Instrument teachers’ practices,beliefs,and barriers regarding musical creativity: Exploring the creative process of interpretation

Abstract

Instrumental music teaching traditionally emphasizes the cognitive, motor, and motivational processes of score reproduction, often at the expense of creative musical activities, such as improvisation or composition. Since today’s international art school curricula prominently include creativity competencies, opportunities to integrate creativity in instrumental lessons must be explored. This study investigates instrument teachers’ conception of musical creativity: its scope, opportunities, and risks. About 273 teachers completed an online questionnaire on their use of creative class time, beliefs, and barriers to creative instrument teaching. Although the majority acknowledged the benefits of creative activities for score-playing, they invested little in improvisation and composition due to a lack of time and training in musical creativity. Teachers considered interpretation a valuable form of musical creativity, next to improvisation and composition, but questioned its feasibility in instrument lessons. Implications for instrument-teacher training are discussed.

Keywords

Composition creativity improvisation instrumental music teaching interpretation

Introduction

Creativity is essential to the very existence of humanity and society (Vygotskij, 1995 [1950]), and at the core of any artistic practice. National curricula and art standards worldwide include creative skills and attitudes, affirming their essential role in artistic development (Bernhard & Stringham, 2016; Davies et al., 2018; Larsson & Georgii-Hemming, 2019; Snell & Stringham, 2018). Consequently, scholarly and professional literature on teaching creatively and teaching for creativity has been increasing for several decades (Burnard, 2012a; Odena, 2018; Sullivan & Willingham, 2002; Tsubonou et al., 2019).

Historically, improvisation was common practice among instrumentalists (Campbell, 1991; Moore, 1992). It only became detached from Western, classical-music practice at the end of the 19th century (Moore, 1992). In the past, also composition was more integrated with musical performance (West, 2019). Musicians from the classical period were trained as a performer, composer, improviser, multi-instrumentalist, and conductor (Dolan et al., 2018; Gould & Keaton, 2000; Moore, 1992). From the 20th century, musical reproduction and creation were increasingly considered distinct specializations. Western conservatories idealize instrumental specialization and professional expertise, leaving less curricular space for improvisation or composition (Huovinen & Frostenson Lööv, 2021; Liertz, 2007).

Music educators generally consider improvisation and composition the preeminent creative musical activities (Kennedy, 2000; Schiavio & Benedek, 2020). They seldom consider score-playing, although sometimes called the “re-creation” of a composer’s thoughts and ideas (Hultberg, 2002), to be equally creative as improvisation or composition. Moreover, instrument lessons are often characterized by a master-apprentice approach (Burwell et al., 2019; Daniel, 2006; Jørgensen, 2000; McPhail, 2010; Nielsen, 2006; Rakena & Brown, 2016), in which teachers typically focus on technically controlling the instrument or passing on the “correct” interpretation of the composer’s work through a one-way process, leaving little room for student input and initiative. Although interpretation often is considered important in the artistic process of performing (see for instance the 2014 US National Core Arts Standards), expression and communication are given little attention in the early years of formal instrumental music learning (Karlsson & Juslin, 2008; Meissner, 2021).

And yet, education experts, researchers, and policymakers increasingly encourage a stronger integration of musical skills (Azzara, 2002; Duke, 2011; Elliott & Silverman, 2014; Gordon, 2012). Benson (2003) argues for a holistic view that considers all musical products and processes as improvisation and dialog and questions the boundaries between performing, listening, improvising, and composing. This process of integration could be facilitated by broadening the scope of musical creativity. Many conceptual frameworks of creativity emphasize the criterion of “novelty” for a perceptible product to be creative (Plucker et al., 2004; Runco & Jaeger, 2012). As improvisers and composers create music that did not exist before, their musical output is more easily regarded as creative than that of a performer who recreates an existing score. Viewed in this way, an interpretation, that is, “the process of selection and application of performance choices on a composition” (Holmgren, 2020, p. 106), is not as easily regarded as a novel artistic product than an improvisation or composition.

However, several authors argue that the cognitive, embodied processes of interpreting and performing a musical score transcend mere repetitive reproduction (Chaffin et al., 2007; Elliott & Silverman, 2014; Hargreaves, 1999; Thompson, 2009), For instance, Klickstein (2009) states that interpretation involves the player making decisions on sound and timing to communicate the chosen emotional layer. Both processes require intense practice. Payne (2016) studied musicians rehearsing for a concert performance of novel music. After intense analysis of the decision-making processes in playing music together, she questioned “a paradigm that opposes notated permanence to improvised transience” (p. 325). Cook (2014) conceives of music as performance, rather than the product of a written score and emphasizes the generation of meaning in real time.

