http://ijm.sagepub.com/ 

EducationInternational Journal of Music

http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/58The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/025576140003600107

2000 os-36: 58International Journal of Music EducationRaymond A. R. MacDonald and Dorothy Miell

Creativity and Music Education: The Impact of Social Variables  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  International Society for Music Education: ISME

can be found at:International Journal of Music EducationAdditional services and information for     

http://ijm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:  

http://ijm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ijm.sagepub.com/content/os-36/1/58.refs.htmlCitations:  

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

58

Creativity and Music Education: The Impactof Social Variables

Raymond A.R. MacDonald and Dorothy MiellDepartment of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland andDepartment of Psychology, The Open University, England

Recent publications within the psychology of music and music education havebegun to highlight the importance that social factors have for a child’s

developing musicality, but there is still much to understand about this influ-ence. This paper highlights two projects that investigated aspects of the intrin-sically social nature of musical participation. One study investigated thecommunication (both verbal and musical) taking place during compositionscreated by friends and non-friends. The second study investigated the musicaland communication gains made by individuals with special needs whoattended Gamelan workshops. The educational implications of these studiesare considered, as are directions for future research.

The social context of creativity .

Whilst there is a strong commitment to developing creative musical skillswithin the current UK National Curriculum for music, there is evidence that in

practice there are challenges and difficulties with this aspect of music teaching.Creative tasks are under-used in classroom situations, and this might be at leastpartly the result of some teachers’ concerns about the most effective ways inwhich to teach something as difficult to define as creativity (Byrne, 1996).Although research has begun to focus on both the process and outcomes ofchildren’s creative endeavours in classroom situations (Barrett, 1998; Folkestad,1998; Morgan, 1999; Webster, 1994), investigating factors which affect creativemusic making remains one of the least studied aspects of music education. Thefocus of this paper is on identifying some key variables likely to affect creativityin music making. In particular, our own research has suggested that social andcommunicative factors are central issues to consider in determining the natureand quality of group compositions and performances, and evidence from twostudies is presented here which illustrate this importance. We argue that sinceso much of the work on creative music which children and indeed adults

engage in takes place in a social context, more research attention should bepaid to the nature and effect of this context on the creative process andoutcomes.

Recent advances in the psychology of music literature have begun to empha-sise that music is an intensely social activity (Hargreaves & North, 1997). Thereis an increasing amount of literature that highlights the key impact which peergroups, the family, the relationships between teacher and pupil and betweenpupils themselves, have upon a child’s interest in and knowledge about musicand indeed on their developing personal identity as ’musical’ (O’Neill, 1997;Taebel, 1994). This has direct relevance for music education research, as it isimportant to consider this wider social context in which children listen to, playand learn about music when investigating how children respond to differenttypes of music and to different musical tasks ~(Folkestad, 1998). We are all

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

59

surrounded by music in our daily lives (Mertz, 1998) and this exposure as wellas experiences with family, friends and in the school setting play an importantrole in developing children’s specific musical preferences and abilities.

Consequently, music education research can be enriched by including someanalysis of these influences in developing studies of children’s musicality.

Socio-cultural approach to examining collaborationIn this paper, however, we want to move beyond the recognition and explorationof the social context of music making and listening to examine the impact ofsocial factors at a more micro level. That is, to examine the ways in whichsocial variables not only provide an important backdrop to what is beingproduced when children or adults create and perform music but also the wayin which they directly affect and shape the nature of the interaction and themusic itself. This is to say more than that we need to look at the effect of the

presence of others on a child’s or an adult’s individual performance, but isinstead to adopt a socio-cultural approach to the study of their collaborativeworking. Such an approach, based on the work of Vygotsky, emphasises theco-construction of knowledge through joint action and discourse, mediatedthrough the use of cultural tools and artefacts (Vygotsky, 1978).Much of the rapidly expanding field of research on collaborative learning

(e.g. Joiner & Littleton, in press) has employed this approach to studying howchildren engage with each other’s ideas as they work together. From thisperspective, the children learn by expressing their own ideas and listening tothose of others, working to develop a shared conception of the problem and ofpossible routes towards a common goal (Teasley & Rochelle, 1995). By activelyengaging with each other’s ideas, modifying and extending them, the childrendevelop their understanding and their critical thinking skills. This view empha-sises the mediating role of cultural tools such as language, computers and, inthe case we are interested in here, musical instruments and music itself, inenabling children’s learning.

Talking with others is a vital way in which children acquire understanding- they engage with more knowledgeable others and internalise not only anunderstanding of a field of knowledge but also of the ways in which othersthink and talk about that field. As Bruner (1996) explains,

It is the give and take of talk that makes collaboration possible. For the agentivemind is not only active in nature, but it seeks out dialogue and discourse withother active minds. And it is through this dialogic, discursive process that wecome to know the Other and his points of view, his stories (sic). We learn anenormous amount not only about the world but about ourselves by discoursewith Others. (p.93).

In studying interactions between individuals making music, it is clear thatmusic can provide another mediation route between the children besides theirtalk. This other channel can not only express thoughts, emotions and ideas justas words can (indeed, learning how to communicate through the medium ofmusic is a key aim of National Curriculum music teaching) but also, learninghow to use and combine elements of music is as important for this field as islearning how to ’talk scientifically’ in science lessons. Thus, if we are to studythe negotiation processes in collaborative compositions we will need to examineboth the verbal and the musical channels of communication. However, whilstseveral theorists have suggested that talk and music might fulfil similar functionsin communication (Aldridge, 1996; Campbell, 1997), very few empirical studies

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

60

have attempted to study the ways in which music might be used to communicatebetween individuals as they compose or perform.

Another feature of adopting a socio-cultural approach to understanding col-laborative working is the importance placed on studying the nature and qualityof the interaction itself. That is, on studying the ease with which children canestablish a ’shared social reality’ (Rogoff, 1990), the confidence with which theyoffer their own views and the sensitivity to and understanding of the viewsand needs of their partner(s) which they show. Where partners or groups havedifficulty in establishing this level of intersubjectivity, research on children’sproblem solving in a number of curriculum areas has shown that they are likelyto be less successful in their work together. We suggest here that this will alsoapply to children’s work in music making, since the confidence children feelwith each other might be important in enabling them to offer creative andimaginative suggestions which would result in new combinations of ideaswhich the individuals would not have come up with on their own - clearlyimportant for creativity. Specifically, we believe that some children who arealready used to working and/or playing together are likely to be particularlyadept at creating and working with intersubjectivity, and thus more successfulin collaborating than children who do not know each other. Indeed there issome evidence to support this already, suggesting that friends find it easierthan non-friends to establish productive joint working activities (Azmitia &

Montgomery, 1993; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). However, the relatively littleresearch concerned with the effects of friendship on children’s collaborativework has primarily involved studies of children’s mathematical and scientificreasoning (as indeed is the case with most research on collaborative learning).It is only recent work (Miell & MacDonald, in press) which has begun toexamine how children’s relationships with each other might affect their creativepartnerships.A further reason why social relationships might be an important factor to

consider when investigating creative collaborations between young people isthat their friendships are in fact often based around their joint appreciation ofone form or another of music. There are many examples of the importance thatyoung people place on music. For example, Fitzgerald, Joseph, Hayes andO’Regan (1995) provided experimental evidence showing music listening as themost preferred leisure activity of adolescents. The vast majority of money spentby young people on music is another indication of the influence that it has ontheir own lives (Frith, 1987; Tarrent, North & Hargreaves, 1999). Zillman andGan (1997) suggest that music is a key factor in determining and characterisingfriendship between young people. Indeed, these authors suggest that music isa central part of young people’s identity and as such will play a significant rolein influencing their ongoing social interactions. Of particular importance to thetheme of this special issue is that, in comparison to all other forms of music,popular music is by far the most important genre of music for young people(Geter & Steisand, 1995).

Friendship effects on the process and product of collaborativecompositionsMotivated by these considerations, we have recently carried out a study whichhas investigated the impact which social variables have upon children’s musicalcreativity (Miell & MacDonald, in press). In this study 10-11 year old childrenwere asked to compose a piece of music entirely of their own and in a style oftheir choosing to reflect the theme of ’the rain forest’. The children all began

