The purpose of this mixed methods study was to examine the use and perceived value of feedback on students’ creativity among preservice (n = 164) and in-service (n = 246) teachers. As an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the first phase of the study included a quantitative questionnaire that sought to examine music educators’ (N = 410) attitudes, beliefs, values, and utility of feedback on creative tasks. The second phase of the study was qualitative and included two components: (a) a pre-interview task where teachers (n = 49) provided written feedback on two student compositions and (b) one-on-one interviews with preservice (n = 6) and in-service (n = 9) teachers. The primary purpose of the second phase was to examine the types of feedback teachers provide on creative tasks, such as composition, and to allow teachers to describe their thinking about giving feedback on creative tasks. Finally, we integrated findings from both phases. The participants in this study reported valuing process- and goal-oriented feedback over task-oriented feedback. However, teachers demonstrated a tendency to provide more task-oriented (or product-oriented) feedback than process- or goal-oriented feedback when responding to the student compositions. Implications and recommendations for the field are discussed.
AjjawiR.OlsonR. E.McNaughtonN. (2022). Emotion as reflexive practice: A new discourse for feedback practice and research. Medical Education, 56(5), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14700
2.
BaltzerS. (1988). A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(4), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344876
3.
BergeeM. J.Cecconi-RobertsL. (2002). Effects of small-group peer interaction on self-evaluation of music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(3), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345802
4.
BlackwellJ.MatherneN. (2023). Developing feedback skills in preservice music teachers. International Journal of Music Education, 42(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614231163237
5.
BlackwellJ.MatherneN.McPhersonG. E. (2023). A PRISMA review of research on feedback in music education and music psychology. Psychology of Music, 51(3), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356221109328
6.
BoldenB.DeLucaC. (2022). Nurturing student creativity through assessment for learning in music classrooms. Research Studies in Music Education, 44(1), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X211054793
7.
BoldenB.RickeyN.DeLucaC. (2023). Nurturing musical creativity through assessment for learning. Music Educators Journal, 109(4), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321231176683
8.
BrooksC.CarrollA.GilliesR. M.HattieJ. (2019). A matrix of feedback for learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.2
9.
BylicaK.RathgeberJ. (2023). Fostering meaningful feedback through the critical response process. Music Educators Journal, 109(4), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321231178508
10.
ChaffinC.ManfredoJ. (2010). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding feedback and guided reflection in an instrumental early field experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(2), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083709354161
11.
CranmoreJ.WilhelmR. (2017). Assessment and feedback practices of secondary music teachers: A descriptive case study. Visions of Research in Music Education, 29, Article 6. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/vrme/vol29/iss1/6
12.
CrawfordR. (2017). Rethinking teaching and learning pedagogy for education in the twenty-first century: Blended learning in music education, Music Education Research, 19(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1202223
13.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
14.
de BruinL. R. (2024). Instrumental music teachers’ development of feedback across the lifespan: A qualitative study. International Journal of Music Education, 42(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614231151445
15.
DeutschD. (2016). Authentic assessment in music composition: Feedback that facilitates creativity. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432115621608
16.
DorowL. G. (1977). The effect of teacher approval/disapproval ratios on student music selection and concert attentiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344843
FodorE. M.CarverR. A. (2000). Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2289
19.
GohK.WalkerR. (2018). Written teacher feedback: Reflections of year seven music students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(12), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n12.3
20.
HamondL.HimonidesE.WelchG. (2020). The nature of feedback in higher education studio-based piano learning and teaching with the use of digital technology. Journal of Music Technology and Education, 13(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00015_1
HickeyM. (1999). Assessment rubrics for music composition. Music Educators Journal, 85(4), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399530
24.
HillS. 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
25.
HopkinsM. T. (2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414555135
26.
LeeH. (2019). Teachers’ negative emotional feedback can facilitate students’ learning: The role of epistemic motivation in undertaking divergent- and convergent-thinking tasks. Educational Psychology, 39(7), 900–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1592115
27.
LegetteR. M.RoyoJ. (2021). Pre-service music teacher perceptions of peer feedback. Research Studies in Music Education, 43(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x19862298
28.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
29.
MatherneN.BlackwellJ. (2023). Harnessing the power of feedback to improve student learning in music. Music Educators Journal, 110(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321231196132
30.
McPhersonG. E.BlackwellJ. (2024). Teacher feedback in collegiate instrumental music lessons. Journal of Research in Music Education, 73(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294241265014
31.
McPhersonG. E.BlackwellJ.HattieJ. (2022). Feedback in music performance teaching. Frontiers in Psychology: Performance Science, 13, Article 891025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.891025
32.
MercerM.GulserenD. B. (2023). When negative feedback harms: A systematic review of the unintended consequences of negative feedback on psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral responses. Studies in Higher Education, 49(4), 654–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2248490
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
34.
MolloyE.NobleC.AjjawiR. (2019). Attending to emotion in feedback. In HendersonM.AjjawiR.BoudD.MolloyE. (Eds.), The impact of feedback in higher education (pp. 83–105). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25112-3_6
35.
ReeseS. (2003). Responding to student compositions. In HickeyM. (Ed.), Why and how to teach music composition (pp. 211–232). Music Educators National Conference.
36.
RichardsonC. P.SaffleM. (1983). Creativity research in music education: A review. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 74, 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40317767
37.
RunningD. J. (2008). Creativity research in music education: A review (1980–2005). Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123308322280
38.
RuthmannS. 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/10.1177/1321103X08089889
39.
RyanT.HendersonM. (2018). Feeling feedback: Students’ emotional responses to educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456
40.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Inc.
41.
SelvarajA. M.AzmanH.WahiW. (2021). Teachers’ feedback practice and students’ academic achievement: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(1), 203–322. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.1.17
42.
ShenS.WangS.QiY.WangY.YanX. (2021). Teacher suggestion feedback facilitates creativity of students in STEAM education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 723171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.723171
43.
SilvermanM. J. (2009). The effect of positive peer reinforcement on psychological measures and guitar songleading performance in university students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123309344107
WebsterP. R. (1989). Creative thinking in music: The assessment question [Conference presentation]. Suncoast Music Education Forum, University of South Florida. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED378091
46.
WebsterP. R. (2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In SullivanT.WillinghamL. (Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. 16–34). Canadian Music Educators’ Association.
47.
WebsterP. R.HickeyM. (2001). Creative thinking in music. Music Educators Journal, 88(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399772
48.
WebsterP. R.HickeyM. (2021). Rating scales and their use in assessing children’s music compositions. Visions of Research in Music Education, 16, Article 26. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/vrme/vol16/iss6/26
49.
WendzichT.AndrewsB. W. (2019). Composing together: The development of musical ideas with students and teachers. Visions of Research in Music Education, 34(4), Article 4. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol34/iss1/4
50.
WendzichT.AndrewsB. W. (2022). Through the looking glass: A researcher’s perspectives on a collaborative music composition project. International Journal of Music Education, 40(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614211027248
51.
WisniewskiB.ZiererK.HattieJ. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
52.
Yee-KingM. J.WilmeringT.RodriguezM. T. L.KrivenskiM.d’InvernoM. (2019). Technology enhanced learning: The role of ontologies for feedback in music performance. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 5, Article 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2018.00029
53.
YounkerB. A. (2003). The nature of feedback in a community of composing. In HickeyM. (Ed.), Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education (pp. 233–242). Music Educators National Conference.
54.
ZieglerN.KangL. (2016). Mixed methods design. In MoellerA. J.CreswellJ. W. (Eds.), Second language assessment and mixed methods research (pp. 51–83). Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