All these authors emphasize the role of decision-making and meaning-construction in musical performance. Both (learning) processes—decision-making and meaning-construction—are addressed in some common theories and conceptualizations of creativity for example, divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1967), creative learning (Beghetto, 2016), personal creativity (Runco, 1996), or the Four C theory (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). For instance, in Four C theory, Big-C concerns clear-cut, eminent and renown creative contributions, including major productions of scientific (e.g. Darwin’s Theory), technological (e.g. invention of the printing press), or artistic (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica painting) importance. Little-c concerns creative actions in which the non-expert may participate daily (e.g. combining available ingredients to a new meal). Pro-C is based on professional-level expertise and concerns developmental and effortful progression beyond little-c that has not yet attained Big-C status (e.g. a graduated trombonist who plays in a professional orchestra). The fourth C, mini-c, refers to the personal interpretation of ideas, actions, and events as a creative process. To this respect, musical interpretation might at least count as a form of mini-c and thus can be considered creative.

Broadening the scope offers opportunities to rethink musical creativity, paving the way to conceptualizations that emphasize the creative process rather than the product (Burnard, 2012b; Kupers & van Dijk, 2020; Odena, 2018; Schiavio & Benedek, 2020). Interpreting a piece may be an ideal base for student and teacher to initiate musical creativity: staying close to the familiar score, but aiming for divergent learning outcomes and developing learners’ personal voices (Coss, 2019).

Studies on musical creativity show a diversity of topics (Burnard, 2007, 2012b; Hickey, 2007) including class time use, experienced barriers to applying creative activities, teacher beliefs and the influence of personal, musical, and educational background on their beliefs and practice. Most studies focus on improvisation and composition in primary or secondary group tuition. Reviewing studies of improvisation in primary schools, Larsson and Georgii-Hemming (2019) noted that not only the number of studies is limited but also the range of countries in which improvisation has been explored. This is probably even more true regarding improvisation in instrumental lessons, which often occurs in one-to-one studio lessons, referred to as the “secret garden” by Burwell et al. (2019).

Studies on creative class time use show varying results depending on the research question (Chandler, 2018). Some studies (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Whitcomb, 2007) report high percentages of teachers using improvisation in their lessons (81%–87%) while others (Byo, 1999; Gruenhagen & Whitcomb, 2014; Orman, 2002; Wang & Sogin, 1997) show that creative skills and activities receive proportionally little class time. Gruenhagen and Whitcomb (2014) reported that 58% of teachers used improvisation for up to 10% of class time and only 16% of teachers for 21% or more. Strand (2006) confirmed that most (88.5%) teachers used composition in K-12 music classrooms, but more than one-third did so very rarely or never. Overall, these results suggest that most teachers have some experience with teaching improvisation or composition but do not implement these creative activities consistently in classroom practice.

Several studies have considered music teachers’ barriers to improvisation or composition (Dogani, 2004; Koutsoupidou, 2005; Menard, 2015; Orman, 2002; Snell & Stringham, 2018; Strand, 2006; Whitcomb, 2007). A lack of time, insufficient theoretical background and experience improvising, the absence of training, and a fear of reduced classroom discipline were common. Music teachers consider composition or improvisation difficult to teach (Koutsoupidou, 2005) but value them as necessary to the development of musical skills (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Snell, 2012; Stringham et al., 2015). However, the potential benefit apparently does not convince instrument teachers to implement creative musical activities (Elpus, 2013; Strand, 2006).

Music educational research focusing on teaching and learning musical interpretation is mostly limited to higher music education These studies often show the learning of interpretation as a process of mimicry or imitating the teacher (Holmgren, 2020; Hultberg, 2008; Silverman, 2008).

Although previous research has shed some light on creative practice or beliefs in general music classes, less research has addressed these matters in instrument lessons which foregrounds the sounding and interpretation of scores. Therefore, the first aim for this study was to study the practice and teacher perceptions on improvisation and composition in the context of small-group or one-to-one instrumental lessons. Secondly, this study introduced interpretation as a new look at musical creativity, next to the traditional conceptions (improvisation and composition). We wanted to find out whether instrument teachers support this broadened concept of musical creativity and how this relates to more common conceptions. The study addresses these research questions:

How much class time do instrument teachers spend on various creative activities (improvisation, composition, and interpretation) compared to score-playing?

What are instrument teachers’ barriers to engaging in improvisation, composition, or interpretation and do these differ by musical activity?

What are instrument teachers’ beliefs about the feasibility and effects of applying creative musical activities in instrument lessons?

Methodology

Context

This survey was part of the “Beyond the Score” research project on fostering creativity in instrumental music education. The project’s purpose was to explore how the educational field of instrument tuition in Flemish music schools (Belgium) defines and applies creativity in an artistic context. Formal music schools reside under the structure of part-time education in the arts, Deeltijds Kunstonderwijs (“Part-time Art Education”; DKO). This is a form of additional education for children, teenagers, and adults. The voluntary participants register and pay enrollment fees. The DKO offers artistic training, contributing to personal growth and artistic independence through a national standard of artistic competencies. At the time of the study, the music school curriculum included three levels: beginner level (duration: 4 years, minimum age: 8 years old), intermediate level (duration: 3 years) and advanced level (duration: 3 years). Pupils were offered A classes, mainly aiming at individual instrumental craftmanship, or B classes, focusing at ensemble playing. Instrument teachers typically taught in both levels. Furthermore, formal music education in Flanders was on the verge of a new decree setting new, explicit goals for developing creativity.

