Resonant Researcher

In “Responding to Student Compositions” by S. Reese (2003), found in Why and How to Teach Music Composition: A New Horizon for Music Education (edited by M. Hickey), Reese explores the essential practice of providing feedback to student composers in a way that fosters both creativity and development. This article offers invaluable insights into how educators can respond thoughtfully to student compositions and encourage an open, positive atmosphere for growth. As a music educator, understanding the nuances of how to critique student work is crucial not only for fostering technical skill but also for inspiring students to continue exploring their creative potential.

Key Takeaways from Reese’s Article

One of the key points Reese emphasizes is the balance between providing constructive feedback and maintaining the student’s sense of autonomy in the creative process. Too often, feedback can be overly prescriptive, which can unintentionally stifle creativity. Reese suggests that the role of the teacher is not to impose a singular, “correct” way of composing music but to act as a guide that helps students reflect on their own work.

Reese stresses the importance of questioning the intent behind a student’s compositional choices. By encouraging students to articulate the reasons behind their musical decisions, educators can help them engage in a deeper understanding of their own work. This reflective process is valuable because it helps students develop a personal voice and style, which is essential in the art of composition.

Another critical aspect of Reese’s approach is the idea of providing positive reinforcement alongside constructive criticism. Reese advises teachers to focus on the strengths of a composition first, ensuring that students feel confident in what they are doing well. This positive reinforcement can create an environment where students are more open to receiving critiques on areas that require further attention. Reese highlights that this dual approach—affirming strengths while addressing weaknesses—can encourage a growth mindset, which is fundamental in any creative discipline.

My Response

Reese’s article made me reflect on my own experiences as a music educator, particularly in the context of working with student composers in a secondary general music setting. Whether it’s an arrangement or a more experimental piece, students often look for guidance on how to improve. Reese’s framework of reflective questioning seems particularly useful in a context where students might be hesitant to take risks. By encouraging students to consider why they make specific compositional choices and fostering an open dialogue, we can guide them through the creative process rather than just focusing on the end product.

Additionally, the idea of offering praise before critique resonates with me. In many cases, students like many of us are their harshest critics, and reinforcing what’s working well in their compositions can help build the confidence they need to continue creating. I also see Reese’s emphasis on the teacher’s role as a facilitator of creative expression as something that aligns well with my own teaching philosophy. As music educators, it’s crucial to empower students to take ownership of their compositions and not simply produce work based on what we tell them is “right.”

Conclusion

Reese’s article provides a thoughtful and practical approach to responding to student compositions. It encourages a balanced, student-centered methodology that can enhance the learning experience and support creative exploration. As we continue to cultivate young composers, whether in the classroom or in church music programs, Reese’s insights offer an important reminder that the process of creating music is just as valuable—if not more so—than the final product.