1. 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 Hodges 2 1 Northwestern University 2 The University of Texas at San Antonio

2. April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 2 Research Supported by: Northwestern University The University of Texas at San Antonio May Elementary School Texaco Corporation

3. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège3 Research Questions 1.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?

4. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège4 Subjects & Equipment N=86 –Students from four weekly 5 th 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)

5. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège5 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

6. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège6 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 –HandoutsHandouts –Template

7. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège7 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

8. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège8 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.

9. April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 9 Student “Compositions” Examples to follow shortly http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/ http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/

10. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège10 Results of Tonality Study (SMPC 2001) Forced Choice Slider Task Results

11. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège11 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?

12. April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 12 Cantometrics Alan Lomax

13. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège13 Analytical Procedure 86 student compositions from the 4 th -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)

14. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège14 Example Student Compositions Template Student #29 - same (nearly identical) Student #3 - moderate change Student #52 – not same (vastly diff)

15. April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 15 Experimental Results

16. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège16 Analyses Overall comparison using cantometrics Comparison of most “dissimilar” compositions to all others –Avg similarity rating  4.5 on 5-point scale

17. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège17 Musical Organization of Instruments (“texture”) D: higher % of mono & poly

18. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège18 Rhythmic coordination of instruments (“blend”) D: significantly greater spread

19. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège19 Overall Rhythmic Structure (“meter”) D: only “free”

20. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège20 Melodic Shape (“contour”) D: greater spread

21. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège21 Musical Form

22. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège22 Phrase Length 4 meas – linking consecutive 2-meas phrases

23. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège23 Number of Phrases

24. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège24 Position of Final Tone

25. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège25 Keyboard Range D: 2-3 octave (more percussion sounds)

26. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège26 Dominant Melodic Interval Size D: higher dominance of semitone and >= P4 greater “flexibility”

27. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège27 Polyphonic Type

28. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège28 Use of Tremolo

29. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège29 Use of Accent greater variety higher % unaccented

30. April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 30 Where Do We Go From Here? Future Research

31. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège31 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

32. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège32 Author Contact Information Scott D. Lipscomb – lipscomb@northwestern.edulipscomb@northwestern.edu Maud Hickey – mhickey@northwestern.edumhickey@northwestern.edu David Sebald - dsebald@aim-ed.comdsebald@aim-ed.com Donald Hodges – dhodges@utsa.edudhodges@utsa.edu CMP web site: http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/

33. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège33

34. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège34 Forced Choice - Results

35. April 6, 2002ESCOM 2002, Liège35 Slider - Results