Council for Research in Music Education

Creativity Research in Music Education: A Review

Author(s): Carol Peterson Richardson and Michael Saffle
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 74 (Spring, 1983), pp.
1-21
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40317767
Accessed: 08-12-2018 22:32 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40317767?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press, Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FEATURE ARTICLES

Creativity Research in Music Education: A Review

Carol Peterson Richardson, School District 23, Prospect Heights, Illinois

Introduction

As music educators evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching,

one important quality which is overlooked in both the teaching
and evaluation process is the creative potential of each student. In
relying upon behavioral objectives, music educators neglect
creativity, potentially one of the most exciting and satisfying
aspects of their profession. In nurturing the creative thinking
abilities of the music student, teachers can reaffirm the student's
uniqueness of perception and innate ability to build his or her own
relationships and meanings from musical perception into a prod-
uct which is both unique and satisfying. Research goals in musical
creativity have centered on providing a definition of creativity and
developing methodologies which nurture musical creativity, as well
as evaluating instruments to measure it.
Although studies in the assessment of general creativity oc-
curred as early as 19061, research on creativity in music education
is a fairly recent phenomenon. The body of literature which will be
reviewed in this article covers the period 1962 to 1979.

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 2 Creativity Research

Historical Perspectiv

Although it may seem th

cepts to surface in educatio
methodologies in music ed
of this century. In her b
lished in 1922, Satis N. Co
music as a reaction against
This methodology emphas
Coleman's method began w
ment, playing it, and com
musical notation. For Cole
through improvisation, and
than analytical ability.
Shall we not think twice before we allow the child to consume all his
mental power in studying the works of others, and leave no strength
or time for his own creative work? Will this not mean more in his
development to be able to create one lovely composition than to
know accurately the details of all that Chopin wrote?3
Creative music meant experiential learning which was guided by
the teacher, rather than content-centered learning in which the
teacher dispensed knowledge to the receptive student. This ap-
proach assumed that all children were capable of creating some-
thing "new, superior, or unique when judged in comparison with
any of his previous performances" according to Creative School
Music, an early teacher method book.4 This method stressed
creativity as an educational goal for all children, regardless of
background.
Creativeness, therefore, is not reserved for those with high in-
telligence, specific endowments, or special abilities. A child with a 70
IQ can have a novel, unique learning experience in relation to his
own ability and past experience.5
Coleman's method of teaching became the basis for much ex-
perimentation by the music educators of the United States during
the thirties and forties, and Birge noted the successful use of the
creative music method in several school systems "with results
which seem to justify its becoming one of the teaching activities in
all our schools"6. Another barometer of the method's success is
the number of studies in creative music which were undertaken at

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 3

that time.
In addition to studies in methodology, two psychological studies
of the process of creativity are indicative of research during this
period. CowelFs case study of his own ability to compose music
without the aid of an instrument defined the creative process as an
emotional experience in which musical ideas mirror either im-
mediate or remembered emotions7. The use of abstract visual
designs as the basis of the composition process was studied by
Willmann8. Willmann asked thirty-two composers to compose
music to four abstract designs. When the resulting compositions
were analyzed by 43 auditors, it was found that the music was
significantly associated with the abstract designs. Willmann con-
cluded that the creative process was influenced by many stimuli,
and that selectivity is exercised in the perception of relationships
among stimuli. While these two studies were not directly related to
the specific problems of music education, they indicate the impor-
tance of understanding the emotional and perceptual elements of
the creative process.
A landmark in the creative music movement came in the form of
the MENC statement on creativity in music, published in the
Music Education Source Book, 1947. The MENC source book
gave a newer, broader meaning to the term "creative music".
. . . any musical experience at any and all levels, whether it be a) sen-
sitive and responsive listening to music, b) active bodily response to
rhythm and mood, c) creative interpretation of music performed, d)
creative planning and development of assembly programs, pageants,
and operettas as an outgrowth of correlated activities, or e) the crea-
tion of original music, is considered a creative activity inasmuch as it
provides a new and inspiring experience which results in musical
growth and personality development of the child.9

This definition boldly included all of the musical behaviors (listen-

ing, moving, performing, composing) as creative behaviors, as
well as the nonmusical creative behaviors of planning and develop-
ing performances. In this broad definition the MENC openly ad-
vocated that creativity is the essence of music education, not a by-
product or hoped-for outcome. In defining * 'creating' ' as "the
developmental process of putting materials together which express
ideas, feelings, and experiences of the learner in a discriminating
way"10 the profession gave itself two goals or directives. The first

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 Creativity Research

directive was to understand

in each child on a daily basi
directive was to evaluate th
perienced the creative proc
tive ability and evaluate the
Despite these two directive
single musical creativity st
following the MENC stat
ment that "the area
crea of
of research, has all but be
period following the MEN
While this "fertile field of research" stands uncultivated, the
directives of the 1951 MENC source book remain as the basis for
our work as music educators.

