The research context

The notion of ‘composing’ as a curricular activity suitable for all students in the secondary school has received increasing attention in academic circles in recent years. Burnard has investigated a number of aspects of the composing process, including its relationship to improvisation (Burnard, Reference BURNARD2000a, Reference BURNARD2000b), how students derive meaning from composing, and what they do whilst undertaking it (Burnard, Reference Burnard2002; Burnard & Younker, Reference BURNARD and YOUNKER2002, Reference BURNARD and YOUNKER2004a, Reference BURNARD and YOUNKER2004b). Odam (Reference ODAM2000) and Paynter (Reference PAYNTER2000) also noted that there had been issues with the teaching and learning of composing in schools. This is an area also investigated by Berkley (Reference BERKLEY2001), who described problems teachers found with developing an appropriate pedagogy for the teaching of composition.

We know that a lot of composing within school classrooms happens in groups, and the group composing process has been deconstructed in terms of the stages students work through (Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY1999, Reference FAUTLEY2005). Social interaction plays a large part in group composing (Burland & Davidson, Reference BURLAND and DAVIDSON2001), and this has also been investigated in terms of the ways in which students talk with each other (Miell & MacDonald, Reference MIELL and MACDONALD2000; Major, Reference MAJOR2007, Reference MAJOR2008). More recently, what Activity Theory can tell us about group composing has also been studied (Burnard & Younker, Reference BURNARD and YOUNKER2008).

Assessment is a key area of interest in contemporary educational discourse. The role of formative assessment, and its place in raising standards has been well documented (Black, Reference BLACK1995; James, Reference JAMES1998; Black & Wiliam, Reference BLACK and WILIAM1998, Reference BLACK, WILIAM and Gardner2006; Assessment Reform Group, 1999, 2002; Black et al., Reference BLACK, HARRISON, LEE, MARSHALL and WILIAM2003a, Reference BLACK, HARRISON, LEE, MARSHALL and WILIAM2003b, Reference BLACK, HARRISON, LEE, MARSHALL and WILIAM2004). Summative assessment too has been researched, and its role as a ‘high-stakes’ tool discussed (Stobart, Reference STOBART2001, Reference STOBART2008; Harlen, Reference HARLEN2005, Reference HARLEN2007). Formative assessment, also known as assessment for learning (AfL), has figured in a number of governmental initiatives for schools. Interestingly, it was a music lesson which was chosen as an exemplar for teachers of all subjects for training in AfL (DfES, 2002).

Formal assessment of composing happens at Key Stage 4 through the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) and the British Technology Education Council (BTEC) diplomas, such as the Music Production or Music Technology qualifications. In both these sets of qualifications, assessment criteria are provided by examination boards.

The assessment of composing, particularly in the English context, has received less attention than the areas outlined above. We have some general overviews (Stephens, Reference STEPHENS and Hickey2003; MacDonald et al., Reference MACDONALD, BYRNE and CARLTON2006) and specific research involving teachers (Byrne & Sheridan, Reference BYRNE and SHERIDAN2001; Byrne et al., Reference BYRNE, MACDONALD and CARLTON2003). Burnard and Younker (Reference BURNARD and YOUNKER2004b) mention assessment in their analysis of individual composing pathways. Mills (Reference MILLS1991) investigated the musical nature of assessment, whilst from an American perspective, Brophy (Reference BROPHY2000) looked into developmental matters. From a pragmatic classroom perspective, Bray (Reference BRAY2000, Reference BRAY and Spruce2002) and Adams (Reference ADAMS and Philpott2001) discuss ways in which teachers can utilise assessment in the classroom. Although there are, anecdotally, a number of worries over composing and its assessment (Fautley, Reference FAUTLEY2008), we do not know a great deal about teachers' assessment practices within music at Key Stage 4, hence this research.

Research aims

The aim of the research reported here was to survey secondary school music teachers' current practice with regard to the organisation and assessment of composing at Key Stage 4. The research took place on a nation-wide basis in England, via the use of two online surveys and face-to-face interviews. Its purposes were to find out what teachers are actually doing, what school and external systems require them to do, and what their views were on this. In this paper we offer some commentary on this, and discuss the implications of our findings from both an assessment perspective and with a view to the broader issues concerned.

The two main research questions were:

• • What are teachers currently doing with regard to the organisation and assessment of composing?

• • What else might they do?

