading and notating music. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music. Evaluating music and music performance. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines. Understanding music in relation to history and culture.

It is important to note that the arts standards were not mandated at the national or state level. In other words, unless individual school boards required that the music standards be present in the curriculum, then they were not compulsory. Though not mandated, the publication of these National Standards had a profound influence on music teacher educators at the university level and became a major topic at local and state professional conferences. For music teachers, this was the first curriculum document with explicit standards for composition and improvisation. How would university educators prepare a new generation of music teachers to implement music composition and improvisation in their teaching? A comparison of research and practical publications on music composition in schools pre1994 and post-1994 show a surge and interest in activities after the standards publication. However, in terms of what was happening in classrooms, any broad concept of composition and improvisation was slow to take hold. From Gary’s perspective, there was a buzz among the general music teachers he knew when the standards were published: “They were the first thing to come along to give credence to the ‘prep time classes’ and were very highly regarded among the elementary music teachers I knew.” However, he continues: “while everyone agreed that this was a great step in the right direction for supporting creativity in the music curriculum, many of us didn’t quite know how it could be assessed. And we were creatures of the scope and sequence. So our curriculum writing would include super structured and, in hindsight, limited composition experiences.” And, in our opinion, the post-1994 general music textbook series’ attempts at including music composition activities were limited, stilted, and far from creative. Two problems still existed with the music composition standard: first, it was not mandated, and second, teachers had absolutely no idea how to teach composition in their schools – unless, like Gary, they had been influenced by some other curriculum or program or colleague. Students who major in music in college (even in music education) are largely trained as classical musicians, and composition and improvisation skills are not part of the classical musician profile. Any undergraduate coming out of a music education program certainly had no formal or informal training in music composition.

Research studies After the 1994 publication of the National Arts Standards, research began to emerge regarding the status of the standards in both K–12 schools and music teacher education institutions. These studies will be briefly reviewed to give a sense of the impact the standards had on music composition activities in schools. 504

When creative stars align

Elementary general music Several surveys of music teachers, both state and national, showed a lack of composition activity in classrooms following the publication of the standards. Byo (1999) surveyed Florida elementary music specialists as well as regular classroom teachers as to their comfort and confidence with implementing each of the nine standards. Both groups rated composing and improvising with the least favorable rating. In a survey of Indiana music teachers, Strand (2006) found that only 5.9% of the sample responded that taught composition “often,” and 34.5% responded “very rarely” or “never.” In another survey of Indiana music teachers, Schmidt, Baker, Hayes, and Kwan (2006) found elementary music teachers devoted the greatest percentage of their instructional time to singing (23.7%), while least toward improvisation and composing (6.89%). Kirkland’s (1996) survey of 250 K–12 South Carolina teachers found that they rated their students’ proficiency in composition as last among the nine National Standards, and their own goals put teaching the composition standard last among the nine standards. Fairfield (2010) surveyed a sample of EGMT from across the US and found that “Typically, participants reported facilitating compositional activities with notation only one to three times per year” (2010, p. 98). Similarly, Shouldice’s survey (2014) of EGMTs in Michigan found that while 84.2% of the teachers reported incorporating composition in their classrooms, they reported doing such only two to three times a year. Both the Shouldice and Fairfield surveys revealed that teachers cited a lack of time as the major reason for not including music composition more often in their teaching.

Instrumental music While large performance ensembles still dominate secondary schools in the US, these teachers are not exempt from the National Standards. Understandably it is difficult to imagine changing this culture in a way that would introduce music composition into performance ensemble curricula. Since 1994, there have been a few studies looking at the feasibility of composition in different ways and in different instrumental ensembles. These include middle school band (Riley, 2009), high school band (Wilke, 2019), and secondary school string ensembles (Hopkins, 2015; Phillips, 2017; Stringham, 2010). Menard (2015) utilized case study methodology to compare two high school teachers’ perceptions of teaching composition in their respective programs: one a band teacher and the other, a general music teacher. While both teachers acknowledged the benefits of including composition in their curriculums, the band teacher cited more difficulty in doing so due to performance culture traditions, time, class setting, teacher preparation, and lack of student fundamental musical knowledge. Hopkins’ (2013) survey of school orchestra teachers reported that 63% had no experience with composition prior to college, and 52% rarely or never included composition in their own string classes, citing the pressure to perform music as a barrier. However, it is a promising trend if 48% did include some composition in their orchestra classes.

Teacher preparation If university teacher education programs do not prepare emerging music teachers to include music composition in their future programs, likely few changes will follow in the K–12 schools. Research in this area is mixed. In the earliest study to come out after the publication of the National Standards, Fonder and Eckrich (1999) found, in their national survey of university music education programs, that 77% reported that changes would take place in their university music 505

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

programs because of the National Standards (however, they also reported that only one out of four of those 77% had actually implemented any changes at the time of the survey). In a national survey of collegiate instrumental methods faculty (n = 321), Stringham, Thornton, and Shevock (2015) found that preparing instrumental teachers for teaching composition was the second lowest priority of the Standards (with Content Standard #1, singing, the lowest). Training in composition, and perception of themselves as composers, was also very low for these educators. Adderley, Schneider, and Kirkland (2006) compared responses from a national survey of 42 college music education faculty to 941 K–4 music teachers. While the college faculty showed that they believed their methods courses were providing preparation for teachers to teach Content Standard 4 (music composition), the mean rating of the K–4 music teachers’ perception of this preparation was below average. Riley (2009) found that the preferences of pre-service music educators toward implementing the music composition standard were sixth out of the nine standards. Though interested in implementing composition in their future classrooms, preservice teachers cited a lack of training in composition as prohibiting them from doing such. Randles and Smith (2012) frame an international perspective by comparing survey results between pre-service music educators in the US to those in England. The preparation for teachers in England is vastly different than in the US, as is the difference in composition activities in K–12 schools between these two countries. Similar to the research cited here, pre-service teachers in the US felt that, while including composition in schools was important, they felt less prepared than their British colleagues. Though this is not a complete literature review on studies looking at the status of composition in schools in the US, the patterns and similarities are consistent. That is, though composition in K–12 schools as a conceptual idea is desired by schoolteachers and music education faculty, as well as supported by school leaders (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008), the actual activity of composition in schools post-1994 is underwhelming.

Current trends Textbook series After 1994, it was common for general music textbook publications to advertise the inclusion of the nine Content Standards. We do not have the space here to do a thorough analysis of all these publications, but generally we find that any included composition activities are limited in scope and approach. They occupy only a minor part in the entire series curricula and lack context that would make real-world connections. For instance, in the entire 2011, first-grade textbook edition of Spotlight on Music (Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 2011), there are only two composition activities (a rhythmic composition and a short melody composition). In the sixth-grade Share the Music book (Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 2008), there are only five activities related to composition. These are titled: Create a prepared piano piece; Create a short melody that begins on C and ends on C; Create a “sound carpet” to accompany a poem; Create your own melody from the c scale; and Create a two measure motive, using Starlight Express as inspiration. In addition, most composition activities that are included appear in the “more music teaching” or “extension activities” or “gifted and talented” boxes found underneath the main lessons. The types of projects that Gary continues to implement, such as large-scale opera composing, collaborative improvisations and compositions, and more open and imaginative composing activities, are not in these materials. And the composition activities that are included are far less in number compared to the activities dedicated to singing, performing, and reading notation. 506

When creative stars align

Popular music pedagogies A current and fast-growing movement that is bringing music composition into secondary music classrooms in the US is popular music pedagogy (PMP), first unveiled by Green’s “informal learning” research (2002) and subsequent publications (e.g., Green, 2008). This pedagogy is now widely available such as through the Musical Futures International website (http://www. musicalfuturesinternational.org/what-is-musical-futures.html), and in the US, Little Kids Rock (sometimes called “modern band”) (https://www.littlekidsrock.org), as well as in a very recent “how-to” publication for teachers (Clauhs, Powell, & Clements, 2021). The original philosophy of Musical Futures, that is, having students collaboratively cover pre-existing songs, has evolved into many different ways of creative approaches to music making in PMP. For instance, the Little Kids Rock curriculum provides units for original songwriting and hip-hop creation. While PMP seems to have taken a stronghold mostly in urban education centers in the US, it has gained momentum as an alternative pedagogy (one which opens possibilities for music composition) and as a tool for social change in music classrooms – a cry against what some perceive as our embedded colonial and classist approach to music education (e.g., Smith, Gramm, & Wagner, 2018; Vasil, Weiss, & Powell, 2019). PMP has opened doors for music composition genres beyond classic rock in classrooms, particularly hip-hop (e.g., Kruse, 2016; Tobias, 2013). Like all new pedagogies, however, it is not without its critics (e.g., Allsup, 2008; Hebert, 2011; Hess, 2017) and only a historical glance back 20 years or more from now will show whether this pedagogy has transformed music education in the US into one in which music composition of all genres becomes ordinary in music classrooms.

Music teacher education As indicated in the research above, music education programs in universities in the US are keenly aware of the need to equip the next generation of music teachers with the skills to include music composition in their future schools. Current surveys (Colquhoun, 2019; Piazza & Talbot, 2020) report that stand-alone music composition courses for teachers are still rare and music composition techniques are embedded mostly in music theory courses. There is at least one case that we know of (Ithaca College in New York State) where a “modern band” pedagogy course is offered. At Northwestern University, Maud was fortunate enough to teach a required course for all music teachers titled “Teaching Composition in the Schools.” This class was implemented just after the Standards were first published and has been in the curriculum for more than 20 years. It was very unusual to have such a course then, and still today. Gary was a frequent guest in this course and his classroom was visited many times by the enrolled pre-service music teachers. It was ideal to be able to showcase real examples of music composition in an elementary classroom for the pre-service educators.

COVID-19 We would be somewhat remiss if we did not mention that the writing of this chapter took place during a world pandemic, a time in which most music teachers were forced into teaching from their computer screens. The impact was most problematic for performance ensemble teachers because singing in a choir or blowing into an instrument is deemed unsafe. Other ways of musicking were required, and oddly enough, it seems that music composition became one of them. We have observed many Facebook posts in the music ensemble teacher forums asking for help and ideas for online music composition activities for their students. The responses 507

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt

have pointed to the popular (and free) web-based music notation programs such as Musescore, NoteFlight, and Flat. While this evidence is anecdotal, it makes sense that teachers need an outlet for their students to continue making music, and online music composition could be the most practical solution. Only time will tell if this “trend” becomes the norm – especially for ensemble teachers – and if the pandemic actually provides new composition pedagogies that will remain into the future.

Final thoughts In our experiences as a music teacher, and music teacher educator in the US, we sense that any music composition activities in classrooms have been sparked, not necessarily by mandated curriculum, but by the convergence of creative guides, pedagogical movements, and novel ideas that cross a teacher’s desk. For Gary, it was COO and the serendipitous crossing of paths with like-minded and creative teachers in and outside of the musical arts. Gary is a natural risk-taker who had the fortune of teaching in schools where experimentation was not only tolerated but also encouraged by supportive administrators. Gary’s professional development, and natural curiosity around constructivist teaching ideas, also helped to shape his pedagogical practices. For current teachers, it might be interesting pedagogies they learn about at professional conferences (such as “Little Kids Rock”) or even a pandemic to think about different ways to deliver music instruction. And we know that university music teacher education programs will need to be at the forefront of any movement toward more music composition in K–12 schools. Music composition activities in K–12 classrooms around the US have certainly become more visible since the 1994 publication of the National Standards. While these Standards have raised awareness of the need for music composition in schools, to make it actually happen in an authentic way requires an almost chance alignment of stars, as it did for Gary. That is, being in the right school at the right time, with like-minded and risk-taking colleagues as well as supportive administrators. It takes creative teachers who are committed to providing their students with a full spectrum of real-world composition experiences in order to develop musicianship, artistry, and expressive connections.

Reflective questions 1 How might the US National Standards have changed the course of composition curriculum if they had not included composition and improvisation? Were these activities inevitable? 2 What aspects of the research studies concerning US teachers implementing composition in the classroom were most surprising? 3 What supports do K–12 music teachers need to feel confident implementing composition through technology into their classrooms?

Notes 1 For those who have not experienced it, this space at the O’Hare International Airport in Chicago is a long underground passageway that is covered in colorful neon lights and sounds of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. 2 In 2014, the standards were revised into a new document titled The National Core Arts Standards (See https://www.nationalartsstandards.org). Composition is still a large part of these standards, as it is subsumed under “Create” – one of the four areas along with Perform, Respond, and Connect.

