Digital composing and participation in music education

One of the perennial problems of music education is building pre-service teachers’ skills and confidence to include more creative, as opposed to recreative, music making in their classrooms (Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY, Benedict, Schmidt and Spruce2015). Several researchers stress the importance of promoting the creative act of composing and the need to counter-hegemonic thinking that privileges performance, restricts creativity and the ongoing development of new music (Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY, Benedict, Schmidt and Spruce2015; Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, Reference GEORGII-HEMMING and WESTVALL2010) and recognise the everyday musical cultures of young people (Green, Reference GREEN2008). Drawing on participatory culture in media education (Jenkins, Reference JENKINS2006), collaborative co-construction of digital music projects can contribute to more culturally relevant pedagogy (Cremata & Powell, Reference CREMATA and POWELL2017) and the development of student voice (Spruce, Reference SPRUCE, Benedict, Schmidt, Spruce and Woodford2015). Similarly, Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) highlight that digital music technologies for creating provide a powerful means to support active, culturally relevant and creative music making for students at all levels of prior musical experience.

Spruce (Reference SPRUCE, Benedict, Schmidt, Spruce and Woodford2015) argues that bringing digital technologies for composing into school classrooms builds bridges between young people’s inside and outside school musical lives, thus supporting their multiple and shifting musical identities (Hargreaves et al., Reference HARGREAVES, MACDONALD and MIELL2017) and reducing alienation from school music. Reducing the barriers to music making promotes participation, access and inclusion. Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) discuss access to digital instruments and loops, stating that the process of creating music is not limited by students’ skill in playing an instrument or being fluent in musical notation. The rise of low-cost and accessible music software and hardware has meant that young people frequently create music in their lives outside of school (Mackrill & Daubney, Reference MACKRILL and DAUBNEY2016).

Providing opportunities for young people to play and create ‘their’ music, using a pedagogy that draws on Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) informal music learning principles, builds connections between school music and the everyday musical cultures of young people. Informal learning principles (Green, Reference GREEN2008) provide opportunities for young people to make music in groups with their friends and make decisions about curriculum and pedagogy which impact them. Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) argue that creating using digital technologies is best taught through Green’s (Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) pedagogical principles. In addition, collaborative digital composing has a participatory ethos (Mitchell, Reference MITCHELL2019) involving participation as a learning process, thus students get better through the process of doing music (Turino, Reference TURINO2008).

Participatory music making

As an ethnomusicologist, Turino (Reference TURINO2008) developed his theory of participatory music making by working in diverse community and cultural contexts rather than in educational spaces. His theory of participatory music making is increasingly used in music education research to understand experiences that involve all learners in engaging musical experiences irrespective of prior experience (Gibson, Reference GIBSON2021; Thibeault, Reference THIBEAULT2015; Harwood & Marsh, Reference HARWOOD and MARSH2012).

Participatory music making removes the distinction between audience and performers (Turino, Reference TURINO2008). In this musical setting, the goal is to involve everyone in a collective performance role, people are either participants or potential participants. These activities are more about the doing and social interactions than about creating a high-quality artistic product or commodity (Turino, Reference TURINO2008). Drawing on Csikzentmihaly and Csikzentmihaly’s (Reference CSIKZENTMIHALY and CSIKZENTMIHALY1990) flow theory, in Turino’s (Reference TURINO2008) experience, participants return again and again to musical activities that produce intense concentration and enjoyment and as they do so, their skill levels increase. Turino (Reference TURINO2008) argues that participatory music making is not a lesser form of music making but is something different and should be valued as such. This theory is useful for pre-service teachers as most school students that they teach will not go on to become professional musicians, instead, they will ideally become lifelong amateur musicians as performers/listeners/creators/consumers, and this could take many forms. This ethos is reflected in the following quote, ‘Participatory music making sees all participants’ contributions considered to be of equal importance. More experienced musicians take responsibility for supporting and inspiring those around them to join in, at whatever level of competence they possess…’ (Harwood & Marsh, Reference HARWOOD and MARSH2012, p. 325).

In contrast, Turino (Reference TURINO2008) defines another field as presentational music making where one group, the performers, provides music for another group, the audience, creating a separation between the artist and the audience resulting in a focus on musical quality and virtuosity. In the UK and Australia, presentational music making is traditionally foregrounded in school music education with an emphasis on creating a musical product for performance or preparation for graded music examinations on an instrument/voice. ‘Oftentimes all forms of presenting musical progression tends to default to a graded music examination type thinking’ (Fautley & Daubney, Reference FAUTLEY and DAUBNEY2022, p. 132). Instrumental music making in a ‘master-apprentice’ style and large ensembles such as those modelled on El Sistema practices also prioritise individual virtuosity over collective participation (MacGregor, Reference MACGREGOR2020). Ensembles (co-curricular or extra-curricular) may also participate in adjudicated festivals, such as the National Concert Band Festival.