The Development Of Empirical

Measures Of Creativity

The importance of the development of an empirically measur-

able definition of creativity cannot be overstated. The search for a
workable definition of creativity has led to many different ways of
conceptualizing it, most of them defying empirical analysis. The
experiential research of J. P. Guilford and E. P. Torrance sought
a more concrete way of looking at creativity and went far in
developing a more standardized definition and evaluation of this
enigmatic mental ability.
J. P. Guilford

Guilford's theory of creativity is the result of his taxonomy of

factors of intelligence12. According to this taxonomy, all of the in-
tellectual factors or abilities can be classified in one of three ways.
The first category is the content of thought, including visual and
auditory figurai information, semantic information, symbolic in-
formation, and behavioral information. The second category in-
cludes the five kinds of operations performed on the content:
cognition, memory, convergent production, divergent production,
and evaluation. The third category, products, is the result of the
application of the operations to the content, creating units,
classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications.

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 5

Each of the three categories is a dimension of Guilford's

Strii cture-of -Intellect (SI) model, a cube made up of 120 smaller
cubes, each representing a known intellectual ability which can be
described in terms of a single content, operation, and product.
The Structure-of-Intellect abilities which Guilford found most
related to creative thinking ability were divergent production in the
operations category and transformation in the products category.
Divergent production is thinking for an infinite number of possi-
ble answers, as opposed to convergent production which aims for
a single correct answer13. Guilford considers creative thinking as
problem solving even within the arts, since:
... the artist's problem is one of self-expression. He has something
that he wants to tell the world, or he wants to make tangible some-
thing that he thinks or feels. The origin of such a problem is within
the artist himself.14

To better explain the process of creative thinking, Guilford

developed a Problem-Solving model based on the SI model and in-
volving five steps15. Step one is an awareness of the problem or
cognition of implications. In step two the problem is structured or
understood in terms of the kinds of information needed for its
solution. This step involves cognition of relations and systems.
Step three involves the divergent and convergent production of
ideas for the solution. Step four is evaluation of both the concep-
tion of the problem and the suggested solutions. Step five occurs
when the information is stored in the memory for later use. In ad-
dition to these specific abilities, traits which influence individual
creativity are motivation, temperament, and favorable environ-
ment. Through his extensive use of factor analysis in conjunction
with the SI model, Guilford established the existence of certain ap-
titudes for creative thinking. Since the measurement of these ap-
titudes has been one of the goals of creativity research in music
education since 1962, it is essential to understand the creative ap-
titudes before considering the research studies.
The six aptitudes for creative thinking are fluency, flexibility,
originality, elaboration, redefinition, and sensitivity to
problems.15 The creative aptitudes of fluency, flexibility, originali-
ty, and elaboration are examples of divergent thinking and are
measured quantitatively. The premise is that the more creative per-

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 6 Creativity Research

son will produce more idea

less creative person.
E. P. Torrance

Through his work with the University of Minnesota's Educa-

tional Research Bureau, Torrance developed a series of tests based
on Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect model which involved a more
complex type of task which Torrance felt more closely approx-
imated the creative process. Rather than isolating a single factor of
intelligence as did the Guilford tests, Torrance attempted to in-
clude different kinds of thinking, or factors, within a single task.
The tasks include production of divergent solutions, multiple
possibilities, and the type of thinking which is theoretically involv-
ed in creative behavior.17 Torrance's Tests of Creative Thinking' 8
assess the individual's creative potential in terms of sensitivity to
problems, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and redefinition in a
more open-ended kind of setting than the Guilford tests, since
Torrance was not concerned with the isolation of a single creative
ability. In this way Torrance departed from Guilford and
developed his own definition of the creative process as:
. . . the process of sensing gaps or disturbing, missing elements;
forming ideas or hypotheses concerning them; testing these
hypotheses; and communicating the results, possibly modifying and
restating the hypothesis.19

The purpose behind the development of the Torrance Tests of

Creative Thinking was a desire to understand the creative develop-
ment of the child as he or she moves through the educational
system from kindergarten to college and to help educators
recognize and nurture creativity in the classroom. Through longi-
tudinal studies which used his Tests of Creative Thinking, Tor-
rance found a steady increase in creativity from grades one to
three, followed by a sharp decrease between grades three and four,
with a recovery during grades five and six. A second drop in
creativity occurs between grades six and seven, followed by growth
until the end of high school.20 While explaining these periods of
decline in creativity as the result of new stages of both physio-
logical and educational development21, Torrance also tackled the
problem of bridging the gap by developing methods for encourag-

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 7

ing creative talent in the cl

. . . rewarding diverse contributions; helping creative persons
recognize the value of their own talents, avoid exploitation, accept
limitations creatively, develop minimum skills, make use of oppor-
tunities, develop values and purposes, hold to purposes; avoiding the
equation of divergent with mental illness or delinquency; reducing
overemphasis or misplaced emphasis on sex roles; helping them learn
to be less obnoxious without sacrificing their creativity; reducing
isolation and helping them to learn how to cope with anxieties, fears,
hardships, and failures.22

Creativity Research in Music Education

Although they draw on a wide spectrum of philosophical,

theoretical, and empirical bases, the creativity studies in music
education from 1962 to 1979 deal with the same problems of
methodology and evaluation implied by the MENC source book
and defined by the research of Guilford and Torrance. Three
categories are useful. The first category contains the nonempirical
philosophical and analytical research which focuses on the creative
process and the methodology necessary to implement creative
teaching at all levels of music education. The second category in-
cludes descriptive and experimental research which deals with the
evaluation of methodologies through nonmusical measures of
creativity. The third category includes studies which developed
and evaluated musical measures of musical creativity.
Nonempirical Philosophical and Analytical Research
Greenhoe23 defined creativity in a way similar to Guilford and
Torrance by looking at the psychological processes, abilities, and
levels of creativity in music to determine whether these processes
could be developed in education, and if so, how they might best be
developed. Greenhoe defined creativity as a dynamic process,
varying in scope and level, and expressed in parameters of in-
telligence, personality, medium of expression, and environment.
In incorporating such factors as the creativity-intelligence distinc-
tion, the personality of creative persons, the creative process, and
various theoretical explanations of creativity, Greenhoe arrived at
four conclusions. 1) Regardless of the medium in which the subject
has specific skills, creativity occurs through similar processes in
personalities characterized by openness, complexity, curiosity,

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8 Creativity Research

persistence, autonomy, fl
and preconscious thought
quires the additional attrib
terms of sound, factual a
mediate, formative experie
provisation supply the di
specific skills and concept
also experienced creatively.
the student derives cogniti
perience. These skills allow the student to use the modes of
thought found in creative thinking, and result in the development
of the creative personality.
In her developmental study, Cox25 defined creativity as a quality
that is expressed when an individual relates things in his or her ex-
perience that were previously unrelated, and out of these relation-
ships produces something that is new and self-satisfying. The basic
assumption of this study, parallel to the early creative music move-
ment, is that all children possess creative ability which can be
developed through music education. No measures of creativity
were used, although the author suggested guidelines for the
evaluation of the creative product.26
A developmental study which emphasized the four-stage process
of creativity as defined by Torrance was undertaken by Brown.27
Brown viewed the process of preparation, incubation, illumina-
tion, and verification as consistent with the formation of a gestalt,
with the creator-composer moving from a concept of the whole to
work on the specific parts of the composition.28 Brown then
developed a methodology of teaching for creativity in secondary
choral music which emphasized the structuring of the learning
situation in a way that nurtures both creative thinking and
aesthetic awareness. This study did not include an evaluation of
this methodology.
Another study involving the development of creativity in sec-
ondary music education was undertaken by Rhodes.29 Rhodes
developed instructional principles and procedures aimed at en-
couraging personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental
conditions, which Torrance defined as conducive to creativity, in
the high school nonperformance music class. An interesting aspect

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 9

was the comparison made between

and those of music educators. Co
creativity as a highly specialized ab
tistic work of the highest stand
beyond the reach of most music s
other creativity theorists, however
educational objective because of it
trait, diverse means of expression,
on large amounts of information, a
ditions of openness.30 Rhodes concl
problem-solving musical projects
volve the general music or humanit
Harvey31 dealt with the training o
the perspective of the humanistic psychology of Abraham
Maslow.32 Harvey's recommendations for the training of self-
actualizing and creative music educators were based on the prin-
ciples that aesthetic experience, aesthetic sensitivity, and success-
oriented teaching methods classes are necessary for the develop-
ment of a creative music educator.

