Myung-sook Auh

Centre for Research and Education in the Arts

University of Technology-Sydney

There is an excellent review of assessment of musical creativity by Webster (1992), which is organized by content analysis of process and product rather than product-process-person-environment. This paper intends to emphasise the four focuses of creativity assessment. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is: 1) to give an overview of research studies in each of Product, Process, Person, and Environment approaches, and 2) to describe a method of assessing creativity in composing music and story-telling by children which was successfully used. The overview should give a clear picture of how creativity in composing music has been assessed and of methods that could be used by teachers and researchers for assessing creativity in composing music.

There are two kinds of methods for assessing creativity in composing music: 1) Quantitative and qualitative approaches, and 2) Product-Process-Person-Environment approaches. The former is by the data type to be collected, and the latter is by the focus of study. Quantitative studies use various ways to collect quantified data for creativity, such as: 1) composition tests followed by expert judges' evaluations of the compositions using criteria (e.g. Auh, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999; Auh & Walker, 1999; Kratus, 1994; Webster, 1979); 2) measures of creativity in music devised by researchers (e.g. Baltzer, 1988; Webster, 1987b); and 3) videotaping students' behaviours in composing music, which are codified using computer programs, such as the NUD•IST computer program (e.g. Brand, 2000; McPherson, 2000). Qualitative studies use: 1) interviews (e.g. Barrett, 2000; Freed-Garrod, 1999), 2) observations in music classes by teachers over a period of time (e.g. Carlin, 1999; Levi, 1991), 3) researchers' work with children for composing music in informal settings, 4) students' work on computer composing music by themselves, which is saved on computer and examined by the researcher (e.g. Folkstad et al., 1999; Hickey, 1997), and others. Qualitative studies report descriptively what is happening when composing music and researchers' interpretation of what it means in terms of creativity.

In the Product-Process-Person-Environment approaches, both quantitative and qualitative methodologies can be used. The main concern of this paper is the Product-Process-Person-Environment approaches, which are described below.

In the context of assessing creativity in music compositions, the Product refers to music compositions. A common method of assessing creativity uses expert judges' evaluations of compositions using criteria. Judges' evaluations have been frequently used among researchers since Catherine Cox used the method in her study of eminence for the first time in 1926 (Albert & Runco, 1999). Criteria commonly used in creativity research in music are either musical ones, such as tonal coherence and rhythmic coherence (e.g., Kratus, 1994) or those based on Torrance's criteria, i.e., Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Syntax (e.g., Webster, 1997). A basic assumption for the expert judges' evaluations is that creativity of compositions is the quality identified by expert judges in the area. Can the creativity of compositions be identified without experts' decision-making? Someone or something should decide whether a composition is creative or not; without such a decision, its creativity would not be known. How about lay persons' opinions? They could say something about creativity of compositions, but those comments will not be considered as reliable and valid.

A bold approach to studying creativity of music compositions was made by Simonton (1994), who used computerized content analyses of musical structures of western classical compositions. He investigated musical creativity and musical aesthetics on the basis of his computer analyses of compositions by Mozart, Beethoven, and others (Simonton, 1987, 1993). After conducting numerous studies of the kind, he concluded that the most popular western classical compositions tend to have medium levels of melodic originality (Simonton, 1994).

Some others (e.g. Auh, 1999; Davidson & Welsh, 1988) attempted to identify creative thinking through musical analysis of compositions. Auh (1999) emphasized that musically-correct compositions, i.e., those with tonal centre, regular rhythms, and following other musical rules, are not necessarily musically-creative. Davidson & Welsh's (1988) method is interesting in that the same question is given to all students and how students think differently in solving the question is investigated. The method can be applied in simple creating tasks in music classes. For example, a teacher gives a musical theme, and students are asked to make a composition with it. Thus, the teacher can compare how creatively the theme was used in student music compositions.

The Process covers from the beginning of intention to create to the moment when the music composition is finished. Creative process is described as consisting of four stages, according to Wallas (1926), i.e., Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, and Verification. Wallas's theory is still praised even after many decades, and Webster (1987a) used Wallas's four stages for his conceptual model of creative thinking in music. A slightly different way of describing the compositional process is Exploration, Development, Repetition, and Silence (Kratus, 1989). Kratus' four stages are specific for composing music, as he identified them through analysis of the composition time used by primary school students. Wallace's four stages are, however, for creativity in general.

