charting future directions for research in jazz pedagogy: implications of the literature
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 22 November 2014, At: 19:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Music Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20
Charting future directions for researchin jazz pedagogy: implications of theliteratureKevin E. Watson aa Jacobs School of Music , Indiana University , 1201 East ThirdStreet, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USAPublished online: 17 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Kevin E. Watson (2010) Charting future directions for research in jazzpedagogy: implications of the literature, Music Education Research, 12:4, 383-393, DOI:10.1080/14613808.2010.519382
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2010.519382
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Charting future directions for research in jazz pedagogy: implicationsof the literature
Kevin E. Watson*
Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University 1201 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405,USA
(Received 6 July 2009; final version received 21 February 2010)
This paper surveys and evaluates extant empirical research in jazz pedagogy.Investigations in the following areas are addressed: (a) variables that predictachievement in jazz improvisation; (b) content analyses of published instructionalmaterials; (c) effectiveness of pedagogical methods; (d) construction andevaluation of jazz improvisation achievement measurement instruments; and(e) relationships between the construct of creativity and jazz improvisationachievement. A number of possible directions for future research are suggested,including possible extensions of research on instructional methodologies, assess-ment of achievement that considers group dynamics and the application ofconfluence models of creativity to jazz improvisation research.
Keywords: jazz; improvisation; creativity; measurement
In an article published over 20 years ago, former NAJE Research Chairman Charles
Brown (1988) noted that while jazz research was expanding in a number of areas,
there was little organisational logic about the overall direction of this research. The
development of such an organisational structure in the field of jazz pedagogy
research is especially important because it is only through the collected findings of
multiple studies that explanations of educational phenomena can be understood(Duke 2000). In the past two decades, a number of distinct streams of jazz pedagogy
research have emerged: (a) investigations of variables that predict achievement in
jazz improvisation; (b) content analyses of published instructional materials;
(c) investigations of the effectiveness of pedagogical methods; (d) the construction
and evaluation of jazz improvisation achievement measurement instruments; and
(e) investigations of a possible relationship between jazz improvisation achievement
and the construct of creativity. This paper will survey and evaluate extant empirical
research in each of these categories in order to suggest future directions for suchresearch.
Predictor variables for jazz improvisation achievement
A number of studies have employed multiple regression analyses in order to examinevariables that might serve as predictors of either instrumental (e.g. Bash 1983; Ciorba
2006; May 1998) or vocal (e.g. Greennagel 1994; Heil 2005; Madura 1996) jazz
*Email: [email protected]
Music Education Research
Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2010, 383�393
ISSN 1461-3808 print/ISSN 1469-9893 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14613808.2010.519382
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
improvisation achievement. One of the potential benefits of this line of research lies
in the possibility of identifying factors related to achievement that might be
addressed in teaching methodologies. Variables that have been examined as possible
predictors include sex (Bash 1983; Heil 2005; Hores 1977; Madura 1996), motivation
(Ciorba 2006), academic achievement (Ciorba 2006; Greennagel 1994), jazz ensemble
experience (Greennagel 1994; Heil 2005; Madura 1996), time spent practicing
improvisation (Ciorba 2006; Heil 2005; Madura 1996), aural skills (May 1998) andjazz listening experience (Ciorba 2006; Greennagel 1994; Heil 2005; Hores 1977;
Madura 1996; May 1998). Some conflicting findings have emerged. While May
(1998) found that previous improvisation study was a significant predictor of
instrumental jazz achievement, Heil (2005) found that such study did not predict
achievement in vocal jazz improvisation. Heil found that private instrumental lessons
predicted vocal jazz achievement, while Greennagel (1994) found no predictive role
for this variable.
Interestingly, the variables of music aptitude, as measured by Gordon’s Musical
Aptitude Profile (1965) and Advanced Measures of Music Audiation (1989), and music
performance achievement, as measured by the Watkins�Farnum Performance Scale
(Watkins and Farnum 1954), have been found to play no predictive role in jazz
improvisation achievement (e.g. Bash 1983; Ciorba 2006; Greennagel 1994; Hores
1977). These findings raise questions about whether jazz improvisation achievement
is really unrelated to music aptitude or performance achievement, or whether these
constructs have actually been measured in a valid and reliable manner (Bowman1988).
