Peter R. Webster

Creativity as Creative Thinking

Creativity—its definition, evaluation, and place in the curriculum—is often misunderstood. Peter R. Webster clarifies the issue with a model for musical creativity that holds exciting implications for music educators.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATIVE BEHAVIOR IN MUSIC AND SELECTED VARIABLES AS MEASURED IN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

The major intention of this study was to define music creativity and to develop procedures for measurement of music creativity that were sensitive to the music process. Three modes of creative behavior in music (composition, improvisation, and analysis) were identified and compared to selected variables. The sample consisted of 77 high school students who had participated in school music groups but who had had no systematic training in creative skills in music. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the data revealed that: (1) music achievement correlated significantly with all modes of creative behavior and was the single best predictor of each mode, (2) figural creativity correlated significantly with improvisation and analysis creativity and was a significant predictor when used with other variables, (3) verbal creativity was significantly correlated with analysis creativity but was shown not to be a good predictor when combined with other variables, (4) IQ and sex were significantly related to improvisation creativity but not to other modes, and (5) age, grade level, performance medium, and piano lesson background did not relate significantly with any of the modes.

Discrimination of Pitch Direction by Preschool Children with Verbal and Nonverbal Tasks.

This study investigated the abilities of 4- and 5-year-old children for discriminating pitch direction using one of three modes of response: verbal (spoken), gestural, and performance-based. The sample (N = 107) included children from two different nursery school settings and was balanced with respect to age and gender. Three testing formats were constructed to correspond with the three response modes. They were designed to be as equivalent as possible. The results reinforced the notion that nonverbal, performance- based response modes are the most natural way for young children to react to pitch direction without substantive training. A large number of children (34%) responded at or below chance regardless of mode. The variables of gender, presentation order, number of pitches per item, item range, and item direction did not show significant effects on test results. Mean score tendencies, however, warrant further study.

Conference Keynotes: Asking music students to reflect on their creative work: encouraging the revision process

Much has been written in the last 10 years on asking children to compose music as part of their music education in elementary and secondary schools. A long tradition of this teaching strategy has existed in the schools of Great Britain and Australia (Paynter, 1992). More recently, such an approach has emerged in North America, in part because of heightened attention to creative thinking in music teaching (Webster, 1990), and because of the national voluntary standards (National Standards for Arts Education, 1994). What has emerged is a rather impressive array of children’s initial musical gestures. These have been studied for their inherent qualities and for their developmental implications. What has been reviewed far less is the results of teacher-guided revision and extension of these initial gestures as a way of encouraging children to think more deeply about music. By ‘revision’, I have in mind the ‘return to exploration in which composers test ideas that they previously accepted against new ideas while refining their finished product’ (Kaschub, 1997, p. 24). By ‘extension’, I mean a more specialised revision that either adds new musical ideas to existing work, or expands an existing musical idea or set of ideas vertically or horizontally (Folkstad, 1996). This paper makes a case for music teachers to actively encourage children to be critical of their initial gestures and to help children understand what can be gained from such an approach. Such requests on the part of teachers need to be done in a spirit of genuine respect for a child’s original thinking, but not eschewed because it is seen to interfere or be immediately critical.

Young Children and Music Technology

This article begins with an overview of music technology today, its history and current status. The development of MIDI, digital sound synthesis, and CD audio are mentioned. Developments in music software designed assisted instruction are placed in six categories: drill-and-practice, flexible practice, guided instruction, games, exploratory, and creative. The article continues by offering examples of commercial software from these categories that are appropriate for young children. Screen shots of each program are offered, together with comments about how each title works. Research on the young child and music technology is included, with references to work done in and outside of music education. The article ends with the notion that teachers are always the key to quality instruction in music and music technology is only a tool in the process.

Asking Children to Think About Music

The traditionally held operant definitions of creative and critical thinking betray a dichotomy particularly when applied to music education. However, boundaries between creative and critical thinking have blurred as the result of recent developments in music cognition research. Research directions and policy issues need to be approached from a much more global understanding of musical thinking as a function of both cognitive and affective components.

Creative Thinking in Music, Twenty-Five Years On.

Since the publication of the May 1990 Music Educators Journal Special Focus Issue on Creativity, the profession finds itself in a new and more challenging time. Our field is changing before our eyes as new ideas about the music we teach, the people who are taught, and the way music as art is delivered and consumed affect our pedagogy. In all of this, the dispositions behind the work written in 1990 remain fresh even today. This article revisits the content of the 1990 issue with an eye toward the writings from research and practice that have been done since then and that have extended and refined our understanding of this topic, particularly as it relates to composition in the schools. The conceptual frames of sociocultural approaches, constructivism, and model building are stressed, as are several new dimensions of curriculum that feature teaching practice and the study of product and process with new thinking about assessment and technology. The article asks us to consider changes in teacher education at the college level as well as in our pedagogies for K–12.

Challenging Children to Think Creatively

Peter Webster is professor of music education in the School of Music of Northwestern University. Maud Hickey isassistant professor of music education in the School of Music at Ithaca College. when we are reexamInIng and reaffirming our curricula standards in the arts and in all of education. For the first time, activities like composition and improvisation have become fundamental elements of what we ought to do with students. For many, this signals a much-needed broadening and deepening of our understanding of music experience and the form such experience must take in our classrooms, rehearsal halls, and studios. What follows are a few reasons why this is so important and why it is worth your precious time to consider. We offer some conceptual background for creative thinking in music, and we join others in this special issue by offering a few practical suggestions.

Music and the mind: essays in honour of John Sloboda

achievement was to recognise the common ground that existed between psychologists and musicians on issues which are of relevance to music educators and to challenge the researcher to consider the social benefits of research. The book shows how far literature and research on the psychology of music has moved since the publication of The Musical Mind (1985, vi) when he called for fruitful dialogue between psychologists and practising or academic musicians. Although there may be, understandably, some expectation by the authors of a level of familiarity with Sloboda’s work, there is enough background material in each essay to make this book accessible to a broad readership. It is targeted at students and researchers in music psychology and musicology, as well as music professionals, but there are numerous reasons for recommending it to the music education community. Among these is a persuasive argument to challenge the ‘folk psychology’ (33) around talent and its impact on the development of young musicians. Equally compelling is the body of evidence presented to debunk the notion that musical ability is a fixed entity, and a recognition of the importance of deliberate practice and resiliency in motivation and achievement. In considering the effects on young people when there is a mismatch between instruments that they want to learn to play and the instruments they actually play (41), there is a call for a renewed interest in people’s experience of music and its impact on well-being. Finally, what can be said to underpin each essay is a deep appreciation of Sloboda’s conviction that, what matters is not simply to look for answers to questions but to look for better answers to important questions. To future generations of researchers, there can be no greater legacy than this.

Music teachers as software authors

7he5e are exc1t1n9 t1me5 t0 6e 1n mu51c educat10n. Never 6ef0re ha5 the e1ementary, 5ec0ndary and c011e91ate 1eve1 mu51c teacher faced 5uch a 5ta99er1n9 array 0f c0mputer hardware ch01ce5 t0 au9ment curr1cu1um 0ffer1n95 1n mu51c. 7he r15e 0f de5kt0p c0mput1n9 fr0m the 5ma11, 8-61t c0mputer5 0f the 1ate 5event1e5 (5uch a5 the App1e 11 5er1e5) t0 mach1ne5 11ke the Mac1nt05h and 18M/18M c0mpat161e m0de15 0f the pre5ent day ha5 pre5ented the mu51c teacher w1th p0werfu1 p1atf0rm5 f0r mu51c teach1n9.