Participants

The sample represented 273 of the approximately 3,600 instrument teachers employed in DKO. Of the participants, 58.1% were female and 41.9% were male. The mean age was 44 years (SD = 11.06). The mean number of years of teaching experience was 21 (SD = 11.26). Most respondents (91.5%) were trained in classical music; 7.5% taught popular music and jazz; and only 1% held both qualifications. Table 1 shows the distribution of participants by instrument group. Different sample sizes are a result of missing values.

Table 1.

Distribution of instrument groups (N = 269).

String	Woodwind	Brass	Plucked	Percussion	Keyboard	Voice
12.0% (n = 32)	23.6% (n = 64)	6.0% (n = 16)	16.1% (n = 43)	5.6% (n = 15)	31.1% (n = 85)	5.4% (n = 14)

We sent a link to the online survey to the principals of all Flemish music schools (N = 103). They were introduced to the research topic and invited to forward the link to their instrument teachers. About 1 week later, a standard reminder was sent. The survey was also announced in a Facebook group for DKO.

Instrument

We developed a self-completion questionnaire and piloted it with researchers and music teachers. We addressed technical issues and implemented suggestions for phrasing questions or statements. The questionnaire included an introduction and four sections. The introduction mentioned the researchers’ interest in different methods of instrument teaching. We avoided explicit references to creativity to reduce potential bias from demand characteristics (Sharpe & Whelton, 2016). Improvisation, composition, and interpretation were defined in the first section, emphasizing the student’s own input and personal, creative voice in all three musical activities. This was certainly a necessary addition for interpretation, as a student can equally play a teacher-led interpretation, which is not considered creative in this context.

The first section gaged creative class-time use. For each level, respondents marked the amount of class time spent on improvisation, composition, and interpretation, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (from “never” to “in every lesson”). They also indicated the percentage of class-time used for score-playing from 0% to 100%. In the second section, participants indicated their agreement with nine reasons for not engaging in creative instrument teaching. Four items were based on the literature on improvisation and composition in general music education. These items referred to the teacher having insufficient skills, creative forms being no part of teachers’ own curriculum, the lack of time during the lesson and the importance of creativity in the national standards. Five other items focused on the embodied cognitive features of the learner, relating to the creative process of musical sense-making in interpretation. These items included aspects of motivation, imagination, knowledge of music theory, mental processing speed and technical skill. In the third section, participants marked their level of agreement with 10 statements about teaching creativity in instrument lessons using a 5-point Likert-type scale (“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). The statements probed teachers’ beliefs about the relationship between creative musical activities and score-playing and the feasibility of applying creativity in class. In the fourth section, relevant socio-biographical data were registered: sex, age, instrument group, training institute, and the number of years teaching.

Data analysis

The data were cleaned (Curran, 2016) by deleting 40 cases (13%) with outliers (e.g. when respondents marked all survey items the same) or insufficient responses. We used IBM SPSS 22 to analyze the final sample using both descriptive and inferential statistics. We checked for sampling bias by comparing the distributions of gender, age, style (classical or jazz), and instrument group to those hypothesized using Chi-squared tests. The proportion of woodwind teachers in the sample was larger than expected on the basis of the population distribution but only the test for age was significant: χ²(4) = 10.417 (N = 270), p = .034 indicating an overrepresentation of the youngest age group compared to teachers aged over 60. To compensate for the overrepresentation, we weighted the cases proportionally for the descriptive statistics (Kish & Frankel, 1974).

We opted for non-parametric tests because we used ordinal measurement scales and the data were not normally distributed. For the analysis on the barriers, the items in Section 2 were aggregated in terms of content and treated as continuous variables. We performed an explorative factor analysis on the statements in Section 3 to identify an underlying structure in teachers’ beliefs about the feasibility and effects of applying creative musical activities in instrument lessons.

Results

Class-time use for score-playing, improvisation, composition, and interpretation

Figure 1 shows the percentages of class time working with a musical score at each level of training (beginner, intermediate, advanced). We aggregated the outer levels of the five-point scales, resulting in three levels—0% to 40%, 41% to 60%, and 61% to 100%—demonstrating not only that attention was mainly devoted to score-playing during instrument lessons, but also that the amount of time spent on score playing increases over the years.

Figure 1.

Percentage of class time spent on score playing.

Two-thirds of the participants spent more than two-thirds (67.4%) of class time on score—playing in the first years of musical education. This number increased to almost 85% in the final years. Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests (i.e. the non-parametric variant of the paired samples t-test) showed a significant median increase in the instruction time spent on score-playing, z = 5.80, p < .001 and z = 4.85, p < .001.

Figure 2 shows the medians for frequency of implementing composition, improvisation, and interpretation in instrument lessons per level. Inspection of the graph shows that improvisation receives a fair amount of attention at the beginner level but this decreases in later years. Composition generally receives little attention in instrument lessons. Interpretation gains importance throughout the curriculum.

Figure 2.

Medians for different creative activities by level.