Research methods

This research involved combining both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Gorard & Taylor, Reference GORARD and TAYLOR2004). The organisation and assessment of composing is a complex issue, and employing a mixed methodology enabled us to grapple with the issues raised. As Creswell observes, ‘the problems addressed are complex, and the use of either quantitative or qualitative approaches by themselves is inadequate to address this complexity’ (Creswell, Reference CRESWELL2009, p. 203). Another factor in the employment of a mixed methods approach was that we wished to combine quantitative responses with qualitative judgements, being cognisant of the notion that ‘research approaches should be mixed in ways that offer the best opportunities for answering important research questions’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, Reference JOHNSON and ONWUEGBUZIE2004, p. 16), and that employing a mixed methodology is ‘more than simply collecting and analysing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both approaches in tandem’ (Creswell, Reference CRESWELL2009, p. 4).

With these factors in mind, the research was designed to take place in three phases:

• • Phase 1: Initial online survey.

• • Phase 2: Follow-up online survey.

• • Phase 3: Individual interviews with teachers.

The organisation of classroom composing

At Key Stage 4, the majority of composing is done on an individual basis. Opening questions within the Phase 1 online survey revealed that a little over 60% of composing is done individually, with paired composing coming a long way behind at around 16%. This marks a major shift from students working in groups at Key Stage 3 (76%; ABRSM, 2008). To investigate this further, we asked how this changeover from group composing to individual composing is managed. Responses to this varied considerably, with some respondents starting with group work, with others launching directly into solo composing. These responses from the free-text responses within the Phase 1 online survey show the range of these variations:

In the Phase 1 online survey we also asked whether teachers used published schemes of work in their teaching of composing. At KS4, 83% use their own materials. Published schemes are used by a little over 10% of teachers at KS4. During the Phase 3 interviews, over 21% of respondents said they had not been able to find any suitable published materials for either KS4.

To investigate the organisation of classroom composition at Key Stage 4 further, we postulated six starting points which, we believed, represented a full range of compositional stimuli (as we have observed it in classroom composing at Key Stage 4 through our wider work in initial teacher education). These were:

1. 1. You provide the students with a musical ‘technical term (or terms)’ or starting point (e.g. ostinato, accelerando) and ask them to compose evidencing the use of it/them.

2. 2. You provide the students with a musical stimulus (e.g. a rhythm, melody or chord sequence) and ask them to compose evidencing the use of it/them.

3. 3. You provide students with a musical framework (e.g. ternary form, rondo, theme and variations) and ask them to compose using it.

4. 4. You provide a non-musical starting point or stimulus (e.g. a picture, story, poem or film) and ask them to compose with it.

5. 5. You provide a personal stimulus, issue or challenge (e.g. their beliefs, thoughts, peers, fashions, tastes, lives, environments) and ask them to compose around or about it.

6. 6. You ask the students to compose anything they wish.

Within the Phase 1 online survey, we asked whether teachers had used these starting points, and offered a six-point Likert scale for responses:

1. 1. I used to do this but don't any more.

2. 2. I've never done this.

3. 3. I've not done this but plan to.

4. 4. I do this occasionally.

5. 5. I do this quite often.

6. 6. I do this very often.

We also asked a question concerning the perceived efficacy of these starting points.

Figure 1 shows the data table upon which the following discussions are based. For normalisation purposes, all figures are expressed as percentages.

Of the stimulus types, musical ones tended to be the preferred modus operandi for composing, with those being directly musical, or using musical frameworks being the most popular (Fig. 2).

However, when we look at the phase specificity of responses we notice that there are some that are deemed more suitable for specific age phases (Fig. 3).

Non-musical starting points were only used by 4% of respondents at KS4. The most popular starting point was the musical framework (66%). However, frequency of use is not of itself sufficient to consider, and so we turn now to teachers' impressions of the efficacy of different composing starting points.

As Figure 1 shows, the most effective compositional starting point was considered to be the musical framework, with 45% saying it was very effective, and a further 49% believing it to be quite effective. Linked to this approach is the use of musical technical terms as a starting point, which scored highest in the ‘quite effective’ category (63%). Here, teachers seem to find comfort in traditional approaches to composition. Perhaps these relate to how they were taught themselves, or what they perceive to be the ‘correct’ approach?

The most ineffective compositional starting point was generally considered to be the ‘anything they wish’ category, with 64% of respondents identifying it as such; this was followed by the ‘personal stimulus’, and then there is quite a large gap to the remaining four. Altogether the ‘anything they wish’ category scored lowest for efficacy, there was still a significant minority of teachers (9%) who found this a very effective starting point.