Three variables have been found to play predictive roles for jazz improvisation
achievement in at least two studies: (a) jazz theory knowledge; (b) aural imitation;
and (c) self-evaluation of improvisation skill. May (1998) investigated collegiate wind
players (N�73) who were either enrolled in a jazz ensemble or had completed one
course in jazz improvisation. Self-evaluation of improvisation emerged as the single
best predictor of achievement, followed by aural imitation and improvisation class
experience. Ciorba (2006) investigated high school students (N�102) who were
members of a school jazz ensemble. Results confirmed May’s (1998) earlier finding
that self-evaluation of performance was a significant (pB0.01) predictor of
instrumental jazz improvisation achievement. In contrast to May’s results, jazz
theory knowledge (pB0.001) also entered Ciorba’s prediction model.
Madura (1996) investigated relationships between various aspects of vocal jazz
improvisation and several predictor variables. Subjects were collegiate students
(N�101) who were enrolled in either a vocal jazz ensemble or solo jazz singing classin which instruction in jazz improvisation was given. Results revealed that the best
predictors of vocal jazz improvisation achievement were jazz theory knowledge,
imitative ability and a composite jazz experience variable. The results of Greennagel’s
(1994) study of vocal jazz majors (N�30) showed that the variables of creativity and
self-rating of improvisation skill accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in
the multiple regression analysis. In Heil’s (2005) investigation of the effects of two
instructional treatments on high school students’ (N�90) vocal jazz improvisation
attitudes and performance achievement, the two variables found to be significant
predictors of achievement were self-perception of improvisation skill and years of
private instrument study. However, these variables accounted for only 15% of the
total variance in performance achievement.
384 K.E. Watson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Content analyses of jazz improvisation pedagogical materials
The very limited work that has been done in the area of content analysis of existing
jazz pedagogical materials (e.g. Herzig 1997; Witmer and Robbins 1988; Zwick 1987)
has shown that the surveyed content tended to emphasise the use of notated exercises
on tonal concepts. Witmer and Robbins (1988) surveyed teaching materials produced
in the field of jazz pedagogy from the 1950s through the 1980s. The authors chose
materials for their review based on ‘what we know to be widely used or widely
discussed’ and included less well-known material ‘in order to illustrate certain trends’
(8). The researchers concluded that most of the surveyed material placed a strong
emphasis on tonal principles, approached by mechanical exercises on chords and
scales, with much less space provided for the concepts of melodic construction/
development, ear training, rhythm and swing. However, the authors presented no
systematic content analysis data as evidence for their conclusions.
Zwick (1987) analysed and compared instructional areas and major teaching
strategies that had been emphasised in selected texts in order to recommend a
sequential format for the teaching of jazz improvisation. The researcher sent
questionnaires to respected jazz educators in order to determine which criteria
were important to jazz improvisation instruction. Texts were chosen for inclusion in
the study based on the criteria established from questionnaire responses. The number
of pages devoted to each topic was used as the recording unit in order to determine
the per cent of emphasis of each instructional area. The researcher-coded
instructional areas were: (a) history of improvisation; (b) prerequisites for study of
improvisation; (c) jazz improvisation fundamentals; (d) ear training; (e) jazz style; (f)
analysis; (g) form and structure of jazz music; (h) melodic improvisation; (i) patterns
for improvisation; (j) chord progressions; (k) rhythm section; (l) substitutions;
(m) transcription of jazz solos; (n) improvising on jazz music; (o) scales for
improvisation; (p) non-harmonic tones; and (q) the blues. Results showed that
materials emphasising aural instruction were not common. For example, 9 of the 13
texts presented no information about transcription of jazz solos, while an additional
three texts devoted less than 6% of their content to discussion of this activity. The
instructional area of ear training received no coverage in six texts and constituted less
than 6% of the content of an additional three books.
