Jazz improvisation pedagogy: evaluating the effectiveness of a beginning jazz improvisation learning environment for middle school instrumentalists

In the last century, the practice of improvisation has distinguished jazz and set it apart from other musical genres and their performance practices (Azzara, 2002; Coker, 1978). Despite available resources, improvisation’s role in the National Core Arts Standards (NCCAS, 2014), and jazz’s significance in school music programs (Azzara, 2002; Sarath, 2002; Watson, 2010), inconsistencies in music improvisation education have persisted. To explain deficiencies in improvisation education, researchers have proposed a lack of teacher experience (Alexander, 2012; Azzara, 1999) and a need for greater pre-service teacher preparation (Watson, 2010; West, 2015). Educators and music students may therefore benefit from research-based best practices for teaching jazz improvisation. Existing research has studied the effectiveness of jazz improvisation instruction in general (e.g., Bash, 1983; Coy, 1989; Watson, 2010) and which personal characteristics predict positive outcomes (e.g., Ciorba, 2009; Madura, 1996; May, 2003). Future research should investigate which methods are most effective (Azzara, 2002; Bowman, 1988; May, 2003) and at which stages of musical development (Azzara, 2002; Bowman, 1988; Kratus, 1995). The purpose of this design-based, sequential explanatory mixed methods study, was to investigate if and how four critical features of a beginning jazz improvisation learning environment affected outcomes for middle school instrumentalists, including whether one of two instructional sequences better supported outcomes. The learning environment was designed to support achievement, self-assessment, self-efficacy, and motivation outcomes. Over 12 weeks, 5th-8th grade instrumentalists (n=43) at two sites studied jazz improvisation in 6 jazz combos, which were divided into Groups A and B. The design features of the learning environment were consistent between groups; the two conditions differed by harmonic form instructional sequences. Quantitative data for all outcomes was collected pre-, mid-, and post-instruction, and all instruction was video recorded. Primary findings showed: (a) a significant effect on all measured outcomes over time, not only for the 12-week duration of the instructional period but even in the first 6 weeks; (b) no significant differences between conditions for any outcomes; (c) a significant interaction between assessed task and achievement; (d) minimal significant relationships among outcomes; (e) evidence of how design features acted as sources of positive outcomes.Ed.D.Includes bibliographical reference