Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

B. J. Music Ed.

page 1 of 19 
C Cambridge University Press 2018
doi:10.1017/S026505171800013X

Improvisation in general music education – a literature review


Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming
School of Music, Theatre and Art, Örebro University SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden

christina.larsson@oru.se, eva.georgii-hemming@oru.se

The overall purpose of this article is to provide a convenient summary of empirical research
on improvisation in general music education and thereby provide guidance to researchers
and practitioners, using a systematic, narrative-review approach. By analysing 20 music
education research articles, published from 2000–2015 in peer-reviewed journals, we firstly
provide an overview of the key features and knowledge of existing research. Secondly
we identify how improvisation has been characterized, conceptually before, thirdly,
describing the implications of the literature for improvisation in practice. Our article reveals
that improvisation tends to be an overlooked activity both in music education contexts
and in music education research. Broadly speaking, music education research tends
to characterise improvisation within two conceptual frameworks, which have different
implications for implementation; ‘structured’, teacher-directed improvisation and ‘free’,
child-directed improvisation. We conclude by arguing that music educational research on
improvisation is an underdeveloped field and outline a number of questions to be addressed
in future research.

Background and purpose

Improvisation, in almost all aspects of everyday life, is essential to human existence and
a common feature of human experience (Steinsholt & Sommerro, 2006). Improvisation
is a distinguished feature of most music practices and children have been shown to
benefit from learning to improvise in experientially different ways (Burnard, 2000a;
Azzara, 2002; Sawyer, 2003, 2006, 2008; Kanellopoulos & Wright, 2012; Green, 2014).
In addition, music improvisation has even been judged to have a positive influence on
empathy in children (Rabinowitch, Cross & Burnard, 2013). Researchers have therefore
argued that music education in schools should provide improvisation activities to a much
greater extent (Sawyer, 2003; Brophy, 2005; Hickey, 2009, 2015; Beegle, 2010; Burnard,
2012).
In the US, improvisation has been included in the National standards for Music
Education (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994) since they were
formulated 22 years ago. In the revised standards (nafme.org, 2014) improvisation
is presented as a creative artistic process and activities that include ‘improvising
ideas and patterns as well as a rhythmic, melodic and harmonic improvisation’ are
suggested (Yoo, 2015, p. 92). Furthermore, recent music education curricula in many
European countries – Norway: udir.no, (2006); Scotland: gov.uk, (2008); Denmark:
emu.dk, (2009/2014.); Sweden: Skolverket, (2011); England: gov.uk, (2013); Finland:
Oph.fi, (2014); Germany: bildungsserver.de, (n.d.); as well as in Australia, ACARA,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

(2012) – now include improvisation and composition as part of music education’s subject
content.
The expanding recognition of improvisation and composition in curricula is probably
due to the assumption that they improve creativity and innovation. Creative and innovative
capacities are stressed as key competences and vital learning outcomes in European
educational policies as they are thought to promote attitudes and abilities such as
flexibility, entrepreneurship, and to respect others’ values, which in turn can contribute
to economic growth and social development (OECD, 2005; European Parliament,
2006).
Historically, research on improvisation has predominantly focused jazz musicians’
improvisations, with seminal works by Pressing (1987) and Berliner (1994) amongst others.
Even though there are differences between novice and expert improvisation, it is argued
there are certain elements shared by all improvisatory practices – whether these are carried
out by an elementary student or a professional performer. Kratus (1995) – whose works have
been influential in how improvisation is, and has been, conceived within music education –
argues that music educators can use an understanding of these common elements to
distinguish whether what a child does musically can be characterised as improvisation or
not. These shared characteristics include: purposeful movements to produce sounds over
time; that it is not possible to revise or reproduce the resultant musical product; and that
melodic and rhythmic decisions, whilst improvising, are made within certain constraints
(ibid., p. 27). On the other hand, the differences between expert and novice improvisation –
according to Kratus (ibid.) – can be used to identify those elements students must learn
in order to progress. References to his seven-stage sequential model of improvisational
development (Kratus, 1991) are common in professional journals. Each of the seven stages –
explorative, process-oriented, production-oriented, fluid, structural, stylistic and personal
improvisation – builds upon the previous, but also interact with the student’s general
musical development. As a result, Kratus (ibid.) stresses the importance for teachers to
be aware of what level each student is at, in order to be able to properly instruct their
students.
In the light of the elevated status of improvisation in many music curricula, as well
as its relation to more general education policies and discourses, it is highly relevant to
review what interest improvisation in the music classroom has received from recent music
education researchers. Such knowledge is an essential foundation for a better scholarly
understanding of improvisation in educational contexts, for developing improvisation in
music education practice as well as for a deepened understanding of various justifications
for incorporating improvisation into music education.
The overall purpose of this literature review is to provide a convenient summary
of empirical research on improvisation in general music education and thereby provide
guidance to researchers and practitioners. Three research questions have guided this study:
(a) What characterizes the research area? (b) How is improvisation conceptualized in
general music education research? (c) What implications do these conceptualizations hold
for the implementation into practice? The subsequent section describes method used for
the review and analyses, and is followed by a substantial findings section. The final sections
include conclusions of the main findings, and also some implications of the findings to
future research into this area.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

