Creative Music Project: An analysis of fifth grade student compositions

1. Creative Music Project:An analysis of fifth gradestudent compositions Scott D. Lipscomb,1 Maud Hickey,1 David Sebald,2 & Donald Hodges21Northwestern University2The University of Texas at San Antonio ESCOM 2002, Liège

2. Research Supported by: Northwestern UniversityThe University of Texas at San AntonioMay Elementary SchoolTexaco Corporation ESCOM 2002, Liège

3. Research Questions • Can a music technology composition program be implemented in a typical school computer lab using inexpensive, off-the-shelf music hardware & software tools? • Can typical students – not just the “musically gifted” – learn to create “quality” music effectively using these tools? • Can such a program be implemented within the parameters of a standard public school curriculum? • What teaching approaches seem most effective in encouraging musical creativity using technology? ESCOM 2002, Liège

4. Subjects & Equipment • N=86 • Students from four weekly 5th grade music classes at Monroe May Elementary School in San Antonio • Pentium 133 MHz, 32 MB RAM, 2GB HD • Texaco grant provided SoundBlaster Live! Sound cards, LabTec LT 835 headphones, and BlasterKey keyboards for each of the 25 stations • Cakewalk Express (free with sound card) ESCOM 2002, Liège

5. Project Outline (10 weeks) • Tonality judgment pre-test • 8 weeks of instruction • Learning to use the sequencer • Music composition assignments • Focus on musical form • Tonality judgment post-test ESCOM 2002, Liège

6. Creative Music Instruction • Focus on musical form, but also introduced other elements as a means of introducing the concept of musical organization, i.e., rhythm, texture, harmony, and melody • Use of popular music idiom • “Composition” = MIDI sequence • Instructional Techniques • Handouts • Template ESCOM 2002, Liège

7. Outline of Weekly Session (30 min) • 15 min before class – instructor presets computers • 10 min – students arrive & instructor introduces concept(s) of the day • 15 min – students work on computers while instructor observes • 5 min – students save their work and listen to selected samples of previous week’s assignments • 5 min – students leave & instructor resets machines ESCOM 2002, Liège

8. Topics Covered: • Music as “sound organized in time” • Repetition of sound patterns • Strong/weak beats (meter) • Tempo • Layering of sounds (instrumentation) • Shape of melody (contour) • Melodic repetition (phrases) • Musical form • ABA, ABCBA, ABACA, etc. ESCOM 2002, Liège

9. Student “Compositions” Examples to follow shortlyhttp://music.utsa.edu/cmp/ ESCOM 2002, Liège

10. Results of Tonality Study (SMPC 2001) • Forced Choice • Slider Task Results ESCOM 2002, Liège

11. Our Research Questions • Can typical students learn to create music effectively with these tools described previously? • Can Lomax’ (1976) “cantometrics” provide a useful tool for analyzing these student compositions? ESCOM 2002, Liège

12. Cantometrics Alan Lomax ESCOM 2002, Liège

13. Analytical Procedure • 86 student compositions from the 4th-week of instruction (halfway point of CMP) • Two investigators (SL & MH) independently analyzed the compositions presented in random order • Scale used • Cantometrics • Similarity – in comparison to “standard” • inter-judge correlation (r = .80) ESCOM 2002, Liège

14. Example Student Compositions • Template • Student #29 - same (nearly identical) • Student #3 - moderate change • Student #52 – not same (vastly diff) ESCOM 2002, Liège

15. Experimental Results ESCOM 2002, Liège

16. Analyses • Overall comparison using cantometrics • Comparison of most “dissimilar” compositions to all others • Avg similarity rating  4.5 on 5-point scale ESCOM 2002, Liège

17. Musical Organization of Instruments(“texture”) D: higher % ofmono & poly ESCOM 2002, Liège

18. Rhythmic coordination of instruments(“blend”) D: significantlygreater spread ESCOM 2002, Liège

19. Overall Rhythmic Structure(“meter”) D: only “free” ESCOM 2002, Liège

20. Melodic Shape(“contour”) D: greater spread ESCOM 2002, Liège

21. Musical Form ESCOM 2002, Liège

22. Phrase Length 4 meas – linking consecutive 2-meas phrases ESCOM 2002, Liège

23. Number of Phrases ESCOM 2002, Liège

24. Position of Final Tone ESCOM 2002, Liège

25. Keyboard Range D: 2-3 octave (more percussion sounds) ESCOM 2002, Liège

26. Dominant Melodic Interval Size D: higher dominance ofsemitone and >= P4 greater “flexibility” ESCOM 2002, Liège

27. Use of Accent greater variety higher % unaccented ESCOM 2002, Liège

28. Where Do We Go From Here? Future Research ESCOM 2002, Liège

29. Future Research • Instructional Issues • Don’t install unnecessary software • Simplify or eliminate written materials • Use simpler music creation tool • Analysis • Cantometrics provides a viable measurement tool • More research required to explore applications • “quality” … as yet unmeasured • This study addressed differences between populations ESCOM 2002, Liège

30. Author Contact Information Scott D. Lipscomb – lipscomb@northwestern.edu Maud Hickey – mhickey@northwestern.edu David Sebald - dsebald@aim-ed.com Donald Hodges – dhodges@utsa.edu CMP web site: http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/ ESCOM 2002, Liège

31. ESCOM 2002, Liège

32. Forced Choice - Results ESCOM 2002, Liège

33. Slider - Results ESCOM 2002, Liège