508

When creative stars align

References Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2006). The state of music in the elementary school: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1177% 2F002242940605400102 Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools: The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 68–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022429408317516 Adderley, C., Schneider, C., & Kirkland, N. (2006). Elementary music teacher preparation in US colleges and universities relative to the national standards-goals 2000. Visions of Research in Music Education, 7, 1–17. Allsup, R. E. (2008). Creating an educational framework for popular music in public schools: Anticipating the second-wave. Visions of Research in Music Education, 12(1), 1–12. Boardman, E., & Andress, B. (1981). The music book. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 111–123. Clauhs, M., Powell, B., & Clements, A. C. (2021). Popular music pedagogies: A practical guide for music teachers. Abingdon & New York, NY: Routledge. Colquhoun, S. E. (2019). A Survey of in-service music teacher preparedness for teaching non-traditional music courses and ensembles in secondary-level schools. Downloaded from: http://hdl.handle. net/10415/6708 Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Crook, E., Reimer, B., & Walker, D. (1974). Silver Burdett music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Silver Burdett. Fairfield, S. M. (2010). Creative thinking in elementary general music: A survey of teachers’ perceptions and practices (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. Retrieved from https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/798/ Fonder, M., & Eckrich, D. W. (1999). A survey on the impact of the voluntary national standards on American college and university music teacher education curricula. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 140, 28–40. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Hebert, D. G. (2011). Originality and institutionalization: Factors engendering resistance to popular music pedagogy in the USA. Music Education Research International, 5, 12–21. Hess, J. (2017). Critiquing the critical: The casualties and paradoxes of critical pedagogy in music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 25(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.2979/ philmusieducrevi.25.2.05 Hopkins, M. T. (2013). Factors contributing to teachers’ inclusion of music composition activities in the school orchestra curriculum. String Research Journal, 4(1), 15–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 194849921300100402 Hopkins, M. T. (2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 405–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022429414555135 Joy, S. (2002). Original student opera: History, theory, and practice of a multi -disciplinary arts education program (Order No. 3064102) (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (252169770). Keene, J. A. (2009). A history of music education in the United States. Centennial, CO: Glenbridge Publishing Ltd. Kenna, J. L., & Russell, W. B. (2018). The culture and history of standards-based educational reform and social studies in America. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 1(1), 26–49. https://doi. org/10.46303/jcve.01.01.3 Kirkland, N. (1996). South Carolina schools and goals 2000: National standards in music (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Kruse, A. J. (2016). Toward hip-hop pedagogies for music education. International Journal of Music Education, 34(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0255761414550535 Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (2008). Share the music. New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw Hill. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (2011). Spotlight on music. New York, NY: Macmillan/McGraw Hill.

509

Maud Hickey and Gary Wendt Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., Arredondo, D. E., Blackburn, G. J., Brandt, R. S., & Moffett, C. A. (1992). Dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Menard, E. A. (2015). Music composition in the high school curriculum: A multiple case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022429415574310 Phillips, J. D. (2017). Collaborative composition: An investigation of social practice and social action in a string ensemble (Doctoral dissertation). Boston University. Piazza, E. S., & Talbot, B. C. (2020). Creative musical activities in undergraduate music education curricula. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 30(2) 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083720948463 Randles, C., & Smith, G. D. (2012). A first comparison of pre-service music teachers’ identities as creative musicians in the United States and England. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 173–187. Riley, P. E. (2009). Pre-service music educators’ perceptions of the national standards for music education. Visions of Research in Music Education, 14(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://www-usr.rider. edu/~vrme/ Schmidt, C. P., Baker, R., Hayes, B., & Kwan, E. (2006). A descriptive study of public school music programs in Indiana. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 169, 25–37. Shouldice, H. N. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs regarding composition in elementary general music: Definitions, values, and impediments. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(2), 215–230. https://DOI: 10.1177/1321103X14556574 Smith, G. D., Gramm, W., & Wagner, K. (2018). Music education for social change in the United States: Towards artistic citizenship through little kids rock. International Journal of Pedagogy, Innovation and New Technologies, 5, 11–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.8539 Strand, K. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/4101437 Stringham, D. (2010). Improvisation and composition in a high school instrumental music curriculum (Doctoral dissertation). Eastman School of Music. Retrieved from https://urresearch.rochester.edu/ institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=14179&versionNumber=1 Stringham, D. A., Thornton, L. C., & Shevock, D. J. (2015). Composition and improvisation in instrumental methods courses: Instrumental music teacher educators’ perspectives. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 205, 7–25. Thomas, R. (1970). Manhattanville music curriculum program. Final report. Manhattan College of the Sacred Heart, Purchase, NY. (ED 045 865). ERIC. Tobias, E. S. (2013). Composing, songwriting, and producing: Informing popular music pedagogy. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(2), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1321103X13487466 Vasil, M., Weiss, L., & Powell, B. (2019). Popular music pedagogies: An approach to teaching 21st-century skills. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 28(3), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1177% 2F1057083718814454 Wilke, A. R. (2019). A case study of music compositional activities in a high school performance-based ensemble: The Apple Valley composers (Doctoral dissertation). Boston University.

510

34 SITUATING COMPOSITION IN MUSIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

Summary This chapter provides an overview of the history, current status, and potential future of composition in music education in the United States. Current teaching practices utilized in schoolbased settings and in extracurricular experiences are detailed. The chapter describes some of the challenges that practicing teachers face as they undertake composition instruction as well as the difficulties found within music teacher education programs preparing new teachers to enter the field. Materials to support teaching and learning are described and suggestions for finding a way forward are offered.

Introduction Inclusion of composition as a student activity in music education is relatively new in the United States. The number of resources available to teachers and students continues to expand, and educators are realizing the potential that composition holds as a tool for advancing their students’ music learning and personal growth. As interest in composition increases, teachers are confronted with the challenges of facilitating activities in which they have little professional background or personal experience. Composition requires a different set of skills than most teacher preparation programs provide because they tend to emphasize performance-based music education. Similarly, early attempts at including composition in school-based music programs focused on joining composers to performance ensembles. Though government and foundation funding existed for these projects, they reached very few schools and influenced only a small number of educators. Teacher education programs did not embrace these programs. Composition remains marginalized in the teacher education curriculum and in K–12 school music programs. This chapter will address educational contexts in which school children in the United States may compose, and music educators may teach. We will summarize instructional practices, challenges facing teachers, and capacities-based approaches. We will discuss how social justice and learner equity are achieved by addressing students’ musical development and the unique perspectives of their lived experience.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-45

511

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

Teaching composition in educational contexts What is composition? As a noun, composition usually means a work of music, writing, or visual art. This variety of meaning can lead to confusion, so there is a need to use clarifying adjectives to specify that a work is a “music composition.” Throughout this chapter, we assume that readers know we mean “music composition,” but what, then, does that mean? Many people think that a music composition can only be created by writing music on staff paper using standard notation. Those same folks assume that a composition must be nearly 100% replicable; otherwise, it is an “improvisation.” This rather narrow definition of composition is rooted in the traditions of Western European Art Music (WEAM) and the conservatories that preserve those traditions. Notation is only one way of retaining a composition. The definition of composition as notated music does not take into account the diverse ways human beings across all cultural contexts create and preserve music. For some, memory as a means of preservation. Since the invention of personal recording devices, anyone with such a tool can store their musical expressions. However, using recording devices does not facilitate the performance by others of one’s creations. Repeated listening and aural transcriptions can do this to varying degrees of accuracy. Similarly, notation also provides only some aspects of the composers’ intentions.

Composition and songwriting As modern recording devices and distribution procedures have proliferated, new terms for the creation of music have also come into existence. Perhaps the first of these was the false distinction of “songwriter” from “composer.” Music publishers initiated this distinction when they purposefully hired classically trained composers, who had previously written instrumental works or large choral works, and lyricists to create songs for singing-stars to rival what other publishers had on the market (Jasen, 1988). Songwriting became associated with commercialism and was and is viewed by some as something of lesser artistic value. Another influence of WEAM is the notion that arrangers are somehow less musical beings than composers or performers. From the beginning of WEAM, composers were their own arrangers. Composers sometimes made arrangements of the works of others for their own purposes, but it was possibly the invention of motion pictures that led to the use of professional arrangers as distinct from composers. In most instances of school music compositions, however, the composer is still the arranger, and often the performer, of the created work. Pedagogically this is probably the most efficient way of proceeding. Yet this is another aspect of musical understanding that is neglected in PK–12 schools. Students are often in college before they can avail themselves of training in arranging. Rarely is such training a part of teacher education, except for the occasional narrow focus of arranging for school ensembles. Again, the pedagogical knowledge base is driven by the needs of the performance program.

A brief historical overview of composition instruction in school-based music education Music education in the United States began as an effort to improve congregational singing in the Protestant churches of New England. Itinerant musicians traveled from town to town holding “Singing Schools.” Boston became one of the first school systems to mandate music instruction in 1838 (Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019). Performance skill has 512

Situating composition in music education in the United States

always been the focus of music instruction since these early days. Social and moral goodness was also thought to be improved by such teaching. However, the primary purpose of music education in the United States was – and still is – the development of performance skill. This was also the purpose for the inclusion of instrumental music, particularly after World War I, when town bands were formed and traveling professional ensembles such as the Sousa Band were famous. Composition did not appear in school music curricula until the late 1950s when it entered through close association with performance objectives. From 1959 to 1962, the Young Composers Project, led by composer Norman Dello Joio and funded by the Ford Foundation, brought composers under age 35 into schools to create new works for student ensembles (Livingston, 2019). In 1963, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC; now The National Association for Music Education) assumed control of the project as part of the Contemporary Music Project (CMP). Teacher training workshops were held at 16 colleges, and 6 pilot projects were implemented in major cities around the country. However, by the mid-1970s, these projects had all but disappeared. The CMP was influential in that some educators continued to build liaisons with professional composers and bring them into their schools, but this was not a widespread practice. In the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project begun in 1965, students engaged in small group composition to identify musical problems, develop musical hypotheses, and experiment with possible solutions as part of a spiral curriculum model to introduce new concepts through action-oriented activities (Thomas, 1970). Groups rehearsed and performed their works to advance their aesthetic awareness as well as that of their listeners/peer audience. Like the Young Composer Project/CMP, the project was relatively short-lived but did provide a foundation for a curriculum movement toward Comprehensive Music Education (Willoughby, 1971). The National Standards for Arts Education (1994) and the Core Music Standards (2014) were created by the National Association for Music Education as part of the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. Both generated renewed interest in teaching composition in K–12 schools. The 1994 standards listed composition as a strand within a comprehensive music curriculum. With the 2014 revision, composition and improvisation were joined under the standard of “creating” at the K–8 level; composition was subsumed into “music theory” at the secondary level. While both editions of the national standards were voluntary, many states and school systems adopted their language wholesale or modified content to fit their particular needs, interests, and resources.

The pedagogical relevance of music composition Composition’s place within school-based music education curricula is very much controlled by the individual teacher. While composition has been listed within the voluntary national standards for music education since 1994 and may have been adopted at the state level or by individual school districts, teachers struggle to implement it in their classrooms. Numerous studies (Orman, 2002; Phelps, 2008; Shouldice, 2014; Strand, 2006; Stringham, Thornton, & Shevock, 2015) have detailed the challenges that teachers face in weaving composition into already packed curriculums, finding resources to guide their efforts, or even professional development opportunities where they can develop new skills. Given these challenges, why should composition become an important part of school music programs? Composition challenges students to wrestle with the very nature of music. It demands that they recognize, sense, and control the relationships and structure of sound that activate perception and feeling to allow for music to communicate thoughts, emotions, and ideas that 513

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

cannot be contained by words, numbers, or other forms of human designations. Composition challenges students to grow, discover, and create themselves through artistic and meaningful engagements with sound. It challenges students to consider their understandings of the world in new ways as they exercise their creative and generative potentials in music. To do this, students must draw together their knowledge of singing, playing, improvising, and listening as ways of knowing that inform and intensify all areas of personal and collaborative musicianship. Composing allows them to explore and express their humanity as can only be done with music. Moreover, students can experience joy and musical satisfaction in the act of composing (Jorgensen, 2016). Older students from age 12 and up will often craft music to address social issues that are important to them. When they are exposed to the various types of environmental compositions, they often use those techniques to draw attention to and comment on topics from a different perspective or to comment on inequities. Other types of composition can be used for similar purposes as well. Students will find ways to create their own lyrical, musical, and social narratives (Hess, 2018, 2019). The empowerment of older students to express their perspectives musically is only one aspect of pedagogical relevance. Very young students can create class songs that reinforce ideas from field trips, or that celebrate important events such as birthdays and new siblings. From a musical perspective, students learn technical skills very quickly when they need them to express their ideas. When students are freed from the need to notate their ideas and are allowed to use other means of preserving them, they often realize the convenience of standard notation for some musical purposes and learn to use it rather quickly. Similarly, performance skills often expand and improve as young composers write for instruments they have or that their friends play. Providing a space for students to compose and seizing the teachable moments that arise as they work is the critical work of the teacher.