The argument is not that one field of music making should replace the other, rather Harwood and Marsh (Reference HARWOOD and MARSH2012) contend that ‘a complete and balanced in-school music curriculum could include opportunities for both presentational and participatory music making’ (p. 325). Similarly, Turino (Reference TURINO2008) suggests participatory and presentational music making are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to move between one and the other. Camlin (Reference CAMLIN2014) interrogates these concepts further and brings them together. He suggests applying a dialogic frame to explore Turino’s (Reference TURINO2008) presentational and participatory fields as a continuum. He demonstrates that both are valuable to understand issues of musical quality in participatory contexts including school music settings. Camlin’s (Reference CAMLIN2014) notion of creative tension refers to ‘how to achieve both artistic excellence (Great Art) and universal access (Everyone)’ (p. 101). Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) highlight how creating using digital music technologies can bridge this tension, ‘in the era of digital audio production, meaningful musical creativity has never been more accessible. A student can learn to create good-sounding music with a computer in a matter of hours, rather than months or years’ (p. 7).

Small’s (Reference SMALL1998) concept of musicking is also useful to understand participation and he has a slightly different viewpoint. Small extends Turino’s and Camlin’s conceptions of musical participation to be more than a performance role. He says, ‘to music is to take part, in any capacity, in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing or by providing material for performance’ (Small, Reference SMALL1998, p. 9). In a digital music creation context, Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) apply Small’s ideas of musicking as being more than performing. They argue that the term ‘producer’ applies to ‘creators working across traditional role boundaries… A producer is anyone who creates recorded music in any capacity. Producers write songs, programme beats, manipulate loops and samples, play instruments, run recording sessions, and edit and mix audio’ (Kuhn & Hein, Reference KUHN and HEIN2021, p. 4).

We will go on to consider these concepts in relation to project findings.

Methodology

This research was conceived as a case study (Creswell, Reference CRESWELL2007; Yin, Reference YIN2009) informed by collaborative self-study methodology (Samaras, Reference SAMARAS2011). Creswell (Reference CRESWELL2007) envisages case study as ‘the study of an issue explored through one or more cases within a bounded system’ (p. 73). Yin (Reference YIN2009) holds that case studies are helpful for discovering more about a little-known or understood situation, where the phenomenon under investigation is not easy to extricate from its context. This was the most appropriate choice for this research which examines the affordances of collaborative, digital composing during the pandemic with pre-service teachers, which is inseparable from its context.

As Samaras (Reference SAMARAS2011) suggests, we undertook the inquiry as both researchers and teacher-educators and it was situated in our teaching practice. Working collaboratively helped extend our individual thinking and validate our individual perspectives on the project outcomes and challenges. The project focussed on improving learning outcomes for our students and navigating the challenges presented by COVID-19. Together, we worked through an iterative process of framing the study, questioning, reflecting, discussing, framing and reframing our interpretations of what had occurred. Self-study has assisted us to interrogate our practice to generate and present knowledge.

Data collection consisted of a series of reflective discussions that we undertook which included reviewing and reflecting on project artefacts such as the videos, artist statements and students’ reflections from the sharing celebration using Mentimeter, an online polling tool. Ethical approval was obtained from our respective institutions and informed consent was given by the students for permission to use the project artefacts as research data.

We undertook an inductive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2021) six-stage recursive and iterative process to identify themes. Stage 1 began with data familiarisation where we organised and immersed ourselves in the data, reading and re-reading reflective discussion transcripts, artist statements and student reflections. We became familiar with the content, moving to Stage 2, data coding. This involved forming initial codes and generating a formative analysis. Coding entailed assigning names to small segments of data such as a phrase or sentence or a key moment in a video. Following coding, we combined the small segments into broader categories, reducing and distilling the data. From these categories, a hierarchy was constructed to identify connections and overlaps, forming initial themes (Stage 3), thereby reducing categories further. The categories were then collapsed and re-grouped to build potential themes in Stage 4, theme development and review, which were further developed and refined during the writing process (Stages 5 and 6). Finally, data were selected to illustrate the themes and literature was integrated with the themes to construct research findings.

The project

We begin by briefly outlining the project. We identified the theme, My Life in Isolation: A world apart or same different? for the project and then devised a more detailed project brief or stimulus. We provided a suggested process and tried to foresee difficulties, particularly related to technology and organisation. While the students were not involved in conceiving the project, they had to plan their own group’s project. We began by meeting with the participants on Zoom. Finding a time period that aligned with our different academic years and when neither group of pre-service teachers was on placement was challenging and so it transpired that the day we launched the project was the first day of the Melbourne students’ Master of Teaching course. They were very much thrown in ‘at the deep end’ (Green, Reference GREEN2008, p. 25). The project began with an introduction and time for the groups to meet. We asked a freelance teacher, composer and music technology specialist to deliver a 45-min introduction to Soundtrap.

