The aim of this study was to evaluate computer-based compositions by children with and without prior experience of formal instrumental music tuition (FIMT). Three different evaluations were employed involving music specialist and nonspecialist teachers, the children themselves, and expert ratings of melodic and rhythmic repetition and development. Participants were 32 children (aged 10 years) who had a minimum of two years of FIMT (n = 16) or no prior experience of FIMT (n = 16). Both groups were invited to compose a "piece" that "sounded good to them" using a specially designed computer-based composition programme. Results indicated that specialists and non-specialists did not differentiate between children with or without FIMT in their ratings of overall achievement. However, a factor analysis of the teachers' ratings of 15 specific characteristics revealed one factor for the non-specialists and three factors for the specialists. Specialist teachers' ratings of factor two, which was interpreted as "technical complexity", indicated higher ratings for children with FIMT than those without FIMT. Children with FIMT gave higher self-evaluations for "how good their composition sounded" than children without FIMT. Ratings of musical parameters revealed a greater use of melodic and rhythmic development by children with FIMT. Implications for music education and proposals for future empirical work are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blatchford, P.
(1992). Academic self-assessment at 7 and 11 years: its accuracy and association with ethnic group and sex. British Journal of Educational Psvchology, 62, 35-44.
2.
Burnsed, V.
, Hinkle, D. and King, S. (1985). Performance evaluation reliability at selected concert festivals. Journal of Band Research, 21, 22-29.
3.
Butler, R.
(1990). The effects of mastery and competitive conditions on self-assessment at different ages. Child Development, 61, 201-210.
4.
Covington, M. V.
and Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 2, 169-182.
5.
Daignault, L. (1996). A study of children's creative musical thinking within the context of a computersupported improvisational approach to composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago, U.S.A.: Northwestern University.
6.
Diener, C. L.
and Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processinig of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.
7.
Dowling, W. J.
(1982). Melodic information processing and its development. In: D. Deutsch (Ed.), Psychology of music. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Diener, C. I.
and Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.
9.
Dweck, C. S.
(1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, No. 10, 1040-1048.
10.
Fiske, H. E.
(1975). Judge group differences in the rating of high school trumpet performances. Journial of Research in Music Education, 23, 22-29.
11.
Flynn, P.
and Pratt, G. (1995). Developing an understanding of appraising music with practising primary teachers. British Journal of Music Education, 12, 127-158.
12.
Folkestad, G.
(1998). Musical learning as cultural practice: as exemplified in computer-based creative mnusic-making. In: B. Sundin, G. E. McPherson and G. Folkestad (Eds.), Children comtiposing: research in music education (pp. 97-134). Malmo Academy of Music: Lund University.
13.
Gromko, J.
(1993). Perceptual differences between expert and novice music listeners: a multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychology of Music, 21, (1), 34-47.
14.
Hare, F. A. G.
(1977). Dimensions of music perception. Scientific Aesthetics, 1, 271-280.
15.
Hargreaves, D. J.
and Colman, A. M. (1981). The dimensions of aesthetic reactions to music. Ps-ychology of Music, 9, 15-20.
16.
Hargreaves, D. J.
, Galton, M. J. and Robinson, S. (1996). Teacher's assessments of primary children's classroom work in the creative arts. Educational Research, 38, (2), 199-211.
17.
Hickey, M. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between children's creative musical thinking processes and products. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago, U.S.A.: Northwestern University.
18.
H.M.S.O. (Her Majesty's Stationery Office)
(1995). Music in the National Curriculum. London.
19.
H.M.S.O. (Her Majesty's Stationery Office)
(1995). A Review of inspectionfindings 1993/94. London.
20.
Kratus, J.
(1985). The use of melodic and rhythmic motives in the original songs of children aged 5 to 13. Contributions to Music Education, 12, 1-8.
21.
Levy, E.
(1969). Motivic development is how a piece moves. Music Educators Journal, 30-34.
22.
Mellor, L.
(1997). The use of personal construct psychology to investigate teachers' responses to children's compositions. Paper delivered at British Psychological Society Education Section Annual Conference.
23.
O'Neill, S. A. (1992). Research into the behaviour of private music teachers based on the teacher's perception of individual differences in the personality and behaviour of pupils. Unpublished Masters Degree Dissertation, City University.
24.
O'Neill, S. A.
(1998). Motivational patterns and children's musical performance achievement. Submitted for publication.
25.
Paris, S. G.
and Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, (1), 87-102.
26.
Pike, A.
(1971). The perceptual aspects of motivic structure in music. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30, 79-81.
27.
Scripp, L.
, Meyaard, J. and Davidson, L. (1988). Discerning musical development: Using computers to discover what we know. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22, (1), 75-88.
28.
Sloboda, J. A.
(1996). The acquisition of musical performance expertise: deconstructing the "talent" account of individual differences in musical expressivity. In: K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to Excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 107-126). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Smith, J. (1983). Memory for musical rhythms. the effect of skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.
30.
Vaughan, M.
(1977). Musical creativity: its cultivation and measurement. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 50, 72-77.
31.
Visopel, W. P.
and Austin, J. R. (1993). Constructive response to failure in music: The role of attribution feedback and classroom goal structure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 110-129.
32.
Vispoel, W. P.
and Austin, J. R. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in classroom music: relationships among attributional beliefs, self-concept and achievement. Psychology of Music, 26, 1, 26-45.
33.
Webster, P.
(1983). An assessment of musical imagination in young children: technical report. In: P. Tallarico (Ed.), Contributions to symposium on music teaching and research (pp. 100-123). Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University.
34.
Webster, P.
(1988). New perspectives on music aptitude and achievement. Psychomusicology, 7, (2), 177-194.
35.
Webster, P.
(1996). Creativity as creative thinking. In: G. Spruce (Ed.), Teachitng Music (pp. 87-97). London: Routledge/Open University.
36.
Younker, B. A. (1997). Students' thought processes while engaged in musical composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chicago, U.S.A.: Northwestern University.