Measures of the Effects of Instruction Using

Nonmusical Measures of Creativity
The differences in measurements of extra-musical outcomes in
children who had music instruction and those who did not were
looked at in Wolff's experimental study.33 An experimental group
of first-graders was given one half-hour of daily music instruction
for one year while a control group received no music instruction.
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and Simons Measure-
ment of Listening Skills34 served as pre- and posttests. The experi-
mental group achieved higher scores on the creative thinking
measure, and significantly higher scores in originality, while music
instruction had a significant effect on perceptual-motor scores.
Wolff concluded that music instruction did produce beneficial
extra-musical changes in the subjects of her study, although it
could be argued that the extra-musical outcome of increased
perceptual-motor skills is certainly secondary to the importance of
the aesthetic experience of music.
Silverman's exploratory study35 looked at the effects of high

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JO Creativity Research

school improvisation class on

ual pieces of music in group
evaluation of the group per
educators and the results indi
a success. Because only four s
ty of this study is limited.
Whereas Silverman looked
provisation, Simpson36 was
potential. He set out to disco
growth in general creative po
are most effective. Five Guilf
of creativity, were given to
control group of 45 nonmus
semester of study. The test
divergent production of figu
flexibility, and ideational f
by the Drake Musical Aptitu
perimental group made signif
elaboration, and spontaneou
which served as treatment in
and choir were the most ef
mending that factors of
measured by these specific
musical study, and also call
mine the long range effects o
general creative potential.
Feinberg38 developed a crea
school music literature studen
of creative problem-solving
contents, operations, and pro
as a three-phase model of in
transformation stage, and ou
listening lessons, teaching
criterion-referenced, evalu
course content.

The most recent experimental study involving nonmusical

measures of musical creativity at the high school level was by
Leibowitz.40 The relationship between persistence in applied music

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 1 1

study and the factors of creativ

average was the focus of the study. The Seashore Measures of
Musical Talents41 were used to measure musical aptitude, while
creativity was measured by the Torrance Tests of Creative Think-
ing. Subjects were seven beginning instrumental and six beginning
choral classes in four New York City high schools. Three samples
were organized. The first consisted of all subjects who had
previously studied applied music, while the second consisted of all
subjects, and the third was made up of subjects with no previous
music study. Those students who continued applied study had a
higher mean score than the noncontinuers in musical aptitude,
creativity, and scholastic average. Leibowitz concluded that fur-
ther research in this area was needed, particularly in the area of
creativity.
Tarratus42 set out to determine whether the creative aptitudes of
musicians are similar to those of persons in other fields. Tarratus
developed nonmusical tests of creative aptitudes, based on those
of Guilford, measuring fluency, flexibility, and originality. These
tests, along with a humor test, were administered to 93 freshmen
and 52 graduate students in The Ohio State University School of
Music. Composers could be differentiated from other music
students on the nonmusical test of creativity, with one originality
score significant at the .05 level, and the rest at the .01 level. The
scores on the humor test, however, were the most discriminating
factor between composers and noncomposers.
A second study of college music majors was completed by
Roderick at the University of Illinois.43 His purpose was to deter-
mine whether there was a relationship between music majors'
scores on creative thinking tests and their scores on tests of musical
aptitude and music achievement, and their scholastic ability.
Twenty-eight freshmen and twenty junior music education
students were given an early form of the Torrance tests as a pretest
and posttest after three weeks of regular undergraduate music
study. During the first two weeks of study, the Wing44, Drake, and
Aliferis45 music abilities tests were also given. A correlation of the
creativity and musical test results revealed a relationship below .40
between the variables, leading to the general conclusion that
creative thinking ability is not related to musical aptitude, achieve-