Compositional strategies used in the compositional process were investigated. Several researchers found different strategies used by expert as compared with novice students in composing music. Davidson & Welsh (1988), Colley et al. (1992), and Irvin et al. (1999) found that expert students tend to use gestaltistic and holistic approaches to composing music by laying out a structure first and figuring out details later, while novice students tend to use atomistic approaches by composing sequentially filling out details rather than seeing a whole picture. Especially, Davidson & Welsh (1988) found that expert composers tended to be reflective thinkers, i.e., thinking about the whole music before writing it down, while novice composers tended to be enactive thinkers, i.e., they start composing without clear ideas and figure out as they go. Folkstad et al. (1998) found slightly different compositional strategies, probably due to their use of the computer for composing music. They found vertical versus horizontal strategies. Vertical means students compose music writing down several instrumental parts at the same time, thus moving from one section to another. Horizontal means students write down one instrumental part all the way through, and then work on another instrumental part. Vertical strategies are global approaches to composing music, while horizontal strategies are atomistic, because the former show that the student had already worked out all the instrumental parts, while in the latter students work one part at a time.

Kratus (1989), in his time analysis of compositional processes, found that successful students in composing music used more time developing musical patterns and repeating performance of their compositions than unsuccessful students who spent more time exploring. Auh and Walker (1999) showed that students used more varied kinds of compositional strategies when composing music with graphic notations than when composing with staff notations. Auh (1999) identified the kinds of compositional strategies used by secondary school students in Korea. For example: 1) To get a musical idea at the start, they explored by singing and humming or playing on an instrument, and recalled tunes that they had heard many times before; and 2) To develop musical ideas, they used detailed musical-analytical strategies, visual imagery, feelings & thoughts, and listening again & thinking about it. The findings suggest that not only compositional ability (i.e., expert vs. novice) affects use of compositional strategies, but also the tools used for composing music (e.g., computer, graphic notations) affect compositional strategies.

The Person factors that have been investigated in previous composition studies (e.g. Auh, 1995; Kratus, 1994) include: musical achievement, musical aptitude, informal musical experiences, formal musical experiences, music self-esteem, academic grades, IQ, and gender. Musical achievement was found to be one of the significant factors for musical creativity repeatedly (e.g., Auh, 1995; Baltzer, 1990; Webster, 1979). Unexpectedly, informal musical experience was found to be the best predicting factor for musical creativity of American primary school students among the first eight factors listed above (Auh, 1995). Interestingly, neither formal musical experience nor musical self-esteem was significantly related to musical creativity (Auh, 1995). Multiple regression analysis showed that a combination of informal musical experience, musical achievement, and academic grades accounted for 11% of the variance in creativity in composing music by American primary school students (Auh, 1996).

In addition, thinking styles and personality traits have been studied in activities of improvisation. Impulsive/ reflective thinking styles were not significantly related to creativity in improvising music (Schmidt & Sinor, 1985). Among personality traits, excitability, aggression, independence, anxiety, self-confidence, curiosity, and imagination were significantly related to musical creativity, and a combination of imagination, curiosity, and anxiety accounted for 29% of the variance in creativity in improvising music (Swanner, 1985).

Concerning the use of graphic notations, the use of visual imagery for creative discovery is well-documented in Gruber's (1978, 1981, 1999) illustration of how Darwin came up with Evolutionary theory; Darwin used drawings of tree branches called "Tree of Nature" to conceptualize evolutions of species. To stimulate visual imagery in composing music by secondary school students, some researchers used graphic notations (Auh & Walker, 1999; Auh, 2000). When students were encouraged to think of musical ideas using a set of graphic patterns developed by Walker (1976, 1978), they came up with more creative compositions than those without using graphic notations. Aesthetic decision making was investigated in the context of composing music by young children (Barrett, 2000). It was found that the children could distinguish beginning, middle, and ending of their compositions; and their musical thinking was highly sophisticated. A similar result in terms of beginning and ending of children's improvisations was found with Italian children (Baldi & Tafuri, 2000).

The Environment factors that could play significant roles in affecting creativity when composing music are in 4 categories: 1) Home - significant others; e.g. parents, teachers, friends, siblings. 2) School and society - confirming vs. non-confirming environment; e.g. Asia is a confirming society while USA is a liberal society. 3) Country - political economic situations; e.g. The impact of Russia's communism on Shostakovich's creative thinking in music, resulting in dualistic musical style. And 4) Culture - cultural values of West and Asia; e.g. In the West, science and business are more valued than arts; In Africa, music and dance are functionally a part of their life style as they sing and dance in most social gatherings. The impact of the Environment factors might be different depending on the individuals, since the individuals are complicated-beings and thus would be different in absorption rate of the impact of the Environment factors.

A strong advocate of the importance of environment in creativity is Csikszentmihalyi. He suggested that rather than asking, "what is creativity?", we should ask "where is creativity?" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 325). What he means is that creative individuals can be judged differently depending on where they are. They should be in the right time and right place to be recognized as creative. For example, Antonio Vivaldi was completely forgotten after his death until the beginning of the 20^th century, when musicologists realized his great contribution to the Baroque concerto. And many other creative musicians (e.g. J. S. Bach) and artists (e.g. Vincent van Gogh) who were not recognized as creative when they were alive. That is, they were in the wrong time, and their time had yet to come.

Interesting cross-cultural studies on creativity have been reported. Creativity in the East and the West was scrutinized with a thesis that "Eastern approaches to creativity tend to be more 'intuitive', while Western approaches to creativity tend to be more 'logical'" (Wonder & Blake, 1992, p. 174). Taoism was interpreted in relation to creativity by Kuo (1996), employing his understanding of both Western and Chinese cultures and his knowledge on western psychological approach. He stated that in Taoistic creativity, Incubation [of the creative process], syntectic thinking, and the unification through the opposites are important concepts. Incubation is an important part of the creative process, since Taoistic artists would seek for spiritual transcendence through reflection before starting on their creative work. Also, he mentioned that Taoism is strongly related to artistic creativity, which requires more of intuition than of logic. Chinese and American students were compared to see if there are cultural differences in problem-solving approach with the Nine-Dot problem (Li & Shallcross, 1992). There were cultural differences: American students spent more time going through trial-and-error before arriving at a solution, while Chinese students spent more time reflecting on the problem and solution. The finding was interpreted that Chinese students' problem-solving approach reflected a Chinese saying, "Think three times before doing" (Li & Shallcross, 1992).

Cross-cultural study of musical creativity of non-Western countries, such as India, China, Iran, West Africa (Ghana, Nigeria), and Yugoslavia (Campbell, 1990) and southern India, sub-Saharan Africa, and Vietnam (Campbell & Teicher, 1997) show that: 1) Improvisation dominates the creative process and product in the non-Western countries. 2) Musical training processes of the non-Western countries are fundamentally different from those of Western classical tradition in that aural training dominates in the former while music notation dominates in the latter. 3) Musicians of non-Western countries learn frameworks of various musical styles, which are used when improvising with self-expressions. 4) A combination of aural skill development and creative potential is the common feature found among improvising musicians of India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Vietnam.

A method of assessing creativity in composing music and story-telling by 3 - 5 year old children is suggested here. The method was successfully used with high interjudge reliability for expert judges' evaluations in Auh & Johnston's (2000) study as well as Auh's (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). Thus, this method is a Product-oriented approach and use expert judges' evaluations using 3 criteria. Deciding what criteria to use for such evaluations is tricky because researchers tend to use different criteria. However, criteria of creativity should be chosen on the basis of the definition of creativity that the researcher chose for his/her research.

Despite disagreements about definitions of creativity (e.g., divergent thinking ability, problem-solving ability, etc), there is one definition of creativity on which they generally agree. That is, "creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints)" (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p. 3). Therefore, the two criteria commonly used in creativity research are: 1) originality, and 2) appropriateness. Appropriateness can be interpreted differently according to disciplines. In music, appropriateness means that the music has a structure and is not random, as music refers to organized sounds, distinct from noise. Another criterion should be added to criteria for musical creativity due to the "artistic" side of music, which is not an issue in other disciplines such as science and medicine. For example, expressions of feelings are involved in music, while they are not in some other areas. Therefore, criteria for assessing creativity in musical compositions should be: 1) Originality, 2) Structure, and 3) Expressiveness.

