Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the creative musical identities of pre-service music education students in the United States and England. A 20-item survey was created based on previous work in the area of music teacher identity (Isbell, 2008). Survey items related to music making activities typically associated with creativity in music education, including composition, improvisation, popular music, and ‘new music’ ensemble participation, were completed by students (n = 159) from nine different universities in the United States and nine universities in England. Findings suggest that pre-service music education students in the US feel less confident about their abilities to compose music, less comfortable teaching composition, and are less likely to plan on ‘teaching students to compose/improvise their own original music when [they] get a job as a music teacher’ than their English colleagues. Differences in primary and secondary socialization are proposed to account for the differences in survey responses between the two populations. The authors propose that music educators in the US might benefit from consideration of incorporating some practices from the system in England.
Creativity in the music classroom
While numerous roles within the area of music offer opportunities for identity to be shaped – including among other roles, that of performer and listener – few opportunities offer students the chance to express their personal identity as when they assume the role of creator. Bennett Reimer supports this claim:
Education for composing has not been provided, except sporadically and perfunctorily, in American music education. The attempt to rectify this shortcoming needs to be, I suggest, a major characteristic of music education in the United States in the foreseeable future. (Reimer, 2003, p. 222)
Reimer emphasizes the importance of introducing students to music composition – not the sole manifestation of creativity, but certainly one of the ways of engaging creatively with music – in the school music education curriculum. This goal may not be attainable, if teachers do not first see the value in changing long-established curricular traditions to move towards achieving the goal. Additionally, in order for teachers to feel comfortable introducing students to music composition, they should first learn to create music themselves, thus establishing their own creative identity.
Research on the sociology of K-12 music education suggests that school music in the United States, and North America for that matter, has been and is currently a field devoted almost exclusively to preparing students to be performers of pre-composed music (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008; L’Roy, 1983; Roberts, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). The National Content Standards (MENC, 1994) in the United States and the National Curriculum in England (QCA, 2007) advocate that music education as a profession be about more than the preparation of music performers. However, the traditional large ensemble model of music instruction continues to be paramount in K-12 schools in the United States and in much of the rest of the world.
It should be stated here at the outset that the music education system in England is vastly different from the music education system in the United States. One of the most acute differences is that in England all music lessons are generalist. Band, choir, and orchestra are extra-curricular offerings which are regarded as a central aspect of any music department and which contribute to the life of the school in a range of ways. So, there is reason to believe that the identities of pre-service music teachers in these two countries might be different in some ways. The primary years in England are years Reception to 6, followed by the secondary years (US high school, roughly), and the tertiary years, which include ages 16–19 years. Higher education, or the university level, then, occurs after these stages. Not only are the music education systems different in the US and England, but the pre-service music teacher training is different as well.
At each of the English institutions in the study, questionnaire respondents were studying music education at the postgraduate level – a PGCE (postgraduate certificate of education) in music teaching in secondary schools. While it is possible to study music education on a Bachelor of Education program at some institutions in England, this is not the usual route followed by most music teachers in the country. As with other subjects and age groups, it is the norm for teachers in England to complete 3- or 4-year undergraduate programs in a specialization (such as music), and then to ‘top up’ with a postgraduate year in teacher education; this was the pathway followed by all participants at English institutions in this study. It is highly likely, owing to the specialist nature of the skill-set required to play and teach music, that these students had all studied music at undergraduate level, although they were not asked about this specifically. It is also possible that in their undergraduate music programs students engaged with creative music-making more than their US counterparts in undergraduate music education programs. However, as in the US, the majority of undergraduate music students in England (although not all) tend to have a performance focus to their studies.
The authors contend that a bias towards the English participants in this study having stronger identities as pre-service music teachers than their US counterparts is likely, due to the English participants having grown up in a culture that pays greater attention in schools to creative musical activities, and to these teachers knowing that they will be expected to engage in such activities with their own students. However, the main focus of this study is not to describe underlying reasons for differences, but rather to undertake an initial investigation into whether and to what extent differences may exist.
A comparison of two music education systems
Music education in England
The National Curriculum for England at Key Stage 3 expands upon requirements from the prior Key Stages. Key Stage 3 is for children aged 11–14 years, and is the final Key Stage (of 4) at which the study of music is compulsory. The National Curriculum (QCA, 2007) states that the study of music should include:
Performance activities in a range of contexts within and beyond the classroom.