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

61

their involvement with the project by attending a workshop with one of theresearchers during which they experimented with different instruments,rhythms, dynamics etc. and discussed ways in which compositions can bedeveloped and different effects achieved. The experimental sessions involvedthe children working on their compositions in same sex pairs and they weregiven 15 minutes to complete the task. Half the children worked on the taskwith one of their best friends while the other half of the children worked onthe task with a child from a different class who they would have known bysight but who was not a friend.We were interested in both the nature and quality of the interactive process

as well as in the quality of the musical end product, and with this in mind wevideotaped all the composition sessions and also recorded onto an audiocassetteeach pair’s final performance of their composition. All the talk and music fromthe videotapes were transcribed and the talk was then coded in accordancewith a system introduced by Berkowitz, Gibbs, and Broughton (1980) anddeveloped by Kruger (1992). This divides utterances into ’transactive’ and ’non-transactive’ types. Transactive communication is defined as communicationwhich builds upon and extends ideas that have already been voiced (either bythe self or another person) and the presence of transactive communication hasbeen shown to be a key factor in good quality collaboration. We adapted thisverbal coding system to allow us to also code the music played by the childrenas either transactive and un-transactive and to track the occurrence and elabor-ation of each musical motif throughout the composition session (MacDonald,Miell & Morgan, in press). The final compositions were rated for quality by ateacher from another school who worked from the audiotape of each composi-tion and was unaware of the hypothesis of the experiment, the experimentalconditions and all details of individual pairs. She rated the compositions usinga set of marking scales developed by Hargreaves, Galton and Robinson (1996).These authors developed a rating scale that could be used by music teachersto assess children’s musical compositions. The scale includes bipolar constructssuch as dull/lively, disjointed/flowing, and unoriginal/original.The results of this study highlighted the impact that social factors such as

friendship have upon both the process and outcomes of children’s collaborativecompositional work. Looking first at the outcome measure, the teacher ratedthe compositions produced by friends as of significantly higher quality thanthe compositions of children who had been working in non-friendship pairs.Having established this difference in the overall quality of the music produced,we then turned to the measures of the processes involved in the talk and musicof the interaction to see if there were also differences there which related tothe outcome scores. We indeed found that the musical and verbal communi-cation styles of the friendship pairs were qualitatively different from those ofthe non-friends. The friends both spoke and played more music in total thanthe non-friends, but also had a different pattern of interacting within theseoverall differences. The friendship pairs used proportionally more transactivecommunication in both the verbal and the musical domains than the non-friends. This meant that the friends were building on, extending and elaboratingon each other’s ideas, expressed in both the talk and music, and developingtheir compositions by this gradual process of offering and refining of suggestions.This style of interaction was found to be significantly related to the teacher’shigher score for these pairs, suggesting that the presence of more transactivecommunication was what led to the higher quality compositions from the pairsof friends. In contrast, non-friends were more likely to spend their time in thesession experimenting with the instruments for themselves and did not offer

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

62

up or develop ideas together in the same way. The smaller amount of talkwhich they produced was characterised by information giving and simple,unelaborated agreements and disagreements with each other. Sometimes themusic seemed to be played to cover their embarrassment and the lack of talkbetween them.

At the individual level, there was some variability amongst the pairs ofchildren. Specifically, not all the friendship dyads produced high levels oftransactive communication, and similarly two non-friendship pairs produced asubstantial amount of transactive talk. Therefore we suggest that working witha friend does not necessarily always lead to high levels of transactive communi-cation but, with respect to the pattern of results obtained, working with a frienddoes make transactive communication more likely.Thus it appears from this study that social factors such as friendship are key

variables that influence the nature of children’s interactions - in both the verbaland musical domains. The musical coding scheme which we developed allowedus to track interactive processes expressed musically as they occurred in thecomposition sessions and holds great promise for future studies of other groupsand pairs collaborating to compose and improvise. Future research could alsofocus on the impact that age may have on these results. Indeed, in a studywhich extended the findings of the study reported above, we observed thatthere was a similar pattern of verbal and musical communication found inyounger children working on a similar but more structured task (MacDonald,Miell & Mitchell, 2000), but this effect was not observed with older children.It would also be interesting to investigate the effects of giving children eitherlonger or more sessions to work on their composition.

