This article presents three in-depth case studies of a computer-assisted composition project in Hong Kong to understand how individual students from varied backgrounds encounter computer-assisted composition. Three higher-education students composed short pieces using music technology. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected digitally, through semi-structured interviews, and from students’ reflective journals. Comparative analyses of students’ composing activities revealed different approaches to composing, and a series of models that reflect the students’ varying composing approaches is presented. The findings should help to develop strategies that foster creativity when composing with music technology.
BennetS. (1976). The process of musical creation: Interview with eight composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24, 3–14.
2.
BerlinerP. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BrinnerB. (1995). Knowing music, making music: Javanese gamelan and the theory of musical competence and interaction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BurnardP. (Ed.). (2007a). Creativity. In BreslerL. (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1173–1290). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
5.
BurnardP. (2007b). Reframing creativity and technology: Promoting pedagogic change in music education. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(1), 37–55.
6.
BurnardP.YounkerB. (2002). Mapping pathways: Fostering creativity in composition. Music Education Research, 4(2), 245–261.
7.
ChenC. W. (2005). Pedagogical framework in the creative process of multi-media composition: Visual stimulus and musical accent. Proceedings of the ASME (Australian Society for Music Education) XV National Conference Melbourne2005, 55–62.
8.
CheungJ. (2001). The effects of computerized music instruction on the attitude and achievement of children: With special reference to strong and weak framing (Unpublished PhD thesis). Institute of Education, University of London.
9.
CollinsD. (1992). Creativity and special needs. In SpruceG. (Ed.), Teaching music (pp. 98–107). London, UK: Routledge.
10.
CollinsD.DunnM. (2011). Problem-solving strategies and processes in musical composition: Observations in real time. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4(1), 47–76.
11.
ConradS. D. (1990). Toward a phenomenological analysis of artistic creativity. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 21(2), 103–120.
12.
FolkestadG. (1996). Computer-based creative music making. Young people’s music in the digital age. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
13.
KingA.VickersP. (2007). Problem solving with learning technology in the music studio. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 1(1), 57–67.
14.
KirkmanP. (2010). Exploring contexts for development: Secondary music students’ computer-mediated composing. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 2(2/3), 107–124.
15.
LadanyiK. (1995). Processes of musical composition facilitated by digital music equipment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois.
16.
MacInnisP. (1996). Experiencing and understanding a computer-based music curriculum: A teacher’s story (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto.
17.
MerrickB. (2003). Self-efficacy and prior musical experience as an indicator of self-regulatory skills in a music technology based composition task. In YipL. C. R.LeungC. CLauW. T. (Eds.), Curriculum innovation in music (pp. 253–257). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
18.
MooreB. (1989). Musical thinking and technology. In BoardmanE. (Ed.), Dimensions of musical thinking (pp. 111–116). Reston, VA: MENC.
19.
OdenaO.WelchG. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity. In OdenaO. (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 30–48). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
20.
PaynterJ. (2000). Making progress with composing. British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 5–31.
21.
ReeseS. (1996). Midi-assisted composing in your classroom. In SpruceG. (Ed.), Teaching music. London, UK: Routledge.
22.
ReeseS. (2003). Responding to student compositions. In HickeyM. (Ed.), Why and how to teach music composition: A new horizon for music education (pp. 211–232). Reston, VA: MENC.
23.
RudolphT. (2005). Teaching music with technology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
24.
WallasG. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
25.
WebsterP. (2003). Asking music students to reflect on their creative work: Encouraging the revision process. In YipL. C. RLeungC. C.LauW. T. (Eds.), Curriculum innovation in music (pp. 16–27). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
26.
WebsterP. (2012). Towards pedagogies of revision: Guiding a student’s music composition. In OdenaO. (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
27.
WilliamsD.WebsterP. (2005). Experiencing music technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
28.
YounkerB. (1997). Thought processes and strategies of eight, eleven, and fourteen year old students while engaged in music composition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL, Northwestern University.
29.
YounkerB. A.SmithW. (1996). Comparing and modeling musical thought processes of expert and novice composers. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Music Education, 128, 25–36.
