JTML, Vol. 5, No. 1, 35-50 2013 Journal of Technology in Music Learning A COMPARISON OF COMPOSITIONAL TEACHING METHODS: PAPER AND PENCIL VERSUS COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Jane M. Kuehne Deborah A. Lundstrom Kimberly C. Walls Auburn University The purpose of this study was to determine whether there would be differences between two fourth grade music classes when taught composition and assessed using two different approaches: technology versus traditional paper and pencil. A secondary purpose was to see students opinions about composing, their peers work, and working in groups. Two groups of fourth grade students were compared before, during, and after learning to compose music. During the study, students completed a pretest, an assessment of their peers work in several musical areas, a final self-evaluation, and a posttest. Results showed that the paper and pencil group started with significantly less musical knowledge than the technology group, but made up ground. By the end of the study there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Overall, technology students rated their peers work higher than the paper and pencil group. When teaching music composition, one might speculate whether or not using computer hardware and software is as effective as traditional paper and pencil methods. Since the beginnings of music technology in the 1960s (Trustman, 2006), scholars and practitioners have moved to provide music technology training. With the formation of the Association for Technology in Music Instruction unofficially in 1975 and officially in 1992 (ATMI, 2010) and the formation of the Technology Institute for Music Educators in 1994 (TI:ME, 2010), music educators have explored teaching with technology and have provided training. In 1999, the Vermont MIDI Project (VMP, 2010) was the one of the first to provide training specifically geared toward teaching composition with technology. One of the key tenets of the VMP is student reflection on their own composition and constructive critique of other students work. VMP researchers state that reflection and critique are necessary for students to truly learn the compositional process and to begin thinking as musicians. Although training is now available, one might wonder whether music educators are taking advantage of training and using technology in their classrooms. Taylor (2003) and Jinright (2003) each surveyed teachers and found that a majority (61% and 80%, respectively) said 35
they could not use technology in their music teaching. However, 80% of teachers in Taylor s study said that music composition could be taught using technology. Several authors explored composition with elementary students both with and without technology. Wiggins (1993) and Hall (2007) found that elementary students could compose effectively. Wiggins discovered that fifth grade students were able to work in small groups to compose music, that they evaluated musical ideas against an ideal vision of a final product, and worked toward that vision rather than working from random exploration. Hall studied how and when second grade children begin to understand song, structure, and composition. Through video analysis, interviews, and analysis of three student composition projects, she found that second grade children can work together to create musical motives, remember those motives, change words to fit motives, vary words and musical patterns throughout, and ultimately create a composition that is a memorable and repeatable song. Kratus (2001) studied the effect of different melodic options on fourth grade students musical composition. Specifically, he had four groups of students compose on an Orff xylophone, each group using one of four different configurations: (1) pentatonic with five bars, (2) pentatonic with ten bars, (3) melodic minor with five bars, and (4) melodic minor with ten bars. He found that students who had more pitches (ten bars) in the compositional process explored more and those who had less pitches (five bars) had shorter compositions that could be more easily replicated. However, neither condition affected the development, repetition, silence, cohesiveness, nor the use of musical patterns in the students compositions. Hickey (1995) studied the compositional behaviors of fourth and fifth grade students who explored music composition in a music computer lab. She found that composition for children can be as natural as performing or listening to music. She also found that children can compose music with little guidance or limited rules and stated that children s composition can be original, whole musical compositions that are creative and sensitive. Similarly, Bower (2008) found that computer hardware and software can help facilitate the compositional process, finding that, when students are actively composing and performing their own compositions, they face the same problems that professional musicians face. They make decisions based on the experiences they have within the music and its performance. Greher (2004) completed a study with students from three inner city classes, two of which were at-risk, bilingual classes. She wanted to better understand how her students made musical decisions that 36
