Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T20:50:05.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's graphical notations as representational tools for musical sense-making in a music-listening task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Mark Reybrouck ,
Lieven Verschaffel  and
Sofie Lauwerier
Mark Reybrouck
Affiliation:
Section of Musicology, University of Leuven, BelgiumMark.Reybrouck@arts.kuleuven.be Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, University of Leuven, Belgium
Lieven Verschaffel
Affiliation:
Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, University of Leuven, Belgium
Sofie Lauwerier
Affiliation:
Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology, University of Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article tries to answer two related questions: (i) what do children hear while listening to and making sense of music? and (ii) what kind of representational tools can be used to assess this sense-making? To answer these questions, we set up two empirical studies in which 89 children – 8–9-year-olds and 11–12-year-olds (first study) – and 331 children – 8–10-year-olds and 11–13-year-olds, with and without extra music training (second study) – were exposed to a music listening task. The aim of the studies was to get an overall picture of the variety of children's musical representations by means of their graphical notations, and to investigate the impact of age, formal musical training and the characteristics of the musical fragment on these notations. A major finding of the first study was the emergence of two main categories of notations, namely ‘global’ and ‘differentiated’ notations, with a very strong dominance of global over differentiated ones and a negligible impact of subject and task variables. The second study, in which we presented researcher-generated instead of existing musical fragments, yielded a larger number of differentiated notations, and a considerable impact of age and formal musical education as well as of the musical characteristics on these notations. Both studies were ascertaining studies with the aim to describe and analyse the development of children's graphical notations under given instructional conditions. To account for some of the limitations of these studies, some additional design-based research is suggested. Extensive findings/exemplars of both studies can be found on the Cambridge University Press website.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 189 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AUH, M. & WALKER, R. (1999) ‘Compositional strategies and musical creativity when composing with staff notation versus graphic notations among Korean students’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 2–9.Google Scholar
BAMBERGER, J. (1991) The Mind behind the Musical Ear. How Children develop Musical Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
BAMBERGER, J. (1999) ‘Learning from the children we teach’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 142, 48–74.Google Scholar
BAMBERGER, J. (2005). ‘How the conventions of music notation shape musical perception and performance’, in Miell, D., Macdonald, R. & Hargreaves, D. (Eds), Musical Communication (pp. 143–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARRETT, M. (1997) ‘Invented notation: a view of young children's musical thinking’, Research Studies in Music Education, 8, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARRETT, M. (1999) ‘Modal dissonance: an analysis of children's invented notations of known songs, original songs, and instrumental compositions’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 14–20.Google Scholar
BARRETT, M. (2000) ‘Windows, mirrors, and reflections: a case study of adult constructions of children's musical thinking’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 145, 43–61.Google Scholar
BARRETT, M. (2001) ‘Constructing a view of children's meaning-making as notators: a case-study of a five-year-old's descriptions and explanations of invented notations’, Research Studies in Music Education, 1, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARRETT, M. (2002) ‘Invented notations and mediated memory: a case-study of two children's use of invented notations’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 153 (4), 55–62.Google Scholar
BARRETT, M. (2005) ‘Representation, cognition, and communication: invented notation in children's musical communication’, in Miell, D., MacDonald, R. & Hargreaves, D. (Eds), Musical Communication (pp. 117–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIDSON, L. & SCRIPP, L. (1988) ‘Young children's musical representations: windows on music cognition’, in Sloboda, J. (Ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 195–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ELKOSHI, R. (2002) ‘An investigation into children's responses through drawing, to short musical fragments and complete compositions’, Music Education Research, 4, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELKOSHI, R. (2003) ‘Interpreting children's invented graphic notation’, Arts and Learning Research Journal, 20, 61–84.Google Scholar
GROMKO, J. & POORMAN, A. (1998) ‘Developmental trends and relationships in children's aural perception and symbol use’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KERCHNER, J. (2000) ‘Children's verbal, visual, and kinesthetic responses: insight into their music listening experience’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 146, 31–50.Google Scholar
REYBROUCK, M. (1999) ‘The musical sign between sound and meaning’, in Zannos, I. (Ed.), Music and Signs, Semiotic and Cognitive Studies in Music (pp. 39–58). Bratislava: ASCO Art & Science.Google Scholar
REYBROUCK, M. (2003) ‘Musical semantics between epistemological assumptions and operational claims’, in Tarasti, E. (Ed.), Musical Semiotics Revisited (pp. 272–87). Acta Semiotica Fennica XV. Imatra: International Semiotics Institute.Google Scholar
REYBROUCK, M. (2004) ‘Music cognition, semiotics and the experience of time. Ontosemantical and epistemological claims’, Journal of New Music Research, 33, 411–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SADEK, A. (1987) ‘Visualization of musical concepts’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 149–54.Google Scholar
TAN, S. & KELLY, M. (2004) ‘Graphic representations of short musical compositions’, Psychology of Music, 32, 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UPITIS, R. (1992) Can I Play you my Song? The Compositions and Invented Notations of Children. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
UPITIS, R. (1993) ‘Children's invented symbols systems: exploring parallels between music and mathematics’, Psychomusicology, 12, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WALKER, A. (1981) ‘The presence of internalised images of musical sounds’, Council for Research in Music Education, 66–67, 107–12.Google Scholar
WALKER, A. (1983) ‘Children's perceptions of horses and melodies’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 76, 30–41.Google Scholar
WALKER, A. (1987) ‘The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound’, Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WALKER, A. (1992) ‘Auditory-visual perception and musical behavior’, in Colwell, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning (pp. 344–59). New York: Schirmer.Google Scholar
WALKER, R. (1978) ‘Perception and music notation’, Psychology of Music, 6, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Reybrouck Supplementary Material

Appendic C.doc

Download Reybrouck Supplementary Material(File)
File 33.8 KB