Method

Search strategy

In this study, a systematic narrative review was applied, which combines systematic
literature searching with narrative syntheses and analyses (Booth, Papaionnou & Sutton
2012). This method is arguably fruitful due to its mix of systematic review principles
as transparency and accessibility (Petticrew & Roberts 2006) with qualitative analyses
on the basis of author’s experience as employed in narrative reviews (Pawson et al.,
2005).
A comprehensive search for relevant articles was conducted. Articles written in English
and available as full texts, were sought in the databases Web of Science (Arts & Humanities
Citation Index), RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, Project MUSE and ERIC as these
databases cover most peer-reviewed journals. Using these databases, which are accessible
to many online, we allow for the replicability of the study by other researchers.
As a first step, two categories of search terms were sought: music AND improvis∗
AND education and music AND improvis∗ AND classroom to identify articles which
would qualify. The resulting 226 titles and abstracts were saved using RefWorks and after
duplicates were removed, this search recorded only a total of 77 unique hits. Because of
the relatively small number of hits, we decided to not refine our searches further.
As a second step, we individually screened each abstract to find articles on
improvisation (i) based on empirical studies (interviews, observations, case studies, surveys)
conducted in the music classroom within primary or secondary school or, (ii) discussing
the concept and phenomena in explicit relation to the music classroom within primary
or secondary school or, (iii) drawing upon currently published research with the aim
of furthering empirical work in the field or, (iv) drawing on authors’ previous empirical
research, but written in a popular scientific style speaking to the field of music teachers.
During the course of this, both authors made blind notes in RefWorks (cf. Booth et al.,
2012). We then shared, compared and discussed our respective notes and in certain cases
where it was unclear whether the study met our inclusion criteria, we included the article
regardless. The first selection yielded 48 articles.
After having imported full texts to RefWorks we then re-read each abstract and the full
text. The reference lists in these articles were also scrutinized to identify additional articles
that fulfilled our criteria. We did not, however, find any more valid material.
So that we could extract and record information about authors, publication, research
objectives, theoretical frameworks, methodologies and findings of each of those studies that
met all the inclusion criteria, we created a single word-processing document (Petticrew &
Roberts, 2006).
At this point, some clarifying comments on the selection process are needed: firstly,
because this review is concerned with examining research on improvisation in the
general music classroom, we did not include studies on improvisation in instrumental
music education (defined as either one-to-one tuition or learning of music through bands),
in the context of teacher education, professional musicians or university students. Similarly,
theoretical articles on improvisation were discarded, if they were not based on empirical
evidence generated in the music classroom, or if their authors did not express interest in

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

contributing to music teaching or learning. This article is interested in the implications of


research on improvisation for practice directly.
Secondly, the field of creativity research is vast, and not considered within the scope
of this article. However, our examination exposed that many researchers find creativity
as a relatively ‘given’ outcome of improvisation. Also, what some authors describe as
‘composition’ can often be characterised by the qualities that are widely ascribed to
‘improvisation’ (Kanellopoulos, 2007). We therefore decided to include articles aiming
at exploring creativity (e.g. Coulson & Burke, 2013), creative music education and/or
composition (e.g. Sætre, 2011) if they contained research questions and significant findings
in relation to improvisation in the music classroom.
As a result of this process, 20 studies were finally included in the present review
(Table 1).

Analysis

After reading and taking notes from full text we firstly examined, sorted and compared
descriptive data, e.g. research topics and recurrent themes, how the studies were performed,
and ‘whose’ perspective(s) (teachers’, students’, and/or the improvisation activity in itself)
the study covers (Booth et al., 2012). Secondly, we cross-examined the studies, i.e. linking
and contrasting research aims, methods, and concepts. At this stage we used a reflective-
based method, which means our previous familiarity with the field – relating and/or
synonymous concepts, methods and theories – were used to develop search strings for
data analyses and coding. Using this knowledge-generating strategy offers possibilities
to comprehend the pluralities of understanding around improvisation research (cf. Jones,
2004). The subsequent and final stage focused on examining what the literature argues
in order to identify critical issues, gaps, and to be able to provide recommendations for
further research.

Findings
In this section, a summary of existing knowledge about improvisation in general music
education is exhibited, based on findings in the reviewed articles and presented in two
sections. The first provides an overview of the key features of the research and the second
indicates key findings from the research articles. In the subsequent sections we present our
synthesis of the articles’ content in relation to both conceptualisation and implementation.

Summarising the research area

From 226 titles published from 2000 to 2015, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Considering the interest in the topic of improvisation, as demonstrated by our initial
search, the number of empirical studies published in refereed-journals is relatively small.
It is noteworthy that, amongst these 20, two authors refer to their own, previously-
published work across multiple articles (Burnard, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Koutsopidou, 2008,
Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009). This suggests that the number of unique empirical
studies on improvisation in the music classroom is actually even smaller.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Table 1. Articles included in review

Author Year Title Publication


BEEGLE, A.C. 2010 A classroom-based study of small-group Journal of research in music education,
planned improvisation with fifth-grade 58(3), pp. 219–239.
children.
BROPHY, T.S. 2001 Developing improvisation in general music Music Educators Journal, 88(1), pp. 34–41,
classes. 53.
BROPHY, T.S. 2005 A Longitudinal Study of Selected Journal of Research in Music Education,
Characteristics of Children’s Melodic 53(2), pp. 120.
Improvisations.

Improvisation in general music education – a literature review


BURNARD, P. 2000a Examining experiential differences between British Journal of Music Education, 17(03),
improvisation and composition in pp. 227–245.
children’s music-making.
BURNARD, P. 2000b How Children Ascribe Meaning to Music Education Research, 2(1), pp. 7–23.
Improvisation and Composition:
Rethinking pedagogy in music education.
BURNARD, P. 2002 Investigating children’s meaning-making British Journal of Music Education, 19(02),
and the emergence of musical interaction pp. 157–172.
in group improvisation.
COULSON, A.N. & 2013 Creativity in the elementary music International Journal of Music Education,
BURKE, B.M. classroom: A study of students’ 31(4), pp. 428–441.
perceptions.
GRUENHAGEN, L.M., & 2014 Improvisational practices in elementary Journal of research in music education,
WHITCOMB, R. general music classrooms. 61(4), pp. 379–395.
GUILBAULT, D.M. 2009 The Effects of Harmonic Accompaniment Journal of Research in Music Education,
on the Tonal Improvisations of Students in 57(2), pp. 81–91.
First through Sixth Grade.
HICKEY, M. 2009 Can improvisation be ‘taught’?: A call for International Journal of Music Education,
free improvisation in our schools. 27(4), pp. 285–299.
HIGGINS, L. & MANTIE, R. 2013 Improvisation as ability, culture and Music Educators Journal, 100(2), pp. 38–44.
experience.
5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming


Table 1. Continued

Author Year Title Publication


KANELLOPOULOS, P.A. 2007 Children’s Early Reflection on Improvised Philosophy of Music Education Review,
Music-Making as the Wellspring of 15(2), pp. 119–141.
Musico-Philosophical Thinking.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. 2005 Improvisation in the English Primary Music Music Education Research, 7(3),
Classroom: Teachers’ Perceptions and pp. 363–381.
Practices.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. & 2009 An experimental study of the effects of Psychology of Music, 37(3), pp. 251–278.
HARGREAVES, D.J. improvisation on the development of
children’s creative thinking in music.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. 2008 Effects of different teaching styles on the Musicae Scientiae, 12(2), pp. 311–335.
development of musical creativity:
Insights from interviews with music
specialists.
MONK, A. 2013 Symbolic interactionism in music Music Educators Journal, 99(3), pp. 29–34.
education: Eight strategies for
collaborative improvisation.
ROZMAN, J.Č. 2009 Musical creativity in Slovenian elementary Educational Research, 51(1), pp. 61–76.
schools.
SÆTRE, J.H. 2011 Teaching and learning music composition Music Education Research, 13(1),
in primary school settings. pp. 29–50.
WHITCOMB, R. 2010 Rhythmic Characteristics of Improvisational Research and Issues in Music Education,
Drumming among Preschool Children. 8(1).
WHITCOMB, R. 2013 Teaching improvisation in elementary Music Educators Journal, 99(3), pp. 43–50.
general music: Facing fears and fostering
creativity.
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

15 different researchers, almost exclusively from the field of music education, have
co/authored the articles in this review. One author is a general education scholar, and
one is researcher in music psychology. Research on improvisation has mainly attracted the
attention of scholars from the US (Brophy, 2001, 2005; Guilbault, 2009; Hickey, 2009;
Beegle, 2010; Whitcomb, 2010, 2013; Coulson & Burke, 2013; Higgins & Mantie, 2013;
Gruenhagen & Whitcomb, 2014) and to some extent from the UK (Burnard, 2000a, 2000b,
2002; Koutsoupidou, 2005, 2008; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009) while it has received
little attention by researchers from other parts of Europe (Kanellopoulos, 2007; Rozman,
2009) and Scandinavia (Sætre, 2011) as well as from Canada (Monk, 2013). In other words,
the range of countries in which improvisation has been explored, in English speaking and
international journals, is limited. A recurring reference for the North American research,
particularly, is the inclusion of improvisation in the National Standards for Music Education
(1994). This established support for improvisation in music education may be one reason
why improvisation has interested scholars from the US to a greater extent and less so in
other parts of the world.
In the following paragraphs we outline the main focuses in existing research. We
indicate whether the research question’s main perspective is that of teachers, the students
or improvisation as an activity per se. We also briefly mention some of the problems dealt
with, aims and research methods used.
In total, 12 studies involve children (Burnard, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Brophy, 2005;
Kanellopoulos, 2007; Guilbault, 2009; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Rozman, 2009;
Beegle, 2010; Whitcomb, 2010; Saetre, 2011; Coulson and Burke, 2013). Most of them
mainly focus on improvisation as pedagogical activity and learning. The studies describe
children’s music improvisations, investigate its observable characteristics (Rozman, 2009;
Whitcomb, 2010) or examine issues such as how children respond to different prompts
(Beegle, 2010). Moreover, the research examines age-related musical development (Brophy,
2001, 2005; Guilbault, 2009; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Coulson & Burke, 2013)
and discusses whether chronological age or musical age is the determining factor for
children’s ability to improvise. Work exploring children’s or students’ reflections on musical
creativity (Coulson & Burke, 2013), and on children’s experiences of improvising (Burnard,
2000a, 2000b, 2002; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Beegle, 2010) are in a minority.
Studies involving teachers as research objects in themselves have explored to what
extent improvisational activities are taking place in music classrooms (Koutsoupidou,
2005; Gruenhagen & Whitcomb, 2014) and noted how teachers’ different educational
orientations, teaching styles and input affect the development of children’s creative thinking
via improvisation (Koutsoupidou, 2008; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Saetre, 2011).
As with children and students, also studies on teacher’s perceptions and practices as well
as their views on conditions for musical improvisation (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Gruenhagen
& Whitcomb, 2014) are somewhat unnoticed. Researchers points to these gaps and invite
more studies considering what improvising mean to both teachers and children (Burnard,
2000a; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Beegle, 2010; Saetre, 2011).
In addition, our findings show that music education researchers see it as important
to directly contribute to the development of the music teacher profession. Several articles
concern pedagogical approaches to teaching improvisation practices. Most of these are
popular scholarly writings based on the author’s own previous research (Brophy, 2001;

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

Whitcomb, 2013) or examinations of existing conceptions on improvisation in music


education in order to guide teachers and improve current methodologies (Hickey, 2009;
Higgins & Mantie, 2013; Monk, 2013).
With regards to research methods, ethnographic studies (interviews and observations)
equal questionnaires and surveys. In addition, there are several intervention-like studies,
ranging from a series of improvisation lessons planned in collaboration between researcher
and teacher (Coulson & Burke, 2013) to quasi-experimental design with a control group
and an experimental group (Guilbault, 2009; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009).
Two evident gaps in existing research must be noted. Firstly, there are few field-studies
designed by a researcher operating outside the particular music classroom context. In
most studies teachers have been involved in designing (either in shaping the questions or
the lessons themselves) and/or conducting the research, which could imply that teacher’s
perceptions of their own practice will not be reflected in a clear way. Secondly, in most of
the orchestrated projects, participants are recruited for the specific study, which commonly
take place in school, but separate from regular music lessons. Just four studies were based
on activities taking place during weekly music classes (Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009;
Beegle, 2010; Saetre, 2011; Coulson & Burke, 2013).
To conclude this section; the empirical field of improvisation studies in general music
classrooms is restricted. The total number of scholarly studies is few, the geographic spread
is limited, only some studies are conducted in the regular music classroom and these are –
in different ways – predominantly designed in collaboration with, or by, the teacher.
We can also notice that pedagogical approaches to improvisation as activity hitherto
are of greater interest than students’ and teachers’ reflections and experiences.