Herzig (1997) set out to identify instructional components of jazz piano
technique by undertaking quantitative and qualitative analyses of 12 jazz piano
method books. For the quantitative analysis, content was assigned to one of the
following categories: (a) theory; (b) technique; (c) melodic improvisation; (d) creating
harmonic accompaniment; (e) rhythm; (f) style characteristics; (g) aural training; and
(h) other. Results showed that the category of creating harmonic accompaniment was
given the most coverage (27.95%) in the surveyed material, followed by theory
(23.70%), while the categories of rhythm (3.34%) and aural training (1.52%) ranked
lowest.
Investigations of the effectiveness of pedagogical methods
While numerous potentially valuable pedagogical methods for jazz improvisation
have been proposed (e.g. Aitken 1975; Allen 1999; Birkett 1994; Heglund 2004;
Paulson 1985; Rinzler 1987; Sarath 1992), the number of jazz researchers who have
Music Education Research 385
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
made an attempt to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of instructional methods
(Bash 1983; Burnsed 1978; Coy 1989; Damron 1973; Flack 2004; Heil 2005; Hores
1977; Laughlin 2001) is still relatively small. These studies are important contribu-
tions to the literature because of their attempts to establish systematically
the effectiveness of various instructional approaches. However, previous reviews
(Bowman 1988; Herzig 1995) have noted concerns about the methodologies and
statistical procedures followed in some of these investigations.The most recent studies (Flack 2004; Heil 2005; Laughlin 2001) have each
investigated the effectiveness of aural instructional materials. Flack (2004) examined
whether the use of Aebersold (1979) play-along recording was an effective tool for
becoming a more proficient improviser. Collegiate jazz studies majors (N�35) were
assigned to either an experimental or control group. Participants self-reported a total
of four hours of individual practice over 13 days with the control group practicing
the F blues criterion task without the aid of a play-along, while the experimental
group practiced with a play-along. Three expert judges evaluated participants’
improvisations. Pre- and post-test performances were identified as such to the judges
before ratings took place, potentially compromising results. The researcher reported
that both groups improved significantly from pre- to post-test and that the
experimental group improved by a larger percentage than the control group. An
examination of the results, however, also shows that the control group in fact scored
higher than the experimental group on both the pre-test and post-test. No mention is
made of whether these differences were tested for significance.Two recent studies (Heil 2005; Laughlin 2001) have compared the relative
effectiveness of aural- and notation-based instruction. Laughlin (2001) compared the
effects of aural exercises and notated exercises as pedagogical procedures for teaching
harmonic accuracy to beginning high school jazz improvisation students (N�20).
Subjects were designated to either an aural (n�12) or a notation (n�8) instructional
method. The stimulus task was a 32-bar improvisation over the chord progression of
the tune So What. Instructional materials consisted of exercises employing dorian
and harmonic minor scales and arpeggios, application of scale and arpeggio
materials to the chord changes of So What, single measure melodic patterns, an
exemplary improvised solo and a play-along recording. Six expert judges evaluated
subjects’ performances, with interjudge reliability correlations ranging from 0.47 to
0.88. However, it appeared that some of the judges did not complete all of the items
on the evaluation measure. Laughlin reported that both groups’ scores improved
significantly from pre- to post-test (pB0.001) and that the aural instruction method
produced greater increases in achievement. No reliability evidence was provided for
these difference scores.Heil (2005) examined the relative effectiveness of melodic/imitative and theore-
tical/technical approaches to vocal jazz improvisation instruction with high school
choral students. Pre- and post-test performance data were collected for 90 subjects.
Participants were assigned to a control group or one of two instructional groups that
each received eight 10-minute treatment sessions. The melodic/imitative instructional
treatment included scales, chords, patterns, listening, call and response activities, and
variation of jazz melodies, while the theoretical/technical treatment included notated
musical examples, chords, scales, harmonic progressions and patterns. Three judges
evaluated recordings, with interjudge reliability coefficients ranging from 0.70
to 0.80. However, judges were made aware of which performances were pre- or
386 K.E. Watson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
post-treatment, a potential source of contamination. Results showed no effect of
instruction on achievement in rhythmic skill or tonal aspects of blues performance,
however, a significant effect was found for achievement in tonal aspects of
improvising over rhythm changes. No significant difference in achievement was
found for instructional method.