Approaches to teaching music composition in various genres Another aspect of teaching composition is that different genres may require different approaches. Writing a solo for an instrument that the composer knows how to play is quite different from creating music to accompany a short film or writing a song to celebrate the coming of summer vacation. Just as compositional products may vary, so do the processes used to achieve them. The intention to create music in different genres requires different approaches to teaching. For example, the solo is likely to be based on what the individual student knows about the instrument and how music for that instrument sounds. A teacher might need to expand the student’s ideas by playing examples of other music written for the instrument, introducing techniques needed to play higher pitches, or demonstrating extended techniques. Film scoring can be a small group composition project where the class agrees on the various scenes and different groups create the music for the scenes. Young children often create songs as a whole group with considerable guidance from the teacher as they invent lyrics, make up their melody, and add instrumental accompaniment. Popular music can also require a more flexible teaching approach. Little Kids Rock (LKR) is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the idea that all school children should have an opportunity to discover their music-making potential with music that they love – meaning modern popular forms (https://www.littlekidsrock.org/). LKR offers a Modern Band Program focused on students learning about rock, popular music, reggae, hip-hop, rhythm & blues, and other contemporary styles. The non-profit also offers teacher training workshops and 514

Situating composition in music education in the United States

immersion courses for music teacher-educators to familiarize themselves with modern music and teaching pedagogies. Nonetheless, there are some commonalities to all genres and styles of teaching composition. As we have written elsewhere (Kaschub & Smith, 2009), there are three primary compositional capacities that humans can develop. Thinking about these three before and during composition activity leads to more satisfying results for young composers and their audiences. First, composers can consider the feelingful intentions they want their piece to have. What do they want to evoke? How will the audience react? Next, how can music express that feeling? What degree of motion will there be? How will there be unity and variety in the piece? What sounds will be used? What about tension and release? Where will the climax be? Is the piece unstable at any point, or is this a relatively stable work? Thinking about all this ahead of time can facilitate the compositional process. Finally, consider artistic craftsmanship. How will the sounds be assembled and shaped to create the musically expressed feelingful intention?

Teaching composition in school settings Composition in school settings in the United States varies widely between schools and usually depends on the interests and expertise of the teacher as well as the expectations of the school and broader community. Public education is a locally organized and administered activity; thus, the United States has no mandated national curriculum. The current national standards document (https://nafme.org/core-music-standards) serves as a model. Each state sets its own education policies legislatively. Some states mandate instruction in music and offer curriculum guidelines for this; however, most states leave curriculum specifics to local schools, and thus, local teachers, to determine. Several states, most notably New York and Vermont, have statewide composition programs facilitated by music educators that offer young composers from elementary schools through high schools a venue to have their works performed. Teachers who encounter the successful work of young composers often become intrigued and sometimes seek additional experiences in composition pedagogy to allow them to develop their own instructional expertise. Once they have accessed training in how to teach composition, they are far more likely than their untrained peers to include it in their curriculum (Smith, 2012). Composition programs can become very popular with parents and other community members when there is some type of public presentation of student work. However, teachers with this level of commitment to and expertise in composition pedagogy are rare. There are pockets of excellence in various areas of the country, but they are few and widely scattered.

Research examining the compositional processes and products of young composers There is a growing research base for teachers to draw upon in expanding their knowledge of composition pedagogy and practice. The processes and products composed by younger children have been studied by DeLorenzo (1989) and Kratus (1985, 1989, 2001). Wiggins (1990, 1993) and Smith (1994, 2004) provided additional perspectives on the work of elementary composers as well as ideas for guiding their work. Stauffer (1997, 1998) examined technologically mediated composing practices of elementary composers utilizing computer workstations. From this work, she suggested that young composers do not spontaneously begin to revise their work until about age 11. Hickey (1995) explored the relationship between children’s creative musical thinking processes and the products resulting from their work. Delving further into the processes of revision, Webster (2012) traced the revision processes of one young 515

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

composer to discover the thought and decision-making processes involved in changing one’s piece. The idea of student empowerment in the role of composer has been examined by Bucura and Weissberg (2017). The work of middle school composers has also been a subject of inquiry. Kaschub (1999) examined 11- to 12-year-old students working individually and with collaborators as they created original works and evaluated both their processes and products. Ruthmann (2008) discussed the roles of student and teacher agency throughout the composition process by embedding himself in a middle school class as they undertook a multiclass composition project. He concluded that the act of granting artistic autonomy to students is both critical and very difficult for teachers who are used to “steering the ship” to do. Exploring the impact of composition in beginning and middle school band, Priest (1997), Riley (2006), and Koops (2009) all found that young performers who composed gained significant growth in understanding across multiple areas of musicianship, including music performance skills. At the high school level, Cremata and Powell (2017) have explored how digital mediation in online environments can shape and influence creative work. Kaschub (1997) detailed the processes undertaken in two composer-guided large group choral composition projects, while Doiron (2019) examined similar questions in wind band ensembles. For composition in nonensemble settings, Kratus (2016) offers insights and suggestions for working with students interested in songwriting. These studies are, of course, but a sampling of the work being done to gain a better understanding of how children approach, undertake, and think about their composition work. In addition to the research studies and voluntary standards, there are a number of other publications that assist those who wish to plan curriculum for teaching composition. These will be discussed in greater detail in the section below on materials. Kaschub and Smith (2009, 2016) have created a comprehensive approach to developing compositional capacities of students from age 5 to 18 and beyond. Their approach develops the compositional capacities of beginner, intermediate, and advanced composers at various age levels. Freedman (2013) and Watson (2011) provide guidance for using technology as a tool in music composition programs. The role of composition in instrumental and choral ensembles programs has been addressed in edited volumes by Randles and Stringham (2013) and Kerchner and Strand (2016), respectively.

Assessment of compositions Because much of recent education in the United States emphasizes data-driven instruction to the exclusion of all else, teachers often have questions about how to present valid, reliable data to their administrators. While the voluntary national standards provide some guidance, assessment of student compositions is an evolving practice. Many of the published rubrics and assessment checklists betray a lack of understanding of the developmental nature of the work of young composers and limited experience with actual student work. On a more positive note, there are state, regional, and national competitions that do excellent work in providing feedback and encouragement to young composers. Many of these employ a version of consensual assessment (Hennessey & Amabile, 1999; Hickey, 2001). According to Hennessey and Amabile, consensual assessment is a technique to evaluate some product that relies on the independent, subjective judgments of individual experts. Deutsch (2016) also provides suggestions for guiding and assessing the work of young composers based on his more than 20 years of experience teaching 10- to 12-year-olds to create individual compositions. 516

Situating composition in music education in the United States

However, there is often confusion about the distinction among feedback, assessment, evaluation, and grading. Feedback is commentary from peers, teachers, and others aimed at identifying what the student was trying to create and the success of that attempt. In general, it should be positive and encouraging and offered only when the young composer indicates a willingness to hear what others might offer. Assessment is inherent in student work – both at the individual level and within composing communities. It is the process of gathering information about the current levels of student achievement. Feedback can then offer limited suggestions or ideas for future directions. Feedback can also reinforce what the young composer has done well. But that all requires that the assessor has heard the piece and thoughtfully considered its qualities and possibilities. Asking the young composer questions about what they were trying to do often points the way to the best feedback. When the assessors include not only the teacher but also peers and occasionally experts from outside the classroom, the possibilities for growth in young composers expand. Evaluation – the process of judging the quality of achievement – and grading, which symbolize the results of evaluation, should be reserved for completed works that the composer feels ready to share with a wider audience. No one should be graded on their first attempt at anything, much less their first composition. When a grade is needed, it should be based on a second (or even later) attempt at the same task. Everyone, even the least skillful and most inhibited young composers, improves with effective practice and feedback. Assessment and evaluation are closely related to ideas of pedagogy. No accomplished teacher assesses students on material that has not been taught or uses criteria that have not been made explicit in previous lessons. Yet the model for effective compositional pedagogy relies on working with emergent material and shaping the processes students use to foster compositional growth. Students’ creations usually evolve over time. This requires quite a different style of instruction than that needed to teach an existing score. It is similar to the differences between teaching creative writing and teaching literature in language arts classes. Compositional problems have no single right solution, but multiple ways of creating a product. Teachers must help students find possibilities and shape those ideas. Unlike the typical classroom music lesson on a specific style of music or the preparation for a concert performance, the ensuing compositional product is not usually known at the beginning.

Teaching composition as an extracurricular activity Several non-profit programs exist in the United States to provide educational opportunity and advance the work of young composers and their teachers. Music-COMP, previously The Vermont MIDI Project, (see https://www.music-comp.org), began in 1995 as an effort to help Vermont educators implement the voluntary national standards. It continues this work today as a non-profit organization dedicated to providing online mentoring, free composition resources, live performances of student work, and professional development for teachers. The American Composer’s Forum (see https://www.composersforum.org) currently offers the “NextNotes High School Composition Awards” program for students in grades 9–12. Students are invited to submit a single composition in any genre. Six students are chosen from a national pool to receive mentorship from professional composers and performing musicians over the course of a two-day workshop. Composers are provided with a scholarship to be used for formal composition study. The National Association for Music Education offers a Young Composers Festival at the national level (see https://nafme.org/programs/contests-calls-competitions/). Similar festivals occur within some division and state-level branches of the organization. In most cases, 517

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

students are invited to submit compositions for review by professional composers and composition educators. The workings of these festivals have been highly influenced by composition educator Daniel Deutsch, who advocated that the reviewers write letters to all applicants for a given festival, outlining the strengths of their work and suggesting future directions they may wish to explore (Deutsch, 2016). Some students are invited to have their works performed at state-, regional-, and national-level conference of the National Association for Music Education where they may have further opportunities to interact with professional composers and their compositional peers.

Materials for teaching music composition Composition is rarely a topic included in school music series books. When it is included, it is often limited to completion exercises that are really music theory etudes. Similarly, beginner instrumental books often include short sections that ask the student to “complete this phrase” or “write an answering phrase.” These tasks often limit the students to the notes introduced so far and tend to specify the number of measures and meters. In other words, student creativity and musical intention are severely limited by the parameters of the assignment. While this structure can guarantee the creation of a music product for most students, it does not usually lead to musically expressive results. The inclusion of these limited activities is a result of the first set of national standards. Prior to that, student books rarely included any type of composing. While student series texts are still limited in scope in regard to composition, there has been an overall improvement in the quantity and quality of resources available to teachers as publication outside of series and instrumental methods books has blossomed. It has been exciting to witness a significant increase in the number and quality of resources available to teachers for use with K–12 students. What follows is a sampling of what is currently available.

Resources for elementary music In what is arguably the first composition pedagogy resource created specifically for teachers of younger students, Jackie Wiggins’ Composition in the Classroom: A Tool for Teaching (1990) provides concise entry-level tools for teacher-facilitated full-class songwriting in the elementary classroom. Students are carefully guided through the creation of lyrics, melodies, and accompaniments in a manner that fosters creative thinking and artistic decision-making and which results in the production of accessible songs. As the process is student-centered, students feel a deep sense of attachment to and pride in their musical creations. Composition for Young Musicians: A Fun Way for Kids to Begin Creating Music (2005) by Jennifer Wilson offers a text that focuses on sound, mood, and form. The format of the book is inviting, and the lessons have appeal for its target student at ages 8–12. Reproducible student pages are offered, but no guidance is given to teachers. Exercises begin broadly and aim to move students toward composing at a piano. The text focuses on individual students as composers and therefore is an appropriate resource for private lessons and one-on-one teaching situations. Experiencing Music Composition in Grades K–2 (2022a), Experiencing Music Composition in Grades 3–5 (2017), and Experiencing Music Composition in Middle School General Music (2022b) by Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith seek to promote the development of compositional capacities in young composers. Each book opens with introductory material for parents and teachers. The compositional capacities of feelingful intention, musical 518

Situating composition in music education in the United States

expressivities, and artistic craftsmanship are introduced as key features of student learning. Descriptions of young composers, compositional processes, and products are provided to orient adults to typical features of children’s work. Five distinct genres are addressed across 15 lessons in each book to provide a series of composition activities that can serve as a composition strand within existing school curriculums.

Resources spanning K–12 classroom and ensembles Minds on Music: Composition for Creative and Critical Thinking (2009) was written by Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith to offer a comprehensive text on teaching composition across the K–12 grade span. It provides an overview of research on composition through 2009 and provides a philosophical perspective for teaching composition at all grade levels and across all skill levels. The text features specific grade-level guidance for teachers of grades K–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, and 9–12 students. It also contains chapters addressing assessment and a call to create composition strands in music education that would parallel existing school-based instrumental and choral programs. Teaching scenarios and lesson plans are offered at each grade level as models. The goal of the text is to help teachers learn to create composition materials tailored to the needs of their own students and the parameters of their own teaching contexts. In Music Outside the Lines: Ideas for Composing in K–12 Music (2012), Maud Hickey offers a collection of composition activities well-suited for those new to teaching composition. The approach outlined is predominantly teacher-focused but provides a valuable model for initiating work with open-ended task structures that make more artistic decision-making opportunities available to students.

