Philosophy and Learning Theory as a Base for Music Composition

Webster (2010) focused on the many complicated facets of constructivism as a philosophy and learning theory. The author reviewed generally accepted tenants of constructivism as frequently characterized in the psychology and general education literatures. These are seen as being supportive of student-centered approaches, independence of thought, creative thinking encouragement, and culturally relevant pedagogy. Implications for music learning and a precis of the many music education scholars who have made the case for a constructivist approach to creativity in music learning are included. Possible weaknesses are also addressed, and the chapter is followed by another chapter (Colwell, 2010) that focuses on direct instruction, critical thinking, and transfer that provides an interesting comparison.

The Webster (2010) chapter ends with an extensive review of empirical research evidence in music teaching and learning that used constructivism as a base for studying generative behavior in a wide variety of music learners. These writings support student- centered learning and the vital need for recognizing student voice.

Kratus (2012) presented a number of philosophical and culturally rich conceptual frames for composition pedagogy and student composers (songcatchers). Issues of definition, origins of originality, and pedagogical concerns are provided. He noted that in- tentionality may be a key to the meaning of musical sounds and their creative use by learners in compositional and improvisational ways. For example, students should have an intentionality to their work by having the ability to hold music ideas in their heads (audiate) and command some sense of musical syntax such as meter and tonality, and rhythmic and tonal patterns. Traditional or invented notation may or may not be needed for composition to occur.

In his consideration of implications from philosophy and psychology, Kratus suggested that the psychoanalytic, behavioral, and humanist perspectives offer foundations for pedagogy (see Taetle & Cutietta, 2002, and Senyshyn & O’Neill, 2011). Behaviorism may help to explain the role of the environment and other human experiences in terms of the creative process. Humanism may help to understand an individual’s drive to share creatively with the world around us—to help self-actualization and optimal experience.

Kratus noted that the perspective of composers themselves are a source of insight— especially in understanding the creative process as it merges with technical under- standing.⁵ However, such reports need to be approached with caution:

In applying the accounts of composers to an educational setting, one must be cognizant of the potential unreliability of their reports. Educators should also be aware that the work habits of professionals may not always provide the best guidance to novices. . . . Nevertheless, the words of composers cannot be easily dismissed, especially when so many of their accounts have a great deal in common. (Kratus, p. 378)

In concluding pages, Kratus provided vital perspectives on the role of the teacher:

In many traditional music-teaching settings, the teacher provides the music, either through model or notation, and students respond in accordance with the teacher’s instructions. In a composition classroom, the music comes from the students, and the teacher responds in accordance with the needs of the students and the qualities of their music. In such a changed paradigm, the teacher’s role becomes one of establishing guidelines for student composition, fostering a supportive environment, and providing assessment of student work. (pp. 380-381)

The Webster and Kratus work may help teachers to develop strong philosophical and learning theory statements to support expanded attention to composition pedagogy.