G e n e r a l fi n d i n g s f r o m e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h o n i m p r o v i s a t i o n

Questions guiding research in improvisation in general music education are closely


connected to teacher’s educational orientation. This is no surprise as researcher and
teacher often are the same person in these studies. To sum up, the purpose and aims
for researching and incorporating improvisation can be divided in two categories: (i)
improvising to learn about music and developing specific musical knowledge and skills in
order to develop for example a sense of rhythm and/or harmony; and (ii) improvising
in order to learn about oneself and others through music-making. The first category
implies individual improvisation to develop skills in e.g. melodic and/or rhythmical
patterns and ability to maintain a steady beat (Brophy, 2005; Whitcomb, 2010; Coulson
& Burke, 2013), and adherence to implied harmonic changes and harmonic rhythm in
tonal improvisation with harmonic accompaniment (Guilbault, 2009). In this category
improvisation is teacher directed and clearly framed. The second category implies group
improvisation as a child-directed, socially and musically inclusive activity with an emphasis
on interaction, invention and music improvisation as conversation (Burnard, 2000a; 2000b;
2002; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Beegle, 2010, Monk, 2013).
Concerning the quality of children’s improvisations, there is no common agreement,
but three issues are discussed in the research as being critical determinants and advocated
respectively: chronological age (Brophy, 2005), previous musical experiences (Guilbault,
2009; Coulson & Burke, 2013) and creative intention (Burnard, 2000b). For instance,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

children of age nine were found to improvise with more structure and conventional
musical expressions than children age seven (Brophy, 2005), whereas musical experience
were found to be more important for children’s harmonic improvisations (Guilbault,
2009; Coulson & Burke, 2013) and, finally, the creative intention was shown to have
more influence than both chronological and musical age on children’s experiences of
improvisation and composition (Burnard, 2000b).
When examining children’s experiences from improvisation, researchers frequently
conclude that children are able to reflect upon and talk about their improvisational practice
and by giving children opportunities to articulate their understandings meaning-making is
enhanced (Burnard, 2000b, Kanellopoulos, 2007, Beegle, 2010). For example, in open-
ended dialogues eight-year old children expressed philosophical thoughts on improvised
music making as ‘thinking in sound’ and as verbal communication, which includes risk-
taking but where mistakes are regarded as opportunities for the ‘development of musical
imagination’ (Kanellopoulos, 2007, p. 128–132). Yet, another example, children (12 years
old) who were provided with the opportunity and time to improvise and compose together
regarded the activities as 1) different activities which were ends in themselves but differently
orientated, 2) interrelated activities where improvisation was used to create and perform a
composition and finally 3) as inseparable forms in intention (Burnard, 2000b).
Investigations of teacher’s perceptions of and reflections on improvisation show in
some cases that teachers do incorporate improvisation, preferably as movements to music
and/or as improvisation on pitched or unpitched percussion, and that teachers regard
frames and guidelines as important for children’s ability to improvise (Koutsoupidou, 2005;
Rozman, 2009; Gruenhagen & Whitcomb, 2014).
To support teachers’ abilities to incorporate improvisation most articles provide
guidance for practice. Creating an atmosphere built on trust and empathy is emphasised
and this means e.g. to accept and ‘say yes, and’ to peers’ initiatives as well as an approach
to improvisation where there are no ‘rights’ or ‘wrongs’. Starting with activities close to
children’s experiences and letting children themselves chose instruments as well as giving
children opportunities to reflect on their music-making are also matters to be considered
(Burnard, 2002; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Beegle, 2010; Monk, 2013). Models, e.g. question
and answer, and demonstrations where the teacher gives examples of how to improvise,
can help children to start the endeavour to improvise (Saetre, 2011, Coulson & Burke,
2013; Whitcomb, 2013), and for teachers to overcome fear of improvisation it is often
suggested that they improvise as learners together with their students (Kanellopoulos, 2007;
Whitcomb, 2013). Methods, preferably built on step-by-step instruction and sequential
development, are provided (Brophy, 2001; Whitcomb, 2013) as well as ideas to support
teacher’s reflections on improvisation, e.g. the notions of understanding improvisation as
ability, culture and/or experience, as interaction and conversation or as a disposition that
can be nurtured rather than taught (Hickey, 2009; Higgins & Mantie, 2013; Monk, 2013).
These studies are mostly focused on improvisation in elementary school and we found
no research on improvisation in secondary school. Furthermore, these studies emphasise
that children are competent improvisers, even with no, or very little help from adults,
and they can develop musical skills and knowledge of the fundamental musical elements
outlined above. In group improvisation they can negotiate musical content as well as roles
and rules and communicate verbally and non-verbally in music. However, there are also

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

instances where the imperative demand to incorporate improvisation in music education


and the urge to legitimate improvisation in the curricula leads to a compliance with
prescribed knowledge criteria and instrumentally-oriented studies. Hence, improvisation
is not included as a means in itself but rather as a means to develop skills and knowledge
prescribed in curricula. One could argue, following Maud Hickey (2009) that this might
not be regarded as true creative music-making but rather an ‘educational paradox’ (Saetre,
2011) when the activity is meant to enhance creativity but has prescribed predetermined
outcomes.

C o n c e p t u a l i z i n g i m p r o v i s a t i o n : ‘ Fr e e ’ a n d ‘ s t r u c t u r e d ’ i m p r o v i s a t i o n

In the literature there are two discernibly different conceptualisations which are guiding
the research on improvisation in general music education: improvisation as ‘structured’ or
improvisation as ‘free’ music-making. Both adopt an understanding of improvisation as a
process of spontaneous and expressive music creation in the moment, utilizing previous
experiences, without going back to revise and the distinction should be understood as
a continuum; structure can appear in free improvisation and vice versa. Yet there are
tendencies toward one or the other. As characterised in these texts, from both structured
and free standpoints, the potential outcomes of improvisation experiences in the classroom
are development of creativity and a sense of self-confidence and empowerment to the
students (e.g. Koutsoupidou, 2008; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Gruenhagen &
Whitcomb, 2014).
Structured music making draws on a perspective with a traditional, teacher-directed,
transmission schooling model, where improvisation is described with concepts like control,
formal, teachers’ focus, individual and composition (Hickey, 2009). This is more often
instrumentally oriented towards preconceived measurable goals as prescribed in music
curricula/syllabuses. For instance, to develop skills in melodic and/or rhythmical patterns
and ability to maintain a steady beat (Brophy, 2005; Whitcomb, 2010; Coulson & Burke,
2013), and adherence to implied harmonic changes and harmonic rhythm in tonal
improvisation with harmonic accompaniment (Guilbault, 2009). These goals are in most
cases following Western music traditions and conventions with musical properties that may
not be relevant to children’s creative music making (Burnard, 2000a).
Structured improvisation is mostly teacher-directed and used as a tool to develop
musical skills and knowledge, which implies a focus on measuring achievements, such
as to what extent children can maintain a steady beat and/or develop melodic and
rhythmical patterns (Brophy, 2005; Whitcomb, 2010) recognise melodic direction and
patterns, tempo and metre (Rozman, 2009) or adhere to key and tonality (Guilbault, 2009;
Coulson & Burke, 2013). For example, as Brophy (2005) indicates, that nine-year-old
children’s melodic improvisations are more musically organised in relation to conventional
musical expressions than those of seven-year-old children is taken to support Kratus’
developmental stages of improvisation. Similarly, Rozman (2009, p. 62) observes how
improvised music differs from ‘freer’ creative music making in that it involves guidelines
based on predetermined structures of form, which relates to stylistic rules and conventions.
A structured conceptualization of improvisation consequently comes close to an idiomatic
perception of improvisation and implies that to be able to improvise one needs specific