Measurement of jazz improvisation achievement
Investigations of instructional effectiveness depend on reliable measurement of the
dependent variable of achievement. In the relatively young field of jazz research,
there has been a significant interest in the construction of research instruments that
could be used to reliably measure jazz improvisation achievement (e.g. Bash 1983;
Bongiorno 1990; Burnsed and Price 1984; Ciorba 2006; Hores 1977; Laughlin 2001;
Madura 1996; May 1998; Pfenninger 1990; Schilling 1987). Investigations of these
instruments have also raised questions about whether the individual items assessed
within each measure are discrete or are in fact measuring the same construct. For
example, Burnsed and Price (1984) proposed six evaluation criteria for their
instrument: (a) technical facility; (b) melodic and rhythmic development; (c) style;
(d) tonal materials; (e) emotional effect; and (f) overall effect. The results of
correlational analyses indicated that, with the exception of emotional effect, all items
were highly correlated with one another, suggesting that these separate dimensions
may represent the same variable. Pfenninger (1990) constructed rating scales for the
measurement of three dimensions of jazz improvisation achievement: (a) tonal;
(b) rhythm; and (c) expressive. The researcher found high correlations (r�0.71)
between the expression and rhythm dimensions, but lower correlations between the
tonal and rhythm dimensions (r�0.40), and the tonal and expression dimensions
(r�0.18). Madura (1996) developed the measure of vocal jazz improvisation
achievement for the researcher’s study of factors influencing vocal jazz achievement.
This measurement instrument assessed 19 criteria that were grouped into the same
three dimensions employed by Pfenninger. In contrast to Pfenninger’s results,
Madura found high and significant (pB0.001) correlations between the tonal and
rhythmic dimensions (r�0.79), tonal and expressive dimensions (r�0.82), and
rhythmic and expressive dimensions (r�0.76).
More recent investigations on measurement instruments have continued to
produce reliable measurement tools for jazz improvisation evaluation. May (1998)
developed the Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Evaluation Measure (IJIEM), which
incorporated the constructs of jazz improvisation proposed by Burnsed and Price
(1984) and added the categories of rhythm/time feel and creativity. A seven-point
Likert scale (1 � low, 7 �high) was used to measure each of the items. The
researcher reported high interrater reliability for both the total scores (r�0.97) as
well as for each of the individual items (r�0.91�0.96). Strong statistically significant
correlations (pB0.001) were revealed among all subtests of both improvisation tasks,
leading the researcher to suggest that jazz improvisation achievement might not
be multidimensional. A principal components analysis procedure supported the
researcher’s hypothesis. The most widely accepted criterion for deciding on the
number of factors to retain is Kaiser’s rule, which states that only those components
whose eigenvalues are greater than one should be retained (Mertler and Vannatta
Music Education Research 387
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
2005). The researcher’s analyses revealed only one factor that met this eigenvalue
criterion.
Ciorba (2006) developed the Jazz Improvisation Performance Assessment (JIPA)
measure for use in a study of variables that might predict jazz improvisationachievement. The researcher adopted the following seven categories as criteria for
assessment: (a) technical facility; (b) rhythm/time feel; (c) melodic/rhythmic
development; (d) style; (e) expression; (f) harmony; and (g) creativity. A rating scale
of 1.0�5.0 was used for each category. Achievement was measured by assessing
participants’ improvisations on Bb blues and Satin Doll chord progressions. The
measure was found to have high internal reliability (a �0.96) and interjudge
reliability coefficients among three judges for individual items ranged from 0.92 to