To verify whether the different activities significantly differ between levels, we performed Friedman’s tests (i.e. the non-parametric variant of a repeated measures ANOVA) with pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction to assess for differences between creative musical activities. Class-time use for improvisation varied significantly between beginner and advanced levels (χ²(2) = 2.482, p = .039) and for interpretation between beginner and intermediate (χ²(2) = −7.254, p = .000) and between intermediate and advanced levels (χ²(2) = −4.044, p = .000). This indicates a decrease in improvisation and an increase in interpretation from the beginner to the advanced level.

Barriers to applying creative musical activities in instrument lessons

We calculated medians to find out which barriers to creative activities are experienced by the respondents. Figure 3 shows the medians for the nine arguments against improvisation, composition, and interpretation presented in the survey.

Figure 3.

Barriers to creative activities in instrument lessons (1 = does not apply at all, 2 = rather applies, 3 = neutral, 4 = partly applies, 5 = totally applies).

The strongest barriers to engaging in composition or improvisation were the absence of creative musical training in the teacher’s education and the lack of class time. Barriers to improvisation were mainly related to pupil characteristics. Cronbach’s alpha confirmed a high internal consistency between the five items that related to pupil characteristics (α = .895) and between the four items that related to the teacher or learning environment (α = .784). Therefore, we aggregated the variables to two new variables (pupil-related barriers and teacher-related barriers) for the musical activities. We ran Friedman tests to determine differences between the barriers to improvisation, composition, and interpretation. The arguments were statistically significantly different for the three musical activities for both the pupil-related barriers, χ²(2) = 109.751, p < .001 and the teacher-related barriers, χ²(2) = 324.910, p < .001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of the pupil-related barriers revealed statistically significant differences between improvisation (M = 2.8) and interpretation (M = 2.2; p < .001) and between composition (M = 2.8) and interpretation (M = 2.2; p < .001) but not between improvisation and composition. The same was true for teacher-related barriers: There was a difference between improvisation (M = 3.25) and interpretation (M = 1.5; p < .001) and between composition (M = 2.2) and interpretation (M = 1.5; p < .001) but not between improvisation and composition. This means that improvisation and composition cluster as a type of musical activity different from interpretation. Differences between pupil-related and teacher-related barriers were significantly different for the creative activities (p < .001). Figure 4 summarizes these results and shows how the argumentation against the use of creativity changes depending on the type of creative activity.

Figure 4.

Means for pupil and teacher related barriers by creative activity.

Effects and feasibility of creative musical activities in instrument lessons

In order to gain insight into the beliefs of the teachers, we prepared a frequency table for the answers to the statements about the effects and feasibility of creative musical activities in the instrument lesson. Table 2 shows the responses concerning interrelation effects between creative activities and score-playing and the feasibility of creativity in class. Highest and second highest values are highlighted in bold and italics respectively.

Table 2.

Percentage frequencies of beliefs and feasibility of creative activities.

N = 270	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
Applying creative activities is easier in an individual than in a group lesson	19.6	17.4	28.9	24.9	9.2
There is more time and space for creative activities in B-level classes compared to A-level classes	26.3	23	19.8	21.5	9.3
I usually skip creative exercises in the instrument method book	36.4	28.1	16.6	14.3	4.6
The focus in an instrument lesson is on reproducing the score	8.5	10.4	15.7	48.9	16.5
Pupils need teacher guidance when it comes to musical interpretation	2.6	5.4	18.2	53.6	20.2
Pupils’ improvisation contributes to better score-playing	6	12.4	28.7	28.5	24.4
Pupils’ composing contributes to better score-playing	5.8	11.4	37.3	27.5	18
Improvising in instrument lessons is not achievable for every pupil	15.4	15	12.2	30.5	26.8
Composing in instrument lessons is not achievable for every pupil	6.6	8.8	12.6	36	36.1
Interpreting a piece of music can be considered a form of musical creation	1.5	2.8	7.8	30.3	57.6

To reduce the dimensionality of the 10 items into a smaller set retaining most information, we conducted a principal axis factor analysis (FA) with varimax rotation (Field, 2018, p. 989) on the 10 items. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (Field, 2018, p. 1014) measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis: KM = .65. The KMO values for individual items were between .54 and .81. To determine the substantive importance of factors, we ran an initial analysis to obtain eigenvalues (Field, 2018, p. 1004) for each factor. Three factors had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and combined, explained 52.44% of the variance. The scree plot showed an inflection that justified retaining three factors. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after varimax rotation. The item clustering suggests that Factor 1 represents the feasibility of applying creative activities, Factor 2 represents the beneficial effects of using creative activities on score-playing, and Factor 3 shows teachers’ beliefs about the implicit aims of instrument lessons.

Table 3.

Varimax-rotated component matrix for 10 creativity statements (factor loadings > .35).