Working in harmony: establishing a shared social reality inGamelan workshopsMacDonald, O’Donnell and Davies (1999) undertook a series of studies whichhighlighted the importance of social factors in a rather different music educationenvironment. These studies demonstrated how structured music workshops foradults with special needs could facilitate developments in both musical andcommunication skills for the participants. In these studies, groups of around15 individuals with special needs took part in a series of music workshopsfocused on playing a Javanese Gamelan. These workshops were organised by’Sounds of Progress’ (SOP) a music production company based in Glasgow,Scotland, who specialise in working with individuals who have special needs.The musical techniques and working environment of Sounds of Progress are ofparticular importance to the theme of this paper. The company has explicitobjectives for participants from all backgrounds and all abilities, not only insocial skills, but also in terms of musical development, seeking to developactual musical skills and social opportunities for all the individuals who partici-pate in SOP activities, rather than ’therapy’. In terms of the musical objectives,the company works to enhance a wide range of skills but developments inrhythmic ability on percussion instruments, singing skills, compositional andimprovisational skills are some of the key areas focussed on in particular.

,

Enhanced self-esteem and improved general communication skills are two ofthe social objectives of the work of SOP.The studies reported by MacDonald, O’Donnell and Davies (1999) investigated

the processes involved in structural music workshops held by SOP over a

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

63

period of 18 months. Pre- and post-testing was conducted with the indivi-duals taking part in the workshops to investigate developments in both social-communicative abilities and musical skills (i.e. rhythmic awareness, instrumen-tal ability and pitch perception). Analyses were conducted which comparedeach individual’s performances on these tests with those of a control group ofindividuals (also with special needs) who had been involved in non-musicalgroup activities such as cooking workshops over the same period of time.Participants in the music workshops not only developed their basic musicalskills over the course of the 18 months but they also improved their performanceon a range of communication skills. Qualitative reports from carers also high-lighted the beneficial impact of the workshops for the participants in terms oftheir daily living. The carers felt that the music workshop offered an environ-ment where participants could express ideas that were valued and that partici-pants were highly motivated to take part in the workshops as they were enjoyingthem. Finding activities that individuals enjoy and are motivated to take partin were seen as key social objectives for this client group (MacDonald, O’Donnell& Dougall, 1996). The participants in the non-musical group activities did notshow any of these general social and communication skills improvements, andso it is clear that it was something about participating in the musical interaction,rather than just being in group activities, that was responsible for these widerimprovements. Once again, adopting a socio-cultural approach to these data,we would suggest that it is the development and maintenance of a shared socialreality and the co-ordination of activity through communication and musicalparticipation which accounts for these gains as a result of the music workshops.The concept of transactive communication and the impact which the music

itself had upon the interactive process is crucial within the SOP context. AllGamelan workshops begin with a warm up session which involves all partici-pants standing in a circle and participating in rhythmic games. This period isvital to the success of a workshop as during this period the workshop facilitatorsare attempting to set up cohesive group dynamics. The essential element of thiswarm up period is the development of a flow of communication between allparticipants and the gradual encouragement of more transactive elements inthis communication. It is important for the success of the music that thefacilitators communicate their ideas effectively, since in Gamelan music thereis no conductor present and all musical directions are given by the drummer(usually the workshop facilitator) who provides musical signals to the othermusicians. The facilitator also has to bring all participants into this process asthe music develops and build on their comments and suggestions as well asencouraging participants to build on each other’s views and on those of thefacilitator. This process does not only occur in talk. There are also non-verbalelements and transactive musical communication evident in the way the musicis developed. Thus in order for the music to develop cohesively all participantsmust be monitoring each other’s talk, actions and music and communicatingeffectively with each other through all these channels. These are complex socialskills and, as the results of the post-testing and interviews with carers showed,once acquired and developed in the context of the workshops these skills

generalised to other contexts and the individuals gained considerable benefit.Video analysis of the assessment sessions demonstrated that the developments

in communication skills could be linked to developments in ’joint attention’(O’Donnell, MacDonald & Davies, 1999). In this context, joint attention isdefined as a shared focus of attention to the same object by two individuals.Joint attention is similar to the concept of ’shared social reality’ (Rogoff, 1990)- they both involve the need for a shared focus of activity or definition of the

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

64

task and an agreed goal to work towards, and these are negotiated throughpartners or group members developing transactive (musical and verbal)communication.

Educational implicationsAs stated earlier, the aim of this paper has been to highlight the profoundlysocial aspects of musical creativity. These social aspects are evident in boththe classroom composing of children and the Gamelan workshops, and inparticular are seen in the communication between creative partners. Thereare a number of important educational implications which emerge from theresults of these studies. The key role played by transactive communicationin the children’s collaborative example has obvious utility in terms of enhan-cing the learning environment of children in classroom settings. We haveshown that transactive communication is a key determinant of how wellchildren can collaborate together in school music activities, thus teachersshould seek to create learning environments that facilitate the use of transactivecommunication.

Many teachers would not place friends together in work settings as theybelieve that friends would talk too much and that this talk might be characterisedas ’off task’. However, although our collaborative composition study found thatfriends do indeed talk more than non-friend pairs their talk was not at all ’off-task’ but was wholly focused on the task in hand, was very transactive (andtherefore productive) and did not stop the children also playing more musicthan the non-friends. Furthermore these compositions were rated as being ofbetter quality than the children working in non-friend pairs.

It is perhaps interesting to speculate as to why the friends might work togetherwell on this task. Friends have experience of taking each other’s perspectiveand engaging in joint planning (Hartup, 1996) and they also have a history ofshared experiences. They typically monitor each other’s talk and actions closelyand resolve any disagreements which emerge (Garvey & Shantz, 1992; Pellegrini,Galda & Flor, 1997). Also, since the children are emotionally invested in eachother and in the progress of their relationship they are likely to have moreinvested in the success of their interactions and in supporting each other’swork and self-esteem. The study reported above (Miell & MacDonald, in press)did find evidence that children with less experience of musical training weremore enabled to ask questions and make suggestions when working with afriend, which suggests that issues of confidence and willingness to take risksmight be useful ones to explore further when investigating participation inmusical activities. In order to be able to collaborate effectively Hakkinen (inpress) suggests that individuals need to have a profound and well establishedunderstanding of each other’s perspectives and shared interpretations of thesituations at hand. It seems that friends would be in a position to offer theseconditions to the collaborative situation and in turn develop their ideas throughthe extended use of transactive communication. Working with a friend maytherefore help because of their established communication strategies, mutualtrust and confidence. It seems that working with others who share goals andare supportive in this way can facilitate classroom activities that are both

rewarding and educational for the participants.Researchers and educators should pay attention to a number of linked issues

which will impact on people’s approach to working together on music. Forexample, the extent to which people identify themselves as ’musical’, and howthey see their musicality relative to the skills and abilities of the other(s) they

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

65

are working with is likely to be an issue within an educational context. As weshowed in the study of children’s compositions, some children with little orno formal musical training were unwilling to play an active role in a musicaltask unless they were working with a friend, and this suggests that we need toexplore further the link between children’s ease of identifying themselves as’musical’ and their confidence to have a go at a task in the classroom. The newmusic technologies that are currently being introduced into UK schools may bea way forward for some of these children who may have more confidencein using computers than playing musical instruments. It might be worthresearching whether or not there is such an issue about linking performance tomusical identity when the mediating tools are more familiar to them.

Popular culture, through television, radio and magazines plays a central partin children’s lives (Frith, 1987). This informal learning environment is one inwhich many children are developing identities that are intrinsically linked topopular music. Some authors have indeed speculated on whether these informallearning environments have more to do with a child’s developing musicalitythan the conventional classroom setting (Folkestad, 1998). It is important foreducationalists to consider the impact of these informal learning environmentsand the ways in which they could be used to improve other, more structured,learning experiences. One impact may be in terms of using a wider range ofmusic styles in the classroom, particularly popular music as this may have agreater resonance with children.

Future research

In terms of developing this line of research we are currently interested inexploring two separate but related areas:The first involves investigating ways of improving collaboration in musical

tasks. It is possible to train children to collaborate effectively in other curriculumareas, primarily by training them to communicate in a more transactive way.We have a current research proposal which proposes investigating the effectsof training children to collaborate in this way in a creative music making task.The research investigates effects upon the process of their interactions as wellas the end products of their musical collaborations (both the quality of theircomposition and their levels of enjoyment and self-confidence).The second strand of our future work investigates the effects of informal

learning environments on children’s creative work together and their developingmusical identity. We plan to use video cameras to record young people rehears-ing and playing popular music together to study the ways in which these issuesare interlinked.

For both of these proposed projects, further development of the musicalcoding scheme will be needed. We are also interested in extending the use ofthis system to other musical contexts, e.g. Jazz musicians improvising togetherand other studies of performance and compositional/workshop settings.

There are certainly a wide range of potential areas of interest and furtherresearch questions for psychologists interested in developing our understandingof the intrinsically social nature of music and music teaching.

References

Aldridge, D. (1996). Music Therapy Research and Practice in Medicine: From out of theSilence. London: Jessica Kingsley.

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66

Azmitia, M. & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the developmentof scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2 (3), 202-221.

Barrett, M. (1998). Researching children’s compositional process and products: connectionto music education practice In B. Sundin, G.E. McPherson & G. Folkestad, (Eds.) ChildrenComposing, pp. 10-35. Lund University: Malmo, Sweden.

Berkowitz, M.W., Gibbs, J.C. & Broughton, J. (1980). The relation of moral judgement disparityto developmental effects of peer dialogue. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 341-357.

Byrne, C. (1996). The use of pattern and echo in developing the creative abilities of secondaryschool pupils. British Journal of Music Education, 13, 143-154.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Campbell, P.S. (1997). Music, the universal language: fact or fallacy. International Journal

of Music Education, 29, 32-40.Folkestad, G. (1998). Musical Learning as cultural practice as exemplified in computer-based

creative music making. In B. Sundin, G.E. McPherson & G. Folkestad (Eds.) ChildrenComposing (pp. 97-135), Lund University: Malmo, Sweden.

Fitgerald, M., Joseph, A.P., Hayes, M. & O’Regan, M. (1995). Lesire activities of adolescentschool children. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 349-358.

Frith, S. (1987). The industrialization of Popular music. In: J. Lull (Ed.) Popular Music andcommunication (pp. 53-77), Sage: CA, USA.

Garvey, C. & Shantz, C.U. (1992). Conflict Talk: approaches adversative discourse. pp. 93-121in C.U. Shantz & W. Hartup (Eds.) Conflict in Childhood and Adolescent Development,New York: Cambridge University Press.

Geter, T. & Streisand, B. (1995). Recording sound sales: the music industry rocks and rollsto the newest financial rhythms, US News and World Report, 70, 67-68.

Hakkinen, T.B. (in press). Early peer-collaboration in the classroom: communication devicesand strategies children use. In R. Joiner & K. Littleton (Eds.) Rethinking CollaborativeLearning. London: Free Association Press.

Hargreaves, D.J., Galton, M.J. & Robinson, S. (1996). Teachers’ assessment of primary chil-dren’s classwork in the creative arts. Educational Research, 38 (2), 199-211.

Hargreaves & North (1997). The Social Psychology of Music. London: Oxford University Press.Hartup, W.W. (1996). The company they keep: friendships and their developmental signifi-

cance. Child Development, 67, 1-13.Joiner, R. & Littleton, K. (in press). Rethinking Collaborative Learning. London: Free

Association Press.

Kruger, A.C. (1992). The effect of peer- and adult-child transactive discussions on moralreasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 191-211.

MacDonald, R., Miell, D. & Mitchel, L. (2000). An empirical investigation of the social andmusical processes involved in children’s collaborative compositions. Paper presented atThe 6th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Keele, UK.

MacDonald, R.A.R., Miell, D. & Morgan, L. (in press). Social processes and creative collabor-ation in children. European Journal of the Psychology of Education.

MacDonald, R.A.R., O’Donnell, P.J. & Davies, J.B. (1999). Structured music workshops forindividuals with learning difficulty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Researchin Intellectual Disabilities, 12 (3), 225-241.

MacDonald, R.A.R., O’Donnell, P.J. & Dougall, G. (1996). Research considerations: bridgingthe gap between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Paper presented at The8th World Congress of Music Therapy. Hamburg, Germany.

Mertz, M. (1998). Some thoughts on music education in a global culture. International Journalof Music Education, 32, 72-78.

Miell, D. & MacDonald, R.A.R. (in press). Children’s creative collaborations: The importanceof friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development.

Morgan, L. (1999). Children’s Collaborative Music Compositon: Communication throughMusic. Unpublished dissertation, University of Leicester, UK.

North, A.C. & Hargreaves, D.J. (1997). Experimental aesthetics and everyday music listening.In D.J. Hargreaves and A. C. North (Eds.) (pp. 84-107) The Social Psychology of Music.London: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, P.J., MacDonald, R.A.R. & Davies, J.B. (1999). Video analysis of the effects ofstructured music workshops for individuals with leading difficulties. In D. Erdonmez &

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

67

R.R. Pratt (Eds.) Music Therapy & Music Medicine: Expanding Horizons (pp. 219-228).Saint Louis: MMB Music.

O’Niell, S.A. (1997). Gender and music. In D.J. Hargreaves & A.C. North (Eds.) The SocialPsychology of Music. (pp. 46-60). London: Oxford University Press.

Pellegrini, A.D., Galda, L. & Flor, D. (1997). Relationships, individual differences, andchildren’s use of literate language. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 139-152.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Taebel, D.K. (1994). Changes in teaching and teachers: Effects of time and place. In H. Lees(Ed.) Musical Connections: Tradition and Change. Proceedings of the 1994 WorldConference of the International Society for Music Education. (pp. 255-262). Auckland:Uniprint.

Tafuri, J. (1999). Learning together through research method. International Journal of MusicEducation, 33, 88-94.

Tarrant, M., North, A.C. & Hargreaves, D.J. (1999). Youth identity and music. Paper presentedat BPS symposium. Musical Identity. Milton Keynes, England.

Teasley, S.D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). The construction of Shared Knowledge in CollaborativeProblem Solving. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.) Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.Webster, P.R. (1994). Thinking in sound: studying children’s improvisation. In H. Lees (Ed.)

Musical Connections: Tradition and Change. Proceedings of the 1994 World Conferenceof the International Society for Music Education. (pp. 146-153). Auckland: Uniprint.

Zillman, D. & Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D.J. Hargreaves & A.C. North

(Eds.) The Social Psychology of Music. (pp. 161-188). London: Oxford University Press.

Creativite et enseignement musical: l’impact des facteurs desocialisation

Des ouvrages r6cents sur la psychologie de la musique et son enseignement commencent àsouligner l’importance des facteurs de socialisation dans le d6veloppement de la musicalitechez 1’enfant, toutefois il reste encore beaucoup a d6couvrir sur ce sujet. L’article met enlumi6re deux projets de recherche sur les aspects de sociabilite intrinseques a la participationmusicale. L’une de ses études traite de la communication (a la fois verbale et musicale) quia lieu pendant les compositions musicales r6alis6es entre groupes d’amis et non-amis. Ladeuxi6me etude porte sur les gains en musique et en communication obtenus par des

personnes ayant des difficultes qui ont particip6 aux ateliers Gamelan. Les implications deces recherches sur le plan 6ducatif ainsi que les directions a suivre pour progresser cesétudes sont actuellement en cours d’examen.

’

Kreativitat und Musikerziehung. Der Einflul3 sozialer Faktoren

Neuere Ver6ffentlichungen in Musikpsychologie und Musikpddagogik haben die Bedeutungsozialer Faktoren auf die sich im Kinde entwickelnde Musikalitat hervorgehoben. Dennochbleibt fiir unser Verstandnis dieses Einflusses noch vieles offen. Dieser Beitrag greift zweiProjekte auf, die die genuin soziale Natur musikalischer Teilhabe untersuchten. Die ersteStudie behandelte die (sprachliche und musikalische) Kommunikation wdhrend der

Komposition unter befreundeten und nicht befreundeten Personen. Die zweite Studie unter-suchte den musikalischen und kommunikativen Gewinn fur behinderte Personen, die einenGamelan Workshop besuchten. Es werden pddagogische Konsequenzen aus diesen Studiengezogen und Richtungen kiinftiger Forschung angedeutet.

Creatividad y educaci6n musical: El impacto de las variablessociales

Recientes publicaciones relacionadas con la psicologia de la musica y de la educacionmusical han comenzano a resaltar la importancia que los factores sociales tienen para la

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

68

musicalidad en desarrollo del nifio, pero aun queda mucho por comprender acerca de estainfluencia. Este trabajo resalta dos proyectos que investigaron aspectos de la naturaleza socialintrinseca de la participaci6n musical. Un estudio investig6 la comunicaci6n (tano verbalcomo musical) que tuvo lugar durante las composiciones creadas por amigos y no amigo. Elsegundo estudio investig6 los logros musicales y de comunicaci6n de individuos con necesid-ades especiales que asistieron a un taller sobre Gamelan. Se consideran las implicacioneseducacionales de estos estudios asi como orientaciones para futuras investigaciones.

by cesar monroy on October 3, 2010ijm.sagepub.comDownloaded from