0.97. No correlations among individual items of the JIPA were reported.
Relationship between creativity and jazz improvisation achievement
While some researchers have included creativity as a dimension for evaluation on
their jazz improvisation achievement measurement instruments (e.g. Ciorba 2006;
May 1998), only a limited number of studies (e.g. Greennagel 1994; Madura 1996;
Madura Ward-Steinman 2008; Wills 2003) have systematically investigated the
relationship between the construct of creativity and achievement in jazz. Historically,creativity has been studied using a number of different approaches, including: (a)
psychometric; (b) social-personality; (c) cognitive; and (d) confluence. The psycho-
metric approach to creativity study was originally proposed by Guilford (1950), who
suggested that creativity could be studied in everyday subjects by measuring
divergent thinking tasks (Sternberg and Lubart 1999). This approach has been
very influential on music creativity research (e.g. Baltzer 1988; Gorder 1980; Webster
1979), but has yet to be widely used to investigate creative achievement in jazz. Two
exceptions are Madura’s (1996) and Madura Ward-Steinman’s (2008) investigationsof the relationships between vocal jazz improvisation achievement and creativity in
subjects who were enrolled in collegiate vocal jazz ensembles. In an initial
investigation, Madura measured subjects’ general creativity using the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking (TTCT)-Verbal Form (Torrance 1990). The TTCT was used to
measure creative fluency, flexibility and originality, and a creativity variable was
generated from a composite of the z-scores from these three tests. Results showed no
significant relationship between vocal jazz improvisation achievement and the
Torrance measure of creativity. However, the results of a subsequent factor analysisprocedure on achievement data revealed a small creative factor defined by the use of
originality and variety in rhythm, melody, tone colour, range and dynamics. In a
follow-up study, the same researcher investigated the roles of convergent and
divergent thinking in vocal jazz improvisation achievement with a sample that
included both American and Australian college-level jazz singers (N�102). One of
the three factors that emerged from the jazz improvisation achievement data was
labelled a Vocal Creativity factor and was represented by factor simple items
addressing vocal tone colour originality, vocal tone colour variety dynamic variety,and vocal range variety.
The social-personality approach to creativity study has focused on personality,
motivational and sociocultural variables as sources of creativity (Sternberg and
Lubart 1999). In line with this model, Wills (2003) investigated biographical material
388 K.E. Watson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
relating to 40 eminent jazz musicians in order to investigate a possible link between
psychopathology and levels of creativity in jazz. Some of the musicians investigated
included Charlie Parker, Chet Baker, Art Pepper, Stan Getz and Miles Davis. The
researcher transformed biographical data into psychiatric diagnoses by using
classifications and criteria from the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association
1994) in order to ascertain levels of psychopathology. The researcher concluded that
there was evidence that levels of psychopathology in the sample were above average
and were similar to those found in other previously investigated creative samples. The
researcher acknowledged a number of potential shortcomings in the methodology,
including the possibility of biased biographers, the interpretation of biographical
data as fact, and a lack of evidence for validity and reliability of results.
Charting future directions
The five streams of jazz pedagogy research summarised here present jazz researchers
with a number of possible directions for future investigations. Examinations of
predictor variables for jazz improvisation achievement have uncovered significant
relationships between the dependent variable and jazz theory knowledge, aural
imitation ability, self-evaluation of improvisation skill and jazz experience. An
examination of this body of research reveals some conflicting findings, likely due to
varied operational definitions, sample sizes and research methodologies. Further
exploration of these findings with a variety of age and experience levels is needed.
Future research might seek tighter operational definitions and/or more objective
measurement of experience variables such as jazz listening, jazz improvisation class
experience or jazz ensemble experience. The lack of demonstrated relationships
between jazz improvisation achievement and variables such as music performance
achievement or music aptitude is a fascinating area for future inquiry. The finding
that self-perception of improvisation performance has emerged as a significant
predictor of both instrumental and vocal jazz improvisation achievement suggests
that further research is needed to determine what aspects of this variable (e.g. aural
discrimination skills, self-regulation ability) are particularly relevant to predicting
achievement, and how such self-evaluation skill might be developed. There are also a
number of additional potentially relevant variables that have yet to be investigated.
For example, improvisation is often referred to as spontaneous composition. Given
that both improvisation and composition require a synthesis of aural skills,
knowledge of musical structures and styles, and the ability to order and arrange
sounds in some meaningful way (Boyle and Radocy 1987), would composition skill
predict improvisational achievement, or are these variables unrelated?
The few studies that have undertaken content analyses of pedagogical materials
have found that such materials emphasised the use of notated exercises on tonal
concepts with less attention given to the topics of aural and rhythmic development.