	Component
	1	2	3
Improvising in instrument lessons is not achievable for every pupil	.828
Composing in instrument lessons is not achievable for every pupil	.784
Applying creative activities is easier in an individual than in a group lesson	.553
Pupils’ composing contributes to better score-playing		.796
Pupils’ improvisation contributes to better score-playing		.774
Interpreting a piece of music can be considered a form of musical creation		.497
I usually skip creative exercises in the instrument method			.725
The focus in an instrument lesson is on reproducing the score			.629
There is more time and space for creative activities in B-level classes compared to A-level classes			.601
Pupils need teacher guidance when it comes to musical interpretation			.511

Discussion

We surveyed a sample of 273 instrument teachers online on their creative class-time use, beliefs, and barriers to the use of creative musical activities (improvisation, composition, interpretation) in lessons. Results showed a substantial amount of score-playing during instrument lessons that increases with the pupil’s age and instrumental experience. This increase is accompanied by a stronger focus on interpretation at the expense of improvisation. Orman (2002) observed a similar decrease in improvisation in elementary general music classes, which was attributed to increasing curricular constraints impinging on the time-consuming development of creative skills. Similarly, the lack of interpretation in early tuition may reveal instrument teachers’ implicit notion that instrumental technique must precede musical interpretation (Hultberg, 2002; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). Meissner (2021) calls this a sensible approach on one hand, as technical difficulties can hinder expressiveness but, on the other hand, points out that focusing on musical character may benefit young musicians’ instrumental technique. Composition seems to be an underexplored area in instrument lessons. Compared to general music classes, composition may be perceived as too time-consuming: It steals time from the instrument so contradicts implicit expectations regarding the content of an instrument lesson. However, by composing students become aware of musical forms, tonalities, characteristics of the instrument, all aspects from which musical performance can benefit (Hickey & Schmidt, 2019). The reported creative class-time use agrees with Gruenhagen and Whitcomb (2014) and Strand (2006), who focused on creativity in general classical music education and found that most teachers included little improvisation or composition.

The reported barriers to improvisation and composition are also consistent with extant literature (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Snell & Stringham, 2018; Whitcomb, 2007), including a lack of lesson time and teachers being insufficiently trained in creative music making.

The factor analysis performed on the attitude statements revealed tension in the beliefs of the teachers. They saw benefits in creative activities, but these were overshadowed by perceived teacher- or learner-related obstacles and by implicit beliefs about the fundamental goals of an instrument lesson (Riley, 2009; Snell, 2012). Again, these results resonate with findings in general music education (Elpus, 2013; Koutsoupidou, 2005; Strand, 2006).

Instrument teachers support the idea that interpretation is a form of musical creativity, thereby resonating with the concept of mini-C as a valid form of creativity (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Designating interpretation as a creative activity paves the way for a third way to view musical creativity (Cook, 2014; Hultberg, 2002; Payne, 2016) and possibly to overcome some classic hurdles related to improvisation and composition. However, the instrument teachers also saw hurdles to inviting pupils to express their personal interpretations, albeit the barriers to interpretation are strikingly different from those to improvisation or composition. Avoiding composition or improvisation is attributed to the teacher’s situational features while interpretation is complicated by dispositional learner characteristics. This fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) may prevent instrument teachers from developing an artistic learning environment that fosters interpretative decision-making and artistic ownership.

Implications

These results are important for instrumental teacher educators. Research suggests that music teacher educators present the same arguments as instrument teachers for not engaging in improvisation or composition (Hewitt & Koner, 2013; Stringham et al., 2015). Breaking this cycle requires “a change in culture—a new definition of what teaching instrumental music means” and the ambition “to prepare educators who teach music more holistically, which might include C[omposition/I[mprovisation] even where it does not exist in the tradition” (Stringham et al., 2015, p. 21). Therefore, instrument-teacher training should exceed providing a toolbox of creative methods. It should include quality reflection on artist and teacher identities, values, aims, confidence, traditions, and the preconceptions of students (Biasutti, 2010; Natale-Abramo, 2014; Nussipzhanova et al., 2016). Espeland et al. (2021) found in a qualitative study that student music teachers reflect on their developing teacher identity alongside their personal identity but less on their teacher beliefs, compared to experienced teachers. The authors suggest reflection should be a structural part of teacher education in the didactic course and in internships. A persistent idea is that choosing activities in instrument lessons is not a zero-sum game. Investing in informal instrument training by composing or improvising need not mean less time for score-reading or technical skills: These aspects of instrument-playing are complementary in a pupil’s musical development (Azzara, 2002; Beitler & Thornton, 2010; McPherson, 2005).

Further, it is important for future instrument teachers to experience success in creative music-making as performers and teachers (Odena & Welch, 2009; Wright & Kanellopoulos, 2010). Teachers with a personal involvement in creative activities have a more positive attitudes toward improvisation (Creech et al., 2008; de Bruin, 2019; Koutsoupidou, 2005; Odena & Welch, 2007) and are more keen to include improvisation in their lessons (Whitcomb, 2007). In addition to reflection, instrument teacher education should include sufficient opportunities for creative music making through improvisation or composition in the curriculum and encourage students to engage in extracurricular creative performance. These personal, formative experiences may be more important for professional development than formal training (Stringham et al., 2015); occasional initiatives, such as creative workshops (Hickey & Schmidt, 2019); or an instructional model (Snell & Stringham, 2018).