would affect a final musical product. In the study, students created original music to accompany a movie. To facilitate this, she used music technology, specifically an original software program titled Picture This (Greher, 2002). She found that incorporating music and media from popular culture validated students backgrounds. Ultimately, traditional music teaching was enhanced through technology. Students were more willing to share and collaborate with classmates and teachers. As a result of her study with four elementary learning-disabled students, McCord (1999) found that MIDI hardware and music software adapted very well for some students, but not for others. She found that most of the students followed the steps provided by the software and were experimenting, but only one of the four succeeded in going beyond the exploration stage and completed a composition. In some cases, the software and hardware adequately adapted for the learning disabilities and for other students it did not. She encourages music educators to use technology that can guide children systematically through the steps required for learning to compose, concluding that music educators should encourage students to experiment to create compositions and that this would be beneficial for both learning-disabled students and those who are not. Nilsson and Folkstead (2005) studied children s use of technology to create compositions and said that children (as young as six years old) bring with them to school high levels of technology skills and are already creating or enjoying music in some technological form without academic supervision. This finding suggests that music classrooms should include technology as a tool for music learning. Nelson (2007) completed a case study of six children s composing activities when using music keyboards and MIDI sequencing software in ten two-hour class periods over a three-month period. She found that when students participate in creative activity, their minds are stimulated and active. Nelson said music educators should consider carefully when to provide support and when to allow students to facilitate their own creativity. Implications from this research are that students need time, opportunity, personal preference acceptance, and at times composing without notation in the compositional process. Educators often assume that students work effectively in groups. Several researchers have examined how students work together. Wiggins (1993) found that, when students worked in groups to create musical compositions, they generally worked together in a pattern. They started with whole group discussion, divided into smaller groups or worked alone to focus ideas and musical material, and then gathered 37
again as a whole group to perfect the composition after hearing feedback from the teacher and their peers. They repeated this process until they were satisfied with their composition(s). Freed-Garrod (1999) explored young students as qualitative assessors of their own and peers musical composition. She said that the purpose of evaluation was to provide evidence of students developmental growth and that one way this growth could be seen was in students aesthetic awareness. She found that making aesthetic judgments required students to reflect and respond to given stimuli, and she considered those judgments and reflections to be assessment. It appears from Jennings (2005) study, that feedback and modeling are also appropriate for introducing technology into the general music classroom. He completed a case study in computer-mediated composition and discovered that, when given appropriate composition software, elementary-aged children can compose utilizing note value, pulse, rhythm, pitch, melody, and texture. While studies have investigated the effectiveness of teaching composition, teachers may question whether potential benefits to learning are worth the time and effort required to integrate technology. Small group projects and peer assessment as an instructional practice in music classrooms also need more investigation. It remains unclear whether working in groups and using technology can be combined effectively. Can technological tools and small-group tasks be utilized in an efficient manner to encourage enjoyment and increase learning? The purpose of this project was to investigate the effects of integrating technology into a compositional task on fourth graders opinions of the compositional process, products of composition, and personal contributions as well as any effect on music concept knowledge. Specifically, we wanted to know whether there would be any significant differences in: (a) peer ratings on compositional aspects, (b) opinions about the group compositional process and products, (c) self-reported contributions on the compositional task, and (d) music concept knowledge. Method The participants of this study were members of two intact fourth grade classrooms who knew how to play the soprano recorder. Each class was randomly assigned to a treatment condition. Class 1 (the paper group, n = 20) received instruction and completed assessments using pencil and paper; Class 2 (the technology group, n = 25) received instruction and completed assessments using technology. Researchers gained institutional approval from their university s review board and the participating school district. Although all students re- 38
turned consent-assent forms, data were collected from only those who completed the assessments. Both classes had eight 40-minute class periods during which students worked collaboratively in groups (five students per group), independent from the teacher s influence, to create compositions using predetermined parameters and assessments. The parameters stated that group compositions must include at least five different instruments, be eight or more measures long, be in 3/4 or 4/4 meter, include a melody, include an identifiable rhythm, use dynamics, and be in ABA form. In addition, students were given instructions to make sure their compositions had a blend of tone colors and a sense of creativeness that tied the composition together. Prior to beginning the study, the paper treatment group received a review of compositional techniques including a review of musical lines and spaces and rhythmic values, how to line up different instruments in a staff, the ranges of certain instruments (one group used the recorders), and how to notate non-pitched instruments. During the treatment period, they completed their compositions and assessments using pencil and paper. In addition, they were required to use the soprano recorder as one of their five instruments, and the soprano recorder line had to be performable by the students in each group. The technology treatment group used Apple Macintosh computers with Finale Notepad 2009 software (MakeMusic, Inc., 2008) to compose, Activote (Promethean Ltd., 2009) to complete two of the assessments, and Microsoft Word (Microsoft, 2004) to complete the final self-evaluation. The