ABSTRACT

In this pilot study, we cross-culturally examined notation-based music compositions of upper-level elementary students in South Korea and the U.S. using the ratings of judges from both countries. Research participants were 32 South Korean and 35 U.S. upper-grade elementary students. After taking four weeks of music composition sessions, the students composed 8 measures of melody. Students’ music compositions were judged using the Consensual Assessment Technique. As a result, we did not find statistically significant differences by these variables. But when we conduct further analysis of twelve high and low scored compositions in creativity in both countries, there were remarkable differences. Music compositions with high creativity manifested various sound potions, development/ contrast, and organization/structure. Low creativity groups has limited sound options and simplicity/repetition. But adoption of pre-existing melody was found only in Korean low-creativity composition.

Keyword :

REFERENCES

1. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), p. 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997 [Crossref]
2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
4. Baek, H. S. (2007). A study examined elementary school students' experiences in music activities and preferences. Masters thesis, Gyeongsang National University.
5. Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Barrett, M. (1998). Invented notations: A view of young children's musical thinking. Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9700800102 [Crossref]
7. Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(6), 721-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598908247841 [Crossref] [Pubmed]
8. Burkholder, J. P., Grout, D. J., & Palisca, C. V. (2019). A history of Western music: Tenth international student edition. New York: WW Norton & Company.
9. Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in drawings of geometric shapes - a cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002004 [Crossref]
10. Colley, A., Banton, L., Down, J., & Pither, A. (1992). An expert-novice comparison in musical composition. Psychology of Music, 20(2), 124-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735692202003 [Crossref]
11. Daignault, L. (1996). Children's creative musical thinking within the context of a computer-supported improvisational approach to composition. Doctor thesis, Northwestern University.
12. Deng, L., Wang, L., & Zhao, Y. (2016). How creativity was affected by environmental factors and Individual characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195615 [Crossref]
13. Hennessey, B. A., Kim, G., Guomin, Z., & Weiwei, S. (2008). A multi-cultural application of the consensual assessment technique. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 18(2), 87-100.
14. Hickey, M. (1995). Qualitative and quantitative relationships between children's creative musical thinking processes and products. Doctor thesis, Northwestern University.
15. Hickey, M. (2001). More or less creative? A comparison of the composition processes and products of "highly-creative" and "less-creative" children composers. Second International Research in Music Education Conference, Devon: The University of Exeter.
16. Hickey, M. (2002). Creativity research in music, visual art, theater, and dance. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The New handbook of research in music education (pp. 398-415), New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Hong, S. W. & Lee, J. S. (2015). Nonexpert evaluations on architectural design creativity across cultures. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1087245 [Crossref]
18. Joo, H. Y. (2016). A Study on the relationship between the Korean traditional music preferences and the musical experiences of elementary school students. Master thesis, Ewha Womans University.
19. Kahn, B. (2017). Integrating art and history: A model for the middle school Classroom. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 22(1), 10-30.
20. Kim, G. H. (2009). A study on students' preference over musical pieces for singing in the elementary school fifth graders' music textbook. Master thesis, Busan National University of Education.
21. Kratus, J. (1994). Relationships among children's music audiation and their compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 115-130. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345496 [Crossref]
22. Kratus, J. (2001). Effect of available tonality and pitch options on children's compositional processes and products. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 294-306. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345613 [Crossref]
23. McCarthy, M. (1997). The role of ISME in the promotion of multicultural music education, 1953-96. International Journal of Music Education, 29, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149702900112 [Crossref]
24. Ministry of Education (2015). Music curriculum. No. 2015-74. [Supplementary 2] Niu, W. & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590143000036 [Crossref]
25. Park, E. S. (2010). A study on the musical composition processes implied in the task types in elementary and secondary schools. Doctor thesis, Seoul National University.
26. Park, E. S. (2017). An analysis of melody composition process and product by different music making tools. Korean Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.30775/KMES.46.1.04 [Crossref]
27. Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In K. L. Pike, Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (pp. 37-72). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton & Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/14786-002 [Crossref]
28. Reznikoff, I. (2008). Sound resonance in prehistoric times: A study of Paleolithic painted caves and rocks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 4137-4141. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2934773 [Crossref]
29. Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2017). A cross‐cultural study of task specificity in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53, 263-274 https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.123 [Crossref]
30. Tsisserev, A. (1997). An ethnography of secondary students' composition in music. Doctor thesis, The University of British Columbia.
31. Waller, S. J. (1993). Sound reflection as an explanation for the content and context of rock art. Rock Art Research, 10(2), 91-101.
32. Wiggins, J. (2007). Compositional process in music. In International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 453-476). Berlin: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3052-9_29 [Crossref]