Finally, learning and teaching musical interpretation (and expressiveness by extension) should gain more attention in instrument didactics as a valid way to unlock creativity (Brenner & Strand, 2013; Holmgren, 2020; Hultberg, 2008; Karlsson & Juslin, 2008; McPhee, 2011; Meissner, 2021; Silverman, 2008; Woody, 2006). Meissner and Timmers (2020) argue that pupils’ expressive performance benefits from a dialogic teaching approach, consisting of questions and dialog rather than the teacher imposing his or her own interpretation. Again, reflection on teacher beliefs concerning the opportunities of developing communicative and expressive skills, even in the youngest learners, as well as gaining positive teaching experiences would be key elements to this respect.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, it is possible that the time-related results are an overestimation (Wang & Sogin, 1997). We tried to lessen social-desirability responses by framing the possible barriers as outcomes of scientific research to mitigate strong personal involvement. Nevertheless, a “social desirability response bias” (Robson & McCartan, 2016, p. 248) could explain the reported time. This is a common problem when conducting surveys but may have played a greater role in this study, which occurred at the verge of a new decree for music schools that increases emphasis on developing creativity and applying creative methods.

Second, the focus on arguments against applying creative activities, not on positive choices, may have elicited another form of response bias. A jazz teacher mentioned that some items lacked recognizability or applicability to his teaching practice. The focus on not engaging in creativity and the lack of a “does not apply” option may have hindered teachers who actively engage in creative activities.

Third, the class-time use analysis merely quantitatively marked creativity time without considering the quality of the instructional design. The reported changes in class time use between levels do not solely account for differences in the effectiveness of creativity teaching. They should be considered together with a qualitative analysis of the exercises’ relevance and goals (e.g. regarding the desired learning outcome or the learner’s developmental stage; Kratus, 1995).

Challenges

Teaching-career life-cycle literature (Snell, 2012) can further explore the ways in which teacher experiences influence creative practice and beliefs. Future research may focus on the delicate interplay between musical, teaching, and personal experiences in forming a teacher’s identity. Differences in creative practice and beliefs between instrument types could also be explored. How do the instrument’s cultural and historical significance, repertoire, or specific didactic approach integrate in the development of teacher identity and beliefs? These would be important keystones in forming a creative instrument-learning environment.

Instead of adding teaching skills to musical skills, further integrating teacher-training with domain-specific musical training, including improvisation, composition and sufficient concert practice, may be beneficial. This would build improvisational skills and reflective skills together to reinforce each other and the concept of the teacher-artist (Strickland, 2020).

Conclusion

Although creativity and the arts seem intimately linked, applying creative activities, such as improvisation or composition, in classical instrument tuition is not self-evident. Instrument teachers display practices and beliefs about musical creativity similar to general music teachers. The same challenges must be overcome before creativity is implemented in the classroom or studio. Developments in cognitive science, musicology, and music education justify a broader view of creativity and challenge music teachers to rethink class practice, aiming for accessible entrances to musical creativity for teachers and learners. Interpretation could be one entrance. Most of the teachers’ reasons for neglecting improvisation or composition do not apply to musical interpretation, as this creative activity is inherent to classic-format instrument lessons, in which score-playing dominates. Instead, intrinsic beliefs about learners’ creative possibilities and limitations risk undermining the opportunity to creatively handle musical scores. Gaining successful experiences in creative music-making and teaching and quality reflection on teacher identity should be fundamental in training creative instrument teachers.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The survey questions and raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported as an impulse research project by LUCA School of Arts.

ORCID iDs

Jo Stijnen

Peter Van Petegem

References

Azzara

C. D

. (2002). Improvisation. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 171–187). Oxford University Press.

Beghetto

R. A

. (2016). Creative learning: A fresh look. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.1.6

Beitler

Thornton

. (2010). Enhancing the instrumental music program with creativity. In Clements

A. C.

(Ed.), Alternative approaches in music education (pp. 161–173). Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Benson

B. E

. (2003). The improvisation of musical dialogue. Cambridge University Press.

Bernhard

H. C.

Stringham

D. A

. (2016). A national survey of music education majors’ confidence in teaching improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, 34(4), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415619069

Biasutti

. (2010). Investigating trainee music teachers’ beliefs on musical abilities and learning: A quantitative study. Music Education Research, 12(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903568262

Brenner

Strand

. (2013). A case study of teaching musical expression to young performers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412474826

Burnard

(2007). Routes to understanding musical creativity. In Bresler

(Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1199–1226). Kluwer.

Burnard

. (2012a). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford University Press.

10.

Burnard

. (2012b). Rethinking ‘musical creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In Odena

(Ed.), Musical Creativity: Insights from Music Education Research (pp. 5–27). Routledge.

11.

Burwell

Carey

Bennett

. (2019). Isolation in studio music teaching: The secret garden. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 18(4), 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022217736581

12.

Byo

S. J

. (1999). Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement the national standards for music education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345717

13.

Campbell

P. S

. (1991). Lessons from the world. Schirmer Books.

14.

Chaffin

Lemieux

A. F.

Chen

. (2007). It is different each time I play: Variability in highly prepared musical performance. Music Perception, 24(5), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.24.5.455

15.

Chandler

M. D

. (2018). Improvisation in elementary general music: A review of the literature. Update Applications of Research in Music Education, 37(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123318763002

16.

Cook

. (2014). Beyond the score: Music as performance. Oxford University Press.

17.

Coss

R. G

. (2019). Creative thinking in music: Student-centered strategies for implementing exploration into the music classroom. General Music Today, 33(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371319840654

18.

Creech

Papageorgi

Duffy

Morton

Hadden

Potter

De Bezenac

Whyton

Himonides

Welch

. (2008). Investigating musical performance: Commonality and diversity among classical and non-classical musicians. Music Education Research, 10(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079080

19.

Curran

P. G

. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006

20.

Daniel

. (2006). Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: Video analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Education Research, 8(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800600779519

21.

Davies

L. M.

Newton

L. D.

Newton

D. P

. (2018). Creativity as a twenty-first-century competence: An exploratory study of provision and reality. Education 3-13, 46(7), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1385641

22.

de Bruin

L. R

. (2019). Expert improvisers’ formal, informal and situated influences on learning, motivation and self-efficacy: A qualitative study. Music Education Research, 21(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2018.1516746

23.

Dogani

. (2004). Teachers’ understanding of composing in the primary classroom. Music Education Research, 6(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380042000281721

24.

Dolan

Jensen

H. J.

Mediano

P. A. M.

Molina-Solana

Rajpal

Rosas

Sloboda

J. A

. (2018). The improvisational state of mind: A multidisciplinary study of an improvisatory approach to classical music repertoire performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1341. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01341

25.

Duke

R. A

. (2011). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Learning and Behavior Resources.

26.

Elliott

D. J.

Silverman

. (2014). Music matters: A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

27.

Elpus

. (2013). Predictors of progressive practices among in-service music educators. Biennial symposium of the Society for Music Teacher Education.

28.

Espeland

Å.

Kvile

Holdhus

. (2021). Teacher agency and teacher improvisation: A study of experienced teachers and student teachers in music classrooms. Research Studies in Music Education, 43, 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X1986100310.1177/1321103x19861003

29.

Field

. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

30.

Gordon

E. E

. (2012). Learning sequences in music: A contemporary music learning. GIA Publications.

31.

Gould

C. S.

Keaton

. (2000). The essential role of improvisation in musical performance. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/432093

32.

Gruenhagen

L. M.

Whitcomb

. (2014). Improvisational practices in elementary general music classrooms. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(4), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413508586

33.

Guilford

J. P

. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

34.

Hargreaves

D. J

. (1999). Developing musical creativity in the social world. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 22–34.

35.

Hewitt

Koner

. (2013). A comparison of instrumental music methods course content at NASM-accredited institutions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 197, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.197.0045

36.

Hickey

. (2007). Assessing creativity: An oxymoron. In Brophy

T. S.

(Ed.), Assessment in music education: Integrating curriculum, theory and practice. Proceedings of the 2007 Florida symposium on assessment in music education (pp. 191–200). GIA Publications.

37.

Hickey

Schmidt

. (2019). The effect of professional development on music teachers’ improvisation and composition activities. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 222, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.222.0027

38.

Holmgren

. (2020). The conditions for learning musical interpretation in one-to-one piano tuition in higher music education. Nordic Research in Music Education, 1(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.23865/nrme.v1.2635

39.

Hultberg

. (2002). Approaches to music notation: The printed score as a mediator of meaning in western tonal tradition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380022000011902

40.

Hultberg

. (2008). Instrumental students’ strategies for finding interpretations: Complexity and individual variety. Psychology of Music, 36(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607079719

41.

Huovinen

Frostenson Lööv

. (2021). Narratives of versatility: Approaching multi-instrumentalist music teacher identities. Research Studies in Music Education, 43(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x20951942

42.

Jørgensen

. (2000). Student learning in higher instrumental education: Who is responsible? British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051700000164

43.

Karlsson

Juslin

P. N

. (2008). Musical expression: An observational study of instrumental teaching. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 309–334.

44.

Kaufman

J. C.

Beghetto

R. A

. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

45.

Kennedy

M. A

. (2000). Creative music making since the time of the singing schools: Fringe benefits. Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, 21(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/153660060002100203

46.

Kish

Frankel

M. R

. (1974). Inference from complex samples. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 36(1), 1–22.

47.

Klickstein

. (2009). The musician’s way: A guide to practice, performance, and wellness. Oxford University Press.

48.

Koutsoupidou

. (2005). Improvisation in the English primary music classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Music Education Research, 7(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800500324432

49.

Kratus

. (1995). A developmental approach to teaching music improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, os-26(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149502600103

50.

Kupers

van Dijk

. (2020). Creativity in interaction: The dynamics of teacher-student interactions during a musical composition task. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36. 100648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100648

51.

Larsson

Georgii-Hemming

. (2019). Improvisation in general music education – A literature review. British Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026505171800013x

52.

Liertz

. (Ed.). (2007). New frameworks for tertiary music education: A holistic approach for many pyramids of experience [Paper presentation]. 8th Australasian Piano Pedagogy Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

53.