The most recent of these studies, however, is now more than 10 years old and it is
possible that more recent materials stress different approaches to improvisation
study. Advances in interactive technology may also have altered the composition of
instructional materials. Content analyses of recently produced pedagogical materials
are needed in order to determine instructional approaches that are currently being
emphasised in jazz pedagogy.
Music Education Research 389
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Jazz improvisation has often been viewed as a talent that does not lend itself to
instruction (May 2003). However, a growing body of literature exists that has
proposed and evaluated instructional methods for jazz improvisation, providing
some evidence for the fact that jazz improvisation is a skill that can be taught and
learned successfully. Unfortunately, many of these investigations have suffered from
flawed research methodology. While such growing pains are to be expected in any
relatively young domain of research, the challenge for future jazz researchers is tolearn from these pioneering studies and continue to improve research procedures.
There is still much work to be done in the area of investigations of instructional
effectiveness. While aural imitation has been found to be a predictive variable in jazz
improvisation achievement, solid empirical research investigating the effectiveness of
this instructional method relative to other approaches is lacking. A number of other
questions also remain, for example: (a) Which instructional methods are best suited
to beginning improvisers? (b) Are these same methods also effective for more
experienced students? (c) What are the benefits of chord/scale pedagogies relative to
more melodic variation approaches to improvisation? and (d) What behaviours or
characteristics do effective jazz teachers exhibit, either in classroom or private lesson
settings?
Extant research investigating jazz improvisation measurement instruments has
provided evidence that jazz improvisation is a skill that can be reliably measured.
One commonly held perspective is that because jazz improvisation is (or should be) a
creative act of self-expression, such a performance does not lend itself to evaluation(Burnsed and Price 1984). Yet, when educators advocate for the inclusion of jazz
improvisation as a credited curricular offering, such inclusion comes with a
responsibility for valid and reliable assessment and grading (Garcia 1998). It is
only through consistency of measurement that a teacher may be sure of the accuracy
of his/her assessment of a student’s achievement (Schilling 1987). The question of
how parsimoniously such achievement can be measured, however, appears to still be
open for debate. The relatively consistent finding of high correlations among
individual dimensions of jazz improvisation achievement may suggest that the
designation of a single score to assess achievement is as effective as assessing
individual dimensions. Further exploration of this finding using expanded training of
judges or tighter operational definitions of dimensions is needed. Another
consideration of assessment that has yet to be explored is the issue of how an
individual’s achievement might relate to the performances of other group members.
Assessment of more advanced jazz students might wish take into account such group
performance dynamics.
The application of creativity research to eminent creative achievement in jazz is arealm of investigation that is still in its nascent form. While a great deal of music
creativity research has focused on the psychometric model of measurement of
divergent thinking, such models have been criticised as lacking validity because they
fail to predict practical criteria (Sax 1997). Others have questioned the idea that non-
eminent samples can shed light on eminent levels of creativity (Sternberg and Lubart
1999). Future studies might alternatively adopt a confluence approach to investigat-
ing the relationship between creativity and jazz performance achievement. The
confluence approach holds that multiple components, including cognitive, social and
cultural elements, must converge for creativity to occur (Sternberg and Lubart 1999).
For example, Sternberg and Lubart’s investment theory of creativity has proposed
390 K.E. Watson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
that intelligence, knowledge, thinking style, motivation, environment and personality
factors are all critical components of creativity (Sternberg and O’Hara 1999).
Confluence theories would appear to be relevant to investigations of eminent creative
achievement in jazz. For example, Owens’ (1995) analyses of the recorded solos of
Charlie Parker showed that a significant proportion of Parker’s greatest solos was
constructed from formulas that he had acquired from various sources, such as
musicians of the previous generation, the common vocabulary among his peers and
those he himself developed. Owens’ analysis provides one example of the way that
creative achievement in jazz improvisation may depend on a confluence of knowl-
edge, skill and culture-specific elements.