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 Creativity Research

ment, or general scholastic a

The Pfeil study46 focused
tional creative music appre
Oakland University. Pfeil's
traditional notation, led to
based on Guilford's SI model and on the Torrance tests. Pfiel's
test is unique in that it combines figurai and verbal content with
sound, giving a new dimension to measures of musical creativity.
The three tasks involved in the test provided scores in sensitivity to
problems, elaboration, originality, ideational fluency, associa-
tional fluency, adaptive flexibility, and spontaneous flexibility.
The test was administered as a posttest to nine people who par-
ticipated in a creativity workshop at Oakland University, and to 86
students in a traditional music appreciation course. The results
showed higher average scores for the workshop participants, but
Pfeil acknowledged that this was due to the creativity training pro-
vided in the workshop.47
The latest study concerned with the nonmusical assessment of
creative ability in college music majors is by Obenshain48. Her pur-
pose was to determine if there are creative processes independent
of intelligence, and to describe these processes. Fifty-two
freshman music majors and 50 advanced students took Torrance-
based verbal tests in ideational fluency and taped tests for differen-
tiation, discrimination, and integration of musical stimuli. A
significant relationship was found between ideational fluency and
the process variables of differention, discrimination and integra-
tion. Since these variables define a cognitive process, the results
imply that music educators can train students for creative produc-
tion by teaching them to differentiate, discriminate, and integrate
given stimuli. The author's conclusion implies that this type of
training for creativity need not be restricted to the field of music.

Musical Measures of Creativity

The last studies can be seen as the third stage of musical creativity
research since they take a step past methodology and verbal creativi-
ty tests and develop musical measurements of creative thinking.
Vaughan49 proposed to measure musical creativity on the

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 13

premise that the musical pro

and therefore measureable. Vaughan theorized that musical
creativity is significantly related to general creativity, and that the
intelligence-creativity distinction which exists in the domain of in-
tellect also exists in the domain of musical capacity. Forty-seven
fourth grade students were given a musical creativity test designed
by Vaughan, as well as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
and the Bentley Measures of Musical Abilities50. Three judges
rated the musical creativity test results for the factors of fluency,
rhythmic security, and ideation. Each of the musical creativity test
factors showed high correlations with the Torrance factors of
originality, upholding the hypothesis that the two types of creativi-
ty are related. Low but significant correlations were found among
almost all of the creativity factors and the Bentley scores, so the
second hypothesis was rejected, although the distinction between
creativity and intelligence may actually exist. It was concluded that
musical creativity is an indicator of general creativity, although
Vaughan chose to withhold this generalization until further valida-
tion and reliability of her instrument was accomplished.
The Vaughan instrument was used again in Vaughan and
Myers51 to determine if a training program involving musical ex-
periences could improve test performance, and to determine the
relationship between mental ability, musical aptitude, and creative
thinking ability. Two groups of fourth graders were given these
pretests: Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, figurai form B,
Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability52 , Bentley 's Measures of
Musical Abilities, Vaughan-Myers Test of Musical Creativity , and
Cunningham and Torrance's Sounds and Images53 test. Treatment
was three months of standard classroom music instruction for the
control group; instruction in improvisation, thematic develop-
ment, counterpoint, and dissonance for the experimental group.
The Vaughan test was given near the end of the study, and the Tor-
rance test was given as a posttest. The experimental group was
found to be superior to the control group in the areas of fluency,
flexibility, and originality but the only significant difference was in
fluency. There was a positive correlation between high IQ scores
and the fluency and flexibility scores, but high IQ did not positive-
ly correlate with originality and elaboration. No relationship was

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
14 Creativity Research

found between musical apti

important result of this stud
passed the control group at t
that Vaughan's instrument
The Vaughan
contains s test
appear to be deceptively sim
each of the tasks which sho
findings.54 Three principles

The importance of a warm-up, the importance of a feeling of

psychological safety, and the importance of open-ended tasks - i.e.,
those susceptible of a multiplicity of different responses . . . . 55

Musical Creativity Test56

Preparation: It will be helpful to review with the whole class the dif-
ference between "beat" or "pulse" and "rhythm" or
"pattern".
Materials: 1 torn torn
1 set of claves (or other instrument(s) to make
contrasting sound to torn torn).
2 sets of tone bells (or xylophones)
1 tape recorder

Procedure: Children will be tested individually. All items and

responses will be recorded on tape.

Question I. Tester asks child to beat a steady beat on

the torn torn while tester plays on claves:

•5

Question II. Tester plays steady beat on claves, and

asks child to improvise rhythm on torn
torn to this beat. (Length at discretion of
tester-

four to six measures.)

