april 6, 2002 escom 2002, liège 1 creative music project: an analysis of fifth grade student...

April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 1

Creative Music Project:An analysis of fifth grade

student compositions

Scott D. Lipscomb,1 Maud Hickey,1 David Sebald,2 & Donald Hodges2

1Northwestern University2The University of Texas at San Antonio


Research Supported by:

Northwestern UniversityThe University of Texas at San

AntonioMay Elementary School

Texaco Corporation


Research Questions1. Can a music technology composition program

be implemented in a typical school computer lab using inexpensive, off-the-shelf music hardware & software tools?

2. Can typical students – not just the “musically gifted” – learn to create “quality” music effectively using these tools?

3. Can such a program be implemented within the parameters of a standard public school curriculum?

4. What teaching approaches seem most effective in encouraging musical creativity using technology?


Subjects & Equipment

• N=86– Students from four weekly 5th grade music

classes at Monroe May Elementary School in San Antonio

• Pentium 133 MHz, 32 MB RAM, 2GB HD– Texaco grant provided SoundBlaster Live!

Sound cards, LabTec LT 835 headphones, and BlasterKey keyboards for each of the 25 stations

• Cakewalk Express (free with sound card)


Project Outline (10 weeks)

• Tonality judgment pre-test• 8 weeks of instruction

– Learning to use the sequencer– Music composition assignments

• Focus on musical form

• Tonality judgment post-test


Creative Music Instruction• Focus on musical form, but also

introduced other elements as a means of introducing the concept of musical organization, i.e., rhythm, texture, harmony, and melody

• Use of popular music idiom• “Composition” = MIDI sequence• Instructional Techniques

– Handouts– Template


Outline of Weekly Session (30 min)• 15 min before class – instructor presets

computers• 10 min – students arrive & instructor introduces

concept(s) of the day• 15 min – students work on computers while

instructor observes• 5 min – students save their work and listen to

selected samples of previous week’s assignments

• 5 min – students leave & instructor resets machines


Topics Covered:• Music as “sound organized in time”• Repetition of sound patterns• Strong/weak beats (meter)• Tempo• Layering of sounds (instrumentation)• Shape of melody (contour)• Melodic repetition (phrases)• Musical form

– ABA, ABCBA, ABACA, etc.


Student “Compositions”

Examples to follow shortly

http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/


Results of Tonality Study (SMPC 2001)

• Forced Choice

• Slider Task

Results


Our Research Questions

• Can typical students learn to create music effectively with these tools described previously?

• Can Lomax’ (1976) “cantometrics” provide a useful tool for analyzing these student compositions?


Cantometrics

Alan Lomax


Analytical Procedure• 86 student compositions from the 4th-

week of instruction (halfway point of CMP)• Two investigators (SL & MH)

independently analyzed the compositions presented in random order

• Scale used– Cantometrics– Similarity – in comparison to “standard”

• inter-judge correlation (r = .80)


Example Student Compositions

• Template• Student #29 - same (nearly

identical)• Student #3 - moderate change• Student #52 – not same (vastly

diff)


Experimental Results


Analyses

• Overall comparison using cantometrics

• Comparison of most “dissimilar” compositions to all others– Avg similarity rating 4.5 on 5-point

scale


Musical Organization of Instruments

(“texture”)

00 1

4

00 00

147

5

12

4

020406080

100120140160

no in

stru

men

t

mon

opho

nic

uniso

n

hete

roph

onic

homop

honi

c

polyph

onic

DifferentMore Similar

D: higher % ofmono & poly


Rhythmic coordination of instruments

(“blend”)

5

2 283

123

5

12

01

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

little

to no

minim

al

good

uniso

n

max

imal


D: significantlygreater spread


Overall Rhythmic Structure(“meter”)

0

6

5

221

148

5

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

free

irreg

ular

one be

at

simple

com

plex


D: only “free”


Melodic Shape(“contour”)

142

5

21

3

29

5

20

020

4060

80100

120140

160

NA

arch

ed

terrac

ed

undu

latin

g

desc

ending


D: greater spread


Musical Form

4

7

68

4

46

2

21

37

0

0001020304050607080

thro

ugh-

com

pose

d

repe

titive w/ v

ar

repe

titive w/ o

var

stro

phic

othe

r

cano

nic



Phrase Length

00 10

0 42

7 103

4

5

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

mor

e th

an 8

5 to

8

3 to

4 2 1

Number of measures


4 meas – linking consecutive 2-meas phrases


Number of Phrases

00 10

00 01

9

3

10 12

0

133

8

020406080

100120140160

mor

e th

an 8

5 to

7

4 or

8 sy

m

4 or

8 asy

m

3 or

6 asy

m

3 or

6 asy

m

2 as

ym

1 or

2 sy

m



Position of Final Tone

40 12

3 24

2 48

1

53

6

132

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NA

lowes

t not

e

lower

half

midpo

int

uppe

r half

high

est n

ote



Keyboard Range

11 8

2

36

2

15

3

19

2

05

10152025303540

with

in P5

with

in octav

e

1 to

2 octav

es

2 to

3 octav

es

> 3 octav

es


D: 2-3 octave (more percussion sounds)


Dominant Melodic Interval Size

143

5

01

7

4

40

51

02

020406080

100120140160

NA

mon

oton

e

<= semito

ne

who

le st

ep

maj

/min th

irds

P4 or l

arge

r


D: higher dominance ofsemitone and >= P4greater “flexibility”


Use of Accent

24

3

231

89

1

153

66

0102030405060708090

mos

t not

es

main pu

lses

main be

at pat

tern

some

unac

cent

ed


greater variety

higher % unaccented


Where Do We Go From Here?

Future Research


Future Research• Instructional Issues

– Don’t install unnecessary software– Simplify or eliminate written materials– Use simpler music creation tool

• Analysis– Cantometrics provides a viable measurement

tool• More research required to explore applications

– “quality” … as yet unmeasured• This study addressed differences between populations


Author Contact Information

Scott D. Lipscomb – [email protected] Hickey – [email protected]

David Sebald - [email protected] Hodges – [email protected]

CMP web site:http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/


Forced Choice - Results

Tonality Judgment - Forced ChoiceElementary Students

02468

101214

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number Correct

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ub

ject

sElem (Pre)

Elem (Post)

Tonality Judgment - Forced ChoicePost-Test Only (College Students)

0

2

46

8

10

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number Correct

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ub

ject

s

All

UTSA (1x)

UTSA (2x)


Slider - Results

Tonality Judgment - SliderElementary Students

0

5

1015

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number Correct

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ub

ject

sElem (Pre)

Elem (Post)

Tonality Judgment - SliderPost-Test Only (College Students)

0

5

10

15

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number Correct

Nu

mb

er o

f S

ub

ject

sAll

UTSA (1x)

UTSA (2x)

april 6, 2002 escom 2002, liège 1 creative music project: an analysis of fifth grade student...

Documents

educmp slide

quality music

san antonio slide

sound card slide

creative music project

typical students

cantometrics alan lomax

th grade music classes