Resources for specific settings The Piano Teacher’s Guide to Creative Composition (2011) by Carol Klose is an example of a composition pedagogy resource written specifically for private lesson instructors. The text is an excellent resource for students who are notationally literate and ready for training in specific compositional devices and techniques. The activities in this text lead to the creation of pieces that are more music theory-driven etudes than compositions. The parameters for each assignment are highly specified and do not challenge student’s compositional and artistic autonomy in the way that more open-ended task structures might. In Musicianship: Composing in Band and Orchestra (2013), editors Clint Randles and David Stringham bring much-needed attention to the topic of situating composition activities in instrumental ensembles. The book presents a clear mix of theory and practice and offers model lessons created by both teachers and composers for use with K–12 students of varying skill levels. Jody Kerchner and Katherine Strand continue the focus on composition in ensemble settings with their volume, Musicianship: Composing in Choir (2016). This book features chapters from leading composition pedagogy scholars and lessons from practicing teachers. It also provides a rationale for the inclusion of composition study in choral settings as well as materials that teachers can weave into their rehearsals to expand their singers’ overall musical understandings. In Composition Concepts for Band and Orchestra: Incorporating Creativity in Ensemble Settings, editors Alexander Koops and Whitener (2020) present guidance for engaging instrumentalists with soundscapes, timbre, rhythm, melody, ostinato, texture, text-based composing, harmony, and form on the way to creating the final composition. Activities are imaginative and “bite-sized” for a level of manageability that invites successful curriculum integration. 519

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

Technology Scott Watson’s Using Technology to Unlock Musical Creativity (2011) explores how students might compose, improvise, arrange, and produce music using technology. The text is practical and accessible in its advancement of a framework that encourages students to discover their authentic musical selves as they work in technological environments. Full of suggestions and tips, this text is an excellent resource for those looking to use technology to its full advantage while maintaining artistic integrity and student agency. Barbara Freedman’s Teaching Music Through Composition: A Curriculum Using Technology (2013) features lessons specifically designed to engage high school students with composition through the medium of technology. Freedman offers a sequential set of lessons that grow progressively more challenging in terms of both technological skills and musical skills while maintaining a focus on musical expressivity throughout the text. Gena R. Greher and Suzanne L. Burton’s Creative Music Making at Your Fingertips: A Mobile Technology Guide for Music Educators (2021) offers guidance for the use of mobile technologies in the music classroom. With chapters addressing early childhood through high school, the contributors of this text highlight the ways in which technology can be used as a tool for enhanced learning while maintaining a focus on creative and expressive artistry.

Composition in teacher education Pre-service teacher interaction with composition is typically limited to those experiences that occur within music theory courses. Consequently, they are tacitly taught to subscribe to a “notation first” approach to composition. Moreover, it means that their personal experiences with composition are often limited to task structures that are notation bound, highly prescriptive, and do not offer much in the way of artistic musical autonomy. While composition activities may be introduced in any methods course, methods courses designed to present a broad sampling of music activities, termed “general music,” are probably the most common point of entry. These courses are typically focused on teaching students at the elementary or secondary level. In grades K–5 (ages five to ten), composition activities are often partnered with listening, singing, or instrument playing. At the middle school and high school level, composition is usually situated within music technology and production courses or in guitar classes. Because of the guitar’s association with popular music, these classes sometimes include aspects of songwriting. Method courses addressing choral and instrumental ensemble teaching sometimes present composition activities for enrichment or expansion of overall musicianship. More commonly, composition study added to these courses serves to propel skill development as it relates to improved performance. The typical pre-service training and graduate training available from music teacher-educators usually influences whether college students and teachers use a sound-first or notation-first approach to composition. Because music teacher-educators have been trained in the same performance-based approach to teacher education as is being provided to their post-secondary students, they may experience the same frustrations as many educators do when considering composition: (1) lack of personal experience; (2) little, if any, preparation; and (3) limited experience with student composers and their compositions. Consequently, it is difficult to break the cycle and bring more teachers into a place of comfort and expertise in teaching music composition (Kaschub & Smith, 2013). 520

Situating composition in music education in the United States

Next level teaching In institutions where music teacher-educators have a particular interest in composition, courses may exist that specifically address composition pedagogy. These are still rare offerings as music education program directors and faculty struggle to balance traditional curricular demands with new possibilities. Given this situation, there are only a handful of institutions in the United States where college students majoring in music education can select composition as their area of applied study in a manner equivalent to choosing voice or a woodwind, brass, string, percussion, or keyboard instrument. This means that students who are passionate about music composition must set aside their identities as composers and adopt the identity of performers to gain access to music teacher education (Kaschub, 2014). Graduate coursework can provide an opportunity for teachers to develop their identities as composers while studying composition pedagogy. One example of this work is found in Composing Together, a three-level certificate program in composition pedagogy aimed at teachers of K–12 music students. Teachers participating in this program took composition lessons and worked on compositions at their own level of comfort to build their “composer selves.” They participated in large group, small group, and partnered composition activities to discover how their students experience composition lessons. They also worked alone and in teams in a week-long, single-level intensive course to design and implement composition lessons tailored to their school’s curriculum and their students’ needs. Teachers completing the program reported greater comfort in teaching composition and incorporated more composition activities into their curriculums (Smith, 2012) in the period following the course. Variants of this program have been offered at a handful of institutions across the United States.

Conclusion: next steps in teacher education The next significant challenge for music teacher education lies in addressing the needs of music teacher-educators. As most were prepared for their early teaching careers within programs that favored performance-based education, many are not comfortable with composing or with teaching strategies for engaging students in composition. Noting this challenge, Kaschub, and Smith (2013) gathered 20 contributors to create Composing Our Future: Preparing Future Educators to Teach Composition. They examined philosophical issues, outlined research in composition pedagogy, situated composition methods in elementary and secondary classrooms and rehearsal halls, considered the needs of special learners, and detailed how composition study might become more present in teacher preparation programs. As awareness of composition’s educational potential grows, both within the United States and internationally, more teacher-educators will come to the profession with experience in guiding student work. Until that time, competent professionals at all levels must educate themselves. They must actively seek compositional practices and pedagogies to explore with their pre-service teacher to deepen and broaden musical understanding. Everyone can benefit. Subsequent endeavors hold the potential for composers and their audiences for generations to come.

Reflective questions 1 What might a composition-centered curriculum look like in practice? 2 Music education in the United States is performance-based. How might the addition of composition impact the nature of learning in performance ensembles?

521

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith

3 How would teacher education need to change to include composition in school curriculum? How could teacher-educators acquire and pass along these skills?

References Bucura, E., & Weissberg, J. (2017). Children’s musical empowerment in two composition task designs. Research and Issues in Music Education, 13(1), Article 4. http://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol13/iss1/4 Cremata, R., & Powell, B. (2017). Online music collaboration project: Digitally mediated, deterritorialized music education. International Journal of Music Education, 35(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/10. 1177%2F0255761415620225 DeLorenzo, L. C. (1989). A field study of sixth grade students’ creative music problem-solving processes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(5), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3344669 Deutsch, D. (2016). Authentic assessment in music composition: Feedback that facilitates creativity. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 53–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0027432115621608 Doiron, M. R. (2019). Composition in secondary instrumental music education: Two case studies (Publication number 13809501) (Doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). Lowell Mason. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved August 9, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lowell-Mason Freedman, B. (2013). Teaching music through composition: A curriculum using technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greher, G. R., & Burton, S. L. (2021). Creative music making at your fingertips: A mobile technology guide for music educators. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780190078119.001.0001 Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In S. Pritzker (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity 1 (pp. 347–359). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Worldwide: Academic Press. https://doi. org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.23590-6 Hess, J. (2018). Detroit youth speak back: Rewriting deficit perspectives through songwriting. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (216), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.5406/ bulcouresmusedu.216.0007 Hess, J. (2019). Moving beyond resilience education: Musical counterstorying. Music Education Research, 21(5) (pp. 488–5022). https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2019.1647153 Hickey, M. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between children’s creative musical thinking processes and products (Dissertation abstracts international) 57(1), 145-A. (University Microforms No. 9614754) Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234–244. https:// doi.org/10.2307%2F3345709. Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines: Ideas for composing in K-12 music classrooms teacher guidance, open-ended approach to many tasks, but teacher-centered. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199826773.001.0001 Jasen, D. A. (1988). Tin Pan Alley: The composers, the songs, the performers and their times: The golden age of American popular music from 1886 to 1956. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203502464 Jorgensen, E. R. (2016). Another perspective: The joyous composer. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 71–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0027432115621864 Kaschub, M. (1997). A comparison of two composer–guided large group composition projects. Research Studies in Music Education, 8(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x9700800103 Kaschub, M. (1999). Student’s descriptions of their individual and collaborative music composition processes and products initiating from prompted and unprompted task structures in grade six (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Kaschub, M. (2014). Making way for new teacher identities: The composer-educator. In Paper presented at new directions in music education: Teaching composition and improvisation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2009). Minds on music: Composition for creative and critical thinking. Lanham, VA: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

522

Situating composition in music education in the United States Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2013). Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199832286.001.0001 Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2016). Experiencing music composition in Grades 3–5. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2017). Experiencing music composition in Grades 3–5. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2022a). Experiencing music composition in Grades K–2. Reston, Virginia: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Kaschub, M., & Smith, J. (2022b). Experiencing music composition in middle school general music. Reston, VA: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Kerchner, J., & Strand, K. (2016). Musicianship: Composing in choir. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Klose, C. (2011). Piano teacher’s guide to creative composition. New York, NY: Hal Leonard. Koops, A. P. (2009). Incorporating music composition in middle school band rehearsals (UMI 3389504) (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Koops, A., & Whitener, J. (2020). Composition concepts for band and orchestra: Incorporating creativity in ensemble settings. Reston, VA: Rowman and Littlefield Education. Kratus, J. K. (1985). Rhythm, melody, motive and phrase characteristics of original songs by children aged five to thirteen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Kratus, J. K. (1989). A time analysis of the compositional processes used by children ages 7 to 11. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37(1), 5–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3344949 Kratus, J. K. (2001). Effect of available tonality and pitch options on children’s compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(4), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 3345613 Kratus, J. (2016). Songwriting: A new direction for secondary music education. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115620660 Livingston, C. (2019). Young Composers Project. Grove music online. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/ 9781561592630.article.A2263403 Orman, E. K. (2002). Comparison of the national standards for music education and elementary music specialists’ use of class time. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 155–164. https://doi. org/10.2307/3345819 Phelps, K. B. (2008). The status of instruction in composition in elementary general music classrooms of MENC members in the state of Maryland (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Priest, T. L. (1997). Fostering creative and critical thinking in a beginning instrumental music class (Dissertation abstracts international). 58 (10), 3870A. (UMI No. 9812743) Randles, C., & Stringham, D. A. (Eds.). (2013). Musicianship: Composing in band and orchestra. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications. Riley, P. E. (2006). Including composition in middle school band: Effects on achievement, performance, and attitude. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(1), 28–38. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/87551233060250010104 Ruthmann, S. A. (2008). Whose agency matters? Negotiating pedagogical and creative intent during composing experiences. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177% 2F1321103X08089889 Shouldice, H. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs regarding composition in elementary general music: Definitions, values, and impediments. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(2), 215–230. https://doi. org/10.1177/1321103X14556574 Smith, J. P. (1994). Piano students as composers–Qualities of prompted and unprompted compositions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Music Educators National Conference, Cincinnati, OH. (April 1994). Smith, J. P. (2004). Music compositions of upper elementary students created under various conditions of structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Smith, J. P. (2012). Composing a rainbow: Musician, teacher, composer, composition facilitator. Poster presented at the International Society for Music Education World Conference in Thessaloniki, Greece. (July 2012). Strand, K. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/4101437

523

Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith Stauffer, S. L. (1997). Composing with computers: Meg makes music. Paper presented at the Symposium for Research in General Music, Music Educators National Conference, Tuscan, AZ. (February 1997). Stauffer, S. L. (1998). Children as composers: Changes over time. Paper presented at the Creativity Special Research Interest Group, Biennial Convention of the Music Educators National Conference, Phoenix AZ (April 1998). Stringham, D. A., Thornton, L. C., & Shevock, D. J. (2015). Composition and improvisation in instrumental methods courses: Instrumental music teacher educators’ perspectives. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (205), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.205.0007 Thomas, R. B. (1970). MMCP synthesis; a structure for music education. Purchase, NY: Manhattanville College Media Materials, Inc. Watson, S. (2011) Using technology to unlock musical creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Webster, P. R. (2012). Towards pedagogies of revision: Guiding a student’s music composition. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051712000514 Wiggins, J. H. (1990). Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Wiggins, J. H. (1993). The nature of children’s musical learning in the context of a music classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(11), 3838–A. (University Microforms No. 93–05, 731). Willoughby, D. (1971). Comprehensive musicianship and undergraduate music curricula. Contemporary Music Project. Music Educators National Conference. https://doi.org/10.2307/3393919 Wilson, J. (2005). Composition for young musicians: A fun way for kids to begin creating music. Van Nuys, CA: Alfred Publishing Company.