10

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

prerequisites and skills. The focus, and ‘endpoint’, in both is on imparting knowledge of the
specific features associated with instrumental playing instead of exploring the extra-musical
effects of improvisation.
In several studies, researchers discuss improvisation in relation to composition and the
two activities are seen as fundamentally intertwined. Discussions on what differences there
are between improvisation and composition often concern innovation versus conservation
and the distinguishing factor is usually the intent to revise or not (Brophy, 2001;
Beegle, 2010; Saetre, 2011). Improvisation is sometimes utilized to produce ideas for
students’ compositions, which implies a focus on the product, as does the structured
conceptualization of improvisation.
By contrast, in understanding improvisation as about ‘free’ music-making,
improvisation includes exploration and the development of critical and creative
dispositions, and here improvisation is described as chaos, non-formal, sound focus, group,
and improvisation (Hickey, 2009). Free improvisation is, instead, conceived as being non-
idiomatic and inventive, child-directed and focusing on developing an explorative and
experimental attitude where learning outcomes are not predetermined (Hickey, 2009;
Higgins & Mantie, 2013; Monk, 2013). Improvisation regarded as interaction, implies a
focus on how students collectively create meaning through verbal and nonverbal dialogue
(Monk, 2013), interpersonal dynamics and communicative aspects of collaborative musical
processes (Burnard, 2000a; 2000b; 2002; Beegle, 2010). In improvisational interaction,
material emerges from the ‘musical dialogue that occurs among the individuals involved’
(Monk, 2013, p. 76). These employ principles of improvised theatre together with
interaction theories in order to form strategies for improvisational musical dialogues in
music education (Monk, 2013). Viewed as interaction and conversation, improvisation
here is judged to help students communicate and collectively construct meaning, using the
musical vocabulary, the musical experiences and resources they already possess (Monk,
2013; Burnard, 2002).
Researchers within this strand also pay attention to questions of power, trust
and friendship, as they are manifest in intergroup dynamics, as these are significant
aspects of interpersonal relations and interaction. Following this view, the potential
outcomes of free music making in education are developed social competences and
creative thinking in music (Hickey, 2009; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009). Musical
activities that focus experimentation and exploration have also been found to result in
improved musical flexibility, originality and syntax (Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009,
p. 262).

Implications for implementation in practice

Different conceptualizations of improvisation hold implications for how improvisation is


implemented in music education practice. Whilst there is some overlap between the two,
improvised music making as either structured or free leads to distinctly different educational
outcomes. Generally speaking, this distinction indicates that teachers have two overall
approaches and educational orientations to improvisation in general music education,
which affects how they implement improvisation. What differs in the approaches, besides
the role of the teacher, are the improvisation tasks and the way they are conducted; how

11

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

improvisation activities are framed and to what extent the tasks are limited by guidelines, as
well as the perceived outcomes. These studies reveal that such approaches are implemented
in classrooms in order to, on the one hand, use improvisation as a tool for development
of musical competencies, and on the other, to use improvisation as a communicative,
expressive and/or an explorative, reflective practice.
When improvisation is implemented as a tool, the focus is on developing specific
skills and knowledge, such as in rhythm and pulse adherence (Brophy, 2005; Whitcomb,
2010), or in harmony and tonality (Guilbault, 2009; Coulson & Burke, 2013). In this
approach it is the outcomes and results, often seen as leading to an ‘end product’, which
are focused on and valued, more than the processes. Improvisation activities are therefore
highly structured and teacher-directed. Frames and guidelines such as modelling and
demonstrations, imitation and call-and-response models are guiding the improvisation
activities and sequencing and step-by-step processes are frequently utilized (Brophy,
2001, 2005; Guilbault, 2009, Whitcomb, 2010; Coulson & Burke, 2013; Gruenhagen
& Whitcomb, 2014). In practice this implies a focus on developing assessable knowledge
and skills, and students are graded according to curricula criteria. Yet this approach to
improvisation has been questioned and criticised by some researchers and even depicted
as an ‘educational paradox’ as it is directed by predetermined criteria and goals to achieve,
which leaves little room for children to explore or develop their own musical ideas (Burnard,
2000a; Hickey, 2009; Saetre, 2011).
When teachers implement improvisation as a communicative and expressive practice,
improvisation is first and foremost implemented through group activities. According to
this model, communication and interaction are emphasized and the collective is valued
as well as children’s perspectives on how they understand the process (Burnard, 2000a,
2000b, 2002; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Beegle, 2010). Through group improvisation, learning
is understood as the collective creation of meaning; students develop their abilities to
negotiate musical decisions, to solve problems in co-operation, and to shift between e.g.
a leaders’ and a followers’ role. Such collaboration includes musical social interaction,
for example to listen, express and respond to musical ideas and it is viewed as exceeding
the individual student’s potential when negotiating musical content as well as roles and
rules. This approach can be understood as child-directed more than teacher-directed and
includes a view of improvisation as a process of discovery where mistakes are seen as new
opportunities and possibilities rather than failure. Frames that provide a safe and trusting
environment are viewed as important, so that children, without fear of being criticised
by peers or teachers, can make mistakes (Burnard, 2002; Koutsoupidou, 2005, 2008;
Kanellopoulos, 2007; Higgins & Mantie, 2013; Monk, 2013; Gruenhagen & Whitcomb,
2014).
When viewed in this way, improvisation can also be regarded as individually
beneficial through a stress on explorative and reflective practices. The research claims
that improvisation encourages students to experiment, explore and express their own
unique ideas. Making musical choices and having opportunities to discuss, explain
and reflect upon own musical experiences accordingly stimulates development of
identity, relationships and a critical mind (Burnard, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Kanellopoulos;
2007; Hickey, 2009; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Beegle, 2010; Monk,
2013).