McPhail

G. J

. (2010). Crossing boundaries: Sharing concepts of music teaching from classroom to studio. Music Education Research, 12(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903568296

54.

McPhee

E. A

. (2011). Finding the muse: Teaching musical expression to adolescents in the one-to-one studio environment. International Journal of Music Education, 29(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411421084

55.

McPherson

G. E

. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735605048012

56.

McPherson

G. E.

Gabrielsson

. (2002). From sound to sign. In McPherson

Parncutt

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 99–116). Oxford University Press.

57.

Meissner

. (2021). Theoretical framework for facilitating young musicians’ learning of expressive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 584171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584171

58.

Meissner

Timmers

. (2020). Young musicians’ learning of expressive performance: The importance of dialogic teaching and modeling. Frontiers in Education, 5, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00011

59.

Menard

E. A

. (2015). Music composition in the high school curriculum. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415574310

60.

Moore

. (1992). The decline of improvisation in Western art music: An interpretation of change. International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 23(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/836956

61.

Natale-Abramo

. (2014). The construction of instrumental music teacher identity. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 202, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.202.0051

62.

Nielsen

. (2006). Apprenticeship at the academy of music. The International Journal of Arts Education, 7(4), 1–16.

63.

Nussipzhanova

B. N.

Dzherdimalieva

G. M.

Stamgaziev

R. U

. (2016). Reflexive processes in the musician performer’s professional activities. The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(10), 3820–3831.

64.

Odena

. (2018). Musical creativity revisited: Educational foundations, practices and research. Routledge.

65.

Odena

Welch

. (2007). The influence of teachers’ backgrounds on their perceptions of musical creativity: A qualitative study with secondary school music teachers. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x070280010206

66.

Odena

Welch

. (2009). A generative model of teachers’ thinking on musical creativity. Psychology of Music, 37(4), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608100374

67.

Orman

E. K

. (2002). Comparison of the national standards for music education and elementary music specialists’ use of class time. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345819

68.

Payne

. (2016). Creativity beyond innovation: Musical performance and craft. Musicae Scientiae, 20(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864916631034

69.

Plucker

J. A.

Beghetto

R. A.

Dow

G. T

. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1

70.

Rakena

T. O.

Brown

. (2016). Success for all: Eroding the culture of power in the one-to-one teaching and learning context. International Journal of Music Education, 34(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415590365

71.

Riley

P. E

. (2009). Pre-service music educators’ perceptions of the national standards for music education. Visions of Research in Music Education, 14, 5. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/

72.

Robson

McCartan

. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Wiley.

73.

Ross

. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3

74.

Runco

M. A

. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 72, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219967203

75.

Runco

M. A.

Jaeger

G. J

. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092

76.

Schiavio

Benedek

. (2020). Dimensions of musical creativity. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 578932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.578932

77.

Sharpe

Whelton

W. J

. (2016). Frightened by an old scarecrow: The remarkable resilience of demand characteristics. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000087

78.

Silverman

. (2008). A performer’s creative processes: Implications for teaching and learning musical interpretation. Music Education Research, 10(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079114

79.

Snell

A. H

. (2012). Creativity in instrumental music education: A survey of winds and percussion music teachers in New York State [Doctoral dissertation]. http://hdl.handle.net/1802/26617

80.

Snell

A. H. I.

Stringham

D. A

. (2018). Hard pressed: Instrumental music teachers’ prioritization of creativity, repertoire, and outcomes. Visions of Research in Music Education, 31, 1–28.

81.

Strand

. (2006). Survey of Indiana music teachers on using composition in the classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400206

82.

Strickland

C. M

. (2020). The way of the artist educator paradigm: Fusing artistic studio practice and teaching pedagogy. International Journal of Education Through Art, 16(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta_00028_1

83.

Stringham

D. A.

Thornton

L. C.

Shevock

D. J

. (2015). Composition and improvisation in instrumental methods courses: Instrumental music teacher educators’ perspectives. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 205, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.205.0007

84.

Sullivan

Willingham

. (2002). Creativity and music education. Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

85.

Thompson

W. F

. (2009). Music, thought, and feeling: Understanding the psychology of music. Oxford University Press.

86.

Tsubonou

Tan

Oie

. (2019). Creativity in music education (creativity in the twenty first century) (1st ed.). Springer.

87.

Vygotskij

L. S

. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen [Imagination and creativity in childhood]. Daidalos. (Original work published 1950).

88.

Wang

C. C.

Sogin

D. W

. (1997). Self-reported versus observed classroom activities in elementary general music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345538

89.

West

J. M

. (2019). Canonized repertoire as conduit to creativity. International Journal of Music Education, 37(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419842417

90.

Whitcomb

. (2007). Elementary improvisation in New York state: Survey results. The School Music News: The Official Publication of the New York State School Music Associations, 71(2), 31–33.

91.

Woody

R. H

. (2006). The effect of various instructional conditions on expressive music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400103

92.

Wright

Kanellopoulos

. (2010). Informal music learning, improvisation and teacher education. British Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051709990210