The two decades that have passed since Brown’s (1988) call for increased
organisational logic in jazz research have seen a number of defined areas of inquiry
emerge. In addition to the five research streams noted here, there are a number of
other aspects of jazz pedagogy that might be considered for future investigations.
The relationship between gender and participation in jazz is an area that has been
explored from a historical point of view (e.g. Tucker 2000), but is one that would
benefit from empirical investigations of contemporary contexts. Berliner’s (1994)
landmark work on the thinking processes employed by improvising jazz musicians
should be extended in order to develop theoretical models upon which jazz curricula
could be based. In addition, given the results of research (e.g. Byo 1999) showing that
music teachers often lack confidence in their own abilities to improvise, yet are
increasingly being encouraged to incorporate this activity into their teaching,
investigations into the development of self-efficacy for improvisation would be
beneficial to music educators. The pioneering efforts of the researchers noted here
have created a substantial foundation upon which future investigators may build and
chart new directions for jazz pedagogy.
Notes on contributor
Kevin E. Watson is a visiting professor of music (music education) at the Indiana UniversityJacobs School of Music in Bloomington, IN. He teaches graduate and undergraduate coursesin music teaching and learning, music psychology, and measurement and evaluation. Hisresearch focuses on the areas of jazz pedagogy and music teacher preparation.
References
Aebersold, J. 1979. A new approach to jazz improvisation. Vol. 1. New Albany: JameyAebersold.
Aitken, A.E. 1975. A self-instructional audio-imitation method designed to teach trumpetstudents jazz improvisation in the major mode. PhD diss., University of Oregon.
Allen, J. 1999. A methodical approach to the introduction of jazz improvisation for the flutist.DA diss., University of Northern Colorado.
American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.4th ed. Washington, DC: APA.
Baltzer, S.W. 1988. A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of Research inMusic Education 36, no. 4: 232�49.
Bash, L. 1983. The effectiveness of three instructional methods on the acquisition of jazzimprovisation skills. PhD diss., University of New York at Buffalo.
Berliner, P. 1994. Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
Music Education Research 391
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
Birkett, J.G. 1994. Gaining access to the inner mechanisms of jazz improvisation. PhD diss.,Open University.
Bongiorno, F. 1990. The construction and validation of an evaluation instrument for jazzensemble saxophone auditions. DM diss., Indiana University.
Bowman, W.D. 1988. Doctoral research in jazz improvisation pedagogy: An overview. Bulletinof the Council for Research in Music Education 96: 47�76.
Boyle, J.D., and R.E. Radocy. 1987. Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. NewYork: Schirmer Books.
Brown, C. 1988. The current state and future directions in jazz research: A personalperspective. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 96: 42�6.
Burnsed, C.V. 1978. The development and evaluation of an introductory jazz improvisationsequence for intermediate band students. PhD diss., University of Miami.
Burnsed, C.V., and H. Price. 1984. Improvisation and evaluation. Jazz Research Papers 4:35�42.
Byo, S.J. 1999. Classroom teachers’ and music specialists’ perceived ability to implement theNational Standards for Music Education. Journal of Research in Music Education 47: 111�23.
Ciorba, C.R. 2006. The creation of a model to predict jazz improvisation achievement. PhDdiss., University of Miami.
Coy, D.A. 1989. A multisensory approach to teaching jazz improvisation to middle schoolband students. PhD diss., University of Oregon.
Damron, B.L. 1973. The development and evaluation of a self-instructional sequence in jazzimprovisation. PhD diss., Florida State University.
Duke, R.A. 2000. Measures of instructional effectiveness in music research. Bulletin of theCouncil for Research in Music Education 143: 1�48.
Flack, M.A. 2004. The effectiveness of Aebersold play-along recordings for gainingproficiency in jazz improvisation. DA diss., Ball State University.
Garcia, A. 1998. Grading jazz improvisation: On what basis? Jazz Educators Journal 30: 58�60.
Gorder, W.D. 1980. Divergent production abilities as constructs of musical creativity. Journalof Research in Music Education 28, no. 1: 34�42.
