You are here

Shared understanding: Using a conceptual model to support the assessment of NCEA group composing

Vicki Thorpe, Hannah Gilmour, and Kathleen Walton-Roy
Abstract: 

This article considers the assessment of individuals’ contributions to collaborative creative groups. It draws on research into collaborative group composing and its relationship to a secondary school qualification system, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). It explains how a conceptual model of group composing was used to support valid and successful NCEA music assessment. Following this, two Master of Teaching and Learning students explain how they used this model while on school placement to support younger students to assess their own work when group composing. This article aims to shed some light on abiding pedagogical and assessment issues: how teachers might engage meaningfully and collaboratively with students who are working in groups on creative projects, support them in the assessment of their own learning, and then summatively assess their achievement.

Shared understanding

Using a conceptual model to support the assessment of NCEA group composing

Vicki Thorpe, Hannah Gilmour and Kathleen Walton-Roy

Abstract

This article considers the assessment of individuals’ contributions to collaborative creative groups. It draws on research into collaborative group composing and its relationship to a secondary school qualification system, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). It explains how a conceptual model of group composing was used to support valid and successful NCEA music assessment. Following this, two Master of Teaching and Learning students explain how they used this model while on school placement to support younger students to assess their own work when group composing. This article aims to shed some light on abiding pedagogical and assessment issues: how teachers might engage meaningfully and collaboratively with students who are working in groups on creative projects, support them in the assessment of their own learning, and then summatively assess their achievement.

Introduction

In 2011, in response to teacher demand, a new NCEA achievement standard for music was introduced, AS 91092: Compose two original pieces of music (NZQA, 2010). New Zealand then became one of the very few countries in the world where students could gain credit towards their high school qualification through opting to compose music in a group, usually rock or pop bands1 (Thorpe, 2012, 2015). NCEA music achievement standards assess solo performing, group performing, composing and arranging, aural perception, musicological research and analysis, and music technology. For group composing, NCEA requires secondary music teachers to award individual standards in the following way: Not Achieved, Achieved, Merit or Excellence. This means that as well as grading the collaboratively composed music itself, the teacher must grade the creative contributions of each student (NZQA, 2010). Doing so is complex, because summative assessment carried out by outsiders of individuals in collaborative groups can be very problematic (Eisner, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Van Aalst, 2013).

There are many reasons for this. Perceiving what people are doing as individuals when working with others is not always possible, because creativity and cognition may be distributed over space and time, as well as among and between collaborators (Bell & Winn, 2000; Cole & Engeström, 1993; Fautley, 2010; Glăveanu, 2011; Salomon 1993; Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). This is particularly so in the case of the assessment of contemporary popular music, where multiple and diverse forms of authorship are the norm (Burnard, 2012a). Musicians also communicate musically and gesturally as well as verbally. When working in ways that have been “picked up” through repeated listening and viewing, group composers might well have never verbally articulated what they are doing, having absorbed musical and compositional practices through enculturation (Green, 2002, 2008). As a result they may not have the vocabulary associated with relevant disciplinary and conceptual knowledge to explain to their teacher what it is they are doing (Thorpe, 2015). An outside observer such as a classroom teacher may not be able to accurately perceive what is happening, nor may the students be able to clearly articulate it (Thorpe, 2009).

Assessing what individuals are doing is even more difficult because groups often work together in ways that are more creative and productive than their individual members might be able to achieve alone (Engeström, 2015; Wenger, 1998). This is particularly so for novices working in a “zone of proximal development” with more experienced peers (Vygotsky,1986). As members of a group-composing community of practice (a rock band, for example), novices are also likely to feel that they have a legitimate right to claim shared authorship of the group’s compositions, even if their contribution has been minimal (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Assessment and qualification systems such as NCEA are not designed to take such sociocultural factors into account. NCEA was designed to measure and certificate the learning and achievement of individuals, and so the assessment of group composing potentially challenges the validity of a teacher’s assessment judgements if that teacher cannot accurately account for each student’s contribution to the group’s creative processes.

There are also ongoing curriculum challenges arising from recent, radical changes in the ways we learn music (Allsup, 2011; Green, 2008; McPhail, 2012). Over the past two decades the traditional canon of European music knowledge that dominated music curricula in many countries, including New Zealand, has been joined by a multiplicity of world and popular music genres, along with associated skills tacitly or informally learned, often arising from the use of highly diverse and increasingly complex digital technologies, encompassing diverse musical practices and notions of authorship. For example, in a study of the diverse musical creativities of professional adult musicians, Burnard (2012a) identified six different forms of musical practice: originals bands, singer-songwriter, DJ cultures, composed music (such as European art music, or “classical”), improvised music (such as jazz), and interactive audio design.

