The Role of Feedback and Sharing

Making time for students and teachers to share their compositions with each other should be a priority, as those experiences are the most valuable learning opportunities for students (Wiggins, 2015). The songs that students generate as part of a learning community could very well serve as generative material for future compositions: adapting and borrowing ideas from each other as they work together and are exposed to new means of expressing emotions and thoughts via the musical medium. While compositions could be finished products, students should be encouraged to share works-in-progress to receive feedback not only for the sake of improvement, but to receive positive comments that can further encourage students’ use of agency. Sharing works-in-progress with each other and receiving feedback within a community also serves as a visceral reminder that composing is an ongoing process that requires time, space, and “room.”

Indeed, one of the most important tasks an educator must consider is what feedback is appropriate at a certain point in a student’s development as a composer and how that feedback should be delivered. As with any descriptive feedback procedure (Hickey & Reese, 2001; Shaw, 2018), educators and peers should provide age-appropriate specific information as to why something is considered particularly well done and why something could be improved and how, all while being affirming and supportive. Michele Kaschub and Janice Smith (2017) stated that not only is the content of the feedback important, but how the feedback is delivered is, oftentimes, more important. They suggested that elementary educators have their students envision what type of feedback they hope to receive and practice providing and receiving that feedback with a sample composition. Additionally, “Composers’ Circles” provide the opportunity for students to offer and receive praise and constructive criticism in a balanced format: two praise comments for each comment of constructive criticism. Similarly, MacLeod (2013) suggested a “critique sandwich” (a term coined by fifth graders) structure of providing feedback following presentation of the composition:

- Begin with a comment supporting the student’s efforts and something positive about the composition.
- Then, provide a “rich filling” to the “sandwich” with clear, specific, and substantive comments, but take care not to “overstuff it” with comments that would make the experience difficult to remember.
- The final and “top layer” comment should encourage the student with their endeavors.

For older students, John Kratus (2016) provided similar strategies and stressed that educators will need to be mindful of class discussions/feedback sessions. Students can be extremely vulnerable when sharing original songs with their peers that address issues of identity, significant life moments, and traumatic events. While he specifically referenced sharing and feedback in a songwriting course, his suggestions for types of feedback throughout the course of a class could be applicable to multiple types of composition settings:

- Supportive: This phase includes generally supportive feedback that is non-specific in nature with the objective of providing students with a sense of security and confidence in their efforts, as well as increasing the level of trust in peers and the educator. The guiding question about a student’s performance: “What specifically did you like in the song?”

- Descriptive: The educator asks the student audience questions on specific musical and lyrical characteristics of the performed song. The purpose of this phase is to affirm to the composer that their song is worthy of critique and analysis, as well as point out interesting musical and lyrical characteristics that other class members might wish to employ in their own songs.

- Prescriptive: Here, students provide the composer with suggestions for improvement, taking on a “master class” feel with all students commenting, rather than one “featured” individual. Composers will need to have a sufficient level of confidence and self-efficacy in their skills, as well as trust in their peers and the educator, at this stage. Kratus (2016) warned that arriving at this level will take time and should not be rushed.

Regardless of the chosen strategy, respect of the composer is paramount in feedback sessions and criticism of performance or composition skills should not be allowed.

Teachers should take care to make themselves available for individual consultations with students. However, as part of respectful scaffolding (Wiggins & Medvinsky, 2013), feedback should be provided when it is solicited on students’ own volition, rather than imposed on students. Furthermore, teachers should seek to understand students’ intent behind their composition and not impose their own musical conception of the work, or what they think is “musically correct," on the student. As we read earlier in this chapter with Mary (the educator) and Ellen (Mary’s student), such interactions could have negative implications for student agency and diminish the motivation to engage further in composition (Ruthmann, 2008). Educators, rather, need to understand that students might have a reasonably formed conception of their composition in their head. The role of the educator is to listen to the composer’s vision and help them refine the work to become the desired aural product.