The issue of staff notation, and if/when/how it should be taught can be a contentious issue for some music teachers. Several references to musical notation came up in the free text responses to the Phase 1 and 2 online surveys. For this reason, during our interviews with teachers (Phase 3) we asked if they believed that notation was important for composing. Most believed that it was:

This teacher raises the issue of musicians such as drummers and guitarists, for whom staff notation is not a normal part of their work. One teacher, who works in an inner-city, took a different view:

Lying in-between these extremes are a range of views, one of which is represented by this teacher:

This is where staff notation is seen as useful, but not essential, to composing. Another teacher unpicked this a little further, and distinguished between notation as an aide memoire, and of staff notation being used more deliberately:

A final part of our initial Phase 1 online survey raised the issue of ICT as a compositional tool. Here a very clear picture emerged, with ICT being used ‘a lot’ at KS4 (Fig. 4).

What is interesting here are the ‘seldom’ and ‘never’ responses, indicating that a small but significant number of students never get the opportunities afforded by ICT in their composing. The range of technologies being used within teaching at this Key Stage has an obvious effect on the types of compositional activities that students can undertake. Recent research conducted for Roland UK (Savage, Reference SAVAGE2009) showed that many teachers made extensive use of music notation software such as Sibelius and Finale at this Key Stage. This confirms our analysis of the conservative nature of many teachers' view about composing as an activity. It also helps to explain why many teachers reported a significant increase in the use of ICT at Key Stage 4 from Key Stage 3 (71% from 33%; see ABRSM, 2008).

Finally, we wanted to know what single aspect of composing, performing, or listening took place most frequently in classrooms. Our Phase 1 online survey showed that at KS4 an overwhelming majority (66%) reported that composing was the most common activity. In the Phase 2 follow-up survey we asked about the reasons for this. 17% of teachers at Key Stage 4 reported that they left the performing aspect to individual instrumental music teachers. There was also a feeling that at Key Stage 4 composing and listening needed the most teacher input. As one respondent put it in their free text response within the Phase 2 online survey:

Most teachers at Key Stage 4, it seems, separate out the various musical processes and teach them in isolation from each other.

The assessment of classroom composing

At Key Stage 4, the assessment criteria published by the examination boards form the backbone of what teachers do with regards to assessment of composing. In the Phase 1 online survey we asked teachers how easy they found it to mark their students’ composition work in accordance with the examination board criteria. Eighty-six per cent of teachers responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to mark in this way However, finding the criteria straightforward is of little utility if the results are at odds with teachers' impressions of how well (or otherwise) students are doing in schools. So, we asked whether teachers felt that the criteria are appropriate and whether they felt that the marks fairly represent each student's attainment in composition. Here again there was a feeling that this was the case, with a fairly close mapping to the satisfaction results of the previous question.

The Phase 2 online survey statement, ‘I feel that the criteria give marks that fairly represent the effort put in by the student, and progress made over the course’ caused a higher level of disagreement. Here 42% of respondents disagreed with the statement in the question. Free text responses within the Phase 1 online survey, and a supplementary question in the Phase 2 online survey, explored this issue further. Respondents felt that the following ideas could make their use of the criteria fairer to the work their students had put into their compositions. This was confirmed in the Phase 3 interviews:

This range of responses from five different teachers seems to provide a general unease, not so much with the ways in which student work is assessed, but with there being a perceived mismatch between the grades students receive and the grades teachers feel they should get. We know that teachers will want to do the best they can for their students, but even so, this does seem to give a cause for concern. Teachers recognise that some form of marking criteria are needed, nonetheless there does seem to be a case for a system which allows for a little more personalisation to the needs of the students.

Whilst ‘teaching to the test’ is probably unavoidable to some extent, within the Phase 2 online survey we asked teachers to explore to the statement, ‘What I teach, in composition, is heavily influenced by the criteria I know the students’ compositions will eventually be subject to’. Only 24% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. We then asked whether teachers used the exam board's criteria for their own assessment purposes. Here, 78% of teachers said they did. Despite this broad agreement with the issue of criteria, we wanted to know if teachers felt that they were appropriate, so we asked if teachers felt they were too vague. Sixty-seven per cent of teachers did not think so, but a sizeable minority of teacher (33%) felt that this was the case. Anecdotally we hear of teachers ignoring the criteria, and awarding the mark they feel the student deserves, and so we asked if this was the case. Ninety-four per cent of teachers said it was not, leaving about 6% of teachers for whom this is the case.