524

CONCLUSION Kirsty Devaney, Martin Fautley, Joana Grow, and Annette Ziegenmeyer

In this book, our aim has been to increase awareness of the manifold aspects and dimensions of composing in educational contexts by taking a series of international perspectives. Thus, the book considers implications as to what pedagogies of composing entail, and how these are implemented in schools and colleges throughout the world. Many approaches, projects, and programs in composing pedagogy have been presented in the individual chapters, and thorny issues of value, legislation, and tradition have been explored, exposed, and discussed. We encourage readers to challenge their own perspectives on the teaching and learning of composing in schools, colleges, and elsewhere and hope that the book provides a foundation for future scholarship, study, and research. It is also hoped that those who have read it will continue to advocate for composing as a valuable and normal activity for all children and young people in every context throughout the world. We look forward to learning and reading more about how composing is being embedded into educational systems globally, and that our children and young people can look forward to a bright future of composing music, in whatever style, type, or genre that they choose. We also want to encourage dialogue between the difference perspectives in order to learn from each other and strengthen the relevance of composing in educational settings.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003184317-46

525

INDEX

Note: Page references in italics denote figures, in bold tables and with “n” endnotes. Aalberg Husebø, B. 306–308 Academy of Music and Drama (AMD), Gothenburg University 391, 391 active music development 313 activity format, characterizing play 257, 259–261 activity theory perspective, and musical play 257–260 Adachi, M. 282 Adderley, C. 506 African pianism 298, 299 African song cycle 494 African vocalism 298, 300 Airasian, P. 467 Alegret, M. 367 “Allmenn musikkundervisning” (Sætre and Salvesen) 308 Allsup, R. E. 157 Alt, Michael 143 alternative musical pedagogies 39–40 American Composer’s Forum 517 Andersen, V. 306–308 Andrew, Kerry 237 Andrews, B. 61 Aotearoa New Zealand 265–275; composing in curriculum context 266–267; composing in primary school 267–268; composing in secondary school 268–270; group composing and NCEA assessment 272–273; illustrative examples 270–274; Orff approach 270–272; song writing 273–274 applied-cum-performance method 296 ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Musikerzieher Österreich’ (AGMÖ) 29 Aristotle 208, 209

Arkhipova, A. 108 Arnold, Matthew 4 artists 28, 31, 33–34, 135, 228, 325; artists-in-residence 130; makeup 369; and musicians 107; residencies 125; students viewed as 49; visual 57 arts school 388–389 Ases Alborch, C. 370 Aspin, D. 446 assessment: of classroom composing 458–459; of composition in music as subject 358–359; of compositions 453–456, 516–517; formative 456–457; summative 456–457; in teaching and learning composing 467–472 assessment for learning (AfL) 468; see also formative assessment Associated Board of the Royal School of Music (ABRSM) 236, 358, 419n3 Association of Music Didactics Switzerland (Verband Fachdidaktik Musik.ch) 405 assumptions, and composing pedagogies 282 Aston, J. 106 Aston, Peter 307, 314, 379, 396 Attali, Jacques 211 “Auditive Wahrnehmungserziehung” (education on listening) 143 Auh, M. S. 59 Australia: compulsory education 10; Constitution 11; hip-hop 9–10; musical cultures 9–10; teaching music creation in 9–22 Australian Bureau of Statistics 10–11 Australian Capital Territory (ACT): assessment 15; Early Music 15; IDM and Hip Hop 15; music courses 14

526

Index Australian Curriculum 11–15 Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) 9 Austria: composition teachers, informal learning 32–33; elementary school 28; future perspectives 34–35; ‘Klangnetze’ (‘Webs of Sound’) 29–30; lower secondary level 28; school curricula 27–29; university course 31–32; upper secondary level 28–29 Authelain, Gérard 130 authentic situations 364 Aviram, Eilon 35n4 axiology in composing pedagogies 281–288 Bach 95, 97, 145, 191, 212, 214, 307, 459, 462 Baker, R. 505 Bakke, S. 307, 308 Ball, S. J. 446, 459, 469 ‘Bamberger Fachstrukturmodell’ 31 Bamford, Anne 174 Bandcamp 494 Barrachina, Ros 367 Barrett, M. 190, 254–255, 256, 424 barriers: to digital technology in classroom 333–334; -free music education 103 Barry, John 462 Bartel, L. 61 Bartók, Béla 18 Bašić, Elly 79 Battle Dance 18 Battle Pavane (Susato) 18 The Beatles 329 Beeby, Clarence 265 Bennett, H. S. 423 Berberian, Cathy 427 Berg, Alban 135 Berg Orchestra 108 Berio, Luciano 199 Berkley, R. 77, 255 Bernabé, M. M. 366 ‘Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen’ (BHS) 28 Bettger, P. 59 BGŻ BNP Paribas Foundation 323 Biasutti, M. 200 Biesta, Gert 342, 459 BiisiPumppu project 117 ‘Bildungsanstalt für Elementarpädagogik’ (BAfEP) 29 ‘Bildungsanstalt für Sozialpädagogik’ (BASOP) 29 Billings, R. 357, 358–359 bi-musicality 99 Biophilia 178 Biophilia Educational Project 178 Birmingham Contemporary Music Group (BCMG) 187

Black, P. 467 Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) 235, 240n3 Black Lives Matter movement 237 Blackmore, Ritchie 311 Blake, Felix I.R. 413 BNCC (Common Curricular National Base) 38 Boden, M. A. 5, 92–93, 363, 384 body ostinatos 43 Bolden, B. 57–58, 60 book: censorship 72n6; schoolbooks 34, 140, 321; textbooks 10, 17, 65–71, 72n6, 116, 145, 210, 215, 227, 236, 354, 506; thematic 177; workbooks 430, 433, 435 Book of Changes 65–66 Book of Documents 66 Book of Odes 66 Book of Rites 66 Bordeaux, Marie-Christine 125 Bösze, Cordula 30 Boulez, Pierre Louis Joseph 212 Bourdieu, Pierre 64, 238–239 Bouveresse, Martin 124 Bowman, Wayne 288 brainstorming 412 Brändström, S. 388 Bray, David 457 Brazil: alternative musical pedagogies 39–40; music in school curricula 37–39; Pedagogy of Integration 38, 40–41; Pedagogy of Song 38–39, 42, 43–44; popular song 42–44 Brazilian riflessione 42 Bright Sheng 67 Broadfoot, P. 452 Brookhart, S. M. 471 Brophy, T. S. 467, 472 Bruce, C. 189 Bruner, J. 1 Brydson, J. C. 357, 358–359 Bull, Anna 286 Burial 331–332 Burkhard, F. 127 Burnard, P. 2, 3, 60, 64, 91, 97–98, 196, 308, 333, 455, 459 Burnett, Michael 413 Burowska, Zofia 318–319 Burton, Suzanne L. 520 Bush, George W.: America 2000 strategy 503 Byo, S. J. 505 Byrne, C. 354, 357 Cage, John 210, 213 Cain, T. 331 Campbell, P. S. 256 Canada: articles on composition pedagogy in schools 56–60; creative opportunities in music classrooms 57–58; creativity

527

Index research 60; encouraging teachers to teach composing 61; mandated curricula 55–56; recommended composing practices 56, 58–60; teaching composition in music classrooms 55–61 Canadian Music Educator 56–57 Cañas-Escudero, M. 368 Cantiere Internazionale d’Arte di Montepulciano 403 Carey, G. 467 Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) 416 Caribbean Examination Council 414–415 Carlton, L. 354, 357 Carr, Emily 214 Cavanagh, C. 57, 61 CFMI (Centres de Formation de Musiciens Intervenants) 123, 130–131 chanson 130 Chantiers de la création 127 Chiba, Yukina 215 Children’s Competencies Guidelines for Music 123 China: Action Plan for Education Development and Decision 67; creativity in school curriculum 67–71; curriculum reforms 67–68; ethnic education 68–69; ethnic folk songs 69; globalization 65; historical review of music compositions 65–67; individual and collective education 69–71; multicultural education 68–69; music composition in school curriculum 67–71; music education 65–71; “open door” policy 66; patriotic education 68–69, 70 Chomsky, N. 363 Christianity 212, 487 Christophersen, C. 284 Chunn, Mike 269 Clapton, Eric 135, 311 classical music 9, 16, 20, 77, 234, 236–237, 253, 312, 322–323, 371, 401–402; Euro-American 207–208; European 39, 210–211, 416; Japanese 210; Western 1, 4–6, 93, 97, 173, 191, 210–212, 226, 238–239, 286–287, 295–296, 317, 330, 346, 356, 368, 425, 449, 477 C(L)A(S)P Model 38, 45n3 classroom: barriers to digital technology in 333– 334; composing, and digital technology 329–334 “click and consequence” 331 Clinton, Bill: Goals 2000: Educate America Act 503 Coldplay 135 collaborative creativity 196 collective education 69–71 Colwell, R. 452, 458, 467

Communist Party of China (CPC) 66 community music 190, 363, 381, 490 composerly thinking 284 composers: and inequalities 236–237; methods for working with children and young people 186–187; teachers as 6 composing: as activity outside school context 380; for all 2–4; in Aotearoa New Zealand 265–275; challenges of assessing 446–447; as classroom activity 457–458; to classrooms 444–445; in Croatian schools 80–86, 82–86; as current activity in high school program 401; in curriculum context 266–267; in Czech Republic 102–108; definitions of 2; exclusion, cycle of 186; in extracurricular/ interdisciplinary programs 401–403; as formal learning in institutions 380–381; games and exercises 58; graphic scores 59; in informal contexts 381; and instrumental proficiency 3; in lower secondary school in England 452–463; methods of teaching 185–192; with modality 187–188; in music education 91–100; for music learning 398–400; overview 49–53; pedagogy 1–2; pedagogy in Finland 114–120; in schools 377–379, 395–405; in secondary schools 268–270; songwriting 59–60; in Spanish national curriculum 364–366; starting points of 135–138; in teacher education programs 403–404; teachers work with 309–312; teaching and learning 284–285; who can teach 185–186; working with sound and soundscapes 58–59; see also composition Composing Our Future: Preparing Future Educators to Teach Composition 521 composition, definition of 12, 26, 27, 50, 172 Composition Concepts for Band and Orchestra: Incorporating Creativity in Ensemble Settings 519 Composition for Young Musicians: A Fun Way for Kids to Begin Creating Music (Wilson) 518 Composition in the Classroom: A Tool for Teaching (Wiggins) 518 composition teachers: Austria 32–34; informal learning of 32–33; role of 33–34 composition teaching: African pianism 299; African vocalism 300; drummistic piano style 300; native air 298–299; primary school level 291–293; researchcomposition 299–300; secondary school level 293–294; tertiary level 294–296 comprehensive musicianship 478–479 Comprehensive Musicianship Project 64 Confucianism 72n4

528

Index Confucian temples 72n3 Confucius 65–66 conscious improvisation 81 constructivist learning theory 225 Contemporary Music Project (CMP) 513 “Contemporary Polish Pluralistic Concept of Music Education” 318 content: great music considered 210–211; in music education 206–219 Cook, Peter 488 Cooke, D. 207 cooperative learning 260 cooperative school projects with professional composers 379 Cotolí Miguel, M. V. 369 Coufalová, G. 107 Course of Study (COS) 213 COVID-19 pandemic 330, 334 “Cracow Concept of Music Education” (CCME) 318 Craft, Anna 5, 93 Creating Music – A Composition Guide for Students (Gill) 17 Creating Original Opera (COO) curriculum 501 creation see music creation The Creative Music Classroom with Richard Gill (Gill) 17 creative music making 383–384 Creative Music Making at Your Fingertips: A Mobile Technology Guide for Music Educators (Greher and Burton) 520 creative music movement 341, 342–343 creative processes 52 creative scaffolding 404 creative thinking 94 “Creative Traction Ideas” (Friesen) 58 creativity 76; agenda 3; within arts curriculum 244–245; defined 94; and digital technology 177; and general music education 351–352; and Icelandic National Curriculum 173–174; innovative projects for 178–179; in music education 3, 91–100; in Polish music classroom 317–326; research 60; in school curriculum 67–71; teaching for 94–95; in Turkish music curricula 430–433 Cremata, R. 516 Croatia: compulsory schools, composing in 76– 87; extracurricular activities 79; fostering creativity in music lessons 78–80; improvisations and composing in schools 80–86, 82–86; musical creativity 76–77 Cropley, A. 357 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 60, 64, 95–96, 98, 351, 356–357 Cuadrado, A. 369 Culleré, Tornos 367

Cultural and Creative Arts (CCA) curriculum 290–294, 301 cultural heritage 253, 267, 286, 352 Culture Connected (Austria) 33 curriculum/curricula 378–379; Australian Curriculum 11–13; BNCC 38; British 64; CCA 290–293; Chinese 65, 67–68, 70–71; for compulsory school 386–387; Creating Original Opera (COO) curriculum 501–503; and creative activities 303–306; dynamic perspectives on 68; English National Curriculum for Music 345, 470, 472; Greek National Curriculum 156–169; Icelandic National Curriculum 173–176; ICT in 197–198; Kenyan 223–227, 231; mandated 55–56; Mexican 243–251; New Zealand 266–275; Polish National Curriculum 319–320; in Scotland 475–484; in South African schools 352–359; Spanish national curriculum 364–366; in Sweden 386–387; for upper secondary school 386–387 Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) 476 Curriculum Paper 16: Music in Scottish Schools (Scottish Consultative Committee on the Curriculum) 476 Czech Republic: composing in classroom 102–108; Different Hearing program 105–108; extracurricular context 104–105; music education in 104–108; workshops and publications 107–108 Dahlhaus, Carl 27, 141–142 Dahlstedt, P. 384 Dalcroze method 351–352, 367, 371, 397 “Dance of the Knights” 135 Darwin, Charles 64 Daubney, A. 472 Davidson, L. 423 Dawe, Lesley 61 de Bánffy-Hall, A. 381 Debussy, Claude 210, 211 Deci, E. L. 57 degrees of freedom: musical play 258 Delacroix, Eugène 135 Delalande, François 129, 397 Deleuze, G. 337, 342, 344 Deleuzian refrain 342–344 Dello Joio, Norman 513 DeLorenzo, L. C. 515 Dennis, B. 49, 444 Der fliegende Holländer 135 Derrida, Jacques 208, 209 deterritorialization 342–344 Deutsch, Daniel 483, 518 Devaney, K. 98, 145, 186, 236, 332, 425

529

Index Dewey, J. 307, 314 diachronic linguistics 206–207 Didaktik 35n1 Different Hearing program 103, 105–108 digital audio workspaces (DAWs) 274, 330–331 digital media 149 digital technology 330; and classroom composing 329–334; Iceland 177; and music creativity 177; as opportunity for change 329–331 Dimensions of Learning (Marzano) 502 Dionysianism 212 diversity: defined 233; and teaching composing 233–239 Dječja televizija 79 Dlouhý, Vítková 108 “Doing Gender” approach 233–234 Doiron, M. R. 516 Dolnośląskie Towarzystwo Muzyczne (The Music Society of Lower Silesia) 323 Dorfegger, Klaus 30 Dreamtime 212 “Dream Up” 323–325 drummistic piano style 298, 300 Dubovicki, S. 79 Duchemin-Lefebvre, Noémi 125 Dun, T. 66 Duncan, A. 61 Du Preez, M. 357 Dvořáková, M. 107–108 Eddington, A. 59 education: collective 69–71; ethnic 68–69; higher 391–392, 487–495; individual 69–71; see also specific entries educational music institutions 380–381; see also music schools Education Artistique et Culturelle (EAC) 126 Education Scotland 483 Einaudi 93 Eisner, E. 155 EJA (Education for Young and Adults) 45n4 elementary music: curriculum and resource books 434; resources for 518–519; teachers 501, 504–505 Elements of Musical Creativity 78 Elliott, D. J. 155 Emilia, Reggio 198 England: assessing composing 453–454, 458–459; composing and assessment 454–456; composing as a classroom activity 457–458; composing in lower secondary school in 452–463; formative and summative assessment 456–457; way forward 459–462 English National Curriculum 473n2

English secondary schools 444–449; challenges of assessing composing 446–447; “composing by numbers” 448–449; composing to the classroom 444–445; confidence in teaching/assessing composition 447–448; overview 444 equality: defined 233; and teaching composing 233–239 Ervasti, M. 119 Espeland, M. 286, 306–308 “Essential Learnings – Music” (Ministério da Educação) 339 Esthetic Program 387–388 ethnic education 68–69 ethos of versatility 115 Europa u školi 79 European music 207 Evans, Nancy 284 Experiencing Music Composition in Grades 3–5 (Kaschub and Smith) 518 Experiencing Music Composition in Grades K–2 (Kaschub and Smith) 518 Experiencing Music Composition in Middle School General Music (Kaschub and Smith) 518 extracurricular activities 79 extracurricular composition activities 390–391 extracurricular/interdisciplinary programs 401–403 Facebook 494 Fairfield, S. M. 505 Falthin, P. 384 Farish, I. 59 Faulkner, R. 158, 176 Fautley, M. 92, 446, 467, 472 Feichas, Heloisa 38 Feng, G. 70 Finland: composing and cultural participation 119–120; composing pedagogy in 114– 120; educating music teachers 118–119; free public school system 114; general music instruction 114; musical inventions 115; music educators 116–117; National Core Curriculum for Basic Education in the Arts 114, 116 Finn, Neil 269 Finnish Composers’ Copyright Society (Teosto) 117 Finnish National Opera and Ballet 118 Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra 118 Fitzpatrick, Sean 269 Fleuret, Maurice 125 “flow” 60 Folkestad, G. 332, 425 folk high schools 389–390 folk pedagogy 1

530

Index Folley, B. S. 357 Ford Foundation 513 form: in music education 206–219 formative assessment of composing 456–457 Framework Educational Program of the Czech Republic for General Music Education 102 Framework Education Program for Basic Art and Music Schools 104 Framework Education Program for Primary Education 102 Framework Education Program for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools) 102, 103 Frameworks for Primary and Secondary Music Education 105 France 122–133; chanson 130; composing in secondary schools 127–128; creating music as learning 126–127; creation/ composition 122–125; evaluation and assessment 128–129; historical and political overview 125–126; musique concrete 129; permanence 124–125; professional training 130–132; writing 124–125 Francis, J. 445, 446 Franco, Francisco 364 Fraser, Katherine 61 Fraser, Peter 265 Freedman, Barbara 520 Free Improvisation, Movements, Dance and Playing Instruments 78 Freinet, Celestine 318 Freire, P. 235 Friesen, D. S. 58, 59 Frith, S. 283 Fuller, S. 234 Fundacja Nowa Orkiestra Kameralna (The New Chamber Orchestra Foundation) 322 Funk, V. 236 Future Songwriting project 117, 118 Gamble, T. 39 games and exercises, and composing 58 Gangelhoff, C. 410 Ganru, G. 67 Garage Band 330 Gardner, J. 467 gatekeepers 96, 98 Gay, Isabelle 124 gender: and inequalities 236–237; and teaching composing 233–239; see also women general music education: creativity and 351–352; Grades 7–9 353–354; Grades 10–12 355–356; Grades R–6 352–353; music as a subject in secondary school 354–355; pedagogies and texts for teaching 354; in South African schools 352–356

generating, music composition 200, 200–201 “generative concepts” 470 genre 40–42; music 4–6; popular 9–10; teaching music composition 514–515 Gerber, Alain 128 Germany: composing in groups in school settings 148–149; composing in music classroom 145–146; composition pedagogy in 140–149; composition projects 146; curricula 144; digital media 149; evaluate/ assess processes of composing 149; meaning of composition/composing 141–142; music education in schools 52, 143–147; music-teacher education 147–148; music teachers’ perspectives on composing 53; school music textbooks 145; school system 143–144 Gibbons, E. R. 492 Gibson, Boyd 417 Gibson, C. 357 Giddings, Steve 57, 60 Giglio, M. 404 Gill, Richard: background 16–17; creative music classroom 17–22 Gillock, William 217 Gipps, C. V. 446 Glass Bead Game (Hesse) 214 Glenn Common 269 Glover, J. 157 Gómez, Lage 366 Gotland School of Music Composition 389–390, 393 Gould, E. 342 Gould, Glenn 214 Gove, Michael 4–5, 16, 21–22, 287; on learning music notation 21; and non-WAM practice 20–21 Grajmy w szkole 322–323 graphic scores 59 Gray, C. 492 Greece: employing technology in music making 166, 166–167, 167; formal music curricula analysis, methodology 159–160, 160; Greek National Curriculum 156, 158–159, 166, 168; musical creation, age/ grade levels 161–165, 162, 162, 164, 165; role and function of composing 156–158; school music curricula 155–169; thematic organizers 158–159, 161–165 Greek National Curriculum 156, 158–159, 166, 168 Green, L. 5, 59, 236, 331 Greenfield, S. 256 Greher, Gena R. 520 GRM (Groupe de Recherches Musicales) 129 Grobler, J.-P. 357 Grønsdal, I. 306

531

Index Grounded Theory approach 16 group composing and NCEA assessment 272–273 Guattari, F. 337, 342, 344 Gudmundsdottir, H. R. 424 Guo, L. Y. 68 Haley, R. 60 Hallam, S. 483 “Hand Clapping” 70 Handel, G.F. 358 “haphazard learning” 331 Harmonization 356 Harrison, S. D. 467 Hartwich-Wiechel, Dörthe 307 Harwood, D. 212 Hayes, B. 505 H-creativity 94, 363, 384 “Hear and now: An introduction to modern music in school” (Paynter) 307 Heckel, S. 59 Hedren, J. 104 Heep, Uriah 135 hegemony in composing pedagogies 281–288 Helsinki Music Centre 118 Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra 118 Hendrix, Jimi 311 Henley, Darren 445 Henze, H. W. 403 Heß, F. 236 Hess, J. 346 Hesse, Hermann 214 Hickey, Maud 354, 515, 519 Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 237 higher education/university college 391–392, 487–495 high school programs: composing as current activity in 401; composition as specific practice in 400–401 Hindle, R. 266 hip-hop 322, 371, 507, 514; Australia 9–10; patriotic 69 Hip-Hop DJing 330 historical creativity 92, 94 Hogenes, M. 81, 260 Holder, N. 424 home-grown progressivism 265–275; composing in curriculum context 266–267; composing in New Zealand primary school 267–268; composing in secondary school 268–270; group composing and NCEA assessment 272–273; illustrative examples 270–274; Orff approach 270–272; song writing 273–274 Hooker, Nakamura 96 Hopkins, M. T. 505 Husebø, P. K. 306–308

Iceland: arts in education 174; creativity in education 173–174; digital technology 177; Icelandic National Curriculum 173–175; innovative projects for music and creativity 178–179; music education in 172–181; music schools 175; research project in music education 179–181; school-music in compulsory education 175–176; teaching materials for music education in 177–178; terminology for music composition 172–173 Icelandic National Curriculum 173–174, 181n1, 379; school-music (tónmennt) 174–175 Imada, T. 217 Imagine Poland 325 improvisation 260; in Chinese school curriculum 68; in Croatian schools 80–86, 82–86; in music education 64–65; skills 102–103 INA-GRM (Institut National de l’Audiovisuel – Groupe de Recherches Musicales) 129 in-class creative exercise method 296 individual education 69–71 informal engagement/training of children by composers 297–298 information communication technologies (ICT): Italian schools 196–198; and music composition 196–197; in national curriculum 197–198 Institute for Contemporary Music of the Frankfurt University of Music and Performing Arts (HfMDK) 146 instrumental pedagogy 26 instrumental proficiency, and composing 3, 330 International Society for Music Education (ISME) 115 Into Music series 267 ‘inventing music’ 27 Inventing songs at school (Danel and Delon) 130 involvement, musical play 258–259 Iskrice 79 Italian schools: composition pedagogy 194–203; creativity and compositional activities in 196; ICT 196–198; music composition in 194–195; music curriculum 195–196; projects on music composition 198–199 Izawa, Shuji 210 Jamaican Music (Burnett) 413 Japanese classical literature 209–210 Jaques-Dalcroze, Emile 157, 307, 318, 395 Jara López, J. 370 Jeux musicaux (Reibel) 129 Jinping, X. 70 JM International (Jeunesses Musicales International) 325 JM Poland 322, 325 Jones, Tom 135

532

Index Jørgensen, Harald 303, 354, 358 Journey Around Europe 77 Kabalevsky, Dmitri 318 Kahlo, Frida 135 Kalarus, Anna 319 Kalsnes, S. 305, 314 Kalyoncu, N. 433 Kanellopoulos, P. 65, 70, 119, 157, 165 Karatani, Kojin 209 Kaschub, Michele 64, 516, 518–519, 521 Katz, M. 330 Kawada, Junzo 212 Kenny, A. 284 Kenya: conceptual underpinnings 224–225; music and learning in 222–223; music curriculum and practice 223–224; secondary school 225–229 Kenyan secondary school: assessment 227; curriculum objectives and implementation 226–227; future prospects 228–229; learners’ perspective 227; learning composition 227–228; learning output 228; resources 228; teacher preparation 227; teachers’ perspective 226; teaching and learning composition in 225–229; teaching composition 226 Kerchner, J. 516, 519 Kern, R. M. 282 Kinderoper Winterthur 402 Kirkland, N. 506 Kivijärvi, S. 3–4 ‘Klangnetze’ (‘Webs of Sound’) 29–30, 32, 105 ‘Klangnetzwerk’ 30 Klangradar program 146 Klose, Carol 519 Knessl, Lothar 30 Kodály, Zoltán 157, 256, 307, 318, 350, 351–352, 353, 395, 397 Kokotsaki, D. 357 Kolář, J. 104 KOMPÄD 148 “Komponering i klasserommet – en praktisk metodikk” (Andersen, Espeland, Husebø, and Husebø) 308 ‘Konfrontationen’ 30 Koops, Alexander 516, 519 Koretz, D. M. 467 Kraftwerk 462 Kramer, W. 27 Kratus, J. 81, 157, 255, 515 Kukuriček 79 Kulturvermittlung Schweiz 401 Kurikulum nastavnog predmeta Glazbena kultura za osnovne škole i Glazbena umjetnost za gimnazije 78 Kuule! minä sävellän project 118

Kvarnerić 79 Kwami, R. 223 Kwan, E. 505 Łabanow, Viola 322 “Lady in Black” 135 “Lag med lyd: innføring i lydforming” (Bakke) 307 La musique est un jeu d’enfant (Delalande) 129 Landowski, Marcel 125 language 206; cultural system of 207 A la Recherche d’une Musique Concrète (Schaeffer) 129 Lebler, D. 467 LeGrand, C. 410 Lehmann-Wermser, A. 144 Lehrer, J. 60 ‘Lehrpraxis Komposition’ 32 Lehrpraxis Projektunterricht 32 Leren, O. 307 Lewis, F. 357, 482 Lines, D. 342 LINK project 198 Lion Foundation Songwriting competition 275 Listening to Music/Music Making (LMM) approach 77 little-c creativity 93 Little Kids Rock (LKR) 514 A Little Sound Education (Schafer and Imada) 214, 217 Littleton, K. 404 live arrangement 404 Logic Pro 330 Long, Z. 66–67 López, Oriol 366 López García 369 Luca, Stefani 397 Lupton, M. 189 Lyotard, Jean-François 211 MacDonald, R. 157, 354, 357 Mace, Ronald 214 Madrid Royal Theater 368 Madsen, C. 354 Maffezzoli, Gaja 397 Mahler, Alma 135 Makerere University: composition teachers/music educators 487–488; music theory and composition courses at 490 Malmö Academy of Music (MAM), Lund University 391, 391–392 Manasteriotti, Višnja 79 Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project 64, 105, 513 Mansell, W. 446 Marsh, K. 256 Martić, F. 79

533

Index Martínez, Valverde 366 materials 2, 34, 45n2, 69–70, 80–81, 141, 145, 158–159, 198, 213–214, 229, 231, 246, 249–250, 292–293, 306–308, 321, 377, 391, 434–438, 435, 436, 437, 480, 498, 518 Mattheson, Johann 141 McCabe, Jessy 237 McNicol, Richard 29 McPhail, G. J. 470 Medek, I. 107–108 Meiji Restoration 210 Melkus, L. 107 melodic improvisation 81 melody writing 357 Menard, E. A. 505 Meşk method 431 Messiaen, Olivier 135 Metropolitan Opera Guild (MET) 501 Mexico: arts education in basic education 243–246; arts project 245; interdisciplinary artistic collective 245; music composition teaching in schools 246–250; music content 245–246; pedagogical strategies 245–246 Miell, D. 157, 404 mimetic theory of art 208 Minds on Music: Composition for Creative and Critical Thinking (Kaschub and Smith) 519 Mitchell, N. 60 ModusM 148 monitoring/evaluating/revising, music composition 200, 201–202 Monte, P. E. 230 Moore, Gillian 354, 379 Moorhead, G. E. 256 Moreau, Benoît 402 Moreno, Hernández 366 Mota, G. 340, 342 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 135, 346 Muha, K. 79 Muhonen, S. 116, 119 multicultural education 68–69, 355 multiculturalism 308, 355, 359 Multiple Intelligence Theory 502 Murillo, A. 367 Murphy, P. 446 Mursell, James 318 musical creativity 76–77; in Trinidad 409–410; of young people in Poland 321–325; see also creativity Musical Futures 507 Musical Futures International website 507 Musical Games 78 Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) 20, 329, 332, 479

musical play 255–257; activity format 257; activity theory perspective 257–260; cultural-historical point of view 259–260; defined 256; degrees of freedom 258; involvement 258–259; rules 257–258 musical stimuli 137 The Music Book (Boardman & Andress) 501 music composition see composition music creation: France 122–125; strand 14; teaching, in Australia 9–22 music education: China 65–71; composing in schools 377–379; composition and improvisation in 64–65, 176; cooperative school projects with professional composers 379; creativity in contemporary concepts of 318–319; in Czech Republic 104–108; diverse role models 237–238; guiding standards of 64; and human culture 64; in Iceland 172–181; literature 377; music curricula 378–379; in Poland 318–319; in Portugal 338, 339–341; separation of form and content in 206–219; teaching materials for 177–178, 321; Western style of 66 Music Education New Zealand Aotearoa (MENZA) 267, 274 music educators: Australia 22; Canadian 57; Finland 116–117; Quebec 55; teacher training courses 38; for teaching composing 116–117 Music Educators National Conference see National Association for Music Education music history 86, 97, 176, 236, 350, 363, 365, 401, 413, 491; Brazilian 40; German 141; Western 49 musicians: in residence 368–369; in students’ operas 368–369 musicianship: comprehensive 478–479; performing, inventing and listening 478–479 Musicianship: Composing in Band and Orchestra 519 Musicianship: Composing in Choir (Kerchner and Strand) 519 musiciens intervenants 122, 130 “Music is for All” Foundation 322–323 musicking 256–257 Music Outside the Lines: Ideas for Composing in K–12 Music (Hickey) 519 music profile 387–388 music program 387–388 Music School at Luleå Technical University (MS) 391, 391 music schools 31–32, 380–381, 388–389; Finland 114; Germany 146; Iceland 174–175; Spanish 364, 369 Music Style and Composition units 13

534

Index music teachers/composers see teachers Music Teachers National Association (MR) 383 music theory 1, 9, 20, 32, 66, 102, 143, 172–173, 180, 191–192, 249, 330, 354–355, 365, 369, 380, 383, 387, 392, 396, 401–402, 413, 417–418, 432, 435, 437–438, 490–493, 513, 518–520 Musikalische Grundschule 397, 406n3 Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (MGG) 50 Musikkollegium Winterthur 402 “Musikkpedagogisk Grunnbok” (Vea and Lerens) 307 musikskapande 384 musique concrète 129 Muukkonen, M. 115 the myth of solitary genius 97

creative activities 303–306; Forsøksplan 303; interview material 309–312; Kunnskapsløftet (LK20) 303; Mangfald og fordjupning 303; Normalplanen for byfolkeskolen 304; Skoleloven 304; some reflections 312–313; teachers and composing 309–312; teaching materials for composition 306–308 notation: and composing pedagogies 421–427; and composition teaching 410–411 Novigradsko proljeće School of Creativity 80 Nzewi, M. 296, 299

National Association for Music Education 503, 513, 517–518 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) 268 National Core Curriculum for Basic Education in the Arts (Finland) 114, 116 National Forum of Music in Wrocław 323 “The National Organization for Music in the School” 304 National Standards for Arts Education 503 National Te Kōhanga Reo Trust 265 native air 298–299 Neil, Sam 269 the Netherlands: composition pedagogy 254– 255; musical play 255–257; musical play from activity theory perspective 257–260 Neue Musik 234 New Grove 50–51 New South Wales (NSW): assessment of music courses 15; music courses 13 New York Philharmonic 118 New Zealand primary school: composing in 267–268 Nick, Andreas 402–403 Nigeria: African pianism 299; African vocalism 300; drummistic piano style 300; informal engagement/training of children 297–298; native air 298–299; new composition approaches taught in institutions 298–300; research-composition 299–300; teaching of composition in 291–296; training of music teachers/ composers in 296–297 Nigerian National Policy on Education 293 Niland, A. 254, 256 Nimczik, O. 27 Nirvana or John Legend 135, 346 non-musical stimuli 137 Norway: authors experience with composing in classroom 308–309; curricula and

‘Oberstufe der Allgemeinbildenden Höheren Schulen’ (AHS) 28 Odena, O. 93, 97 Odora-Hoppers, C. A. 238 O’Dowd, J. 480 OeAD (Austria) 33 Ojala, Juha 119, 384 Okafor, R. 296 Omondi, W. A. 223 Onyeji, C. 230 operas 368–369 Orchestre National de Lyon 127 Orff, Carl 143, 157, 256, 306, 318, 321, 350, 351–352, 353, 354, 395, 397 Orff approach 270–272 Orff New Zealand Aotearoa (ONZA) 267, 274 Orff’s Schulwerk 105 organizing, music composition 200, 201 “Orientierung am Kunstwerk” 143 Original je uvijek bolji 79 Özeke, S. 433 Özgül, İ. 433 Pang, W. 354, 357 Park, S. 357 Partti, Heidi 51 patriotic education 68–69, 70 Pauget, Laetitia 128 Payno Rodríguez, C. J. 367 Paynter, John 49, 64, 106, 213, 307, 310, 314, 379, 396, 444, 456, 459 “pedagogical concerts” 368 pedagogic content knowledge (PCK) 461 pedagogies: models of teaching/learning music composition 487–495; supporting creativity in subject of music 356–357; for teaching creating in general music education 354 Pedagogy of Integration 38, 40–41 Pedagogy of Song 38–39, 42, 43–44 Peko, A. 79 percussive-bodily ostinatos 43 Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (Süskind and Williams) 135

535

Index permanence: France 124–125 Perry, M. 343 Peterson, C. 354, 357 Peterson, R. A. 282 Philpott, C. 467 Piano Teacher’s Guide to Creative Composition (Klose) 519 The Place of Music in 21st Century Education (Humberstone) 17 planning, music composition 200–201 Plato 208, 209 Platz, F. 236 Play it Strange Trust 269 Plowden Report 379 PNLD (National Plan for Books and Didactic Materials) 45n2 Pokreni promjenu 79 Poland: composition and Polish national education 321; composition in classroom 317–318; creativity and music education 318–319; “Dream Up” 323–325; Grajmy w szkole 322–323; Imagine Poland 325; innovative practices supporting musical creativity 321–325; music and Polish National Curriculum 319–320; national education 321; teaching materials for music education in 321 policy: education 6, 143, 274; English music education 444–445; Europeanization 209–210; neoliberal educational 266; open door 66; in Turkish schools 438; and values 286–287 Polish Association for Music Education (PSEiAM) 322 Polish Institute of Music and Dance 326 Polish music classroom: creativity in 317–326 Polish Music Council 321–322 Polish National Curriculum 321; music as a subject in 319–320 “Polyästhetische Erziehung” (polyaesthetic education) 143 Pond, D. 256 Popovič, M. 105 popular music 5, 20, 211, 238, 283, 295, 307, 329, 334n1, 370, 380–381, 385, 392–393, 514, 520; Brazilian 38, 40, 45; New Zealand 268–269, 275; pedagogies 507; student-led 190 Portugal: Deleuzian refrain 342–344; deterritorialization 342–344; music composition in general schools 339–341; music education in 338; music education in general schools 339–341; “National Curriculum for Basic Education – Essential Competences” (NCBE) 340–341; overview 337–338; rhizomatic music pedagogy in 346–347; spectrum of the rhizome 344–346

Portuguese general schools: first cycle of education 339–340; music composition in 339–341; music education in 339–341; rhizomatic music pedagogy in 346–347; second cycle of education 340–341 Portuguese Society of Music Education (APEM) 348n5 Powell, B. 516 Požgaj, Joža 79 Pratt, G. 39 praxial music education 317 Priest, T. L. 516 primary schools: composing for music learning 398–400; composition in 488; in Uganda 488 professional learning 482–483 progressivism, home-grown 265–275 project method 296 Prokofiev, Sergei 135 Proleta, J. 79 Przychodzińska, Maria 318 psychological creativity 92–93 “The psychology of the art” (Vygotsky) 258 pupil-centered learning 477–478 Quebec Federation of Music Educators’ Associations 55 Queensland: assessment of music courses 15; General Music syllabus 14 Raebeck, L. 350–352 Rainey, Pete 269 Rakijaš, Branko 78 Rakowski, Andrzej 321–322 Rameau, Jean-Philippe 135 Randles, C. 116, 506, 516, 519 Red Lust 325 “Reformpädagogik” 143 Reibel, Guy 129, 397 Renard, Claire 397 Renascent Junior Secondary Music Textbooks 66 Rennert, Konrad 30 Renshaw, Peter 41 research: on composition in educational contexts 369–370; in Spanish schools 366–367 research-composition 298, 299–300 resources: for elementary music 518–519; spanning K–12 classroom and ensembles 519; for specific settings 519 Reverdy, Michèle 127 Reymond, Noëlle 402 rhizomatic music pedagogy 346–347 rhythmic improvisation 81 Richards, H. 238 Richardson, C. P. 467 Riley, P. E. 506, 516 Robertson, N. 357 “Rock & Pop i klasserommet” (Ruud) 307

536

Index Rodríguez-Quiles, J. A. 368 Rojko, Pavel 79 Romanian Folk Dances Sz. 56 (Bartók) 18 Royal College of Music in Stockholm (RCM) 391, 391–392 rules, of musical play 257–258 Runswick, Daryl 29 Rusinek, G. 157 Russell, D. 353 Rutherford, S. 58 Ruthmann, S. A. 177, 516 Ruud, E. 307 Ryan, R. M. 57 Sacchi, Stéphane 128 Sadler, D. R. 285, 471 Sætre, J. H. 308, 313 Sáez, M. 368 Sági, M. 363 Said, Edward 211 Saint-Martin, Dominique 129 SaludArte Foundation 368 Salvesen, G. 308 Sánchez, I. T. 370 Sánchez Sánchez, A. J. 367 Säpe project 117 Sarmiento, Pedro 368 Satie, Erik 210 Saussure, Ferdinand de 206–209 Savage, J. 92, 331 Sawer, David 29 “Scentless Apprentice” 135 Schaeffer, Pierre 129 Schafer, R. Murray 49, 58–59, 211, 219, 397, 444; background 213–214; indictment 211–214; sound education 214–218; sound project 214–218 Scheib, Christian 30 Schlothfeldt, Matthias 142, 144, 405 Schmidinger, Helmut 396, 398, 405 Schmidt, C. P. 430, 505 Schneider, C. 506 Schneider, Hans 30 school-based music education 512–513 school music curriculum in Scotland 476–480 school music textbooks 145 School of Music, Theatre and Art at Örebro University (SMTA) 391, 391–392 schools: composing in 377–379, 395–405; future of composition in 371–372; Swiss curricula for compulsory 397–398 Schulwerk, Orff-Keetman 22 Schwanda the Bagpiper (Weinberger) 18 Scotland: 5–14 National Guidelines Expressive Arts 479; assessment 483–484; composition in music curriculum in 475–484; comprehensive musicianship

478–479; curricular structures in music education 480–481; Curriculum Paper 16: Music in Scottish Schools 477–478; future directions of composition 481–484; inventing/introduction of technology 479–480; music for all 477–478; national qualifications 481; performing/inventing/ listening 478–479; Primary Education in Scotland (Primary Memorandum) 477; professional learning 482–483; pupilcentered learning 477–478; school music curriculum in 476–480; Standard Grade Arrangements in Music 478; teacher, role of 481–482 Scottish Association of Music Educators (SAME) 483 Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA) 483–484 Scripp, L. 423 secondary schools: composing in 268–270; composition in 488; music as a subject in 354–355; texts for teaching composition in 357–358; in Uganda 488 Second World War 304 Sedlák, F. 104 self-expression 189 Sheeran, Ed 93 Shepherd, J. 286 Sheridan, M. 483 Shifres, 243 Shirasu, Masako 215 shoka 210 Shouldice, H. N. 505 Shulman, L. S. 425, 461 Sibelius Academy 118 Siljamäki, E. 165 Silva, Kristoff 38–39 Silver Burdett Music textbook series (Crook, Reimer, & Walker) 501 Simmonds, R. 446 Simon, G. 494 Simpson, K. 354 “Singing Schools” 512 situated cognition 364 Sloboda, J. 40 Smith, G. D. 506 Smith, Janice 518–519 Smith, J. P. 515, 521 SmokeFree NZ 269 Smokefree Rockquest 269, 274 Smokefree Tangata Beats 275 “The Snail Song” 70 Song Dynasty 66 songwriting 59–60, 273–274; and composition 512 Sontag 208 sound: education 214–218; project 214–218; and soundscapes 58–59

537

Index SoundCloud 494 Sound Forge 331 Soundpainting 309 soundwalk 215–216 South Africa: composition in 352–356; composition in music as a subject 358–359; creativity and general music education 351–352; general music education in 352–356; multicultural education 355; overview 350–351; pedagogies supporting creativity in 356–357; Supplementary Material Interim Core Syllabus 351; texts in the secondary school 357–358 South African schools: composition in 352–356; general music education in 352–356 South Australia (SA): Music Experience and Music Advanced 14; Music Studies and Explorations 14; music syllabi 14 Spain: composition as student-centered learning strategy 363–364; educational programs 368–369; future of composition in schools 371–372; musicians in residence and students’ operas 368–369; national curriculum 364–366; preparing teachers to teach composition 370–371; reports/ research about composition 366–367; research on composition in educational contexts 369–370; Spanish national curriculum 364–366 Spanish National Orchestra 368 Spanish schools: music composition in 363–372; reports and research about composition in 366–367 Spicks and Specks 17 Spotlight on Music 506 Spring and Autumn Annals 66 Stage-English-Music (SEM) 77 Stavrou, Economidou 156 Stenhammar, Wilhelm 390 The Stenhammar Project 390 Stevens-Fulbrook, P. 224 Stillinger, J. 97 stimuli: musical 137; non-musical 137 Stockhausen, Karlheinz 212 Stormzy 283–284, 462 Strand, K. 505, 516, 519 Stravinsky, Igor 135, 136 Stringham, D. A. 516, 519 student-centered learning strategy 363–364 Students Compose Opera 501 summative assessment of composing 456–457 Suppan, Wolfgang 30 Susato, Tielman 18 Süskind, Patrick 135 Svalina, V. 79 Swanwick, K. 3–4, 52, 422–424, 439, 467, 471

Swedish Arts Schools Council (Kulturskolerådet) 388–389 Swedish public schools: closing reflections 392–393; compulsory school curricula 386–387; extracurricular composition activities 390–391; folk high schools 389–390; Gotland School of Music Composition 389–390; higher education/ university college 391–392; music program and music profile 387–388; from music school to arts school 388–389; terms and concepts 383–386; upper secondary school curricula 386–387 Swedish Society of Composers 390 Switzerland: composing for music learning 398–400; composing in high school program 401; composing in schools 396–397; composing in teacher education programs 403–404; composition in high school programs 400–401; curricula for compulsory schools 397–398; definitions/ research in linguistic contexts 396–397; extracurricular/interdisciplinary programs 401–403; Lehrplan 21 397–398; overview 395; primary schools 398–400 synchronic linguistics 206–207 syncopation: and composition teaching 410–411 Synek, J. 107 Takasu, Hajime 213 Takechi, Tetsuji 209 Taki, Rentaro 210 Tanglewood Symposium 64, 72n2 Tasmania: composition 15; music courses 15; Music Technology Projects – Foundation syllabus 15 taste in music 4–6 Taxus, 146 teacher education: composition in 520–521; programs 403–404; United States 520–521 teachers 296–297, 481–482, 515–516; as composers 6; composition (see composition teachers); educating toward creative agency 118–119; education in Germany 147–148; elementary music 501, 504–505; encouraging, to teach composing 61; perspectives on composing 53; preparing, to teach composition 370–371; role in supporting composing process 189–190; training in Trinidad and Tobago 417; work with composing 309–312 teaching: for creativity 94–95; diversity and composing 233–239; equality and composing 233–239; gender and composing 233–239; inclusion and

538

Index composing 233–239; materials for composition 306–308; materials for music education 177–178, 321; methods, for composing 185–192; music composition through processes 200, 200–202; music creation, in Australia 9–22 teaching composition 200, 200–202; at different levels of study in Nigeria 291–296; in educational contexts 512–515; as extracurricular activity 517–518; in school settings 515–520; in Trinidad at the tertiary level 417–418; in various genres 514–515; see also composition Teaching Musical Creativity in Australia 16 Teaching Music Through Composition: A Curriculum Using Technology (Freedman) 520 technology 479–480, 520; and students compositions 331–333 Terhag, Jürgen 404 Terzić, V. 79 texts: for general music education 354; for teaching composition in secondary school 357–358 thematic organizers 158–159, 161–165 “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia” (Deleuze and Guattari) 337, 342, 344 Tianrong, W. 70 Till, R. 385 Tillman, J. 52, 439 Tomerlin, Vladimir 78 tónskáld 172–173 tónsköpun 173 Torigoe, Keiko 210 Torres, M. 493 training of music teachers/composers in Nigeria 296–297 translating, music composition 200, 201 Treaty of Waitangi 267 Trinidad and Tobago: creolization and context of composition in 409; musical creation in 409–410; primary level 411; secondary level (ages 11–14) 411–412; secondary level (ages 14–16) 412–416; secondary level (ages 16–18) 416; syncopation, notation, and composition teaching 410–411; teacher training in 417; teaching of composition at tertiary level 417–418; teaching of music composition in 409–416 The Trinidad and Tobago Steel Pan: History and Evolution (Blake) 413 Tsubonou, Yukiko 213 Turkey: composition-oriented creative activities in 429–439; general schools in 429–439; primary/secondary education in 433–438

Turkish music curricula: creativity and composition in 430–433; in history 430–432; in the present 432–433 Twitter 494 two composition-teaching pedagogies 15–17; Teaching Musical Creativity in Australia 16 Ubuntu philosophy as pedagogical model 489 Uganda 487–495; composition pedagogy, limitations to 491–492; composition within university context 488–489; music composition at university 489–490; music educators in higher institutions 491; National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) 487; National Curriculum Development Center (NCDC) 487–488; primary and secondary school in 488; Ubuntu philosophy 489 Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE) 490 Ugandan music educators: in higher institutions of learning 491; perspectives from 491 UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills 332 Understanding Standards (Scottish Qualifications Authority) 484 United States (US): 1994 and beyond 503–506; composition in teacher education 520–521; Core Music Standards 513; COVID-19 507–508; creating original opera 501–503; current trends 506–508; elementary general music 505; final thoughts 508; general music materials 501; instrumental music 505; music composition in K-12 schools in 498–508; music teacher education 507; National Standards for Arts Education 503–504, 513; popular music pedagogies 507; pre 1994 500–503; research studies 504; situating composition in music education in 511–522; teacher education 521; teacher preparation 505–506; teaching composition in educational contexts 512–515; teaching composition in school settings 515–520; textbook series 506; unusual exception 501 Universal Basic Education (UBE) 292 universal design 211–214, 219 University of Music and Performing Arts in Graz (KUG) 30–31 Upptakturinn (Upbeat) 179 Using Technology to Unlock Musical Creativity (Watson) 520 Väkevä, L. 3–4, 119 Valín, Herrero 367

539

Index values: composing pedagogies 282–284, 286–287; music 4–6 van den Heuvel, J. R. 357, 359 van Oers, B. 257 Varkøy, Ø 303–305, 313 Vea, K. 307 Veitl, Anne 125 The Vermont MIDI Project 517 Very Young Composers (VYC) program 118 Veslefrikk method 309, 314 Victorian Certificate of Education Music Study Design 13 “victory narratives” 284 Vidulin, S. 78, 79 Viladot, L. 369 Vilar, Peñalver 366 Virden, P. 286 visual arts 1; and children 1 Vitányi, I. 363 Vítková, L. 108 “Viva la vida” 135 Vivaldi, Antonio 135 vocal improvisation 43–44 vocal pedagogy 26 Vočanec, M. 79 Všetičková, G. 106, 108 Vulliamy, G. 286 Vygotsky, L. S. 257, 258 Wagner, Cosima 136 Wagner, Richard 135–136 Walker, Robert 59, 211–212 Wallas, G. 92 Walton, C. 135 Watson, Scott 520 Webern, Anton 462 Webster, P. 96, 189, 354, 515 Weinberger, Jaromír 18 Welch, G. 93, 97 Westbury, I. 305 Westby, I. A. 304 Westerkamp, Hildegard 216 Westerlund, Heidi 453 Western Art Music (WAM) 354, 512; Eurocentric 9–10; non- 20–21 Western Australia (WA): music courses 14 Western classical music 1, 4–6, 97, 296, 317; and Japanese classical music 210; problematizing 235–236; relativized 212; reproduction 234–235

Western European Art Music (WEAM) see Western Art Music (WAM) Western music culture 487 What’s Going On Now? (Broad) 475–476, 483 Wheeler, L. 350–352 Whitcomb, R. 354 White, J. 459 Whitener, J. 519 Wiggins, Jackie 515, 518 Wiggins, J. H. 64 Wiklund, C. 388 Wiliam, D. 459, 467 Willems, Edgar 395, 405 Williams, Hank 135 Williams, Robbie 135 Willingham, L. 57, 61 Wilson, Jennifer 518 Wishart, T. 286 Wisnik, J. 43 Witt, Karsten 29 women: composers 235; creative role in electronic music 370; and Doing Gender 234; and inequality in music industry 236–237; underrepresented in music technology industry 334; see also gender Woodford, P. 65 World War I 513 “The Wow Factor” (Bamford) 174 Wright, R. 40 writing: France 124–125; songwriting 59–60 WSMN (Western Standard Music Notation) 3–4 Xiaogang, Y. 67 Xiaoping, D. 66 Xinhua News Agency 72n7 Yamamoto, Fumishige 213 Yi, C. 66 Young, Michael 285 Young, S. 157, 256, 282–283 Young Composers Project 513 Younker, B. A. 333, 455 Youth Music Initiative (YMI) 476 Zagorski-Thomas, S. 332 Zake, G. S. 231 Zhang, Y. M. 69 Zi, H. 66 Ziegenmeyer, A. 236 Zocher, C. 147 Zouhar, V. 107

540