I conducted research on creativity in musical compositions using the criteria of Originality, Structure, and Expressiveness and 5-point rating scales (Auh & Walker, 2000; Auh & Johnston, 2000), and found high interjudge reliabilities for the assessments. The interjudge reliabilities were r = .71 in Auh and Walker (1999), r = .88 in Auh and Johnston (2000). When the criteria were also applied to assessing creativity in children's story-telling, the interjudge reliability was r = .72. Therefore, the criteria of Originality, Structure, and Expressiveness were reliable for assessing creativity in musical compositions and story-telling by children. Then, are they valid criteria? In Auh and Johnston's (2000) study, I asked judges to describe the reasons for giving a certain mark for each of the criteria in evaluating musical compositions and children's stories. For example, for a composition with high marks of 5, 5, 5 on 5 point-rating scales (5 being highly creative), a judge was asked to describe why the composition is original, well-structured, and expressive. By asking judges for such descriptions, the evaluation method could prevent invalid ratings by judges.

The overview of research studies showed important aspects of creativity in composing music, whichever approach was used, whether Product, Process, Person, and Environment. Thus, which method teachers and researchers would use for assessing creativity will entirely depend on which aspect they are interested in and the limitations that they have. The method of assessing creativity in composing music and story-telling, described above, is an example for such an assessment that geared towards Product and expert judges' evaluations.

It should be noted that due to the elusive nature of creativity, recent psychologists have introduced different approaches. Gruber (1999) focused on the aspect that he thinks is the most objective, i.e., how creative people work when creating. Gardner (1993) suggested a framework for an intuitive study of geniuses, which covers all major aspects of creativity systematically, and analyzed seven geniuses who are representatives of his multiple intelligence theory. Csikszentmihalyi (1999) suggested systems approach investigating the impact of society and culture on creative persons. However, there are still strong advocates of experimental studies of creativity (Runco and Sakamoto, 1999).

Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on creativity. In Robert J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 16 - 34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Auh, M. (1996). Prediction of musical creativity in composition among selected variables for upper elementary students. (Doctoral Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3875A.

Auh, M. (1997). Prediction of musical creativity in composition among selected variables for upper elementary students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 1-8.

Auh, M. (1998). Characteristics of musically creative students of upper elementary grades in musical and non-musical Aspects. In E. Choi (Ed.), Searching for a new paradigm of music education research: An international perspective (pp. 331-348). Seoul, Korea: Korean Music Educational Society.

Auh, M. (1999). Enactive and reflective thinking during the compositional process by seventh-grade Korean students. Proceedings of the International Music Education Research Symposium, Launceston in Tasmania, Australia.

Auh, M. (2000). The effects of graphic notations on creative thinking in composing music. Proceedings of the 2000 National Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, held at University of Sydney on December 4^th - 7^th, 2000.

Auh, M., & Johston, R. (2000). A pilot study of comparing creativity in composing and story-telling by children aged 3 to 5. Proceedings for the 2000 UTS Research Symposium, "Change & Choice in the New Century: Is Education Y2K Compliant?". Sydney: University of Technology-Sydney.

Auh, M., & Walker, R. (1999). Compositional strategies and musical creativity When Composing With Staff Notations Versus Graphic Notations Among Korean Students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Special Issue, No. 141, 2-9.

Baldi, G., & Tafuri, J. (2000). Children's musical improvisations: Many ways of beginning and ending. Proceedings of the 18th International Research Seminar, International Society for Music Education (pp. 30-40), held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA on July 8^th - 14^th, 2000.

Baltzer, S. (1988). A validation study of a mesure of musical creativity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(4), 232-249.

Baltzer, S. (1990). A factor analytic study of musical creativity in children in the primary grades. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2306A.

Barrett, M. S. (2000). Perception, description, and reflection: Young children's aesthetic decision-making as critics of their own and adult compositions. Proceedings of the 18th International Research Seminar, International Society for Music Education (pp. 41-51), held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA on July 8^th - 14^th, 2000.