Activote system allows each student to use a handheld device to vote or answer questions presented on a Promethean board. The Promethean board was connected to a computer and used a projector to display the computer screen. Like a SmartBoard, it is interactive in that a teacher can use his/her finger to move the mouse and double-click it and write directly on a projected document using electronic pens. Activote stores responses and provides an instant overview of all student responses, allowing the teacher to see how many students answered each question correctly. All students in the technology group were trained to use the software and hardware prior to beginning the study. Both groups completed four assessments: the Music Knowledge Assessment as pre- and posttest, the Peer Evaluation Rubric, and the Final Self Evaluation Form. The paper treatment group completed all assessments using pencil and paper, while the technology group entered their answers for the pretest, posttest, and peer evaluation using the Activote system. To complete the final self-evaluation, the 39
technology group used Microsoft Word, typing responses or emphasizing answers using the software s highlighting tools. Prior to beginning the study, all students completed the instructor-created Music Knowledge Assessment (MKA) as a pretest. The MKA includes eight multiple-choice items with four answer choices for each question (answers are different for each question). Items required students to choose definitions for the following terms: composition, melody, dynamics, tone color/blend, 4/4, 3/4, ABA form, and rhythm. Two additional questions probed to determine whether the student had worked in a group before and whether they felt they could be creative; the scores for these two questions were not included in the test scoring. The total possible score for the pretest was eight points. Both groups used the Peer Evaluation Rubric (PER) to rate one another s compositions one time during the treatment period, after either the fourth or fifth lesson. The PER form was created specifically for this study and designed for use with fourth grade students and has not undergone validity testing. However, it is similar to the form Freed- Garrod (1999) used in her study of assessment in the arts. Students used a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) to rate six aspects of the compositions: melody, ABA form, rhythms, tone color, dynamics, and creativity/imagination. The construction of the rubric was intended to assess these areas within two compositional conditions (paper and technology) in a format that was easily accessible for fourth grade students. Table 1 shows descriptions of each area and the rating scale description. 40
Table 1 Rating Scale and Parameters for Musical Compositions Scale Description Parameter Description 1 Needs more work Melody The group has an interesting and effective melody in their composition. 2 Keep working ABA Form The composition has a beginning, middle, and an end. 3 Sounds great, fix some things 4 Awesome, couldn t be better Rhythms Tone Color Dynamics Creativity/ Imagination The group shows distinct rhythms in their composition. The sound sources blend well together and are used effectively. The group utilized effective use of loud and soft techniques. The group showed Creativity/Imagination through the use of Melody, ABA Form, distinct Rhythms, Tone Color/Blend and Dynamics. (This last rating is your sense of the piece as a whole). At the end of the project, students completed the MKA a second time as a posttest. They also completed the Final Self Evaluation. 41
Form (FSEF). The FSEF asked students if this was the first time they had composed a song, if their group worked well together, and, if they did this project again, would they like to do it with their current group, another group, a partner, alone, or not at all. It also asked them to rate their level of effort/focus for the project using a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 was lowest and 4 was highest. The last three questions required students to identify the areas to which they had contributed (melody, rhythm, tone color/blend, ABA form, dynamics, or something else), whether their composition was complete, and whether they would like to add something to the composition, change something, or leave it alone. Finally, at the end of the eight class periods, all the compositions from both groups were played in concert. Students in the paper condition played each group s compositions on live instruments themselves. Each group s compositions from the technology condition were played electronically through a computer that was connected to a sound system. Results Prior to comparing the two groups, an F-test was run for each compared variable to determine whether the variances for each variable were equal or unequal. If they were unequal, then a t-test for independent samples assuming unequal variances was used. If the F-test indicated that the variances were statistically equal, then a t-test for independent samples assuming equal variances was used. Peer Assessment Rubric (PER) After half of the treatment period, participants used the PER to rate other groups compositional parameters on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics and the results of the F- and t-tests for both treatment groups. When rating their peers, overall, the technology group rated all areas higher than the paper group, though the only statistically significant difference was for melody. Final Self Evaluation Form (FSEF) Most students in both groups indicated that they had worked together in groups before this project. When they recorded their opinions about whether or not their groups worked well together, the majority of the paper group said yes (85%), but opinion was almost equally 42
43