Young people are engaged in these practices, too, both inside and outside the classroom, resulting in an explosion of musical opportunities for teachers and students alike. For example, music learning may occur through listening, through immersion in our cultures, from viewing music videos, from friends, formally from a teacher, or through YouTube tutorials, to name but a few. For secondary teachers, catering for such broad artistic and cultural diversity is a challenge, carrying with it considerable implications for summative assessment for NCEA music, particularly group composing.

McPhail (2014) found a lack of informed and skilled teacher practice and specific disciplinary knowledge to engage meaningfully in the multiple ways of knowing associated with such diverse stylistic environments. Rather than being peripheral, he argues, the role of the music teacher in mediating informal and formal learning discourse needs to be central if students are to reach their full potential as learners and musicians (McPhail, 2012). When curriculum content incorporates the learning of students making music together in contemporary popular styles (in a garage band, for example), then teachers need to recontextualise informal music processes and ways of knowing into formal curriculum content (Allsup, 2011; Green, 2002, 2008; Jaffurs, 2006; McPhail, 2012).

However, it is not easy for a music teacher to keep up with these rapid changes and be a leader of learning. When informal compositional practices are incorporated into curriculum and assessment structures, then shared understanding between teacher and students of relevant conceptual and stylistic knowledge is crucial (McPhail, 2012; Thorpe, 2015). In the next section Vicki explains how her doctoral and master’s research addressed these multiple pedagogical, creative, and assessment problems through the development and implementation of a conceptual model of collaborative creativity.

Research into group composing: Vicki Thorpe

When I began my doctoral research, group composing had just been added to the NCEA and so no one had assessed group composing for this qualification. I began the research with a small pilot study in one secondary school, where my stance was that of a non-participant observer. The draft achievement standard was trialled by a teacher with a group of Year 10 music students. Analysis soon revealed that the pilot study had generated few data about the summative assessment of group composing. The teacher did not seem to know very much about the collaborative compositional processes in which the students were engaged, nor did any of the student participants seem to have many ideas about how these might be assessed. I concluded that the assessment of group composing was going to require new pedagogical and assessment practices. I decided that I needed to be closer to the action, working with teachers and students.

As a result, the main study method was changed from case study to collaborative action research. I worked in partnership with two teachers, Alice and David,2 team teaching their Year 11 music students over one school year in each school. (For more details about the action research design, see Thorpe, 2015). Alice’s school, Kotare College, is a coeducational state secondary school in a low socioeconomic suburban community. David’s school is St Bathan’s Collegiate, a private boys’ school. In both action research cycles the focus was on the NCEA achievement standard AS 91092: Compose two original pieces of music (NZQA, 2010). This work resulted in a wide range of diverse data collected over 26 months and subjected to ongoing cycles of inductive analysis. Later, I used activity theory to explore the wider implications of my findings (Cole & Engeström, 1993).

Early findings revealed that in order to assess group composing validly and reliably, teacher and students required deep, shared, conceptual knowledge about the creative processes in which the students were engaged. This was because in order to arrive at a valid and reliable summative grade for each student, the teacher needed to have a thorough understanding of what had taken place. This could not happen unless the students were able to clearly communicate their past, present, and future creative processes clearly to each other and to their teacher. Analysis also revealed that both the students and the teachers conceived of “assessment” as being synonymous with “testing”and “grading” (i.e., assessment of learning). These assessment conceptions needed to broaden to encompass assessment as and for learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Harlen, 2005; James, 2012). In sum, if the assessment of group composing was to be carried out successfully, then everyone—teachers and group composers alike—needed to engage in assessment in its broadest sense. The problem was that in order to do this, they needed a common conceptual framework to communicate clearly with one another, but at this point they did not have one.

A conceptual model of collaborative creativity

In an earlier study of the collaborative song-writing processes of three rock bands preparing for the national competition RockQuest, I developed a theoretical model of group composing (Thorpe, 2008). This model is largely derived from the work of Fautley (2005), Webster (2002), and Wallas (1926). I found that the group-composing members of the band seemed to work in cycles of divergent and convergent socio-musical activities, and, although each band was unique, they seemed to engage in similar creative practices. These are represented in Table 1.

