april 6, 2002 escom 2002, liège 1 creative music project: an analysis of fifth grade student...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 2
Research Supported by:
Northwestern UniversityThe University of Texas at San
AntonioMay Elementary School
Texaco Corporation
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 3
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?
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 4
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)
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 5
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 6
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 7
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 8
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.
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 9
Student “Compositions”
Examples to follow shortly
http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 10
Results of Tonality Study (SMPC 2001)
• Forced Choice
• Slider Task
Results
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 11
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?
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 12
Cantometrics
Alan Lomax
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 13
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)
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 14
Example Student Compositions
• Template• Student #29 - same (nearly
identical)• Student #3 - moderate change• Student #52 – not same (vastly
diff)
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 15
Experimental Results
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 16
Analyses
• Overall comparison using cantometrics
• Comparison of most “dissimilar” compositions to all others– Avg similarity rating 4.5 on 5-point
scale
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 17
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 18
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
DifferentMore Similar
D: significantlygreater spread
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 19
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
DifferentMore Similar
D: only “free”
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 20
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
DifferentMore Similar
D: greater spread
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 21
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
DifferentMore Similar
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 22
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
DifferentMore Similar
4 meas – linking consecutive 2-meas phrases
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 23
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
DifferentMore Similar
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 24
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
DifferentMore Similar
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 25
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
DifferentMore Similar
D: 2-3 octave (more percussion sounds)
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 26
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
DifferentMore Similar
D: higher dominance ofsemitone and >= P4greater “flexibility”
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 29
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
DifferentMore Similar
greater variety
higher % unaccented
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 30
Where Do We Go From Here?
Future Research
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 31
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
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 32
Author Contact Information
Scott D. Lipscomb – lipscomb@northwestern.eduMaud Hickey – mhickey@northwestern.edu
David Sebald - dsebald@aim-ed.comDonald Hodges – dhodges@utsa.edu
CMP web site:http://music.utsa.edu/cmp/
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 33
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 34
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)
April 6, 2002 ESCOM 2002, Liège 35
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)
top related