split between yes and no for the technology group (53% yes, 47% no). A chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups; the paper group indicated their groups worked well together more often the technology group, χ 2 (1, N = 35) = 5.84, p =.016. For the next three questions on the FSEF, students were allowed to choose more than one answer. First, in both paper and technology groups, just over half of students marked, if they did this again, they would rather do it with a partner (55% and 53% respectively) or with another group (35% and 47% respectively). Second, when they marked the areas in which they contributed, over half of the paper group indicated they contributed toward the melody (55%), with rhythm as the next highest area (30%). Tone color/blend and ABA form each were 25%, something else was 15%, and dynamics was 10%. Students in the technology group marked tone color/blend highest (47%) with rhythm, ABA form, and something else next (33% each), followed by melody and dynamics (27% each). Third, 75% percent of students in the paper group thought their compositions were complete, while only 40% of the technology group thought this (60% said their work was not complete). In both paper and technology groups, most students felt they should change something (55% and 67% respectively) or add more to the composition (30% and 33% respectively). Though a chi-square analysis was calculated for each of these, no significant differences between groups were found. Finally, in both groups, students rated their level of effort/focus level at either a 3 or 4 (out of 4). Overall, the paper group rated their own effort just slightly higher than the technology group; respectively, the means were 3.25 and 3.07. However, the t-test comparison showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups, t = 2.03(33), p = 0.54. Music Knowledge Assessment (MKA) Pre- and Posttest Descriptive statistics for the MKA as well as the statistics for an F-test of equal variances and t-test for comparing means are found in Table 3. The t-tests indicated several significant differences. First, there was a significant difference between the paper group s pre- and posttest means (which gained over two points) and the technology group s pre- and posttest means (which gained just under one point). Next, there was a significant difference between the two groups pretest means. The technology group s mean was over 2 points higher than the paper group s mean. However, there was no significant difference in 44
their post-test means. Finally, when the pre- and posttest scores for both groups were combined and compared, there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest means, with the posttest mean being significantly higher. 45
Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of integrating technology into a compositional task on fourth graders opinions of the compositional process, compositional products, and personal contributions as well as any effect on music concept know-ledge. The following question was asked: Will there be significant differences between (a) ratings on compositional aspects, (b) opinions about the group compositional process and products, (c) self-reported contributions on the compositional task, and (d) music concept knowledge? There may be a reason the technology group rated their peers higher than the paper group in every area. Was it because there were more options for the technology group? There was a significant difference for melody. One reason for this could be that the paper groups compositions had to be performable by students. They were required to have a soprano recorder as one of their parts and, though the remaining lines did not have to be melodic, they also had to be playable by students. This may have limited what they could write for the melody line and could have subsequently influenced what they wrote for the rest of their musical lines, potentially limiting their creativity. In contrast, the technology group could write whatever they wanted, because they were not responsible for performing the music they wrote. That may have widened their realm of possibilities for melody. There was a significant difference for melody, so one could conclude that using technology might provide fourth grade general music students with more options to be creative when composing music. In this study, however, it is unclear whether those additional options actually led to more creativity. Most of the students said their groups worked well together. However, this did not mean they wanted to continue working with the same groups. Many wanted to switch groups or compose with a partner instead. Perhaps they liked what another group was doing and wanted to be part of that, or they wanted to work in smaller groups, because it was harder to work with more people. Over half the paper group said they contributed to the melody, but the technology group said they contributed more to tone color/blend. Students in the paper group knew they were responsible for performing the melody, so that may have been their primary focus. As stated above, the technology group was free from actually having to play their melodies. Because they used computers, they could choose from a wide variety of timbres and melodic ranges. They also had instant access to what the melody sounded like, so they were able to focus on the tone color and blend of different timbres. 46
Quite a few of the students in the paper group felt their compositions were complete at the end of the eight-week project, though some said they would like to change or add to their compositions. However, similar to McCord (1999), over half of the technology group students felt their compositions were incomplete. The paper group had to complete their compositions in time to practice playing them for the concert, while the computer group did not have to practice playing it, as long as they knew how to click play on the computer. The computer groups may have found it more difficult to compose, because they had to learn both composition and how to effectively manipulate the computer hardware and software. The computer groups could edit their compositions until the very last possible moment. Alternately, like the students in Kratus (2001), perhaps they explored more with the tonalities that were available to them and ran out of time due to experimentation. The paper group clearly started