Brand, E. (2000). Engaging musical minds: Research leading to the development of a general music program. Proceedings of the 18th International Research Seminar, International Society for Music Education (pp. 52-65), held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA on July 8^th - 14^th, 2000.

Campbell, P. S. (1990). Crosscultural perspectives of musical creativity. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 43-46.

Campbell, P. S., & Teicher, J. (1997). Themes and variations on the creative process: Tales of three cultures. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 29-41.

Carlin, J. (1999). A framework for investigating self-described decisions and value judgements for composing msuci: An illustrative case study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Special Issue, No. 141.

Colley, A., Banton, L., Down, J., & Pither, A. (1992). An expert-novice comparison in musical composition. Psychology of Music, 20(2), 124-137.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: a systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creaivity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-338). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, L., & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: the developmental path of tonal thinking. In J. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation and composition (pp. 260-285). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Folkstad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindström. (1998). Compositional strategies in computer-based music making. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 83-97.

Freed-Garrod, J. (1999). Cognitive processes and music composing: A decriptive case study from ongoing conversations with Peter. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 142, p.81.

Gruber, H. E. (1978). Darwin's 'Tree of Nature' and other images of wide scope. In J. Wechsler (Ed.), On aesthetics in science (pp. 121-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1974)

Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1999). The case study method and evolving systems approach for understanding unique creative people at work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hickey, M. (1997). The computer as a tool in creative music. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 56 - 70.

Irvine, I., Cantwell, R., & Jeanneret, N. (1999). Musical composition: Toward a theoretical model. Proceedings of the XII National Conference of the Australian Society for Music Education (pp. 86-92). University of Sydney, July 9^th - 13^th, 1999.

Kratus, J. (1989). A time analysis of the compositional processes used by children ages 7 to 11. Journal of Research in music Education, 37(1), 5 - 20.

Kratus, J. (1994). Relationships among children's music audiation and their compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 115-130.

Kuo, Y-Y. (1996). Taoistic psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3), 197-212.

Laycock, R. P. (1992). The relationship of musical experience, musical aptitude, self-concept, age, and academic achievement to the musical problem solving abilities of high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2728A.

Levi, R. (1991). Investigating the creativity process: The role of regular musical composition experiences for the elementary child. Journal of creative Behavior, 25(2), 123-136.

Li, C., & Shallcross, D. J. (1992). The effect of the assumed boundary in the solving of the nine-dot problem on a sample of Chinese and American students 6 - 18 years old. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(1), 53-64.

McPherson, G. E. (2000). Commitment and practice: Key ingredients for achievement during the early stages of learning a musical instrument. Proceedings of the 18th International Research Seminar, International Society for Music Education (pp. 245-256), held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA on July 8^th - 14^th, 2000.

Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 62-92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, C. P., & Sinor, J. (1986). An investigation of the relationships among music audiation, musical creativity, and cognitive style. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(3), 160-172.

Simonton, D. K. (1987). Musical aesthetics and creativity in Beethoven: A computer analysis of 105 compositions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 5, 87-104.

Simonton, D. K. (1993). Creative genius in music: Mozart and other composers. In P. F. Ostwald (Ed.), The pleasures and perils of genius: Mostly Mozart (pp. 1-28). New York: International Universities Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3 - 15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swanner, D. L. (1985). Relationships between musical creativity and selected factors, including personality, motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence as measured in third grade children. (Dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(12), 3546A (University Microfilm No. DA8601941).

Walker, R. (1976). Sound projects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, R. (1978). Perception and music notation. Psychology of Music, 6(1), 21-46.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Webster, P. (1979). Relationship between creative behavior in music and selected variables as measured in high school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27, 227 - 242.

Webster, P. (1987a). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In J. C. Peery & I. W. Peery (Eds.), Music and child development (pp. 158-174). New York: Springer Verlag.

Webster, P. (1987b). Refinement of a measure of creative thinking in music. In C. Madsen and C. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 257 - 271). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Wonder, J., & Blake, J. (1992). Creativity East and West: Intuition vs. Logic? Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(3), 172-185.