Research analysis in the present study revealed that this model had the potential to be a useful conceptual, pedagogical, and assessment tool for both teachers and students. The teachers with whom I was working thought so too, and so I developed my earlier model of group composing into a more student-friendly one and shared it with the students. Alice, David, and I then used its language and structure to establish a shared conceptual understanding of group composing with the aim of all participants (group composing students and their teacher-assessor) being able to validly communicate intentions and processes to one another (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Compositional behaviours in group composing (Thorpe, in press)




Phases

Compositional behaviours

Divergent

Exploration

Experimenting, trying things out, looking for ideas, general musical doodling, “mucking around”, jamming.

Generation

“Coming up with” an idea that has potential or seems to work

Confirmation

Idea recognised as valuable by the rest of the band and confirmed as having potential for a group composition. This may be the catalyst for beginning a new song or material for inclusion in an existing song.

Transmission

The composer of the new idea teaches it to one or more of the others, sometimes supported by someone who has picked it up more quickly.

Work in progress

Playing through the song as it exists so far. A process of review and short rehearsals of sections.

Convergent

Revision and reconfirmation

Playing through material from an earlier session. A process of familiarisation, revision, and critique. “How does it go again? Is it as good as we thought it was?”

Transformation & modification

An intensely creative process: transforming an existing idea, often in order to make it playable or singable. Sometimes occurs during jamming. Often carried out by a leader or the prime generator of ideas.

Organisation

Structural discussion, usually verbal. “Who does what and when.”

Refinement

Polishing ideas, clarifying small details.

Rehearsal

Rehearsal

Figure 1. Conceptual model of group composing

Source: Thorpe, in press

When I presented the model to each class, I explained its elements and engaged the students in discussion. I also explained that this was only one way to compose and that there were many others. Both classes of 20 students seemed very interested. Restless or noisy classroom environments became quiet and intent, remaining so throughout the session for both groups. Students who had composed before were generally the ones who engaged in class discussion, often commenting that they recognised their own processes in the diagram. Many seemed fascinated to see these represented. Students who had never composed before did not generally contribute much to the discussion, but data analysis later revealed that these students found demystifying the creative process both reassuring and encouraging.3 These responses suggested to me that the model had potential as a framework for the kind of assessment co-construction we needed, because most students already seemed very engaged by it.

David and I developed composition tasks that required the students to compose music in specific styles. I then developed a rubric based on an exemplar from the Ministry of Education’s online teachers’ resource Te Kete Ipurangi,4 using the AS 91092 assessment criteria and explanatory notes of the NCEA achievement standard for Level 1 composing. David asked that the rubric be written in straightforward, “student-friendly” language so that both he and the students could use it clearly. Bearing in mind Fautley and Savage’s (2011) cautions about the validity risks of “dumbing down” assessment criteria, I strove to keep the language aligned with the achievement standard. While AS 91092 was not required for national moderation, David had requested that this new standard be included for moderation by NZQA that year. The national moderator for music subsequently agreed that the rubric was valid for use by both David and his students (see Table 2).

Following a series of lessons focusing on group composing in specific styles, David’s students went on to compose music where they were required to work in a style of their choice. About half the students (mainly those who had composed before) chose to solo-compose, and about half chose to group-compose (mainly novice composers, usually led by students who had either composed before or who were more skilled on their instruments). Diagnostic and formative assessment began immediately, mainly taking the form of verbal feedback, field notes and, occasionally, video as David and I moved between the groups.

Table 2. Assessment rubric for NCEA Level 1 group composing




Evidence/Judgements towards Achievement

Evidence/Judgements towards Achievement with Merit

Evidence/Judgements towards Achievement with Excellence

Your composition sounds like your chosen genre and shows :

At least 2 or 3 ideas such as riffs, melodies, chord sequences, repeated patterns that are typical of your chosen style or genre

These good ideas have been developed, extended, or changed in some way that is typical of your chosen style or genre

Ideas are organised into a structure that is typical of your chosen style or genre

Represented so that Mr …. can assess it, and so that other players who don’t know the music can play it: a score or chord chart, lyrics, screen shot with annotations etc

Your composition sounds like your chosen genre and shows :

At least 2 or 3 good ideas such as riffs, melodies, chord sequences, repeated patterns that are typical of your chosen style or genre

Your ideas show stylistic control: they are linked together clearly and work well together because they have been developed, extended, or changed in a way that is typical of your chosen style or genre

Your ideas are organised into a clear structure typical of your chosen style or genre, and show some unity and contrast

Represented very clearly so that Mr … can assess it, and so that other players who don’t know the music can accurately play it: a score or chord chart, lyrics, screen shot with annotations etc.

Your composition sounds like your chosen genre and shows :

At least 2 or 3 catchy & memorable ideas such as riffs, melodies, chord sequences, repeated patterns that are typical of your chosen style or genre

Your ideas show real familiarity & understanding of your chosen style or genre: ideas are linked together really well, show unity and contrast, and work well together because they have been developed, extended, or changed in ways that sound original but are still typical of your chosen style or genre

Skilfully represented in a way that makes your intentions completely clear so that other players who don’t know the music can accurately play it: score or chord chart, lyrics, screen shot with annotations etc.

All compositions must be recorded and presented as a CD in……. format or they will not be assessed!

Group composers must:

make a significant contribution to the creative process (messy, focussed, recorded, represented)

fill in their progress report every week (+, - etc)

complete at least 2 video diary entries where all members report on their contributions to the creative process

keep Mr ….. up to date about progress on the composition

Source: Thorpe, 2015, p. 322

Gathering data about students’ contributions to the creative process

Initially I developed a written data-gathering tool based on the elements of the model that required students and teacher to regularly sign off compositional behaviour as it was reported or observed. However, we found that this practice tended to atomise the data and did not generally present a useful picture of what was happening in the groups (Sadler, 2007). It also led to stilted, teacher-centred conversations that seemed to marginalise novice or less-confident students, slowing the creative process.

In both schools, informal conversations between group composers and their teachers generated the most valid and reliable assessment data. These took the form of running records and audio/video recordings collected during discussions with the students about how the group composed together and how each student contributed to the compositional process. Generally these discussions began with a request to “tell us the story of how you composed the music”.

On these occasions the conceptual model of group composing, familiar to all of us by now, became the framework within which we could engage in meaningful, shared discourse about the compositional processes within the group. For example:

Fraser: We were struggling to figure something out. So he started playing that riff again and it was, ‘Hang on, we could use that’ and that clicked it into the end of the messy phase.

Oliver: I refined Alex’s riff.

Alex: Yep, he critiques it.

Some students also used the model to reflect on the different ways in which they worked when composing.

Alex: When we were jamming we were really quite messy, but in the other room we were focused—writing it out and stuff. Yeah, we generated all our ideas probably in the practice room, not the classroom.

David reported that the students used the model to discuss their progress with him.

David: Some of them would say, ‘We’re almost out of messy, we’re almost at the point of getting focused now’. Or two of them would be getting into focused but one part would still be in messy because they are still trying to work it out. So that gave me a very clear idea of where they were at and them too, which meant that my feedback could be a lot clearer and a lot quicker and a lot more tailored to exactly what they each needed to do to achieve.

The students reported that the model provided them with a way to navigate the open-ended nature of creative processes. All said they liked the model because it gave them permission to “muck around”, be “messy”, unfocused and seemingly without direction, while reassuring them that they were still on the path to achievement. Some said that it helped them to identify where they were in the compositional process so that they were able to know where to go next. The assessment literature emphasises the importance of knowing where to go next as part of formative assessment (for example, Black & Wiliam, 1998, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). There was strong evidence of this, because the model provided group composers with a way of working together and a shared understanding of structure within which they all do so, as Angus explained:

Angus: Because it kind of put less stress on you because you knew that what you were doing was actually working towards something. Because usually you sit there and you start jamming and you think, ‘I’m not coming up with anything, I’ve got a composition due in a month, it’s for my NCEA mark, if we fail it we lose these credits and it’s a big amount of credits’. With that [model] you can say, ‘Well we’re in the messy phase, we’re getting ideas, we are getting somewhere’ and you can build on that. Also you kind of know where to go from there, so you can follow a cycle and you know what steps you’re actually in and what to do next and build on.

Angus is suggesting that the model reassured him that he was engaged in a process leading to composition completion. The notion of divergent and convergent processes seems to have been particularly useful once the initial ideas had been generated and the piece started to sound good:

Callum: It showed us what we were doing. And how close we were from getting it right.

Oliver: You know, how to get there, on the right path.

Although solo composers were not included in the study, some group composers went on to compose a second piece by themselves. I interviewed some students about this. Most reported that group composing with their friends gave them the confidence to then compose by themselves, and that the model also helped them to navigate their individual creative processes.

VT: Was the model helpful for your [solo] composing?

Richard: Yeah. Like, I know where I am now. I can work out where I am with my songs.

VT: How does that help you?

Richard: I know what I need to do to make it to the next step.

Some students associated the “focus phase” with a path to NCEA achievement in composing:

Angus: The focus phase is kind of when you think, ‘Oh, we’ve got something here’. Then you can go on because that’s when you know that this is something you actually want to build on and you actually want to focus on and do it more for fun than just getting an Excellence, and that’s when you hit the focus phase.

Angus also implies here that once group members knew that they were on the right path to completing a piece, they could relax and enjoy group composing for its own sake.

Summative assessment and awarding grades to individual students

When it came time for the teachers to summatively grade the compositions, there were few surprises for any of us. This was because most students had been engaged in self, peer, and formative assessment practices throughout, using the model as a frame for valid communication with their teacher and with each other about their actions and intentions related to both compositional process and product (Fautley, 2010). Getting there was not a straightforward process, however. Gathering assessment data about each group-composing student was time consuming and complex for both teachers. It was also challenging to manage logistically, particularly in Alice’s school, where there was nowhere soundproof enough to accommodate small, very noisy rock bands. In this less-well-equipped school the lack of appropriate spaces remained a significant—at times insoluble—barrier to attainment.

Visiting every student and gathering ongoing achievement data during a 50-minute class was demanding for both teachers. Nevertheless, the model’s stages and terms helped us all to communicate more clearly through the use of commonly understood terms and concepts. The model became a helpful framework for both teachers to make ongoing notes and give feedback to each student about this contribution to the compositional process. We also found that if students had their instruments with them during these discussions, less verbally articulate, or EAL, students were able to communicate more effectively through playing rather than talking.

Novice group members (usually bass players, drummers, or rhythm guitarists) reported that they gained confidence, skills, and knowledge from working with more experienced peers. The community of practice that is a group-composing band seemed to be a zone of proximal development for novices to learn to compose music alongside more capable, skilled, and knowledgeable peers (Vygotsky, 1986). Nevertheless, a high degree of professional skill was needed on the part of the music teacher to identify the achievement of each student in a way that supported the novices but also awarded credit where credit was due. To illustrate, here are two examples featuring two students, Jay and Callum.

Assessing the contributions of rhythm section players

Jay, a Year 11 group composer, could barely play his instrument, the bass guitar. He usually played rhythm guitar but had chosen to play bass to support his friends Jimi (virtuoso electric guitar) and Rāwiri (accomplished rock drummer) to compose blues- rock music. When composing their first piece, Jay simply played the root of each chord in progressions dictated to him by Jimi, and supported the feel established and maintained by Rāwiri on drums. During discussion with the band, using the model as a framework, it became clear that Jay’s contribution to the creative process had been minimal, although the fact remains that the music might not have been composed without the support of a bass line. While Jimi and Rāwiri seemed likely to achieve the NCEA composing standard, there was some doubt about Jay. His teacher (Alice) and I were concerned about Jay’s confidence and self-esteem, as well as his potential Not Achieved grade.

Discussions with the group about compositional processes alerted the boys to the fact that Jay needed to take a more active role if he was to achieve the composing standard and be awarded the NCEA credits. Jay commented, “I need to make something up for me.” Following this discussion, Alice reported that Jimi and Rāwiri asked Jay to write the second verse of their second composition. They also helped Jay to develop a more creative bass line. This was not an isolated incident. Throughout the study there were numerous instances of more confident, creative, or skilled group composers supporting their friends to achieve. More experienced students also reported that they gained a lot of satisfaction from sharing their expertise with their less-experienced friends, and some said the satisfaction of helping a friend to play and compose in the band was the best part of group composing.

Ultimately all members of Jay’s group achieved the composing standard, with Jimi and Rāwiri receiving Merit grades and Jay a low Achieved. At the beginning of the research I gave a questionnaire to all student participants asking about their expectations and intentions for NCEA music and across their other subjects. Jay reported very low expectations of NCEA achievement, not only in music but across all his Year 11 subjects. Composing in a group with more experienced friends seems to have led to NCEA achievement for Jay, which he may not have been able to attain through composing on his own.

In another group (singer, guitar, drums) the students initially explained to their teacher, David, that the singer and guitarist had come up with all the ideas, casting doubt on the validity of the drummer’s contribution (Callum). Using the model, David reported that he talked it over with the group on a number of occasions, gradually revealing that Callum had established the overall feel of the piece at its inception, and had then critiqued the others’ ideas, particularly when refining the nearly completed composition.

David: The model was very useful because if we hadn’t had it, if I had just said to them, “OK, what was the process of your composing? How did you start off?” it would have begun and ended with that initial conversation, and Callum would have ended up looking and feeling like he didn’t do anything, like he hadn’t achieved. But when I talked about the model, and we went past the jamming phase into the polishing stage, then that’s when Callum realised that was when he was doing the work and the focus changed within the group. That’s really helped because we would have missed that.

There were some points of tension, however. Solo composers are required to complete all aspects of the compositional process, including the creation of recordings and written scores or charts. In Jay’s band, for example, Jimi wrote out the charts for the group’s songs by himself, with help from Alice. Data analysis revealed that it was unlikely that Jay or Rāwiri would have been able to compose on their own, or create a written score or chart, yet both were awarded the same number of NCEA credits as their solo-composing classmates who did create written representations. For these students there were significant educational benefits in group composing with more experienced peers. Nevertheless, the findings of this study raise issues about the validity and reliability of such assessment data.

Using the model in other contexts

Following the completion of my PhD I incorporated this model into my teaching in initial teacher education courses at Victoria University. This led to a further investigation of how this model might be used. During a 7-week, full-teaching-load practicum in term 3, my Master of Teaching and Learning secondary music students were required to carry out a small research project for an assignment. TCHG 514 Assignment 1 required them to select and develop tools to implement an investigation into their effectiveness in developing their pupils’ abilities to think critically and creatively. They also had to track the progress of an identified group in relation to the progress of the whole class, while keeping detailed reflective diaries and receiving regular feedback from their mentor teachers and lecturer. There seemed to be an alignment with how I had used the conceptual model in my own research. I suggested to the students that they might wish to use it with their own classes to gather data about creative thinking and incorporate the data into their assignment, and all three agreed. Once their assignments had been completed and the students had finished the TCHG514 course, we worked together to analyse the data as a small research project. What follows are the findings of two of these MTchLrn students, Kathy and Hannah.

Using the model in Year 9 and 10 music: Hannah Gilmour

My mentor teacher had decided that Year 10 music students were to be given the freedom to use all of term 4 to create a piece of music to present to the rest of the class in the final week of school. I was aware that they had only undertaken much smaller projects prior to this and wanted to ensure they were well equipped for the task. By introducing my students to the concepts of divergent and convergent thinking, using the terms “messy” and “focused”, I hoped they would be able to understand and articulate their own creative processes more clearly.

My school used Google classroom tools extensively so I decided to use Google forms to create a questionnaire based on the terms used in the model. For example, I asked the students whether they were in “messy” or “focussed” stage, or were unsure. The students completed this questionnaire at the end of each lesson, and I ensured that I gave them time to reflect on how their composing was going. With my assignment in mind, the questionnaire data also helped me to monitor each student’s self-identified progress in developing their creative thinking.

After the first session the questionnaire data showed that most of the students had been able to apply the concepts of divergent and convergent thinking when reflecting on their own creative process that day. However, I had also given them the option of describing what stage they were at in their own words. Some seemed unsure, because at this point 60 percent of the students indicated “other” rather than “messy” or “focused”. However, the students’ responses were “fun”, “half half”, “in between, trying things and seeing if they work”, and “relaxed, chilled”, which indicated to me that they were actually engaged in a creative process but were not sure how to express it at this point (see Figure 2).

I explained the model again at the beginning of the next lesson and ensured that I worked with the students who had indicated that they were unsure of what they were doing. Results from this session showed that many of these students had in fact moved into the “focused” stage and were working on refining their ideas and shaping the music as a whole (see Figure 3).

The “other” responses included “in the middle”, “relaxed, not much done”, “just alright”, and “in between”. Some students had been using the composing app Sound Trap , which, unfortunately, did not load properly that day and so some reported “loading problem”.

Figure 2. Data from the first questionnaire

Figure 3. Data from the second lesson questionnaire

These data gave me an insight into how the students were developing in their creative thinking and the creative process. However, some seemed to have moved on to the “focused” stage very quickly, and I was concerned that they may not have engaged deeply enough in the creative process to develop their ideas meaningfully. I realised that in order to support the students in effective self-assessment, they needed much more structure and guidance than I had originally anticipated.

During the next lesson I engaged in deliberate conversations with each group, using the terms of the model. Many students needed to develop specific goals to be able to complete their work by the end of the term. As a result, each student group met with me and defined their own learning goals for that week. I planned to follow this up in the next lesson, but did not have the opportunity to because the fragmented nature of the end of the school year and clashes with my university studies prevented me from completing this unit of work. Nevertheless, through using the conceptual model I learned a lot about how to structure learning so that my students can meaningfully engage with each other and with me in the assessment of creative group processes. I also feel pleased that I was able to develop Vicki’s assessment ideas a little further by using digital tools.

Meeting my mentors halfway: Kathy Walton-Roy

My placement school is very focused on individual self-expression for both students and teachers. When I first started, my two mentor teachers told me that they have a strong humanistic philosophy of teaching and learning, where the goal is to create an environment that educates students to be self-reflective; to use music as an outlet for their emotions and thoughts about the world around them; and to equip them with creative and collaborative skills essential for navigating a fast-changing society. Their aim is to turn students away from a black-and-white “this is right, this is wrong” view that can often be very present in other subjects, to a more “multiple shades of grey” view for students to navigate in their own way and at their own pace. So when Vicki and I presented the model to my mentor teachers, their initial reaction was “I like and understand the ideas, but I don’t want to show this image to my students”. This was because my mentors felt that it would instruct their students “This is how you compose”, which was contradictory to their teaching philosophy.

After talking it over with my mentor teachers, we agreed that I could use the language of the model, but could not show the image. The concept of “being messy” in order to create seemed to align well with the “find your own way” philosophy, so I focused on this aspect. At the same time, while working on my assignment I delved deeper into the literature to help me understand the creative process. Abramo and Reynolds (2015) define musical creativity as “the process of generating and having knowledge of music” (p. 38), and summarise the creative thinker as having these four traits:

1.having a responsive, improvisatory, and flexible nature

2.comfortable with ambiguity

3.able to juxtapose multiple ideas and arrange them in original ways

4.possessing fluid and flexible identities.

I found these ideas very helpful because they gave me a pedagogical and assessment structure in the absence of the group composing assessment model. I was able to use these as criteria for creative thinking.

During my 7-week full-teaching-load practicum I developed a Year 9 music composition unit. Rather than presenting the model as a whole, I used the language of the conceptual model on a group-by-group basis before introducing it to the whole class. If, for example, a group was struggling, I introduced it, but if they were already unconsciously doing it, I mentioned nothing. Through careful observation of my students I found that giving them permission to “be messy” meant that they seemed to have the space to construct Abramo and Reynolds’s (2015) characteristics of musical creativity. I went on to develop this further.

When introducing the penultimate composition task of the term, I designed a lesson that allowed students to just be messy. I asked students I had shared the “messy” philosophy with to share their experiences with the class, and then asked the whole class to spend the lesson “being messy”. Of course, the boys were thrilled to be given permission to bang on the drums to their hearts’ delight! Nevertheless, I observed significant learning taking place when students experimented on other instruments, such as trumpets and loop pedals. At the end of the lesson, students reflected on and discussed how being messy was or wasn’t helpful for them. This helped them to assess their progress. Some typical responses were:

the lack of formality made composing easier

being messy took the pressure off

being messy generated a relaxed, experimental, creative atmosphere

being messy made it easier to navigate the uncertainties of an open-ended task.

This analysis revealed to me that composition—and group composition, in particular—provides students with opportunities to build these four creative traits, thereby increasing their ability to think creatively. It also helped me to develop their skills to examine their own learning and reflect on the processes in which they were engaged.

Reflecting on Kathy and Hannah’s work: Vicki

At first I was rather taken aback that Kathy’s two mentor teachers objected to using the conceptual model. Then I reflected in my research diary following the meeting:

They are reluctant to ‘teach’ the model to their students, believing that if Kathy shared it with impressionable Year 10s then there is a danger that the students will accept this as THE only way to compose, whereas the music department philosophy is for students to have the freedom to develop their own creative practices. Fair enough—I quite see this. I had wondered about that when I was developing it. Maybe even stressing that this was just one way to go might not ensure that students didn’t accept it as a ‘recipe’ for composing? There’s something in that. I need to explore this idea further. (29 July 2016)

Kathy’s mentor teachers, both skilled teachers of composing, raised valid concerns about the dangers of proffering a “recipe” for creativity and its assessment. It is something I continue to pursue in current research. I was very pleased to see Hannah pick up my ideas and run with them into the 21st century, using digital tools that have the potential for future inquiries into the self-assessment of compositional processes. I am also grateful to both for being willing to trial this tool and spare the time from their new teaching positions to write about it, and heartened to see how well it seemed to work in new contexts with different teachers and students. I am now considering how it might be used as a pedagogical resource for engaging younger students in assessing their own creative processes, perhaps in other curriculum areas as well, such as English or drama.

Conclusion

There is a substantial and growing body of research into the nature of creativity and learning, but there is very little that investigates the summative assessment of creative processes rather than products. There is also very little on the summative assessment of individuals’ achievements in groups. McPhail’s (2012, 2013, 2014) social realist work on the changing nature of the 21st-century curriculum in secondary music emphasises the importance of developing conceptual understanding in teaching and learning (and by implication) assessment. In terms of NCEA assessment, shared conceptual understanding supported informed peer and student–teacher communication, ultimately leading to more knowledgeable, and thus valid, assessment judgements of students’ collaborative creative processes. In these times of rapid educational change, increasing teacher accountability and ongoing uncertainty as to the nature and content of 21st century curriculum, the development of other kinds of conceptual models, shared between teacher and students may offer new assessment approaches.

Notes

References

Abramo, J., & Reynolds, A. (2015). ‘Pedagogical creativity’ as a framework for music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education , 25 (1), 37–51.

Allsup, R. E. (2011). Popular music and classical musicians: Strategies and perspectives. Music Educators Journal , 97 (3), 30–34.

Bell, P., & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (1st ed., pp.123–145). New York, NY: Routledge.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5 (1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969
595980050102

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability , 21 (1), 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Burnard, P. (2012a). Musical creativities in practice . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Burnard, P. (2012b). Rethinking ‘music creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 5–28). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Retrieved from http://VUW.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=823580.

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisner, E. (2007). Assessment and evaluation in education and the arts. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 423–426). New York, NY: Springer.

Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fautley, M. (2005). A new model of the group composing process of lower secondary school students. Music Education Research , 7 (1), 39–57. doi: 10.1080/14613800500042109

Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in music education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2011). Assessment of composing in lower secondary school in the English National Curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 28 (1), 51–67.

Glăveanu, V.-P. (2011). How are we creative together?: Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural answers. Theory & Psychology , 21 (4), 473–492. doi: 10.1177/0959354310372152

Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning: tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal , 16 , 207–223.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. doi: 10.2307/4624888

Jaffurs, S. (2006). The intersection of informal and formal music learning processes. International Journal of Community Music. Retrieved from http://www.intljcm.com/.

James, M. (2012). Assessment in harmony with our understanding of learning: Problems and possibilities In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.187–205). London, UK: Sage Publications.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McPhail, G. (2012). Knowledge and the curriculum: Music as a case study in educational futures. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies , 47 (1), 33–46.

McPhail, G. (2013). The canon or the kids: Teachers and the recontextualisation of classical and popular music in the secondary school curriculum. Research Studies in Music Education , 35 (1), 7–20. doi: 10.1177/1321103x13483083

McPhail, G. (2014). Music teachers talking: Views on secondary school curriculum content. Curriculum Matters , 10 , 33–55.

NZQA (New Zealand Qualifications Authority) (2010). 91092: Compose two original pieces of music . Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/search.do?query_Music&view_all&level_01

Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 14 (3), 387–392. doi: 10.1080/09695940701592097

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 3 (2), 81–92. doi: 10.1037/a0013282

Thorpe, V. E. (2008). We made this song: The group song writing processes of three adolescent rock bands. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Zealand School of Music, Wellington.

Thorpe, V. E. (2009). Help from my friends: Group composing and informal music learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Joint Conference of XXXIst ANZARME Annual Conference and the 1st Conference of the Music Educators Research Centre (MERC). Akaroa, New Zealand.

Thorpe, V. E. (2012). Assessment rocks?: The assessment of group composing for qualification. Music Education Research , 14 (4), 417–429. doi: 10.1080/1461
3808.2012.699957

Thorpe, V. E. (2015). Assessing complexity: Group composing and New Zealand’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement . Unpublished doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Thorpe, V. E. (in press). Assessing complexity: Group composing for a secondary school qualification. British Journal of Music Education.

Van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment of collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 280–296). New York, NY: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London, UK: Jonathon Cape.

Webster, P. R. (2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In T. Sullivan & L. Willingham (Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp.16–34). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Canadian Music Educators’ Association. Retrieved from http://online.uncg.edu/courses/mue704/readings/unit3/Webster%202002.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

The authors

Vicki Thorpe is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her current research interests focus on the assessment of individuals in collaborative groups and music pedagogies. She also has an interest in action research, activity theory, and initial teacher education.

Email: vicki.thorpe@vuw.ac.nz

Hannah Gilmour recently graduated from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, with a Master in Teaching and Learning. She is a secondary school teacher at St Patrick’s College, Wellington, New Zealand.

Email: hannah.gilmour@stpats.school.nz

Kathleen Walton-Roy recently graduated from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, with a Master in Teaching and Learning. She is a secondary school teacher at Marsden School Whitby, Wellington, New Zealand.

Email: kathleen.roy@marsdenwhitby.school.nz

1Since this research was carried out digital collaborations are becoming increasingly prevalent.

2Pseudonyms.

3David’s school was a boys’ school. Although Alice’s school was coeducational, only boys chose to group compose that year so all participants in the main study were boys. All student names are pseudonyms, mostly chosen by the boys.

4http://ncea.tki.org.nz/Resources-for-Internally-Assessed-Achievement-Standards/The-arts/Music