at a lower knowledge level than the technology group (over 2 points lower) and had a larger gap to overcome. The technology group, however, did not have a large amount that they could gain since their pretest mean score was only 1.5 point lower than the total possible points for the MKA. Regardless, both groups musical knowledge increased significantly during their participation in this study. The paper group mean score gained over two points and, at the time of the posttest, was just slightly higher than where the technology group started. If the two groups had been switched and the lower-level group had been assigned to the computer condition, perhaps their scores would not have increased as much, or maybe they would have gained regardless of condition, because they had more to gain. There are limitations for this study. First, it is limited to a selected number of fourth grade students in two different classes. Second, though the classes were randomly assigned to treatment groups, the students were not pretested prior to that assignment. Though these limitations are acknowledged, some conclusions can be made from this study. First, and perhaps most important, both methods (paper and computer) were effective when teaching musical composition to fourth grade students. Second, both groups musical knowledge increased as a result of this composition task. Though one group began at a lower level, they both gained knowledge. Third, the paper and pencil group focused on melody in their compositions, while the computer group focused on timbre and tone color. When students were given a wider variety of timbres from which to choose by using a computer, they focused on experimenting with those. When they were responsible for 47
performing their work, as was the case in the pencil group, they focused on writing the melody. A replication of this study would be useful if some additional conditions were included. Pretesting before assigning students to a treatment groups would help equalize each group s ability and knowledge levels. Alternately, there could be four groups, including a low-level and a high-level subgroup within each condition. This could allow for more definitive evidence of knowledge and skill growth due to specific learning conditions. Music educators choose what concepts and skills to teach and how to teach them. They consider their students, the time they have, and a myriad of other variables as they decide. When considering teaching composition, perhaps computers would be useful, but it seems logical that the traditional approach would be just as useful. Because the computer-based compositional activities and the paper-and-pencil activities in this study produced roughly the same results, teachers may build their curriculum around activities using either approach according to the resources available in their classrooms and according to their individual teaching styles. References Association for Technology in Music Instruction [ATMI] (2010). About the Association for Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI). Retrieved from http://atmionline.org/index. php/aboutatmi.html Bower, D. N. (2008). Constructivism in music education technology: Creating an environment for choral composition in the fourth and fifth grades (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, United States). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 3332498). Freed-Garrod, J. (1999). Assessment in the arts: elementary-aged students as qualitative assessors of their own and peers musical compositions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 139, 50-63. Greher, G. R. (2002). Picture this! 1997: An interactive listening environment for middle school general music (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, United States). Greher, G. R. (2004). Multimedia in the classroom: Tapping into an adolescent s cultural literacy. Journal of Technology in Music Learning 2(2), 21-43. 48
Hall, M. M. (2007). Composing in a second grade music class: Crossing a watershed as children begin to understand song as structure (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 3283421). Hickey, M. M. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between children s creative musical thinking process and products (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanson, IL, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(01), 145. (UMI No. 9614754). Jennings, K. (2005). Hyperscore: A case study in computer mediated music composition. Education and Technologies, 10(3), 225-238. Jinright, J. W. (2003). Factors associated with teacher computer use in Kindergarten through grade 12 school music classrooms in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 2052. (UMI No. 3095791). Kratus, J. (2001). Effect of available tonality and pitch options on children s compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(4), 294-306. McCord, K. A. (1999). Music composition using music technology by elementary children with learning disabilities: An exploratory case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(07), 2421. (UMI No. 9939767). Nelson, S. L. (2007). The complex interplay of composing, developing musicianship and technology: a multiple case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(03), 378. (UMI No. 3256395) Nillson, B., & Folkestad, G. (2005). Children s practice of computerbased composition. Music Education Research, 1, 21-37. Taylor, J. A. (2003). The status of technology in K-12 music education. Journal of Technology in Music Learning 2(2), 67-73. Technology Institute for Music Educators [TI:ME] (2010). About Us. Retrieved from http://ti-me.org/mission.html Trustman, D. (2006). Music technology in education (Master s thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(01), 240. (UMI No. 1436957) 49
Vermont MIDI Project [VMP] (2010). About us: Project overview. Retrieved from http://www.vtmidi.org/aboutus.htm Wiggins, J. H. (1993). The nature of children s musical learning in the context of a music classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(11), 3838. (UMI No. 9305731). 50