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Carol Peterson Richardson 15

Question III. Tester plays rhyth

and asks child to respond with an

"answering" rhythm.
Question IV. Tester plays:

on bells, and asks child to respond with

an "answering" tune on black bells on-
ly.
Question V. Tester plays:

as ostinato, and asks child to improvise a

melody on white bells only, while
ostinato continues.

Question VI. Child is asked to make up a "piece"

showing how he feels during a thunder
storm. He is told he may use the drum,
bells, and/or any other sound he wishes.
(Length at discretion of child, unless he
continues an inordinately long time.)

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ¡6 Creativity Research

SPECIMEN SCORING SHEET:

Name of student

Question I II III IV V VI TOTAL

Fluency

Rhythmic
Security

Ideation

Aggregate
Total

Musical Creativity Test Scoring Blank

(Scale is zero through four: zero for no response; 4 for maximum.)

In Vaughan and Myers, a single task similar to Question IV was

used to measure musical creativity and produced an interjudge
reliability of .84. In a 1977 article,57 Vaughan reported two further
studies in which validation of the instruments was attempted.
Vaughan reported that the 1974 interjudge reliability figures rang-
ed from .78 to .90 on the creativity test, showing a consistently
valid test.58 The next study, which followed Vaughan and Myers
by five years, was the development of another musical creativity
test.

Gorder59 investigated the musical divergent production abilities

of junior and senior high school wind instrumentalists by develop-
ing a more comprehensive test of musical creativity based on the
Vaughan model. Using Guilford's SI model, Gorder developed a
test to measure the fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality
of junior and senior high school instrumental music students.
Gorder included a measure of musical quality in the test, which
deviated from the purely quantitative tests established by Guilford

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 1 7

and Torrance, because of the nece

quantity in any improvisation. Gorder's test, called "Musical
Measures of Divergent Production" (MMDP), consists of four
short musical passages which serve as the basis for musical im-
provisation.60 Subjects had three minutes to complete each section
of the test and responses were scored for number of phrases pro-
duced (fluency), the number of phrases using different kinds of
musical content (flexibility), the rarity of usage of specific types of
content (originality), and musical appeal (quality). The MMDP
was administered to a random sampling of eighty junior and senior
high school instrumental music students and the correlation of
these results with teacher rating of musical creativity produced a
multiple correlation coefficient of .57. Test-retest reliability for the
MMDP ranged from .70 to .90, with split-half coefficients ranging
from .69 to .88. Interjudge reliability ranged from .50 to .90.
The author advanced the idea that musical creativity tests can be
devised to measure the factors of creativity as defined by Guilford
and Torrance, and the high test reliability, as well as the fairly high
interjudge reliability, shows a test which is a fair measure of
musical creativity for the group involved in the study. The fairly
low correlation between teacher ratings of creativeness and test
results indicates that teachers probably did not agree on the
criteria for creative musical expression, or that their ratings were
based on other criteria than the results of this test.
McClellan61 set out to determine the effect of teaching method
on musical growth as measured in musical achievement, music
learning attitude, and creative musical skill. Thirty-one students
were randomly assigned to two sections of a music fundamentals
course at Michigan State University. The control group had listen-
ing and performing activities, while the experimental group had
creative music learning activities. A teacher-made, criterion-
referenced Music Materials Achievement Test (reliability = .82)
and a 40-item Music Learning Attitude Scale (reliability = .89)
served as pre- and posttests. The Vaughan Test of Musical
Creativity was administered, with scoring procedures adapted to
college-level students.62 The reliability coefficient for the two-
judge panel was .74 The posttest results howed that while there
were no significant differences between the treatment groups in

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 18 Creativity Research

achievement and music le

did significantly better
musical creativity, leading McCiellan to the conclusion that
"musical creativity can be guided"63. This study concluded with
the recommendation that extensive inter judge reliability studies be
done on the modified scoring system in this application of the
Vaughan test.
The final study marks an expansion from the purely improvisa-
tional nature of the Vaughan test and its derivatives and is also the
most recently published study concerned with the assessment of
musical creativity. Webster64 aimed to establish reliable measures
of musical creativity in composition, improvisation, and analysis,
as well as to compare abilities in these three areas with general
measures of musical ability, creativity, and intelligence. Three
separate sets of musical activities, arranged in progressive levels of
difficulty, were designed to cover problems in composing, im-
provising, and analyzing music. The composition test was made up
of three activities. The performance/improvisation test included
four activities, the first of which was a warm-up and was not
scored. The analysis test consisted of three typical analysis prob-
lems.65 Seventy-seven high school students, members of perfor-
mance ensembles, were given these activities and posttested in the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking verbal form A and figurai
form B, and Colwell's Music Achievement Tests,66 and Gordon's
Musical Aptitude Profile.61 An overall interjudge reliability of .80
was established for the two judges, as well as a scorer reliability of
.81 to .97. Musical achievement was the variable most strongly
related to creative potential. Verbal creativity was found to be
related to musical analysis creativity, and IQ was related only to
improvisation ability. Webster concluded by calling for refinement
of the musical measures of creativity used in this study, as well as
further validation. These five studies show a continuity and
cohesiveness which the previous studies lacked. All five studies
recognized the importance of expanding on the philosophical and
empirical bases established in general creativity research by
measuring the unique product of musical creativity in its natural
state, without translating it into a verbal or figurai form. While
relying on correlations with nonmusical creativity measures for

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 19

validity verification, these last

musical response in their tes
proximating the subject's creative musical ability. It also made
research in this area more valuable to the music educator in the
classroom.

References

1 L. M. Terman, "Genius and stupidity: A study of some of the intellectual processes of

seven 'bright' and seven 'stupid' boys", Pedagogical Seminary 13 (1906): 307-373.
2 Satis N. Coleman, Creative Music for Children (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1922).
2 Ibid., p. 179.
4 Lillian M. Fox and L. T. Hopkins, Creative School Music (New York: Silver Burdett
Co., 1936), p. 18.
5 Ibid.

6 Edward B. Birge, History of Public School Music in the United States, 2nd ed. (New
York: C. H. Ditson Co., 1939), p. 307.
7 H. Cowell, "The process of musical creation", American Journal of Psychology 37
(1926): 233-236.
8 Rudolph R. Willmann, "An experimental investigation of the creative process in music:
The transposability of visual design stimuli to musical themes" (Ph.D., Dissertation,
Columbia University, 1945).
9 Hazel N. Morgan, ed., Music Education Source Book (Chicago: Music Educators Na-
tional Conference, 1947), p. 131.
10 Ibid.

11 Charles Leonhard and Richard J. Colwell, "Research in music education", Council for
Research in Music Education 49 (Winter 1976): 18.
12 J. P. Guilford and Ralph Hoepfner, The Analysis of Intelligence (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1971), pp. 17-27.
13 J. P. Guilford, "Traits of creativity", in Creativity and Its Cultivation: Addresses
Presented at the Interdisciplinary Symposia on Creativity, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, ed. H. E. Anderson (New York: Harper, 1959), p. 154.
14 Guilford, Way Beyond the IQ (Buffalo, New York: Creative Education Foundation,
1977), p. 161.
15 Ibid., pp. 162-165.
16 Guilford, "Traits of Creativity", pp. 145-152.
17 E. P. Torrance, Guiding Creative Talent (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Personnel
Press, 1966), p. 45.
18

Press, 1966).
19

20 Ibid., p. 93.
21 Ibid., p. 95.
22 Ibid., p. 161.
23 Mary L. Greenhoe, "Parameters of creativit
University of Tennessee, 1972).
24 Ibid., p. 131.

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 20 Creativity Research

25 Edna M. Cox, "A functional approac

school" (Ed.D. dissertation, Columbi
26 Ibid., p. 250.
27 El wood H. Brown, "A study of the application of creativity in the teaching of secondary
school music" (D.M.A. dissertation, University of Missouri at Kansas City, 1968).
28 Ibid., pp. 99-100.
29 Edith A. Rhodes, "A comparative study of selected contemporary theories of creativity
with reference to music education in the secondary schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, Loui-
siana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1970).
30 Ibid., p. 122.
31 Arthur W. Harvey, "Abraham Maslow: implications for the development of creative
music educators" (D.M.A. dissertation, Temple University, 1974).
32 Ibid., p. 65.
33 Karen L. Wolff, "The effects of general music education on the academic achievement,
perceptual-motor development, creative thinking, and school attendance of first-grade
children" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1979).
14 Gene M. Simons, Simons Measurements of Music Listening Skills (Chicago: Stocking
Company, 1976).
35 M. L. Silverman, "Ensemble improvisation as a creative technique in the secondary in-
strumental music program" (Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1962).
36 Donald J. Simpson, "The effect of selected musical studies on growth in general creative
potential" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1969).
37 Raleigh M. Drake, Drake Musical Aptitude Tests (Chicago: Science Research
Associates, 1957).
18 Saui Feinberg, "A creative problem-solving approach to the development of perceptive
music listening in the secondary school music literature class" (D.M.A. dissertation,
Temple University, 1973).
J9Ibid., p. 24.
40Leon Leibowitz, "The relationship of continuation in applied music study to four New
York City high schools", (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1978).
4 'Carl E. Seashore, Don Lewis, and Joseph Saetveit, Seashore Measures of Musical Talents
(New York: Psychological Corporation, 1960).
42Edward A. Tarratus, Jr., "Creative processes in music and the identification of creative
music students" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1964).
43James Roderick, "An investigation of selected factors of the creative thinking ability of
music majors in a teacher training program" (E.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1965).
44H. D. Wing, Wing Standardized Tests of Musical intelligence (London: NFER
Publishing Company, 1961).
45James Aliferis, Aliferis Music Achievement Test (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1954).
46Clifford I. Pfeil, "Creativity as an instructional mode for introducing music to non-music
majors at the college level" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972).
47Ibid., p. 186.
48Kathryn G. Obenshain, "An information-processing approach to the assessment of
creative ability in college music majors" (Ed.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State University, 1974).
"'Margery M. Vaughan, "Music as model and metaphor in the cultivation and measure-
ment of creative behavior in children" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, 1971).

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Carol Peterson Richardson 21

'"Arnold Bentley, Measures of Musical Abi

''Margery M. Vaughan and R. E. Myers, "A
to creative thinking," Journal of Research in Music Education 19 (Fall 1971): 337-341.
32Tom A. Lamke and Martin J. Nelson, Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability (New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1958).
"B. F. Cunningham and E. P. Torrance, Sound and Images (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1965).
54Vaughan, "Music as model and metaphor", pp. 63-66.
55Ibid., p. 63.
56Ibid., pp. 121-123.
"Margery M. Vaughan, "Musical creativity: Its cultivation and measurement", Council
for Research in Music Education (Spring 1977): 72-77 .
58Ibid., p. 73.
59Wayne D. Gorder, "An investigation of divergent production abilities as constructs of
musical creativity" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1976).
60Ibid., pp. 324-327.
MLawrence McClellan, Jr., "The effect of creative experiences on musical growth" (Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977).
52Ibid., pp. 118-119.
63Ibid., p. 64.
6itRichard P. Webster, "A factor of intellect approach to creative thinking in music"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 1977).
65Ibid., pp. 245-264.
"Richard J. Colwell, Music Achievement Tests (Chicago: Follett Educational Corp.,
1970).
67Edwin Gordon, Musical Aptitude Profile (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965).
Bibliography
Colwell, Clarissa B. "Practical values and methods of teaching creative music in public
schools." Bachelor of Music Education paper, University of Denver, 1935.
Cowan, Virginia. "A critique of the creative movement in music education." Master of
Arts thesis, University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music, 1938.
Guilford, J. P., Green, R. F., and Christensen, P. R. "A factor-analytic study of reasoning
abilities II. Administration of tests and analysis of results." Report Number Three from
the Psychological Laboratory. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1951.
Guilford, J. P. and Christensen, P. R. "A factor-analytic study of verbal fluency." Report
Number Seven from the Psychological Laboratory. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1956.
Guilford, J. P. and Hoepfner, Ralph. The Analysis of Intelligence. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1971.
Guilford, J. P. "Twenty-five years of creativity research." in Perspectives in Creativity.
Edited by Irving A. Taylor and J. W. Getzels. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1975.
Johnson, Maye, "An experiment in creative music at the Albion State Normal Training
School." Master of Science thesis, University of Idaho, 1938.
Laipple, Marie. "Creative music for intermediate children." Master of Music thesis,
Northwestern University, 1947.
Langer, Susanne. Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1953.

Skeel, Dorothea. "Creative music in the schoolroom." Master of Music thesis, North-
western University, 1940.

This content downloaded from 95.39.212.146 on Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:32:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms