Using Creativity Assessment Experience to Nurture and Predict Compositional Creativity

JRME 2001, VOLUME 49, NUMBER 3, PAGES 245-257 245

The purpose of this inquiry was to examine students' assessments of musical creativity in relation to their ability to function creatively as composers. Compositions collected from 54 nonmusic majors enrolled in music fundamentals classes were used as a measure of compositional creativity. Independent judges reached acceptable levels of agreement in assessing musical creativity and other dimensions allowing students to be placed into high-, middle-, and low-creativity groups. Additionally, students completed Creativity and Craftsmanship Assessments (CCA) by listening to sets of 5 exemplary compositions produced by students previously enrolled in the course. Students' verbal descriptions of creativity and craftsmanship from the CCA were categorized. A chi-square analysis of the students' descriptions yielded statistically significant differences between high-, middle-, and low- creativity groups. Students in the high-creativity group were more likely to cite temporal factors as contributing to creativity and craftsmanship than were students in the middle- or low-creativity groups (p < .01); students in the low- and middle-creativity groups were more likely to use metaphors than were students in the high-creativity group (p < .05).

Thomas Priest, Weber State University

Using Creativity Assessment

Experience to

Nurture and Predict

Compositional Creativity

Since the early 1960s, leaders in music education have called for the nurturing of creativity (e.g., Contemporary Music Project/ MENC, 1965; Choate, 1968). Most recently in the National Stand- ards for Arts Education (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994), creativity has again been cited as an important aspect of a well-rounded music education. Specifically, the National Standards suggest that the role music will play in students' lives

depends in large measure on the level of skills they achieve in creat-

ing, performing, and listening to music.

The author wishes to express his gratitude toward Jan McCrary and Paul Sanders for their help in processing the data and editing this manuscript. Additionally, he wishes to acknowledge the eightjudges who examined the 54 compositions. Thomas Priest is director of music education in the Department of Performing Arts, 1905 University Circle, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408-1905; e-mail: [email protected]. Copyright ? 2001 by MENC-The National Association for Music Education.

246 PRIEST

Although many music educators tend to view creativity as limited to composition or improvisation, all musical behaviors are potential- ly creative; for example, a thoughtful and original analysis, assessment, or description of a composition may be considered as creative as an innovative performance. Because of this confusion as to what constitutes creativity, Webster (1990) called for the profession to turn its focus to "creative thinking" rather than creativity. This shift broad- ens the music education researcher's perspective by considering how individuals might creatively respond in a variety of ways within any given musical context.

To better understand how individuals may function creatively in music learning environments, several researchers (Bangs, 1992/ 1993; Daignault, 1996/1997; Hickey, 1995/1996; Priest, 1997/1998) have adapted Amabile's consensual assessment technique (1996). This kind of assessment assumes that a product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree that it is creative. Appropriate observers are those familiar with the discipline in which the product was created or the response articu- lated. Creativity can be regarded as the quality of the products or responses judged to be creative by appropriate observers. These observers, however, need not be true experts in order to be considered appropriate. Researchers, practitioners, and students may all be considered appropriate observers. This technique is particularly useful for discovering how to nurture creative behaviors within various domains of understanding. Most fascinating, in the consensual assessment literature, is the relatively high level of agreement by independent observers as to what products or responses are more or less creative. This is particularly noteworthy since independent observers are usually asked to use their own definition of creativity when making judgments about various creative products. An under- lying assumption in this body of research is that it is possible to help individuals develop their potential to function creatively in various learning environments.

Bangs (1992/1993) used Amabile's technique to understand the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational treatments on the compositions developed by third-grade children. Intrinsic motivation was found to be beneficial in the development of musical creativity, and extrinsic motivation was found to be detrimental. These findings support those in several studies reported by Amabile that suggest that intrinsic motivation is a consistent positive factor in the development of higher levels of creativity (1996). In the interest of nurturing creativity, instructors should generally refrain from linking creative products with extrinsic rewards. From this same body of research, however, we may assume that self-evaluations will tend to raise levels of creativity.

In an investigation of pianists' and nonpianists' compositional processes and products, Daignault (1996/1997) used a consensual assessment to examine compositions developed by children using MIDI keyboards. In this study, the pianists did not develop more cre-

JRME 247

ative or better-crafted compositions than their nonpianist counterparts. This resonates with the findings of several studies that suggest students' previous performance experience is not significantly relat- ed to their ability to function creatively as composers (Flohr, 1985; Gardner, 1982; Gorder, 1980; Hickey, 1995/1996; Webster, 1987; Webster, Yale, & Haefner, 1988).

Musical creative thinking developed in one environment does not seem to readily transfer to musical creative thinking in another environment. Hickey (1995/1996), for example, found no significant correlation between Webster's Measure of Creative Thinking in Music (1994) and children's compositions developed in a computer- assisted environment. Similarly, Amchin (1995/1996) found no significant correlation between Webster's measure and children's abilities to improvise on xylophones.

Although creative thinking does not seem to readily transfer from one music environment to another, engaging in a diversity of poten- tially creative behaviors within a single environment might support other creative behaviors within that environment. For example, in their efforts to nurture composition and improvisation, Hickey (1995/1996), Amchin (1995/1996), and Priest (1997/1998) suggested that it would be worthwhile to provide students with opportunities to assess musical creativity.

In designing learning environments, choice rather than constraint tends to bolster creativity, while constraint tends to inhibit creativity (Amabile, 1996). Limitations, however, that are perceived as informational rather than constraining, actually increase intrinsic motivation, thereby increasing creativity levels (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Although the research on modeling is inconclusive, Amabile's findings suggest that providing appropriate models will tend to enhance levels of creativity. Providing learners with models of creative products may be considered one kind of informational constraint, since models will naturally suggest frameworks for creative activity.

To assess compositional creativity and craftsmanship, Hickey (1995/1996) provided independent judges with implicit definitions linked to rating scales. Judges were asked to rate (a) levels of creativity based on the degree to which they believed that the compositions were creative and (b) craftsmanship based on the degree to which they believed that the compositions contained craftsmanship qualities. Similar to findings in Amabile's work (1996), results of a study by Webster and Hickey (1995) showed thatjudges tend to be more reli- able in responding to global and implicit definitions rather than explicit and specific definitions. Their work suggests that rating scales that include global and implicit definitions are better at predicting originality, creativity, and aesthetic value, whereas rating scales that use explicit and specific definitions are better at predicting craftsmanship or discovering some other specific characteristic. Craftsmanship may be viewed as an essential component of creativity. After examining Amabile's, Webster's, and Hickey's findings, it would seem reasonable to use an implicit definition to rate creativity (the

248 PRIEST

degree to which you believe that a composition is creative) and a more explicit definition to rate craftsmanship (the degree to which you believe that a composition is technically good and well organized). Amabile's procedure calls for the use of continuous scales that provide a relatively large number of ratable categories. Sax (1980) suggests that increasing the number of ratable categories tends to increase the reliability of numerical scales. Judges' assessments on continuous scales may then be quantified for further analysis.

PURPOSE

Because music educators recognize the importance of nurturing creativity in music learning environments, we need to understand how creative thinking may be expressed through various musical behaviors. Although the preliminary research suggests that musical creative thinking does not seem to readily transfer from one environment to another, a variety of musical creative thinking behaviors might be mutually supportive within a single environment. For example, creativity demonstrated through assessment might readily support creativity demonstrated through musical composition. The purpose of this inquiry was to examine students' assessments of musical creativity in relation to their ability to function creatively as com-

posers. The following research questions, based on this purpose, were identified:

1. What criteria do individuals cite as contributing factors for musical creativity and craftsmanship?

2. How do individuals who have been identified as belonging to

high-, middle-, or low-creativity groups based on their compositional skills function as listeners when assessing musical creativity and crafts-

manship?

METHOD

Participants included 54 undergraduate students enrolled in three sections of a music fundamentals course for elementary education

majors. At the beginning of the course, students were asked to describe their previous musical experience in a written format.

Typically, individuals cited school experiences in choir or band in

high school, junior high, or elementary school, as well as church choir experience. Each student completed three composition-performance assignments using a soprano recorder. The first assignment required students to compose a piece that lasted at least 20 sec- onds but not more than 1 minute. They were also asked to demon- strate their ability to articulate, use proper breath control, and use at least three different pitches. The second assignment required students to compose a melody using the rhythm of a poem. Poems that more readily fit duple meters with more predictable rhythms were offered to the students, but they were also allowed to use their own selections. Students notated the rhythm of their poems using a

JRME 249

,Ee 31 e Ull a ,1 a I I il --l <6 IL F*} I I 2 1 3 | 4 | 5( | 1 1 2 | 3 | 4 I 5 1 61

r~m Ftr Ft [ A \I [ F# \LI 1 G, W ft C? I 1 1 2 J 3 1 4 15 6 1 1 1 2 61 3 4 5 6 |

, 1 3 1L~~i l F \ L I( Z KI A t~ aF 1 T h Fs\ 1 1 2 14 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 13 1 4 1 5 21

[1 J 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 I 5 I I

i A r3 4 5 I r I 3 ,4 Is I I 1I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 I 6 I

Figure 1. One example of an E-minor composition that was rated as highly creative by eight independent judges. Students used this graphic notation as a means to organize their work.

teacher-generated grid (see Figure 1). After students settled on the rhythm of their selection, they could experiment with various combinations of pitches. It was required that their final product contain at least five different pitches. The third assignment required students to compose a piece in E minor using triple meter or compound duple meter. In a fashion similar to the second composition assignment, students notated the rhythm of their compositions by drawing rectangles above a teacher-generated grid (see Figure 1). After students settled on the rhythm of their selection, they could experiment with various combinations of pitches. Some students, however, would first work on the contour of their melodies and then work on the rhythm ("the shorts and longs"). The students' final product had to include at least five different pitches. All three compositional tasks provided a balance between choice and informational constraint. The students completed a final composition assignment of their own design.

I

250 PRIEST

To provide the participants with useful models, the students completed three assessments of creativity and craftsmanship approxi- mately 1 week before each composition assignment was due. These three Creativity and Craftsmanship Assessments (CCA), designed by the researcher and based on Amabile's consensual assessment technique (1996), were also used to gather data to answer the first research question. For each CCA, the students listened to five exemplary compositions produced by individuals that were previously enrolled in the course. The students were told that the five compositions all successfully met the criteria for each assignment. The compositions were selected as exemplary if (a) they met the compositional criteria, (b) they were performed well, and (c) as a set, they provided diverse responses to each composition assignment. These divergent models provided the students with appropriate models for completing each corresponding composition assignment.

When completing each CCA, the students heard the set of five compositions three times; they were then asked to rate the level of creativity and the level of craftsmanship for the five performances. Students were provided with written and aural instructions. The students rated the selections on a continuous scale relative to one another rather than to any absolute standard. The continuous scale

provided a numerical scale from 1 to 5, but the students could place a mark at any fractional value between these reference points. Creativity was not explicitly defined, but instead students were asked to make their ratings based on the following implicit definition: "Using your own definition of creativity, indicate the degree to which the composition is creative." Craftsmanship was presented with a slightly more explicit definition: "the degree to which the composition is technically good and well organized." After the students completed the continuous scales for the five compositions, the students were asked to write why they selected a certain composition as the most creative and why they selected a certain composition as demon- strating the highest level of craftsmanship.

Within a week after the administration of each CCA, the students recorded their own completed compositions individually using a cassette tape recorder. In addition to performing their own melodies, they also performed literature from their method book (Froseth, 1996). As a course requirement, their performances were evaluated by the instructor on several criteria, including rhythmic and pitch attributes. Using the same definitions as were used in the CCA, the students assessed their own levels of achievement in creativity and craftsmanship. Crucially, the instructor did not assess student creativity or craftsmanship; instead, students themselves were responsible for self-assessing these dimensions as a portion of their overall course evaluation.

CONSENSUAL MUSICAL CREATIVVl Y ASSESSMENT

To make comparisons between compositional skills and analytical listening skills, it was necessary to measure the students' level of com-

JRME 251

positional creativity. For this task the third set of student compositions, the E minor melodies, was used. Because the E-minor melody assignment was the last compositional problem that presented all the students with the same task, it seemed to be a logical choice. Additionally, it was assumed that since this was the third composition assignment, the students were most likely producing fair representa- tions of their creative output from within this particular educational setting.

To control for different levels of student performance skills, one competent musician played all 54 of the melodies onto a master tape. From this master tape, eight cassette tapes were generated with the 54 compositions randomly ordered on each. Eight independent judges who taught music courses to elementary education students were selected to complete the Consensual Musical Creativity Assessment (CMCA) based on Amabile's (1996) procedure. Using a continuous scale, the judges were asked to rate the compositions relative to one another on four dimensions: (a) creativity, (b) melodic interest, (c) rhythmic interest, and (d) personal preference. Implicit descriptions of the four dimensions were given to the judges to increase the reliability of the measure. For example, rhythmic interest was presented as "the degree to which you find the melody has rhythmic interest."

Like the CCA, the continuous scale for the CMCA provided a numerical scale from 1 to 5. The judges, however, could place a mark at any fractional value between these 5 reference points. The judges' ratings were then quantified into 17 possible scores (1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, ... 4.75, 5.00). Since it was rather demanding to rank-order 54 compositions on four dimensions, the judges were asked to first con- sider 15 (approx. 25%) of the selections and then use their assessments on these 15 as benchmarks for examining the other 39. Because of the difficulty of maintaining consistent criteria throughout the judging task, a relatively large number of judges helped to control for judge fatigue or inconsistency (Amabile, 1996, p. 60).

DATA ANALYSIS

Two other music education researchers examined the students' written descriptions of factors contributing to creativity and craftsmanship, collected via the CCAs. The researchers were asked to con- sider how qualities or attributes of the students' writing might be categorized. From this discussion, the following categories were used to classify statements made by the students: (a) complexity, (b) number or variety of pitches, (c) melodic interest or contrast, (d) melodic range, (e) melodic contour, (f) tone quality, (g) vibrato, (h) tempo, (i) rhythmic variety or interest, (j) temporal factors, (k) pleasant or easy listening, (1) singable or song-like melody, (m) articulation, (n) agility, (o) metaphor or simile, (p) few performance errors, (q) originality or uniqueness, (r) maintained steady pulse, (s) musicianship or performance qualities, and (t) multiple factors.

252 PRIEST

Even though most of the categories are self-explanatory, there are a few that call for clarification. Agility referred to statements that included the word "flows" or "flows smoothly." Also included in this category were references to fast passages or the ease at which the musician moved between different pitches or registers. Musicianship or performance quality was a broad area of classification that included various positive references to performance qualities. A few exam- ples would be: (a) "seemed to be taking more risks than the others, and it worked"; (b) "the notes were very clear and precise, keeping a good rhythm"; (c) "nice mellow sound, which caught the mood of the song"; (d) "sounded authentic, not off-the-cuff"; (e) "demonstrated finesse with the recorder"; (f) "it takes a lot of work to get that

good of sound and the right notes"; and (g) "it sounded as though it was put together well and with thought." Temporal factors, defined

by Flowers (2000) in a study of fifth- and sixth-grade students' written descriptions of music, included statements referring to change over time. These included references to recurring themes, beginnings, transitions, endings, repetition, development, and contrasts.

The students' descriptions from the three CCAs were categorized two times, 1 week apart, and adjustments were made to insure the consistent application of the categorical definitions. The descriptions were entered into the statistical program SPSS (1999) and a fre-

quency distribution was generated (see Table 1). The 54 students

completing the three CCAs yielded 162 possible observations for each factor contributing to creativity and craftsmanship. Musicianship or performance qualities were cited more often than

any other factor (n = 130, 80.2%), and complexity was least often cited as a contributing factor (n = 4, 2.5%). To permit answering the second research question, the judges' ratings on the four dimensions from the CMCA were entered into SPSS (1999). Since melodic interest, rhythmic interest, and personal preference could all be considered components of compositional creativity, a sum of the judges' ratings on the four dimensions generated a composite creativity score. Reliability analyses using Cronbach's alpha yielded an alpha index of .81 for creativity, .84 for personal preference, .85 for rhythmic interest, .79 for melodic interest, and .85 for the composite cre-

ativity score. Considered as acceptable levels of reliability (Nunnally, 1978, p. 245), these alpha scores suggested further inferences could be made concerning the behavior of the students on other measures.

Using the means of the eight judges' composite creativity scores, the students were divided into high (n = 18), middle (n = 18), and low (n = 18) compositional creativity groups. A chi-square analysis of the students' responses on the CCAs yielded statistically significant differences between the three creativity groups. Students in the high- creativity group were much more likely to cite temporal factors as

contributing to creativity and craftsmanship than students in the middle- or low-creativity groups (see Table 2): x2 (df= 2, N= 162) =

13.07, p < .01.To understand further distinctions between the behaviors of students in the high- and low-creativity groups, students'

JRME 253

Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Creativity and Craftsmanship Factors Cited by Students from Three Creativity and Craftsmanship Assessments

Assessment Creativity/Craftsmanship Factor

Number or Melodic variety of interest or Melodic Melodic Tone

Complexity pitches contrast range contour quality Vibrato

n=4 n=72 n=69 n=29 n=7 n=61 n=5 2.5% 44.4% 42.6% 17.9% 4.3% 37.7% 3.1%

Rhythmic Pleasant Singable or variety or Temporal or easy song-like Articu-

Tempo interest factors listening melody lation Agility

n=15 n=60 n=36 n=55 n=16 n=43 n = 86 9.3% 37.0% 22.2% 34.0% 9.9% 26.5% 53.1%

Few Originality Maintained Musicianship Four or Five or

Metaphor performance or steady or performance fewer more or simile errors uniqueness pulse qualities factors factors

n=30 n=39 n=27 n=26 n=130 n=72 n=90 18.5% 24.1% 16.7% 16.0 % 80.2% 44.4% 55.6%

responses from the middle-creativity group were omitted from the data set, and a chi-square analysis was done using the responses from the remaining students. Students in the low-creativity group were much more likely to use metaphors or similes in their analyses than students in the high-creativity group were (see Table 2): x2 (df= 1, N= 108) = 3.92, p < .05.

DISCUSSION

It is perhaps most consequential that individuals who produced compositions that were rated as highly creative were much more like-

ly to use statements that described temporal factors as contributing to creativity and craftsmanship than were individuals who produced compositions that were rated at middle- and low-creativity levels. These data suggest that individuals who were rated as highly creative

composers were more aware of temporal factors than their middle

254 PRIEST

Table 2 Statistically Significant Differences between Creativity and Craftsmanship Factors Cited by High, Middle, and Low Compositional Creativity Groups

Temporalfactors: Metaphor: Observed Observed

Creativity Group (Expected) (Expected)

High 21 * 6 ** (12.0) (10.0)

Middle 7 * 10 (12.0) (10.0)

Low 8* 14** (12.0) (10.0)

Note. * p< .01; ** p< .05.

and low counterparts. Statements classified as temporal factors, made by individuals in the high creativity group, help us understand the thought processes of these students: (a) "it sounded like it repeated itself, but each was different"; (b) "repeated the melody to keep the same theme" (c) "skipped around from high to low at times, and just went up or down the scale at other times"; (d) "handled speed of transitions well"; (e) "kept the listener attuned to find the repeated pat- tern"; (f) "it was the beginning to a much longer piece"; (g) "you could anticipate what was next"; (h) "many variations were used"; (i) "little extras were put into the work that repeated throughout-this really brought the work together"; (j) "had a beginning, middle, and end, and it resolved itself'; (k) "it left the listener in anticipation through to the end of the song"; and (1) "variations in pitches created an agitation that was calmed by the pitches that were to follow."

These data suggest that by recognizing the changeable nature of musical events, the more creative composers were less likely to experience music as stationary. Relatedly, students in the low- and middle- creativity groups were more likely to cite metaphors as contributing factors toward musical creativity and craftsmanship than were students in the high-creativity groups. Although the metaphors are useful and valuable, they seem to translate the linear-spatial nature of a musical happening into a static experience. Comparably, Flowers (2000) reported that although children tend to describe musical events as static, in a study of children's written descriptions of music, sixth graders consistently used more temporal language to describe musical events than did their counterparts in fifth grade. It would

JRME 255

seem that translating an entire musical event into a term or phrase that captures the overall experience is a natural step in musical development. This continual focus, however, on the global characteristics of the experience may distract the listener from more specific attributes, such as the temporal factors that seem to help individuals function creatively as composers.

The high-creativity group's observed score for agility was quite a bit lower than was the low-creativity group's score. This suggests that the agility factors usually referred to global rather than specific observations. When a writer used the term "flows" or "flows smoothly," it was difficult to determine the specific parameters to which the individuals referred. Both these terms could be used metaphorically, but it was impossible to ascertain if this was the writer's intention. Both terms could also refer to a number of more specific parameters, including articulation, melodic contour, tempo, or rhythmic qualities. Although individuals in both high- and low-creativity groups cite global characteristics in their analyses, there is a general tendency for individuals in the low-level creativity group to limit their analyses to these global parameters while ignoring the more specific parameters. For example, simply citing that the composition used many different pitches is a more global observation, but recognizing that the indi- vidual used the different pitches to create a series of variations on a melodic idea is much more specific and directive. Individuals in the high-creativity group were more likely to cite specific parameters like articulation, temporal factors, performance qualities, and vibrato. Individuals in the low-creativity group were more likely to cite agility and metaphors.

Even though the students' self-assessments of creativity and craftsmanship were used as a means to bolster their creativity, these data offer insight into how individuals' self-assessment of creativity com- pares with how they assess others. In their self-assessments, the low- creativity group seems to focus upon specific structural or performance qualities while ignoring global attributes. In contrast, the high creativity group seems to better negotiate the relationship between expressive or global attributes and specific structural or performance qualities. Additionally, the high-creativity group is generally more critical of their compositional efforts; its members seem to have more confidence in affirming or refuting the quality of their work.

Although the data gathered on individuals' previous experience in music were not systematically collected or processed, musical experience did not seem to be directly linked to levels of compositional creativity. Some students with extensive previous experience produced compositions rated at lower creativity levels, while students with little formal training produced compositions that were rated as highly creative. Incidentally, it seemed that students with more formal training, who generated middle or lower levels of compositional creativity, tended to be more concerned with performance attributes rather than structural qualities. This would tend to corroborate the findings from several studies that performance achievement tends to not be

256 PRIEST

significantly linked to compositional creativity (Flohr, 1985; Gardner, 1982; Gorder, 1980; Hickey, 1995/1996; Webster, 1987; Webster, Yale, & Haefner, 1988).

The findings suggest several important avenues for further inquiry. More data should be gathered on different kinds of musical experiences and their relationship to compositional creativity. An

experimental design using a control group that would not hear the

exemplary compositions should provide insight into the effect of

providing models within an instructional environment. A further

inquiry should examine the relationship between students' assessment of their own compositions and the exemplary models.

After examining the data collected in this study, it would be reasonable to suggest that teachers interested in fostering compositional creativity should help students become more aware of the rela-

tionship between temporal qualities inherent in musical composition and their relationship to global attributes. Although some of these students had already developed an awareness of the changeable nature of music, citing global and specific characteristics, others tended to limit their view to a more holistic and static perception. Strategies that help students experience and understand the fluid and dynamic attributes of musical events will more likely prepare them to function effectively as composers.

Teachers should challenge students to describe music through various means. Such analyses might take the form of movement, graph- ics, verbal descriptions, or other media. Teachers should recognize that musical analyses may or may not involve traditional notation, and they need to be prepared to celebrate the diverse ways in which students may describe musical structure. If, for example, a description of a musical composition is developed via movement, dance, or some kind of graphical representation, students will be better prepared to produce language that describes the musical structure. This

language will help students reconcile the relationship between tem-

poral qualities and global attributes. For example, a selection's being perceived as scary or frightening may be due to a series of dissonant intervals that never seem to resolve. According to this study, the students that have a better understanding of these relationships are better prepared to function as composers.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of cre-

ativity. Boulder, CO: Westview. Amchin, R. A. (1996). Creative musical response: The effects of teacher-stu-

dent interaction on the improvisation abilities of fourth- and fifth-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan Library, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/08, 3044A.

Bangs, R. L. (1993). An application of Amabile's model of creativity to music instruction: A comparison of motivational strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 4243A.

Choate, R. A. (Ed.). (1968). Documentary report of the Tanglewood Symposium.

JRME 257

Washington, DC: Music Educators National Conference. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations & National Committee for

Standards in the Arts. (1994). National standardsfor arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: MENC.

Contemporary Music Project/Music Educators National Conference. (1965). Comprehensive Musicianship: The foundation for college education in music. Washington, DC: MENC.

Daignault, L. (1997) Children's creative musical thinking within the context of a computer-supported improvisational approach to composition (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4681A.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior New York: Plenum.

Flohr, J. W. (1985). Young children's improvisations: Emerging creative thought. The Creative child and Adult Quarterly, 10 (2), 79-85.

Flowers, P.J. (2000). The match between music excerpts and written descriptions by fifth and sixth graders. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 262-277.

Froseth,J. (1996). Do it: Play recorder. Chicago: GIA. Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind & brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New

York: Basic Books. Gorder, W. (1980). Divergent production abilities as constructs of musical

creativity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28, 34-42. Hickey, M. (1996). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between chil-

dren's creative musical thinking processes and product. (Doctoral dissertation from Northwestern University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57/01, 145A.

Nunnally,J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Priest, T. L. (1998). Fostering creative and critical thinking in a beginning

instrumental music class. (Doctoral dissertation from University of Illinois, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58/10, 3870A.

Sax, G. (1980). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

SPSSfor Windows (Release 10.0) [Computer software]. (1999). Chicago: SPSS. Webster, P. (1987). Refinement of a measure of creative thinking in music.

In C. Madsen & C. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 257-271). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Webster, P. R. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music EducatorsJournal, 76 (9), 22-28.

Webster, P. (1994). Measure of Creative Thinking in Music-II (MCTM-II). Administrative guidelines. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern Univer- sity, Evanston, IL.

Webster, P., & Hickey, M. (1995). Rating scales and their use in assessing children's music compositions. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6 (4), 28-44.

Webster, P., Yale, C., & Haefner, M. (1988, April). Test-Retest reliability of Measures of Creative Thinking in Music for children with formal music training. Paper presented at the poster session, National Biennial In-Service Conference of Music Educators National Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Submitted November 20, 2000; acceptedJune 12, 2001.

Documents

Using Creativity Assessment Experience to Nurture and Predict Compositional Creativity