We also asked teachers to respond to a series of statements, one of which was, ‘I have a good idea of what mark/grade the composition should get before I come to apply the criteria specifically, and I try to ensure the criteria-based marking reflects my initial impression’. Interestingly, nearly 18% of teachers said they did this, so there do seem to be some liberal interpretations of the examination board criteria. In fact, a number of our interviews in Phase 3 confirmed our suspicion here. We should not be too critical of this approach. It seems well suited to the nature of musical appreciation and, providing that clear justifications according to examination criteria are provided, teachers, as professionals, should not be surprised if their initial judgements are confirmed by these frameworks.

Another issue addressed in the Phase 3 interviews that followed the two online surveys related to criterion referencing. Specifically, we asked, ‘Do you think GCSE music forces students into a straitjacket of pre-selected criteria?’ Most agreed, but for different reasons:

An interesting issue is identified here. If the composition is ‘wild and imaginative’ then this teacher felt that they have to ‘shoehorn’ the results into extant categories in order to maximise the student's mark-gaining potential. The second part of the response talks about over-emphasising things for the sake of examination marks. This could be problematic in musical terms.

For this next teacher, working in a multi-ethnic inner-city school, the subject matter itself could be seen as alienating for the students:

As this teacher observes, waltzes have little relevance to the street-lives of his students so they resent having to ‘do’ them.

For this next teacher, the influence of the criteria is an issue in quite a different way:

For this teacher, the broadness, which other teachers saw as lacking, is both an opportunity, in that it allows the students some freedom, and a problem, in that this makes it difficult for the teacher to assess.

For a number of teachers, the styles and genres that students might want to compose in was a problem, in a similar way that the teacher above observed. However, this next teacher felt that this was a potential, rather than a real, issue:

However, these responses should be contrasted with the replies of some teachers who were far more positive about the criterion referencing used by the exam boards:

But the remarks of the teacher above need to be offset against their refreshingly honest assertion that some teachers subvert the assessment criteria by writing assignment briefs after the event, in other words the students compose, and then the teacher decides how the resultant music can be best considered to fit what is required:

This has an effect on the way in which assessment criteria are considered, as it means that this teacher, and probably many others, are giving the students some free-rein in composing, and then deciding post-hoc which criteria will afford the most marks for their students’ work.

We asked the interviewees in Phase 3 how they would feel about being able to choose which assessment criteria to apply, by, for example choosing from a list. At least one examination board, Edexcel, already facilitates this to a limited extent.

For this teacher, there is a possibility that this might be helpful. For others there are lines to be drawn between composing, and composing for an examination. This next teacher felt that examination composing is a specific activity:

One teacher observed that the removal of free-choice composing had more to do with internal standards at the examination boards than with allowing students the possibility of choosing what to do:

This is an interesting viewpoint, as this teacher clearly feels that the restrictive nature of GCSE composing acts as a disincentive to students taking the subject as an option at KS4.

Being required to compose in certain styles has been an idée fixe among many of the interviewees, and the free text responses within the Phase 1 and 2 surveys also bore this out. Urban and popular styles are felt to be hardest hit by this, and this dissatisfaction could lead to a move away from GCSE music, and towards the relative freedoms offered by BTEC, creative/media diplomas, and other examinations. It is certainly an issue which some longer-serving teachers feel has changed for the worse from the early days of GCSE.

There is a long-standing dichotomy in music education as to whether the process of composing is assessed, or whether assessment is that of the product which results. We asked our interviewees during Phase 3 whether there was an issue for them between assessment of process and assessment of product. For most teachers, the assessment was firmly entrenched in the product, and they had no wish to change this:

This notion, of process being ‘wishy-washy’ in assessment terms, was linked by some to a potential increase in workload for both teacher and student:

It could also be seen as work which did not add much to the final grade:

However, there is a pragmatic response, which one teacher recognised, that although process matters, it is product which is easiest to assess.

This is an interesting response, in that outcome is measured because it is easier so to do. This has strong links with the observation that ‘we started out with the aim of making the important measurable, and ended up making only the measurable important’ (Wiliam, Reference WILIAM2000, p. 118).

But returning to process, assessment within the BTEC specification seemed to be treated by some teachers in a different way:

Some subjects, such as Drama and Art, do allow for materials related to the creative process to be included in a portfolio of evidence that is submitted for final examination, but apart from one female teacher who observed that, “I think that's such a shame because people don't necessarily get credit for how they've approached it initially” there seemed little enthusiasm for the process (rather than the product) of composing to be assessed formally at GCSE level.