A range of live and recorded music from different times and cultures.
A range of classical and popular traditions and current trends in music that reflect cultural diversity and a global dimension.
Staff notation and other relevant notations in a range of musical styles, genres and traditions.
Consideration of contextual influences that affect the way music is created, performed and heard.
The use of music technologies to create, manipulate and refine sounds.
The role of music and musicians in society, of the music industry and of artistic and intellectual property rights.
In the area of composition, students should be able to (QCA, 2007):
create, develop and extend musical ideas by selecting and combining resources within musical structures, styles, genres and traditions;
improvise, explore and develop musical ideas when performing.
While these criteria could be seen as quite demanding of young student musicians who may have received no specialist training beyond the general music classroom, the above statements that musical study should include ‘a range of classical and popular traditions and current trends’ along with ‘the use of music technologies’, in practice help to render the compositional aspirations of the National Curriculum achievable for many students. Inclusiveness and equity appear to be at the core of the curriculum; no one musical style or genre is considered to be more valid than any other.
The QCA document goes on to state that the curriculum should provide opportunities for pupils to: ‘Develop creative and composition skills, including songwriting, arranging and improvising’ and ‘Explore how thoughts, feelings, ideas and emotions can be expressed through music’ (QCA, 2007). The provision of these kinds of opportunities may at first appear daunting to music teachers; however, they are open to interpretation to suit individual teachers and students.
The inclusion of music technology in the teaching and learning of music is also conspicuously non-specific. Above it was noted that music programs should include ‘the use of music technologies to create, manipulate and refine sounds’, and it is stated by the QCA that student musicians should also have the opportunity to: ‘Develop individual performance skills, both vocal and instrumental, including the use of music technology’ (QCA, 2007). ‘Music technology’ could be interpreted to mean anything from beating two sticks together, to achieving an intimate familiarity with the nuances of the latest computer software designed for musical composition or production. This flexibility is both the beauty and the beast in the National Curriculum, both for teachers and for students.
Thus, the National Curriculum in England may be seen, in theory at least, to aim to facilitate students’ engagement and success in music in ways that are meaningful and accessible to them, and that are also perceived as valid and worthwhile by educators. Problems may arise when graduating music teachers are perhaps not ideally suited to the task of ‘delivering’ such a wide-ranging curriculum due to the focus of music programs in higher education on one musical tradition to the exclusion of another. Lucy Green has worked to integrate some of the practices of popular music learning within the mainstream musical classroom and into the learning of classical music (Green, 2008). Continued and increased dialog between specialist music teachers from different musical genres seems imperative for the aims of the National Curriculum to be achieved.
Music education in the United States
Music education in the United States does not adhere to a national curriculum specifically; however, the content standards provided by MENC (Music Educators National Conference) – the national music education organization – serve as a guideline for what quality school music programs should include as a part of regular instruction.
The national content standards for music education in the United States are, according to MENC (1994):
Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music.
Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music.
Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments.
Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines.
Reading and notating music.
Listening to, analyzing, and describing music.
Evaluating music and music performances.
Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts.
Understanding music in relation to history and culture.
Music education in the United States, as evidenced by NAfME’s inclusion of the plurality in offerings represented in the national content standards, recognizes that music education should include experiences in which students are free to make music that they create.
Kratus (2007) argues that music education in the United States might be at the ‘tipping point,’ borrowing the term from Gladwell (2000). He suggests that if there are not significant changes to the traditional ‘large ensemble’ performance-only offerings at the secondary level in the US, there is a danger of school-based music education becoming irrelevant in the lives of students. He suggests that they will find other meaningful ways of making music outside of the school music environment. A majority of K-12 schools and university schools of music in the US subscribe to the traditional large ensemble model of school music as the most substantial component of the school music program. In secondary US music education, large ensemble performance groups are often the only form of music education available to students.
Since the large ensemble performance-focused model of music education has been and continues to be the centerpiece of US music education, students of music who leave these programs have been socialized foremost as performers. Consequently, music education majors in the US have been socialized to be performers first and teachers second (Beynon, 1998; L’Roy, 1983; Roberts, 1991a).
What has not been explored adequately in the music education literature is the socialization of music teachers as creative music-makers – musicians who compose, improvise, and utilize various popular music styles and sensibilities in music creation. This is surprising in that music teachers are expected – according the national content standards in music – to introduce music students to creative music-making. It seems logical to assume that, if teachers do not possess identities as creative music makers, and of course, the skills that go along with those identities, they will not value the fostering of a creative identity in their students. This point is cause for concern if one believes that encouraging creative music experiences and nurturing a creative identity in music students is important.
Reimer (2003), Elliot (1995), and Jorgensen (2003) all agree that music education should be multi-faceted, offering more than simply performance-based experiences with music. To have national standards that include ideals other than performance is one thing, actually implementing such ideals is quite another. The literature suggests a history of music education focused on performance ideals in the United States, perhaps to the expense of other modes of music-making. The research in this area of the literature, however, has focused on specific cultures, the United States, or the United Kingdom (Woodford, 2002). There has been no study that compares the socialization of pre-service music teachers – music education majors – between these two areas using the same quantitative measure, nor one that has looked at creative identity.
Both US and English music education systems promote the inclusion of opportunities for students to create music (composition and improvisation) within the school music curriculum. Both systems have traditions that include large ensemble and general music instruction. How these ideals influence what is being done now, what will be done in the future, and the individual music teachers who will turn these ideals into practice must be examined more closely.
Creativity research and scholarship in music education
Peter Webster has been a key figure in the area of ‘creative thinking in music’ education research (Webster, 1977, 1979, 1990). Webster’s work on creative thought processes opened the door for researchers in the field to examine, from a psychological perspective, compositional and improvisational processes and products (Hickey, 1995, 2001; Kratus, 1985, 1989, 1994, 2001; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986; Wiggins, 2003). Since this research paradigm started to gain momentum in the 1980s and 1990s, some researchers have chosen to focus more on the study of creativity in real-world educational contexts (Barrett, 1996, 2006, 2010; Burnard, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004; Wiggins, 1994) and specifically on the sociology of musical creativity (Burnard, 2006b). In Burnard’s words, this movement has been a shift away from ‘large-scale studies aiming to measure creativity in children’s composition towards ethnographic, qualitative approaches, and to research focusing on the actual site of operations and practice’ (Burnard, 2006a, p. 111). There seems to be a growing concern for examining the cultures – including parents, peer groups, and teachers, the individuals – that surround students and facilitate their creative work (Barrett, 2011; Wiggins, 2011), as a way of understanding how to bridge the gap in the US between curriculum mandates such as the National Content Standards (MENC, 1994), and inclusion of creative music-making activities into common practice.
While this work in creativity research in music education has helped the profession understand the thought processes and pathways that students undergo while composing and improvising, the work has had more of an influence on practice in England than it has in the United States. The work of George Self (1967), Brian Dennis (1970), John Paynter and Peter Aston (1970), and R. Murray Schafer (1976), as well as research on musical creativity published with an English audience specifically in mind (Bunting, 1987; Davies, 1986; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986), combined to set the stage for small group creativity to become a staple of English school music education since the early 1970s. Furthermore, the work of Keith Swanwick (1968), Graham Vulliamy and Ed Lee (1982), and others encouraged the use of popular music in the curriculum, and it first appeared as an official part of the national exam syllabus in 1986, then to be enshrined as a part of the National Curriculum in 1992. While it seems reasonable to suggest that there might be differences regarding teachers’ identities, there has not been any empirical evidence to suggest that although both systems’ music education curricula suggest that creative music-making – composition, improvisation, arranging, among other musical activities – is important for inclusion in course offerings, only the English system seems to be implementing these ideals in practice. This study sought to provide such initial empirical support for such a statement.
Creative identity
Creative identity has been examined in the areas of art (Welkener, 2000), advertising (Hackley & Kover, 2007), and music (Bennett, 2008; Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002). Hargreaves et al. (2002) found that ‘music can be used as a way in which we formulate and express our individual identities’ (p. 1). However, creative identity has been explored less frequently in the context of music students (Draves, 2008; Green, 2002; Randles, 2009), and music teachers (Hargreaves, Purves, Welch, & Marshall, 2007; Randles, 2009). As Hargreaves et al. (2007) suggest, music teachers’ ‘identities inevitably determine how they project their own implicit views of the nature of music in school’ (p. 666).
This study focuses on a comparison of creative identity – identity related to various music activities typically associated with creativity, including composition, improvisation, and participation in both popular and ‘new music’ ensembles – as a product of both the primary and secondary socialization of music teachers in the US and in England. Creative identity, of course, comes from the development of skills and techniques in doing those activities that help to develop an individual’s creative identity. The authors realize that creativity can be attributed to what musicians do when they perform, listen, and analyze music as well. However, for the purposes of this study, the authors have chosen to focus on creativity as it has been defined by researchers in the field of music education over the past 30 years (Barrett, 1996, 2006, 2010; Burnard, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006b; Hickey, 1995, 2001; Kratus, 1985, 1989, 1994, 2001; Swanwick & Tillman, 1986; Webster, 1977, 1979, 1990; Wiggins, 2003); primarily, music composition and improvisation. Creative identity is defined, therefore, for the purposes of this study, as a person’s sense of who they are in relation to these ways of being musical.
Purpose and problems
The purpose of this study was to comparatively examine the creative identities of pre-service music teachers in the United States and England with a modified version of a quantitative measure of music teacher identity developed by Isbell (2008). The specific questions were as follows:
What similarities or differences exist with regard to the importance of teaching composition to music students between the pre-service music teacher populations of each country?
What similarities or differences exist with regard to plans for teaching composition to music students between the pre-service music teacher populations of each country?
What other similarities or differences exist between the two populations of music teachers with regard to the comfort level of teaching composition and improvisation?
Method
Survey instrument
A 20-item researcher-devised survey tool was used to collect information from pre-service music teachers regarding their attitudes and experiences in creative music making and teaching. The survey was based on the 128-item questionnaire developed and used by Isbell (2008), who examined the primary and secondary socialization of US pre-service music teachers. The format of Isbell’s survey questions was used as a guide for developing the questions for this study. The researcher-devised survey tool used in this study was administered in an on-line format, which facilitated ease of data gathering, management, and information-sharing among the researchers. The survey tool contained questions probing areas of creative identity; and targeted beliefs about the importance of creative musical pursuits, the value of interacting with students in these ways, and whether or not participants planned to teach students to compose or improvise in the future.
Following the design of Isbell’s (2008) questionnaire, questions from the creative identity survey included rating the following statements on a scale from ‘not important’ to ‘extremely important:’ ‘composing original music,’ ‘improvising on your primary instrument/voice,’ ‘being involved with “new music” ensembles,’ and ‘listening to students’ created musical works.’ Another part of this portion of the measure asked students to ‘indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements’ by indicating a response ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree:’ ‘I can compose my own music,’ ‘I could give students feedback on their created musical works,’ and ‘I value teaching students to compose or improvise their own music.’
Additional items were constructed by the authors to gather information about participants’ beliefs concerning creativity, computer-based creativity opportunities, and the importance of the inclusion of popular music listening and performance in the music curriculum. Items were formulated to address research question number three. Items on the survey appear in Tables 1 and 2. The sequence of the items in these tables has been reordered to indicate the highest rated to lowest rated items.
T-test results for Creative Identity Survey – “Rate the importance of:”
Note: Likert-scale 1–5; 1 = Not important, 2 = Somewhat important, 3 = Moderately important, 4 = Very important, and 5 = Extremely important. The Bonferroni Correction was used to address the problem of multiple comparisons, thus setting the level of significance at p < .005.
T-test results for Creative Identity Survey – “Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:”
Note: Likert-scale 1–6; 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree. The Bonferroni correction was used to address the problem of multiple comparisons, thus setting the level of significance at p < .005. The significantly higher mean for each item is italicized.
Participant population
Music education faculty from 26 colleges, universities, or in some cases higher education institutions from within the United States and England were sent an invitation to be a part of this study. Nine universities from the United States and eight universities from England agreed to participate in the study. The specific US universities that participated are: University of Arizona, Florida State University, University of North Texas, the University of South Florida, Lee University, Bucknell University, Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester, Michigan State University, and University of Northern Colorado. The specific English universities that participated are: Greenwich University, Institute of Education (London), University of Huddersfield, Royal Northern College of Music, Durham University, Goldsmith’s University College, Southampton, and Bristol University. Participation by students at the various universities was voluntary. Research board approval was obtained through the university of the US researcher; an approved statement regarding ethical concerns was attached to each invitation to be a part of the study.
Surveys were sent via e-mail attachment to the pre-service music education students from all participating institutions in both countries. Students were asked to take the online survey, which could be accessed by clicking on a link within the e-mail. Of 698 surveys sent to students in the US, 159 surveys were returned, for a return rate of 23%; while 52 of 203 surveys sent were returned by English students, for a return rate of 26%. The larger number of surveys sent out in the US is a reflection of the multitude of music teacher preparatory programs in the United States, the size of these programs, and the larger number of public schools requiring music teachers. Naturally, the researchers would have preferred a higher response rate. Online survey distribution may be impersonal and less than ideal in terms of response rate, however data from online surveys are relatively easy to generate and then analyze, which offers the research community benefits. For the purposes of this study – a first comparison of creative identity among pre-service teachers in the US and England – the researchers considered the lower response rate acceptable. While pre-service music teachers in England enter the pre-service teacher program with more life experience, given the post-graduate status of the program in these two countries, the researchers agreed that – because of the unique role of a teacher as opposed to a musician generally – valid comparisons of creative identity among pre-service teachers in the US and England could be made.
Analysis
The researchers used t-tests to determine the level of significance of the difference between the means of the two populations according to each survey item. Each item was considered as a separate entity, not as a part of one large test, to address the specific research questions. The researchers framed this study as a first comparison between the pre-service music teacher populations of these two countries. The goal was to make a broad comparison between the two populations of teachers, by examining a number of different skill areas that could possibly contribute to an individual’s creative identity. Since this study was conducted, the primary author has developed the individual items into a specific creative identity measure (Randles & Muhonen, in press). The goal of this study was to begin to explore the creative identities of members of these different cultures. Analyzing many individual items was viewed as the most useful way to proceed in this study, rather than analyzing one measure. Findings were adjusted to address the problem of multiple comparisons through use of the Bonferroni Correction, thus setting the level of significance from p < .05 to p < .005.
Results
For the first part of the survey, the section beginning with the statement ‘Rate the importance of,’ no significant differences were found between the English pre-service teachers and the US pre-service teachers. While no significant differences were found, some items sorted higher than other items. The following items ranked the highest with regard to positive significant difference.
Composing original music (p < .01).
Introducing students to computer-based creativity tools for music recording and production (p < .03).
For the second part of the survey, the section beginning with the statement ‘Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements,’ significant differences were found between the English pre-service teachers and the US pre-service teachers for the following statements:
I feel comfortable teaching music composition (p < .0001).
I can compose my own music (p < .0002).
The following statements, while not significant, ranked higher in relation to other survey items:
I plan on teaching students to compose/improvise their own original music when I get a job as a music teacher. (p < .01)
I feel comfortable teaching someone to improvise on my primary instrument/voice. (p < .02)
Discussion
These data suggest that as far as valuing creativity in music on a general level, both English and US pre-service music teachers seem to have an open mind to the possibility of a music curriculum that includes a creativity component. This is evidenced by the means for each response item from both English and US pre-service teachers on the first portion rarely being lower than ‘3 – Moderately important,’ and the means for each response item on the second portion of the survey rarely being below ‘4 – Somewhat agree.’ However, these data also suggest that there is a difference in the extent to which participating pre-service teachers from the US and England believe they are prepared by their primary and secondary socialization in music 1 (Isbell, 2008) to teach music composition.
In any type of teaching, subject matter competence is essential. To be able to teach music composition effectively, one must first be able to compose music oneself. The English pre-service teachers were more confident in their ability as composers than were their US counterparts. This trend is evidenced further by a difference in participants’ perceived value of composing music, with English pre-service teachers valuing it more than US pre-service teachers. It is possible that the difference between the two populations can be accounted for by the primary socialization that occurred, as these future teachers were moving through their respective country’s music program. Since a higher priority was placed on the value of composition as a component of the English system, these future teachers can be characterized as having been given the chance to develop identities as composers, which would consequently lead to them valuing the act of composition to a greater extent than the future teachers who were brought up in the primarily large ensemble performance-based model of US music education.
Since the US population are likely to have received less instruction in composition (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008), they feel less confident about their abilities to compose music, they feel less comfortable teaching composition, and they plan on ‘teaching students to compose/improvise their own original music when [they] get a job as a music teacher’ to a lesser extent than do their English colleagues. Given the dominant role of performance in K-12 and collegiate music study in the US, the US pre-service teachers have not been socialized to value music composition as much as their English colleagues (Abril & Gault, 2006, 2008). A creative identity in music, which according to Reimer (2003) and Gardner (1999) is present in all humans, has not been nurtured in the performance-based US schools to the extent that it has been in the, perhaps more multi-dimensional, English music education system.
The teacher’s role in the process of socialization is to model what is important in the teaching and learning of music. There are differences in the way English and US pre-service music teachers are socialized. As Isbell (2008) points out, ‘pre-service teachers are socialized to the norms of teaching through 12 years of observing teachers at work’ (p. 163). By analyzing beliefs of each population, researchers can get a picture of what is valued within these systems.
For the pre-service music teachers in the UK and England, a creative identity in music has been present since their earliest interactions with music. Ethnographic work by Campbell (1998) and others has done much to highlight the presence of musical creativity as a natural part of the early musical interactions of students. Based on what was valued in their music education experience, students formed identities as musicians that did or did not include being a music creator as a part of the school music program. For music teachers in the US who consider music composition to be a valuable part of the music curriculum, there is much to be learned about the socialization of music teachers in England. While the English secondary system appears to be similar to the US system with high regard for Western classical performance tradition, the primary system in England seems to be better preparing students of music for being music teachers who can compose and teach composition, and who value developing a creative identity in their students.
The item, ‘Introducing students to computer-based creativity tools for music recording and production,’ while not significantly different, ranked high in comparison to other survey items. The English population valued the inclusion of computer-based creativity tools to a greater extent than the US sample population. Further research in this area of the literature is necessary. As computer-based technologies for student creative expression become more available to the general population, it will become more important for music teachers to understand and employ these technologies in their classroom instruction as a way of connecting the world of music in society with the world of music in schools. Also, further research can be done with other national populations of pre-service and in-service teachers. Worth mentioning here is that composition and improvisation are the least studied of all the US national content standard areas (Kruse, Oare, & Norman, 2008).
Conclusion
US music education may be at the ‘tipping point’ as Kratus (2007) suggests. The researchers feel that it is student musical creativity, coupled with the explosion of computer-based music technology, and the saturation of popular music in the lives of students globally that presents the greatest potential for growth in school music programs in England and the US. Work by Green (2008) and others suggest that a marriage between traditional school music offerings and a closer approximation to the musical worlds that children are a part of outside of school is possible. The results of this study suggest that pre-service music teachers in England might be better equipped to teach composition than their US peers, based on their immersion in a music education system with a general music focus. Research with larger populations is necessary; research in philosophy and larger-scale cross-cultural studies will be important for the profession in order to generalize these findings.
Implications for the music education profession
Cultures around the world handle creative music teaching and learning differently. Curricular offerings regarding the use of creativity, and consequently beliefs regarding identity and personal value could be important and valuable ideas to share within the international music education community. While some curricular offerings are specific to individual countries, there may be some offerings that cross cultural and political boundaries. Composition, improvisation, arranging, and vernacular musicianship may be examples of curricular areas that could be highly regarded by every culture, but not utilized to full potential by school-based music programs. These areas seem to be ripe for examination by the international music education research community.
The present study represents only the beginning of research in this area. It hints, however, at some possible benefits awaiting teachers and researchers who seek ideas from beyond their own national boundaries. Beyond promoting the useful practice of prompting teachers in schools and in higher education to reflect on their own assumptions, practices, and beliefs, and those of their students, another possible benefit of this study could be to prompt further research to include greater numbers of students from more countries, thereby leading to a richer picture of approaches and attitudes to composition and creativity internationally. It is hoped that this study will inspire researchers who are interested in creativity and the teaching and learning of music to consider looking internationally for examples of creativity being used effectively in school music programs. The academic area of music education could benefit greatly by such collaborative work.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.