Creativity in the elementary music classroom: A study of students’ perceptions

Abstract

This research explored essential elements to be considered when teaching US students to develop and define creativity in the general elementary (students aged 5-11 years) music classroom. This case study focused on answering the following research questions: 1) What are students' perceptions of creativity? 2) How can music educators successfully implement improvisation lessons to promote student creativity and learning? Data included students' in-class written work and homework, and field notes taken during observations of classroom discussions after improvisation lessons. Analysis of this data provided evidence that students produce more creative, original music when they are more confident with their musical ability. Students viewed music they enjoyed as creative. Students also believed that a variety of instruments or rhythms make music creative. Although improvisation skills were demonstrated for students, the results indicated that students might take more risks when creating music if their teachers played music and demonstrated skills more often in class.

A Review of Articles Using Observation Methods to Study Creativity in Education (1980–2018)

“…In our review, ambiguous descriptions did not clarify whether the intent was to encompass all the activities of the entire classroom, or relatively smaller clusters of group interactions. The most prevalent unit of observation was the classroom environment as indicated in eight articles (Cho et al., ; Cheung, ; Coulson & Burke, ; Guay, ; Meyer & Lederman, ; Nemiro, Larriva, & Jawaharlal, ; Petsch, ; Schacter et al., ). We note four exceptions to classroom as the designated unit of observation: Biasutti () focused more narrowly on students and teachers learning music in an online setting, and Budge () examined interactions between teachers and students while learning art.…”

“…Likewise, the coding method for deriving codes, categories or themes were not used, or if they were used, methodologists were not cited (Budge, ; Cho et al., ; Coulson & Burke, ; Geist & Hohn, ; Godart & Mears, ; Kandemir & Gur, ; Lorimer, ; Pitri, ; Walker, ; Walmsley, ; Wielgosz & Molyneux, ). Examples of well‐articulated coding of observations included the constant comparative method—a systematic approach to coding used in grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, )—(Katz‐Buonincontro, , ; Meyer & Lederman, ), content analysis method (Karademir, ), interaction analysis examining routine practices of individuals and their environment (Jordan & Henderson, ; Sullivan, ), semantic analysis (Thomas, ) and symbolic interactionism (James, ), or how people interpret meaning from symbol systems (Blumer, ).…”

“… Teachers stated beliefs about creativity may not correspond to classroom observations of teaching (Cheung, 2012), and thus training and professional development that clarifies and bridges creativity theory to classroom practice is important (Kandemir & Gur, ; Kin & Wong, ). Teacher modeling of how to use materials (Coulson & Burke, ; James, ), how to interpret art (Budge, ) and making connections to real‐world scenarios (Chiu, ) can be essential to learning, as long as teachers don't over‐rely on proscriptive activities (Geist & Hohn, ). Teacher and student behaviors that contribute to a supportive environment for creative learning should be distinguished in observation (Gadja et al., ) and, when included in analysis, can reveal patterns of interaction, modeling, and instruction, contributing to theory and practice. Nonverbal cues can enhance expression of ideas (Biasutti, ) as well as the allowance of student vocalizations (Nemiro et al., ) in addition to direct verbal communication (Cho et al., ) when projects are open‐ended (Mars, ; Sullivan, ) but have a clear purpose (Meyer & Lederman, ). Elements of personal meaning making are critical: student efficacy in creative environments with diverse student populations relies on personal meaning making (Guay, ; Petsch, ; Wielgosz & Molyneux, ), which can be enhanced through opportunities to use different modalities in learning (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic); Creativity can include incremental as opposed to radical adaptations to a given form and can be based on personal taste (Glăveanu & Lahlou, ; Godart & Mears, ). Child‐initiated activities rather than adult‐initiated activities may facilitate creativity in preschool children (Robson & Rowe, ), and peer feedback can be used effectively to foster design and creativity (Karademir, ). Tapping into students’ embodied creativity through movement or enacted forms can access different reserves of creative potential and opportunities in learning (Konstantinidou & Zisi, ; Torrents et al., ). Supporting the metacognitive capacity of students can be supported by arts integration teaching strategies and help students learn when, how, and why to apply their creative skills and potential to the classroom learning context (Pitts et al., ). …”

Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

“…We therefore decided to include articles aiming at exploring creativity (e.g. Coulson & Burke, 2013), creative music education and/or composition (e.g. Sætre, 2011) if they contained research questions and significant findings in relation to improvisation in the music classroom.…”

Music Cognition and Affect in the Design of Technology-Enhanced Music Lessons

“…Despite the fact that composition has been long established as a core curricular activity, understanding creativity in student compositions continues to be a complicated matter (Burnard and Younker, 2002;Webster, 2016). Teachers consider composition as the most problematic and admit difficulties or lack of knowledge in planning and implementing creative activities that can promote music learning and creative thinking in the classroom (Dogani, 2004;Saetre, 2011;Coulson and Burke, 2013;Bauer, 2014). The realization of creative activities, whether these are improvisatory based or short structured composition tasks, is also problematic for students.…”