Gordon, E. 1965. Musical aptitude profile. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Gordon, E. 1989. Advance measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: G.I.A. Publications.Greennagel, D.J. 1994. A study of selected predictors of jazz vocal improvisation skills. PhD
diss., University of Miami.Guilford, J.P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist 5: 444�54.Heglund, A.G. 2004. An aural approach to jazz drumset pedagogy. DA diss., University of
Northern Colorado.Heil, L.T. 2005. The effects of two vocal jazz improvisation methods on high school choir
students’ attitudes and performance achievement. PhD diss., University of Colorado atBoulder.
Herzig, M. 1995. Jazz pedagogy: A review of literature. Jazz Research Papers 15: 80�8.Herzig, M. 1997. Elements of jazz piano pedagogy: A content analysis. DME diss., Indiana
University.Hores, R.G. 1977. A comparative study of visual- and aural-oriented approaches to jazz
improvisation with implications for instruction. DME diss., Indiana University.Laughlin, J.E. 2001. The use of notated and aural exercises as pedagogical procedures
intended to develop harmonic accuracy among beginning jazz improvisers. PhD diss.,University of North Texas.
Madura, P.D. 1996. Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theoryknowledge, imitative ability, musical experience, creativity, and gender. Journal of Researchin Music Education 44: 252�67.
Madura Ward-Steinman, P. 2008. Vocal improvisation and creative thinking by Australian andAmerican university jazz singers: A factor analytic study. Journal of Research in Music Edu-cation 56, no. 5. http://www.jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/5 (accessed April 2,2009).
392 K.E. Watson
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014
May, L.F. 1998. Relationships among jazz theory achievement, jazz aural skills, auralimitation, and achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. DME diss., IndianaUniversity.
May, L.F. 2003. Factors and abilities influencing achievement in instrumental jazz improvisa-tion . Journal of Research in Music Education 51, no. 3: 245�58.
Mertler, C., and R. Vannatta. 2005. Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practicalapplication and interpretation. 3rd ed. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Owens, T. 1995. Bebop: The music and its players. New York: Oxford University Press.Paulson, J.C. 1985. The development of an imitative instructional approach to improvising
effective melodic statements in jazz solos. DMA diss., University of Washington.Pfenninger, R. 1990. The development and validation of three rating scales for the objective
measurement of jazz improvisation achievement. DMA diss., Temple University.Rinzler, P. 1987. Teaching musical expressiveness in jazz improvisation. Jazz Research Papers
7: 155�9.Sarath, E.W. 1992. An alternative approach to teaching and learning improvisation toward a
creative global aesthetic. Jazz Research Papers 12: 120�6.Sax, G. 1997. Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation, 4th ed.
Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Schilling, R. 1987. The feasibility of objective diagnostic measurement of jazz improvisation
achievement. Jazz Research Papers 7: 160�9.Sternberg, R., and T. Lubart. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In
Handbook of creativity, ed. R.J. Sternberg, 3�15. New York: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R., and L. O’Hara. 1999. Creativity and intelligence. In Handbook of creativity, ed.
R. Sternberg, 251�72. New York: Cambridge University Press.Torrance, E.P. 1990. Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel.Tucker, S. 2000. Swing shift: All-girl bands of the 1940s. Durham: Duke University Press.Watkins, J.G., and S.E. Farnum. 1954. The Watkins�Farnum Performance Scale: Form A.
Winona, MN: Hal Leonard.Watson, K.E. 2008. The effect of aural versus notated instructional materials on achievement
and self-efficacy in jazz improvisation. DME diss., Indiana University.Webster, P.R. 1979. Relationship between creative behavior in music and selected variables as
measured in high school students. Journal of Research in Music Education 27: 227�42.Wills, G.I. 2003. Forty lives in the bebop business: Mental health in a group of eminent jazz
musicians. British Journal of Psychiatry 183: 255�9.Witmer, R., and J. Robbins. 1988. A historical and critical survey of recent pedagogical
materials for the teaching and learning of jazz. Bulletin of the Council for Research in MusicEducation 96: 7�29.
Zwick, R. 1987. Jazz improvisation: A recommended sequential format of instruction. PhDdiss., North Texas State University.
Music Education Research 393
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
2 N
ovem
ber
2014