12

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

H i n d r a n c e s t o i m p l e m e n t i n g i m p r o v i s a t i o n i n t h e g e n e r a l m u s i c cl a s s r o o m

As noted by much of this research, music teachers find improvisation challenging and
they are uncomfortable teaching it (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Rozman, 2009; Higgins &
Mantie, 2013). Besides a lack of education and experience on the part of the teachers,
these studies make apparent that other factors influence the use of improvisation. These
include: teachers’ fear of risk-taking and reduced classroom discipline as well as teachers’
age, and personal and professional maturity, whereas experienced teachers are more
inclined to incorporate improvisation (Koutsoupidou, 2005). Moreover, studies reveal a
shortage of space in the classroom area, adequate equipment and instructional time as
potential hindrances. Some have stressed that teachers’ reluctance to incorporate group
improvisation is influenced partly by the ‘predominantly functional role improvisation
plays for composition activities’ (Burnard, 2002, p. 168), and partly by a narrow view
of improvisation as a ‘domain-specific expertise, generated by adult models’ (ibid.) or
expert practice instead of a child-centred orientation. A view of children’s improvisations
as ‘naïve’ (Brophy, 2005) displays a top-down perspective where adults do not value
children’s improvisation and creative music-making, are they not successful according to
norms and conventions within a Western music tradition. Some authors in the reviewed
articles argue that teachers should take into account the different ways in which children
think and create music according to their age and experiences and not force their own
preconceptions of improvisation on their students (Burnard, 2000a, 2002; Koutsoupidou,
2005; Kanellopoulos, 2007; Rozman, 2009; Whitcomb, 2013; Gruenhagen & Whitcomb,
2014).

Discussion

The purpose of improvisation in general music education and research, as well as the
aims for improvising, need to be clarified for both researchers and teachers. In some
instances, the main purpose seems to be to develop students’ musical knowledge and
skills through improvisation, which implies a somewhat instrumentalist approach where
the research seemingly aims at finding ‘good’ outcomes from improvisation activities. As
noted, improvisation as a key feature of music curricula become reasons in themselves
to teach improvisation (e.g. Brophy, 2005; Whitcomb, 2010; Guilbault, 2009; Rozman,
2009; Coulson & Burke, 2013). Yet this approach leaves little room for experimentation and
exploration and implies relatively given or expected outcomes of the improvisation since
student’s improvisations in these studies take place within a Western conception of music
with certain norms, rules and conventions which means that melodic, rhythmical and/or
harmonic improvisations are seen as successful only if they are completed within these
norms and conventions. It is relevant to question to what extent children got the opportunity
to really improvise since the design in some studies (e.g. Brophy, 2005; Guilbault, 2009;
Whitcomb, 2010; Coulson & Burke, 2013) are highly teacher directed and structured
with strictly defined limitations and frames which leave little room for exploration and
experimentation. Furthermore, time allocated for the improvisations in these studies were
short, between 1-measure length (Whitcomb, 2010) to 4- or 8-measure length (Brophy,
2005; Coulson & Burke, 2013), or 5–10 minutes per class period (Guilbault, 2009).

13

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

By contrast, other studies take the communicative aspects of group improvisation as


a starting point with an open-ended approach where outcomes are not given and the
experimental and explorative aspects of improvisation are foregrounded. We would argue,
following Burnard (2000b) Kanellopoulos (2007) and Hickey (2009), that free improvisation
probably generates more critical thinking in music and more ‘true’ creative music-making.
We did not include articles on the philosophy of music education in our review, as
we, as indicated previously, were interested in research conducted on music education
practice. However, from a Continental/Nordic perspective, education and pedagogy are
closely connected to Bildung, which all come together in the concept Didaktik. Hence,
issues of a philosophical matter are a vital part of education. In our synthesis of the reviewed
articles some philosophical matters emerged, for example improvisation as structured or
free and improvisation as a tool, as a communicative and expressive practice, and/or as an
explorative and reflective practice.
From the studies included in this review, it is clear that teachers often have
limited, personal experience in improvising and, in addition, lack specific, much-needed
knowledge in teaching methods. In turn, this may reflect problems in music teacher
education. The research also reveals that teachers tend to equate improvisation with jazz
praxis. Jazz improvisation is a musical tradition with rather specific competencies. If an
individual music teacher, with either specialized knowledge in another genre or with
broader musical skills, looks upon improvisation as similar to what is taking place within
jazz traditions, it is hardly surprising they become self-critical and fear implementing it in
the classroom.
We suggest that improvisation in general music education should be more focused
on free music making, understood as allowing a greater space for children’s musical
exploration. However, existing research provides little support for this, as just a few studies
touch upon qualities required to encourage this form of improvisation. It is necessary
to understand teachers’ motivations for including or excluding improvisation and how
teachers themselves comprehend the overall purpose for including improvisation in music
classrooms. In addition, studies are required in order to develop insights around teachers’
reflections on their own improvisation teaching practice, and on the development and
progression of improvisation in music classrooms. No studies available are based on
qualitative interviews with teachers as to their views and experiences of improvisation in
general music education. Given that teachers lack confidence, education and experience in
improvisation, one way to overcome this particular issue could be to pursue participatory
action research (PAR). Hence, we suggest that research should be carried out whereby
a scholar from the ‘outside’ brings to the study of the practice other knowledge and
experiences than the teachers themselves have and therefore is able to pose new questions.
We think this could also mean that teacher’s perceptions of their own practice could be
reflected in a clearer way.
In order to develop further research on improvisation in general music education
in compulsory schooling, we suggest that the regular weekly music classroom context,
with ordinary children/students attending class, should be made the research object. This
review demonstrates that there is a need to investigate the ‘everyday’ practices surrounding
improvisation in music classrooms and not just special, orchestrated projects. Furthermore,
studies adopting a more holistic approach which incorporate both teachers’ and children’s

14

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

perspectives, experiences and reflections, are necessary in order to extend the field. This
is not only in order to fully understand how teachers and students perceive improvisation,
but also to explore how improvisation practice in general music classrooms could be
developed. Hitherto, in the reviewed articles, teachers’ and children’s perspectives have
mostly been gauged through surveys (Koutsoupidou, 2005; Coulson & Burke, 2013;
Gruenhagen & Whitcomb, 2014) with three exceptions: Burnard (2000a), Kanellopoulos
(2007) and Beegle (2010), who conducted interviews with children, focusing on their
experiences of improvisation.
Further research is also needed to clarify the precise relationship between structure and
freedom in improvisational activities in music classrooms. As both researchers and teachers
point out, structure is needed but it is not often established in existing research when frames
and guidelines are helping to enable improvisation and when they are hindering it. For
example, too many guidelines might hamper children’s ability to improvise as shown in
a study where children should improvise questions and answers, and answers should end
at the tonic ‘do’ and questions on something other than ‘do’ and above that some of
the question phrase should be incorporated into the answer. The latter was perceived as
difficult by the children. (Coulson & Burke, 2013).
Some articles in this review are directed towards music teachers’ practice (Brophy,
2001; Whitcomb, 2013) and provide guidance to teachers through several hands-
on improvisational techniques and plans for lessons, according to a perspective on
improvisation as something which can be learnt through ‘building blocks’, sequential
methods like questions and answer, which aims at achieving an improvisational product
that is acceptable, both to students and adults, according to conventional terms of
expression in Western music. We, however, suggest more research into children’s free
improvisation activities in music classrooms in order to more deeply understand the
foundations for and meaning making in children’s open-ended musical actions and
improvisations.

Conclusion
From this review, it is apparent that the field of empirical studies on improvisation in general
music classrooms is limited. There are only a few empirical studies which look directly at
improvisation and none of them deals with improvisation in secondary school. In addition,
the geographic spread, at least in key international and English-language journals, is fairly
narrow. Moreover, only some studies are conducted in regular weekly music classrooms.
Studies are also – in different ways – predominantly designed in collaboration with, or
by, the teacher. Different national contexts influence research perspectives as well as
education, and the focus on improvisation as pedagogical activity possibly mirror syllabi
requirements relating to national educational policies. The result may also suggest that
the teacher-researcher creates a dilemma. Among the included studies there are many
instances where the researcher is also the teacher in the context under investigation,
which is valuable, however, it might also be a potential problem. Notwithstanding the
facts that teacher’s research on their own practice is of considerable value, and that being
a teacher-researcher can support professional development (Newton & Burgess, 2008),
in these circumstances researchers might find it difficult to reflect on their own practice

15

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

and personal teaching experiences. Taken together, these circumstances are reasonable
explanations for why teacher-researchers choose to look at improvisation as a pedagogical
activity (i.e. observing what and how the students learn) rather than conducting self-
reflexive studies, considering their own views, experiences and rationales for improvisation
in practice.
The main scholarly debates on improvisation concern the respective benefits of
improvisation as either structured or free music making as well as the relation between
these conceptualisations Saetre (2011) notes that the relation between the two in research
is an ‘educational paradox’, as the intention behind improvisation is often to let students
create their own music; yet research often contests the idea that creativity can be
maintained when the activities leave little room for exploration, experimentation or
discovery. This suggests that improvisation often leads to conformity because of a focus
on imitation. On the other hand, it is clear from this review that striking a balance
between structure and freedom is needed from the perspectives of both the teachers and
students.
This article indicates that improvisation generally is fairly neglected in general music
education. It seems especially difficult to accomplish activities where improvisation is
treated as an end in itself, in contrast to benefitting specific knowledge and skills.
To complicate the picture further, these results may not only suggest practical and
educational shortcomings, but also problems related to current educational policies
since measurable goals and assessment criteria are increasingly being accredited a more
important role.
Finally, we see a need for more studies on improvisation concerning how improvisation
as a pedagogical activity in general music education is affected in an increasingly goal- and
result-driven schooling system. Similarly, from an educational theory perspective, studies
are needed on what role and function improvisation could have in general music education.

References

AZZARA, C.D. (2002) Improvisation. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (eds.), The New Handbook of Research
on Music Teaching and Learning (pp. 171–187). New York: Oxford University Press.
BEEGLE, A.C. (2010) A classroom-based study of small-group planned improvisation with fifth-grade
children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(3), 219–239.
BERLINER, P. (1994) Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
BOOTH, A., PAPAIOANNOU, D. & SUTTON, A. (2012) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature
Review. London: Sage.
BROPHY, T. S. (2001) Developing improvisation in general music classes. Music Educators Journal, 88(1),
Special Focus: Composition and Improvisation, 34–41, 53.
BROPHY, T. S. (2005) A longitudinal study of selected characteristics of children’s melodic improvisations.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2), 120.
BURNARD, P. (2000a) Examining experiential differences between improvisation and composition in
children’s music-making. British journal of music education, 17(3), 227–245.
BURNARD, P. (2000b) How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composition: Rethinking
pedagogy in music education, Music Education Research, 2(1), 7–23.
BURNARD, P. (2002) Investigating children’s meaning-making and the emergence of musical interaction in
group improvisation. British journal of music education, 19(2), 157–172.

16

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

BURNARD, P. (2012) Rethinking creative teaching and teaching as research: Mapping the critical phases
that mark times of change and choosing as learners and teachers of music. Theory Into Practice, 51(3),
167–178.
COULSON, A. N. & BURKE, B. M. (2013) Creativity in the elementary music classroom: A study of students’
perceptions. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 428–441.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2006) Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning [Official Journal L 394 of
30.12.2006]. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:c11090
GREEN, L. (2014) Music Education as Critical Theory and Practice: Selected Essays. Farnham: Ashgate.
GRUENHAGEN, L. M. & WHITCOMB, R. (2014) Improvisational practices in elementary general music
classrooms. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(4), 379–395.
GUILBAULT, D. M. (2009) The effects of harmonic accompaniment on the tonal improvisations of students
in first through sixth grade. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(2), 81–91.
HICKEY, M. (2009) Can improvisation be ‘taught’?: A call for free improvisation in our schools. International
Journal of Music Education, 27(4), 285–299.
HICKEY, M. (2015) Learning from the experts: A study of free-improvisation pedagogues in university settings.
Journal of research in music education, 62(4), 425–445.
HIGGINS, L. & MANTIE, R. (2013) Improvisation as ability, culture, and experience. Music Educators
Journal, 100(2), 38–44.
JONES, K (2004) Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative
studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. The Qualitative Report, 9(1), 95–112.
KANELLOPOULOS, P. A. (2007) Children’s early reflection on improvised music-making as the wellspring
of musico-philosophical thinking. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(2), 119–141.
KANELLOPOULOS, P. A. & WRIGHT, R. (2012) Improvisation as an informal music learning process:
Implications for teacher education. In S. Karlsen & L. Väkevä (eds.), Future Prospects for Music
Education. Corraborating Informal Learning Pedagogy (pp. 129–157). Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. (2005) Improvisation in the english primary music classroom: Teachers’ perceptions
and practices. Music Education Research, 7(3), 363–381.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. (2008) Effects of different teaching styles on the development of musical creativity:
Insights from interviews with music specialists. Musicae Scientiae, XII(2), 311–335.
KOUTSOUPIDOU, T. & HARGREAVES, D. J. (2009) An experimental study of the effects of improvisation
on the development of children’s creative thinking in music. Psychology of Music, 37(3), 251–278.
KRATUS, J. (1991) Growing with improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 35–40
KRATUS, J. (1995) A developmental approach for teaching music improvisation. International Journal of
Music Education. International Society for Music Education, 26(1), 27–38.
MONK, A. (2013) Symbolic Interactionism in music education: Eight strategies for collaborative
improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 99(3), 76–81.
NEWTON, P. & BURGESS, D. (2008) Exploring types of educational action research: Implications for
research validity. In International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
OECD. (2005) The Definition and Selection of Key Competences. Executive Summary.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
PAWSON, R., GREENHALGH, T., HARVEY, G. & WALSHE, K. (2005) Realist review – a new method of
systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Health Services Research and Policy,
10(1), 21–34.
PETTICREW, M. & ROBERTS, H. (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.
Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishing.
PRESSING, J. (1987) Improvisations, methods and models. In J. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative Processes in Music
(pp. 129–178). New York: Clarendon Press.

17

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Christina Larsson and Eva Georgii-Hemming

RABINOVITCH, T. -C., CROSS, I. & BURNARD, P. (2013) Long-term musical group interaction has a positive
influence on empathy in children. Psychology of Music, 41(4), 484–498.
ROZMAN, J. C. (2009) Musical creativity in Slovenian elementary schools. Educational Research, 51(1),
61–76.
SÆTRE, J. H. (2011) Teaching and learning music composition in primary school settings. Music Education
Research, 13(1), 29–50.
SAWYER, R. K. (ed.) (2003) Creativity and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
SAWYER, R. K. (2006) Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music,
34(2), 148–165.
SAWYER, R. K. (2008) Learning music from collaboration. International Journal of Educational Research,
47(1), 50–59.
STEINSHOLT, K. & SOMMERRO, H. (eds.) (2006) Improvisasjon: Kunsten å Sette Seg Selv På Spill. Oslo:
Damm.
WHITCOMB, R. (2010) Rhythmic characteristics of improvisational drumming among preschool
children. Research and Issues in Music Education, 8(1). http://www.stthomas.edu/
rimeonline/vol8/whitcomb.htm
WHITCOMB, R. (2013) Teaching improvisation in elementary general music: Facing fears and fostering
creativity. Music Educators Journal, 99(3), 43–50.
YOO, H. (2015) Using baroque techniques to teach improvisation in your classroom. Music Educators
Journal, 102(1), 91–96.

Curricula

AUSTRALIA: ACARA. (2013) Australian Curriculum, the Arts. Assessment and Reporting Authority.
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/the-arts/introduction
DENMARK: EMU.DK. (n.d.) http://www.emu.dk/sites/default/files/L%C3%A6seplan%20for%20faget%20
musik.pdf
ENGLAND: GOV.UK. (2013) Statutory Guidance. National Curriculum in England: Music Programmes
of Study. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-music-
programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-music-programmes-of-study
FINLAND: OPH.FI. (2014) The Finnish National Board of Education. Core curriculum. Basic education.
http://www.oph.fi/download/47673_core_curricula_basic_education_4.pdf
GERMANY: BILDUNGSSERVER.GE. (n.d.) http://www.bildungsserver.de/Rahmenrichtlinien-Lehrplaene-fuer-
die-Grundschule-1660.html, http://lehrplan.lernnetz.de/index.php?wahl=140
NORWAY: UDIR.NO. (2006) http://www.udir.no/kl06/MUS1-01/Kompetansemaal?arst=372029323&
kmsn=189205472
SCOTLAND: GOV.UK. (2008) Curriculum for excellence. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk
SWEDEN: SKOLVERKET. (2011) The Swedish National Agency for Education. Curriculum for the
Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre. http://www.skolverket.se/laroplaner-
amnen-och-kurser/grundskoleutbildning/grundskola/laroplan
USA: CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL ARTS EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS. (1994) National Standards for
Arts Education. Reston, VA: MENC. MUSIC EDUCATORS NATIONAL CONFERENCE. (1994) The
School Music Program: A New Vision. Reston, VA: MENC. http://www.nafme.org/my-classroom/
standards/

Christina Larsson is a trained singer and music specialist teacher and has been a practitioner
for about 25 years, teaching music and singing to children and young adults. She is currently
pursuing her PhD in musicology at The School of Music, Theatre and Art, Örebro University,
Sweden. Her doctoral project is concerned with improvisation in general music education

18

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X
Improvisation in general music education – a literature review

with emphasis on children’s meaning making and aesthetic experiences and development
of teaching practices.

Eva Georgii-Hemming is professor in musicology and head of department at Örebro


University, Sweden. Research interests include philosophical and theoretical issues about
the concepts of knowledge, quality and equality, as well as the value and role of music
in education and society. Professor Georgii-Hemming has collaborated significantly in
international research as project leader, Editor-in chief and author.

19

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Winnipeg, on 25 Jun 2018 at 17:47:44, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171800013X

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi