Student Composition in a Private Studio Setting: Rethinking Assumptions

  • Beth Ann Miller


This author reflected on the instructional methods used in her private piano studio as they related to her understanding of constructivist learning theory. Accepting the idea that student-constructed knowledge is more meaningful and memorable than teacher-dictated knowledge, she determined that certain benefits result from encouraging her students to write original compositions. The data informing this study included interviews with past students, journal entries about interactions with current students, and samples of student compositions. The process of composing original music often encourages substantive and instructive dialogue about music between teacher and student. As a result of the research, the author learned that the act of composition might also assist her students to develop creative minds, understand music theory, and discern important musical characteristics of various stylistic, cultural, and historical settings.


Journal Entry Field Text Narrative Inquiry Current Student Music Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allsup, R.E. 2002. Crossing over: Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music ­education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T.M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, M.S. 1999. Modal dissonance: An analysis of children’s invented notations of known songs, original songs, and instrumental compositions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 141: 14–22.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, M.S. 2001. Constructing a view of children’s meaning-making as notators: A case-study of a five-year-old’s descriptions and explanations of invented notations. Research Studies in Music Education 16: 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, M.S. 2003. Freedoms and constraints: Constructing musical worlds through the dialogue of composition. In Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education, ed. M. Hickey, 3–27. Reston: MENC.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, M.S. 2004/2005. Thinking about the representation of music: A case-study of invented notation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 161/162: 19–28.Google Scholar
  7. Bissex, G.L. 1992. Foreword. In Can I play you my song? ed. R. Upitis. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Blackburn, L. 1998. Whole music: A whole language approach to teaching music. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Bowman, W.D. 2006. Why narrative? Why now? Research Studies in Music Education 27: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brändström, S., and F. Högberg. 1998. Composing and teaching composition: The Luleå concept. In Children composing, ed. B. Sundin, G. McPherson, and G. Folkestad, 82–96. Malmö: Musikhögskolan i Malmö.Google Scholar
  11. Bresler, L. 2006. Embodied narrative inquiry: A methodology of connection. Research Studies in Music Education 27: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Briefel, J. 1997, July/August. Learning by writing music. Clavier, 7–9.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, J.G., and M.G. Brooks. 1993. In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  14. Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cambourne, B. 1988. The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.Google Scholar
  16. Chronister, R., S. Hekmat, and M. Baker. 1998, Summer. Music reading: How do you integrate composition and reading? Keyboard Companion, 14–19.Google Scholar
  17. Clandinin, D.J., and F.M. Connelly. 2000. Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. DeBenedetti, G. 1960. The creative pianist (primer): Better playing through composition. Dayton: The Heritage Music Press.Google Scholar
  19. Deturk, M. 1989. Critical and creative musical thinking. In Dimensions of musical thinking, ed. E. Boardman, 21–32. Reston: Music Educators National Conference.Google Scholar
  20. Domer, J., and J.E. Gromko. 1996. Qualitative changes in preschoolers’ invented notations following music instruction. Contributions to Music Education 23: 62–78.Google Scholar
  21. Fosnot, C.T. (ed.). 2005. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, H. 1993. Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, K. 1986. What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth: Heineman Educational Books.Google Scholar
  24. Griffiths, V. 1998, July. A chance to move? Music Teacher, 18–19.Google Scholar
  25. Grindea, C. 1972/1997. We make our own music. London: Kahn & Averill.Google Scholar
  26. Gromko, J.E. 1994. Children’s invented notations as measures of musical understanding. Psychology of Music 22: 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyke, J., and Y. Enoch. 1977/1987. Creative piano teaching. Champaign: Stipes.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, B.A. 1995. Integrating elementary music instruction with a whole language first grade classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International 57(04): 1535A.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, B.A. 1997. Collaboration: The bonus prize in the research package. Teacher Research: The Journal of Classroom Inquiry 5(1): 57–74.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, B.A. 2002. Structuring learning in a different kind of classroom. In Dimensions of musical learning and teaching: A different kind of classroom, ed. E. Boardman, 69–104. Reston: MENC.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, B.A. 2004, June. Designing compositional tasks for elementary music classrooms. Research Studies in Music Education 22: 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newmann, F.M., and G.G. Wehlage. 1993. Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership 50(7): 8–12.Google Scholar
  33. Paynter, J. 1997. The form of finality. British Journal of Music Education 14(1): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Priest, T. 2006. Self-evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music 34(1): 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sloboda, J.A. 1985. The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  36. Sundin, B., G. McPherson, and G. Folkestad. 1998. Children composing. Malmö: Malmö Academy of Music and Lund University.Google Scholar
  37. Tomlinson, C.A. 1999. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  38. Upitis, R. 1990. This too is music. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  39. Upitis, R. 1992. Can I play you my song? The compositions and invented notations of children. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  40. Wiggins, J. 1990. Composition in the classroom: A tool for teaching. Reston: MENC.Google Scholar
  41. Wiggins, J. 1992. The nature of children’s musical learning in the context of a music classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  42. Wiggins, J. 2001. Teaching for musical understanding. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  43. Wiggins, J. 2003. A frame for understanding children’s compositional processes. In Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education, ed. M. Hickey, 141–166. Reston: MENC.Google Scholar
  44. Wiggins, J. 2007. Compositional process in music. In International handbook of research in arts education, ed. L. Bresler, 451–467. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Winters, J. 1995, July/August. Introducing students to the world of composition. Clavier, 36–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Presque lsleUSA

Personalised recommendations