We both used 3 hours of asynchronous class time and there were 85 students divided into 17 groups. We organised the students with 3 from Melbourne and 2 from Aberdeen in each group. Four is usually our preferred group size, but we wanted to have a mixture of Aberdeen and Melbourne students in each group. We were also concerned about students not contributing and then other students feeling like they had to do all the work so the groups were slightly bigger than usual. During lockdown, it was often hard to know what was going on for people at home, so creating a supportive group work environment that minimised any undue pressure was important.

Pre-service teachers had 4 weeks to complete their creation with a sharing celebration 5 weeks after the project launch. At the sharing celebration, as a group, we watched all the videos which had been compiled into a YouTube playlist. This was in the style of a ‘watch party’ in keeping with digital media culture (Cremata & Powell, Reference CREMATA and POWELL2017). Students also completed a reflection using Mentimeter, an online polling tool. Setting the deadline, which was the sharing celebration, was important to support productive groupwork.

The project reflects both Turino’s (Reference TURINO2008) fields of music making and everyone adopted the role of both artist and audience at different points in the project. Participatory music making was reflected through everyone taking on a role of their choice in the online music and video creation process. Presentational music making was also evident through production and the online sharing celebration at the end of the project using a YouTube playlist rather than an instrumental performance in a concert venue. Everyone took on the role of audience to watch each other’s projects. Turino (Reference TURINO2008) gives examples of both simultaneous and sequential participatory music making. Simultaneous participatory music making involves everyone in a performance role at once. Sequential participatory music making involves everyone taking turns to perform, and to be an audience member, with an expectation that everyone will perform. Sequential participatory music making was evident in this project, as the students listened to all the music and video creations. Sequential participatory music making represents a blurring of the distinction with presentational music making. The musical features of presentational music are more distinct with an aim to hold an audience’s interest through aspects such as greater contrast, more transparent textures and more complex musical ideas (Turino, Reference TURINO2008) and this was seen in the projects.

Video example

We have one example to share with you composed by Andy Turner, Calum Wood, Channelle Thomas, Kaitlin White and Danna Yun.

Findings

We will now discuss some of the benefits and challenges of the project with a focus on using the theories discussed earlier as a lens to examine participation and participatory music making in this project.

Artistic outcomes

The artistic outcomes were impressive. We were surprised at the quality of the music and video creations produced in the short period of time allocated and we were reminded of the power of interdisciplinary arts practices. There was a link to real-world arts practices through film music and how film music composers work. Together, the value of the music and video production was powerful. Camlin’s (Reference CAMLIN2014) argument that participatory and presentational music making are not mutually exclusive and that musical quality is important in both was reflected in the importance of the video to the overall impact. The video aspect was important in that it provided a scaffold and structure for the composing and the effect of the music and video together was greater than the individual parts. The project reflected the affordances that Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) identify of digital tools to facilitate high-quality musical outcomes for experienced and inexperienced musicians alike. Digital technologies were used as a tool for creating and not as an end in themselves.

The videos also provided an opportunity for students to have a window into each other’s lives on opposite sides of the world. What they chose to share about their experiences of lockdown was important to them. The artist statement that follows is from the creation above, which highlights the music and video aspects working together.

The music and video creations were produced collaboratively using Soundtrap and students were making music in groups remotely and asynchronously. For example, a student in Aberdeen could record a bass part using loops, save it, then a student in Melbourne could add a vocal recording over the top of this. Using Small’s (Reference SMALL1998) idea of musicking, students took on different roles both musical and extra-musical and for some of them, their primary contribution was in editing the video and compiling the final artefact.

Collaboration

While the skills associated with composing using digital tools were important for the pre-service teachers to practise, it was the collaboration aspects that the students valued most. There was a feel-good factor and the international collaboration aspect of the project supported wellbeing and engagement which was reflected in the students’ comments. They enjoyed collaborating with people on the other side of the world and some of them commented that they felt they had made friends who they would stay in touch with. In response to ‘what did you enjoy the most about the project?’ Student D said:

Student H explained the collaborative process that their group used:

Individually, we have done similar projects previously that have not been international collaborations. However, this project was more effective and the collaborative aspect is something that we will continue to do post-pandemic even as we return to largely in-person teaching. Likewise, Forbes (Reference FORBES2020) highlights that greater attention should be given to collaboration in tertiary music education and Dowling Long and Long (Reference DOWLING LONG and LONG2023) also argue for greater opportunities for collaborative projects in teacher education. The social aspect of this project and the associated well-being outcomes relate to Turino’s (Reference TURINO2008) argument that in participatory music making, the musical activities are more about the doing and the social interactions than about creating an artistic product or commodity. This is reflected in Student D’s comment:

In response to what impact will the project have on you as a teacher, Student J commented:

The students also experienced challenges with collaborating and had to draw on, or quickly develop, time management, organisation and communication skills. Being able to function as a group was challenging for some – these skills were underdeveloped due to extended lockdowns. Student J shared:

Turino’s (Reference TURINO2008) theory of participatory music making emphasises the need for a variety of roles within an activity for it to be successful. Multiple access points are necessary, so everyone is inspired to be involved regardless of previous experience and skill level and this was provided through the open-ended nature of the project. Drawing on flow theory (Csikzentmihaly & Csikzentmihaly, Reference CSIKZENTMIHALY and CSIKZENTMIHALY1990), Turino (Reference TURINO2008) explains that if a task is too easy, boredom may occur while a task that is too difficult may result in anxiety and withdrawing. Instead, an optimal level of challenge is required to sustain interest. The activities need to be designed and facilitated in a way that there are continually expanding and achievable challenges to sustain the interest of everyone because it is through participation that skill levels increase.

For example, Student J’s comment suggests their inexperience with composing and that this project gave them an opportunity to engage in the collaborative composing process in a way they found comfortable:

While Student F appears to be a much more experienced learner with DAWs and took on a leadership role in their group:

The role of the more expert musicians was to support and inspire the less experienced to participate. Multiple and shifting roles inclusive of a range of prior experience resonate with Lave and Wenger’s (Reference LAVE and WENGER1991) theory of situated learning. In this theory, legitimate peripheral participation describes the process through which inexperienced learners become part of a community of practice and all levels of participation are acknowledged. This was clearly evidenced in the project; students were able to negotiate within their group to select the role(s) and task(s) they undertook with some students taking on leadership roles and many skill-sharing with their peers as the project unfolded.

Affordances of DAWs

Completing a composing project using a particular digital platform was helpful for our students to have enough time to gain familiarity so that they could confidently use this tool to facilitate composing on placement and as graduate teachers. The students generally found Soundtrap straightforward to use and being browser-based and using cloud-storage made the logistics of working internationally much easier.

Student E shared:

In this research, affordances (Norman, Reference NORMAN1988) refer to the relationship between the properties of Soundtrap and the capabilities of the students to explore its possibilities. The project seemed to give the pre-service teachers more confidence to use DAWs generally, and Soundtrap in particular, in their teaching. Soundtrap is a DAW focusing on creating through audio as opposed to music notation and students seemed to thrive in composing using this medium. As teacher-educators, we scaffolded the project and facilitated learning as required and several of Green’s (Reference GREEN2008) informal learning principles were evident, which allowed for student-centred learning. Kuhn and Hein (Reference KUHN and HEIN2021) highlight the affordances of DAWs alongside informal pedagogy principles (Green, Reference GREEN2002, Reference GREEN2008) to promote participation, which was reflected in this project. They state,

In response to a question, what did you enjoy most Student G commented:

Our students also commented on the benefits of the collaboration feature of Soundtrap, which does not exist in other DAWs that they might have used before. This included the walled garden online safety feature, ensuring that students can only collaborate within the group and not with anyone else on the internet. Soundtrap was also noted for its value as a digital composing tool that is accessible to school students. Student E noted:

In response to a question about what impact the project would have on future practice, Student G commented:

Challenges

While collaboration was the aspect of the project that the students enjoyed most, it was also the area they found most challenging. Navigating the time zones and having to communicate solely online was a challenge. Some groups divided up the workload well, others floundered, and we received emails, which we were expecting even though we had carefully designed the project to minimise these. For example, someone has not responded or someone else has not contributed. In response to a question, ‘what did you find most challenging’, comments included:

Some students were initially challenged with the type of musical task, Student C reported ‘they are not happy, this is not their normal composition’. Groups chose, for the most part, to compose in a popular music style, although this was not prescribed. This was interesting to note when given free choice that students brought in influences from their musical lives outside of their regular University composition experience.

We deliberately did not make this project part of the summative assessment for the  participants involved although it fed into assessment tasks if students chose. For example, some used the project as the basis for a unit or scheme of work that focussed on digital collaborative composing. The project was undertaken during allocated class time. Despite this, there were still comments about whether the project was for assessment, and if not, then they found it difficult to fit into their already busy lives and schedules. This reflects the assessment culture in higher education and schools and the value placed on assessment and a performance driven, presentational, culture (Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY, Benedict, Schmidt and Spruce2015). In response to what did you find most challenging, Student C remarked: