The Oxford Handbook of Early Childhood Learning and Development in Music 9780190927523, 0190927526

Citation preview

T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f

E A R LY C H I L DHO OD LEARNING AND DE V E L OP M E N T I N M U SIC

The Oxford Handbook of

EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN MUSIC Edited by

MARGARET S. BARRETT and

GRAHAM F. WELCH

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2023 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Control Number: 2023945893 ISBN 978–​0–​19–​092752–​3 DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780190927523.001.0001 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

Contents

Acknowledgments  Contributors  Handbook Introduction  Margaret S. Barrett and Graham F. Welch

xiii xv xxi

SE C T ION 1 .   M A P P I N G T H E L A N D S C A P E S OF M U SIC E A R LY L E A R N I N G A N D DE V E L OP M E N T: HA N DB O OK I N T RODU C T ION 1. Section Introduction: Mapping the Landscapes of Music Early Learning and Development  Margaret S. Barrett and Graham F. Welch

3

2. Digital Landscapes of Early Childhood Music Learning and Development: Music Media and Children’s Music Culture of the Past in the Present  Ingeborg Lunde

5

3. Media Messages Surrounding Parents and Music  Lisa Huisman Koops

23

4. Child Music Development: Studying Change  Lucia Benetti and Eugenia Costa-​Giomi

47

5. Musical Parenting in a Digital Age: Affordances and Constraints in Pandemic Times  Vicky Abad, Helen Shoemark, and Margaret S. Barrett

63

6. Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music in Their Lives: Visual Methods in Music Education Research  Katie Zhukov and Margaret S. Barrett

84

vi   Contents

7. The Intangible Heritage of Children’s Musical Cultures: From “Child’s Play” to Culture-​Making  Margaret S. Barrett

104

8. Researching Music Early Learning and Development: Mapping Methods and Techniques, Locations, Problems, and Theories  Margaret S. Barrett, Vicky Abad, and Graham F. Welch

119

9. Section Commentary: Researching Children’s Music-​Centered Cultural Poetics: Widening Horizons, Performing Critique  Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos

139

SE C T ION 2 .   P E R SP E C T I V E S ON M U SIC DE V E L OP M E N T 10. Section Introduction: Perspectives on Music Development Introduction  Mary C. Broughton and Eugenia Costa-​Giomi 11. The Social Origins of Music  Tal-​Chen Rabinowitch and Laura Cirelli 12. Prenatal and Postnatal Development of Musical Behaviors and Their Role in Infancy  Eino Partanen, Paula Virtala, and Kaisamari Kostilainen

147 149

166

13. Cultural Diversity and the Explanation of Musical Development  David J. Hargreaves

186

14. Creativity in and through Music  Anna Rita Addessi

204

15. Young Children’s Musical Identities: A Network of Musical Worlds  Amanda Niland

219

16. Section Commentary: Music Development Research Futures  Clare Hall

237

SE C T ION 3 .   M U SIC I N FA M I LY A N D C OM M U N I T Y C ON T E X T S 17. Section Introduction  Lori Custodero and Patricia Shehan Campbell

247

Contents   vii

18. Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Musical Experiences: Seeking Meaning in Memories of/​with Family  Lori Custodero 19. Building a Profile of Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs, Values, and Practices  Vicky Abad, Mary C. Broughton, Margaret S. Barrett, and Graham F. Welch

250

266

20. Voices of Influence: Shared Music in the Lives of Toddlers as Expressed through their Pre-​Sleep Vocalizations  Meryl Sole

297

21. A Toddler’s Musical Interactions at Home on the Kibbutz: Four Theoretical Lenses  Claudia Gluschankof

314

22. Parental Involvement in a Greek Early Childhood Music Program  Lelouda Stamou, Vicky Abad, and Rafaela Troulou

336

23. Music in Early Education and Care Settings for Communication and Language Support  Jessica Pitt and Graham F. Welch

351

24. Singing and Musical Traditions in Icelandic and Estonian Childhoods  Helga R. Gudmundsdottir and Kristi Kiilu

379

25. Maracatu de Baque Virado: Children’s Communities of Music Practice  Juliana Cantarelli Vita

396

26. Early Childhood and Musics of the Diaspora  Yen-​Ting Wu and Graham F. Welch

414

27. Sub-​Saharan African Musical Learning Communities  Emily Achieng’ Akuno, Akosua Obuo Addo, Elizabeth Achieng’ Andang’o, Andrea Emberly, Mudzunga Davhula, and Perminus Matiure

439

28. Early Childhood and Music in Indigenous Contexts: Approaches to Teaching and Learning in an Indigenous Australian Community  Sally Treloyn, Andrea Emberly, Rona Goonginda Charles, and Leah Umbagai

464

viii   Contents

29. Section Commentary: Elton’s Back: Parenting and Children’s Musical Participation in the Aftermath of a Pandemic  Beatriz Ilari

483

SE C T ION 4 .   M U SIC W I T H YOU N G C H I L DR E N I N SI T E S OF T R A N SI T ION , T R AUM A , A N D C ON F L IC T 30. Section Introduction  Kathryn Marsh and Libby Flynn

499

31. The Role of Music in Emotion Regulation for Children Who Have Experienced Abuse and Neglect  Kate Teggelove

503

32. Music and Early Childhood in Asylum Seeking Centers: Insights from Ireland and Germany  Ailbhe Kenny

518

33. The Musical Activities of Syrian Refugee Children in Sweden  Carrie A. Danielson

532

34. War and Conflict in Resettlement Contexts: Music in Children’s Everyday Lives  Samantha Sebastian Dieckmann and Kathryn Marsh

549

35. Development of Wellbeing and Self-​Esteem through “Music for Reconciliation,” a Music Program for Children and Youngsters Living in Severe Social Disadvantage in Colombia  María Claudia Parias Durán and Andrea del Pilar Rodríguez-​Sánchez

569

36. Connection through Music for Mothers and Young Children in Prison  Inês Lamela and Kirstin Anderson

588

37. Creating Sustainable Music Programs with Vulnerable Populations in Community Settings  Lucy Bolger and Somesh Purey

603

Contents   ix

38. Section Commentary: Music with Young Children in Sites of Transition, Trauma, and Conflict  Katrina Skewes McFerran

621

SE C T ION 5 . 1 .   M U SIC A N D M U SIC IA N S I N C H I L DR E N ’ S HO SP I TA L S 39. Section Introduction: Music and Musicians in Children’s Hospitals  Costanza Preti and Helen Shoemark

631

40. Music in Children’s Hospitals: A Cultural Action to Support Health  Costanza Preti and Philippe Bouteloup

633

41. Live Bedside Music-​Making with Children in Hospital  Rosalind Hawley and Joan Livesley

649

42. Live Music in a Children’s Hospital: A Duoethnography to Consider the Potential for All  Helen Shoemark and Costanza Preti

665

SE C T ION 5 . 2 .   M U SIC TO A DDR E S S S O C IA L A N D M E DIC A L R I SK I N C H I L DHO OD 43. Section Introduction: Music to Address Social and Medical Risk in Childhood  Helen Shoemark and Vicky Abad

685

44. Familiar Music, Comfort, and Pain in the NICU  Pernilla Hugoson and Louise Eulau

686

45. Voice as the Platform for Intimate Moments in the NICU  Helen Shoemark

705

46. Music Therapy for Young Children with Attachment Challenge  Stine Lindahl Jacobsen and Rachel Swanick

717

47. Music Therapy in Pediatric Neurorehabilitation  Jonathan Pool and Claire Wood

735

48. Resilience-​Based Music Partnerships for Children with Chronic Health Issues  Lori F. Gooding and Dawn A. Iwamasa

753

x   Contents

49. Music Therapy with Children at the End of Life  Kristen O’Grady and Kelli McKee 50. Section Commentary: Music, Mess, Metamodernism, and Post-​Qualitative Inquiry  Raymond MacDonald

773

789

SE C T ION 6 .   M U SIC A L DE V E L OP M E N T A N D N E U RODI V E R SI T Y 51. Section Introduction  Graham F. Welch and Adam Ockelford 52. The Role of Natural Abilities in Early Childhood Musical Development  Solange Glasser and Gary E. McPherson 53. The Impact of Visual Impairment on Early Musical Development  Angela Voyajolu, Rosie Axon, and Adam Ockelford

797

801 822

54. Accommodating Neurodiversity in Early Childhood Music Learning and Development  Mara Chasar and Michael B. Bakan

838

55. Music Education and Engagement for Young Children with Hearing Loss  Eloise Doherty, Wayne J. Wilson, and Margaret S. Barrett

862

56. Supporting Children Living with Neurodiversity: An Analysis of Access and Engagement in a Community-​Based Music Early Learning Program  Vicky Abad, Graham F. Welch, and Margaret S. Barrett

896

57. Exploring the Effectiveness of a Musical Intervention for Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Children in the Early Years, and for Those with Complex Needs: The IMAGINE Research Project, Phase 1  Adam Ockelford 58. Unfurling the Musicality of Children with Autism: Experiences from Hitham  Bombay Jayashri Ramnath

913

937

Contents   xi

59. Autism and Family-​Centered Approaches in and through Music  Grace Thompson, Tania Lisboa, and Adam Ockelford

949

60. Section Commentary: Special Musical Abilities and Needs  Adam Ockelford and Graham F. Welch

967

SE C T ION 7.   F U T U R E P E R SP E C T I V E S 61. Future Perspectives  Graham F. Welch and Margaret S. Barrett Name Index  Subject Index 

971

979 1009

Acknowledgments

The genesis for this Oxford Handbook of Early Childhood Learning and Development in Music was an award in 2013 from the Australian Research Council Discovery Grants program1 to the Handbook’s lead editors for a large-​scale, multi-​strand study to create a cultural-​ecological model of early musical development. The emergent research findings from the core team of Margaret S. Barrett, Graham F. Welch, Vicky Abad, Mary Broughton, Libby Flynn, and Kate Williams revealed an extensive, multifaceted, and rich cultural ecosystem that enables the fostering of young children’s innate musicality, from birth to eight years of age. As part of the project, the lead editors convened a four-​day workshop at the University of Queensland that brought together a group of international researchers (Lori Custodero, Patricia Shehan Campbell, Kathryn Marsh, Costanza Preti, and Helen Shoemark), each of whom represented a particular disciplinary perspective in the field of early childhood and music, to work with team members. As a collective, we debated and agreed an overall structure for the handbook, and each colleague took responsibility for convening other established authors in their respective fields to co-​create one of the sections in this handbook, with Eugenia Costa-​Giomi and Adam Ockelford joining the team as section coeditors. Thus, we have been able to draw on a wide array of expert perspectives globally to provide a rounded picture of the significance and importance of music in young children’s lives, both development in music and development through music. Each chapter has been reviewed not only by the editorial team but also through contributions from expert colleagues across the music education and development world. We are indebted to all for their insights and expert feedback. Planning, preparing, and delivering a volume of these dimensions (sixty-​one chapters and eighty authors) is a demanding task. We delivered the full manuscript to Oxford University Press in July 2021. As we write this introduction, we note the interruptions of a global pandemic, on-going national and international conflicts, and the impacts these have had on the research community. Each of the chapters reflects the knowledge extant at the time of submission. We thank all authors for their time, dedication, commitment, and collegiality in working with us to produce this volume. We thank all contributing authors, their co-​researchers, and research participants for sharing their work. We also thank the editorial team at Oxford University Press, which has ably assisted us through the publication process. We are indebted to Dr. Tammy Jones, the editorial manager for this project. Tammy’s keen eye for detail and unstinting efforts have shaped this volume for the better! Our thanks also to Dr. Katie Zhukov, who assisted in the final editing processes of the volume.

xiv   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Margaret S. Barrett, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music and Performance, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Graham F. Welch, Institute of Education, University College London, England April 2023.

Note 1. Barrett, M. S., & Welch, G. F. (2013–​2016). Being and becoming musical: Towards a cultural ecological model of early musical development. Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP130102488.

Contributors

Vicky Abad, Honorary Research Fellow in Music, University of Queensland, Australia Anna Rita Addessi, Professor of Music Education and Musicology, University of Bologna, Italy Akosua Obuo Addo, Associate Professor of Music Education, University of Minnesota, USA Emily Achieng’ Akuno, Professor of Music, The Technical University of Kenya Elizabeth Achieng’ Andang’o, Lecturer in Music Education, Kenyatta University, Kenya Kirstin Anderson, Lecturer in Criminology, Edinburgh Napier University, UK Rosie Axon, Founder, Director, and Life Support, Chiltern Music Therapy, UK Michael B. Bakan, Professor of Ethnomusicology and Head of the World Music Ensembles Program, Florida State University, USA Margaret S. Barrett, Professor of Music and Head of School, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music and Performance, Monash University, Australia Lucia Benetti, PhD Candidate in Music Education, Ohio State University, USA Lucy Bolger, Senior Lecturer in Music (Music Therapy), University of Melbourne, Australia Philippe Bouteloup, Director, Musician, Musique & Santé, France Mary Broughton, Senior Lecturer in Music Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia Patricia Shehan Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Music, University of Washington, USA; Fulbright Research Chair, Carleton University, Canada Juliana Cantarelli Vita, Assistant Professor of Music Education, University of Hartford’s Hartt School, USA Rona Goonginda Charles, Ngarinyin and Nyikina (First Nations, Kimberley region) singer, dancer, multi-​disciplinary artist, cultural teacher, and researcher; Mowanjum Art and Culture Centre, Australia

xvi   Contributors Mara Chasar, Student, Florida State University, USA Laura Cirelli, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada Eugenia Costa-​Giomi, Professor of Music Education, Ohio State University, USA Lori Custodero, Professor of Music Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA Carrie A. Danielson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Nordic Folklife, University of Wisconsin-​ Madison, USA Mudzunga Davhula, Venda musician and community leader; Creative Arts Curriculum Advisor, Vhembe District, Limpopo Province Department of Education, South Africa Samantha Sebastian Dieckmann, Associate Professor of Music, University of Oxford, UK Eloise Doherty, Lecturer in Audiology, Flinders University, Australia María Claudia Parias Durán, Executive President, National Batuta Foundation, Colombia Andrea Emberly, Associate Professor of Children’s Studies, York University, Canada Louise Eulau, Musicologist, Director of Studies, Department of Nursing, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden Libby Flynn, Lecturer, University of Queensland, Australia Solange Glasser, Lecturer in Music (Music Psychology), University of Melbourne, Australia Claudia Gluschankof, Associate Professor of Education, The Academic College Levinsky-​Wingate, Israel Lori F. Gooding, Associate Professor of Music Therapy, Florida State University Helga R. Gudmundsdottir, Professor of Music Education, University of Iceland Clare Hall, Senior Lecturer in Performing Arts, Monash University, Australia David J. Hargreaves, Emeritus Professor of Education and Music Psychology, University of Roehampton, UK Rosalind Hawley, Co-​Director and Co-​Founder, Songbirds Music UK, specialist health musician and creative health practitioner Pernilla Hugoson, Music Therapist Sachsska Children`s and Youth Hospital, South General Hospital Stockholm, Sweden. PhD Candidate in Music Therapy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Contributors   xvii Beatriz Ilari, Associate Professor of Music Teaching & Learning, University of Southern California, USA Dawn Iwamasa, Assistant Professor of Music Education and Music Therapy, University of Missouri-​Kansas City Conservatory Stine Lindahl Jacobsen, Associate Professor of Music Therapy, Aalborg University, Denmark Bombay Jayashri Ramnath, Indian Carnatic vocalist, composer, and musician Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos, Professor of Music Education, Department of Music Studies, School of Fine Arts , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Ailbhe Kenny, Associate Professor of Music Education, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland Kristi Kiilu, Head of Music Pedagogy Studies and Professor of Music Education, Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre Lisa Huisman Koops, Professor of Music Education and Head of Music Education, Case Western Reserve University, USA Kaisamari Kostilainen, Doctoral Researcher in the Cognitive Brain Research Unit, University of Helsinki, Finland Inês Lamela, Integrated Researcher, Institute of Ethnomusicology –​Centre for Studies in Music and Dance, Portugal Tania Lisboa, Reader in Performance Science and Digital Learning, The Royal College of Music, UK Joan Livesley, Senior Lecturer in Child Health, University of Salford, UK Ingeborg Lunde, Professor of Music Education, Head of Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences (INN) Raymond MacDonald, Chair of Music Psychology and Improvisation, University of Edinburgh, UK Kathryn Marsh, Professor Emerita of Music Education, University of Sydney, Australia Perminus Matiure, Lecturer in Music Business, Musicology, and Technology, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe Katrina Skewes McFerran, Professor in Music Therapy, University of Melbourne, Australia Kelli McKee, Clinical Program Facilitator, Friends of Kids with Cancer, USA Gary E. McPherson, Ormond Chair of Music, University of Melbourne, Australia

xviii   Contributors Amanda Niland, Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education, University of Sydney, Australia Adam Ockelford, Professor of Music and Director of the Applied Music Research Centre, University of Roehampton, UK Kristen O’Grady, Manager-​Volunteer Services and Community Outreach, AccentCare, USA Eino Partanen, Lecturer in Psychology and Logopedics, University of Helsinki, Finland Jessica Pitt, Lecturer in Music Education, The Royal College of Music, UK Jonathan Pool, Senior Research Fellow, Cambridge Institute for Music Therapy Research, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Costanza Preti, Honorary Research Associate of Culture, Communication and Media, UCL Institute of Education, UK; Research Associate at the International Music Education Research Centre (iMerc), UK Somesh Purey, Clinical Music Therapist and Educator, India Tal-​Chen Rabinowitch, Assistant Professor of Creative Arts Therapies, University of Haifa, Israel Andrea del Pilar Rodríguez-​Sánchez, PhD Candidate in Peace, Conflict and Development Studies, UNESCO Chair of Philosophy for Peace and Institute for Social Development, Jaume I University, Spain Helen Shoemark, Professor of Music Therapy, Temple University, USA Meryl Sole, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Music Education, New York University, USA Lelouda Stamou, Professor of Music Education, Department of Music Science and Art, Director of the Baby Artist Early Childhood Music Program, University of Macedonia, Greece Rachel Swanick, Training Lead and Senior Clinical Therapist, Chroma Arts Therapies, UK Kate Teggelove, Teaching Specialist: Creative Arts and Music Therapy, University of Melbourne, Australia Grace Thompson, Associate Professor in Music Therapy, University of Melbourne, Australia Sally Treloyn, Associate Professor of Ethnomusicology and Intercultural Research, University of Melbourne, Australia Rafaela Troulou, PhD Candidate, Department of Music Science and Art, University of Macedonia, Greece

Contributors   xix Leah Umbagai, Senior Woddordda (Worrorra) Traditional Owner and visual artist Paula Virtala, Postdoctoral Researcher in the Cognitive Brain Research Unit, University of Helsinki, Finland Angela Voyajolu, CEO, The Amber Trust, London, UK Graham F. Welch, Established Chair of Music Education, University College London (UCL) Institute of Education, UK Wayne J. Wilson, Associate Professor of Audiology, University of Queensland, Australia Claire Wood, Senior Music Therapist, KT Healthcare, UK Yen-​Ting Wu, Independent Researcher, International Music Education Research Centre, UCL Katie Zhukov, Research Fellow in Music, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music and Performance, Monash University, Australia

Ha n db o ok I n t roduc tion Margaret S. Barrett & Graham F. Welch It’s bath time in the Richards’ household and all hands are on deck. Patrick rests an elbow on the rim of the bath while dipping a yellow rubber duck in and out of the water. “Duck!” demands two-​year-​old Amy, splashing both hands in front of her, “Duck!” Patrick responds to her command by launching into the Rubber Duckie song. As he scoots the duck across the water in time to his singing, Amy grins and sways. She echoes the final words of each phrase, “fine,” “mine,” “you,” ending with a delighted squeal at the final “Boop boop I doo.” The next request for a song comes from Monica—​she stands at the change-​table with Lucy, the newest addition to the family. Lucy is a waving bundle of arms and legs, rolling from side to side, and celebrating her temporary freedom from clothing with piercing shrieks. “Something quiet—​how about twinkle?” Both parents begin to sing, their fingers twinkling and arms lifting. Monica leans in close to Lucy, her gaze focused on Lucy’s face while she gently grasps her hands and moves them in time with the music. Lucy quiets and watches her mother intently as the song is repeated. The moment is disrupted by another command from Amy “Frog!” Patrick converts the duck to a frog, bouncing it on Amy’s head, foot, and shoulder. As he returns to the chorus his singing becomes quieter, slower, with a gentle lilt. Monica takes up the refrain “La-​di-​ da-​di-​dah,” turning it into an improvised lullaby as she dresses Lucy. She exits the room, Lucy clasped against her shoulder, continuing to sing her lullaby as she moves down the hallway. Amy is not ready for bed and the bathroom now echoes with her vigorous splashing as she begins to row down the bath. “The boat song?” asks Patrick. Without waiting for a response, he begins, “Row, row, row your boat.” Amy joins in on the words “Row” and “merrily,” her singing tracing the contours of the melody, though the details of many words elude her. The evening repertoire continues on an animal theme with “Incy Wincy Spider”; “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep”; and the Play School theme song “There’s a Bear in There.” As Patrick sings “One Elephant Went Out to Play,” he counts off the elephants on Amy’s toes while she holds up the corresponding number of fingers. Patrick reaches for the towel, commencing a new song, “Rub a dub dub, Amy bub in a tub, and where does she need to be?” He continues to improvise on the song while the bath drains and Amy stands to be dried. The refrain of “Rub a dub dub” continues as Amy is dried, dressed, and readied for bed.

xxii   Barrett & Welch This opening vignette documents a daily ritual in the lives of many families, illustrating the ways in which music is used in family contexts. Both parents draw on song as a means to engage with their children, to change mood and activity, calm, and shape contexts of meaning. Patrick and Monica’s music-​making with their children draws on a familiar repertoire of song, which provides a starting point for improvisations that anchor their music-​making in the moment and enrich its meanings. Song is also employed as a learning tool for words, concepts, and numbers. This vignette arises from a research project that explored the ways in which families use music in their daily lives, the meanings of those uses, and the life and learning outcomes for parents and children (Barrett & Welch, 2013–​2016). Throughout that project, we were struck by the centrality of music in families’ lives in formal and informal settings and contexts, and the often hidden, unacknowledged ways in which music permeates family life. This handbook seeks to contribute to global conversations in research, policy, and practice through demonstrating the ways in which music is a central component of human experience and to offer perspectives on the ways in which engagement with and through music enriches children’s lives. This ambition is tempered by the sure knowledge that there are gaps and omissions in the view of children’s learning and development provided here, and that, in a world of constant and rapid change, there is much more that might be included. We started this project in 2018 with a meeting in Brisbane, Australia, that brought together the section editors in a three-​day workshop; we are ending it as the world continues to grapple with a global pandemic that has seen irreversible change in the lives of children and their communities. While the publishing cycle leaves full interrogation of this last to another project, we believe that it is essential to read the contributions here through the lens of pandemic and (we hope) post-​ pandemic worlds. The handbook comprises six sections, each focusing on a specific area of infants’ and young children’s lives in and through music. The opening section, edited by Margaret S. Barrett and Graham F. Welch, maps the contemporary and historical landscapes, including the digital, in which children’s music learning and development occurs. In Section 2, Mary Broughton and Eugenia Costa-​Giomi have curated a series of chapters that focus on the nature of music development, highlighting the ways in which these are context-​dependent and also responsive to changing theories of general development. The following section is curated by Lori Custodero and Patricia Shehan Campbell who invited authors to focus on the learning communities of family and the intersecting global cultures of children’s contemporary musical worlds. The section edited by Kathryn Marsh and Libby Flynn follows, and the authors have turned attention to those sites in which children live with trauma, conflict, and the transitions between worlds. Section 5, curated by Helen Shoemark, Costanza Preti, and Vicky Abad, provides an overview of the ways in which children encounter music in hospitals, clinics, and as therapeutic interventions for children at social and medical risk. The final section, edited by Graham F. Welch and Adam Ockelford, explores music and neurodiversity. A feature of the handbook structure is the addition of an invited commentary as the bookend to each section. Commentary contributors—​Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos, Clare Hall,

Handbook Introduction   xxiii Beatriz Ilari, Katrina Skewes McFerran, Raymond MacDonald, Adam Ockelford, and Graham F. Welch—​provide a personal reflection on the contents of each section and point to gaps and possibilities for future research and development. We shall return to these commentaries in the final chapter of this handbook. In what follows, we provide a brief introduction to each section and outline the emerging issues addressed by each.

Mapping the Landscapes of Music Early Learning and Development Initiatives such as “Thrive by Five” funded by the Mindaroo Foundation in Australia (2021), and the first 1,000 days of life project in France (Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé, 2020), have thrown much-​needed light (and resources) on the importance of the early years of life in setting the foundations for lifelong trajectories. The challenge rests in ensuring that the experience of music lies at the heart of these endeavors, rather than solely as an instrumentalist view that foregrounds the ways in which participation may enhance extra-​musical aspects such as brain function, socialization, and school readiness. A number of writers have noted the increasing use of instrumental justifications for music education and engagement across all levels of schooling, not least those of the early years. Critics of the “schoolification” of early learning in general and of music education specifically (see Young, 2018), highlight the need to ensure that music experience is culturally relevant, ecological, and empowering for the child participants. In other work, Odendaal, Levanen, and Westerlund (2018) query a trend toward the “neurofication” of music experience. These authors provide an analysis of seventy-​six articles that claim positive benefits for music education, pointing to issues such as small sample sizes (implying a particular view of the authors of what counts as evidence), the definition of sound stimuli as music, and a tendency to report only positive results as markers for a more cautious approach to these claims. As Biesta ponders on instrumentalist views, “where, after all, is the research that shows that doing mathematics will make you a better musician or doing physics will make you a better dancer?” (2017, pp. 53–​54). Nevertheless, the neurosciences are beginning to provide stimulating insights into the mysteries of learning and development, as exemplified in longitudinal changes at a neuronal level of a child recovering from a stroke in the context of music therapy (Thompson & Schlaug, 2015). Biesta highlights the “double disappearance” of both arts and education in arts education through the dominance of either instrumentalist or expressivist justifications for arts education. He advocates an existentialist argument for arts education, focusing on the question of what it means to exist in and with the world, or, using Hannah Arendt’s phrase, “being at home in the world” (Arendt in Biesta, 2017, p. 63). For Biesta, we should seek to inhabit “the middle ground” where arts education may interrupt habitual ways

xxiv   Barrett & Welch of engaging with the world, suspend or slow down so that we may take time to think and act, and provide sustenance to support students to stay with the difficult work of engaging fully with the world (2017). Biesta concludes: The arts can play an important role in providing support and sustenance, and even for arousing a desire to go towards the difficult middle ground. This is partly because the arts are not just bleak—​they also offer joy, provide energy and can enthuse—​and partly because they offer concrete opportunities for experiencing what it means to encounter resistance and go through it, rather than shy away from it. (2017, p. 91)

Biesta’s vision for arts education might be seen as somewhat separated from the work of parents and caregivers when engaging musically with infants and young children. Nevertheless, as the opening vignette demonstrates, it is in these family-​based activities that the foundations for lifelong engagement with the arts and music lie. We suggest that being alert to future possible worlds (Bruner, 1987) of imaginative engagement while learning to be at home in this world is crucial in early childhood music practices. To commence the volume contributions, Ingeborg Lunde explores the ways in which music media of the past shape contemporary music interactions as parents (re)-​appropriate their own childhood music in creating new family music traditions. Through an analysis of Norwegian children’s radio programs broadcast in the 1950s, Lunde reveals the notions of childhood extant at the time. She then identifies the ways in which parents and children in contemporary settings construct new family musical cultures through a (sometimes painful) negotiation of remembered and current musical practices. In the next chapter, media messages are the focus of Lisa Koops’s investigation of the ways popular media accounts of parenting place social pressures on parents in relation to their engagement with music. Her analysis of popular press publications and US-​based parenting websites reveals three dialectical tensions between: the benefits of music and the “over-​scheduled child”; music experienced through instruction by experts and music as a component of everyday life; and music as a luxury and equitable access to music for all. Both of these chapters emphasize the role of parents in negotiating music media and media about music as a component of parenting practice. Child development as a process of learning and change across the first years of life is the focus of Lucia Benetti and Eugenia Costa-​Giomi’s chapter. They argue for the importance of children’s spontaneous music behaviors in everyday music environments as critical for understanding development, not least as such an approach is sensitive to variation and cultural difference. As they remind us, “different developmental theories prioritize certain questions over others, and different research agendas influence the kinds of studies, methodologies, and interpretations of findings across developmental research” (Benetti & Costa-​Giomi, this volume). In short, singular, monolithic accounts of music development may exclude or ignore some developing musical behaviors, pointing to the need for multiple, context-​sensitive approaches to the study of musical development.

Handbook Introduction   xxv Vicky Abad, Helen Shoemark, and Margaret S. Barrett examine the affordances and constraints of music in the parent-​child relationship, both in the home and the public spaces of commercial music providers. Through an analysis of an online Music Early Learning Program, initiated in response to mandatory community lockdown during the Covid-​19 pandemic, the authors explore the potential of technology and community-​ based programs to extend and enhance contemporary notions of musical parenting. The potential for participatory research methods as a means to make prominent and amplify children’s voices is addressed by Katie Zhukov and Margaret S. Barrett in their chapter. Children’s perspectives concerning their musical experiences have been largely ignored, as common assumptions about young children’s capacities to express their views verbally have led to a reliance on adults speaking for them. Participatory approaches to research with young children seek to engage them as “active, informed and informing agents” (Groundwater-​Smith, Dockett, & Bottrel, 2015, p. 7), capable of sharing their perspectives on a range of issues. This chapter reports on children’s perspectives on music in their lives as elicited through a draw-​and-​tell participatory visual research method that served as both an alternative and also as a prompt to words as data. Foregrounding children’s agency in their music-​making is also the focus of Margaret S. Barrett’s chapter which follows. She seeks to re-​frame children’s invented song and music-​making as a cultural practice and an element of the World’s Intangible Cultural Heritage, and argues for practices that not only preserve children’s diverse musical cultures, but also sustain and maintain these cultures. The final chapter in Section 1, by Barrett, Abad, and Welch, provides a global overview of research that has been conducted in music early learning and development. The chapter seeks to map the methods and techniques employed in research in the early childhood and music sector, those regions of the world that appear to dominate, and the purposes of such research. The chapter identifies significant gaps in our understanding of the experiences of children in the majority world including the nature and significance of music in early life and learning.

Perspectives on Music Development Section 2 of the handbook seeks to map the contemporary status of musical development and learning research in the early childhood period (birth to eight years). The contributions draw on a broad range of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches, and—​ in that process—​ highlight the diversity of understandings and practices in the field. Importantly, the chapters challenge the “binaries” that have dominated developmental discussions (such as passivity-​activity, music as object-​ action, nature-​nurture, individual-​collective, ability-​disability, inclusion-​exclusion—​ see also Hall, this section) to illustrate the opportunities that these offer as “both-​and” rather than “either-​or” possibilities. Many of the contributions interrogate the theories that underpin research and point to the increasing complexity of developmental

xxvi   Barrett & Welch research, where no one theory may be held up as the single most effective lens through which we might view musical development. The “cultural turn” (Nash, 2001) has been well and truly embraced. Tal-​Chen Rabinowitch and Laura Cirelli examine a range of theories of music as a socially interactive medium rather than an object of aesthetic contemplation. They illuminate the ways in which music and musical interventions shape social capacities in infants and young children. They demonstrate, in what might be viewed as a virtuous circle of facilitation and reinforcement, how music and music-​making are used as a social tool in human interaction and development. Interpersonal synchrony in conjunction with musical activity is highlighted as one key element in developing prosocial behaviors toward specifically identified or in-​group partners. In considering avenues for further investigation, these authors recommend further research to understand whether this might extend to more generalized prosocial activity. The role of early musical interactions in achieving neurodevelopmental milestones is the focus of the contribution by Eino Partanen, Paula Virtala, and Kaisamari Kostilainen. These authors argue that the development of musical behaviors lies in the infant’s capacity to discriminate and process the acoustic features of music. While acknowledging that the development of auditory skills is shaped by reciprocal interactions with caregivers, these authors emphasize that auditory experiences in utero, in which stimulus-​driven development shapes the cortical structure, lay the foundations of learning and development. From these beginnings, through informal reciprocal musical interactions with caregivers, music behaviors as well as other auditory behaviors, such as speech sound discrimination, are supported and strengthened. David J. Hargreaves examines the role of cultural diversity in musical development. Working from several theories of musical development—​sociocultural, ecological and cultural psychological, and also social cognitive approaches—​he illustrates the ways in which these frameworks are realized in musical action. Through four diverse examples of musical action and engagement, Hargreaves demonstrates that, while all theories have some relevance in each example, “certain ones have greater relevance for certain examples.” In her chapter, Anna Rita Addessi suggests that children’s musical creativity may be theorized through a “reflexive interaction paradigm” that draws on the phenomena of repetition-​variation, turn-​taking, and co-​regulation as key tools. This theory is extrapolated through several studies that highlight the ways in which interaction based on repetition and variation, turn-​taking, and co-​regulation promotes creativity and positive emotional states. Addessi demonstrates the practical applications of this research through a series of recommendations for teaching practice. Amanda Niland explores the intersecting musical worlds of childhood and the ways in which these shape musical identities and music development. She highlights the contributions of music activity and engagement to development across cognitive, emotional, and social domains, including children’s emerging individual and social identities. In this process, the complexity and diversity of musical identity and music development become apparent. She emphasizes the need for theoretical frameworks that

Handbook Introduction   xxvii can accommodate and/​or account for such diversity, such as ecological systems theories and current sociology (of childhood), developmental psychology, anthropology, and ethnomusicology theories. Niland, along with other authors throughout the handbook, stresses that children are musically competent, possessing agency and ownership in their music-​making. This perspective requires recognition of the rights and preferences of children, and the need to provide music experiences and environments that enable and empower children in their musical choices, cultures, and practices.

Music in Family and Community Contexts The cultural turn noted in many of the chapters on musical development is amplified in Section 3. In this section, authors focus on the family and community contexts in which children’s music engagement and music-​making take place. This is a recognition of the “nested systems” in which children live and learn; through music, the authors further recognize and celebrate the agency of children as culture makers and culture consumers. Lori Custodero’s chapter investigates the musical memories of graduate music students to illustrate the relational nature of children’s early music-​making, including its agentic qualities as children exert personal control and have their music-​making not only heard, but also responded to in joint musicking. Drawing on theories of autobiographical memory research, she explores the ways in which we use musical memories as a means to interpret our present and to plan for the future, and—​as Damasio suggests—​as a curator of values through which we structure our identities. The musical beliefs, values, and practices of two cohorts of Australian families are investigated by Vicky Abad, Mary C. Broughton, Margaret S. Barrett, and Graham F. Welch. The analysis of survey responses from families that enroll their children in MELPs (Music Early Learning Programs) and those who do not reveal some commonalities between these cohorts, specifically a generally high value for music, and daily use of music for a range of purposes. In her chapter, Meryl Sole explores the pre-​sleep vocalizations of toddlers in order to identify the multiple musical influences that young children draw on in their “crib songs.” These insights into toddlers’ private worlds illustrate the ways in which these spontaneous songs support relationships and facilitate development. Importantly, the musical influences extend beyond the parents to caregivers, teachers, peers, and to music heard incidentally in children’s daily lives. Moving from the private spaces of the crib to the shared social spaces of the home, Claudia Gluschankof considers the musical interactions of a toddler through four theoretical lenses, those of entrainment, communicative musicality, flow experience, and mediated learning. Key to the study of these interactions is the ways in which parents and caregivers recognize the child’s action as “musical” and engage with the child through leading, co-​partnering, or following the child’s music-​making. The theme of parental involvement in children’s musical engagement and learning is continued in the contribution of Lelouda Stamou, Vicky Abad, and Rafaela Troulou.

xxviii   Barrett & Welch They trace the development of musical parenting from the Laws of Plato (792e2–​4) to present-​day theories such as Malloch and Trevarthen’s proposal of “communicative musicality” (2009). Through an analysis of interaction in a Greek early childhood music program, these authors illustrate the learning partnerships that evolve among teachers, parents, and students, and the factors that shape parental roles in these partnerships. Jessica Pitt and Graham F. Welch focus on the extra-​musical benefits of musical engagement for children and caregivers participating in programs of activity in UK early education and care settings. Drawing on the work of interdisciplinary teams of early childhood music-​arts practitioners and speech and language therapists, they propose a model of music play and interaction that identifies inter-​action between child and caregiver as the first unit of communication, rather than the word. Through such a refocusing, they suggest that children experiencing communication difficulties are provided with greater scaffolded support in their socio-​linguistic and socio-​musical development. Helga R. Gudmundsdottir and Kristi Kiilu provide an historical overview and analysis of the development of children’s singing traditions in Iceland and Estonia. The comparison of these two traditions illustrates the ways in which factors such as geopolitical structures, state-​governed family policy, as well as cultural traditions, are powerful shaping forces in the nature and traditions of childhood singing. Juliana Cantarelli Vita widens the lens from the practices of family early education and care settings to examine the community of musical practices formed by children involved in the maracatu de baque virado tradition, an Afro-​Brazilian musical culture and tradition in the Pernambuco state. She suggests that children’s musical agency is a key element in the enculturation, transmission, and education structures of this centuries-​ old tradition, contributing not only to the sustainability of the tradition but also to its transformation as a tool and setting for musical resistance. Through this lens, children’s musical work as co-​teachers, co-​facilitators, and apprentices-​to-​become-​masters is analyzed and celebrated. Yen-​Ting Wu and Graham F. Welch consider the socio-​cultural influences and shaping forces of the parents’ home country in a study of the music experience of a diasporic Chinese community settled in London. Given the rise in globalization and—​ pre-​pandemic—​high mobility of a range of global populations, considerable amounts of children’s early musical development occur in the intersecting cultural practices and values of the larger communities in which they live and the practices of their ethnic group. Emily Achieng’ Akuno, Akosua Obuo Addo, Elizabeth Achieng’ Andang’o, Andrea Emberly, Mudzunga Davhula, and Perminus Matiure combine forces to provide a comprehensive overview of the musical practices of children living in Sub-​Saharan Africa. Focusing on the musics of Venda (South Africa), Shona (Zimbabwe), Akan (Ghana), and Luo (Kenya) communities, these authors examine these practices through the lenses of African Indigenous Knowledge Systems, colonialism, and post-​independence policy and practices. They analyze the spaces in which children make music, the nature of that music, and the occasions that host this music, and highlight the interrelationships of

Handbook Introduction   xxix school and non-​school practices as key forces in cultivating children’s development and growth through music and in understanding what constitutes musical arts education in these communities. Indigenous Knowledge Systems are also the focus of the chapter contribution by Sally Treloyn, Andrea Emberly, Rona Goonginda Charles, and Leah Umbagai. These authors’ analysis of the childhood musical experiences and practices of the Mowanjum Aboriginal Community in the Kimberley region of northwest Australia illustrates the ways in which children navigate the multifaceted worlds of local, regional, and global musical styles alongside the holistic practices of Indigenous identity, ancestry, spirituality, and place. The key concepts of interconnectedness, holism, inheritance, and agency underpin the analysis. Importantly, the chapter’s collaborative approach illustrates a commitment to foregrounding First Nations’ perspectives and voices, recognizing cultural ownership and seeking permission to use songs; texts and designs; and the cultural, historical and social diversity of Indigenous societies (Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS 2020]).

Music with Young Children Living in Sites of Transition, Trauma, and Conflict Figures released in June 2021 by the United Nations Refugee agency UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2021) report that 89.3 million persons had been forcibly displaced at the end of 2021—​in sum, over 1% of the world’s population. Over 80% of these people are living in countries or territories affected by acute food insecurity and malnutrition, with 83% hosted in low and middle income countries. About 41% of the world’s displaced persons are children, although children account for only 30% of the world’s population (UNHCR, 2021, 3). At the time of recording, an estimated 30–​34 million children were forcibly displaced. The status of these children includes those of refugee, stateless, asylum seeker, and internally displaced. Between 2018 and 2021 it is estimated that 1.5 million children were born as refugees. In 2021 alone, “27,000 unaccompanied or separated children (UASC) lodged new asylum applications . . . an increase of 6,000 applications comparted to the previous year” (UNHCR, 2021, 28). Several major crises have contributed to the massive displacement over the past decade. These include, but are not limited to:

• • • • • • •

the outbreak of the Syrian conflict early in the decade, which continues today; South Sudan’s displacement crisis, following independence; the conflict in Ukraine; the arrival of refugees and migrants in Europe by sea; The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan; the massive flow of stateless refugees from Myanmar to Bangladesh; the outflow of Venezuelans across Latin America and the Caribbean;

xxx   Barrett & Welch • the crisis in Africa’s Sahel region, where conflict and climate change are endangering many communities; • renewed conflict and security concerns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia; • conflict in the Central African Republic; • internal displacement in Ethiopia; • renewed outbreaks of fighting and violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and • the large humanitarian and displacement crisis in Yemen. (UNHCR, 2021) The figure of 89.3 million forcibly displaced persons represents a doubling over the last decade (41 million identified in 2010) and is a significant increase over the 2018 figure of 70.8 million. At the time of writing, the report noted the emerging effects of the global pandemic, with a decline in reporting of figures as countries closed borders or implemented more stringent border restrictions. As a consequence, the numbers reported are likely an underestimation. These are sobering figures, highlighting a problem that increases in scope and magnitude each year, not least for children. In such precarious conditions, children, adolescents, and youth are at high risk of exploitation and abuse, and a range of social and cultural programs have been developed that seek to support these groups. Consequently, music educators, therapists, and community music practitioners have been active in the spaces and places in which children who have been forcibly displaced live. Section 4 of the handbook, edited by Kathryn Marsh and Libby Flynn, focuses on the role that music plays in children’s lives as they experience periods of transition, trauma, and conflict. The chapters in this section report on the therapeutic potential of music for children who experience complex trauma in their lives (Kate Teggelove), with a specific focus on emotion regulation. Others explore the socio-​musical lives of children living in the “limbo spaces” of asylum-​seeker accommodation (Ailbhe Kenny), and the role of music in acculturation for children of refugee backgrounds (Carrie A. Danielson). These studies of children’s communities of musical practice (cf. Barrett, 2005a,2005b) seek to move beyond the vulnerabilities of children living for extended periods in these spaces to examine the ways in which music engagement and participation become a mechanism for building agency, identity, and cultural mediation. Danielson’s case study of the “Kids on the Run” program in Sweden reminds us that these spaces operate as two-​way structures that may have inherent power imbalances: not only do they provide pathways into new communities for refugee children, they also need to “promote a multicultural and tolerant way of being in the world for other children within the community” (Danielson, this volume). Music as a mechanism of memory and amelioration of grief and loss is the focus of Samantha Dieckmann and Kathryn Marsh’s analysis of the processes of “psychosocial resettlement.” Their work examines music as a means of dealing with grief and loss through the intergenerational transmission of songs, as well as through individuals’ remembered life experiences. The role of music in the lives of those who have been internally displaced include the account by Maria Claudia Parias Durán and Andrea del

Handbook Introduction   xxxi Pilar Rodríguez-​Sánchez of the Music for Reconciliation program, a component of the Colombian government’s National Music Plan for Coexistence. Inês Lamela and Kirstin Anderson examine the effects of separation on the attachment of mothers in prison whose babies and children have been forcibly removed. They argue that this is a sector of music practice that is under-​represented in the literature, pointing to the substantial increase of women in custody, some 53% since 2000 (Walmsley, 2017). Lucy Bolger and Somesh Purey advocate a sustainability orientation when developing community-​based early childhood music programs to ensure that “music workers can engage with . . . ethical concerns by actively and consciously considering the ongoing impact of their (transient) involvement with a community” (this volume). Drawing on the framework of Community Music Therapy (CMT), these authors demonstrate the ways in which the CMT principles of participatory, resource-​oriented, ecological, performative, activist, reflective, and ethics-​driven practice underpin a sustainability orientation in early childhood music-​making. These chapters provide evidence of the multiple and complex ways in which the music community might bring its resources to ameliorate and redress the traumas experienced through displacement. Significantly, they refocus our attention on the ways in which music provides “A scaffold of comfort, routine, predictability, and connection” (Teggelove, 2023, this volume). Given the figures provided by the UNHCR, the need for music-​based solutions to issues of displacement continues to grow.

Music and Musicians in Children’s Hospitals, and Music to Address Social and Medical Risk in Childhood The lives of many young children commence in and are regulated by the routines of clinical treatments in institutions such as children’s hospitals and community-​based clinics. Organizations such as the Children’s Hospitals Association (CHA) in Australia and the European Association for Children in Hospitals (EACH) have long recognized the need to provide a framework that addresses the needs of children in these settings, with each producing a charter that draws on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989). In both, attention is given to the child’s right to cultural engagement, specifically: “to participate in education, play, creative activities and recreation, even if this is difficult due to their illness or disability” (Article 11, CHA, 2010, 7), and, in the EACH Charter, that “Children shall have full opportunity for play, recreation and education suited to their age and condition and shall be in an environment designed, furnished, staffed and equipped to meet their needs” (Article 7, EACH, 2018, 20). Section 5 offers a range of perspectives on the nature and extent of music engagement in these settings, and the roles of the “Health Musicians” (Ruud, 2013) who work there. Contributions point to the commonalities and differences in theory and practice that

xxxii   Barrett & Welch arise from the overlapping disciplines of music performance, music therapy, and community music that inform music practices in children’s hospitals and clinical settings. Costanza Preti and Philippe Bouteloup commence the section by providing an overview of the emerging field of “music in hospitals” and the role of professional musicians in these settings. They propose a model, “music as cultural action,” that focuses on the cultural needs of the children and their right to access culture through the provision of live music programs that offer professional music performance, informal music education, and music as health. Rosalind Hawley and Joan Livesley provide three case studies of musicians working with children in long-​term hospitalization. Their focus is the practice of “live bedside music-​making,” where musicians combine performance techniques and musically communicative interactions through which children are enabled to “participate, lead, and compose music” as a component of non-​clinical patient-​ centered care. The intersection between the fields of music therapy and musicians in hospitals is explored in detail by Helen Shoemark and Costanza Preti in their chapter. As professionals in these disciplines respectively, they engaged in a longitudinal dialogue undertaken as a duoethnography to explore the beliefs, values, and assumptions that they brought to the dialogue. What ensues is a fascinating combined narrative that points to the ways in which robust dialogue between “health musicians” can drive theory and practice forward. The authors argue for a more dynamic and collaborative inter-​professional discourse that propels the field into new collaborative practices that expand the possibilities for both the field, and the experiences of children and their families. A number of chapters in this section draw explicitly on the principles and practices of music therapy. Commencing in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit), Pernilla Hugoson and Louise Eulau focus on the population of preterm infants and their parents and the use of familiar music in providing comfort and alleviating pain for both parents and children through the developing practice of Family-​Centered Music Therapy (FCMT). Helen Shoemark, also working in the NICU setting, provides an overview of “contingent singing” and a detailed analysis of the musical behaviors and outputs that arise from this for infant, parent, and therapist. The work described seeks to empower parents, by assisting them in accessing their own musicality and using this in active and quiet musical interplay with their child. Stine Lindahl Jacobsen and Rachel Swanick outline those factors that contribute to attachment challenges for young children and their families. The authors focus on the ways in which attachment challenges are manifested, the complexities of diagnosis and referral within clinical settings, and the contributions of music therapy in addressing these challenges. This is followed by Jonathan Pool and Claire Wood’s chapter on the social, emotional, and psychological needs of children with neurological problems. They explore the use of music therapy as a rehabilitative strategy for children with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI), including its use as an assessment tool, a stimulus for neuroplasticity, and as a means to promote participation in activity. As with many of the studies and research approaches reported throughout this handbook, the authors adopt an ecological perspective through consideration of children with ABI living within family

Handbook Introduction   xxxiii networks that may require a “constellation of support, involving care, medical, education, and therapy personnel to address the health, education and social needs of the child” (2023, this volume). Relatedly, working in a music therapy framework with children with chronic health conditions is the focus of the chapter by Lori F. Gooding and Dawn A. Iwamasa. Given current estimates that some 13–​27% of children are affected by chronic health conditions (Wijlaars, Gilbert, & Hardelid, 2016), understanding the potential of music therapy-​based interventions to address these conditions is vital. The authors identify the ways in which both active and receptive music interventions can not only ameliorate the adverse effects of chronic illness, but also may build resilience and coping strategies for the child and their families and caregivers. In the final chapter in this section, Kristen O’Grady and Kelli McKee address the role of music therapy at the end of life. The chapter outlines the ways in which targeted music therapy interventions can “improve symptom burden, promote emotional expressions, and foster communication and legacy creation at the end of life” (2023, this volume). The authors emphasize the need to support not only the child and their family, but also the medical staff and caregivers who are present throughout end-​of-​life experiences, and advocate for further research in this area. All the chapters in this section point to the therapeutic benefits for children experiencing serious illness and distress of some form. Importantly, these chapters remind us that these children’s experiences are embedded in overlapping networks of family, friends, medical, and therapeutic practitioners, all of whom have need for care and the potentialities of music engagement.

Musical Development and Neurodiversity The final section of the handbook focuses on neurodiversity and the ways in which musical development is shaped by and shapes neurodiversity. The concept of neurodiversity, understood as “neurological variation as a natural form of human diversity, subject to the same dynamics as other forms of diversity” (Walker, 2012, 233), moves away from constructions of disability, disorder, and pathology to acknowledge the many dimensions of human diversity. Solange Glasser and Gary E. McPherson address the role of natural abilities that typify giftedness in musical learning and development. They focus initially on those natural abilities, evidenced in intellectual, creative, social, and perceptual mental processes and muscular and motor control, that are evident in all children to varying degrees after birth, and the ways in which these provide early indicators and predispositions for later exceptional performance. Their exploration of elements such as intellectual abilities, memory, perceptual abilities, mimicry, absolute pitch, and synesthesia demonstrate not only the complexities of the study of giftedness in music, but also the continuing knowledge gaps of the field. Angela Voyajolu, Rosie Axon, and Adam Ockelford explore the role of visual impairment on musical development in early childhood. Through an analysis of studies with children who are blind or partially sighted, the authors demonstrate that the full range

xxxiv   Barrett & Welch of musical abilities is present in this population, with exceptional abilities evidenced more than in populations of these children’s sighted peers. Given that there are some 12,687 pupils in UK schools whose primary special need relates to visual impairment (as opposed to visual impairment being a component of a larger set of special needs), music in the lives of this population warrant attention. In the next chapter Mara Chasar and Michael Bakan provide an ethnomusicological account of the musical needs and wants of children on the autism spectrum in order to propose a new approach to early childhood music learning and development. They outline a pedagogical philosophy, arising from Mara’s life experiences with an autism spectrum condition (ASC), that privileges playful, neurodiverse, child-​directed, open-​ended, and improvisation-​oriented group music-​making. Musician and audiologist Eloise Doherty, working with Wayne J. Wilson, and Margaret S. Barrett provides an overview of the long history of music education and engagement for young children with hearing loss. The chapter explores the physical, technological, cultural, and pedagogical considerations when making music provision for children with hearing loss. The needs of neurodiverse children who participate in Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs) are addressed by Vicky Abad, Graham F. Welch, and Margaret S. Barrett. They suggest that, where participation in specialist interventions such as music therapy is not available, community-​based MELPs may provide parents and caregivers with an alternative avenue for supporting the needs and wants of their child. Attendance at a MELP can provide parents with music-​based strategies to use in the home to maintain and extend the learning and participation experiences in the MELP. Adam Ockelford reports on the findings of a music program designed to provide music experiences for children with complex needs and living in social disadvantage. Acknowledging that children in these populations may be “profoundly delayed” in their engagement with music, he reports the positive impact of music experiences, not only for music development, but for more general capacities such as listening and attending, self-​confidence, self-​awareness, emotional regulation, and capacity to form relationships. Bombay Jayashri Ramnath addresses music for children on the autism spectrum. The chapter describes Ramnath’s long-​standing work with children participating in programs offered by the Hitham Trust, an organization that she founded in the Tamil Nadu region of India. Ramnath is an Indian classical musician, and classical Carnatic music is the medium that she and her team of students and co-​teachers employ in their work; the three cases she presents provide rare insights into the ways these musical practices promote positive learning and engagement for children with ASC. In their chapter contribution, Grace Thompson, Tania Lisboa, and Adam Ockelford outline two approaches to music engagement for children living on the autism spectrum: Family-​Centered Music Therapy and the Sounds of Intent Framework. These authors commence by tracing the history of autism research from the earliest uses of the term in the first decades of the twentieth century through to the establishment of the “NeuroDiversity” movement (Singer, 2016). This movement recognizes autism as a

Handbook Introduction   xxxv human cognitive variation that offers distinctive strengths, including visual (Grandin, 2009) and musical (Reschke-​Hernandez, 2011). Music, it is argued, through its non-​ verbal nature offers alternative communication strategies for those living with autism, and provides a means for families to connect and engage. Central to this is the recasting of autism through a social rather than a medical model of disability.

Concluding Remarks We commend this handbook to all those who are curious about the nature of music in the lives of young children, including parents and caregivers, as well as professionals and policymakers. Our team of expert authors and section editors illustrate—​and celebrate—​the enormous growth of research into the many diverse, yet related, aspects of music in early childhood and development. Collectively, we argue that whatever counts culturally and socially as “music” and “music-​making” are integral features of childhood. Given that the arts date back at least 65,000 years—​as evidenced in artifacts rescued from Juukan Gorge in the Australian Pilbara prior to the destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves by Hammersley Iron, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto (Bennion & Kelly-​ Mundine, 2021), and, recent findings of cave paintings in Indonesia (Brumm et al., 2021) and bone flutes in Europe (Higham et al., 2012)—​we can conjecture that, as a species, the arts, including those based on sound, are central to the human condition. Music, including singing, is reported as omnipresent in all known cultures (Mehr et al., 2019), and—​as evidenced in this handbook—​is a core feature of childhood. Furthermore, we suggest that the political implications of the large body of knowledge presented in this handbook are that policymakers should seek ways to promote music and music-​making for all young children in order to ensure that all can realize its potential and benefit from its power across their lifespans.

References AIATSAS (2020). AIATSAS code of ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Canberra, ACT: AIATSIS. https://​aiat​sis.gov.au/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2020-​10/​aiat​sis-​code-​eth​ ics.pdf Barrett, M. S. (2005a). Children’s communities of musical practice: Some socio-​cultural implications of a systems view of creativity in music education. In D. J. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues (pp. 177–​195). New York: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2005b). Musical communication and children’s communities of musical practice. In D. Miell, R. MacDonald, & D. J. Hargreaves (Eds.), Musical Communication (pp. 261–​ 280). New York: Oxford University Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​acp​rof:oso/​978019​8529​ 361.003.0012

xxxvi   Barrett & Welch Barrett, M. S., & Welch, G. F. (2013–​2015). Being and becoming musical: Towards a cultural ecological model of early music development. Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP130102488). Bennion, L., & Kelly-​ Mundine, J. (2021). Clashes in conservation: First Nations sites, communities and culture in Australian cultural heritage management. Journal of the Institute of Conservation, 44(3), 170–​182. Biesta, G. (2017). Letting art teach. Arnhem, Netherlands: ArtEZ Press. Brumm, A., Oktaviana, A. A., Burhan, B., Hakim, B., Lebe, R., Zhao, J-​X., Sulistyarto, P. H., Ririmasse, M., Adhityatama, S., Sumantri, I., & Aubert, M. (2021). Oldest cave art found in Sulawesi. Science Advances, 7(3), eabd4648. DOI: 10.1126/​sciadv.abd4648 Bruner, J. (1987). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Children’s Hospitals Australia. (2010). Charter on the rights of children and young people in healthcare services in Australia. Deakin, SCT: CHA. European Association for Children in Hospital. (2018). The European Association for Children in Hospital (EACH) Charter. https://​pnae.eu/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​05/​PNAE-​Char​ ter.pdf Grandin, T. (2009). Visual abilities and sensory differences in a person with autism. Biological Psychiatry, 61(1), 15–​16. Groundwater-​Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrel, D. (2015). Introduction: Arguing the case for participatory research with children and young people. In S. Groundwater-​Smith, S. Dockett, & D. Bottrel (Eds.), Participatory research with children and young people (pp. 1–​18). London: Sage Publications. Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Ramsey, C. B., & Conard, N. J. (2012). Testing models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figurative art and music: The radiocarbon chronology of Geißenklösterle. Journal of Human Evolution, 62, 664–​676. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (Eds.). (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mehr, S. A., Singh, M., Knox, D., Ketter, D. M., Pickens-​Jones, D., Atwood, S., Lucas, C., Jacoby, N., Egner, A. A., Hopkinds, E. J., Howard, R. M., Hartshorne, J. K., Jennings, M. V., Simson, J., Bainbridge, C. M., Pinker, S., O’Donnell, T. J., Krasnow, M. M., & Glowacki, L. (2019). Universality and diversity in human song. Science, 366, eaax0868. DOI: 10.1126/​science. aax0868 Mindaroo Foundation. (2021). Thrive by five. https://​thriv​ebyf​i ve.org.au/​ Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. (2020). Les 1000 premiers jours. https://​soli​dari​tes-​ sante.gouv.fr/​IMG/​pdf/​rapp​ort-​1000-​premi​ers-​jours.pdf Nash, K. (2001). The “cultural turn” in social theory: Towards a theory of cultural politics. Sociology, 35(1), 77–​92. Odendaal, A., Levainen, S., & Westerlund, H. (2018). Lost in translation? Neuroscientific research, advocacy, and the claimed transfer benefits of musical practice. Music Education Research, 21(1), 4–​9. Reschke-​Hernandez, A. (2011). History of music therapy treatment interventions for children with autism. Journal of Music Therapy, 48(2), 169–​207. Ruud, E. (2013). Can music serve as a “cultural immunogen”?: An explorative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-​being, 8, Article 20597. https://​doi.org/​10.3402/​qhw.v8i0.20597 Singer, J. (2016). NeuroDiversity: The birth of an idea. Sydney, NSW: Amazon Digital Services.

Handbook Introduction   xxxvii Thompson, W. F., & Schlaug, G. (2015). The healing power of music. Scientific American Mind, March/​April, 33–​41. UNHCR. (2020). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2019. Accessed March 30, 2021: https://​ www.unhcr.org/​globa​ltre​nds2​019/​ UNHCR. (2021). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2021. Accessed November 1, 2022. https://​www.unhcr.org/​en-​au/​publi​cati​ons/​brochu​res/​62a9d1​494/​glo​bal-​tre​nds-​rep​ort-​ 2021.html United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. https://​www.uni​cef.org/​sites/​defa​ ult/​files/​2019-​04/​UN-​Con​vent​ion-​Rig​hts-​Child-​text.pdf Walker, N. (2012). Throw away the master’s tools: Liberating ourselves from the pathology paradigm. In J. Bascom (Ed.), Loud hands: Autistic people speaking (pp. 225–​237). Washington, DC: The Autistic Press. Walmsley, R. (2017). World female imprisonment list: Women and girls in penal institutions, including pre-​trial detainees/​remand prisoners (4th ed.). http://​fil​eser​ver.idpc.net/​libr​ary/​ world_​f​emal​e_​pr​ison​_​4th​_​edn​_​v4_​web.pdf Wiljaars, L. P. M. M., Gilbert, R., & Hardelid, P. (2016). Chronic conditions in children and young people: Learning from administrative data. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 101, 881–​885. http://​doi.org/​10.1136/​archd​isch​ild-​2016-​310​7 16 Young, S. (2018). Critical new perspectives in early childhood music. London: Routledge.

Section 1

MAPPING THE L A N D S C A P E S OF M U SIC E A R LY LEARNING AND DE V E L OP M E N T Handbook Introduction

Chapter 1

Sec t i on I n t roduc tion Mapping the Landscapes of Music Early Learning and Development Margaret S. Barrett and Graham F. Welch

Section Introduction Infants’ and young children’s engagement with music occurs in a range of places and forms. Viewed through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s socio-​ecological systems theory (1979, 2001), we are reminded of the intersecting landscapes that shape the ways in which music engagement, learning, and development are defined, described, and challenged across time and space. Not least in these landscapes is the ubiquitous presence of media in its digital and analogue (or physical) forms. This presence is explored in the first two chapters of this section. Ingeborg Lunde looks backward to Norwegian children’s radio programs in the 1950s to examine how childhood was constructed at the time and considers how these materials are drawn on in contemporary contexts of parent-​child music engagement. Lisa Koops turns to the present to consider how media messages embedded in parenting literature present parents and caregivers with conflicting messages concerning the nature of childhood and of music learning and engagement, thereby raising issues of equitable access to music. Much of the early theory and practice of music development has arisen from studies of children’s music engagement and learning in the controlled conditions of social science laboratories. The studies of children’s spontaneous musical behavior undertaken in the naturalistic environment of the Pillsbury Foundation School between 1937 and 1941 by Gladys Moorhead and Donald Pond (1941) constitute an early and notable exception to this approach. In their chapter, Lucia Benetti and Eugenia Costa-​Giomi examine children’s spontaneous music behaviors in home and community environments as a means to challenge accounts of a singular developmental trajectory in music across the first five years of life. In so doing, they advocate for

4   Barrett & Welch approaches that consider the complex, diverse, and context-​sensitive nature of musical development. Commercial music providers have emerged as a shaping element in the learning landscapes of young children. Music Early Learning Programs (MELP) that are informed variously by an ethos of music education, music therapy, and/​or community music (Abad & Barrett, 2017) not only present music learning experiences for young children, they also provide frameworks for relationality in and through joint music engagement. The affordances and constraints of music in the parent-​child relationship in the home and MELP environments are examined by Vicky Abad, Helen Shoemark, and Margaret S. Barrett with a focus on the potential of technology and community-​based programs to extend and enhance contemporary notions of musical parenting. Children’s musical agency as culture-​makers is addressed in the next two chapters. Katie Zhukov and Margaret S. Barrett consider the contributions of participatory research methods in accessing children’s perspectives of their musical experiences. They report the findings of using a draw-​and-​tell participatory visual research method with young children in order to understand their beliefs and values concerning participation in a music program. In the following chapter, Margaret S. Barrett argues for recognizing children’s invented song and music-​making as a cultural practice and an element of the World’s Intangible Cultural Heritage. In the final chapter of the section, Barrett, Abad and Welch map the research methods and techniques employed in early childhood and music investigations in contemporary journals, identify those regions of the world in which this research is undertaken, and outline the purposes of this research. They also identify significant gaps in our understanding of children’s music education and engagement in the majority world, and the diversity of ways in which music education and engagement, its values, and purposes are understood and enacted.

References Abad, V. & Barrett, M. S. (2017). Families and music early learning programs: Boppin’ babies. In S. L. Jacobsen & G. Thompson (Eds.), Music therapy with families: Therapeutic approaches and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–​151). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological model of human development. In M. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 6963–​ 6970). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Moorhead, G. E. & Pond, D. (1941). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music Education.

Chapter 2

Di gital L and s c a pe s of Early Ch i l dh o od M usic Learn i ng a nd Devel op me nt Music Media and Children’s Music Culture of the Past in the Present Ingeborg Lunde

Introduction: Musical Childhoods and the (Re-​)Appropriation of Music Media Traditions This chapter investigates the role of historical children’s music media in the contemporary construction of childhoods and children’s music cultures. The specific focus of the chapter is on parents’ “second-​time consumption” (Wesseling, 2018), that is, the (re-​)appropriation of the music that they engaged with as children. Acts of (re-​)appropriation are explored here by combining a historical investigation of children’s media music in Norway with an ethnographic investigation of how children use music media in their everyday lives. More specifically, the chapter provides an investigation of how radio programs for children that were broadcast in Norway in the 1950s connect to ideas of childhood at the time of production and to the contemporary upbringing of children, as well as how the standards of quality and aesthetic enjoyment set by the historical programs are negotiated by parents and children in contemporary settings. The perspective of learning and development in this chapter acknowledges that children are invited into music traditions and, in particular, into spaces for musical engagement that

6   LUNDE are facilitated by both old and new children’s music media. In sum, family music cultures are constructed through negotiations between the old and the new, involving beliefs about what an enriching childhood ought to be connected with aesthetic arguments about music. Steven Mintz (2012) reminds us that “specific historical moments give rise to distinctive children’s culture” (p. 41). The 1950s, the early postwar era, enjoys the status of being the “golden age of children’s radio broadcasting” (Bache-​Wiig, 1999; Korsvold, 1999). The children’s culture that then arose included new designs of broadcasting for children, certain kinds of repertoires of stories and songs, and the construction of media traditions, including how children and families acted around the radio. In the 1950s, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) was the only broadcasting organization in Norway and “the radio reached its wireless arms out to mountains and fjords and gathered all of Norway in front of their radios” (Frønes, 1998, p. 90 [author’s translation]). Families gathered around the radio like a tribe around the campfire, and the stories told on the radio became the families’ and the nation’s stories (Grevsgaard, personal interview, 2016). It was regarded as important to take part in this new media culture, to receive information and enjoy the entertainment, and there are several anecdotes from that time about steel wires that were hung up in high birches in order to receive the radio signal from the capital (Grevsgaard, personal interview, 2016). The radio had been introduced in Norway in the 1920s, and the very first “Children’s Hour” was broadcast in December 1924 (Dahl, 1999). The BBC, incidentally, had begun broadcasting a “Children’s Hour” in the UK from 1922 (Crisell, 2002), suggesting that there was momentum in Europe regarding the use of new media to reach out to the youngest generation and their parents. From the 1930s onward, the NRK broadcast such programs regularly on Saturday nights—​only disrupted by the Second World War—​and statistics for a randomly chosen Saturday night in 1953 show that 94% of Norwegian children listened to the program. Perhaps even more surprising, 47% of the adult audience above sixteen years of age were also listening (Vold, 1999, pp. 106–​107). From 1947 onward, the program “Children’s Hour for the Youngest” was added to the regular schedule and gained enormous popularity. From this moment on, the radio also reached younger children, and this program also created a focal point that united the nation (Bache-​Wiig, 1999). Since many of the broadcasts were repeated for decades, children of the 1970s and early 1980s enjoyed these same programs, including the performances of songs and stories, in their preschool years. The programs’ long-​term impact was evident in the data from an ethnographic study conducted more than half a century later (Vestad, 2013), as songs from the 1950s children’s radio era were described as the treasures of children’s culture and as objects that had gained a particular status. Their status was ascribed partly to the fact that they had survived for generations (Vestad, 2013; Vestad & Dyndahl, 2017); that is, the music’s extended survival—​its sustainability—​was in itself taken as a sign of good quality. Moreover, the sustained interest in the repertoire was described as a result of the parents’ own close and personal relationships to it, which—​in turn—​was made to vouch for its importance for the new generation. Finally, the format conversion to CDs

Digital Landscapes   7 and MP3 files on Spotify and other streaming services has been a prerequisite that has made it possible to include the repertoire in contemporary children’s culture at home. All things considered, it would seem that the reasons given by the parents for wanting to use this repertoire with their own children were not so much about skills and learning, but about tradition—​about being part of something larger than oneself. In addition to the repertoire of songs and stories, the tradition of children’s music media of the 1950s included the social practice of enjoying the broadcasts together as the families gathered around the radio to listen. This way of being together served as a model for future generations (Vestad, 2013, 2015). But, as we shall see, the transference of children’s music cultural landscapes from one generation to the next is not the easiest task.

Studying Children’s Music Media Cultures Studying children’s music cultures involves studying artifacts as well as what children do with them. In the Nordic research community, the notion of children’s culture has been discussed with varying intensity since the 1960s. Around the turn of the millennium, the notion of children’s culture as the threefold culture for, with, and by children became the most common way of addressing it. As Mouritsen (2002) explains, culture for children refers to the artifacts produced by adults for a child audience, culture with children refers to children and adults engaging with cultural artifacts together, and culture by children refers to what children do and create together with peers in their own settings. An ethnographic study that primarily focuses on how children use music in their everyday lives may be described as a study of culture by children, whereas looking into the songs and radio programs produced and broadcast for children may be described as an investigation of culture for children. In turn, making music media the pivotal focus of children’s own engagement in music in the ethnographic study means that the study cuts across and combines investigation of culture for and by children. In addition, involving parents and carers means that the third perspective—​culture with children—​is also involved. Mintz (2012) supports an approach to culture by children when he argues that historians need to include the cultural worlds that children inhabit in their studies, including their expressive and meaning-​making activities. He suggests: If historians are serious about treating children as agents, with their own distinct voices, we need to recognize that, like other social groups, children create their own cultures, with distinctive slang, rituals, styles, tastes, and values. The study of kid cultures shifts our attention toward the cultural worlds that the young inhabit—​including their collective activities, entertainments, meanings and modes of expression—​and the ways they perceive and interpret the adult world. (Mintz, 2012, p. 38)

8   LUNDE Beyond the music itself, the materiality of cultural worlds provides possibilities and constraints to the children’s creation of their own cultures; available musical artifacts are no exception. Moreover, the social actions of culture, that is, how engagement in and around music is modeled in children’s surroundings, provide ideas of what are considered natural behaviors in and around music. However, in line with what Mintz (2012) describes, observing what children do with music calls for a recognition of “their own” cultures, as children engaged in music in their everyday lives do not solely repeat models of music and musical engagement that they have witnessed and experienced; they add something of their own (Vestad, 2013; see also Campbell, 2010). The notion of interpretive reproduction (Corsaro 1993, 2005, 2012) describes how children are not only internalizing the existing culture, but are also contributing actively to changing and producing culture. This makes sense with regard to children’s music cultures as well. Thus, a study that takes an approach to children’s music cultures that involves the perspective of culture for children as well as culture by children will need to scrutinize the affordances of the music media, as well as how music media are appropriated by the children.1 Finally, taking into consideration that preschool staff and parents play important roles in making music media and particular selections of music available for young children, and sometimes also actively engage in musical activities and meaning making with them, one may consider the totality of what is going on when children use music media as culture with children. In short, the music cultures of young children may be considered as co-​productions among all who take part in them: children, adults, the music-​making industries, artists, and broadcasting corporations. However, children’s musical cultures may be investigated from different angles. My ethnographic study set out to explore how one-​to five-​year-​old children use recorded music, such as CDs and MP3 files, in their everyday lives, and how these uses are described and legitimized by the children themselves, their parents, and preschool staff (Vestad, 2013). The research was set up as a qualitative study combining observations in the everyday life settings of preschools and family homes with interviews with children, preschool teachers, and parents.2 The starting point was video-​aided observation of how children used recorded music on their own initiative in preschools. One hundred and four children participated in this part of the study, and the observations were followed up by interviews with select children and teachers who, in sum, were involved in a naturally occurring breadth of practices around music media and ways of engaging in the music. In the second part of the study, nine children were visited at home. Each family was lent a video camera and was asked to record anything related to music in their home for one week. The recordings were subjected to a preliminary analysis and then interviews were undertaken with each family. In the interviews, we watched select particularly rich sequences from their recordings, covering a naturally occurring breadth of everyday life situations and ways of engaging in music, and the families were asked to describe in their own words what was going on. Of particular interest was the selection and legitimation of musical repertoires, and to obtain the children’s, parents’, and preschool staff ’s description of what the music offered the child and the other participants in the various everyday life settings.

Digital Landscapes   9 The theoretical framework applied was Tia DeNora’s notion of affordance (building on Gibson’s original coining of the concept in 1966), which explores what music offers and “does for” the listener/​user, how the music invites the listener to take part in the music, and how the listener appropriates the music and establishes a relationship with it (DeNora, 1999, 2000). The framework also included Even Ruud’s research into music and identity, and in particular his take on musical quality; again, the focus is on what the music “does for” the listener and the ways that the music “hits you” emotionally (Ruud, 2013 [1997]). These approaches were supplemented by Eric Clarke’s (2005) description of resonance between the music and the listener, also derived from Gibson’s (1966) approach to affordance. Clarke describes the relation and adaptation between human beings and their environment as entanglements of culture and biology: This mutual adaptation between human beings and their (musical) environment is neither reducible to conventional evolutionary principles, nor is it independent of them: culture and biology are tangled together in complex ways, but nonetheless constitute a single connected system. (Clarke, 2005, p. 22)

Thus, in this chapter’s investigations of children’s music cultures, culture and biology are also considered to constitute a single connected system, though I will not scrutinize this further in this text. Finally, I approached children’s music cultures by integrating Christopher Small’s (1998) concept of musicking in the theoretical framework. Small challenges the understanding of music as a noun, arguing that the purpose of music is to be performed, and therefore, music should be thought of as a verb: to music. Moreover, the purposes of the performances are to celebrate relations between people, between people and the music, and between people and the divine. Patricia Campbell (2010) draws on Small’s writings on musicking when she describes children’s musicking behaviors and ways of participating in music, such as doing, integrating, singing, moving, playing, listening, and playing with (Campbell, 2010, pp. 239–​242), underscoring that what children do with music is not only about performing music in a traditional sense. Based on this framework, the observations of the ethnographic study were based in asking the broad question of What is going on here?, and looking for resonances, appropriations, and constitutions of affordances in the children’s musicking behaviors. Family cultures, preschool cultures, and children’s peer cultures are all aspects of children’s culture. Moreover, children’s peer cultures may exhibit different features in a preschool setting than at home because each of the arenas provides possibilities and constraints for engaging with music (Vestad, 2013). This illustrates Kim Rasmussen’s (2001) point that children’s culture takes place in several arenas, and that we might even speak of children’s cultures (plural), one for each such arena. In preschool, children create their own peer cultures, which was observed as more or less the same constellations of children playing together over weeks and months. But there were also observations of children enjoying music media alone in preschool, underscoring that acts of children’s music culture do not always have to be performed in groups. In the

10   LUNDE family settings, children were distinct voices (cf. Mintz, 2012, quoted above) in a culture of people of different ages, and the children’s music culture was constituted and re-​ constituted through acts of musicking in close connection with the family culture. Each of these cultures—​the daycare culture and the family culture—​indeed each exhibited its “distinctive slang, rituals, styles, tastes, and values” (Mintz, 2012, p. 38) regarding music, but there were nevertheless similarities between the children’s cultures of the different arenas. Thus, it can be confidently stated that the complexity of children’s music culture is profound. Going into the details of children’s uses of music media opens the phenomenon up to detailing further intricacy. In short, children have been observed to engage in a wide array of musicking behaviors (Campbell, 2010; Small, 1998; Vestad, 2013, 2019a, 2019b). In my study, when children use music media with their peers, their musicking includes a variety of modes of participation (Vestad, 2013, 2019a, 2019b): singing along, dancing, rolling, bouncing, listening, talking, playing air guitar, role-​play, and more. Their role-​play involves acting out and “living” the characters and events of television series, supported by the corresponding soundtracks (Vestad, 2010, 2013), and their talk includes talking about the music as they listen, as well as conversations about their life experiences that are triggered by the music (Vestad, 2013, 2019b). Through these uses, they make the music media their own—​they appropriate it (see DeNora, 2000). Their musical repertoire is varied, and by how they use and talk about the music in specific situations, they constitute certain songs as “singing-​songs,” others as “dancing-​songs,” and so on. Culture by children, then, includes these constitutions of musical affordances. Furthermore, music media, which can be described as culture for children, becomes part of the culture by children because the artifacts provided for children are the materials they use in actions of interpretative reproduction (Corsaro, 1993, 2005, 2012).

Connecting the Nation—​Spaces for Play, Fantasy, and Fiction The historical investigation for this chapter is based on data from the archives, including written documents as well as the actual radio programs, interviews with key informants of the NRK, and a review of relevant literature. Moreover, the historical investigation was prompted by findings from the contemporary ethnographic study, which also indicated that parents considered the children’s music originally from the 1950s radio broadcasts to be of considerable value in the upbringing of their own children. This seemed to contradict another recurring fact of the data, namely that this music did not always appeal to the children, which in turn elicited sentiments of grief in the parents over not being successful in sharing and enjoying the songs with their children (Vestad, 2015). The aim of the historical study was to investigate these songs and broadcasts further, and to search for traces of how their status and experienced value came about.

Digital Landscapes   11

Broadcasting in the 1950s In contemporary media, global television broadcasting corporations are grappling with the challenge of the era of linear television coming to an end, taken over by the internet. A plurality of media content is becoming the norm, and it is no longer the case that friends or colleagues can meet in the morning and take for granted that they have watched the same programs the night before. As broadcast material has become globally available, the battle over audiences’ viewing time has become a world championship and is no longer confined to a national competition between radio and television channels. This chapter focuses on a different era, namely the 1950s, which, as previously mentioned, is perceived as the golden era of children’s radio (Bache-​Wiig, 1999; Korsvold, 1999). Back then, given the status of the NRK as the only broadcasting organization in Norway, the broadcasts reached the whole nation (Bache-​Wiig, 1999; Frønes, 1998). While children’s books based on the manuscripts of the stories of the “Children’s Hour for the Youngest” have received attention from scholars within literature (see, e.g., Lassén-​Seger & Skaret, 2014; Rustad & Skaret, 2015), the music and songs from the programs have received relatively little attention in musicology and music education research. However, media scholar Elise Seip-​Tønnessen (1992) noted that the programs were built around a core of music. Children’s music media of 1950s Norwegian radio combined aesthetic and cultural values with educational purposes (Skard, 1953) and were based on a discourse of perceived children’s needs and the needs of the nation, such as uniting the nation, possibilities for identification for the children, creating senses of belonging, and providing inspiration for fantasy and play (Skard, 1953). More specifically, children’s radio music of the 1950s, as well as the fictional stories told, was woven into the creation of the notion of a Norwegian childhood and a Norwegian identity. “The radio created joint experiences, joint references and with it a joint nation,” Ivar Frønes explains (1998, p. 90 [author’s translation]). The children’s culture established at a national level reached into the homes of families and individuals, the journalist, program host, and radio producer Bjarne Grevsgaard underscores (personal interview, 2016). Thus, the national level provided material for individual experiences of joint meaning making and senses of belonging; moreover, the notions of familial ways of being together around the media were established.

Content, Performers, and the Art of Storytelling The content of the “Children’s Hour” programs was not selected randomly. Already from the very beginning there was a debate about what the “Children’s Hour,” a program for schoolchildren, was supposed to do for the child audience. Already in the 1920s it

12   LUNDE was argued that programs for schoolchildren should not have any kind of educational form or content, but should provide “entertainment, rest and encouragement after schoolwork” (Hougen, 1933, p. 33, as cited in Vold, 1999, p. 105). “However,” it was added, mediating between opposing opinions, “it is self-​evident that in the process of making the programs, the educational idea itself and the cultural value which is the premise for any good music, songs, and fairytales etc. are taken into account” (Hougen, 1933, p. 33, as cited in Vold, 1999, p. 105). When the program “Children’s Hour for the Youngest” came about after the Second World War, it was first inspired by an Australian program, Nursery School on the Air, which was an educational project (Seip-​Tønnessen, 2015). The child psychologist Åsa Gruda Skard was central in launching this idea and, as a member of the NRKs Program Council, she supervised the educational aspect for several years. An educator specializing in young children, Else Wildhagen, was the first radio “aunt” of the program. Supported by a pianist, she performed in the studio something very similar to teacher-​led activities undertaken in preschools, such as singing songs accompanied by movement during circle time, and she invited the child audience at home to participate in the broadcast songs and musical activities; that is, she invited the child audience to sing, clap their hands, and participate in other kinds of movements to the songs and music. In the 1950s, Skard continued to defend the pedagogical aspects of the program, as well as the intention of inspiring children to play. A new era arose, which gave more space for fantasy and storytelling. The particular form of the art of storytelling that evolved had the new medium—​the radio—​as its prerequisite (Vold, 1999), and included music and songs, often written for the particular programs. The child audience was presented with stories and songs about children and anthropomorphized animals from various settings in Norway and typically one “uncle” or “aunt” presented for five days in a row, Monday through Friday. The NRK carefully considered that their child audience was diverse, varying across geographical, demographical, and cultural backgrounds, and therefore should be presented with a variety of material. Skard (1954) argued that the “Children’s Hour for the Youngest” was supposed to reach children of the larger cities, such as Oslo, Bergen, and Trondheim, as well as those who lived in the mountain villages, in the countryside and farming areas, in the richer valleys and suburbs, by the fjords, and by the ocean as well as inland. “Few countries are obliged to broadcast radio programs to such a variety of children as what we are here,” Skard concluded (1954, p. 2 [author’s translation]). Furthermore, it was a clearly expressed aim to broaden the horizon of each group of children, so that they could become acquainted with a rich and vast culture and that the “groups of our people (children and adults alike) may gain greater experiences of togetherness by being offered to take part in the cultural heritage which not only themselves, but also other groups have brought forth” (Skard, 1954, p. 4 [author’s translation]). The NRK’s idea was to choose performers who could perform authentically in terms of the stories’ content and dialects. For a while, the NRK tested out a number of performers from various parts of the county, but concluded that having too many performers resulted in too many changes for the children and too few well-​known “aunts” and “uncles.” Skard (1954) argued, however, that testing out a

Digital Landscapes   13 number of performers provided a foundation for selecting those who worked best on the radio, and so sought to choose performers who complemented each other. It became clear that they needed “females and males, various dialects and content which suited children of the cities as well as children of the countryside, and performers who could engage children with fantasy play and physical activity” (Skard, 1954, p. 2).

The “Big Three” Three performers enjoy the position of the “big three” of the 1950s era of children’s radio: Thorbjørn Egner, Anne-​Cath. Vestly, and Alf Prøysen. They contributed strongly to the development of the famous style of the programs, which involved narratives, songs, and conversations with the children at home, and which served as the model for children’s programs for decades. They all came from eastern Norway, not too far from the capital. Egner’s stories and songs dealt with town environments (Cardamom Town) and a forest environment with anthropomorphized animals (Claus Climbermouse and the other animals in the Huckybucky Forest). Vestly grew up in the countryside, but lived in the city as an adult. Her stories are mostly set in a city environment, including narratives of moving to a new place. Some of her famous books and characters include Guro, who plays the violin and lives with her mother, a janitor; Aurora, who lives in apartment building Z; Ole Aleksander Fili-​bom-​bom-​bom, who also lives in a city with his new sibling; Lillebror (Little brother), who has moved from the city to the countryside, and his fantasy friend Twigson; and the characters of the narratives of a grandmother (Mormor), a mother, a father, and their eight children, all with names staring with the letter M, whom the readers get to know first when they live in the countryside before their move to the city. The third performer, whose viser (songs) are the target of the empirical case of the next section, is Prøysen. He grew up in the countryside in an environment where the vast difference between richer and poorer farmers (husmenn) was evident, even in the music culture. He was a talented storyteller, and this talent influenced his folk music–​ inspired songs. His output was enormous, including more than 750 fictional stories, and he seems to deserve the description of “multi-​talented mega-​celebrity,” as stated in Lassén-​Seger and Skaret’s (2014) edited volume concerning one of his most famous fictional characters, Mrs. Pepperpot. In the “Children’s Hour” programs, he engaged in storytelling as oral narration and performed songs of epic character—​the viser are in themselves little stories with a melody. According to Vold (1999), “His mastery of the art involved keeping the living form of folkloristic storytelling alone behind the microphone” (p. 111). Moreover, in his programs he sought to attain a personal relationship with the individual listener. Skard (1953) perceives that “he speaks directly to the children, and not down to them” (Skard, p. 5). The famous quote from the openings of his programs, “Now, you put your hand on your radio, and I put my hand on my radio,” illustrates the point of connecting to his audience through the radio medium.

14   LUNDE

Connecting the Family by Mediated Traditional Children’s Songs In the ethnographic study, Prøysen’s viser were mentioned throughout as a valuable part of children’s culture, and the experience of closeness to radio “uncle” Prøysen was explained by referring to the way that he invited the children to put their hand on the radio, as quoted above. The importance of bringing the older traditions to the next generations was expressed with fond engagement. In one particular interview, the eloquent mother was able to explain in more detail what seemed to be at stake: it was not only about enjoying the music, but about staging a special kind of childhood. In this interview, the mother, like many others, connected her own valued childhood memories closely with the children’s programs and Alf Prøysen’s stories and viser, and she expressed grief at the fact that her son was not interested in these songs. The following is a translated excerpt of the field notes of the ethnographic study, including some of the initial analysis: After having discussed the music they often engage in as a family, the mother begins on her own initiative to talk about the music that her five-​year-​old son does not want to listen to. Something that she would really love for him to engage in together with her is Alf Prøysen’s children’s viser. After a lot of searching around, she explained, she got him a CD that contains the original recordings from the radio.3 There is a fervency and sorrow in her voice at this point in our conversation, and the atmosphere of the interview shifts to one of longing and of nostalgic sentiment. The mother remembers very well the songs from her own childhood, she expresses convincingly, including Prøysen’s performances of them on the radio. These were songs that everybody knew in her childhood, she continues, and one could just go out in the street and the people there would know them, children and adults alike. She adds short narratives of her lived experience, of her family gathering around the radio, and she describes these as events of warmth, closeness, and community between the family members. She highlights—​as she constructs it in her memory—​her feelings of being safe and content. Her eyes fill with tears as she talks about the past in this way, and her relationship with these songs as an adult seems to be of immense importance. As a mother, she says, she nourishes a strong wish that her son experiences similar feelings of safety, contentedness, closeness, and love as she does with these particular songs. She explains that she wants to provide her son with “safe anchorage” in life through music, because she herself has experienced how much joy music may offer. It is as though the repertoire and Prøysen’s voice carries with it her whole childhood experience, and that her fond memories set up an ideal childhood, which she wishes for her son to experience. But he is not interested, she complains; he wants to listen to what his friends listen to, from contemporary children’s television. While the mother talks about these things, her son cringes and looks genuinely sad. In the interview, the son describes the songs of Prøysen as “Mum’s music,” as “strange,” and as “boring.” He finds the man who sings, whose picture is on the CD cover, “strange”; he also sounds “strange,” he adds. He ascribes part of his dislike to the fact

Digital Landscapes   15 that the recording is “noisy” (probably because one can hear the scratchy sounds of the original recording). Because of her son’s dismissal of her treasured children’s music, the mother says, she feels lonely, and she expresses sadness and grief that they cannot share this particular music. She even admits that she feels a bit like a failure as a mother because she’s not able to convey this particular valuable part of childhood—​the songs and the kind of childhood they convey to her—​to her son.

The personalized lived experience of one generation’s children’s culture, and thus its meanings, may be contested (see Mintz, 2012) as well as embraced by the next generation of children. In the data, concepts such as tradition, continuity, roots, and family tree were applied by the participants throughout to describe personalized meanings of music. Experiences of authenticity and closeness to the past were in many cases a driving force underpinning parental choices of music, in addition to intentions of including new music and getting involved in contemporary children’s cultures. Traditional songs were connected with a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself. The selection of traditional children’s music from the 1950s also had the aspect of the songs reflecting something uncomplicated, both musically and in terms of the lyrics. Overall, examples of parental involvement like the one above feature attempts at in action maintenance of what might be considered to be older masterpieces (see also Vestad & Dyndahl, 2017). Overall, the empirical data suggest that when people of different generations co-​ produce music cultures, different sets of culturally embedded lived experiences emerge and need to be taken into account. The vignette above involves a mother with a close relationship with Prøysen’s viser (songs) from her own childhood and her fervent wish to include her son in her musical experience. The son, on the other hand, is not very interested, and would rather listen to what his friends listen to. The interview with the mother is very honest, and she expresses grief and even a sense of failure because she cannot convey and provide the sentiments of safety, closeness, and being loved through the songs that she prefers. She seems to be pondering the question, Why does it not work? Part of the answer may be that the music from her own childhood serves as a container (see DeNora, 2000) in which her childhood memories are stored, and as they pour out when she listens to the music (by listening, she opens the container, metaphorically speaking), they enrich her musical experience far beyond what is possible to grasp or experience for her son (see Vestad, 2015). For her, Prøysen’s viser are high-​ quality pieces, and her memory of her own childhood when her family gathered around the radio guides how she would like her son to appropriate the music: as a means and ritual for family relations and being safely anchored in life. In this way, her musicking behaviors mimic the intentions of the broadcasts of the 1950s, that is, to provide music of high quality and bring people closer together, in this case the family, and to build and celebrate relations (cf. Small, 1998). Part of the challenge is the CD’s presentation of the songs, which is different from that of the radio programs. As she explains later in the interview, the radio programs of her own childhood included much more than the specific piece of music. For example,

16   LUNDE the CD she has sought out and bought with the original soundtracks from the radio programs only has the music and not the story. Without the story, the music is more difficult to relate to. Moreover, the role of the music in the social contexts matters. In her childhood, the mother felt that the music created a bond, not only to her family members, but to all the other people—​her friends and their parents—​who listened to the same program, to the stories and the songs, at the same time. The son does not share these references with any of his friends. Therefore, the songs do not connect the son with them; on the contrary, he becomes different from everybody else.4 Finally, the aesthetics of the performer’s voice clearly influence their experiences. Prøysen’s voice feels authentic to the mother because she was there as it was broadcast in the original setting of her own childhood. To the son, it feels like an old man singing on an old and noisy recording, according to his own description. In fact, the mother also notices that something is different in the recording at hand; it’s not quite how she remembers it. The recordings are of Prøysen’s very first performances on the radio, and he is exhibiting his high-​pitched cabaret voice from the 1940s. In later recordings of the songs, for instance in a recording from 1969, his voice has a much lower pitch and exhibits a tone and timbre that is much closer to his famous friendly, down-​to-​earth storytelling voice from the districts. His dialect is evident, and the result is a warmer and more authentic expression than the recording featured on the CD. The mother tries to convey the stories of how she listened to and enjoyed this music as a child, but the son is not interested. Instead, it’s as though her words serve to confirm and augment his distance from the songs (Vestad, 2015).5 In another event from the empirical data, a similar type of old music from the children’s radio programs is exhibited (Barnas viser 1 [The Children’s Songs 1], 2005). In this observation, a four-​year-​old girl is sitting on the floor playing with some toys while the CD player in front of her is playing a CD with “old songs,” according to her mother’s description. In a style of presentation that was common in 1950s children’s radio broadcasting, an “uncle” is singing for and with children present in the studio. The four-​year-​old knows some of the nursery rhymes and songs from previous listenings, and participates together with the children on the CD. As one of the tracks starts, her mother suddenly bursts out: “This one Grandma knew, too!” The tone of her voice reveals surprise and joy over re-​experiencing songs that her mother sang to her as a child. She is emotionally engaged and touched. The importance of this experience to the mother resembles the experience of the mother in the previous example. In this case, however, the child contributes to the moment by showing interest in the song. She is startled by her mother’s outburst and listens attentively to her short explanation about her relationship to the song. They are sharing the moment, and thus the child is included in the family tradition in a way which seems rewarding for the daughter as well as for the mother. The following vignette, which is based on a transcript from observation data and initial analysis, describes in more detail how they share the experience: The child is sitting on the family’s living room floor, playing with some small dolls and horses. The CD player is placed on the floor in front of her, and she is the one who pushes

Digital Landscapes   17 its buttons. She claps her hands against her thighs, following the music’s tempo and rhythm. She sings along a little with the male voice on the CD, before she skips to the next track, which is a nursery rhyme. Mother and daughter both listen for a while, the child with a concentrated look on her face. The mother says with a smile and warmth in her voice: “This one Grandma knew, too. So, this is an old one.” The daughter looks at the mother with interest. After the nursery rhyme, the next track is a Norwegian folk song about an old woman with a walking stick. The girl sings and rocks from side to side. As the song finishes, her mother comments joyfully on the last verse of the song: “That was the woman with the walking stick.” The child listens intensely for the next track to start. “What comes next?” her mother asks, her voice reflecting her daughter’s anticipation and silent excitement. The child looks at her mother, and the fairy tale about Cinderella starts. Almost simultaneously they shout: “Cinderella!” “Yes!” The child gets up and moves closer to the CD player. “Now comes the fairy tale,” her mother comments eagerly. After having listened to an excerpt of the fairy tale and a few more songs and nursery rhymes, they listen to a nursery rhyme used by children as an accompaniment to skipping rope. The mother joins the voice on the CD, and she says some of the words and phrases out loud. “This one Mummy knew when she was a little girl. Exactly this one,” she explains excitedly to the child. Her tone of voice is sharper and more intense, but still warm and friendly. She speaks faster, but the nostalgic sentiments are still evident by a slight crack in her voice. The child looks at her, interested as before. Her eyes widen, and she smiles, but doesn’t answer. The next nursery rhyme is about to start and the girl joins in, reciting the text while moving her body to the music. In the last line the text reveals that apples and pears fall to the ground in the fall. As an accompaniment to this line and her newly acquired insight, she lets herself fall down on the floor.6

The mother and daughter are experiencing the music together. As discussed elsewhere (Vestad, 2018), the mother’s nostalgic sentiments are obvious, but she is nevertheless attentive and responsive to her daughter’s experience, excitement, and interest. They share a contemporary experience of an old song. It is tempting to try to draw conclusions about why the cultural transference did not work so well in the first example. One might discuss reasons as to why the music did not resonate with the boy (cf. Clarke, 2005), and it is perhaps tempting to look for flaws in how he was presented with the music. Or one might also dismiss the music as too old and irrelevant for contemporary children and childhood. The second example, however, suggests that relevance and resonance may be possible in shared moments of musical experience with old music.

Facilitating Children’s Own Meaning Making Sharing pieces of music belonging to a childhood from a different time and place is made possible by digital technology. But the totality of individuals’ lived experience of

18   LUNDE bygone times is not conveyed by a piece of music alone. As consumers the second time round (cf. Wesseling, 2018), parents reconstruct memories of the past (Ruud, 2013). It might feel as though the memories of their own childhoods are in a sense stored in the music, and that these memories flow out during the act of listening (DeNora, 2000; Ruud, 2013; Vestad, 2013, 2015). However, the lived cultural worlds of the parents are not embedded in these songs in a way that can be experienced directly by their children. For the children, as first-​time consumers, the songs do not function as already-​ filled containers, one might say. On the contrary, metaphorically speaking, the children (as first-​time consumers) are filling their containers with experiences that may become memories that “flow out” later in life when they listen to the songs in a new context. “Parents cannot and should not dictate children’s culture,” Mintz (2012) argues, “But . . . a society does have the ability to create an environment in which children’s culture can flourish” (p. 50). The radio programs of the 1950s sought to open spaces for children concerning the world around them, to fantasy and to valuable experience, and to inspire children to play. Children were presented with stories, songs, and music of many kinds, as well as to “uncles” and “aunts” who represented different parts of a diverse but shared cultural heritage. Being a broadcasting organization for all of Norway—​let alone the only broadcasting corporation—​the NRK united the country, creating immensely strong notions of childhood supported by the artful aesthetics of storytelling and viser. The radio broadcasts for children created cultures of listening. As a new medium, it modeled childhood as a time when families gathered around the radio. Nevertheless, a fragmentation in the contemporary media landscape has taken hold, directly opposite to a reported belief and worry expressed in the earlier decades of Norwegian media history that children would become too similar (see, e.g., Frønes, 1998). The shift in the media landscape also influences the sentiments involved in raising children. In the empirical data, the grief over not being able to give one’s child “the best music” because the child is not interested in it is expressed over and over. There is a sense of failing as a parent because the competition from other media and other influences is so strong, and it is impossible to stick with what one regards as high(er) quality music. Mintz (2012) describes consumerism as one of the touchstones of public concern over children’s culture, and although the parents participating in the study have also grown up consuming cultural products, they express worries about everything being “pink and shiny,” by which they mean artificial, superficial, and glossy; they are hunting for authenticity for their children.7 As a result, they go looking for treasured things from their own childhood. People oftentimes rediscover their childhoods when they have children of their own, and use their own past as a resource in raising them (Vestad, 2013; Wetlesen, 2000). The two mothers presented in this chapter are examples of this. They intend to open spaces for the children to their pasts and to ways of being a family through music by reinventing the landscapes of their childhoods and redefining them into the contemporary. However, these processes might not work so well for a child that is invited into a predefined landscape. Perhaps it might work better if the parent lets the child take part in

Digital Landscapes   19 constructing the landscape—​that is, engaging the child in the co-​creation of meanings of songs and music of childhoods in which the landscapes and themselves of the past and the present meet and are negotiated, with the child’s experience and interests at the center. In this way, spaces are opened up to the family history and continuity, as well as to relations between parents and children. As parents and music educators, then, we have to use our cultural treasures and cherished experiences as resources and go down the challenging but rewarding road of facilitating musical experiences, providing the frames for our children to flourish, while being conscious that we cannot always plan for a specific result. We can provide the frames and our support, but we need to let the children find their own meaning.

Notes 1. The notions of “affordance” and “appropriation” are derived from Tia DeNora’s (2000) work on music in everyday life, which will be explained in more detail later in this chapter. 2. The study combined a traditional ethnographic approach influenced by post-​structural thinking (Fangen, 2004; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Lincoln & Denzin, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and discourse analysis mainly derived from discourse psychology (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Wetherell, 1998; Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Wetherell & Potter, 1992), combined with Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) take on nodal points in the discourse of children’s music culture. 3. The CD was: Original Prøysen 4: Hompetitten, 42 barneviser (1946–​57), Prøysen 1993. 4. Music as a means for distinguishing oneself from other people may also be considered positive in terms of negotiating identity (see, e.g., Ruud, 2013), but in this particular interview, being different is viewed as more of a challenge. 5. In a previous article I have argued that what the mother wanted to convey with these pieces of music was simply too much to rely on only the music. Based on Bolter and Grusin’s (1999) discussion of hypermediation and immediacy, I have described this as “too-​little mediation”—​or hypomediation (Vestad, 2015). 6. This vignette is also presented in Vestad (2018) and is discussed in relation to second-​time-​ round consumption and nostalgia. 7. In this chapter I look into one route, namely the route of traditional music. Other examples from the data feature how parents make new distinctions of quality in popular music genres and the re-​wrapping of traditional songs (Dyndahl & Vestad, 2017; Vestad & Dyndahl, 2020).

References Bache-​Wiig, H. (1999). Innledning [Introduction]. In H. Bache-​Wiig (Ed.), Norsk barndom i to etapper [Norwegian childhood in two rounds] (pp. 7–​10). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Barnas viser 1 [The Children’s Songs 1] [CD] (2005). [Recorded by Rolf Just Nielsen and the children]. Oslo: Musikkoperatørene. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

20   LUNDE Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clarke, E. F. (2005). Ways of listening: An ecological approach to the perception of musical meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corsaro, W. A. (1993). Interpretive reproduction in children’s role play. Childhood, 1(2), 64–​74. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Corsaro, W. A. (2012). Interpretative reproduction in children’s play. American Journal of Children’s Play, 4(4), 488–​504. Crisell, A. (2002). An introductory history of British broadcasting. London: Routledge. Dahl, H. F. (1999). Hallo-​hallo! Kringkastingen i Norge 1920–​1940 [Hello-​hello! Broadcasting in Norway 1920–​1940]. Oslo: Cappelen. DeNora, T. (1999). Music as a technology of the self. Poetics, 27, 31–​56. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fangen, K. (2004). Deltagende observasjon [Participant observation]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Frønes, I. (1998). Den norske barndommen [The Norwegian childhood]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Hompetitten [CD] (1993). [Recorded by Alf Prøysen]. Oslo: Kirkelig kulturverksted. Korsvold, T. (1999). 1950-​årene: Barndommens lykkelige alder? [The 1950s: The happy era of childhood?]. In H. Bache-​Wiig (Ed.), Norsk barndom i to etapper [Norwegian childhood in two rounds] (pp. 91–​104). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). London: Verso. Lassén-​Seger, M., & Skaret, A. (Eds.) (2014). Empowering transformations: Mrs Pepperpot revisited. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407–​429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mintz, S. (2012). The changing face of children’s culture. In P. S. Fass & M. Grossberg (Eds.), Reinventing childhood after World War II (pp. 38–​50). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mouritsen, F. (2002). Child culture—​play culture. In F. Mouritsen & J. Qvortrup (Eds.), Childhood and children’s culture (pp. 14–​42). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Rasmussen, K. (2001). Børnekulturbegrebet—​set i lyset af aktuelle barndomstendenser og teoretiske problemstillinger [The notion of child culture—​seen in the light of current tendencies of childhood and theoretical considerations]. In B. Tufte, J. Kampmann, & B. Juncker (Eds.), Børnekultur. Hvilke børn? Og hvis kultur? [Child culture: Which children? And whose culture?] (pp. 31–​51). København: Akademisk. Rustad, H. K., & Skaret, A. (2015). Alf Prøysen, kunsten og mediene. Oslo: Novus. Ruud, E. (2013 [1997]). Musikk og identitet [Music and identity]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Digital Landscapes   21 Seip-​Tønnessen, E. (1992). Mening i medier [Meaning in media]. Oslo: Cappelen. Seip-​Tønnessen, E. (2015). Alf Prøysen som radiokunstner for barn [Alf Prøysen as radio artist for children]. In H. K. Rustad & A. Skaret (Eds.), Alf Prøysen, kunsten og mediene [Alf Prøysen, the art and the media] (pp. 91–​114). Oslo: Novus. Skard, Å. G. (1953). Merknader til barne-​og ungdoms-​programma i tida 31. aug. 1952–​10. jan. 1953 [Notes regarding programs for children and youth from August 31, 1952–​January 10, 1953]. [Unpublished document for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), January 13 1953.] Skard, Å. G. (1954). Om barnetimen for dei minste [On the “Children’s Hour for the Youngest”]. [Unpublished letter to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), January 14 1954.] Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Vestad, I. L. (2010). To play a soundtrack: How children use recorded music in their everyday lives. Music Education Research, 12(3), 243–​255. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2010.504811 Vestad, I. L. (2013). Barns bruk av fonogrammer. Om konstituering av musikalsk mening i barnekulturelt perspektiv [Children’s uses of recorded music. On the constitution of musical meaning from the perspective of children’s culture]. PhD diss., University of Oslo. Vestad, I. L. (2015). “Det aller største mor vet om . . .”: Om å gi videre et levd liv med musikk og å formidle for lite [“The greatest mother knows . . .”: Passing on music as lived experience and the risks of hypomediation]. Nordic Journal of Art and Research, 4(1), 37–​49. https://​doi.org/​ 10.7577/​if.v4i1.1490 Vestad, I. L. (2018). Children’s music and nostalgia. Digging in the past with an eye to the future. In E. Wesseling (Ed.), Reinventing childhood nostalgia: Books, toys, and contemporary media culture (pp. 255–​273). London: Routledge. Vestad, I. L. (2019a). Re-​thinking systems of meaning-​making: A possible theoretical framework for exploring children’s engagement in music and the subject positions of “Rock-​Boys” and “Pop-​Girls.” In S. Young & B. Ilari (Eds.), Music in early childhood: Multi-​disciplinary perspectives and inter-​disciplinary exchanges (pp. 203–​221). Cham: Springer. Vestad, I. L. (2019b). Barns samtaler om musikk i barnehagen: En vei til forståelse av barns musik(k)erskap. [Children’s conversations on music in preschool: Toward an understanding of children’s musickingship]. In T. Bergesen Schei (Ed.), Musikkpraktisk klokskap i arbeid med barnehagebarn (pp. 145–​164). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Vestad, I. L., & Dyndahl, P. (2017). “This one Grandma knew, too, exactly this one!”: Processes of canonization in children’s music. Nordic Journal of Art and Research, 6(2), 1–19. https://​ doi.org/​10.7577/​info​rmat​ion.v6i2.2279 Vestad, I. L., & Dyndahl, P. (2020). Musical gentrification, parenting and children’s media music. In P. Dyndahl, S. Karlsen, & R. Wright (Eds.), Musical gentrification: Popular music, distinction and social mobility (pp. 66–​79). Abingdon, Axon: Routledge. Vold, K. B. (1999). Radiostemmene som forandret barnelitteraturen. Historien om et lykkelig møte mellom medier [The radio voices that changed children’s literature. The history of a happy meeting between media]. In H. Bache-​Wiig (Ed.), Norsk barndom i to etapper [Norwegian childhood in two rounds] (pp. 105–​114). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Wesseling, E. (2018). Introduction. In E. Wesseling (Ed.), Reinventing childhood nostalgia: Books, toys, and contemporary media culture (pp. 1–​16). London: Routledge. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-​structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, (9)3, 387–​412.

22   LUNDE Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-​discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), 335–​356. doi: 10.1177/​ 0959353599009003012 Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. Wetlesen, T. S. (2000). Å gi videre: Kultur og oppdragelse i familien [Passing it on: Cultural artifacts and child-​rearing in a family perspective]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Chapter 3

Media M e s s ag e s Surrou nding Pa re nts and M u si c Lisa Huisman Koops

On any given issue within the field of parenting, parents can find books and websites to provide information, summarize studies, argue opinions, and present strategies (e.g., “About BabyCenter, L.L.C.,” n.d.; Galinsky, 2010; Hirsh-​Pasek, Golinkoff, & Eyer, 2004). In the area of musical parenting, there are a small number of books available specifically addressing music (e.g., Campbell, Pitamic, & Roberts, 2015; Cutietta, 2013; Nathan, 2014; Vorderman, 2015), and for the most part the advice is not conflicting. Many of the texts recommend that parents foster their children’s interest in music through pursuing private lessons and obtaining quality instruments; teach children to practice regularly and carefully; and help children navigate auditions for school and community ensembles. Throughout these texts, music is held as an activity that is important to children’s wellbeing and worthy of family attention and resources; Cutietta’s and Nathan’s books placed a higher emphasis on formal music education, Vorderman’s work provided basic information for parents about music, and Campbell et al. focused on informal music environments, particularly in early and middle childhood. Music is also included, however, in a broad range of US-​based general parenting books and is discussed in both positive and negative ways. The ways that music is portrayed varies from a positive family activity (e.g., Kennedy-​Moore & Lowenthal, 2011; Payne & Ross, 2009) to a villain behind family exhaustion and over-​scheduling (e.g., Elkind, 2009; Stearns, 2003). This ambivalence in the messages about music in general parenting literature is concerning. There is no ambivalence on the topic of reading in parenting books; every book I analyzed extolled the importance of reading in multiple ways. The fact that some messages about music were negative suggested that music is an area that parents need not focus on. This may lead parents reading these books to decide that music in any form is something their family can skip, since it is not viewed as essential. This is problematic not only on an individual family level, but on a

24   Koops community level as well: if a whole group of parents in a community does not see the value in music for their children, they may not support their school’s music program or community music initiatives. An additional concern is how music is defined across popular parenting books. If music is portrayed narrowly, always pointing to private lessons and large group ensembles, it is only natural that many parents would think, “this is not for us.” However, when music is portrayed more broadly, such as through families finding enjoyment in music-​making, listening, attending community concerts, and self-​ guided learning, a more nuanced view of the role of music in families’ lives is possible. Currently, that more nuanced view is represented in research literature on families and music (see, e.g., the 2019 special issue of International Journal of Community Music1 for nine articles spanning a broad range of family music-​making) and in academic literature (Campbell, Pitamic, & Roberts, 2015; Vorderman, 2015), but is inconsistent in popular parenting literature. A final reason that understanding media messages related to music and parenting is important is because this sheds light on what music-​related research, if any, is being disseminated to families via the media. As part of a larger research project documenting how a diverse group of families in Cleveland, Ohio, use music in their everyday lives, I sought to explore a group of parents’ perceptions of media messages in the popular parenting literature (Koops, 2020).2 In previous research with families, I noticed that parents referred to ideas or themes that they had noticed in the media (e.g., Koops, 2011), and I posited that exploring this aspect would help me better to understand the entire body of data for my larger project. I pursued this facet of families’ experiences of music by conducting an ethnographic content analysis (Altheide & Schneider, 2013) of media messaging surrounding parents and music. I interviewed parents to ask what prior messages they had heard in the media, and what books and websites were important to them in raising their children. The resultant list was unique to each family with the exception of one book, What to Expect When You’re Expecting (Murkoff, 2016), mentioned by three of the families. I read all books and websites and summarized the mentions of music as part of my data analysis process. However, since most of these sources were not held in common, for the current content analysis, instead I sought a list of the most common parenting books in the United States at the time, with the thinking that these messages might directly or indirectly reach the parents through incorporation in other forms of media and influence (e.g., magazine articles, television and internet new stories, school messaging, pediatrician advice). I added five websites in order to further expand the data pool in recognition of the importance of online sources to parents. After I established the sources for the content analysis, the selection of which is described further below, I carried out the content analysis as a separate research activity from the ethnographic case study of the main project. I completed the content analysis between January to May, 2018. My central questions were: 1. What are the explicit or implicit messages about parenting and music that are evident in parenting books and internet sources from the United States?

Media Messages   25 2. How might these messages influence social pressures on parents from outside entities such as school personnel, pediatricians, and extended family members? After completing the content analysis, I conducted a round of interviews with all eight families in which I shared the results of the content analysis. I asked them to respond to the findings, share whether they had heard any of the messages, and comment on what they believed the media should promote in terms of messaging regarding families and music. The content analysis was briefly summarized in the book (Koops, 2020) but is described in detail in this chapter, followed by a summary of how parents responded to the themes of the content analysis and what suggestions they made for messages that they thought the media should promote. Further details of the parent response can be found in Chapter 5 of Parenting Musically (Koops, 2020).

Methodology Altheide and Schneider (2013) described ethnographic content analysis (ECA) as marked by immersion, reflexivity, and discovery. Following their directives, I used progressive theoretical sampling, which “refers to the selection of materials based on emerging understanding of the topic under investigation” (p. 56). I then created a protocol, a list of guiding questions about whom the writing was for (such as middle-​class parents in the United States; or parents and grandparents worldwide; or families who aspire to live at a slower pace) and what underlying frames (“broad thematic emphases or definitions of a report,” p. 52) and themes “held together and given broad meaning by a frame” (p. 53) were present. In other words, each source was read and summarized, noting the overall argument, and searching for how music played a role in the author’s recommendations and descriptions of parenting. I checked for frames, or contexts and assumptions, especially frames that were common across the literature. I noted the language use surrounding music, such as: positive, skeptical, cynical, enthusiastic. For the purpose of my study, I examined parenting books and websites. The sampling of books and websites is described in the sections below. I worked with fifteen books and five websites, starting with print books and then moving into internet sources, including parenting sites, blogs, and social media. I completed the protocol described above for each source; this was the data of the content analysis. I coded this data and used qualitative data analysis techniques (Creswell & Poth, 2018) to arrive at six themes. In looking at the themes, I noticed they clustered in three sets of pairs, with seemingly opposing statements making up each pair. I therefore grouped the six themes into the three tensions described in the analysis section below. The sources fell into three categories in their use of research relevant to the topic of music and parenting. The first group included very few mentions of research whatsoever (Bruehl, 2011; Rotbart, 2012; Schoenstein, 2002; and MyBrownBaby website). The second group of authors drew extensively on research, including studies within

26   Koops neuroscience, child development, and education, but did not specifically employ research related to music (Bronson & Merryman, 2009; Elkind, 2009; Furedi, 2002; Hirsh-​Pasek, Golinkoff, & Eyer, 2004; Gopnik, 2016; Payne & Ross, 2009; Senior, 2014; and Stearns, 2003). The remaining sources included specific music research studies. In Kennedy-​Moore and Lowenthal (2011) and Schulte (2014), one researcher was mentioned by name (Anders Ericsson, Florida State University), but no primary research source was cited. Galinsky discussed Fernald’s work on mothers extensively (Fernald, 1985; Fernald & Kuhl, 1987) in her chapter on communication. The content that I reviewed from Kveller, Scary Mommy, and Pinterest websites each included one reference to music research. Of all of the sources, the BabyCenter website drew on the greatest number of music-​specific research studies, including work by Schellenberg (2011), Standley et al. (2010), and Trainor et al. (2009). The relative dearth of inclusion of music-​related research in specific references to music with the parenting books and websites is consistent with findings by Sims and Udtaisuk (2008). In their content analysis of music within three prominent parenting magazines, they wrote that—​while they did not notice false claims or misinformation—​ the sources that authors drew on seemed hidden or not centered in music education or music development. Sims and Udtaisuk also pointed out that, while there are bodies of literature on many of the topics addressed in the content analysis (use of lullabies, use of music for stress relief), “most of the authors’ bases for these kinds of statements and recommendations seemed primarily intuitive” (p. 24). The consideration of how to communicate research results to parents as well as authors of parenting books is an issue I return to in the conclusion of this chapter.

Summary of Sources Parenting Books I reviewed fifteen books for the content analysis. I began with a list of “10 Best Books for Thinking Parents” from the website Parenting.com, removed several with repetitive material, then expanded to fifteen books based on snowball sampling. For instance, if several of the “best” books referenced another parenting book, I included that one as well. I also added several books recommended by other scholars of musical parenting. The books I reviewed fell into four categories, shown in Figure 3.1.

Emphasizing the Importance of Play The six books in the first category shared an emphasis on play as the main way for children to learn and develop in the world. Stearns’s (2003) history of childrearing provides a context for understanding Schoenstein’s (2002) sarcastic look at parenting and Elkind’s (2009) book on the impact of rushing children through development. Elkind’s (2009)

Media Messages   27 Elkind, The Hurried Child Schoenstein, Toilet-Trained for Yale Let kids be kids; importance of play

Stearns, Anxious Parents Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Eyer, Einstein Never Used Flashcards Payne & Ross, Simplicity Parenting. Bruehl, Playful Learning

Content Analysis of Media Messaging Surrounding Parents and Music: Books

Galinsky, Mind in the making Parenting to maximize brain development

Critique of concept of parenting

Concern for impact of parenting on parents

Healy, Different learners Kennedy-Moore & Lowenthal, Smart Parenting for Smart Kids

Furedi, Paranoid Parenting Gopnik, The Gardener and the Carpenter Bronson & Merryman, Nurture Shock Rotbart, No Regrets Parenting Senior, All Joy and No Fun Schulte, Overwhelmed

Figure 3.1  Books used in content analysis of media messaging surrounding parents and music

work was the foundation for many other books, including Hirsh-​Pasek, Golinkoff, and Eyer’s (2004) Einstein Never Used Flashcards. Payne and Ross (2009) and Bruehl (2011) each outlined detailed suggestions and guidance on creating environments and routines that foster play for children. Preserving play in childhood and avoiding a rush to adulthood were common themes in this group of sources. Elkind’s (2009) classic, The Hurried Child, was first published in 1981 and is the basis for many of the parenting books reviewed here. He argued that children are being rushed into adulthood by parents as well as the media. Music appeared as both a positive and a negative: while Elkind urged caution with infant-​directed music and DVDs, he did state confidently, “we do have a solid basis for encouraging parents to talk and sing to the infant” (p. 112). Elkind emphasized the importance of play, including musical play, yet cautioned against over-​scheduling or professionalizing children’s pursuits because these approaches were perceived to lead to exhaustion among families and too much stress among children. Schoenstein’s (2002) Toilet-​trained for Yale: Adventures in 21st-​Century Parenting is an ironic, caustic portrayal of parenting in and around the year 2000, with parents rushing their children to a variety of activities, one of which is music. Music figured in his hyperbolic vignettes about rushed children, from neonates to toddlers. He bemoaned parents’ pushing their children in an effort to be better than others and get into Ivy League schools.

28   Koops Historian Stearns (2003) described the history of parenting in the twentieth century in Anxious Parents: A History of Modern Childrearing in America. He provided documentation of the issue of the over-​scheduled child as early as the 1920s, with subsequent studies exploring this in the 1970s and 1990s—​each time with mothers doing most of the work of scheduling and transporting children to enriched leisure activities. The Mozart effect of the 1990s was not the first time that music lessons were touted for their extra-​ musical benefits; Stearns noted that, in the 1960s and 1970s, in the United States, “Music lessons began to be sold . . . not just for their intrinsic merits but on the basis of research that suggested their role in developing intelligence” (p. 102). Stearns did not identify the research used in this campaign. This inclusion of references to research without direct citations is common in the general parenting literature, and is not limited to instances of research about music. In another book that resonates with Elkind’s (2009) The Hurried Child, the authors of Einstein Never Used Flashcards (Hirsh-​Pasek et al., 2004) use a language of battle and liberation to arm today’s parents with the knowledge and confidence needed to resist the media and society’s push for enriching childhood with academic pursuits, flashcards, and an abundance of structured activities. Using scientific studies, the authors (all psychology and early childhood researchers) sought to debunk myths, explain aspects of early childhood, and offer play-​based ideas for parents. These studies did not include research specific to music, other than one debunking the Mozart effect. Somewhat paradoxical is that the authors’ recommendations, while urging parents not to see themselves as “architects” of their children’s brains, are still filled with directives. Music was treated in many ways in this text (1) as a positive activity (playing pots and pans in the kitchen is a great activity); (2) as a neutral (listen to Mozart if it makes you happy, but it won’t make your child smarter); and (3) as a negative (in a vignette about a Suzuki student who was pushed into lessons, but did not have age-​appropriate emotional skills). In Simplicity Parenting, Payne and Ross (2009) called for a simplicity of toys, choices, information (media), and speed. Music was an area that was treated largely positively. The authors suggested simple instruments as toys and used piano practice as a success story in one vignette. They recommended focusing on a child’s enjoyment rather than achievement, and distinguishing between “play” (a child’s choice of unstructured activity) and “activity” (such as lessons, classes). Music was mostly absent from Bruehl’s (2011) Playful Learning. She encouraged parents to design and implement well-​appointed learning rooms in their homes. Music was mentioned only a few times and in passing, augmenting other areas of a curriculum. There was an underlying tension between emphasizing the importance of play and recommending that parents carefully document the child’s learning that occurs during play. This seemed to set play up as another form of push-​parenting, emphasizing getting things right in childhood. Music was not covered comprehensively in these texts and, when it did appear, it was often the enemy in the guise of lessons or classes that led to a perception by the author(s) of hurriedness or over-​scheduling. This could be due in part to the treatment of music as primarily a formal activity occurring outside of the home and led by an expert. When

Media Messages   29 authors gave examples of music occurring in playful settings within the home, music was more likely to be labeled as a benefit to children’s development and playful learning. None of these texts drew on music research literature to support their arguments.

Maximizing Brain Development The second set of books cited neuroscientific research and positioned brain development as the central goal of parenting. Galinsky’s (2010) Mind in the Making was a prime example of how this set of books emphasized maximizing children’s cognitive development. The other two books in this set apply this idea to sub-​populations, Healy’s (2011) Different Learners to children with learning delays or differences, and Kennedy-​Moore and Lowenthal’s (2011) Smart Parenting for Smart Kids to children who are seen to excel in school. In Galinsky’s (2010) book, Mind in the Making, the author showed her belief that parents can do things carefully to influence the outcome of their children’s development. Galinsky presented seven skills, such as making connections and taking on challenges, that she believed to be essential to children’s academic success (hence mind in the making, not heart). Music was mentioned a few times in vignettes written by parents about their children’s interests, but almost always in service of something else. Healy’s (2011) book for parents and teachers of “different learners” put forward the argument that today’s frantic culture contributed to the rise in learning differences/​ disabilities. Healy argued that parents have the ability to structure the home environment to cut down on problems and maximize success. Some mentions of music were positive, such as highlighting music as an ideal way for children to play, which supports the brain. Loud music or toys that play electronic music were mentioned as having a negative impact on brain development. Healy advised the reader that no studies have shown a link between listening to music and developing verbal skills. Surprisingly, later in the book, the author bemoaned cuts in arts funding, then claimed “specific training in the arts has been shown to increase academic skills, such as the well-​publicized relationship between music training and mathematics. . . . Musicians have taken the lead in promoting research to document the profound physical effects of music on the human brain” (p. 343), citing Daniel Levitin’s (2006) work. Smart Parenting for Smart Kids (Kennedy-​Moore & Lowenthal, 2011) is a book for parents of “bright” children advocating teaching social skills to manage intelligence, rather than pushing children. On page 1 of the book, music appeared in the list of things not to do (do not play music for an unborn child or put children in music classes to enhance math skill). This was because the authors identified these choices as typical of parents who were constantly pushing their children to acquire knowledge and skills in a competitive manner rather than congruent with a child’s development. The critique also stemmed from the pressure parents felt from “friends, neighbours, and the ‘child improvement’ industry” (p. 1) to engage in these activities. However, after page 1, music was included in positive examples throughout the book. The chapter on sensitivity included a paragraph on music and using music to regulate mood. Concrete examples of using music to accomplish parenting goals were included from talking to children in

30   Koops detail about their favorite music and bands as a way to develop motivation, to singing as a way to become more aware of little joys in life. Authors gave examples involving music matter-​of-​factly, as though they assumed that all parents could accomplish them. For example, the authors suggested that families sing “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music in order to be more aware of the simple joys of life. Another suggestion was for parents to talk analytically with their children about the children’s favorite music and music groups as a way to build intrinsic motivation and connection between children’s interests and their cognitive development. The coverage of music in these three books varied widely. Galinsky (2010) and Healy (2011) mostly relegated music to something that should not provoke distraction, while Kennedy-​Moore and Lowenthal (2011) provided examples of how music can help children develop in several areas, despite the opening page negativity. The rapidly expanding base of research on music and cognition in areas including musical processing, musical meaning, and musical perception (e.g., Ashley & Timmers, 2017; Thaut & Hodges, 2019) needs to be evaluated, synthesized, and interpreted for multiple populations, including authors of parenting books. The authors of this group of books mentioned only isolated music-​related studies. Galinsky discussed the work of Fernald and Kuhl; Healy cited Levitin (2006) in a footnote; and Kennedy-​Moore and Lowenthal included a description of Anders Ericsson’s work (Ericsson & Pool, 2016), but did not cite a primary source. Overall, this treatment of music-​related research seems selective and, in some cases, dated.

Critiquing the Concept of Parenting Three books stood apart in their critique of the concept of parenting itself. Gopnik (2016) suggested that parenting is a fabricated word and a fabricated approach to raising children. Furedi (2002) advanced a similar argument, particularly identifying “interlocking myths of infant determinism, that is, the assumption that infant experience determines the course of future development, and parental determinism, the notion that parental intervention determines the future fate of a youngster” (p. 45) as unhelpful foundations upon which today’s parenting practices are based. Bronson and Merryman (2009) made a different attack, arguing that parents should not expect to rely on their own instincts in parenting, but should depend on scientific studies to guide them in best practices for parenting. Disrupting parents’ ideas of parenting and reliance on typical sources of information were the common threads in this set of texts. There were few positive references to music in this set of books, and while authors used many research studies to support their arguments, no specific music studies were used. Sociologist Furedi’s (2002) book Paranoid Parenting is a diatribe against the paranoia of today’s parents, such as paranoia that if a parent does not provide precisely the right stimulation for a baby that the baby will not develop properly. Furedi’s diatribe extended to the media and culture that promotes this parental paranoia. Furedi called out the Mozart effect as a myth and bemoaned the industry devoted to teaching and mentally stimulating babies. Throughout the book, music consistently appeared as an enemy in Furedi’s descriptions of parents and children: parents who played classical music for

Media Messages   31 their children, enrolled them in music classes, and chauffeured children from one activity to the next did all of this in order to give their children a head start, demonstrate their social standing, or to assuage parental guilt for not having more time together. While music played a minimal role in Bronson and Merryman’s (2009) argument, NurtureShock was an example of the conflicting messaging parents may receive. The authors communicated to parent readers that they should change what they are doing because their instincts are wrong, in the sense that such instincts are actually assumptions drawn from societal norms that are not scientifically supported. An example is showering praise on children or playing DVDs marketed for babies to infants in order to accelerate linguistic development. As the authors stated, “many of modern society’s strategies for nurturing children are in fact backfiring—​because key twists in the science have been overlooked” (p. 6). For each assumption addressed in the book, including that of praise and the effectiveness of baby DVDs, the authors present research that refutes those assumptions. Further, Bronson and Merryman instructed readers not to pay attention to most parenting books, but to adhere to this particular book. They admonished parents to attend to scientific studies and let those shape their parenting. The overarching frame was that parents do not know what they are doing; they need carefully distilled results of science because instinct is incorrect in cases from language to teen rebellion, to siblings, to talking about race. Music appeared as one of the woes in over-​scheduling, leading to less sleep and resulting in multiple problems. Gopnik (2016) argued in her book The Gardener and the Carpenter that society’s current approach to “parenting,” in which parents do things in order to create a certain outcome with their children, is harmful and misguided. Instead, we should focus on “caring for children.” Gopnik decried the rise of “parenting” as an industry, with 60,000 books on Amazon, and noted that if the books worked, we would only need one, not an ever-​ increasing stream. Music was mentioned in a few accounts of experiments, but was not central to the meaning of the book. For instance, Gopnik described a study her lab ran in which children learned to arrange blocks on a machine to evoke lights and music (p. 102). Gopnik’s discussion of this study focused on the children’s ability to discover patterns and test hypotheses, not the musical aspect of the activity.

Concern for Parents, Too The final three books created a set focused on the impact of parenting upon adults. Rotbart (2012) asked parents to step back and think about what their long-​term goals as parents were. Senior’s (2014) All Joy and No Fun portrayed today’s parents from all walks of life and concluded that parenting brings joy and fulfillment, but is often marked by struggle and heartache. Overwhelmed, by Schulte (2014), is not solely about parenting, but issues of parenting are central to the author’s description of feeling overwhelmed by life in today’s world. Authors gave examples of music in this set of books in which musical activities supported family life, but references to over-​scheduling also drew on negative aspects of musical participation. In No Regrets Parenting (Rotbart, 2012), the author’s stated goal was for parents to have peace of mind, to feel they are doing their best and have no regrets. Music showed up as

32   Koops part of the unfortunate mix of activities leading to “over-​scheduling.” But music was also introduced as an important part of “cherished moments,” with singing as part of a bedtime ritual, dancing and singing along to recorded music in the kitchen while making lunches together for the next day, going to a music festival as a family trip, listening to music together in the car rather than everyone on their own device, and parents being part of kids’ activities, including music lessons. Senior (2014) explored how children affect and change their parents in All Joy and No Fun, a contrast to the many books that examine the opposite. As her title indicates, in the end, parenting is seen as rewarding because of its joy and purpose, not because it is easy or fun (much of the time). Music appeared in All Joy and No Fun in vignettes and examples as something important to the fabric of American family life and capable of leading us to heightened, joyful experiences beyond the everyday work of raising children. However, music also featured as a culprit in over-​scheduled families and “annoying” toys. Most moving is the centrality of music in a vignette in which Senior described a mother played joyfully with her son, beginning with pretend play with recorded music playing and transitioning into a dance party. Senior identified this moment as one marked by the optimal state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Schulte (2014) addressed the issue of time in her book Overwhelmed, working to understand where her time went and how to make the most of her time. Music appeared alongside beautiful sunsets and a list of other things people cannot fully enjoy with a chaotic mind, suggesting that music is one of the important aesthetic elements of life best experienced when not in an overwhelmed state. At the negative end, music was in a list with travel sports that require car pools that leave parents tired and overwhelmed; Schulte proclaimed that music lessons were not worth it, if they were making parents overwhelmed and no one was happy. As with many of the books reviewed here, the topics of music for infants and Baby Einstein products were mentioned with skepticism and critique. While some of the ideas from previous categories appeared again in these books, such as stopping music lessons so that the family is not too busy, and questioning the value of infant music products, the treatment of music in this group of books was more positive than in many of the others. Perhaps because these books were about parents and overall family life rather than specific aspects of childrearing, music could function in a broader context. The ambivalence in messages about music in these books, as well as all of the books in the content analysis, led to an overall sense of negativity toward music.

Internet Sources Since the 1990s, the internet has become a key factor, and perhaps now the principal factor, in providing information for parents and a digital space in which parents interact. Lupton, Pedersen, and Thomas (2016) argued that people, especially women, perform their parenting acts via the internet, such as checking on children remotely with video monitors and iPhones and documenting milestones. The public nature of the

Media Messages   33 internet has intensified the performative nature of parenting and the potential for judgment by others. The ideas of performative parenting (Friedman, 2013), or documenting and demonstrating to others the tasks of parenting, and using online sources to seek connection were evident in the sources that I examined for the content analysis. Performative parenting and online connection are also documented in scholarship on mommyblogs. Friedman (2013) detailed the rise of mommyblogs, a term she used in order to evoke an emphasis on the mother’s point of view, as opposed to mother blogs or parenting blogs, which are focused on the children’s needs and views. Mommyblogs are “performative in sharing mothers’ lived experiences in opposition to prescriptive expert discourses” (Friedman, 2013, p. 11). These blogs represent a form of feminist literature, and essential form of internet interaction, as mothers perform certain roles and show resistance to cultural norms or narratives via their writing on the mommyblogs. Performative parenting and online connection became two of the frames that I encountered in my content analysis of internet sources related to music and parenting. In choosing internet sources to include in this content analysis, I worked to balance types of sources with diverse voices. I considered popular parenting websites created by commercial entities, blog-​based websites with single-​author creators, and social media sites that provided a greater degree of interaction with the material. The five websites that I chose represent a range of types of sites, as well as two that align with several participants’ demographic backgrounds. While there are many parenting sites available that focus on additional specific demographic experiences, such as Latina mama blogs or Native American parenting experiences, I did not investigate those sites because the demographics were not represented in the participant pool of my research study. On each site, I searched for ten relevant articles related to parenting and music (see Figure 3.2). BabyCenter represented the most mainstream of the web sources; Scary Mommy included a more parent-​centered perspective, an example of Friedman’s (2013) mommyblog genre. MyBrownBaby is focused on African American parenting, and Kveller on Jewish parenting. Finally, Pinterest is a form of social media and varies from the content of the other sites.

BabyCenter BabyCenter.com is a popular parenting website (“About BabyCenter, L.L.C.,” n.d.). While parents may come to BabyCenter for the early information on pregnancy, the site has expanded over the years in the hope that parents will stay for the information on older children. The music articles were written by staff writers or named authors, including music educator Pamela Shaw, a performing arts academy director and music teacher. Research played a big role in most of the articles, with authors sharing what studies have shown, or quoting expert opinion of university researchers, such as Laurel Trainor (2009). The articles seemed to reflect an appetite among parents for reassurance from the research community, as well as interest in what current research in child development, music therapy, and music education said on topics such as prenatal listening, effect of musical training on children’s cognitive development, and when to start music lessons.

34   Koops Prenatal listening Music during labor & delivery Baby Center

Ways to interact with kids and music Logistics and benefits of music lessons Does music make kids smarter? Prenatal listening Benefits of music lessons

Scary Mommy

Popular music and tweens/teens Popular music and tweens/teens Content Analysis of Media Messaging Surrounding Parents and Music: Internet Sources

Artists/album reviews

MyBrownBaby

Playlist recommendations Op-ed on white privilege Prenatal listening Popular music and teens/tweens Kveller

Music for children’s identity formation Parent’s musical behaviors Artist reviews

Musical Parenting boards Products related to musical parenting Pinterest

Graphics about benefits of music Advice for parents Musical crafts

Figure 3.2  Selected websites and topics from content analysis of media messaging surrounding parents and music

The ten articles that I reviewed included the following topics: the effect of music listening on fetal development; music listening during labor and delivery; ways to interact with children and music (babies, toddlers, and five-​year-​olds); when to start and when to quit music lessons; whether music makes children smarter or helps them learn; and advice for Hispanic parents on singing lullabies and playing musically with children. Most of the articles appeared to be balanced and unbiased in their review of research, pointing out that the research could not be generalized from five-​year-​olds to infants and fetuses, for example. Several articles included advice that encouraged parents to sing and play music with their children, regardless of the parents’ musical training or perceived level of musicianship. The BabyCenter content suggested that its audience came primarily for information and connection. Articles on BabyCenter did not commonly incorporate elements of performative parenting, as they were authored by staff writers or outside authors, and not parents sharing stories of how they engaged in musical parenting themselves. This was one major difference between BabyCenter and the websites that follow.

Media Messages   35

Scary Mommy Scary Mommy started as an “innocent online baby book” in 2008 (“About Scary Mommy,” n.d.) and grew to have a following of millions. It is known for its unblushingly honest portrayal of parenthood, sarcastic analysis of everyday parenting struggles, and inclusion of topics not found on other parenting sites. The articles that I reviewed included pieces on the benefits of music lessons, considerations for listening to popular music with teens, and views on prenatal listening. There was a lower emphasis on research in the Scary Mommy articles compared to BabyCenter, with only one article using research as support for its argument, and one other referring to research tangentially. For the most part, the articles were based on personal experiences of the authors, both experiences listening to and playing music as children themselves, and experiences that their children were having. Many of the articles gave a sense of performative parenting, but how this performative parenting was expressed varied: some parents highlighted the use of more music, others lauded less music; some emphasized relationships, while others demonstrated pride of children’s musical skill development.

MyBrownBaby MyBrownBaby.com began as a blog in 2008 and grew to a website in 2011 with articles, reviews, videos, and photos devoted to celebrating and providing support for African American families. The founder, journalist, and mother Denene Millner described MyBrownBaby as “a space I created for African American moms looking to lend their critical but all-​too-​often ignored voices to the national parenting debate” (Millner, n.d.). I reviewed ten articles on MyBrownBaby related to music; seven of these were written by Millner, with the remaining three from other authors. Compared to BabyCenter and Scary Mommy, this represented a more unified authorship of material on a website. Common themes for Millner were seen across the articles, such as a commitment to family, willingness to speak truth to power, and love of fashion. Of the ten articles, two addressed the inappropriateness of hip-​hop lyrics and called on radio stations to avoid playing music with explicit adult language and degrading themes during times when children would commonly be in the car. Two articles provided playlists of music by African American artists. There were four artist and song reviews and one tribute. The final piece was an open letter to “liberal white parents” about “racist white conditioning” (Egan, 2014); Egan argued that the TV, movies, and music families consume contributes to cultural conditioning and suggested, “If almost all the music that you listen to in your house is white (even if you have a Jay-​Z or Beyoncé album) please work harder.” There was a greater sense of urgency as the authors argued directly for specific responses on the part of readers in the music-​related articles on MyBrownBaby compared to Scary Mommy; I perceived an assumption of the importance and power of music, and a desire for families to use music in broad ways within their home life. Millner conveyed a recognition of the relational power of musicking, particularly listening, through her articles about hip-​hop and playlists of African American artists. The performative parenting that was a hallmark of Scary Mommy was much less evident in the MyBrownBaby posts.

36   Koops

Kveller Kveller.com, a parenting website for Jewish parents, is “for those who want to add a Jewish twist to their parenting. For many of us, this is no simple matter” (“About Kveller,” n.d.). The website features articles written by staff authors as well as guest writers. The ten articles that I reviewed included the following topics: listening to popular or rap music with children; playing music for fetuses; the use of music for children’s identity formation; parents’ musical behaviors; and artist reviews. Several articles included recognition of the power of music to influence human thought and behavior, and others also made specific references to using music to help shape their children’s identity, and seeing music as a way to better understand their children’s identities. Across the articles, there seemed to be more of an expectation that families would be musical and would use music for many purposes in their lives compared to the articles from BabyCenter and Scary Mommy. This could be due to the intended audience of Kveller: families who are parenting within the cultures, traditions, and, in some cases, religious observance of Judaism. The articles on Kveller contained a performative parenting element often tied closely to the author’s interpretation or living out of Jewish cultural or religious life. For example, Rossi’s (2014) description of her toddler son’s engagement in music is simultaneously an example of performative parenting (documenting the process of supporting her son’s interest in music through attending live events and classes, providing instruments, modeling, and responding) and connecting to her Jewish faith (describing the importance of music to their family’s religious observance and the importance of equipping her son to participate in this expression). Connection is central to the articles on Kveller, as authors seek to help parents connect to raising their children “with a Jewish twist.”

Pinterest In investigating Pinterest for this content analysis, a variety of “pins” showed up when I searched “musical parenting.” Each pin is an image with a weblink; pins can include memes, lists of resources, recipes, articles, visual aids, and how-​to ideas. The pins that came up when I searched musical parenting included an article with musical baby names, memes about music theater, a PSA (public service announcement) on the “many benefits of a musical education” produced by the University of Florida online Master of Music Education program, and photos of children listening to music. I searched the Boards section for “Musical Parenting” and found that other individuals had already searched for things related to musical parenting and collected them here. Some musical parenting boards, such as Anne Yanaway’s “Music Parents,” contained a collection of products—​in this case, T-​shirts related to music (https://​www.pinter​est. com/​ayana​way/​music-​pare​nts/​). Several marching band–​centered musical parenting boards contained a mix of marching band parent memes, information (guides to band camp), and products (instrument-​specific T-​shirts or memorabilia). The musical parenting boards that I found ranged from 50 to 4,000 followers; this is relatively low in the Pinterest world.

Media Messages   37 Pinterest is a form of both performative parenting and wishful thinking on the part of parents envisioning future parenting. Wilson and Yochim (2015) argued that pins and other curated content are “packets” of information that intersect with “pockets” of human time and affective space. Often, pins are a means to document or aspire to a happy family life. The pressure to optimize childhood and live as a fulfilled parent echoes some of the themes from the parenting books discussed above, and this pressure seems to be intensified by social media such as Pinterest. Performative parenting occurs both within Pinterest and as a result of Pinterest when parents seek to bring a “Pinterest-​ perfect” snack to a classroom party or create a “Pinterest-​perfect” baby shower, which is then documented and posted on social media. The site seems to foster competition rather than connection among parents.

Content Analysis Themes: Three Tensions Following the protocol described by Altheide and Schneider (2013), I analyzed the data and arrived at six themes, which grouped into three pairs of statements that formed “tensions” or dialectical pairs (Jorgensen, 2008). The themes are shown in Table 3.1. I will summarize each theme below and indicate the sources that contributed to the themes. It is important to note that the two sides of each tension are not mutually exclusive. Also, the themes were not all present to the same degree within the literature analyzed.

“The Hurried Child” Recognition of Benefits of Music Instruction and Participation This theme was the most common across the sources. In many of the books and internet sources, authors provided support for the idea that musical participation carries Table 3.1 Tensions and themes from content analysis Tension

Theme A

Theme B

“Hurried Child” (Elkind, 2009)

Recognition of benefits of music

Problems associated with over-​scheduling

Role of experts

Families should engage with experts for music instruction

Families can interact musically with children without an expert

Access in music education

Music education is a luxury for those who have met other needs

Music education is available to all, particularly given technological advances

38   Koops with it benefits for children. Less common were mentions of the benefits to families (Senior, 2014). A few sources directly mentioned musical benefits of musical study (Ethington, 2017; Organ, n.d.), but the majority of discussion was on extra-​musical benefits, including cognitive (Kennedy-​Moore & Lowenthal, 2011; Peters, 2017), social (Minkowsky, 2015; Rossi, 2014), and behavioral (Kennedy-​Moore & Lowenthal, 2011; Robledo, 2018). A specific sub-​category was the benefit of music to the development of play-​based skills, identified as crucial by several authors (Elkind, 2009; Healy, 2011; Hirsh-​Pasek et al., 2004). Taken together, these benefits provided indirect value to families in that they helped advance parental goals in a range of domains.

Problems Associated with Over-​scheduling While the benefits of music participation were extolled across sources, the problems associated with music participation, along with other extracurriculars, were also evident. This theme was found in large part in the books, with less mention coming from website articles. This could be due in part to a broader definition of music participation put forward by the website articles, including an emphasis on family music listening. Many book authors were critical of parents enrolling children in early childhood music classes, or playing classical music for them, because they perceived it as a way to advance their chances of success later in life (Furedi, 2002; Schoenstein, 2002; Stearns, 2003). Another group of authors critiqued music participation because it led to over-​ scheduling and family disruption, linked to lower sleep and decreased functioning (Bronson & Merryman, 2009; Rotbart, 2012; Schulte, 2014).

The Role of Experts in Music Education and Music Participation Families Should Engage with Experts for Music Instruction Many of the media sources, particularly website articles, indicated that when children express an interest in something, such as music, parents should seek out an expert-​led activity or lesson in that area (Shaw, n.d.; “The magical musical tour,” 2017). Several website articles described how to find a music teacher, how to choose an instrument, or how to help children practice (Anderson, n.d.; Barseghian & Kelmon, 2016; Peters, 2017). At times, these drew on anecdotal evidence, and in two cases on the work of Trainor, Shahin, and Roberts (2009). Examples of benefits of music instruction, described above, often occurred within the context of expert-​led instruction.

Families Can Interact Musically with Children without an Expert An alternate theme focused on families interacting informally through music, rather than involving an expert. Rotbart (2012) and Senior (2014) included examples of meaningful family interactions with music. Website articles on Scary Mommy (Holbrook, 2005), MyBrownBaby (Millner, 2013), and Kveller (Bialik, 2014) all addressed issues

Media Messages   39 of music listening with children, including how to handle mature content in recorded music. BabyCenter articles included the message that “all parents can do this, including you” when it came to singing with their child (“Let’s Play! Weekly activities for your baby’s first year,” 2016). Similarly, Kennedy-​Moore and Lowenthal (2011) exuded a confidence that all parents could engage in the musical suggestions they put forth. This sense of assumed parental ability in music was not common across sources.

Access in Music Education Music Education as Luxury Several authors indicated that music education was something to be engaged in on the condition of other basic needs (Maslow, 1999) being met first. For instance, Gopnik (2016) suggested that it would be better for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to focus on science, which could lead to a productive career, than to engage in music or sports (p. 186). Writing for Scary Mommy, Ethington (2017) indicated that the public school in her area did not provide music instruction, so she sought it as a parent, knowing the benefits. This implies that those children with parents who have the means and knowledge to enroll in music instruction will receive these benefits, while other children will miss out. An additional indication of this theme came in the way authors spoke about private lessons and music instruction; it was mentioned as something that parents could decide whether or not to pursue, but the high cost of lessons and instruments was not often mentioned, nor was the difficulty in applying for and maintaining scholarships.

Music Education as Available to All This theme was the least prevalent of all six themes, but was evident in several sources that described how individuals can learn music through informal means, particularly web-​based sources. The Musical Parenting Boards on Pinterest included pins that linked to online music lessons, instructions for creating homemade instruments, and information for parents to use in teaching musical lessons at home. Writing for Kveller, Rossi (2014) mentioned the role of formal early childhood classes, but painted a picture of a much broader musical childhood for her son that included free community concerts, library events, and streamed music listening.

Parent Response I shared the results of the content analysis with parents in the Parenting Musically study (Koops, 2020) using a slide presentation on my laptop. The slides included an explanation of where this investigation of media messages fell into the larger research project; a

40   Koops summary of the books and website sources; an explanation of the methodology for the content analysis; details on the three tensions found in the results; and the following questions for parents: (a) What are your initial reactions to the following tensions?; (b) Have you come across these ideas as hidden or obvious messages from schools, pediatricians, etc.?; and (c) What do you think the themes regarding families and music should be in the media? Parent responses to the results that I shared fell into five categories. First, participants discussed their perceptions of the lenses of class, race, and privilege at play in the media messages I shared. Second, several participants described what they viewed as “the consumerization of childhood” as something that they noticed as apparent in the themes I described. Third, the role of parental decision-​making was highlighted as a pressure induced by the messages as well as a way to fend off pressure from the message. Fourth, participants pointed out that the tensions were not really opposites, but rather “both/​and” statements—​for instance, said one mother, the more music we have in daily life, the more I might want to seek out expert instruction for my sons. Finally, all of the participants made statements in their own way that media “is not for us”: the mainstream messages did not speak for them, or fit their family structure, or provide helpful guidance. In asking whether participants had heard the themes before, the most common media message participants recognized was the benefits of music participation, particularly messages regarding the musical participation and brain development. These identified messages included some that have been noted by certain academics as dubious, such as the Mozart effect. Some parents recognized a few of the other messages, such as the hurried child, but could not pinpoint where they had heard or read them. When I asked what messages parents would guide the media to promote, if they had the power, the recommendations fell into four categories. First, parents wanted the media to share the importance of music in daily life. Second, participants thought that the media should promote equal access to music for all children. Third, they asked the media to portray balanced messages and messages of balance, not guilting parents into thinking they must do a certain thing with music for their children to be successful in life. Last, parents stated they would like to see a greater emphasis on messages about the benefits of participation in music.

Conclusion An interesting aspect of the content analysis results was the dialectical nature (Jorgensen, 2008) of the tensions. There is not one dominant message about music in these particular US media sources related to parenting, and this diversity of messages could cause parents to become confused or question the relevance of music. On the other hand, parents may be accustomed to hearing conflicting information in the media, and may appreciate reading various arguments about music participation. The negative

Media Messages   41 portrayals of music, particularly by Gopnik (2016) and Furedi (2002), are important in understanding the range of messages parents may be encountering from the media. Awareness of these messages can help music educators and music education scholars thoughtfully respond to the narrative created by books such as these. The scant use of music-​specific research in sources in this content analysis suggests that music researchers might consider ways to communicate their findings directly with the general public, as well as specifically with authors of parenting websites and books. Some instances of music research in the sources were reported through secondary sources, such as the coverage of Hudziak’s work (Hudziak et al., 2014) in Ethington’s (2017) blog post “It looks like those music lessons for your kids will really pay off.” The author included quotes from researcher James Hudziak via an article in the Washington Post. This example demonstrates the importance of researchers engaging either directly in translational writing, or in communicating with mainstream media in order to share research results. This practice could also become problematic, however, if journalists begin to use such references to prove isolated points, and are not reading the research broadly. The question also arises of which research studies are chosen to be profiled in mainstream publications, and why. A potential implication here is for music educators to find ways to communicate meta-​analyses or broad trends and findings. Cutietta (2013) provides a helpful example to presenting research to parents in the context of his book Raising Musical Kids. The tension between acknowledging benefits of music and concern for over-​ scheduling has implications for music educators. If music programs are competing with a range of other extracurricular options, or if music is seen as taking time away from family cohesiveness, music educators who advocate such programs are putting themselves in an adversarial relationship. If, instead, some music education programs could be re-​envisioned to include multiple members of the family, this could alleviate the tension described here. Another possibility would be to offer multiple entry points in music, so if a child took a break from lessons in order to try gymnastics, the teacher could welcome her back without a sense of shame or loss of technique. Music instruction by experts versus music integrated into daily life is a tension that is easily resolved, as both expert instruction and daily informal musicking can flourish side by side. Music educators could promote this by providing a list of resources to their students’ parents on integrating music into home life. Expanding this idea, equipping adults to create spaces in which children’s musical play and creativity are fostered could lead to musical growth and enjoyment (Koops, 2012, 2017). Another way the profession can encourage growth between “expert” and “home” spheres is by providing opportunities for expert instruction and participation with instruments and genres typically associated with learning at home, including guitars, keyboards, and drums (Kratus, 2007). By including more vernacular music in the school curriculum, music educators can promote an upward spiral of music learning that includes both daily home musicking and expert instruction. The sense of music participation and instruction as a luxury is perhaps the most troubling of the themes that arose. As a profession, we have declared that we are

42   Koops committed to music for all children (Heidingsfelder, 2014), and many schools and community programs announce the same. However, if some parents (and schools) have an underlying belief that music is a luxury and not an essential part of every child’s life, there will be a group of children who miss out on music participation. This could be addressed by working to shape the media narrative through music education scholars and practitioners publishing op-​eds and other mainstream media pieces. Examples are Steven Demorest’s 2017 article, “Stop Obsessing over Talent—​Everyone Can Sing” in The Conversation, and a piece that I contributed to MTV News titled “Why Do Babies Dig 2 Chainz and Katy Perry So Much” (Ehrlich, 2014). Music teachers could directly address parents via newsletters, classroom blogs, and announcements on concert programs, reinforcing the idea that music is for all. Being thoughtful in the representation, visually and in written examples, across publications in music education is also critical, including textbooks, practitioner journals, and advocacy materials. Finally, crafting a music curriculum that is intended for all students and makes a place for all students is of utmost importance (Allsup & Benedict, 2008; Elpus & Abril, 2011; Kratus, 2007).

Notes 1. Vol. 12, no. 1, guest edited by Susan Wharton Conkling. 2. The larger project, a yearlong ethnographic multiple case study of eight families from the Cleveland,

Ohio area, was titled Parenting Musically and published by Oxford University Press as a book by that name. I was the sole researcher. This research was supported by grants from the GRAMMY Museum Foundation, a National Science Foundation (NSF)-​Advance ACES+​(Academic Careers in Engineering and Science) Advance Opportunity Grant from Case Western Reserve University, and a travel grant from the Baker-​Nord Center for the Humanities, Case Western Reserve University.

References About BabyCenter, L.L.C. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.bab​ycen​ter. com/​303_​ab​out-​bab​ycen​ter-​l-​l-​c_​1​0415​297.bc About Kveller. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.kvel​ler.com/​about-​kvel​ler/​ About Scary Mommy. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.bdg.com/​ scary-​mommy Allsup, R. E., & Benedict, C. (2008). The problems of band: An inquiry into the future of instrumental music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16, 156–​173. http://​www. jstor.org/​sta​ble/​40327​299 Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Anderson, L. (n.d.). Should you force a child to study music? Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​www.sca​rymo​mmy.com/​sho​uld-​you-​force-​a-​child-​to-​study-​music/​ Ashley, R., & Timmers, R. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge companion to music cognition. London: Taylor & Francis.

Media Messages   43 Barseghian, T., & Kelmon, J. (2016, October). Secrets to raising smart kids: Play music. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.bab​ycen​ter.com/​0_​secr​ets-​to-​rais​ing-​smart-​ kids-​play-​mus​ic_​1​0336​242.bc Bialik, M. (2014). Despite racy lyrics, Mayim still lets her sons listen to pop music . . . in moderation. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​www.kvel​ler.com/​desp​ite-​racy-​lyr​ics-​ mayim-​still-​lets-​her-​sons-​lis​ten-​to-​pop-​music-​in-​mod​erat​ion/​ Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). NurtureShock: New thinking about children. New York: Twelve. Bruehl, M. (2011). Playful learning: Develop your child’s sense of joy and wonder. Boulder, CO: Shambhala. Campbell, P. S., Pitamic, M., & Roberts, C. (2015). I can play it: music games and activities to help your child learn. New York: Barron’s Educational Series. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial. Cutietta, R. A. (2013). Raising musical kids: A guide for parents (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Demorest, S. (2017). Stop obsessing over talent—​everyone can sing. The Conversation. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://​thec​onve​rsat​ion.com/​stop-​obsess​ing-​over-​tal​ent-​ every​one-​can-​sing-​74047 Egan, R. Q. (2014, November 5). An open letter to my fellow white, liberal parents: Do better. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from http://​mybr​ownb​aby.com/​2014/​11/​white-​libe​ral-​rac​ism/​ Ehrlich, B. (2014). Why do babies dig 2 Chainz and Katy Perry so much? MTV News. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from http://​www.mtv.com/​news/​1896​631/​why-​music-​soot​hes-​bab​ies/​ Elkind, D. (2009). The hurried child: Growing up too fast too soon. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 128–​145. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​00224​2941​1405​207 Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ethington, M. (2017). It looks like those music lessons for your kids will really pay off. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.sca​rymo​mmy.com/​music-​less​ons-​kids/​ Fernald, A. (1985). Four-​month-​old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8(2), 181–​195. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0163-​6383(85)80005-​9 Fernald, A., & Kuhl, P. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(3), 279–​293. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ 0163-​6383(87)90017-​8 Friedman, M. (2013). Mommyblogs and the changing face of motherhood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Furedi, F. (2002). Paranoid parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child. Chicago: Chicago Review Press. Galinsky, E. (2010). Mind in the making: The seven essential life skills every child needs. New York: HarperCollins.

44   Koops Gopnik, A. (2016). The gardener and the carpenter: What the new science of child development tells us about the relationship between parents and children. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Healy, J. M. (2011). Different learners: Identifying, preventing, and treating your child’s learning problems. New York: Simon & Schuster. Heidingsfelder, L. (2014). The slogan of the century: “Music for every child; every child for music.” Music Educators Journal, 100(4), 47–​51. https://​doi.org/​doi:10.1177/​00274​3211​4528​7 16 Hirsh-​Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Eyer, D. (2004). Einstein never used flash cards: How our children really learn—​and why they need to play more and memorize less. New York: Rodale Books. Holbrook, S. (2005, July 14). When kids love pop Music, and pop music is crazy inappropriate. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from https://​www.sca​rymo​mmy.com/​kids-​love-​pop-​music-​ inappr​opri​ate/​ Hudziak, J. J., Albaugh, M. D., Ducharme, S., Karama, S., Spottswood, M., Crehan, E., Evans, A., & Botteron, K. (2014). Cortical thickness maturation and duration of music training: health-​promoting activities shape brain development. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(11), 1153–​1161. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jaac.2014.06.015 Jorgensen, E. R. (2008). Transforming music education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kennedy-​Moore, E., & Lowenthal, M. S. (2011). Smart parenting for smart kids: Nurturing your child’s true potential. San Francisco: Jossey-​Bass. Koops, L. H. (2011). Perceptions of current and desired involvement in early childhood music instruction. Visions of Research in Music Education, 17(1), Article 5. Retrieved from https://​ open​comm​ons.uconn.edu/​vrme/​vol17/​iss1/​5 Koops. L. H. (2012). Creating music play zones for children. Perspectives: Journal of the Early Childhood Music & Movement Association, 7(3), 11–​15. Koops, L. H. (2017). The enjoyment cycle: A phenomenology of musical enjoyment of 4-​to 7-​year-​olds during musical play. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 360–​380. doi: 10.1177/​0022429417716921 Koops, L. H. (2020). Parenting musically. New York: Oxford University Press. Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–​48. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​002​7432​1070​9400​209 Let’s Play! Weekly activities for your baby’s first year. (2016). Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​www.bab​ycen​ter.com/​0_​l​ets-​play-​wee​kly-​act​ivit​ies-​for-​your-​babys-​first-​year_​1501​ 475.bc Levitin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. New York: Penguin. Lupton, D., Pedersen, S., & Thomas, G. M. (2016). Parenting and digital media: From the early web to contemporary digital society. Sociology Compass, 10, 730–​743. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ soc4.12398 Magical musical tour, the. (2017). Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​www.bab​ycen​ter. com/​0_​the-​magi​cal-​musi​cal-​tou​r_​66​817.bc Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Millner, D. (2013, November 5). “Clear the airwaves project” wants violent, explicit, misogynistic music off Chicago radio. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from http://​mybr​ownb​aby.com/​ 2013/​11/​clear-​the-​airwa​ves-​proj​ect-​wants-​viol​ent-​expli​cit-​misog​ynis​tic-​music-​off-​chic​ ago-​radio/​ Millner, D. (n.d.). About. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from http://​mybr​ownb​aby.com/​about/​

Media Messages   45 Minkowsky, R. (2015, May 1). How music helped form my daughters’ Jewish identities. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.kvel​ler.com/​how-​music-​hel​ped-​form-​my-​ daught​ers-​jew​ish-​ident​ity/​ Murkoff, H. (2016). What to expect when you’re expecting. New York: Workman Publishing. Nathan, A. (2014). The music parents’ survival guide: A parent-​to-​parent conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Organ, C. (n.d.). I’m not a tiger mom, but I’m making my kids take piano lessons and Spanish class. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.sca​rymo​mmy.com/​not-​tiger-​mom-​ mak​ing-​kids-​take-​piano-​span​ish/​ Payne, K. J., & Ross, L. M. (2009). Simplicity parenting: Using the extraordinary power of less to raise calmer, happier, and more secure kids. New York: Ballantine Books. Peters, Z. (2017). Can music help your child learn? Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​ www.bab​ycen​ter.com/​0_​can-​music-​help-​your-​child-​learn_​3656​154.bc Robledo, S. J. (2018). Music and your baby. Retrieved January 21, 2019, from https://​www.bab​ ycen​ter.com/​0_​mu​sic-​and-​your-​baby_​6​548.bc Rossi, H. L. (2014, March 18). Teaching my son to be a mensch through music. Retrieved October 16, 2018, from https://​www.kvel​ler.com/​teach​ing-​my-​son-​to-​be-​a-​men​sch-​thro​ ugh-​music/​ Rotbart, H. A. (2012). No regrets parenting: Turning long days and short years into cherished moments with your kids. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing. Schellenberg, E. G. (2011). Examining the association between music lessons and intelligence. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 283–​302. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ j.2044-​8295.2010.02000.x Schoenstein, R. (2002). Toilet trained for Yale: Adventures in 21st century parenting. New York: Perseus. Schulte, B. (2014). Overwhelmed: Work, love, and play when no one has the time. New York: Sarah Crichton Books. Senior, J. (2014). All joy and no fun: The paradox of modern parenthood. New York: HarperCollins. Shaw, P. (n.d.). Should we push our child to stick with music lessons? Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://​www.bab​ycen​ter.com/​404​_​sho​uld-​we-​push-​our-​child-​to-​stick-​with-​ music-​lesson​s_​7 1​180.bc Sims, W. L., & Udtaisuk, D. B. (2008). Music’s representation in parenting magazines: A content analysis. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 17–​26. https://​ doi.org/​10.1177/​87551​2330​8317​682 Standley, J. M., Cassidy, J., Grant, R., Cevasco, A., Szuch, C., and Nguyen, J. (2010). The effect of music reinforcement for non-​nutritive sucking on nipple feeding of premature infants. Pediatric Nursing, 36(3), 138–​145. Stearns, P. N. (2003). Anxious parents: A history of modern childrearing in America. New York: New York University Press. Thaut, M. H., & Hodges, D. A. (2019). The Oxford handbook of music and the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trainor, L. J., Shahin, A. J., & Roberts, L. E. (2009). Understanding the benefits of musical training. The Neurosciences and Music III: Disorders and plasticity, 1169, 133–​142. https://​doi. org/​10.1111/​j.1749-​6632.2009.04589.x Vorderman, C. (2015). Help your kids with music: A unique step-​by-​step visual guide. New York: DK Publishing.

46   Koops Wilson, J. A., & Yochim, E. C. (2015). Mothering through precarity: Becoming mampreneurial. Cultural Studies, 29, 669–​686. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09502​386.2015.1017​139

Further Reading Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cutietta, R. A. (2013). Raising musical kids: A guide for parents (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Friedman, M. (2013). Mommyblogs and the changing face of motherhood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ilari, B., & Young, S. (Eds.). (2016). Children’s home musical experiences across the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ilari, B., & Young, S. (Eds.). (2019). Music in early childhood: Multi-​disciplinary perspectives and inter-​disciplinary exchanges. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Koops, L. H. (2020). Parenting musically. New York: Oxford University Press. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chapter 4

Child Mu si c Devel op me nt Studying Change Lucia Benetti and Eugenia Costa-​G iomi

Introduction Our knowledge and behaviors change over the course of our lives. We learn to do new things, start to do old things differently, and stop doing certain things altogether; we grasp new information, seemingly forget information we know, and discover connections among what we do remember. These changes occur over time, but arguably never with the dazzling speed and consequence with which they happen during early childhood. The description and explanation of the changes that unfold as we grow older are central to developmental research. How do children become active and competent participants in their expanding world? When and how do they learn to engage with others in communicative ways? How does a newborn become a capable five-​year-​old singer? How does the five-​year-​old become the discerning adolescent music fan and creative bass player? After all, humans enter the world with limited abilities and a restricted repertoire of behaviors across many domains—​including music—​but in a few years, such repertoire seems to grow in jumps and bounds. For example, we do not observe newborns singing songs or dancing, yet attentive adults would recognize precursors of these behaviors some fifteen months later. Major themes in developmental research address the following questions: What changes? What is the connection between early behaviors and later behaviors? What are the paths of developmental changes? What causes these changes? What is the role of maturation, experience, and learning in the process of change? Different developmental theories prioritize certain questions over others, and different research agendas influence the kinds of studies, methodologies, and interpretations of findings across areas of

48   Benetti & Costa-Giomi developmental research. In this chapter, we will identify problems that are at the core of development research and describe approaches to the study of developmental change. We will also survey common theoretical and methodological frameworks found in the field and more recent directions taken by researchers that focus on explaining the processes of change in music contexts. References and examples drawn from the literature on vocalizations and singing development will be used to illustrate the ideas presented.

What Changes? Both the description and explanation of developmental changes rely on the ability to detect them and ask relevant questions about them. These questions are most often based on the behaviors that can be observed or that we care about. We may ask when four-​ year-​old Emily started singing “Three Blind Mice” and how she learned to sing it. More specifically, we may ask what improved in her singing since we last saw her and whether the improvements reflect an organized progression of skills (e.g., Davidson, 1985). We may also wonder whether her singing is related to her music perception abilities (e.g., Geringer, 1983; Rutkowski, 2015) or the music environment in which she has been immersed (e.g., Benetti & Costa-​Giomi, 2020 ; Costa- Giomi & Sun, 2016; Costa- Giomi & Sun, 2016), and how her singing compares to the singing of other children of the same age (e.g., Small & McCachern, 1983) or different ages (e.g., Geringer, 1983; Petzold, 1963). We ask these questions because we can observe Emily singing a song and because we are interested in understanding how this behavior came to be. In developmental research, the focus is not only on the description of a behavior at certain point in life, but on the study of how it fits into the trajectory of developmental changes over time: The interest in exploring Emily’s singing is to understand how four-​year-​olds’ singing fits into the trajectory of children’s singing development. It follows that to understand how Emily became capable of singing at age four it is important to consider the singing behavior of younger children. When investigating the singing of one-​year-​olds, however, it would not be possible to ask the same questions as those studied with Emily. Infants do not sing “Three Blind Mice” at request, so their singing couldn’t be compared directly to Emily’s singing. But they do vocalize and produce singing-​like sounds, so the study of these vocalizations is of interest for the understanding of singing development. It would be necessary to shift the focus of the observations from the performance of “Three Blind Mice” to the performance of song-​ like features present in the vocalizations produced by one-​year-​olds. Once such features are identified, it would then be possible to study their relationship to each other and their integration into the more complex behavior of singing as it would occur months or years later. In other words, we need to review our original definition of singing to accommodate the evolving vocal, musical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities of infants. The very developmental changes that we are most interested in studying—​those that

Child Music Development    49 differentiate the one-​year-​old from the four-​year old—​affect the nature of the behavior of interest, making the focus of our investigation seem like an ever-​moving target. References to the problems of comparing behaviors across ages abound in the language development literature (Boysson-​Bardies et al., 1984; Oller, 2000; Nathani & Oller, 2001). A basic problem arises from the measurement of the degree to which infants’ vocalizations conform to mature language sounds on a given dimension. Because infant sounds are so immature, comparing them to well-​defined categories such as the vowels and consonants produced by adults may yield little valuable information regarding the emergence of language during the first year of life. Although it seems almost inevitable to rely on the adult models of language to study infant sounds, to draw relevant comparisons between the sounds of infants and adults requires the assumption that some characteristic observed in the infant sound is meaningfully related to later production in adulthood. Arguably, the process of “shoe-​horning,” which forces infants sounds into mature adult categories, minimizes the complexity and diversity of infant sounds and ultimately obscures the developmental trajectory of speech acquisition (Oller, 2000). In fact, Oller and colleagues (2013) argue that infant sounds are “fuzzy” and as such, may not be fit for comparisons with mature categories of language sounds: Protophones [early infant sounds related to speech] occurring before canonical babbling cannot be transcribed sensibly in the International Phonetic Alphabet, because they generally do not contain well-​formed and distinguishable consonants and vowels. Precanonical protophone description instead requires ethological categorization (similar to that used in assessing nonhuman vocalizations) with intuitive listening, categorizations that can be supported by acoustic analysis, and statistical modeling. The protophone types appear to emerge during active infant vocal exploration, and this exploration may account for the fact that the categories are fuzzy, just as hand and arm movements constitute fuzzy categories with substantially variable trajectories during infant development of reaching and grasping. Despite this fuzziness, key protophones (including squeals, vocants, and growls) are reported spontaneously by parents and are consistently recognized by ethologically oriented researchers of infant vocalization. (p. 6319)

Drawing meaningful comparisons is difficult not only for the study of language development but also musical development. By focusing on the development of singing we can illustrate the difficulties associated with the use of comparisons to establish the trajectory that may connect the emergent vocal sounds of infants to the accurate productions of songs of older children and adults. Clearly, infant sounds are different from adult sounds. But if infants cannot produce mature sounds like singing, what should the comparisons be based upon? What parameters are important for determining the musical status of an infant’s vocalization? As an example, pitch seems like a reasonable candidate for such comparisons. But if pitch variation is the criterion by which an infant vocalization is assigned musical status, then are all vocalizations with pitch variation considered musical? In this scenario, the parameter does not help clarify whether the vocalizations actually represent developmental processes related to music.

50   Benetti & Costa-Giomi On the other hand, if we approach the problem by operationalizing infant music sounds solely in terms of their adult counterparts—​that is, singing—​then we run the risk of either (1) misrepresenting early sounds, which are by nature not the same as those of mature singers, by labeling them as something they are not; or (2) neglecting the continuum of changes that infant vocal production undergoes during the early years by failing to identify any music features at all and by ignoring any vocal production that is not already in finished form. This discussion is presented here to identify problems that deserve to be acknowledged—​ if not directly addressed—​ when studying musical development. Although we chose examples based on the development of singing, the problems described apply to the development of other musical behaviors as well. The argument is not that it is hopeless to operationalize musical behavior but, rather, that complementary approaches to the study of music development are necessary.

The Paths of Developmental Change Research in early childhood music development often attempts to describe what emerges in terms of music perception and production and to identify when this occurs. The literature presents knowledge about the relationship between music behaviors and time in various ways: some studies focus on age-​related differences in behaviors, others identify music milestones, and others propose sequences or stages of music development. The following section includes an overview of each approach, followed by a commentary on the problems and limitations of each, and an example to illustrate some of the issues discussed.

Age-​Related Differences A common way to describe the relationship between behaviors and time is to compare children’s capabilities at various ages. This approach involves identifying a behavior, defining ages of interest, and observing children’s performance at these different ages on tasks that aim to assess the behavior in question. Most often, such descriptions of age-​related differences come from cross-​sectional studies. Although cross-​sectional studies present problems for inferences regarding developmental changes (see Hofer, Thorvaldsson, & Piccinin, 2012; Wohlwill, 1970), differences in performance across ages are assumed to reflect changes in the actual behavior or in the underlying mechanism presumed to be responsible for the surface behavior. In music, researchers have focused on age-​related differences in broad behaviors, such as young children’s spontaneous reactions to various kinds of musical stimuli (Moog, 1976), as well as in more specific behaviors, such as similarity ratings of transposed melodies (Stalinski & Schellenberg, 2010).

Child Music Development    51

Milestones In describing the emergence of music abilities, it is also common to focus on the particular time at which important behaviors become observable. The onsets of such behaviors—​the earliest manifestation of a particular behavior or the moment in which the manifestations of the behavior may be consistent enough in form or frequency to be considered different from noise or random occurrence—​are usually referred to as milestones or developmental achievements. Milestones are commonly expressed as a series of children’s “firsts,” such as the vocalization of “first discrete pitches” at 1.5 years (Davidson, McKernon, & Gardner, 1981).

Sequences and Stages Some approaches describe the emergence and changes in certain behaviors in the context of an underlying developmental capacity or cognitive structure. The identification of a sequence of behaviors over time implies an overall developmental progression toward a more mature version of the underlying capacity or structure, such as the understanding of physical properties in objects or the acquisition of tonal knowledge in music. For example, rhythmic ability in young children has been described as a sequence in which children first understand the concept of beat, followed by rhythm patterns, and finally meter (Zimmerman, 1993). Sequences may be interpreted as signs of a progression through broad developmental stages (or phases). In some cases, stages are understood as general descriptive labels that represent patterns in children’s behaviors without explicit claims regarding the nature of the stage itself or the underlying mechanisms responsible for developmental change. For example, one might describe an infant as being in the “babbling stage” simply as a way to express the general characteristics of his vocalizations and to convey that these characteristics appear consistent across a general period of time. Used in this way, “babbling stage” is simply a label that describes a stable and observable behavior. On the other hand, some stages models are part of developmental theories in which behaviors are explained as a function of developmental stages. The concept of stage and the motivations to describe development as stage-​like are not always clearly defined, but stage theories share some common properties that have implications for the understanding of developmental changes. For example, the concept of stage can imply that the progression from one stage to the next involves qualitative changes in behaviors, that such changes occur simultaneously for many different behaviors, and that the transition from one stage to the next is abrupt rather than gradual (Flavell, 1971). These implications are most evidence in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Although Piaget’s theory is generally considered to be in many respects inaccurate or incomplete (Flavell, 1982; see also Brainerd, 1978; Siegler & Alibali, 2005), it has had a profound and long-​lasting influence on views of what development is and on the questions

52   Benetti & Costa-Giomi that are asked about developmental changes across all domains, including music (e.g., Campbell, 1991; Pflederer, 1964; Zimmerman, 1986).

Commentary Age-​related differences, milestones, sequences, and stages are used pervasively to define developmental trajectories in early childhood. They are immediately appealing because they are intuitive and capture the general pattern of development changes that adults observe: children behave differently at different ages, and their behaviors at different ages seem to reflect changes that are ordered and goal-​directed. Behaviors by age reflect how childhood is organized in the activities in which children usually participate; children are in first grade for one year, second grade for another year, and so forth, and it seems logical to compare what first graders do and what second graders do. Milestones embody important capacities of children, such as walking and speaking, in forms that adults can identify: A first word is a word because it sounds and functions like the words that adults use, and first words are developmentally significant because they mean something different than merely getting better at making speech sounds. Finally, conceptual stages are used to organize perceived behaviors into a seemingly sequential and coherent way of functioning. After all, on the surface, many related capabilities appear to reflect improvement at about the same time—​ singing in tune and imitation of melodies, for example—​and it seems to make sense to group them together and explain improvements as a function of changes in a more general underling ability—​in this case, perhaps melodic perception. Although arrangements of behaviors by age, milestones, sequences, and stages are useful roadmaps in the developmental landscape, one issue to consider is whether such trajectories offer satisfactory explanations of developmental changes. How do children get from one stage to the next? What does exactly change between Year 1 and Year 2? For example, it is certainly valuable to show that eight-​year-​olds have different singing abilities than six-​year-​olds, but the age difference alone does not clarify the processes of change associated with the differences observed: eight-​year-​olds are not necessarily better singers simply because they are eight and not six. Similarly, the sequence of children’s singing in which they first imitate words, then rhythm, and lastly melody is at best a surface-​level description of children’s performance under specific conditions and sociocultural contexts, offering no explanation as to why children would first imitate words and not rhythm, for instance, or why they would become capable of imitating rhythm later on. In addition, the centrality of time in the study of developmental changes imposes additional considerations regarding the relationship between behaviors at different ages: Is a certain behavior at Time Point 1 related to a behavior at Time Point 2, and if so, in what way? For example, are the sequences of discrete pitches produced by one-​year-​old Emily related to her singing of a melody at four years of age? By including certain behaviors as part of a trajectory, one is making a claim that the behaviors are somehow related, and arrangements of emergent behaviors in sequences in which later capacities are more complex and adult-​like than earlier ones make assumptions regarding the extent to

Child Music Development    53 which earlier behaviors and later behaviors reflect the same underlying construct. These claims are, most often, not made clear and not directly tested. For example, what is the connection between a one-​year-​old’s production of discrete pitches and a four-​year-​old’s singing? Is there a connection at all? It is important to recognize that all descriptions—​ and all research—​involve decisions, and these decisions carry implications. The real problem is not in making decisions but rather the reluctance to address the implications of such decisions directly. The assumption that a developmental trajectory can be understood by simply describing selected behaviors along a timeline is simply not accurate. There are many decisions made by researchers when studying development, but one in particular is often neglected: the trajectories and sequences that are described depend on the data that the researchers choose to collect. One researcher might decide to sample a behavior at monthly intervals, whereas another researcher decides to do so once every year; one researcher might choose to study the changes in a certain behavior from the ages of three to five years, whereas another might include two-​year-​olds. In many cases, the motivations for studying a particular age range or for sampling at certain intervals are unclear, but these decisions greatly impact the description and understanding of the developmental trajectory under study. One particularly striking example of this comes from a study of motor development in the first eighteen months of life. Adolph et al. (2008) simulated the effect of different sampling intervals on the shape of the developmental trajectory using a set of data consisting of thirty-​two motor skills assessed on daily basis for each infant in the study. The developmental paths based on daily and monthly observations were indeed drastically different: when sampled at a lower frequency, the emergence of 73 percent of motor behaviors appeared qualitative and stage-​like; when sampled daily, these same skills showed a variable pattern of emergence, without the sudden onset and stable level of performance that typically characterizes the shape of a stage-​like trajectory. To the extent that developmental theories are concerned with explaining the processes by which behaviors change, whether a change appears to be discrete or continuous truly matters (Kagan, 2008). In summary, decisions regarding sampling rate and time frame of observation are foundational issues in developmental methodology (Laursen, Little, & Card, 2012). Although a detailed discussion of methodological problems is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is imperative to acknowledge that methodological decisions based on theoretical frameworks, research agendas, or even convenience influence how the phenomenon under study is represented.

An Example: The Development of Singing in Early Childhood To illustrate these issues, we discuss three well-​known studies on young children’s singing: Papoušek and Papoušek (1981), Dowling (1984), and Davidson (1985). Papoušek

54   Benetti & Costa-Giomi and Papoušek (1981) analyzed the musical characteristics of their daughter’s spontaneous vocalizations from birth to sixteen months and found that music characteristics played an important role in communication, emotional regulation, and self-​expression. Dowling (1984) analyzed the phrase structure of spontaneous songs produced by his two daughters from the ages of one to 3.5 years and found that children’s songs were more complex when they were older. Davidson (1985) described the melodic intervals and pitches of nine children’s singing and found that children used wider intervals and more stable pitches as they grew older. The three studies seem to address a similar behavior, but they differ in important ways. Papoušek and Papoušek recorded their daughter’s vocalizations in a variety of circumstances, and they did not restrict their analysis to vocalizations that sounded like music—​they recorded crying, babbling, and speaking as well as vocalizations that sounded like songs. A vocalization was judged to contain musical elements if it involved manipulation of a parameter related to music such as pitch, timber, and loudness. With this definition, the Papoušeks identified musical elements in her vocalizations even during the first month of life. Dowling also recorded his children’s spontaneous vocalizations, but there was an explicit attempt to distinguish between vocalizations that were speech and those that were singing: singing was defined as a sequence of vowel sounds with discrete pitches and temporal regularity and was different from a speech-​based sequence on the basis of these parameters. Dowling identified a song as a period of singing surrounded by silence or by speech. The phrase structure of songs was characterized based on measures of structural organization, such as immediate and delayed repetition of phrases, variety of phrases within songs, as well as other measures inspired by linguistic syntax. Finally, Davidson recorded children’s vocal production when learning songs or making up songs during play during home visits to the families. The vocalizations were assigned to levels on an ordinal scale intended to reflect increasing knowledge of melodic relationships. These methodological differences originate not only from differences in study objectives, but also from different assumptions regarding the behavior. Papoušek and Papoušek (1981) wanted to illustrate the ways by which musical elements support a variety of developmental processes, such as language, emotional bonding, and social interactions. It is precisely because they assumed that musicality is integral to development that they analyzed spontaneous vocalizations in a variety of contexts and that their identification of musical elements in vocalizations did not rest on whether they considered the vocalization to reflect cognitive processes or representations specific to music. Dowling (1984) and Davidson (1985) analyzed the musical characteristics of young children’s songs to illustrate children’s acquisition of internal structures thought to guide music production, and it is because they assume that children’s songs are expressions of their abstract musical knowledge that they chose to analyze vocalizations defined as “songs” and to describe them in terms of distinctly musical features. Furthermore, although Dowling and Davidson both reported analyzing songs, the process of data collection in each study was different. Dowling analyzed vocalizations whose form exhibited what he considered to be basic units of music, such as sequences

Child Music Development    55 of discrete pitches and identifiable pulse, whereas Davidson analyzed vocalizations not because they resembled songs but because they occurred in a particular context, namely, when learning songs or during moments in which children were judged to be inventing songs. It is important to acknowledge these different operationalizations of musical behavior—​Dowling based on form and Davidson based on context—​because they can lead to different interpretations regarding young children’s singing development. For instance, Davidson concluded that very young children learning songs did not match the direction of the contour of the model songs (e.g., producing an ascending melodic contour when the model song consisted of a descending contour) and did not fill in the contours with individual notes. One wonders if Dowling, based on his definition of song, would have analyzed such vocalizations at all. On the other hand, one could argue that vocalizations matching neither contour direction nor notes of model songs do not reflect musical knowledge, and question whether they should be included in an analysis of young children’s singing behavior in the first place. From the Papoušeks’ perspective, however, such vocalizations would indeed be musically relevant in terms of developmental processes. The three studies are discussed here not because they are particularly controversial, but rather to illustrate that findings and interpretations are restricted by the questions that are asked, the data that are analyzed, and the framework that guides the interpretation of findings. The three reports of children’s singing are not necessarily incompatible because they are descriptions of children’s behaviors as defined by the researchers in the circumstances in which the children were studied. But they do not represent final and complete descriptions of singing development, nor are they explanations of the developmental changes that they identify.

Why Does Change Occur? Approaches that characterize children’s capacities at different ages, or as a developmental progression based on milestones, sequences, and stages, primarily emphasize static states in the forms and functions of children’s behaviors, much in the same way that birthday photos document changes in children’s physical appearance, or notches on a kitchen wall document changes in height. Instead, approaches that focus on the processes of change attempt to explain not only what changes, but why (Adolph & Robinson, 2008; Siegler, 2006). For example, why do children get better at synchronizing to an isochronous pulse? Why does their memory for music improve? To begin to understand the processes of changes in early childhood requires acknowledging that development is grounded in real-​life experiences. Children learn from what is around them and adapt to the demands and opportunities they encounter in their environments. An example is language development in the first years of life: infants acquire the language systems to which they are exposed, and even at a very young age infants possess learning mechanisms that allow them to segment and extract

56   Benetti & Costa-Giomi structure from complex auditory input (Saffran et al., 2006). Furthermore, the nature of the linguistic input and the characteristics of exposure to this input—​the “what” and the “how”—​are associated with later linguistic outcomes (e.g., Roy et al., 2015; Swingley & Humphrey, 2018; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). This suggests that even those developmental achievements that might be expected of all typically developing children, such as language acquisition, may show trajectories that can be linked to early experiences. It is clear that developmental processes cannot be understood in isolation from the everyday experiences that support developmental changes and the mechanisms that allow young children to interact with the information that they encounter in their environment and to learn from it. Research in language development has described some of the specific challenges for language learning, such as determining word boundaries and discovering structural regularities, as well as some of the ways by which infants solve the problems they encounter and the ways in which the environment supports learning, including the role of learning mechanisms, social interactions, and cues from the input. But what about music? Infants are also exposed to music sounds, and understanding musical organization is no easy task: infants must not only perceive and discriminate the sounds, but also categorize and extract regularities from them. How do infants learn about music from the music they hear? What is the nature of the input that guides learning? Although we are only beginning to address such questions, evidence of music enculturation during the first year of life, such as acquisition of processing biases and preferences for culture-​ specific music (e.g., Hannon & Trehub, 2005), suggests that early experiences with music do in fact impact on musical development. In addition, studies of statistical learning of tone sequences indicate some of the strategies that may be involved in processing music sounds. For example, given input with absolute pitch cues, infants can track absolute pitch information (Saffran, 2003; Saffran & Griepentrog, 2001), and given input with relative pitch cues, infants can track relative pitch information (Saffran et al., 2005). The focus on learning mechanisms and experiences in early childhood leads to all kinds of interesting questions. Do young children learn differently than do older children and adults? What information do children extract from their musical environment, and how does this change as a function of experience? These types of questions focus less on static states or what abilities infants have and do not have, or what behaviors they show and do not show, but focus more on understanding the processes by which change occurs. Further research on the factors that affect musical development can lead to important insights about why and how changes in music perception and expression occur.

Commentary By focusing on the role of learning and experiences, we gain a much richer insight into the processes that underlie the trajectory of observable changes that occur in early childhood. However, these processes have not been the primary focus of research on musical development, in part because the field is relatively new compared to other

Child Music Development    57 developmental areas, such as language development. More research is needed, particularly considering the methodological constraints that impose limitations on the types of data that are collected and, as discussed earlier, the analysis and interpretation of such data. Another consideration is that it is important to complement tightly controlled lab experiments with other types of studies. Although lab experiments are advantageous due to the degree of control that they might afford, they generally focus on very specific experiences and limited observation time. Consequently, it is possible that the ways in which young children solve problems in the lab are not representative of the ways that they solve problems encountered in real life. Furthermore, it is also possible that solving problems in the lab does not reflect the mechanisms by which age-​related changes occur. Perhaps the types of learning experiences in controlled experimental conditions are too specific and guided for producing findings transferable to the types of experiences that children have on a daily basis. For example, just because infants have been shown to extract absolute pitch information from tone sequences does not mean that they do so in their everyday lives; and, even if they do so, it also does not mean that it is a strategy that guides music learning in early childhood. To understand developmental changes, it is critical to bridge the gap between children’s behaviors in controlled lab settings and their behaviors in day-​to-​day situations. It is also critical to study the characteristics of their behavior over long periods of time and not just during the duration of the experiment. Researchers have explored ways to move beyond the restrictions of lab experiments to include extended periods of exposure to stimuli at home rather than at a single time in the lab. For example, Ilari et al. (2002) tested infants’ memory for music by having infants listen to a short piano piece every day during a ten-​day period and then testing them on discrimination and preference tasks. Other studies that have tested infant memory have included exposure periods of varying lengths and repertoire, such as ten-​ minute recordings of Mozart piano sonatas over fourteen consecutive days (Saffran et al., 2001) and English folk songs over one week (Trainor et al., 2004). Although these experiments provided important information regarding infants’ capacity for long-​term memory for music, they involved controlled exposure and limited repertoire, which perhaps does not reflect the patterns of music experiences that infants spontaneously encounter in their everyday lives. In sum, they do not address an important question: what is the nature of the music input that supports musical development? To answer this question, it is crucial to study children’s spontaneous behavior in natural environments (see, e.g., Barrett, 2011). Recently, researchers have shown greater interest in mapping the characteristics of young children’s home environments, including the properties of the input that guides learning, the characteristics of the observable outcomes, the nature of the interactions and situations that promote learning, and the relationship between what children experience and what they learn. Studies have shown, for example, that quantity and quality of caregiver speech to infants are associated with later linguistic skills (e.g., Hoff & Naigles, 2002; Rowe, 2008; Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). That this association exists is valuable, not only because of its potential practical implications—​for example, parenting practices—​but also because it might tell

58   Benetti & Costa-Giomi us something about how learning occurs: if caregiver speech matters, then perhaps there is something about the characteristics of this input that is important for the process of language acquisition. Furthermore, the study of children’s environments provides an opportunity for exploring the similarities and differences between children of different backgrounds—​in the case of language input, for example, the characteristics of the language environments in communities in which direct interaction between children and adults is reportedly rare (e.g., Cristiá et al., 2017; Schneidman & Goldin-​Meadow, 2012). Two approaches that have been used to register music experiences in everyday contexts are Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) and video diaries. In ESM, participants respond to prompts received via portable devices, such as mobile phones, about their experiences as they go about their day-​to-​day activities. For example, Lamont (2008) studied preschoolers’ music environments by calling families several times a day for one week and asking whether music was present or had been present in the last two hours before the phone call. Although this approach still relies on parental reports, it allows for collecting a denser and more detailed data sample. With video diaries, parents are provided with cameras and instructed to record some behavior of interest. For example, Barrett (2009) collected home videos of one young child’s musical activities at home over a three-​year period as part of a project that explored musical experiences in children’s daily lives. Until recently, it was nearly impossible to study infants’ and young children’s behaviors in their natural home environment without relying on parental reports or on data collected by the parents. With the development of new technologies that register infants’ and young children’s sound environments for extended periods of time from the perspective of the child, we have begun to get a glimpse of the types of musical experiences that occur in early life (Benetti & Costa-Giomi, 2020; Costa-​Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Costa-​Giomi & Sun, 2016; Dean, 2016). It is important to understand these experiences because it is from them that children learn: if children are only exposed to music from electronic toys, that is the material from which they will build their initial knowledge of music. Note that mapping children’s early music experiences also involves questioning common assumptions about what is better or worse in terms of the music environment. Perhaps infants learn from a music toy just as much as they do from a parent singing, and perhaps quantity of music exposure matters very little in terms of music acquisition; these are possibilities that can only be addressed by connecting the characteristics of the music learning opportunities provided by the environment with the characteristics of the music learning outcomes as manifested in particular behaviors. Questioning such assumptions and exploring children’s music behaviors in their natural environment is imperative for the understanding of developmental trajectories. There are many reasons why early experiences with music may differ among children. Perhaps cultural practices influence the quantity and types of music that infants encounter in their daily environments. Some infants start attending formal music classes before they are one year old and some do not; some infants are surrounded by toys that play “baby music” and some have none; some parents sing to their children frequently

Child Music Development    59 and some, not so much. Even factors not directly related to music could influence early experiences with music sounds such as how long infants are indoors or outdoors, how many people live at home, or whether they live in rural or populated urban areas. It is still unclear to what extent these factors affect children’s music environments and opportunities for music learning in the first years of life, and how these differences in the environment impact music-​related outcomes. Infant-​directed singing, for example, seems to exist in many cultures suggesting that musical caregiving is a common childrearing behavior. However, we know little about how infant-​directed singing style is integrated (or not) into infants’ daily experiences with music across cultures, and how these diverse experiences affect their music development. Data captured in naturalistic settings for extended periods of time in a variety of cultures are critical for our understanding of musical development (see, e.g., Wu & Welch, this volume, concerning children of the Chinese diaspora in London). The idea that variation in infants’ musical experiences can tell us something about musical development touches upon a theme that has been explored very little in music development research: how are children different? The default mode of understanding development—​that it is a pre-​specified path for most children—​is perhaps a legacy of Piaget (1964). But can we really assume that all children show similar trajectories of music perception and expression? Can we assume that children have mostly similar experiences with music in the first years of life? Can we assume that these experiences matter? And perhaps the most sensitive question of all: matter for what, exactly? In other words, what are the outcomes that we care about, and can we assume that these are the same for all children? These questions remain as challenges for the field of music development, and it is clear that no single study can provide definitive answers. Research that focuses on differences and similarities both within and across individuals and populations can provide the fine-​grained descriptions and explanations of developmental trajectories that we need to understand the connections between what children experience and what they learn.

References Adolph, K. E., & Robinson, S. R. (2008). In defense of change processes. Child Development, 79, 1648–​1653. doi: 10.1111/​j.1467-​8624.2008.01215.x Adolph, K. E., Robinson, S. R., Young, J. W., & Gill-​Alvarez, F. (2008). What is the shape of developmental change? Psychological Review, 115, 527–​543. doi: 10.1037/​0033-​295X.115.3.527 Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music: A narrative inquiry of the “everyday” musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 115–​ 134. doi: 10.1177/​1476718X09102645 Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. doi: 10.1177/​0305735610373054 Benetti, L., & Costa-​Giomi, E. (2020). Infant vocal imitation of music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67, 381–​398. doi: 10.1177/​0022429419890328

60   Benetti & Costa-Giomi Boysson-​Bardies, B., Sagart, L., & Durand, C. (1984). Discernible differences in the babbling of infants according to target language. Journal of Child Language, 11(1), 1–​15. doi: 10.1017/​ S0305000900005559 Brainerd, C. J. (1978). The stage question in cognitive-​developmental theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 173–​182. doi: 10.1017/​S0140525X00073842 Campbell, M. R. (1991). Musical learning and the development of psychological processes in perception and cognition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 107, 35–​48. Costa-​Giomi, E., & Benetti, L. (2017). Through a baby’s ears: Musical interactions in a family community. International Journal of Community Music, 10, 289–​303. doi: 10.1386/​ ijcm.10.3.289_​1 Costa-​Giomi, E., & Sun, X. (2016). Infants’ home soundscape: A day in the life of a family. In J. A. Bugos (Ed.), Contemporary research in music learning across the lifespan: Music education and human development (pp. 87–​96). New York: Routledge. Cristia, A., Dupoux, E., Gurven, M., & Stieglitz, J. (2019). Child‐directed speech is infrequent in a forager‐farmer population: A time allocation study. Child development, 90(3), 759–​773. doi: 10.1111/​cdev.12974 Davidson, L. (1985). Tonal structures of children’s early songs. Music Perception, 2, 361–​373. doi: 10.2307/​40285304 Davidson, L., McKernon, P., & Gardner, H. (1981). The acquisition of song: A developmental approach. In J. A. Mason et al. (Eds.), Documentary report of the Ann Arbor Symposium (pp. 301–​315). Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference. Dean, B. (2016, July). Singing for the self: Exploring the self-​directed singing of three-​and four-​ year-​old children at home. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Meeting of the International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, San Francisco, CA. Dowling, W. J. (1984). Development of musical schemata in children’s spontaneous singing. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Vol. 19. Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 145–​163). New York: North-​Holland. Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-​related properties of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 421–​453. doi: 10.1016/​0010-​0285(71)90025-​9 Flavell, J. H. (1982). On cognitive development. Child Development, 53, 1–​10. doi: 10.2307/​1129634 Geringer, J. M. (1983). The relationship of pitch-​matching and pitch-​discrimination abilities of preschool and fourth-​grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 93–​99. doi: 10.2307/​3345213 Hannon, E. E., & Trehub, S. E. (2005). Tuning in to musical rhythms: Infants learn more readily than adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(35), 12639–​12643. doi: 10.1073/​pnas.0504254102 Hofer, S. M., Thorvaldsson, V., & Piccinin, A. M. (2012). Foundational issues of design and measurement in developmental research. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 3–​16). New York: Guilford. Hoff, E., & Naigles, L. (2002). How children use input to acquire a lexicon. Child development, 73(2), 418–​433. doi: 10.1111/​1467-​8624.00415 Ilari, B., Polka, L., & Costa‐Giomi, E. (2002). Infants long‐term memory for complex music. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(5), 2456–​2456. doi: 10.1121/​1.4778469 Kagan, J. (2008). In defense of qualitative changes in development. Child Development, 79, 1606–​1624. doi: 10.1111/​j.1467-​8624.2008.01211.x Lamont, A. (2008). Young children’s musical worlds: Musical engagement in 3.5-​year-​olds. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6(3), 247–​261. doi: 10.1177/​1476718X08094449

Child Music Development    61 Laursen, B., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (2012). Handbook of developmental research methods. New York: Guilford. Moog, H. (1976). The musical experience of the pre-​school child (C. Clarke, Trans.). London: Schott. (Original work published 1968) Nathani, S., & Oller, D. K. (2001). Beyond ba-​ba and gu-​gu: Challenges and strategies in coding infant vocalizations. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(3), 321–​330. doi: 10.3758/​BF03195385 Oller, D. K. (2000). The emergence of the speech capacity. London: Psychology Press. Oller, D. K., Buder, E. H., Ramsdell, H. L., Warlaumont, A. S., Chorna, L., & Bakeman, R. (2013). Functional flexibility of infant vocalization and the emergence of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6318–​6323. doi: 10.1073/​pnas.1300337110 Papoušek, M., & Papoušek, H. (1981). Musical elements in the infant’s vocalization: Their significance for communication, cognition, and creativity. Advances in Infancy Research, 1, 163–​224. Petzold, R. G. (1963). The development of auditory perception of musical sounds by children in the first six grades. Journal of Research in Music Education, 11, 21–​43. doi: 10.2307/​3344529 Pflederer, M. (1964). The responses of children to musical tasks embodying Piaget’s principle of conservation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 12, 251–​268. doi: 10.2307/​3343716 Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-​directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 185–​205. doi:10.1017/​S0305000907008343 Roy, B. C., Frank, M. C., DeCamp, P., Miller, M., & Roy, D. (2015). Predicting the birth of a spoken word. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 12663–​12668. doi: 10.1073/​ pnas.1419773112 Rutkowski, J. (2015). The relationship between children’s use of singing voice and singing accuracy. Music Perception, 32, 293–​292. doi: 10.1525/​mp.2015.32.3.283 Saffran, J. R. (2003). Absolute pitch in infancy and adulthood: The role of tonal structure. Developmental Science, 6, 35–​43. doi: 10.1111/​1467-​7687.00250 Saffran, J. R., & Griepentrog, G. J. (2001). Absolute pitch in infant auditory learning: Evidence for developmental reorganization. Developmental Psychology, 37, 74–​ 85. doi: 10.1037/​ 0012-​1649.37.1.74 Saffran, J. R., Loman, M. M., & Robertson, R. R. (2000). Infant memory for musical experiences. Cognition, 77(1), B15–​B23. doi: 10.1016/​S0010-​0277(00  )00095-​0 Saffran, J. R., Reeck, K., Niebuhr, A., & Wilson, D. (2005). Changing the tune: The structure of the input affects infants’ use of absolute and relative pitch. Developmental Science, 8, 1–​7. doi: 10.1111/​j.1467-​7687.2005.00387.x Saffran, J. R., Werker, J. F., & Werner, L. A. (2006). The infant’s auditory world: Hearing, speech, and the beginnings of language. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 58–​108). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Shneidman, L. A., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2012). Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech?. Developmental Science, 15(5), 659–​673. doi: 10.1111/​j.1467-​7687.2012.01168.x Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analysis of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–​ 510). New York: Wiley. Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. A. (2005). Children’s thinking (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

62   Benetti & Costa-Giomi Small, A. R., & McCachern, F. L. (1983). The effect of male and female vocal modeling on pitch-​ matching accuracy of first-​grade children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 227–​ 233. doi: 10.2307/​3345175 Stalinski, S. M., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2010). Shifting perceptions: Developmental changes in judgments of melodic similarity. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1799–​1803. doi: 10.1037/​ a0020658 Swingley, D., & Humphrey, C. (2018). Quantitative linguistic predictors of infants’ learning of specific English words. Child Development, 89, 1247–​1267. doi: 10.1111/​cdev.12731 Trainor, L. J., Wu, L., & Tsang, C. D. (2004). Long-​term memory for music: Infants remember tempo and timbre. Developmental Science, 7(3), 289–​ 296. doi: 10.1111/​ j.1467-​7687.2004.00348.x Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological science, 24(11), 2143–​2152. doi: 10.1177/​0956797613488145 Wohlwill, J. F. (1970). The age variable in psychological research. Psychological Review, 77(1), 49–​64. doi: 10.1037/​h0028600 Zimmerman, M. P. (1986). Music development in middle childhood: A summary of selected research studies. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 86, 18–​35. Zimmerman, M. P. (1993). An overview of developmental research in music. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 116, 1–​21.

Further Reading The following readings discuss theory and methods in developmental research: Adolph, K. E., & Robinson, S. R. (2008). In defense of change processes. Child Development, 79, 1648–​1653. doi: 10.1111/​j.1467-​8624.2008.01215.x Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analysis of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–​ 510). New York: Wiley. For examples of different approaches to the study of infants’ and young children’s everyday music experiences, see the following studies: Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. Benetti, L., & Costa-​Giomi, E. (2020). Infant vocal imitation of music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67, 381–​398. Lamont, A. (2008). Young children’s musical worlds: Musical engagement in 3.5-​year-​olds. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6(3), 247–​261.

Chapter 5

M u sical Pare nt i ng i n a Digital Ag e Affordances and Constraints in Pandemic Times Vicky Abad, Helen Shoemark, and Margaret S. Barrett

Introduction The Affordance of Music in Human Evolution Archaeological evidence indicates that musical behaviors have been a part of human life dating back at least to Homo sapiens (Cross & Morley, 2009) and possibly even earlier (Mithen, 2007/​2011). From an evolutionary perspective, it is theorized that music has thrived in all human cultures, as it has favored survival (Cross & Morley, 2009). At this level, music is argued to provide two key advantages: to foster and support group identity and social cohesion (Mithen, 2007/​2011) and to strengthen the emotional bond and attachment between a mother/​carer and child. Such behaviors teach the child emotionality and cultural nuances pertinent to long-​term survival (Dissanayake, 2000). It is argued that a cohesive group of people has a greater chance of success. As the human species evolved, so did social groupings, bringing larger groups of people together (Dunbar, 2017). Singing as an act of making music and moving together may have allowed large groups of people to bond quickly (Dunbar, 2017; Weinstein et al., 2016). This theoretical position underpins claims that music has functioned to bring about social meaning, group cohesion, cooperation, and coordination (Bannan & Woodward, 2009; Cross & Morley, 2009; Mithen, 2007) prior to the development of formal language (Mithen, 2007). As such, music may have provided a pre-​linguistic means for social group communication. Mithen (2007) hypothesized that our early ancestors developed

64    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett a means to communicate through sounds that lay between music and language prior to the two developing into separate symbol systems (Chen-​Hafteck & Mang, 2012). The group identity that music can foster is theorized to support collective thinking, synchronization, and group catharsis (Cross & Morley, 2009), thus promoting greater power in a group than as an individual. Current research into the role of group singing further illustrates that communal singing is likely to increase social closeness and feelings of positive effect for large groups of unfamiliar individuals, and increases the release of endorphins in individuals when experiencing large-​scale group singing (Pearce, Launay, & Dunbar, 2015; Weinstein et al., 2016). Group singing, therefore, contributes to building a sense of community that many believe to be “the most adaptive and evolutionarily significant aspect of musical experience worldwide” (Trehub et al., 2015, p. 4). Dissanayake (2000) proposed the theory that music as an art form may have developed from the musical interactions observed between mothers and their infants, across cultures and time (Dissanayake, 2009). These musical interactions may have emerged from an evolutionary necessity for bonding, and are a critical and biologically programmed part of the infant-​parent functionality (Dissanayake, 2000). Communicating emotionally with the infant through music supported mother and child bonding while simultaneously providing rewards to the mother for the time and energy required in caring for her helpless offspring. Physiological effects of such musical communication included the release of oxytocin, a neurochemical that promotes social bonding and accompanies feelings of love and affinity for others (Dissanayake, 2012). These musical interactions represent the behavioral and emotional coordination of two individuals who need each other—​the baby needs the mother to survive, and the mother achieves reproductive success by the baby’s survival (Dissanayake, 2009). The sustainability of a group of people was thus supported by mother-​infant music making.

Music and Human Development Fetal research has demonstrated that the mother’s voice is the prevalent animate auditory experience in utero in the final trimester. At 33–​34 weeks’ gestation, auditory processing is sufficiently mature for the fetus to respond to the mother’s voice (Jardri et al., 2012). At 36 weeks, the fetus begins to consistently respond with an orienting heart rate to sounds such as the mother reading (De Casper et al., 1994). This early exposure to maternal voice enables the newborn infant to recognize the mother’s voice within 36 hours of birth (Spence & Freeman, 1996), a capacity that is a key component in the physical survival sequence of being fed and kept safe. Infants are born with intact auditory function that rapidly matures (Moore & Linthicum, 2007) and, as outlined above, it is suggested that parents are biologically “hardwired” as an evolutionary necessity (Dissanayake, 2000) to sing to their children. Interaction between a parent and child is often musical in nature (Stern, 2010), sharing pulse, pitch, and phrasing as key characteristics (Malloch, 1999). The musicality of early parent-​child interaction can be strong indicators that they enjoy a healthy emotional

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    65 relationship, as demonstrated through the parent’s responsive attunement to the infant’s needs (Ilari, 2017). Using micro-​analysis, Malloch determined that infants seek out patterns of communication that reflect their own robustly regular timing and intentional inflection (Malloch, 1999). In optimal parent-​infant communication, this regularity is precise and synchronized (Tronick et al., 1998).

Musical Parenting In the context of the home, shared music activities have long functioned as “signs” or “cultural tools” (Vygotsky, 1986/​1934) as parents use songs, nursery rhymes, and musical games to build their child’s understandings of cultural conventions (Barrett, 2009, 2011). Successive longitudinal studies of the singing and invented song-​making activities of children aged 18–​48 months have demonstrated that music engagement in the home introduces children to family rituals (Barrett, 2009) and provides a means for children to trial different ways of being in the world with self and others (Barrett, 2005, 2009) and undertake identity work (Barrett, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017). An Australian study (n =​3011) of the effects of shared music-​making in the home for preschool children showed that, at age five, those children whose parents reported the greatest amount of time spent in shared music-​making at age three exhibited higher levels of pro-​social skills, school readiness, and early literacy and numeracy (Williams et al., 2015). Gerry and colleagues (2012) reported that infants involved in an active musical experience with parents, such as a music early learning program, showed superior pre-​ linguistic communication skills and social behavior, as well as accelerated acquisition of culture-​specific knowledge of tonality when compared to infants randomly assigned to a passive music experience (Gerry et al., 2012). The researchers suggest that “the infant brain might be particularly plastic with respect to musical experience” (Gerry et al., 2012, p. 404). This is supported by Tafuri (2008), who conducted a longitudinal investigation of the origins of musical development in children from birth to six years of age in the Italian “inCanto Project” and reported that infants who participated in the program (including through a prenatal music program for the mothers) exhibited improved musicality at the age of two months when compared to a control group. The author concludes that “a musically rich family environment provides encouragement as well as praise, interest and attention for each child” (Tafuri, 2008, p. 70). For parent-​infant dyads where the musicality of successful interaction is lost due to physical, social, medical, or mental health issues, music therapists have demonstrated that the successful interaction patterns can be successfully reintroduced to parents (Abad, 2011; Edwards, 2011; Nicholson et al., 2008; Walworth, 2009; Shoemark, 2018; Williams et al., 2012). This explicit application of music supports parent-​child interaction, providing a range of vocal interplays such as chants, lullabies, rhymes, and songs to optimize mutual regulation and sensitivity between infants and caregiver (Edwards, 2011). The program Sing & Grow (Australia) employs musical experience as the central platform for parent-​infant dyads to promote and improve parent mental health and

66    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett self-​efficacy, child resilience, and social development (Abad, 2011; Abad & Williams, 2007; Nicholson et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2012). The wider benefits of such explicit application of music-​making are expounded in many chapters across this handbook.

Mapping Contemporary Uses of Music in Everyday Family Life Research over the last twenty years has indicated that families value music and use music in the home (Abad & Barrett, 2020; Barrett & Welch, 2020; Ilari 2005, 2017). Such use includes employing music as a means to establish infant care routines and to provide structure to the day, including specific play times and rest times (Byrne & Horrigan, 2010; Custodero et al., 2002). In a study of American families, Custodero and Johnson-​Green (2008) found that parents provided social-​emotional reasons for their use of music, including bonding, interacting “naturally,” and for family “togetherness” (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2008, p. 23). Daily and weekly singing were more frequent than reading books (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2003). As an infant grows, music is reported to be used more to engage the infant with the environment, to reinforce routines, passing on and creating family traditions, learning, and cultural beliefs (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2008; Byrne & Horrigan, 2010). For Australian families, Williams and colleagues (2015) reported that, in n =​3011 families with a child aged two to three years, nearly all families used music weekly. While the uses of music in the home outlined above have continued, an emerging feature of music experience in the home is as a solo activity for the infant without the parent being actively involved. As an example, in a study of music engagement in the home, De Vries reported that some parents felt recorded music could be played for children “without an adult present” (De Vries, 2009, p. 399). The advent of the digital age has witnessed rapid and substantial change to the ways in which music is accessed, stored, and consumed. The personalized access to music afforded through digital technology, even for very young children, means that music no longer needs to be social, but can flourish in individualistic isolation. At the time of writing this chapter, a search for the term “baby listening to music” in Google Image produced numerous images, 95 of the first 100 images of these including headphones. Whether this is a literal or symbolic image, this appears to represent a powerful shift that moves understanding of young children’s music listening experiences from a shared social activity to an individual activity. The affordances of increased accessibility, portability, and curation of music listening offered by personal digital devices need to be balanced against the potential constraints of isolated listening. The self-​directed experience of music does not provide the relationship-​building opportunities that active music-​making does (Henriksson-​ Macaulay & Welch, 2015). Nor does it support early language development as effectively as musical interactions that arise in face-​to-​face music sharing. The American Academy of Pediatrics published the first research that suggests an association between language

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    67 delay and increased handheld screen time (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2017). It would seem that active participation from a parent or caregiver is required to realize fully the musical, communicative, and social benefits of early music experiences for children (Gerry et al., 2012).

Twenty-​first-​Century Music Experience and Engagement for Young Children outside the Home Concurrent with the rise of digital technology, whether associated or not, there has been a global decline reported in the provision of music education in schools (Arostegui, 2016). In Australia, concerns about the provision of arts education have been long-​ standing, evidenced in a formal federal government inquiry in 1997, a national review of music education in Australian schools (Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005), and surveys on music in teacher education (Letts, 2015). The reported decline of music education in schools and teacher education over the past decades may be contributing to producing a generation of parents and caregivers of young children with relatively few skills and knowledge in practicing music themselves, at least in a formal sense. It is possible that one outcome of the slow degradation in music education is decreased confidence and capacity in parents, carers, and teachers to engage musically with children. With little music literacy and experience in music-​making of their own to call upon, parents may be reluctant to engage actively in music-​making with their child, and turn increasingly to digital solutions or outsourcing music engagement to knowledgeable others. Parents can readily access information online about what is considered to be good for their child, or how to address a concern, from fussy eating to supporting the development of young minds and bodies. Amid these resources, they may often find the common stated message that music is good for babies (see Koops, this volume). The popular media have highlighted research on the significant role of music in early learning and development, providing parents with appealing impressions about the “science” behind music and early learning, and its positive impact on early childhood development.

Music Technology—​Affordances and Constraints Given sufficient income and bandwidth, we can curate personalized music listening via live-​streaming or online radios, playlists, subscription playlists predicated on our musical profile, along with traditional modes of accessing music through concert attendance and audience experience. Software packages such as Ableton and Garageband provide composition opportunities for all with the necessary understanding. Music technology has provided many affordances to young children’s access to music experience and music engagement in a range of ways, including: online presentations marketed

68    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett directly to children; the almost ubiquitous inclusion of music and sound in online apps; interactive books and infants’ toys; the ability to personalize children’s playlists through Spotify and other online music-​streaming businesses; and the development of programs specifically targeted at young children, such as Toca Dance, Toc and Roll, and Kapu Bloom Tunes. While these developments have seemingly democratized access to and engagement with music (Barrett, 2019), some concerns warrant further attention. Research suggests there is a widening gap between the time spent listening to music and that devoted to making music (McPherson et al., 2012). Others have argued that children’s musical experience via screen media, often produced specifically to target the young, emphasizes audience engagement as the prime mode for children’s musical engagement (Brooks, 2015a, 2015b) rather than experiencing the act of making music. In 2012, Young suggested that the corporate world had redefined musical childhoods according to marketing criteria (Young, 2012). The change in marketing has resulted in high usage, and has “turned kids into a massive global market” (Edgar & Edgar, 2008, p. 64). Dual marketing targets both young children and their parents, with the potential to influence parent-​child interactions (Wicks, 2001). It seems that commercial providers have created a new and unregulated space in early childhood, where a great variety exists in program content, quality, and opportunity for parental engagement (Adachi & Trehub, 2012). The wider understanding that music is good for children, coupled with the commercial providers’ greater use of research findings illustrating the benefits of early music engagement, may be shifting the public consciousness about music’s use in early childhood in a more formal context (see Koops, this volume).

The “Scientification” of Musical Parenting Parents and their children access music programs in informal and formal settings in a range of ways. This includes free city council library programs (De Vries, 2008), free or subsidized local and federal government programs (Burrell, 2011; Edwards & Abad, 2016; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016), and user-​pay programs (Abad, 2017; Abad & Barrett, 2020; Abad & Barrett, 2017; Adachi & Trehub, 2012). Music may also be provided as part of formal childcare for children whose parents work, including music activities led by childcare staff, or music programs that are outsourced to professional musicians as part of the childcare service, or as an opt-​in extra program for a fee (Barrett, Flynn, & Welch, 2018). Despite this range of opportunities, and the weight of scientific findings reporting the benefits of music participation, the equitable provision of high-​quality music experiences in the birth-​to-​five sector is impacted by a number of factors including the absence of national guidelines for music curriculum (Barrett, Flynn, & Welch, 2018) and varying levels of musical skills and knowledge in both childcare and community settings (Barrett et al., 2019). Pitt and Hargreaves (2016) reported on an English community incentive that offered free access to group music sessions for families with young children. These groups were conducted by practitioners who were trained musicians and practitioners who were not trained musicians. What became evident was that, while all the practitioners were aware

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    69 of the benefits of music for early childhood learning and development and parent-​child bonding and communication (the “scientification” of musical parenting), this awareness alone did not translate into actual music and group leadership skills in the non-​ musician practitioners. Other studies have also highlighted similar parental concerns regarding the qualifications and knowledge held by professionals who organized music groups and the quality of music provision for young children and families (Blackburn, 2017). In contrast, the presence of a teacher within a more formal context of a “class” has been reported to make parents feel more passive about their musical parenting role (Stamou & Theodoridis, 2016; also see Stamou, Abad, & Troulou, this volume).

Music Early Learning Programs Between music in the home and school-​based formal music training, there exists a space where music programs for families have evolved. The pivotal distinction of these Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs) is parent involvement as active co-​participants with their children. The facilitator and the curriculum are designed to support the parent to feel confident and empowered to make music with their child within the group, and then use MELP program content, including songs, resources, and structures, in their own home and in their own musical parenting (Abad and Barrett, 2017; 2020). The core focus of a MELP on the parents replaces the more traditional focus on “teaching” the child music (Adachi & Trehub, 2012). Pitt and Hargraves (2017) suggested that parents may benefit from “guided participation” in a music group, namely from the music leader to “assist them in their relatively new social and cultural role of parenthood” (Pitt & Hargraves, 2016, p. 7). This may be why Rodriguez (2019) described such programs that place the parent and child together as co-​participants as unique in education settings. MELPs are reported to support family unity and strengthen roles and relationships in the home (Barrett, 2009), as well as to support childhood development and personal and emotional growth, including identity (Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2017). Research has demonstrated that participating parents and children have incorporated MELP strategies, songs, games, routines, and other learnings into their home rituals and routines (Abad & Barrett, 2020; Barret, 2009, 2011, 2012), and increased their use of music in the home, particularly the amount of parent-​led singing (Young, Street, & Davis, 2007). Given the mounting evidence for benefits from shared music-​making in the home, the central role of parents in such programs would appear to be pivotal (Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2016, 2017; Williams et al., 2015). A retrospective study of parents and children’s perceptions of the outcomes of attendance at a MELP reported these to be: development of music skills and knowledge in both parents and children; social benefits for both parent and child; mental health benefits for the parent; value-​adding to the child’s education; and an expanded family social circle (Barrett & Welch, 2020). Enduring outcomes included future investments, physical and emotional development, and new patterns of learning that are potentially

70    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett transferable (Barrett & Welch, 2020). These findings were evident regardless of whether or not parents had experienced music in their own childhoods (Abad & Barrett, 2020; see also Abad, Broughton, Barrett, & Welch, this volume).

COVID-​19 and Online Music Groups The two emerging trends of MELP and technology-​based music experiences both provide affordances for enhanced music experiences in the home. The impact of the COVID-​19 pandemic in 2020 crystallized an opportunity to examine the potential for digital platforms to maintain and sustain a form of connection when physical human contact was not possible. As music educators and therapists transitioned to services online, the popular media was replete with stories of people returning to spontaneous and generous music-​making within their homes and on their balconies (arguably returning to the earliest affordances of music), to project, reassure the self and loved ones, and create social cohesion (Mithen 2007/​2011). The novel human coronavirus disease COVID-​19 was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and subsequently spread worldwide (Liu, Kuo, & Shih, 2020). It became the fifth documented pandemic since the 1918 flu pandemic. Because the virus is highly contagious, rapidly spreads, and continuously evolves in the human population (Liu, Kuo, & Shih, 2020), many governments responded to the initial spread with lockdowns and mandatory isolation and social distancing laws. In many countries, schools and businesses were closed, and people were required to stay at home as much as possible. In Australia, the federal government responded to the threat of infection and subsequent strain on public health care systems by shutting down many businesses where people shared physical proximity and/​or congregated for long periods of time, especially indoors. In the space of one week, group gatherings went from a mandated maximum size of 500, to 20, to 5, finally stopping at no public gatherings, and home gatherings of no more than one guest at a time (Update on Coronavirus Measures, 2020). The Australian public were told to leave their homes for essential services only, such as work (only if you could not work from home), school (only if your parents were front line workers or you could not access online school from home), to buy food, seek medical attention, and exercise in family groups. All parent-​child based activities, including music groups, were therefore abruptly halted. This was a daunting time. Families were no longer permitted to seek the support and social contact of others outside of their homes, and even parks were closed for children to play in. For some families, technology-​driven, online services were the only ways that they could continue participating in activities that safely continued a form of social connection. Telehealth services are an emerging area of clinical practice for many health services, including music therapy (Fuller & McLeod, 2019). While music therapy services

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    71 were already entering this space, there is very little research or clinical documentation of music groups moving to an online delivery model of service (Fuller & McLeod, 2020; Vaudreuil et al., 2020). This chapter offers a case study of one music business, and how it transitioned to online groups to ensure families were supported during the pandemic. Data were generated through interviews with three participating families, and reflective journaling from the music business owner. Vignettes of three families’ experiences provide parental perceptions of online delivery.

A COVID Case Study Music Beat Australia (MBA) is a family owned and operated business that provides a range of music programs to support people of all ages to “develop every day” through music (https://​www.musicb​eat.com.au/​about-​music-​beat/​). MBA programs include community-​based interactive music early learning programs (MELPs), childcare music programs, corporate music programs, music lessons, and music therapy services. The business began in 2007, and employs a business model of face-​to-​face programs (O’Shea, 2020). Services are delivered in person, often in indoor spaces and in small to medium-​ sized groups. In the face of the unfolding pandemic and public health threat, MBA had to significantly change the service model to remain a viable entity (O’Shea, 2020). The unexpected affordance was that the group facilitator retained their focus on parents, using recent developments and access to technology to create a viable bridge into home-​ based experiences.

The Transition Phase Prior to the pandemic, MBA ran twenty-​five community-​based MELPs in a range of community venues over a ten-​week term (four terms annually). At the commencement of 2020, these groups were 90 percent subscribed, with groups of up to twelve families (average group size was 9 families, n =​225). Groups gathered inside a community venue, seated on the floor in a circle, often with the doors closed. They shared music-​making through singing together, dancing together, and playing a range of shared instruments. As the pandemic in China became newsworthy in Australia, the MBA business development manager became concerned about the potential impact that communal spread and infection control could have on community-​based groups and the safety of participants and staff. Online platforms were explored, and after reviewing and trialing several, the business decided on Zoom. Further trials were conducted and safety protocols developed before launching online groups in mid-​March 2020. In the space of two weeks, all group programs were transitioned online, with nearly all enrolled families continuing to attend music via the online groups. Those who chose not to said it was because they did not want their young children spending time in front of screens, even if it was for a live and interactive experience.

72    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett

Online MELPs The number of groups offered were consolidated to specific days rather than physical locations, and reduced from twenty-​five to fifteen groups. Group sizes averaged nine child participants (n =​122 overall). For most groups, therefore, all participants could see each other on the computer screen in gallery view. The timeframe of the groups was also consolidated from 45 minutes to 30 minutes after initial trials with parents and MELP leaders, who agreed that 45 minutes was too long for the children to sit, or be in the one space without immediate interaction with other children or the MELP facilitator. Despite the time reduction, 30 minutes still provided a similar level of content because there was no need to allow for the customary physical transition between activities. The MELP facilitators followed the same MELP structure as before, such as commencing by singing hello to each child (Edwards & Abad, 2016; Abad & Barrett, 2020); however, instead of responding to the children’s live participation in the room, facilitators were able to see the children on the screen, read parent comments in the chat function, and adapt their song selection, pacing, and activities accordingly. As the MELP facilitator could not hear the children due to audio lag, the chat function was used to ensure that the groups remained interactive and responsive to the participants, with the MELP facilitator reading parental requests as they were posted and responding to ensure a child-​centered model of practice was retained.

Vignette 1: Increased Focus on Parental-​Child Music-​Making in the Home through Online MELP Participation When asked if online music groups helped her to get through the isolation period during the COVID-​19 pandemic, parent Tamara quickly responded, “Yes. One hundred percent! Did I answer that too quickly?” She laughed, and continued: It helped us, as it was a continuation of a routine and helped us keep some familiarity. It was wonderful; it was a great continuation of something we were doing . . . which was nice. I really enjoyed getting the routines that we were used to, all the stuff we were used to doing every week, right here in our living room.

Tamara is a schoolteacher with two young boys. At the time of the pandemic, both had been attending face-​to-​face MELPs for two years. Her older son James (aged four years) had recently started preschool, so the face-​to-​face MELPs were a special time for Tamara and her one-​year-​old son Timothy. When the face-​to-​face programs stopped, Tamara was concerned about the impact on her limited one-​to-​one time with Timothy. Despite her concern, it turned out that she spent more individual time with Timothy when participating in the online groups than she had in the face-​to-​face group. When asked how, she said: That is a hard one . . . more comfortable in a way, like they are in their own environment, so a little more . . . confident the longer we were doing it. We started music to build confidence with others. But doing music at home, they were more independent. Not so

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    73 much interacting with other children, but more one-​to-​one between Timothy and me. He watches Miss Patty [MELP facilitator] online. She is usually really big [referring to her onscreen image] and the other kids are smaller videos down the side. I don’t think Timothy pays much attention to the little videos, so less social interaction but as a result of that more one to one between him and I.

This outcome surprised her. Having more [MELP time] and, having more of it [one-​to-​one time] at home was a surprise and, yeah, that has been really lovely, as that has been really focused. And when the call ends, we can extend music and it sort of carries on, we don’t have to finish and go anywhere. As much as we have packed up the instruments, we can still pull them out, or get the scarves; we still have the equipment handy and it is still one-​to-​one time.

The additional affordance of devoted attention to facilitator and parent was further enhanced by the expanded time to remain in a musical state of being beyond the actual session time, without having to leave the community setting. Tamara also reported how much more confident her boys were to participate in making music in their own homes compared to the face-​to-​face sessions, where they were more likely to stay close by her side. There has also been an increase in the use of their music equipment at home. “We get stuff out more often than we used to,” Tamara said. “But we are also home more often than we used to be. Now we pull it out on the day of music, a little box of music stuff, which I normally keep the lid on because it is noisy stuff. But now I will pull the box out on music day and leave it out to play with and do that more often.” When asked to reflect on any challenges of participating in online MELPs, Tamara felt her previous attendance helped limit these. She found “wrangling two toddlers” in the lounge room challenging, but she felt that there was something special about having this music time in the home facilitated by someone else. She explains: “Having done music for a couple of years, it has helped us do music at home. But having music happening in our home, being led by someone else, helped to recreate the same experience we used to have at [our community venue] but more fluidly or more easily when online, as we could repeat the activity exactly as we did it minus the person playing the live music.” Tamara felt that music is something that kept her family connected and engaged throughout COVID-​19 lockdowns, and provided new and precious experiences as well. “Shoot forward ten years and look back and music was part of our COVID experience.”

Vignette 2: Creating Structure in a Changed World through Online MELP Participation For Amy, not only did MELP participation help her get through the lockdowns and corresponding periods of isolation, it also helped provide some routine and normalcy for her as well as her children. “My husband is deemed an essential worker,” she explained, “so we moved to my parents so he couldn’t pass anything on to us. This was disruptive to the kids. It [the MELP] was good because it gave them some structure and meant that,

74    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett even though everything was changed, they still had something the same. They realized the world hadn’t ended; some things were still the same. We couldn’t go to shops, music, pre-​kindy, all these other things, my daughter especially was a bit overwhelmed with it all, but for things like music starting up online meant she realized everything was still going on and it gave her something to look forward to.” When asked what her expectations were for online MELPs, Amy said she had none, but her reflections indicated that she may have expected them to be less interactive than face-​to-​face classes. She explains: “It was an adjustment, it was not something that you can just press play on and let the kids be at. It’s still something you have to engage in [too], but I think it has worked well.” Amy gives this example to further explain how online MELPs involve the child and the parent simultaneously: “I make myself a coffee beforehand [each week] thinking I will have a coffee, relax while the kids do music, but this morning I was lying on the floor pretending to be asleep, checking they don’t bounce onto the floor off their boppers. Just like the music class, you have to be involved in, and that is good for the parents too. You are just at home.” Amy has been bringing her two children (aged four and one) to MELPs for several years. When asked if they participated differently online compared to face-​to-​face, Amy reported that at first they did. “At the beginning, yes, because they thought they could get away with not doing it,” she laughed. “There is also the element too that they see Miss Patty in the home environment so they want to show her things. So now we have the rule—​music time—​on the mat. Eyes and minds on the task, so I keep the area clean so no distractions.” Amy felt that her previous attendance at classes meant that she was well prepared for music at home during the pandemic. The amount of music they did at home during lockdown did not increase. She reported it was the same as before “but that is because I got a lot of very good tools from going into classes beforehand, and that is why I can do the online classes successfully—​I know what to expect, and what the next activity will be—​I can grab the activity. I have the skill set from the classes to know what to expect and not get overwhelmed or overwhelm the kids. Instead of driving to Miss Patty we get to see Miss Patty online and I don’t have to get dressed up, or drive. Nothing would have changed from going to the class. It is just online.” She goes on to explain: “we have a massive box of instruments and the kids can go to it anytime they want. Family jam time at 9 p.m. is not my favorite, but if they get to a point where they want to bash some drums or shake some shakers, I won’t stop them. . . . Because we have had the online classes they are more aware of the instruments we have at home.” One advantage of online MELPs was in seeing her younger child interact more independently. “Since we have come to online music, I have had the kids in the same class. My son has watched my [older] daughter and he has gotten more out of it because he has had a peer to teach him what to do rather than having me tell him what to do.” Despite the positive experience of online MELPs, Amy is quick to point out that they do not, for her, replace the experience of face-​to-​face classes, where they can make music together. “I thoroughly enjoyed it,” she said, [but] “I will be looking forward to going back to class. It doesn’t replace music. It will be a great filler for when the kids or I

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    75 get sick, and at the same stage, it has been a fantastic tool during this time but we don’t find it a replacement for going into class. . . . Because we have the tools and have been going for quite a while, we knew what to expect, but we gain a lot more by going in there physically. I think if that had been our first time online, we would have mucked through it, but it would not have been the same. I don’t think it would have been as noticeable as if I was in the room.”

Vignette 3: Eliminating the World of Distractions and Increasing Musical Focus through Online MELP Participation Katherine was the only mother interviewed who had not participated in a MELP session prior to the transitions online. Before COVID, Katherine’s daughter Amelia (eight years old) had been attending face-​to-​face music therapy sessions, and her therapy sessions transitioned online during lockdown. Because Amelia and her younger brother Sam (four years old) were home all day every day, Katherine decided to enroll them both into a group together. When asked if the online music groups helped her and her family get through the isolation, she laughed and agreed. “I really enjoy having somewhere to be mid-​morning with my children—​be awake, dressed, presentable. So I enjoyed the personal day goal of having to be dressed and ready by 9:30 and having a little day plan—​yes that definitely helped me,” she said. “It just meant that there was a little bit of normalcy.” Katherine is a music teacher at a special school and very confident using music in the home. When asked if she used more music in the home as a result of the online groups, she said yes, and that the way she used it changed. She pointed out the obvious too—​“I guess you are asking a music teacher who was trapped at home with her own children for eight weeks. So the music did increase, but that could be because I was at home and we had nothing else to do. But we did set up the speakers and a CD for Amelia and she would go and put it on herself—​figure out how and do it. There was definitely more music in the house, but I think that is because I was home a lot more.” Katherine did not expect online therapy and groups to be as effective as live music programs. She was very surprised that they were in fact better for her daughter: Amelia doesn’t normally go to MELPs, but did go to one-​to-​one music therapy at the clinic before COVID-​19. Her therapy also transitioned online and I found this really good. She was less distracted being online, less musical distractions, less other—​she loves shoes, so we always had to go to the office first and try on all the therapists’ shoes—​ less distractions. Also, less travel time and stimulation of getting in and out of the car, and up and down the stairs, after school, face wiped, hair brushed, shoes on, and all that other crap.

She laughs. “So, yes, she did respond differently because I could control the environment. We could focus on the music better, which may be the opposite for ‘typical’ kids because they get we go here and we do music. I wasn’t expecting it but it was great.” She goes on to further explain: “I knew that I would like it better because I would not have

76    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett to be as organized as a parent, but I didn’t realize she would enjoy it more too. If, at the start we had the option, I absolutely would have gone face-​to-​face, because I would have thought the lack of live music—​face-​to-​face interactions would be better—​but she just loved it.” Another positive for Amelia was that, by participating from home, she was able to do all the things the other children could do in a comfortable environment that could be modified to suit her abilities and needs. Because Amelia can lie on the bed rather than the floor, she could now participate in the Bunny song (where the children lie down and wait in great anticipation to jump up and hop like a bunny). Her physical disability stops her from getting on the floor. “Doing music in the bedroom has been better for her—​jumping on the bed—​little logistical things like that—​having a mirror where she can see herself, plus seeing the group leader online, all of this has helped her participate,” Katherine said. It was also good for Amelia to participate with her brother. “It was so good for her and her brother to see the other children doing music on the computer screen. Sam now makes up his own long-​winded songs about spider man. It is adorable. I don’t know if he would have done that without this iso period stuck at home.” Another unexpected and positive outcome from online groups was the way that Amelia would continue music after the sessions were finished. This also meant that Katherine used music differently in the home during isolation. She would set up musical stations for Amelia to play with throughout the day. Katherine explains: “Probably because I had to set up instruments and things and a space for this to happen, and things were out, available, and attractively presented, she would stay and play more music after the session. She might do another half hour after the session. That was one excellent side effect. I might put on an app and she could also play along to other music after the sessions had finished.” As a side note she also added, “I think having to have the space tidy and presentable for a Zoom session—​yeah—​probably a little side positive there for me too!” Amelia is nonverbal and communicates through music; she will choose songs by humming the tunes and she participates through dancing, playing instruments, and holding her mother or therapist’s hand (depending on the location) on the keyboard over certain keys. She uses vocal gestures to indicate yes and no for choices. For this family, online MELPs allowed their daughter to participate with other children in ways that she could not before. It also meant that she was able to stay safe at home while being challenged to try new things and experience success.

The Affordances and Constraints of Online-​at-​Home Family Music Participation For each of the interviewed families, participation in online MELPs helped them to maintain a sense of normalcy during very unusual and unsettling times, and kept families connected with others. Not only did participation connect families to their

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    77 larger community, they all reported increased connections to their own family members—​parent to child, sibling to sibling—​as a surprising highlight for them. Having meaningful ways to spend time together during mandatory lockdown helped them through. Parents seemed to serve as a more observant and stronger bridge from the group facilitator, being more involved and hands-​on.

Affordances and Constraints on Participation in Online MELPs From the perspective of the MBA as a business, the formation of the MELP groups did change throughout the period of online delivery. One new opportunity was the possibility of families living in regional and remote areas participating online in ways that they could not do in face-​to-​face services. At the same time, nearly 50 percent of families who were in face-​to-​face groups did not continue online due to a range of reported constraints, including financial, social, emotional, and developmental. For example, changes to household income were a major factor in the reduced numbers. Many families experienced significant income loss as a result of the pandemic. Others experienced changes in job status as one parent lost a job and so the other had to increase or change hours. Changes to care with children also meant some families were not available to attend online groups at set times. Some families moved away to stay with families in geographical areas that did not have reliable internet connections, while others had to put their children into full-​time daycare so that they could increase their work hours (many as essential workers) during the pandemic. Marketing research conducted during the lockdown period identified employability as a key concern for mothers during the pandemic. McCarter (2020) conducted an online survey with n =​1385 parents and carers during isolation and identified that mothers worried about their partners being employed or unemployed. This research also showed that parents welcomed the opportunity to slow down during isolation (McCarter, 2020). This may also have impacted on former MELP attendees’ decisions to take some time out from organized activities. For other families, online groups would have meant increased screen time, which parents did not want (email, personal communication). One family responded to the online transition with the feedback with “this is not what we signed up for” (email, personal communication), while other families signed up, but then withdrew when it became evident that their young toddler was not going to engage via the online platform. There was a clear trend in the MBA MELPs toward loss of engagement for young toddlers aged twelve to eighteen months, and therefore not continuing with online sessions. McCarter (2020) found that many mothers revealed that so-​called cabin fever was the worst thing about isolation, and also a sense of “monotony.” For families who did decide that online sessions worked, these provided a valuable opportunity to stay connected with their friends and children, and to participate in a weekly activity that provided a sense of normalcy during a very unusual time. Many parents began to report how much they looked forward to the groups, and how important these were for their social and mental health, not to mention the benefits for the children. The opportunities for further

78    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett reflection on family lifestyle will surely provide material for a multitude of studies in the years to come.

Conclusion The landscape of musical parenting is evolving and shaped continually through a range of social, education, and technological affordances and constraints. The COVID-​19 pandemic has given us an unprecedented opportunity to re-​evaluate an aspect of family musical life. The understanding that online-​in-​home music programs can promote intra-​family connection and enhance the meaningful quality for those connections is a rich affordance to be explored further. The constraints of age on interpersonal engagement through online platforms implies that there is more thinking to be done about the core of the experience for toddlers. We understand that for some, the online-​in-​home experiences do not replace, but rather supplement, the known potentials of face-​to-​face family music experiences. Nevertheless, amid it all, it is evident that joint parental-​child participation serves as the core of meaningful connections through music and as the heart of musical engagement. In this chapter we have explored the affordances and constraints of music in the parent-​child relationship (musical parenting) in the home, the “public” spaces of commercial providers, and the emerging environment of family engagement with online delivery of MELPs during the COVID-​19 pandemic. Emerging findings from this last environment highlight the potential of technology and community-​based programs to extend and enhance current notions of musical parenting. We suggest that there is considerable potential in further development of online service provision as a means to address inequities presented through isolation due to geographical, social, or economic circumstances.

Author’s Note The business example (MBA) used in the case study is the business of the first author.

References Abad, V. (2011). The effectiveness of a short-​term group music therapy intervention for young parents and their children. [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Queensland University of Technology. Abad, V. (2017). Case study: Managing business growth from the bottom up—​turning your small and niche passion into a business. In D. M. Thomas & V. Abad (Eds), The economics

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    79 of therapy, caring for clients, colleagues, commissioners and cash-​flow in the Creative Arts Therapies (pp. 180–​199). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Abad, V., & Barrett, M. S. (2017). Families and music early learning programs: Boppin’ Babies. In S. L. Jacobsen & G. Thompson (Eds.), Music therapy with families: Therapeutic approaches and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–​151). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Abad, V., & Barrett, M. S. (2020). Laying the foundations for lifelong family music practices through Music Early Learning Programs. Psychology of Music. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​ 3562​0937​780 Abad, V., & Williams, K. (2007). Early intervention music therapy: Reporting on a 3-​year project to address needs with at-​risk families. Music Therapy Perspectives, 25(1), 52–​58. Adachi, M., & Trehub, S. (2012). Musical lives of infants. In G. E. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 229–​247). Oxford: Oxford University Press. American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP News (2017, May 4). Handheld screen time linked with speech delays in young children. Retrieved January 7, 2021 https://​www.aapp​ubli​cati​ons. org/​news/​2017/​05/​04/​PASS​cree​nTim​e050​417 Arostegui, J. L. (2016). Exploring the global decline of music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 17(2), 96–​103. Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Augmenting the diminished—​ National Review of School Music Education. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Government. Bannan, N., & Woodward, S. (2009). Spontaneity in the musicality and music learning of children. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 465–​494). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2005). Children’s communities of musical practice: Some socio-​cultural implications of a systems view of creativity in music education. In D. J. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues (pp. 177–​195). New York: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music: A narrative inquiry of the “everyday” musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7, 115–​134. Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​424. Barrett, M. S. (2012). Mutuality, belonging and meaning-​making: Pathways to developing young boys’ competence and creativity in singing and song-​making. In S. Harrison, G. F. Welch, & A. Adler (Eds.), Perspectives on males and singing (pp. 167–​187). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, M. S. (2016). Attending to “culture in the small”: A narrative analysis of the role of play, thought, and music in young children’s world-​making. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 41–​54. Barrett, M. S. (2017). Laying the foundations for narrative identities in and through music. In R. McDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 63–​78). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2019). Singing and invented song-​making in infants and young children’s early learning and development: from shared to independent song-​making. In G. F. Welch, D. M. Howard, & J. Nix (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of singing (pp. 471–​487). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L. M., Brown, J. E., & Welch, G. F. (2019). Beliefs and values about music in early childhood education and care: Perspectives from practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 724. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2019.00724

80    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L., & Welch, G. F. (2018). Music value and participation: An Australian case study of music provision and support in early childhood education. Research Studies in Music Education, 40(2), 226–​243. Barrett, M. S., & Welch, G. F. (2020). Music Early Learning Programs: Enduring outcomes for children and their families. Psychology of Music, 49(5), 1226–​1241. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3562​0944​232 Blackburn, C. (2017). Young children’s musical activities in the home. Education, 3–​13, 1–​15. Published online 22 June 2017. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​03004​279.2017.1342​320 Brooks, W. (2015a). Music in infant-​directed digital video discs: a content analysis. Music Education Research, 17(2), 141–​161. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2014.886675 Brooks, W. (2015b). An investigation of music and screen media in the lives of young children. Doctoral dissertation, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney. Burrell, M. (2011). The benefits of music sessions for very young children with their parent or carers through the eyes of a music therapist. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Music therapy and parent-​ infant bonding (pp. 5–​21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, M., & Hourigan, R. (2010). A comparative case study of music interactions between mothers and infants. Contributions to Music Education, 37(1), 65–​79. Chen-​Hafteck, L., & Mang, E. (2012). Music and language in early childhood development and learning. In G. E. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 261–​278). New York Oxford University Press. Cross, I., & Morley, I. (2009). The evolution of music: Theories, definitions and the nature of the evidence. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 61–​86). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Custodero, L. A., Britto, P., & Xin, T. (2002). From Mozart to Motown, lullabies to love songs: Preliminary report on the parents’ use of music with infants survey (PUMIS). Zero to Three, 25(1), 41–​46. Custodero, L. A., & Johnson-​Green, E. A. (2003). Passing the cultural torch: Experience and musical parenting of infants. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 102–​114. Custodero, L. A., & Johnson-​ Green, E. (2008). Caregiving in counterpoint: Reciprocal influences in the musical parenting of younger and older infants. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 15–​39. De Casper, A. J., Lecanuet, J.-​P., Busnel, M.-​C., Granier-​Deferre, C., & Maugeais, R. (1994). Fetal reactions to recurrent maternal speech. Infant Behavior & Development, 17, 159–​164. De Vries, P. A. (2008). Parental perceptions of music in storytelling sessions in a public library. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 473–​478. De Vries, P. (2009). Music at home with the under fives: What is happening? Early Child Development and Care, 179(4), 395–​405. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Art and intimacy: How the arts began. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Dissanayake, E. (2009). Root, leaf, blossom, or bole: Concerning the origin and adaptive function of music. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 17–​30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dissanayake, E. (2012). The earliest narratives were musical. Research in Music Education, 34(1), 3–​14. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2017). Group size, vocal grooming and the origins of language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 209–​212. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.3758/​s13​423-​016-​1122-​6

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    81 Edgar, D., & Edgar, P. (2008). The new child: In search of smarter grown-​ups. Melbourne, Australia: Wilkinson Publishing. Edwards, J. (2011). Music therapy and parent-​infant bonding. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Music therapy and parent-​infant bonding (pp. 5–​21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, J., & Abad, V. (2016). Music therapy and parent-​infant programmes. In J. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Therapy (pp. 135–​157). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fuller, A. M., & McLeod, R. G. (2019). The Connected Music Therapy Teleintervention Approach (CoMTTA) and its application to family-​centred programs for young children with hearing loss. Australian Journal of Music Therapy, 30, 12–​30. Geoghegan, N., & Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Possible effects of early childhood music on mathematical achievement. Australian Research in Early Childhood, 1, 57–​64. Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15, 398–​407. doi: 10.1111/​ j.1467-​7687.2012.01142.x Henriksson-​Macaulay. L., & Welch, G. F. (2015). The musical key to babies’ cognitive and social development. International Journal of Birth and Parent Education, 2(2), 21–​25. Ilari, B. (2005). On musical parenting of young children: Musical beliefs and behaviours of mothers and infants. Early Child Development and Care, 175(7–​8), 647–​660. Ilari, B. (2017). Musical parenting and music education: Integrating research and practice. Update: Applications of Research in Music, 36(2), 45–​52. Jardri, R., Houfflin-​Debarge, V., Delion, P., Pruvo, J.-​P., Thomas, P., & Pins, D. (2012). Assessing fetal response to maternal speech using a noninvasive functional brain imaging technique. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 30, 159–​161. Letts, R. (2015). Tertiary pre-​service courses for primary school specialist music teachers. Music Trust of Australia. Retrieved from http://​music​inau​stra​lia.org.au/​index.php?title=​ Terti​ary_​Pre-​service_​Courses_​for_​Primary_​Schoo​l_​Sp​ecia​list​_​Mus​ic_​T​each​ers Liu, Y. C., Kuo, R. L., & Shih, S. R. (2020). COVID-​19: The first documented coronavirus pandemic in history. Biomedical Journal, 43(4), 328–​333. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.bj.2020.04.007 Malloch, S. (1999). Mother and infants and communicative musicality. Musicae Scientiae, 3(1) (1_​suppl), 29–​57. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​102​9864​9000​030S​104 McCarter, K. (2020) #ISOMums: Understanding the impacts of home isolation. https://​www. mark​etin​gtom​ums.com.au/​isom​ums-​rep​ort/​ McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mithen, S. J. (2007, 2011). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind, and body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moore, J. K., & Linthicum, F. H. (2007). The human auditory system: A timeline of development. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 460–​478. Nicholson, J., Berthelsen, D., Abad, V., Williams, K. & Bradley, J. (2008). Impact of music therapy to promote positive parenting and child development. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(2), 226–​238. O’Shea, B. J. (2020). Project Report—​Impact of Global Pandemic on the Operational Service Model of Music Beat Australia. Unpublished report for MBA research report. Australian Institute of Business. Pearce, E., Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). The ice-​breaker effect: Singing mediates fast social bonding. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150221. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1098/​rsos.150​221

82    Abad, Shoemark, & Barrett Pitt, J., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2016). Attitudes towards and perceptions of the rational for parent-​ child group music making with young children. Music Education Research, 19(3), 292–​308. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​14613​808.2016.1145​644 Pitt, J., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2017). Exploring the rationale for group music activities for parents and young children: Parents’ and practitioners’ perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 39(2), 177–​194. doi: 10.1177/​1321103X17706735 Rodriguez, A. M. (2019). Parents’ perceptions of early childhood music participation. International Journal of Community Music, 12, 95–​110. https://​doi-​org.ezpr​oxy.libr​ary. uq.edu.au/​10.1386/​ijcm.12.1.95_​1 Shoemark, H. (2018). Time Together: A feasible program to promote parent-​infant interaction in the NICU. Music Therapy Perspectives, 36(1), 6–​16. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​mtp/​mix​004 Spence, M., & Freeman, M. (1996). Newborn infants prefer the maternal low-​pass filtered voice, but not the maternal whispered voice. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 199–​212. Stamou, L., & Theodoridis, N. (2016). Child, family, and music: Investigating the characteristics of families who enroll their children in early childhood music programs. In M. Kokkidou & Z. Dionyssiou (Eds.), Music literacy: Formal and informal ways of music teaching-​learning (Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Greek Society for Music Education) (pp. 477–​492). Thessaloniki: GSME. Stern, D. (2010). Forms of vitality: Exploring dynamic experience in psychology, the arts, psychotherapy and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tafuri, J. (2008). Infant musicality: New research for educators and parents. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Trehub, S., Becker, J., & Morley, I. (2015). Cross-​cultural perspectives on music and musicality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 20140096. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1098/​rstb.2014.0096 Tronick, E., Bruschweiler-​Stern, N., Harrison, A. M., Lyons-​Ruth, K., Morgan, A. C., Nahum, J. M., Sander, L., & Stern, D. N. (1998). Dyadically expanded states of consciousness and the process of therapeutic change. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19(3), 290–​299. Update on Coronavirus Measures. (2020, March 27). Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved January 7, 2021, from https://​www.pm.gov.au/​media/​upd​ate-​coro​navi​rus-​measu​res-​270​320. Vaudreuil, R., Langston, D. G., Magee, W. L., Betts, D., Kass, S., & Levy, C. (2020). Implementing music therapy through telehealth: Considerations for military populations. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 17(2), 201–​210. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 17483​107.2020.1775​312 Vygotsky, L. (1986/​1934). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press. Walworth, D. D. (2009). Effects of developmental music groups for parents and premature or typical infants under two years on parental responsiveness and infant social development. Journal of Music Therapy, 46(1), 32–​52. Weinstein, D., Launay, J., Pearce, E., Dunbar, R. I., & Stewart, L. (2016). Group music performance causes elevated pain thresholds and social bonding in small and large groups of singers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(2), 152–​ 158. doi: 10.1016/​ j.evolhumbehav.2015.10.002 Wicks, R. H. (2001). Understanding audiences: Learning to use the media constructively. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Williams, K., Barrett, M. S., Welch, G., Abad, V., & Broughton, M. (2015). Associations between early shared music activities in the home and later child outcomes: Findings from the

Musical Parenting in a Digital Age    83 Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 113–​124. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ecr​esq.2015.01.004 Williams, K., Berthelsen, D., Nicholson, J., Walker, S., & Abad, V. (2012) The effectiveness of a short-​term group music therapy intervention for parents who have a child with a disability. Journal of Music Therapy, 49(1), 23–​44. Young, S. (2012). MyPlace, MyMusic: An international study of musical experiences in the home among seven-​year-​olds. Min-​Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 10. Young, S., Street, A., & Davies, E. (2007). The music one-​to-​one project: developing approaches to music with parents and under-​two-​year-​olds. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 253–​267.

Chapter 6

W ind ows on C h i l dre n’ s Perspectives on Mu si c in Their L i v e s Visual Methods in Music Education Research Katie Zhukov and Margaret S. Barrett

The field of early childhood music education research utilizes a variety of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (Young, 2016a). Increasingly, researchers in early childhood disciplines have sought to employ participatory research methods in order to recognize and respect children’s perspectives and their agency in shaping their worlds. In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) recognized that “Children have the right to say what they think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect them and to have their opinions taken into account” (Article 12). Building on this convention, in 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized “young children as social actors from the beginning of life” (UNICEF, 2006, Committee on the Rights of the Child, p. 61). These global moves acknowledge children as competent social agents who are knowledgeable participants in sociocultural worlds, and capable of contributing to discussions of key issues that impact their lives. This recognition “contests historical views of children as immature, incompetent, irrational, and creates an imperative to consult children in order to access their views and perspectives” (Barrett et al., 2012, p. 186). With these ideas gaining traction, researchers began considering children as “inhabiting a world of meaning created through their interactions with the material and social properties available within their surrounding milieu” (Young, 2016b, p. 32). Participatory approaches to research with young children seek to engage them as “active, informed and informing agents” (Groundwater-​Smith, Dockett, & Bottrel, 2015a, p. 7). Such approaches include children being listened to and their perspectives being valued. Viewing children as research collaborators instead of research subjects has led to the development of innovative approaches that include children in the research processes such as the use of

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    85 visual methods in investigations of children’s perspectives of arts engagement (Barrett & Smigiel, 2003, 2007; Barrett, Everett, & Smigiel, 2012). In this chapter we provide an overview of a range of participatory visual methods and illustrate the use of these in the evaluation of a teacher mentoring program that sought to develop early childhood classroom teachers’ capacities to implement music learning experiences in their classroom practice. Specifically, we focus on children’s perspectives of the impact of the music learning program implemented by their classroom teacher.

Theoretical Framework Participatory Visual Research Methods Visual research methodologies, such as artifact presentation, drawing, mapping, and photography, have been employed as both an alternative to the dominance of words in data generation and as a means of eliciting words as data (Barrett & Smigiel, 2003, 2007; Coates & Coates, 2006; MacDonald, 2009; Wright, 2007). Children’s drawings not only provide an alternative form to represent knowledge and understanding, but they also have been used to engage children in talking about various issues in order to seek their perspectives. For example, Barrett, Everett, and Smigiel (2012), working with children aged five to seven years, employed a “draw-​and-​tell” technique to elicit their perspectives on the meaning, value, and use of the arts in their lives, while Crivello et al. (2009) used a visual research methodology to investigate children’s wellbeing. Visual research methods “release the voice of the previously unheard and allow different stories to be told” (Burke, 2008, p. 26). In using methods such as children’s drawings it is recommended to include text, either written by the child or elicited through interview, “as the artefact alone can be interpreted in multiple ways which may not reflect the meanings intended by the creator” (Groundwater-​Smith, Dockett, & Bottrel, 2015b, p. 104). The text helps researchers to arrive at informed conclusions concerning children’s perspectives and channel these insights toward enacting positive change. Adults can use the information gathered from children “to influence policies and practices that directly affect children” (Groundwater-​Smith, Dockett, & Bottrel, 2015a, p. 8). While visual methods have been incorporated in childhood research for some time, digital media is “reconfiguring the traditional phenomena of childhood studies” (Livingstone & Blum-​Ross, 2017, p. 57) and expanding the scope of visual methodo­ logies. Researchers now have to consider the impact of digital media on nearly every facet of a child’s life. While some aspects of the digital age such as cyberbullying raise concerns for parents, children, and educators, the rapidly developing technology offers researchers new possibilities of data collection, analyses, and dissemination (Yamada-​ Rice, 2017). Early uses of digital media include photography, with children playing an active part in collecting data and subsequently contextualizing visual data through child interviews explaining the meaning of photos taken (Barrett & Smigiel, 2003).

86   Zhukov & Barrett Further applications might include the use of short animations of single-​shot frames to create the child’s story.

Music in Young Children’s Lives Music plays an important role in the everyday lives of children as they engage in music activities anywhere and everywhere. “Music is omnipresent in human spaces and is highly portable,” suggests Ilari (2018, p. 5), with recent research documenting children’s music-​making in settings such as the home (Barrett, 2009, 2011), the family car (Koops, 2014), and the subway (Custodero et al., 2016). Contemporary children spend considerable amounts of time in the family car being driven to and from school, shopping, extension activities such as dance, music, and sport, and play dates. Koops (2014) suggests that the time in the car has become an extension of home-​based musical activities in which children engage in activities such as listening to music, singing, composing, and improvising. Being in a vehicle does not appear to restrict musical experiences but instead can facilitate interactions between siblings and between parents and children due to the proximity of family members. The increasing use of in-​built or portable digital devices has led to the car becoming a mobile cinema in which children can access digital media content. In-​car musicking is necessarily limited in distractions and interruptions, resulting, Koops suggests, in a more relaxed state of mind and a deeper connection to music. Custodero et al. (2016) report that traveling in public on the New York subway does not diminish children’s spontaneous music-​making. Instead, children in this study sang, chanted, hummed, and tapped their own invented songs and moved to music, typically to entertain or comfort themselves without interactions with adults. There appears to be an interesting contrast between the two settings: music-​ making in the family car is reported as drawing the passengers closer together, creating a sense of social cohesion, while in a public space like the subway it becomes a solitary activity, with music acting as a “security blanket” to anchor children in a less familiar and less comfortable setting. Research into early childhood music education tends to assume two principles, that “music is a social endeavor and musical participation is beneficial to children’s overall social development” (Ilari, 2016, p. 23). Musical activities play an important part in social bonding of a child with family and friends, with children finding such engagement “cognitively, emotionally, socially, physically and aesthetically fulfilling” (Barrett et al., 2012, p. 199). Ilari, Young, and Gluschankof (2016) agree that music does “act as a marker of belonging” (p. 160). However, in their research they found that by the age of seven many children are “beginning to experience the tension between belonging to the musical world fashioned by their parents or those of their peers and the commercial world of music” (p. 160). A similar conflict exists between music experiences at school and at home. Ilari, Young, and Gluschankof (2016) found in their research of children’s musical experiences around the world that “there appears to be a mismatch between musical preferences of seven-​year-​olds and the repertoires that are typically described in

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    87 school music curricula” (p. 157). Young (2016b) suggests that the influence of popular media and commercial musical worlds on children’s musical choices is greater than musical influences coming from educational settings. Ilari, Young, and Gluschankof (2016) suggest that while school musical activities are typically very sociable, at home much of children’s music-​making is solitary due to technology enabling their contact with media and commercial music without parental participation. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a warning regarding this phenomenon as early as 2009 in a policy statement that flagged the use of iPods and other devices by eight-​to-​ten-​year-​olds with little parental knowledge about the type of music being listened to as potentially detrimental to health and wellbeing. Contemporary children in the Western world have much greater access to technology at home than any previous generation (Bickford, 2012; Young, 2009, 2012). New technologies are generating new types of musical activities and new ways of engaging with music. For example, the small size of MP3 players has made them an intimate object that children are able to carry in their pocket. Sharing of the earbuds of the device between two students is a common practice in the school playground (Bickford, 2012). This type of “tethering,” a physical tying of two listeners by shared wires, results in children having to coordinate their walking and/​or running pace, creating a close physical bond between friends. Another example of technological development is karaoke machines that are no longer necessary as a stand-​alone piece of equipment, as children are now able to access karaoke games via other gaming equipment such as a PlayStation connected to television and/​or iPods (Young, 2012). Karaoke games can be used for self-​ entertainment, as siblings’ games, and playful activities with a parent. Often the aim of such games is to manage children’s time at home, as parental safety concerns tend to lead to increasingly supervised and/​or indoor lifestyles. Clearly children’s experiences of music are diverse and multidimensional.

Music in Young Children’s Schooling Music plays an important role in preparing young children for schooling from psychological and social perspectives, making a positive start on their educational path. For example, Hallberg et al. (2017) showed that five weeks of beginner Suzuki violin instruction with five-​year-​old kindergarten students in a disadvantaged area in Arizona showed significant improvement in their attentional control, a contributing factor in academic learning. This study suggests that introduction of instrumental learning in early childhood may have a positive long-​term impact on the educational journey. Participation in a music enrichment program at Philadelphia preschool has helped four-​year-​old children from low socioeconomic backgrounds develop emotional and social readiness for school (Brown & Sax, 2013). Music activities included using voices and instruments to generate sounds made by people and animals that express particular emotions. This study demonstrated that music interventions can help children at risk to articulate their feelings, in particular positive emotions such as interest, happiness, and pride.

88   Zhukov & Barrett Music learning helps to build foundations for academic achievement. Research has demonstrated that shared musical activities in the home between Australian parents and their two-​to-​three-​year-​old children have a positive impact on children’s vocabulary and numeracy by the time they turn four and five years old (Williams et al., 2015). A study investigating a kindergarten music program in Israel (Gluschankof & Kenney, 2011) showed that providing young children with percussion instruments, musical toys and games, and music listening via earphones encouraged them to engage in reading and writing, decoding of symbols, and inventing their own musical symbols to document their own songs. Musical activities helped children to experiment with numbers and Hebrew characters (letters) and build children’s confidence in their ability to read text. Early music education in primary school settings can assist the development of literacy (Slater et al., 2014). For example, in the United States, group music instruction of six-​to-​nine-​year-​old disadvantaged bilingual children helped them to maintain their levels of reading while the matched control group reading declined (Slater et al., 2014). This study demonstrates that music learning could help neutralize negative effects associated with child literacy in low socioeconomic areas. These studies provide new evidence regarding the impact of early music learning on children’s academic outcomes. Classroom teachers may feel that there is little time to incorporate formal music lessons into their curricula due to a strong policy emphasis by education departments on student numeracy and literacy areas (in Australia see, e.g., ACARA, 2016; Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2018; National Curriculum, 2014). A number of studies have sought to demonstrate the benefits of an integrated approach to music education in early childhood and primary school settings; for example, Trinick (2012) describes how introduction of music activities into the daily routine could enhance teaching and learning in New Zealand primary schools. These include specific adult-​directed use of music as a signal for particular classroom activities such as roll call, quiet time, tidying up, and coming to sit on the mat. Rhythm clapping could focus children’s attention and indicate a transition to a new activity. In mathematical lessons counting chants and numbers songs could facilitate learning, and in reading carefully selected songs could help build vocabulary and grammar. Using technology as an educational tool in primary school music lessons has been shown around the world to engage students more creatively with music. For example, in South Korea, Kim (2013) demonstrated that technology resulted in more imaginative compositions, broadened knowledge of different musical genres, integrated music listening and appreciation, and generally made school music lessons more enjoyable. In Italy, Hanna (2014) proposed adding mobile phones, electronic keyboards, computers, and iPads with suitable software and applications to the standard audio and video recording equipment in the classroom to record children singing, playing instruments, dancing to music, creating compositions, vocal and instrumental improvising, and dramatic play. A comparative study with slightly older children (nine and ten years old) in the United States and Israel implementing new technologies and educational software to teach group music composition activities demonstrated that such approaches can help “successfully scaffold musical instruction, with beneficial outcomes in fostering working memory, self-​regulation, and cognitive

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    89 flexibility” (Portowitz et al., 2014, p. 242). It may be speculated that such findings might apply to younger children. Campbell in her influential monograph Songs in Their Heads (2010) emphasizes the importance of music educators knowing about home music activities of their students when devising musical experiences for the classroom. She suggests that to help children fully realize their potential music activities need to be “carefully considered, founded on the music of their play and leisure, kindled by the music of their hopes and dreams, and shaped by the specialized skills we can deliver to them in lessons” (p. 274). This highlights the need to continue research into child perspectives regarding the role of music in their lives at home and at school. Importantly, teacher development programs tend to focus on the outcomes and benefits for teachers in their personal professional development. Less attention has been paid to the impact of such programs on children’s lives and musical practices. We now turn to the interrogation of outcomes of a study that sought to access children’s perspectives of the implementation of a teacher mentoring program focused on the implementation of music in general classroom practice. This investigation focuses on the following research questions: 1. What are children’s perceptions of the implementation of a music teacher mentoring program in their classrooms? 2. How do children draw on this program in their daily music practices?

Method Study Context Under the leadership of esteemed Australian musician and music educator Richard Gill AM, the Australian Youth Orchestra initiated the National Music Teacher Mentoring Program in 2015 to help generalist classroom teachers introduce music activities into their daily curricula (see www.ayo.com.au; Barrett et al., 2020; Barrett, Zhukov, & Welch, 2019, for details). The program was funded primarily from relevant departments of the Australian Federal government, with some further funding committed from various state education ministries to support local implementation. The program drew on the expertise of specialist music teachers to mentor early childhood generalist classroom teachers (K–​ 3), and to structure music programs based on local conditions and needs. The curricula were voice-​based and drew on the principles and practices of Zoltán Kodály and Carl Orff. The evaluation of the program sought teachers’, school principals’, and children’s perspectives on the life and learning outcomes of the program. A particular focus of research was to determine if the mentoring program had produced positive musical outcomes for children. This was measured by improvements in singing tests, changes in attitudes toward music through child surveys, and focus group interviews with children.

90   Zhukov & Barrett The program proved effective in improving children’s singing capacities and attitudes toward music (see Barrett et al., 2019, for a report of these outcomes). This paper reports children’s perspectives of the music mentoring program.

Study Design In order to investigate children’s perspectives regarding the program and the role of music in their lives a draw-​and-​tell participatory research approach to focus group interviews was adopted. Using children’s drawings as a starting point for group discussions was a deliberate strategy to access children’s perspectives in an age-​appropriate way and to interpret their intended meanings.

Sample A total of seventeen focus groups interviews were conducted involving seventy-​four children aged from four to eight years from eight of the eleven participating urban and regional schools across Australia. The schools were located in areas of varied socioeconomic levels (see Table 6.1 for demographics).

Procedure Ethical permission to conduct the research was obtained from the University of Queensland institutional Human Research Ethics Committee. Subsequently, permission was obtained from education departments in those states where research was to be conducted. School principals undertook the role of gatekeeper and assisted in obtaining third-​party consent for all groups of participants (teachers and children). Researchers undertook field trips to a range of schools in urban and regional areas. Classroom teachers participating in the mentoring program identified and recruited student volunteers to speak to researchers. Focus groups interviews were chosen in preference to individual child interviews to facilitate interactions with the researchers who were not known to them. The group interviews took place in quiet spaces near the classrooms. While the data collection for the main study included seven mentor interviews, nineteen teacher interviews, and ten principal interviews, it is the seventeen drawing-​elicited focus group interviews with children that are the focus of this paper. These data provided children’s perspectives on the role of music in their lives using visual research methodology. The interviews commenced with children and researchers introducing themselves, followed by discussion of the classroom-​implemented music program, which focused on children’s descriptions of the activities, repertoire, and means of implementation (timing, frequency, structure). Subsequently the researchers asked children to draw a picture of

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    91 Table 6.1 Demographics child focus group interviews School ID

Enrollments

Location

Ethic composition

Socioeconomic index

Children interviewed

School 1 Group 1

90

outer urban

97% ESL

6

5

School 1 Group 2 School 2 Group 1

5 700

urban

65% ESL 0% Indigenous

8

School 2 Group 2

4 5

School 3

700

urban

44% ESL 0% Indigenous

10

no focus groups

School 4 Group 1

550

outer urban

51% ESL 3% Indigenous

4

5

School 4 Group 2 School 5 Group 1

5 200

urban

61% ESL, 14% Indigenous

1

School 5 Group 2 School 6 Group 1

4 420

outer urban

65% ESL 0% Indigenous

9

School 6 Group 2 School 7 Group 1

4

5 4

440

regional

6% ESL 19% Indigenous

3

School 7 Group 2

5 4

School 8

400

regional

7% ESL 13% Indigenous

3

no focus group

School 9 Group 1

400

urban

12% ESL 4% Indigenous

4

3

School 9 Group 2

4

School 9 Group 3

4

School 10

400

regional

14% ESL 2% Indigenous

4

no focus group

School 11 Group 1

120

regional

3% ESL 87% Indigenous

2

5

School 11 Group 2

3

Note: ESL refers to English as second language. Index 1 is considered “most disadvantaged” and index 10 as “most advantaged” as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

92   Zhukov & Barrett their favorite activity in music and then talk about their drawing. The conversations were audio recorded and transcribed by a professional transcription company. The researchers coded the transcripts of interviews independently using coding and analyses approaches developed by Saldaña (2014). The emerging categories were refined through iterative discussions and referencing to the accompanying drawings to arrive at the main themes (Creswell, 2015). Children’s drawings were particularly helpful in verifying trustworthiness of interview analysis findings (Lincoln, 2004).

Findings and Discussion Value of Music Participating children stated that the main reason they like doing music is because the new musical activities introduced in their classrooms were enjoyable. Children acknowledged the intrinsic value of music and the impact of music education on the socio-​emotional aspects of their lives: It’s fun! (Child Year 3, School 6) We get to do fun stuff. (Child Year 1/​2, School 6) I like doing new songs that I don’t know. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I love “Pussy Cat Is” Coming because we get to chase each other and sing. (Child Year 1/​2, School 11; see Figure 6.1) I think every school that existed should have a band or music class because most kids don’t get the education they need in music, and I think it’s just as important as English and maths. I think it is just as important because if you don’t know how to express yourself or play or sing, then your life isn’t going to be as fun as kids that have got education in music. (Child Year 2, School 2)

These children’s perspectives are supported by literature that showed that music interventions, particularly in disadvantaged areas, assist children to speak about their emotions and focus on positive feelings (Brown & Sax, 2013). Research has demonstrated that music activities have a positive impact on social bonding and emotional development of children (Barrett et al., 2012; Ilari, 2016).

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    93

Figure 6.1  “I love ‘Pussy Cat Is Coming’ because we get to chase each other and sing.”

Use of Music In all seventeen focus-​group interviews, children identified their favorite activities in music as singing, dancing to music, and playing musical games: I always like to sing, that’s my favorite thing to do. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I dance with the music. (Child Year K, School 5) My favorite thing to do with music is get together with other people and sing. (Child Year 1/​ 2, School 7) I like to play games such as “Cut-​the-​Cake,” “Ram-​Sam-​Sam,” and “Cat-​and-​Mouse.” (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) I love “Kangaroo-​Skippy-​Roo.” (Child Year 1, School 1) I like singing “Blue Bells, Cockle Shells.” I love dancing. (Child Year 1/​2, School 11; see Figure 6.2)

Children’s responses suggest that musical activities such as singing, dancing, and musical games typically employed in primary school music-​teaching settings were enjoyed by this age group. School music education provides a common repertoire on which children’s later musical engagement is built. The school songs/​games are typically chosen

94   Zhukov & Barrett

Figure 6.2  “I like singing ‘Blue Bells, Cockle Shells.’ I love dancing.”

to extend children’s vocabulary, and their knowledge of numbers, colors, and names of animals. As Ilari, Young, and Gluschankof (2016) point out, the musical choices at school and home begin to clash around the age of seven. It is therefore important when extending this work for music educators to be in tune with the type of music heard at home and preferred by children and incorporate this into school music curricula (Campbell, 2010).

Access to Music at School and at Home Music, and singing in particular, is something that tends to happen anywhere and with anyone—​children made music at home with members of their extended family and listened to it in a car or on radio or TV: We all do it together in the bedroom. (Child Year 1/​2, School 6) I like singing in the garage by myself. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I sing with my Mum and older sister. (Child Year 3-​6, School 6) I practise ukulele with my grandma. (Child Year K, School 2) I listen to music in a car. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I sing songs on the TV. (Child Year 3–​4, School 6) I sing along with the song on the radio. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10)

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    95

Figure 6.3  “I love playing ukulele. I am learning F and C.”

Children’s comments regarding where, how, and with whom they access music are supported by research that has highlighted the family car as an extension of home music-​making (Koops, 2014) and family members as collaborators in music activities (Young, 2012), resulting in greater social bonding (Barrett et al., 2012). Participating children reported being exposed to a variety of musical instruments at school and at home, including: • • • • •

Percussion (triangle/​woodensticks/​xylophones/​bongos/​maracas/​drums/​tambourines); Keyboard (piano/​keyboard); Strings (guitar/​electric guitar/​bass guitar/​ukulele/​violin/​double bass); Woodwind and brass (recorder/​flute/​trumpet). I love playing ukulele. I am learning F and C. (Child Y2, School 1; see Figure 6.3)

Typically for the Australian context, many children accessed their music using a range of technology: I’ve got songs on my iPad. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I’ve got songs on a USB so I could listen to them on my radio. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I’ve got my own boom-​box at my house. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I have a karaoke machine. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) My favorite thing to do is the beat box. (Child Year 1, School 4)

96   Zhukov & Barrett This finding aligns with previously reported proliferation of electronic media and young children’s access to music technology devices (Livingstone & Blum-​Ross, 2017; Young 2009, 2012). While educators and parents are becoming increasingly concerned regarding the potential isolating impact of media used by children for solitary entertainment and the possibilities of cyber bullying (Ilari, Young, & Gluschankof, 2016), it is evident that these media are pervasive in these children’s lives.

Effect on Children’s Mood and Emotion Participating in musical activities made children happy and excited, and cheered them up when they were feeling depressed: Music makes me feel happy and good. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) It makes me feel happy because I like singing and it warms me up. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) You don’t really need to have anybody around, you can just sing to make yourself feel happy. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) I think it makes me happy and when I’m down it cheers me up a bit. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) It makes me super-​duper happy! (Child Year 1/​2, School 7)

These comments illustrate positive emotions generated through music-​making and the strong impact of music on mood regulation as previously flagged in early childhood literature (Barrett et al., 2012; Ilari, 2016). Some children reported being embarrassed to sing in front of others or felt nervous doing so, at least initially: I don’t really enjoy singing by myself or with other people, because sometimes I get embarrassed when people listen. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) Sometimes when I sing I feel a bit nervous, but after that I feel like I’ve completed something and I’ve done very well. (Child Year 2, School 2)

These quotations echo research findings that around the age of seven, musical activities at home and at school begin to diverge from children’s musical preferences, leading to heightened sensitivity to possible embarrassment and performance anxiety (Ilari, Young, & Gluschankof, 2016; Young, 2016b).

Self-​Regulation Music participation was also a relaxing, calming activity for some children, a time away from other people:

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    97

Figure 6.4  “Singing outside where it is quiet and peaceful makes me happy.”

I like singing by myself because it’s really peaceful and you don’t hear anybody else’s voice except for you. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) It makes me feel like I’m really calm and relaxing. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) Sometimes when I go to sleep, I sing it. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I mostly like to sing in bed, because I love to sing. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) Singing outside where it is quiet and peaceful makes me happy. (Child Year K, School 2; see Figure 6.4) I like to sing when I’m alone because I like being somewhere quiet when I’m singing. (Child Year K, School 2)

98   Zhukov & Barrett These comments demonstrate children’s use of music for self-​regulation, in particular as a peaceful and meditative activity. Research has shown that children are able to tap into music as a “security blanket” when facing uncomfortable situations (Custodero et al., 2016).

Social Activity and Family Involvement Singing with others is a very social activity that builds children’s self-​confidence. Most children reported loving singing with peers or family members and receiving positive feedback from adults about their voices: I like singing with other people because otherwise I feel lonely. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) I like having another person to sing with because it makes me feel more confident. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) I really like to sing, my family sings really well, my Mum sings really well. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I like singing because it makes me have a good voice because I always practice. (Child Year 1/​2, School 10) I think I’m experienced and adventurous in singing. I want to explore the world just to learn more songs and have fun. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7) I love music because it helps me get fit. (Child Y2, School 6; see Figure 6.5)

The findings here are supported by research that has shown music-​making to be a social activity for children, leading to beneficial emotional outcomes (Ilari, 2016; Koops, 2014).

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    99

Figure 6.5  “I love music because it helps me get fit.”

Literacy Development Even very young children recognized that learning music has positive impact on their literacy and numeracy skills: It helps you learn counting. It might have some numbers and then you sing it together. (Child Year 1/​2, School 6) Music is good because if you aren’t that good of a speller, it helps you a bit because music notes help you write a little bit better. (Child Year 1/​2, School 7)

100   Zhukov & Barrett Children’s perspectives on the importance of music in their education echo research recommendations to include musical activities as part of numeracy and literacy teaching (Long, 2014; Slater et al., 2014).

Concluding Remarks The drawing-​elicited focus group interviews of seventy-​four children from eight urban and regional Australian primary schools across wide-​ranging socioeconomic areas showed that music activities introduced into their classrooms by their generalist teachers (under the mentorship of music specialists) had a strong positive impact on their schooling and wellbeing. Children enjoyed musical games and singing, and understood music’s intrinsic value as an important part of their emotional development. The introduction of new music activities into their daily school routine had added elements of fun and new ways of learning in the traditional literacy and numeracy areas. Music learning at school had encouraged music activities at home and with family members, in particular learning of instruments and accessing music via a range of music technology devices. Children recognized music’s positive impact on their mood and were able to use music for self-​regulation to calm down and/​or cheer up. Social bonding with peers and family members was facilitated through music. Children reported that music learning helped improve in other academic indicators such as literacy and numeracy. This study has demonstrated that a draw-​and-​tell research method is particularly useful with young children in school settings, facilitating access to and celebration of children’s perspectives and voices. The findings highlight the important role of music education in the lives of young children, particularly those from disadvantaged areas. Music educators need to access and listen to children’s perspectives on music and incorporate the knowledge of students’ music preferences and home music activities into carefully structured classroom music lessons to fully realize the music’s potential to make children’s lives better and to improve their educational and social outcomes.

Acknowledgments This research was fully funded through the Australian Youth Orchestra commissioned evaluation of the National Music Teacher Mentoring Program: https://​www.ayo.com.au/​cont​ent/​ natio​nal-​music-​teac​her-​mentor​ing-​prog​ram/​gk2​vag.

References Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Australian curriculum. Retrieved September 2018 from https://​www.austr​alia​ncur​ricu​lum.edu.au/​f-​ 10-​cur​ricu​lum/​gene​ral-​capab​ilit​ies/​liter​acy/​

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    101 American Academy of Pediatrics. (2009). Policy statement—​impact of music, music lyrics, and music videos on children and youth. Pediatrics, 124(5), 1488–​1494. doi: 10.1542/​ peds.2009-​2145 Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music: A narrative inquiry of the ‘everyday’ musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 115–​134. Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. Barrett, M. S., Everett, M. C., & Smigiel, H. M. (2012). Meaning, value and engagement in the arts: Findings from a participatory investigation of young Australian children’s perception of the arts. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(2), 185–​201. Barrett, M. S., & Smigiel, H. (2003). Awakening the “sleeping giant”?: The arts in the lives of Australian families. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 4(4). Available from http://​www.ijea.org/​v4n4/​ Barrett, M. S., & Smigiel, H. (2007). Children’s perspectives of participation in music youth arts setting: Meaning, value, and participation. Research Studies in Music Education, 28(1), 39–​50. Barrett, M. S., Zhukov, K., Brown, J. E., & Welch, G. F. (2020). Evaluating the impact of a generalist teacher-​led music program on early childhood school children’s singing skills and attitudes to music. Psychology of Music, 48(1), 120–​136. doi: 10.1177/​0305735618790355 Barrett, M. S., Zhukov, K., & Welch, G. F. (2019). Strengthening music provision in early childhood education: A collaborative self-​development approach to music mentoring for generalist teachers. Music Education Research, 21(5), 529–​548. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2019.1647154 Bickford, T. (2012). Tinkering and tethering in the material culture of children’s MP3 players. In P. S. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of children's musical cultures (pp. 527–​ 542). Oxford University Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​oxfor​dhb/​978019​9737​ 635.013.0032 Brown, E. D., & Sax, K. L. (2013). Arts enrichment and preschool emotions for low-​income children at risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 337–​346. Burke, C. (2008). Play in focus: Children’s visual voice in participative research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing visual research with children and young people (pp. 23–​36). London: Routledge. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, E., & Coates, A. (2006). Young children talking and drawing. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 221–​241. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). Retrieved September 2018 fromhttp://​www. corest​anda​rds.org Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE. Crivello, G., Camfield, L., & Woodhead, M. (2009). How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within young lives. Social Indicators Research, 90(1), 51–​72. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​205-​008-​9312-​x Custodero, L. A., Cali, C., & Diaz-​Donoso, A. (2016). Music as transitional object and practice: Children’s spontaneous musical behaviors in the subway. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 55–​74. Gluschankof, C., & Kenney, S. H. (2011). Musical literacy in an Israeli kindergarten. General Music Today, 25(1), 45049.

102   Zhukov & Barrett Groundwater-​Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrel, D. (2015a). Introduction: Arguing the case for participatory research with children and young people. In S. Groundwater-​Smith, S. Dockett, & D. Bottrel, Participatory research with children and young people (pp. 1–​18). London: Sage Publications. Groundwater-​ Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrel, D. (2015b). Innovative methods. In S. Groundwater-​Smith, S. Dockett, & D. Bottrel, Participatory research with children and young people (pp. 101–​138). London: Sage Publications. Hallberg, K. A., Martin, W. E., & McClure, J. R. (2017). The impact of music instruction on attention in Kindergarten children. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(2), 113–​121. Hanna, W. (2014). A Reggio-​inspired music atelier: Opening the door between visual arts and music. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 287–​294. Ilari, B. (2016). Music in the early years: Pathways into a social world. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 23–​39. Ilari, B. (2018). Scaramouche goes to preschool: The complex matrix of young children’s everyday music. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46, 1–​9. doi: 10.1007/​s10643-​017-​0842-​1 Ilari, B., Young, S., & Gluschankof, C. (2016). Lessons learned. In B. Ilari & S. Young (Eds.), Children’s home musical experiences across the world (pp. 150–​162). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kim, E. (2013). Music technology-​mediated teaching and learning approach for music education: A case study from an elementary school in South Korea. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 413–​427. Koops, L. H. (2014). Songs from the car seat: Exploring the early childhood music-​making place of the family vehicle. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 52–​65. Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Trustworthiness criteria. In M. S. Lewis-​Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 1145–​1146). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Livingstone, S., & Blum-​Ross, A. (2017). Researching children and childhood in the digital age. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (3rd ed., pp. 57–​7 1). London: Routledge. Long, M. (2014). ‘I can read further and there’s more meaning while I read’: An exploratory study investigating the impact of a rhythm-​based music intervention on children’s reading. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(1), 107–​124. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​ 4528​453 MacDonald, A. (2009). Drawing stories: The power of children’s drawings to communicate the lived experience starting school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(3), 40–​49. National Curriculum. (2014). Retrieved from https://​www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​coll​ecti​ons/​ natio​nal-​cur​ricu​lum Portowitz, A., Peppler, K. A., & Downton, M. (2014). In Harmony: A technology-​based music education model to enhance musical understanding and general learning skills. International Journal of Music Education, 32(2) 242–​260. Saldaña, J. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed.), Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 581–​605). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slater, J., Strait, D. L., Skoe, E., O’Connell, S., Thompson, E., & Kraus, N. (2014). Longitudinal effects of group music instruction on literacy skills in low-​income children. PLoS ONE, 9(11): e113383. doi: 10.1371/​journal.pone.0113383 Trinick, R. M. (2012). Sound and sight. General Music Today, 25(2), 5–​10. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​10483​7 131​1402​066

Windows on Children’s Perspectives on Music    103 UNESCO. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://​www.ohchr.org/​en/​inst​rume​nts-​mec​hani​sms/​inst​rume​nts/​con​vent​ion-​rig​hts-​child UNICEF (2006). General comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://​www.uni​cef-​irc.org/​publi​cati​ons/​pdf/​crcge​ncom​men.pdf Williams, K. E., Barrett, M. S., Welch, G. F., Abad, V., & Broughton, M. (2015). Associations between early shared music activities in the home and later child outcomes: Finding from the longitudinal study of Australian Children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 113–​124. Wright, S. (2007). Graphic-​narrative play: Young children’s authoring through drawing and telling. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 8(8), 1–​28. Yamada-​Rice, D. (2017). Using visual and digital research methods with young children. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (3rd ed., pp. 72–​85). London: Routledge. Young, S. (2009). Towards constructions of musical childhoods: Diversity and digital techno­ logies. Early Child Development and Care, 179(6), 695–​705. doi: 10.1080/​03004430902944908 Young, S. (2012). Theorizing musical childhoods with illustrations from a study of girls’ karaoke use at home. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 113–​127. Young, S. (2016a). Early childhood music education research: An overview. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 1–​21. Young, S. (2016b). Musical childhoods: Theoretical background and new directions. In B. Ilari & S. Young (Eds.), Children’s home musical experiences across the world (pp. 29–​42). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Further Reading Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. Barrett, M. S., Everett, M. C., & Smigiel, H. M. (2012). Meaning, value and engagement in the arts: Findings from a participatory investigation of young Australian children’s perception of the arts. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(2), 185–​201. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Groundwater-​Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrel, D. (2015). Participatory research with children and young people. London: Sage Publications. Ilari, B., & Young, S. (2016). Children’s home musical experiences across the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Chapter 7

T he Intangibl e H e ri tag e of Children ’ s Mu si c a l Cu ltu re s From “Child’s Play” to Culture-​Making Margaret S. Barrett

Introduction In 2004 the Australian Children’s Folklore Collection, housed in archives at Museum Victoria, became the ninth item to be recognized on the UNESCO Register of the Australian Memory of the World (https://​www.amw.org.au/​regis​ter/​listi​ngs/​aus​tral​ian-​ childr​ens-​folkl​ore-​col​lect​ion). As of 2021 the Australian register listed some sixty-​nine items ranging from the Endeavour Journal of James Cook (the first item recognized, in 2001) and the First Fleet Journals (added in 2009), to William Buelow Gould’s Sketchbook of Fishes (added in 2011), and the Warlpiri Drawings (added in 2017). The recognition of the Australian Children’s Folklore Collection (ACFC) as an item in the UNESCO Register is a seminal event in several ways. First, it is significant that children’s contributions to culture were recognized early in the creation of the project. Despite considerable advances in the recognition of children’s cultural agency in the fields of childhood studies (in music see Barrett, 2003, 2006, 2011; Campbell, 1998/​ 2010; Marsh, 2008) and the sociology of childhood (Corsaro, 2005; Cunningham, 2006; Gabriel, 2017; James & Prout, 1990; Mayall, 2002), claims continue to be made in fields such as cultural heritage studies that children and their contributions are still largely invisible (Brookshaw, 2016). Second, alongside some items of tangible cultural heritage, the bulk of the ACFC comprises intangible cultural heritage such as children’s songs, games, dances, and plays, collected in classrooms, playgrounds, and community settings. The recognition of “expressive intangibles” (Hanson, 2017, p. 135) through the

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    105 establishment of the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage has provided a means through which children’s contributions to culture and world-​making may be conserved, celebrated, maintained, and sustained. As Hanson notes, “The ‘intangible cultural heritage’ construction has sought to make legitimate an equal valuation and protection of things we cannot touch, whether it be music, dance, storytelling, ritual or custom” (2017, p. 135). The impetus for recognition of the world’s intangible cultural heritage has been driven in part by concerns that increasing numbers of cultural expressions across the globe are “threatened with extinction as a result of the homogenising forces of globalisation, or the rise of one, mass culture” (Stefano, Davis, & Corsane, 2013, p. 1). Intangible cultural heritage is concerned with the immaterial world, with “knowledge, memories and feelings”; further, it recognizes that “since human activity of the past exists only as tangible evidence, intangible cultural heritage must be tied, in whatever form it takes, to the present” (Stefano, Davis, & Corsane, 2013, p. 1). In short, intangible cultural heritage is not just concerned with preserving the past, it is also concerned with “how we live our culture—​the doing, creating, feeling” (Leader-​Elliott & Trimboli, 2013, p. 115) in the present, and the implications these processes have for the future. Its focus is the embodied skills and performances and the intangible expressive events that emerge from such performances. The UNESCO convention of 2003 defines intangible cultural heritage as: the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—​ as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—​ that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their inter-​action with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. (UNESCO 2003, article 2)

The convention description continues by identifying oral traditions and expressions, performing arts, social practices, rituals and festivals, knowledge and practices concerning nature, and traditional craftsmanship as the domains in which intangible cultural heritage is generated. While children’s cultures are not mentioned explicitly, arguably implicit in this definition are the diverse manifestations of children’s cultures across time and place. The establishment of the UNESCO convention commits to documenting, preserving, protecting, promoting, enhancing, transmitting, and revitalizing the world’s intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO 2003, article 2, p. 3). Signatories to the convention undertake to ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of communities, groups, and individuals, to raise awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage and provide for international cooperation and assistance (UNESCO 2003, article 1). These undertakings are enacted through the development and implementation of cultural

106   Barrett policy at local, national, and global levels. As of May 2020 there were 178 state signatories to the convention.1 Consideration of music as intangible cultural heritage is a relatively recent phenomenon, with early publications in this area focusing on the musics of East Asia in particular (K. Howard, 2012) and world musics in general (Schippers, 2010, 2016). As K. Howard notes, interest in music as intangible cultural heritage in East Asia arises from “a long history of legislating for and setting up a mixture of preservation and promotion strategies to counter the loss of indigenous musical and other cultural forms” (2012, p. 1). These concerns arose in response to the rapid modernization of the region post the Second World War, increasing urbanization, globalization, and the attendant concern of increasing homogenization of cultures. It is notable that the UNESCO program appointing Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in 2001, 2003, and 2005 identified a number of performance practices that incorporate music from the region. Nevertheless, while children are recognized as the next generation of culture-​ bearers in traditional music practices (see, e.g., Rees, 2012), there is little explicit discussion of children’s musical cultures in emerging research and discussion on the topic. Rather, the focus is on implementing strategies that ensure the transmission of adult generated cultural knowledge and skills from generation to generation. The intent of this chapter is to explore the implications of recognition of the Intangible Heritage of Children’s Musical Cultures for the theory and practice of music learning and development. Accordingly, this chapter provides (1) a brief historical overview of key contributions to the collection and analysis of children’s musical culture; (2) an argument for recognizing that children’s musical cultures contribution to the store of ICH; and (3) consideration of policy and practice implications for ongoing conservation and sustainability of children’s musical cultures.

Mapping the Landscapes of Children’s Musical Cultures Interest in children’s culture is not a new phenomenon. While the “new” sociology of childhood dates only from the late twentieth century (Alanen, 1988; Corsaro, 1998/​ 2005), adult interest in the collection and classification of items of children’s cultures, including their music, has a lengthy history. For example, in his social history of English folk song, Steve Roud documents the rise of interest in folk song dating from the sixteenth century and culminating in the late Victorian-​Edwardian “collecting boom” of the “song cultures of ordinary people” (2017, p. 4). He notes that inevitably the material collected reflected the collectors’ interests, primarily “old songs” or “popular old songs, which they defined as the ones most liked, or most characteristic of the time, or simply to differentiate them from the classical songs of the day” (2017, p. 41), including a small number of children’s songs, rhymes, and games. Such work located the collection

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    107 of children’s musical cultures initially in the domain of folklore. Subsequent accounts of children’s music cultures are scattered across a range of domains including anthropology, ethnomusicology, childhood studies, music education, developmental music psychology, educational psychology, cultural psychology, and children’s folklore (see Sutton-​Smith et al., 1999).2 The Australian child folklorist June Factor notes that the collection of children’s folklife materials, including tangible (e.g., books, toys, clothing) and intangible (e.g., songs, games, rhymes, plays) elements, was, until the middle of the twentieth century, largely the domain of individuals working in both professional and amateur contexts “for whom it was a minor but fascinating cultural byway” (2011, p. 8). In the UK, Lady Alice Bertha Gomme (1853–​1938) perhaps epitomized this early fascination with the products of children’s culture-​making, specifically their songs and games. Gomme published The Traditional Games of England, Scotland, and Ireland in two volumes (1894 and 1898 respectively) drawing on a database she had compiled of some 800 separate games. In the preface of the book she describes the arrangement of the volume, giving some insight into the depth and breadth of scholarship that she brought to the project: The singing games are arranged so as to give, first, the tunes; secondly, the different versions of the game-​rhymes; thirdly, the method of playing; fourthly, an analysis of the game-​rhymes on a plan arranged by my husband, and which is an entirely novel feature in discussing the history of games; fifthly, a discussion of the results of the analysis of the rhymes so far as the different versions allow; and sixthly, an attempt to deduce from the evidence thus collected suggestions as to the probable origin of the game, together with such references to early authorities and other facts bearing upon the subject as help to elucidate the views expressed. Where the method of playing the game is involved, or where there are several changes in the forms, diagrams or illustrations, which have been drawn by Mr. J. P. Emslie, are inserted in order to assist the reader to understand the different actions, and in one or two instances I have been able to give a facsimile reproduction of representations of the games from early MSS. in the Bodleian and British Museum Libraries. (Gomme, 1894)

Working in the same period, Marianne Mason (1845–​1932) published a single volume of folksongs Nursery Rhymes and Country Songs: Both Words and Tunes from Tradition (1878), in which she documented fifty-​eight songs learned from family members including her mother and grandmother, and from nurses and servants known to her in her daily life. This focus on domestic rather than expeditionary collection (Graebe, 2014), as well as the clear focus on children’s musical cultures announced in the title, might be contributing factors in the relative obscurity of her work (Roud, 2017). Aspects of children’s musical cultures were also captured in the work of British and European late nineteenth-​and early twentieth-​century composers, ethnomusicologists, and folklorists such as Cecil Sharp and Béla Bartók. Sharp’s championing of English folk song led to a collaboration with Sabine Baring-​Gould to produce English Folk-​Songs for Schools (Baring-​Gould & Sharp, 1906), a collection of folk songs for children rather than by children. Bartok drew on the hundreds of folk songs he collected over the course of

108   Barrett his life, both preserving that material and drawing on it in his own compositional work. Broadening the range of collectors of children’s culture, in 1916 British writer and novelist Norman Douglas, motivated by a preservationist ethos and alarmed at the loss of aspects of “traditional” culture, published London Street Games. In the dedication of the book (to his friend L. K.), Douglas describes the work as “This breathless catalogue,” a reference perhaps to the vernacular narrative voice employed throughout. While there is some reference throughout to songs, the volume only incorporates the texts rather than the musical content. Similar endeavors to those outlined above were undertaken in the United States with folklorist William Wells Newell (1839–​1907) publishing Games and Songs of American Children in 1884. Asking “Who are the folklorists of childhood?,” Grider (1999, p. 13) acknowledges the importance of the “monumental studies” undertaken by Gomme and Newell in the UK and United States respectively, but notes that they were by no means the first. She continues: The predecessors included Joseph Strutt, Sports and Pastimes of the People of England (1801); Robert Chambers, Popular Rhymes of Scotland (1826); James Halliwell, The Nursery Rhymes of England (1842) and Popular Rhymes and Nursery Tales (1849); and G. F. Northall, English Folk-​Rhymes (1892). Consistent with the late-​Victorian interest in collecting and organizing novelties was the 1897 publication of Golspie: Contributions to its Folklore by Edward WB Nicholson, librarian of the Bodleian at Oxford. Nicholson asked Scottish schoolchildren to write down descriptions of their traditional lore and awarded prizes for the best essays. These essays are the basis of the book, and the names of the seven young prizewinners are listed as coauthors. (Grider, 1999, p. 13)

Dorothy Gray Mills Howard (1902–​1996) was introduced to both Newell’s and Gomme’s work3 (Rosenberg, 2007–​2008), and completed a doctoral dissertation at New York University in 1938 on the topic Folk Jingles of American Children: A Collection and Study of Rhymes Used by Children Today. The study drew on her fieldwork with school children while working as a teacher, and contributions from colleagues and children across the United States. D. Howard’s work with children as research contributors (as well as drawing on adult recollections of children’s culture) was an innovation that advanced the study of children’s folklore (Sutton-​Smith et al., 1999) and functioned as a precursor to the work of influential child folklorists Iona and Peter Opie. In 1959, D. Howard was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to visit Australia to record children’s games and songs and visited schools and playgrounds across the country in that endeavor (Factor & Darien-​Smith, 2005). Her findings are documented in articles in journals such as Western Folklore (1958a, 1958b), Midwest Folklore (1959), New York Folklore Quarterly (1960), and Keystone Quarterly (1965). In the 1950s, Iona Opie (1923–​2017) and Peter Opie (1918–​1982) embarked on what has been described as one of the first “Citizen Science” projects (Barnes, 2014). Drawing on a combination of methods trialed by Nicholson (see above) and D. Howard, they

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    109 focused on the collection of children’s living play-​culture in partnership with children. The Opies published their findings in a series of seminal texts commencing with The Lore and Language of School-​children (1959) followed by Children’s Games in Street and Playground (1969), The Singing Game (1985), and Children’s Games with Things (1997). Working by herself, Iona Opie published The People in the Playground in 1993. Working in the United States, members of the Lomax family including John A. Lomax (1867–​1945), son Alan Lomax (1915–​2002), and daughter Beth Lomax Hawes (1921–​2009) made significant contributions to the archives of children’s musical culture through the collection of field recordings of children’s songs and games over the decades from the 1930s to the 1980s. While generated through the lens of folklore studies, many of these recordings, located in the Library of Congress and the Association for Cultural Equity in New York, inform music education practice through projects such as The American Folk Song Collection housed at the Kodály Center at Holy Names University (http://​kod​aly.hnu.edu/​index.cfm). The project provides publicly accessible digital transcriptions of children’s songs with accompanying analysis and in some cases original recordings. Members of the Lomax family published collections of songs from their fieldwork, some of which included children’s songs, which have also been drawn on by music educators as material for curriculum practice. Beth Lomax Hawes in particular worked in collaboration with noted gospel and folk singer Bessie Jones to document the songs, games, plays, and stories of Afro-​American children (Jones & Lomax Hawes, 1972). The research outlined above traces interest and research in children’s musical cultures through the lens of children’s folklore. In the second half of the twentieth century, ethnomusicologists and music educators have also focused on the investigation of children’s musical cultures. John Blacking’s study of the musical cultures of Venda Children’s Songs (1967) presented a collection of some fifty-​six songs classified variously into categories such as: songs and jingles to be sung during the day; action songs for girls; songs for nursing babies; action songs for girls and boys; counting songs for boys and girls; songs of mockery for boys; songs of mockery for girls; and songs that are passed on. Blacking’s work provided a cultural analysis of the songs, including an examination of the social function and meaning of children’s songs, which informed his subsequent questioning of the tenets of Western musicological theory and analysis (see How Musical Is Man? published in 1973). Patricia Campbell’s investigation of children’s singing and song-​making drew on ethnomusicological research methods to document “the quality of children’s natural musical selves in their somewhat unadulterated (although not unabridged) forms, as a means of developing a more meaningful musical (and general) education for them” (1998/​2010, p. 15). As with Blacking’s work, Campbell’s focus was not only on the song materials themselves but also on the meanings of these for children and their uses in their lives. Reflecting on a “lifetime in the playground” in the inaugural address to “The State of Play” conference at the University of Sheffield in 1998 (Opie, 2014), Iona Opie comments

110   Barrett on the frequently mentioned view that children’s culture is in decline and in danger of disappearing: One of the things I tried to do in Games with Things was to trace this belief back as far as possible. Samuel Pepys was sure that boys did not amuse themselves in the way he used to as a boy. In the nineteenth century, one thing after another was blamed for the disappearance of children’s games. It was the national schools, the railways, the cinema, the gramophone, motoring. Then, in this century, the standardisation of life, television, pop music. More recently, since early in this decade, teachers have simply stated, “Children appear to have lost the art of playing games.” (Opie, I., 2014, p. 6, para. 1)

Recent scholarship in the field such as Katherine Marsh’s (2008) seminal work documenting tradition and change in children’s playground musical practices has demonstrated not only that children’s games have not disappeared but also that children are active agents in adopting and adapting playground songs and games to their own contexts and needs. In doing so they draw on elements of popular culture, modifying musical structures, words, and rules, and uses of these materials. In further support of the currency and longevity of children’s adaptive play a recent AHRC funded project in the UK has digitized and analyzed the recordings the Opies made during the 1970s and 1980s (Burn & Richard 2014; Jopson, Burn, & Robinson, 2013; British Library, 2019). This re-​examination of the Opies’ work coupled with contemporary ethnographic studies of children’s playground games and online games behaviors attests to the enduring nature and continuing invention of children’s play practices.

Children as Musical Culture Makers: Contributions to Intangible Cultural Heritage Contemporary interest in children’s culture is evidenced in the emergence of Museums of Childhood where the intent is not only an induction into museum culture as preparation for a lifelong engagement with these institutions, but also to deepen understanding and interpret the theory and practice of childhood cultures across time and place. The Young V&A in Bethnal Green in London, the Museum of Childhood in Edinburgh, and the National Trust maintained Museum of Childhood at Sudbury, all located in the UK, are perhaps the best known of these institutions. The focus of these institutions tends to be on the tangible objects of childhood, with the intangible heritage of children’s cultures receiving less attention. The scholarship that has revisited the Opies’ work (see above) constitutes perhaps the most significant investigation of the intangible heritage

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    111 of children’s culture including their songs, rhymes, and games now available as a digital resource through the British Library (see http://​www.bl.uk/​playti​mes). A growing interest in children’s musical cultures specifically is evidenced in publications such as the Oxford Handbook of Children’s Musical Cultures (Campbell & Wiggins, 2012), which provides historical and global perspectives on the nature of musical childhoods, and the role of music in education and development. The chapters focus largely on music-​making in the formal and informal institutional settings of school and community such as childcare and preschool settings. While children’s musical experiences in the home have received recent attention, much of this work has tended to focus on the music-​making of school-​aged children (see, e.g., Ilari & Young, 2016, where the focus is on seven-​year-​olds). This may be attributed in part to the difficulties of access to the home-​based music-​making of infants and younger children. A growing body of work addresses this gap through employing participatory research techniques with children and their families from birth to school age (see Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2016, 2017, 2019a, 2019b, and below). Work in the sociology of childhood (2005) emphasizes children’s roles as creators of culture as well as consumers. Children form their own understandings of the world through their interactions with the intersecting communities in which they live. Not least of these is the peer community of children’s culture where children not only transmit culture to others, but are also involved in acts of individual and co-​creation, a process that Corsaro describes as “interpretive re-​production” (2005). Through these processes, children appropriate information from adult interactions and adapt this to produce and participate in their interactions with others including adults and children.

Children’s Invented Song-​Making as Intangible Cultural Heritage Children’s agency and capacity as culture bearers and culture makers is evidenced, I suggest, from their earliest musical endeavors as infants and young children. The practices of infant-​directed speech and song, also known as “motherese” or “parentese,” draw on musical elements in their rhythmic turn-​taking and use of melodic prosody. These instances of improvisatory musical turn-​taking between infant and carer are ubiquitous elements of caregiving across cultures (Trehub, Becker, & Morley, 2015). While these may be viewed as carer-​initiated, Dissanayake suggests that children “teach us to perform for them” (2012, p. 2) through their delighted reception of and contribution to such interchanges. Infants are not only exercising agency in musical turn-​taking in these early interchanges, but they are also laying down the foundations for lifelong engagement in and through musical worlds. A series of ecologically valid investigations of young children’s invented song-​making in the home (Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2016, 2017, 2019a, 2019b) have provided insights into the ways in which infants and young children build on these early joint

112   Barrett experiences of music-​making to engage in independent invented song-​making. These investigations have drawn on parent-​generated video footage of young children’s music-​ making in the home to illustrate the ways in which children appropriate and adapt the materials of their musical worlds to create original songs. Defined as a “genre of children’s early song-​making that is generative in intention, draws on the musical materials of the child’s cultural experience, and is used as a means to engage with and make sense of their worlds” (Barrett, 2019a, p. 475), children’s invented song-​making is used for a range of purposes including exploring different ways of being in the world with self and others (Barrett 2006, 2009) and undertaking identity work (Barrett 2011, 2012a, 2012b). While it may be argued that infants and young children are subject to the musical preferences of their parents and carers as they have very little direct purchasing power, they are capable of making their preferences known through delighted reception or clear disengagement from the musical practices that surround them (Forrester, 2010). Arguably, as culture is increasingly digitized, children’s capacity to access a vast array of cultural possibilities may be opened up through parent subscription to digital content through streaming services which children access through devices such as iPads, tablets, and smartphones. Implicit in recognizing that even very young children are capable of making choices, indicating preferences and dislikes, and responding with their own variants of the musics they access, is acknowledgment of children’s musical agency as culture-​makers. In thinking of such work as cultural contribution children’s musical cultures may be viewed not only as sites for preservation, as evidenced in the museum cultures referred to above, but also crucially, as sites for generation and renewal of cultural practices. Alivizatou challenges the preservationist and salvage ethos that underpins much work in the tangible and intangible cultural heritage sector, suggesting that “intangible heritage work focuses on . . . creative engagement with the past in a present; a past that is manifested in cultural practices and revived traditions that reflect contemporary identities” (2013, p. 18). She continues, “Intangible heritage emerges therefore not as the subject of archives that needs to be written down and preserved for an indefinite future but rather as cultural practices that are renegotiated by practising communities” (2013, p. 18).

The Sustainable Development of Children’s Musical Cultures as Intangible Cultural Heritage: Implications for Policy and Practice Schippers and Grant identify a cluster of forces that impact upon the sustainability of music cultures across the globe, maintaining that “Technological developments,

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    113 infrastructural challenges, socioeconomic change, failing educational systems, and loss of prestige constitute additional reasons (beyond the active disappearance of some musical cultures) for the decline of certain music practices” (2016, p. 3). To mitigate these factors in sustaining musical futures for multiple styles and genres of music they suggest that “there is a need for music practices to be examined within their contemporary global context, in close collaboration with the communities themselves. This benefits not only their histories and ‘authentic’ practices but also their dynamics and potential for recontextualization in contemporary settings, which includes considering new musical realities, changing values and attitudes, and political and market forces” (2016, p. 3). I suggest that the domain of children’s musical cultures is no less susceptible to a cluster of forces that impact the sustainability of child-​initiated playful musical practices. Risk factors for the sustainable practice of children’s music-​making might include: • A pushed down curriculum that marginalizes music education and playful engagement in music-​making in children’s early learning and care; • A growing emphasis in school systems internationally in preparing children for testing regimes that aim to identify the effectiveness of schooling as preparation for the world of work; • A proliferation of commercial music toys, products, and programs that do not foster and promote open-​ended play opportunities; • A global fascination with the public performance of “talent” as the hallmark of music identity and engagement, for example through the proliferation of programs such as The Voice (insert country), (insert country)’s Got Talent, and the X-​Factor. The challenge lies in not objectifying the practices and events of children’s expressive lifeworlds; rather it is to hold the ineffable, the expressive, and the elusory in ways that acknowledge beliefs, values, and uses of these practices in children’s expressive lifeworlds, and to hold faith in the resilience of children’s engagement in music. A further challenge lies in resisting the consumerism that seeks to commodify the experience of childhood as a financial venture and a means of ensnaring parents and carers into continuous investment in new programs, products, experiences, as an element of their parenting and care. We are less concerned with what children’s musical culture is than with what it does in the lives of children, their families, and communities. Children’s musical cultures are in constant transition. They are informed by the musical practices of the communities in which they live, including those of the family, childcare, the playgroup, the community, the church, and the music media worlds that enfold all of these (from family member playlists to child targeted commercial products such as media presentations of children entertainment groups). These differ from child to child, from family to family. As such, it can be difficult to identify what is to be “sustained” from these cultures. At one level it may be specific song repertoires in specific genres such as lullabies, finger-​plays, counting songs, and play songs that are passed from generation to generation and community to community. At another level it may

114   Barrett be the musical practice in family and community that supports children’s endeavors in music-​making through the provision of materials and opportunities to engage in child-​initiated, child-​directed, open-​ended, musical invention and play. In sustaining this second understanding, the identification of the environmental factors that support children’s musical invention and play becomes crucial. Recognition of children’s musical practice as a valid and valuable form of learning and play is perhaps the first factor that needs to be taken into consideration. Preservation tends to focus on the objects and events, the artifacts that emerge from and through cultural engagement and practice. A sustainability ethos prompts us to move beyond preservation to consider how we maintain “the activities of performance and creation that define artistic practice” (2012, p. 5) and the meanings, values, and beliefs that the practitioners attach to the practice. While some would argue that young children are unable to identify and articulate meanings, values, and beliefs about music due to their less developed linguistic skills, their intentions may be inferred from careful observation of their musical behaviours in cultural context.

Concluding Remarks In seeking to reframe children’s invented song and music-​making as a cultural practice and an element of the world’s intangible cultural heritage, I am aware that I am engaging in a value-​added process (Kirshenblatt-​Gimblett, 2004, p. 145). As Bendix reminds us, “From the warp and weft of habitual practices and everyday experiences actors choose privileged excerpts and imbue them with a status and value. Motivations and goals may differ, but the effort to ennoble remains the same” (2009, p. 255). Recent research demonstrates that childcare educators (Barrett et al., 2019a) and parents (Barrett & Welch, 2020) alike hold high values for music in their children’s lives regardless of their own prior experience. Given this strong support of music in children’s learning and life, how is it that for so many children in early learning environments music is not a common experience? I am led to wonder whether the specialization of music as the province of the “talented” has disenfranchised many from viewing themselves as musical and capable of participating in active music-​making. In recognizing children’s own music-​making as active participation in culture-​making and culture-​ sharing, we might open up opportunity for more to view themselves as musical and culturally competent. Key to that endeavor is the re-​framing of musical and cultural competence as a developing capacity for all rather than an expert capacity for a few. As Andrew and Fane remind us: To be culturally competent is not to know everything, and certainly not to be an expert in the lives of others. Instead it is about having an open attitude, knowing enough about what you don’t know to ask the right questions, of children, of family members and of colleagues, so that you can work with them effectively. We firmly

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    115 believe that culturally competent and respectful educators are the key to an effective, meaningful and vibrant early childhood sector, and one which has the wellbeing of all children at its heart. (Andrew & Fane, 2018, p. 20)

Notes 1. The convention came into force in 2006. As of 2023 Australia, the UK, and the United States are yet to sign the convention. 2. For other historical accounts in music see Campbell, 2010; Campbell and Wiggins 2012; McCarthy, 2010. 3. In 1964 Howard wrote the introduction to the Dover edition of Gomme’s Traditional Games of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

References Alanen, L. (1988). Rethinking childhood. Acta Sociologica, 31(1), 53–​67. Andrew, Y., & Fane, J. (2018). The sociology of early childhood: Young children’s lives and worlds. London: Routledge. Baring-​Gould, S., & Sharp, C. (1906). English folk-​songs for schools. London: Methuen. Barnes, P. (2014). Iona Opie: Distant relations and “the kindness of friends.” International Journal of Play, 3(3), 316–​320. doi: 10.1080/​21594937.2014.976029 Barrett, M. S. (2003). “Meme engineers”: Children as producers of musical culture. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(3), 195–​212. Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The “genesis” of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–​220. Barrett, M. S. (2009). Sounding lives in and through music: A narrative inquiry of the “everyday” musical engagement of a young child. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7(2), 115–​134. Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. Barrett, M. S. (2012a). Mutuality, belonging and meaning-​making: Pathways to developing young boys’ competence and creativity in singing and song-​making. In S. Harrison, G. F. Welch, & A. Adler (Eds.), Perspectives on males and singing (pp. 167–​187). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Barrett, M. S. (2012b). Preparing the mind for musical creativity: Early music learning and engagement. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 51–​7 1). Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Barrett, M. S. (2016). Attending to “culture in the small”: A narrative analysis of the role of play, thought, and music in young children’s world-​making. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 41–​54. Barrett, M. S. (2017). From small stories: Laying the foundations for narrative identities in and through music. In R. MacDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2019a). Singing and invented song-​making in infants’ and young children’s early learning and development: From shared to independent song-​making. In G. F. Welch, D.

116   Barrett Howard, & J. Nix (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of singing (pp. 471–​487). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barrett, M. S. (2019b). Playing in and through the musical worlds of children. In S. Alcock & N. Stobbs (Eds.), Re-​thinking play as pedagogy (pp. 33–​46). New York: Routledge. Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L. M., Brown, J. E., & Welch, G. F. (2019a). Beliefs and values about music in early childhood education and care: Perspectives from practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 724. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2019.00724 Barrett, M. S., & Welch, G. F. (2020). Music early learning programs: Enduring outcomes for children and their families. Psychology of Music, 49(5), 1226–​1241. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3562​0944​232 Barrett, M. S., Zhukov, K., & Welch, G. F. (2019b). Strengthening music provision in early childhood education: A collaborative self-​development approach to music mentoring for generalist teachers. Music Education Research, 21(5), 529–​548. Bendix, R. (2009). Heritage between economy and politics: An assessment from the perspective of cultural anthropology. In L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 253–​269). London: Routledge. Blacking, J. (1967). Venda children’s songs: A study in ethnomusicological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blacking, J. (1973). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. British Library. (2019). Playtimes. http://​www.bl.uk/​playti​mes accessed September 30, 2019. Brookshaw, S. (2016). Personalisation and playlore: Intangible cultural heritage and childhood history in museums. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 10(2), 1–​10. Burn, A., & Richards, C. (Eds.). (2014). Children’s games in the new media age: Childlore, media and the playground. London: Routledge. Campbell, P. (1998/​2010). Song in their heads: Music and its meanings in children’s lives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P., & Wiggins, T. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. Corsaro, W. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Cunningham, H. (2006). The invention of childhood. London: BBC. Dissanayake, E. (2012). The earliest narratives were musical. Research in Music Education, 34(1), 3–​14. Douglas, N. (1916). London street games. London: St. Catherine Press. James, A., & Prout, A. (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London: Falmer Press. Jopson, L., Burn, A., & Robinson, J. (2013). The Opie recordings: What’s left to be heard? In A. Burn & C. Richards (Eds.), Children’s games in the new media age: Childlore, Media and the Playground. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Factor, J. (2011). The heritage of Australian children’s play and oral tradition. In G. Seal & J. Gall (Eds.), Antipodean traditions: Australian folklore in the 20th century (pp. 30–​39). San Francisco: Black Swan Press. Factor, J., & Darien-​Smith, K. (Eds.). (2005). Child’s play: Dorothy Howard and the folklore of Australian children. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Museum Victoria. Forrester, M. A. (2010). Emerging musicality during the pre-​school years: A case study of one child. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 131–​158. doi: 10.1177/​0305735609339452 Gabriel, N. (2017). The sociology of early childhood: Critical perspectives. http://​dx.doi.org. ezpr​oxy.libr​ary.uq.edu.au/​10.4135/​978147​3982​918.n1 Accessed May 27, 2019.

Intangible Heritage of Children’s Music    117 Gomme, A. B. (1964, 1894/​1898). The traditional games of England, Scotland and Ireland: With tunes, singing-​rhymes, and methods of playing according to the variants extant and recorded in different parts of the Kingdom. Mineola, NY: Dover. Graebe, M. (2014). Old songs and sugar mice: The story of the remarkable Miss Mason. Folk Music Journal, 10(4), 449–​477. Grant, C. (2016). Music sustainability: Strategies and interventions. In H. Schippers & C. Grant (Eds.), Sustainable futures for music cultures: An ecological perspective (pp. 1–​27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/​acprof:oso/​9780190259075.003.0002 Grider, S. A. (1999). Who are the folklorists of childhood? In B. Sutton-​Smith, J. Mechling, T. W. Johnson, & F. R. McMahon (Eds.), Children’s folklore: A source book (pp. 1–​18). Logan: Utah State University Press. Hanson, B. (2017). Aging musically: Tangible sites of intangible cultural heritage. In M. L. Stefano & P. Davis (Eds.), The Routledge companion to Intangible cultural heritage (pp. 135–​ 151). London: Routledge. Howard, D. (1958a). Australian “hoppy” (hopscotch). Western Folklore, 17(3), 163–​175. Howard, D. (1958b). The game of “knucklebones” in Australia. Western Folklore, 17(1), 34–​44. Howard, D. (1959). Ball bouncing customs and rhymes in Australia. Midwest Folklore, 9(2), 77–​87. Howard, D. (1960). Counting-​out customs of Australian children. New York Folklore Quarterly, 16(2), 131–​144. Howard, D. (1965). Folklore of Australian children. Keystone Folklore Quarterly, 10(3), 99–​115. Howard, K. (Ed.). (2012). Music as intangible cultural heritage: Policy, ideology, and practice in the preservation of East Asian traditions. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Ilari, B., & Young, S. (Eds.). (2016). Children’s home musical experiences across the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jones, B., & Lomax Hawes, B. (1972). Step it down: Games, plays, songs, and stories from the Afro-​American heritage. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Kirshenblatt-​Gimblett, B. (2004). Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum International, 56(1–​2), 52–​65. Leander-​Elliott, L., & Trimboli, D. (2013). Government and intangible heritage in Australia. In M. L. Stefano, P. Davis, & G. Corsane (Eds.), Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (pp. 111–​124). Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global traditions and changes in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. Mason, M. H. (1878/​1908). Nursery rhymes and country songs: Both words and tunes from tradition. N.p.: Metzler. McCarthy, M. (2010) Researching children’s musical culture: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Music Education Research, 12(1), 1–​12. doi: 10.1080/​14613800903569245 Newell, W. W. (1884). Games and songs of American children. New York: Harper & Brothers. Accessed June 4, 2019 from https://​arch​ive.org/​deta​ils/​gamesa​ndso​ngsa​m01n​eweg​oog/​page/​n8 Opie, I. (1993). The people in the playground. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Opie, I. (2014). A lifetime in the playground (inaugural address to ‘The State of Play’ conference, University of Sheffield, 1998). International Journal of Play, 3(3), 198–​204. doi: 10.1080/​ 21594937.2014.977520

118   Barrett Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1959). The lore and language of school children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1969). Children’s games in street and playground. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1985). The singing game. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1997). Children’s games with things. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rees, H. (2012). Intangible cultural heritage in China today: Policy and practice in the early twenty-​first century. In K. Howard (Ed.), Music as intangible cultural heritage: Policy, ideology, and practice in the preservation of East Asian traditions (pp. 23–​54). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Rosenberg, J. (2007–​2008). An eclectic schoolteacher: Dorothy Howard as applied folklorist. Children’s Folklore Review, 30, 61–​68. Roud, S. (2017). Folk song in England. London: Faber & Faber. Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schippers, H. (2016). Sound Futures: Exploring the ecology of music sustainability. In H. Schippers & C. Grant (Eds.), Sustainable futures for music cultures: An ecological perspective (pp. 1–​18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/​acprof:oso/​9780190259075.003.0001 Stefano, M. L., Davis, P., & Corsane, G. (2013). Touching the intangible: An introduction. In M. L. Stefano, P. Davis, & G. Corsane (Eds.), Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (pp. 1–​6). Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Sutton-​Smith, B., Mechling, J., Johnson, T. W., & McMahon, F. R. (1999). Children’s folklore: A source book. Logan: Utah State University Press. Trehub, S. E., Becker, J. & Morley, I. (2015). Cross-​cultural perspectives on music and musicality. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B 370: 20140096. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1098/​ rstb.2014.0096 (accessed July 11, 2019). UNESCO (2003). Convention for the safe-​guarding of intangible cultural heritage. https://​ich. une​sco.org/​en/​con​vent​ion (accessed May 2, 2019).

Further Reading The sites below provide collections of traditional songs, including children’s songs: The American Folk Song Collection: http://​kod​aly.hnu.edu/​col​lect​ion.cfm. Housed at the Kodaly Center, Holy Names University, Oakland, California. The Australian Children’s Folklore Collection: https://​coll​ecti​ons.mus​eumv​icto​ria.com.au/​ artic​les/​24. Housed at Museums Victoria Collections, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The Opie Archive: https://​www.opie​arch​ive.org/​. A collaboration between the University of Sheffield and University College London, the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford, the Folklore Society and the British Library, published by the Digital Humanities Institute and funded by a British Academy Research Project.

Chapter 8

Researching Mu si c Early Learni ng a nd Devel op me nt Mapping Methods and Techniques, Locations, Problems, and Theories Margaret S. Barrett, Vicky Abad, and Graham F. Welch

Introduction In the opening chapter of the International Handbook of Early Childhood Education (Fleer & Oers, 2018), the editors ask: 1. What are the key problems that are being researched within the field of early childhood education? 2. What are the dominant methodological approaches and methods for researching children’s learning and development? 3. What theories are being used to guide research and conceptualize children’s learning and development? (Fleer & Oers, 2018, Section 1.2, para 3) The editors identify a number of dominant themes in contemporary research, including the “schoolification” of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), and the concomitant move toward the professionalization of the ECEC workforce. They argue that the schoolification of ECEC has placed an emphasis on research that examines pedagogical practice within a framework of schooling as socialization, leading to a focus on “adult guidance and enhanced peer interaction” (2018, Section 3, para 3). These research foci respond to “the policy changes for starting school earlier, and the need by

120    Barrett, Abad, & Welch governments to show academic outcomes for the increased investments made in early childhood education” (2018, Section 3, para 3). In England, for example, “schoolification” pressure has resulted in the proposed introduction of a Reception Baseline Assessment for all four-​year-​olds during their first few weeks in school. This has been fiercely opposed by the vast majority of professionals (ECEC teachers and researchers) and parents, not least because of a perceived mismatch between the proposed subject-​based assessment and young children’s basic emotional and cognitive needs (Pascal et al., 2019; Roberts-​Holmes et al., 2020; Wood, 2019). It should not be a surprise, therefore, to discover that the most recent European Commission’s Eurydice overview of ECEC provision in Europe found that relatively few countries outside the Nordic group systematically involve young children in their internal evaluations of ECEC quality; the majority of systems are designed to be top-​down in both conception and delivery (European Commission/​EACEA/​Eurydice, 2019). Fleer and Oers (2018) also identify a key difference in the ways in which research into the professionalisation of the ECEC workforce is being undertaken. In mainland Europe and the UK, the focus has been on introducing pedagogical content and strategies that meet an increasingly academic downward pressure—​the aforementioned schoolification of ECEC. By contrast, in the Asia region, the task has been to introduce creative “play-​based learning” in early years systems that, customarily, have been more academically oriented. Fleer and Oers argue that such a formalization of a play-​based curriculum requires investment in professional learning and development programs. Furthermore, as children are attending formal schooling at increasingly younger ages, there is a need for them to be “trained” to comply with the more formal teaching and learning practices of an academic-​focused system. Accordingly, there has been an increase in research that addresses self-​regulation and emotional development in schooling contexts (cf. Montroy et al., 2016). Key to this particular strand of work is a growing interest in, and emphasis on, teaching practices that employ music as a means to promote the development of executive functions (Bowmer et al., 2018) and emotional regulation (Williams, 2018). Fleer and Oers (2018) make a point that, in Eastern Europe, play-​based curricula have been commonplace—​with a crucial distinction between Eastern and Western European/​UK approaches being a focus “on the development of play itself . . . and . . . how the leading activity of play becomes the leading activity for learning” (2018, Section 1.3 para 5). These two contrasting perspectives—​on the one hand—​give rise to a research agenda that seeks to induct the child into institutionally appropriate practices, and—​on the other—​seeks to understand the development of a child’s “personality–​motive development, role of family, social context of development, emotional development and the study of children’s play” (2018, Table 1.3). While play-​based curricula have had some attention within the Australian context, analysis of recent research suggests that Australian research has prioritized diversity, with a resultant aim to generate research that is specific to community (Fleer & Oers, 2018). Diversity research themes identified in the Australian context include “social justice, disadvantage and inclusion . . . play, leadership and policy, professionalism,

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    121 transitions to school, literacy and emotion regulation” (2018, Section 3, para 11). This emphasis on diversity reflects the history of multiculturalism in Australia and the pressing need to address Indigenous education disadvantage (Gillan, Mellor, & Krakouer, 2017). While music education is not a prime focus of this handbook, a number of tensions may be identified in researchers’ conceptions of the purposes of the arts in general and music specifically in early childhood education. These include arts and music education as a form of cultural transmission (China) rather than a site for play-​based cultural creation (Australia). Questions are raised in relation to where educational opportunities for children are offered and the potential for the amplification of education disadvantage through practices that favor those who can afford additional opportunities. As an example, Lim writes of the “shadow education system” of independent commercial operators in Singapore who provide non-​compulsory preschool education and after-​ school tuition and coaching across a range of subject areas (2018, 653). Music is no exception to this practice, with a plethora of independent music tuition providers across the span of early childhood education (Abad & Barrett, 2016, 2020). The above introduction represents an overview of some of the key general research issues arising in ECEC. These provide the backdrop to our mapping of major concerns and approaches to research in early years music education. In the following section, we outline our approach to the mapping of contemporary music education research.

Our Approach: Toward a Global Overview We adapted the methods and techniques of a systematic literature review in order to identify the key problems currently being investigated in music early learning and development. This included research methodologies, methods and techniques, as well as predominant geographical locations. Systematic reviews as a research strategy have emerged from “evidence-​based” healthcare, with the aim of assessing the effectiveness of interventions researched through RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) (Schulz & Grimes, 2002). Generally, these kinds of reviews have a single focus (Does this intervention work?), thus providing—​through that lens and the application of exclusion criteria—​a narrowed field of investigation. In our case, rather than having a single research question, our investigation has been designed to encompass four dimensions of inquiry: What research methods and techniques are employed? In what locations? What key problems are being investigated? Underpinned by which theories? Accordingly, we sought to develop a global overview approach in order to allow a “bigger picture” to emerge from large quantities of data that could then be interrogated to identify emerging patterns and trends. Such an approach included the possibility of similarities and/​or differences in the published research literature that might be pertinent to a geographic

122    Barrett, Abad, & Welch region, adopted methodology, research questions, and population studied. The features of our research approach are outlined below.

Search Strategy We identified sixteen key journals that publish contemporary research and practice in the fields of music psychology (n =​2), music education (n =​8), music therapy (n =​5) and community music (n =​1) (see Table 8.1). One other possible journal (the Changing Face of Music and Arts Education, CFMAE) was not included due to some difficulty in accessing its database at the time. A targeted manual search was undertaken of the tables of contents for each published journal volume from 2000 to 2020. The focus was on music in early childhood settings and populations aged from birth to 8 years.1 For each article that met the age criterion, the abstract was read and notes were taken for inclusion in a composite database. In many instances, the full text of the article was also reviewed if information in the abstract did not provide sufficient information on the key research foci, target population, and related elements, including demographics, Table 8.1 Journal titles included in this review of early childhood music education and research methodologies No.

Journal

Volumes

Years 2010–​2020

1

Psychology of Music

38–​48

2010–​2020

2

Research Studies in Music Education

33–​41

2010–​2020

3

Music Education Research

12–​22

2010–​2020

4

Journal of Research in Music Education

57–​67

2010–​2020

5

British Journal of Music Education

27–​36

2010–​2020

6

International Journal of Community Music

3–​12

2010–​2020

7

International Journal of Music Education

28–​37

2010–​2020

8

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

33–​37

2010–​2020

9

Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education

13–​15

2010–​2020

10

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (no volume numbers listed)

11

Australian Journal of Music Education (no early volume numbers listed; starts at . . .)

50–​52

2010–​2020

12

Nordic Journal of Music Therapy

19–​28

2010–​2020

13

Australian Journal of Music Therapy

24

2010–​2020

14

British Journal of Music Therapy

26–​31

2010–​2020

15

Journal of Music Therapy

47–​56

2010–​2020

16

Music Therapy Perspectives

29–​38

2010–​2020

2010–​2020

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    123 research methodology, research questions, theoretical framework, and the geographical location of the research. A total of 1,308 articles were identified that related to childhood, of which n =​507 embraced the target age group 0–​8 years, and n =​801 for the 9–​14 years age group. In order to provide specific answers to our chapter’s four research dimensions, the search was narrowed to focus on publications over the last decade (2010–​2020) and only for the early childhood (0–​8 years) target population. This resulted in the identification of n =​323 articles from sixteen journals. A further refinement was to focus on original research articles only, and not literature reviews or theoretical papers, thus reducing the overall number to n =​244 articles. Finally, articles that then spanned an age range that began under eight years but extended into the adolescent years were also removed, reducing the number further to a final group of n =​231.

Data Extraction Once the final list of articles was identified, data were extracted using the four focus dimensions (What research methods and techniques are employed? In what locations? What key problems are being investigated? Underpinned by which theories?). Fields were set up to capture data that would generate concise answers to these questions. To populate the fields, each article was read, scrutinized, and its data extracted to generate appropriate answers. In some cases, the information that we sought was not explicit and so had to be surmised. For example, an article may not have reported a “research question” as such, but it was possible to infer this from its narrative concerning the reported aims of the research, or an underlying hypothesis. In some instances, the locus of research was not clearly indicated and assumptions had to be made based on the available information in the article. For example, if the article reported music-​related data arising from a school-​based program, this was assumed to have been conducted at a school in a classroom/​music room scenario. Within the time constraints of the research process, it was not possible to contact authors to clarify or verify information that was missing, so we relied on our professional judgment in interpreting the narratives against our four themes.

Findings Research Methodologies in Early Years Music Education and Development As might be expected, there are a diverse range of research methodologies evidenced in the early years music articles that we have reviewed from these selected journals. The

124    Barrett, Abad, & Welch types of methodological approaches are likely to be similar to those found elsewhere in the social sciences (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Robson & McCartan, 2015), being primarily empirical in nature and designed to be as closely related as possible to the phenomena under investigation. Nevertheless, given that “music education” is a disciplinary combination of social sciences (education) and an art form (music), there is a necessary a priori challenge for authors in how to define what might count as “music” and “musical behavior” in relation to young children who are in the earliest phases of physical, psychological, and social development. Similarly, for music psychology, music therapy, and community music journals, early childhood development and learning must be interrogated and a delineation established between “music,” “human behavior,” “early learning,” and (where appropriate) “therapy.” There is also a need to recognize that adult conceptions of what it is to “know” have been challenged in the mainstream early years literature—​that young children should not be seen as mini-​or somehow deficient adults. When applied to the emerging early years and music research field, it is necessary to understand and celebrate the ways in which infants, toddlers, and young children engage with and make sense of their sound worlds, including sounds that might be construed—​within the cultural context—​as having musical features. Overall, within the n =​231 articles, there is an almost even divide between the broad categories of quantitative (n =​109, 47.2%) and qualitative (n =​107, 46.3%) research approaches. However, there were country differences (see below). Mixed methods represented 6.5% (n =​15). This equal divide remains when we look at a major subset specifically focused on the music psychology, education, and community music journals (n =​178 articles), being quantitative (n =​82, 46%) and qualitative (n =​84, 47%). In addition, there is a small minority that are formally reported as mixed methods (n =​12, 7%) and which draw on these two main traditions (Figure 8.1). For music therapy journals, there was an even closer distribution of quantitative research methods reported (47%, n =​25) and qualitative (47%, n =​25), with a small proportion of articles reporting a mix of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (5.66%, n =​3) (Figure 8.2). Consequently, the ratio of articles between different approaches is virtually identical when all the different types of journals are combined (n =​231 articles, Figure 8.3). Within the broadly quantitative types of research (n =​82 articles, Figure 8.4), approximately two-​thirds (n =​53, 65%) are experimental/​quasi-​experimental in which the research design required the child participants to be grouped and compared in some fashion, such as using a pre-​and post-​music intervention design and/​or a control group. In contrast, a minority used quantitative methods to make some form of numeric assessment of behavioral change (n =​20, 24%), with a much smaller number (n =​9, 11%) having a survey focus. Within the broad sub-​categories of qualitative research (84 articles, Figure 8.5), just over half (n =​45, 54%) of the articles were case studies. Here the research emphasis was more on understanding a particular instance of musical behavior, development, and/​ or change in greater depth. Of the remainder, the next largest group took an approach that was more related to ethnomusicology (musical behavior in context), observation,

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    125

7%

46% 47%

Quantitative research methods Qualitative research methods Mixed methods

Figure 8.1  Main overarching categories of published research related to music and music education in the early years (0–​8 years) (psychology, education, community; n =​178 articles).

6% 47% 47%

Quantitative

Qualitative

Mixed methods

Figure 8.2  Broad categories of research related to music therapy in the early years (0–​8 years) (n =​53 articles).

and, in a few cases, action research (n =​19, 23%). In-​depth interviews related to a survey/​ questionnaire accounted for another minority approach (n =​10, 12%). The remaining studies embraced narrative inquiry (n =​6, 7%), preliminary studies (n =​2, 2%), portraiture (n =​1, 1%), and a thematic analysis based on grounded theory (n =​1, 1%). There are some inherent biases evident, as might be expected, in terms of the perceived stakeholder and audience focus for a particular journal. For example, two

126    Barrett, Abad, & Welch

7% 47% 46%

Quantitative research methods, all journals Qualitative research methods, all journals Mixed methods, all journals

Figure 8.3  Main overarching categories of published research related to music, music education, and music therapy in the early years (0–​8 years) (all journals; n =​231 articles).

11%

24%

5% 51%

9%

Evaluation/ analysis/ assessment Quasi experimental Controlled study Experimental and/or intervention/ evaluation study, including RCT Survey

Figure 8.4  Broad sub-​categories of quantitative research related to music and music education in the early years (0–​8 years) (n =​82 articles).

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    127 3% 19% 38% 1% 2% 5%

29% 3% North America South America UK/Europe Scandinavia Middle East Africa Australasia Multiple countries

Figure 8.5  Broad sub-​categories of qualitative research related to music and music education in the early years (0–​8 years) (n =​84 articles).

longer-​established journals, Psychology of Music and the Journal of Research in Music Education, have strong roots in psychology. These published greater numbers of early years and music articles that employed some form of (quasi-​)experimental approach. This is in contrast to relatively more recent publications, such as Music Education Research, where there is a more even distribution of quantitative and qualitative research studies. Studies using quantitative methods focused on research with some form of “controls,” including pilot and feasibility studies with control and treatment groups as the most common methodology (44%, n =​11). Experimental studies represented 24% (n =​6), and studies that evaluated, analyzed, or assessed a clinical or treatment program represented 32% (n =​8). In terms of qualitative approaches, case studies represented over half (52%, n =​13) of the qualitative methodologies used in the music therapy journal articles that we reviewed. Other methods included grounded theory, phenomenology, and the building of conceptual frameworks (20%, n =​5), as well as feasibility and pilot studies (16%, n =​4), with a small number of other qualitative approaches (12%, n =​3).

Country of Origin for Research in Early Years Music Education and Development In terms of the country of origin of the researcher(s) across all journals, the bulk of the early childhood and music studies were based in three Anglophone countries, the US,

128    Barrett, Abad, & Welch Australia, and the UK. These three countries accounted for over 60% (61.94%, n =​143) of the total number of articles reviewed (n =​231). This is perhaps unsurprising, given that the journals are all published in English. For articles in the music education, psychology, and community music journals, the country of origin of the researcher(s) remained predominately from these same countries, with the US, Australia, and the UK accounting for 60% (n =​106) of the total number of articles reviewed (n =​178). This dominance is also reflected when considering the main global regions where the researchers are located (Figure 8.6). North America is by far the largest grouping, being over one-​third (n =​68, 38% of the total), followed by UK/​Europe (including Scandinavia) representing approximately one-​third (n =​59, 33%) and Australasia one-​fifth (n =​34, 19%). The rest of the world has some representation in this early years music and music education research article database, however—​collectively—​the Middle East, Africa, and South America account for only 6% (n =​11) of the total (Figure 8.6). Again, we caution that this analysis focuses on English-​language publications only, and does not represent the totality of research and publication being undertaken globally. In terms of the types of early years and music research approaches within a region, the overall representation of approximately equal numbers of qualitative and quantitative studies tends to be repeated, such as in the US where there is a relatively even divide between quantitative (n =​32) and qualitative (n =​30) approaches. 1%1%

23%

12% 7%

2%

54%

Portraiture Thematic analysis/grounded theory/phenomenology Interview/survey/questionnaire Narrative inquiry Case study Qualitative preliminary study Ethnomusicology/action research/observation study

Figure 8.6  Regional origins of authors researching music and music education in the early years (0–​8 years) (n =​178 articles).

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    129

4% 21% 43%

0% 7% 6% 15%

4%

North America South America UK/Europe Scandinavia Middle East Africa Australasia Multiple countries

Figure 8.7  Regional origins of authors researching music therapy in the early years (0–​8 years) (n =​53 articles).

For music therapy journals, the country of origin of the researcher(s) was dominated by the US (n =​23). This represents nearly half the articles reviewed (43%) (Figure 8.7). Within this region, almost three-​quarters (73%) of the published articles used quantitative research methods (n =​16). Outside the US, Australasia had the largest number of music therapy articles per region (21%, n =​11), followed by the UK/​Europe (15%, n =​8). Scandinavia represents 6% (n =​3). The Middle East has n =​4 articles (8%), but Africa (0%) was unrepresented. In terms of approaches to music therapy research, unlike the US, other parts of the world tended to be more biased toward qualitative methods (such as the Australasia region, 64%, and the European region, including the UK and Scandinavia, 55%). This dominance continues similarly to the music education, psychology, and community music journals, and is also reflected when considering the main global regions where the researchers are located. North America is by far the largest grouping, being nearly half (n =​23, 45.1% of the total), followed by UK/​Europe including Scandinavia being one-​fifth (20.75% n =​11) and Australasia also representing one-​fifth (n =​11, 20.75%).

Key Problems Investigated in Early Years Music Education and Development and Underpinning Theories As noted above, in a number of instances the information that we sought was not stated explicitly within the article, necessitating the application of our professional judgment

130    Barrett, Abad, & Welch to make inferences from the material available. This was most common in the statement of research questions (often expressed as an aim) and the development of a theoretical (as opposed to practical) rationale for the research. Consequently, in reporting our analysis in relation to what is being investigated, and underpinned by which theories, we present our findings in relation to these together in the following section. In presenting this material, we differentiate between those studies that seek to understand the nature, developmental trajectory, and effectiveness of music education and engagement, and those studies that seek to understand the extra-​musical life and learning outcomes of music engagement. As an example, in the first of these categories we place an investigation of the effectiveness of training programs on young children’s (aged 2–​6 years) capacity to acquire a range of specific music skills and aptitudes, including absolute pitch (Sakakibara, 2014). In the second category, we place those studies that move beyond questions of definition and measurement of musical abilities and skills across ages, stages, or phases of musical development to questions of purpose and function of children’s music-​making, including the nature of interactions with others and children’s purposive use of these (Forrester, 2010; Barrett, 2011). Perhaps reflecting the move towards “schoolification” in Early Childhood Education and Care reported earlier (Fleer & Oers, 2018), many of the key problems investigated focus on the instrumental uses of music.

Instrumental Uses of Music A number of studies largely designed as intervention studies explore the instrumental (=​applied) uses of music in early life and learning, including the impact of music participation on performance in other learning areas, primarily on aspects of language learning, and on socio-​emotional development. Studies addressing the former include investigations of: the effectiveness of music training programs on children’s phonological awareness and naming speed in Spanish (Herrera et al., 2011); the effectiveness of sensorimotor entrainment on young children’s (6–​7 years) cognitive, linguistic, musical, and social skills (Maróti et al., 2019); and the relationship between phonological awareness and music aptitude (Culp, 2017). Studies addressing the effectiveness of music participation, engagement, and training on aspects of socio-​emotional development include: the effectiveness of instrumental music therapy theory and practices to address socio-​emotional behaviors of children with language impairment (Wetherick, 2014); the effectiveness of a rhythm and movement intervention on the self-​regulation skills of preschool-​aged children (4–​5 years) in disadvantaged communities (Williams & Berthelsen, 2020); the effects of a music program on preschool children’s (3–​5 years) executive functions (Bugos & DeMarie, 2017); the effects of musical activities on the self-​esteem of displaced children (6–​8 years) in Colombia (Zapata & Hargreaves, 2018); and the effects of varied amounts of music participation in a formal music program for children (3–​4 years) on prosocial behaviors of instrumental helping and sharing (Ilari, Helfter, & Huynh, T., 2020). A body of research seeks to understand the interrelationships that exist between aspects of music perception, generation, and production, and non-​musical abilities.

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    131 These include studies that identify relationships between music perception and first and foreign language early reading abilities (Gomez-​Dominguez, Fonseca-​Mora, & Machancoses, 2019). The studies identified above focus on populations aged between 3 and 8 years, and have been undertaken largely in preschool and school settings. This reflects perhaps the relative ease of accessing viable study sample sizes of child participants in these settings, in contrast to family and informal community settings. The institutional nature of these settings (preschool and school settings) perhaps focuses this interest in the ways in which music education and engagement may shape other aspects of learning and development. By contrast, studies with very young children (infants to toddlers, birth to 3 years) tended to focus more on the ways in which musical behaviors develop.

Music Learning and Development Studies with very young children (4–​7 months) tend to focus on issues of perception, seeking to identify the nature of infants’ responses to music, including their rhythmic movement response and the relative dominance of auditory-​visual responses (Morgan, Killough, & Thompson, 2013); their spontaneous rhythmic engagement with music versus infant-​directed speech (Ilari, 2015); and their preferences for singing versus spoken stimuli (Costa-​Giomi & Ilari, 2014). Recognizing that music learning and engagement starts in the home with family members for the majority of children, a number of studies explore the nature of the family music environment (Costa-​Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Mehr, 2014), including the family car (Koops, 2014), and transition sites such as the subway (Custodero, Calì, & Diaz-​Donoso, 2016). Parental preferences for music made available to their children (Sulkin & Brodsky, 2015) and parental perceptions are also explored in relation to their motivations in providing music learning and engagement experiences for their children (Liu et al., 2015; Youm, 2013). In a number of studies, the distinction between how music develops and the extra-​musical effects of music education and engagement are somewhat blurred. As an example, the role of parents and carers in children’s early music learning and engagement is also explored through studies of the effects of shared music-​ making on parental health and wellbeing, specifically mothers with symptoms of post-​ natal depression (Fancourt & Perkins, 2019). A body of research investigates the psychosocial factors that facilitate or constrain children’s engagement in formal music education, such as learning instrumental performance, including autonomy and self-​determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Deci et al., 1991). A further body of research investigates the music learning outcomes of engagement in formal music education programs including: young children’s (5–​7 years) singing development (Barrett et al., 2020) and sight-​singing skills (Reifinger, 2012), and preschool children’s musical competencies including tonal discrimination, rhythm repetition, and synchronization skills (Cohrdes, Groling, & Schroeder, 2019). A specific focus of this body of literature is the emergence and developmental trajectory of singing in infants (Reigado & Rodrigues, 2018), toddlers (Gudmundsdottir & Trehub,

132    Barrett, Abad, & Welch 2018), children receiving focused instruction in kindergarten (Demorest Nichols & Pfordresher, 2018), and early childhood school settings (Barrett et al., 2020). While the majority of investigations of the development of music skills and capacities focus on perception and performance, an emerging body of literature addresses children’s generative capacities. These investigations range from studies of young children’s song-​making as crib songs (Sole, 2017), their early sound explorations with objects (Delalande & Cornara, 2010), their reproduction of known songs (Benetti & Costa-​Giomi, 2020), their invented song-​making as toddlers (Barrett, 2011, 2016), and older children’s (6–​7 years) capacity to improvise song endings (Ilari et al., 2018) and engage in creative communities of practice in school settings (Bieneke, 2013). Another strand of investigation has focused on the nature of young children’s musical play, including children’s and teachers’ definitions and descriptions of musical play (Koutsoupidou, 2020), children’s play with sound producing objects (Dansereau, 2015), in school playground settings (Countryman, 2014), their enjoyment in participating in group (Koops, 2017) and solo (Kooistra, 2016) music learning activities, and their interactions with music technologies (Burton & Pearsall, 2016; Brooks, 2015; Lunde Vestad, 2010). We see an emerging research interest in children’s early music-​making (individual and shared) as a social practice (Forrester, 2010) theorized through Malloch and Trevarthen’s conception of communicative musicality (2009). Children’s agency as music-​makers is explored through analysis of their generative music making in family interactions (Forrester, 2010), and individual invented song-​making (Barrett, 2011), pointing to the ways in which infants and young children draw on music as a resource in their identity work (Barrett, 2011, 2016).

Community Music Framework Studies working within a community music theoretical framework have investigated the impacts of music engagement, participation, and training for children and their carers living in challenging circumstances. These include investigations of the impact of music programs and experiences for imprisoned mothers and their babies (Rodrigues et al., 2010), for families with young children living in disadvantage (Bates, 2012; Ilari et al., 2019), for families with young children living with neuro-​diverse conditions (Shiloh & LaGasse, 2014; Hendricks & McPherson, 2010), including deafness (Chen-​Hafteck & Schraer-​Joiner, 2011) and for children living in the foster care system (Humphrey, 2019).

Studies of MELP Programs The proliferation of parent and child Music Early Learning Programs (MELP) for children aged birth to 4 years has given rise to a number of studies seeking parental perceptions of the outcomes of participation for themselves as well as for their children (Rodriguez, 2019; Gudmundsdottir & Gudmundsdottir, 2010; Savage, 2010). These embrace investigations of both the affordances and constraints of these programs in facilitating musical parenting, including critiques of the implied universality of concepts such as musical parenting (Ilari, Moura, & Bourscheidt, 2011; Young, 2017),

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    133 the rationales for such programs (Pitt & Hargreaves, 2017a, 2017b), those factors that support music provision in early childhood settings (Barrett, Flynn, & Welch, 2018), and the nature of that provision (Nyland & Acker, 2012).

Summary and Concluding Remarks Overall findings show that a number of problems are being researched in music early learning and development, through the varying lenses of music education, music therapy, and community music. The focus on the instrumental uses of music in advancing life and learning outcomes reflects, we suggest, an emerging emphasis on early learning as preparation for schooling, as observed by others in the broad field of ECEC (Fleer & Oers, 2018). It is noticeable that those studies seeking to understand the nature of music learning and engagement have moved from the confines of the laboratory to “real-​world” settings. These studies are being conducted with parents, infants (birth to 12 months) and their parents, toddlers (12–​36 months), preschoolers (36–​48 months), and early primary school aged children (48 months and over) in a number of locations, including the homes of the families and children, and community settings including childcare, schools, and laboratories. They are also being conducted with the teachers of children in the early childhood sector in a number of locations including formal, informal, and non-​formal music settings. The studies are being undertaken across the globe with families from a range of social and cultural backgrounds. There are clusters of research studies undertaken in the US and UK, as well as clear representation from Europe, the Middle East, Australasia, and South America. In terms of research methodologies there is an almost even divide between the broad categories of quantitative (n =​109, 47.2%) and qualitative (n =​107, 46.3%) research approaches. Given the focus of this investigation on content analysis of articles in sixteen English-​ language journals, it must be acknowledged that this account provides a partial rather than a comprehensive global view of the state and nature of music in ECEC research. Given this limitation, the research perhaps reports a minority worldview of children’s early learning and development in music and reflects the values—​such as a focus on individualism—​of this worldview. Further investigation is warranted to understand the experience of children and their families across the majority-​world and the implications of these for our understanding of the nature and significance of music in early life and learning.

Note 1. Published research with older child populations, aged 9–​14 years, was also noted in case the content was needed at some point in the future for an expanded review.

134    Barrett, Abad, & Welch

References Abad, V., & Barrett, M. S. (2016). Families and Music Early Learning Programs: Boppin’ Babies. In S. L. Jacobsen & G. Thompson (Eds.), Music therapy with families: Therapeutic approaches and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–​151). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Abad, V., & Barrett, M. S. (2020). Laying the foundations for lifelong family music practices through music early learning programs. Psychology of Music, pp. 1–​21, https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​03057​3562​0937​780 Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​424. Barrett, M. S. (2016). Attending to “culture in the small”: A narrative analysis of the role of play, thought and music in young children’s world-​making. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 41–​54. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​5603​557 Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L. M., & Welch, G. F. (2018). Music value and participation: An Australian case study of music provision and support in Early Childhood Education. Research Studies in Music Education, 40(2), 226–​243. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​8773​098 Barrett, M. S., Zhukov, K., Brown, J. E., & Welch, G. F. (2020). Evaluating the impact of a generalist teacher-​led music program on early childhood school children’s singing skills and attitudes to music. Psychology of Music, 48(1), 120–​136. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​ 8790​355 Bates, C. (2012). A family music project in the north of England: A study of the pedagogical methodologies employed and the outcomes achieved. International Journal of Community Music, 5(2), 131–​146. https://​doi.org/​10.1386/​ijcm.5.2.131_​1 Beineke, V. (2013). Creative learning and communities of practice: Perspectives for music education in the school. International Journal of Community Music, 6(3), 281–​290. https://​doi. org/​10.1386/​ijcm.6.3.281_​1 Benetti, L., & Costa-​Giomi, E. (2020). Infant vocal imitation of music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(4), 381–​398. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​9890​328 Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (2nd ed.). http://​sch​olar​comm​ons.usf.edu/​oa_​te​xtbo​oks/​3 Bowmer, A. R., Mason, K. C., Knight, J., & Welch, G. F. (2018). Investigating the impact of a musical intervention on preschool children’s executive function. Frontiers in Psychology (Developmental Psychology), 9/​2389, 1–​16. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​fpsyg.2018.02389 Brooks, W. L. (2015). Music in infant-​directed digital video discs: A content analysis. Music Education Research, 17(2), 141–​161. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14613​808.2014.886​675 Bugos, J. A., & DrMarie, D. (2017). The effects of a short-​term music program on preschool children’s executive functions. Psychology of Music, 45(6), 855–​867. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3561​7692​666 Burton, S. L., & Pearsall, A. (2016). Music-​based iPad app preferences of young children. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 75–​91. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​6642​630 Chen-​Hafteck, L., & Schraer-​Joiner, L. (2010). The engagement in musical activities of young children with varied hearing abilities. Music Education Research, 13(1), 93–​106. doi: 10.1080/​ 14613808.2011.553279 Cohrdes, C., Grolig, L., & Schroeder, S. (2019). The development of music competencies in preschool children: Effects of a training program and the role of environmental factors. Psychology of Music, 47(3), 358–​375. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​8756​764

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    135 Costa-​Giomi, E., & Benetti, L. (2017). Through a baby’s ears: Musical interactions in a family community. International Journal of Community Music, 10(3), 289–​303. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1386/​ijcm.10.3.289_​1 Costa-​Giomi, E., & Ilari, B. (2014). Infants’ preferential attention to sung and spoken stimuli. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 188–​194. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​ 4530​564 Countryman, J. (2014). Missteps, flaws and morphings in children’s musical play: Snapshots from school playgrounds. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(1), 3–​18. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​13211​03X1​4528​456 Culp, M. E. (2017). The relationship between phonological awareness and music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(3), 328–​346. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​ 7729​655 Custodero, L. A., Calì, C., & Diaz-​Donoso, A. (2016). Music as transitional object and practice: Children’s spontaneous musical behaviors in the subway. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 55–​74. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​5612​248 Dansereau, D. R. (2015). Young children’s interactions with sound-​producing objects. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 28–​46. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​5574​001 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-​determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/​Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–​ 185. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​a0012​801 Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-​determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–​4), 325–​346. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1207/​s153​2698​5ep2​603&4_​6 Delalande, F., & Cornara, S. (2010). Sound explorations from the ages of 10 to 37 months: The ontogenesis of musical conducts. Music Education Research, 12(3), 257–​268. https://​10.1080/​ 14613​808.2010.504​812 Demorest, S., Nichols, B., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2018). The effect of focused instruction on young children’s singing accuracy. Psychology of Music, 46(4), 488–​499. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​03057​3561​7713​120 European Commission/​EACEA/​Eurydice. (2019). Eurydice brief: Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fancourt, D., & Perkins, R. (2019). Does attending community music interventions lead to changes in wider musical behaviours? The effect of mother–​infant singing classes on musical behaviours amongst mothers with symptoms of postnatal depression. Psychology of Music, 47(1), 132–​143. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​7742​197 Fleer, M. & Oers, B. (2018). International trends in research: Redressing the North-​South balance in what matters for early childhood education research. In M. Fleer & B. Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood research (pp 1–​30). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://​doi-​org.ezpr​oxy.libr​ary.uq.edu.au/​10.1007/​978-​94-​024-​0927-​7_​1 Forrester, M. A. (2010). Emerging musicality during the pre-​school years: A case study of one child. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 131–​158. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3560​9339​452 Gillan, K., Mellor, S., & Krakouer, J. (2017). The case for urgency: Advocating for indigenous voice in education. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press. Gomez-​Dominguez, M., Fonseca-​Mora, M. C., & Machancoses, F. H. (2019). First and foreign language early reading abilities: The influence of musical perception. Psychology of Music, 47(2), 213–​224. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​7746​734

136    Barrett, Abad, & Welch Gudmundsdottir, H. R., & Gudmundsdottir, D. R. (2010). Parent–​infant music courses in Iceland: perceived benefits and mental well-​being of mothers. Music Education Research, 12(3), 299–​309. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14613​808.2010.505​644 Gudmundsdottir, H., & Trehub, S. (2018). Adults recognize toddlers’ song renditions. Psychology of Music, 46(2), 281–​291. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​7711​762 Hendricks, K. S., & McPherson, G. E. (2010). Early stages of musical development: Relationships between sensory integration dysfunction, parental influence, and musical disposition of a three-​year-​old ‘maestro.’ International Journal of Music Education, 28(1), 88–​103. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​02557​6140​9351​353 Herrera, L., Lorenzo, O., Defior, S., Fernandez-​Smith, G., & Costa-​Giomi, E. (2011). Effects of phonological and musical training on the reading readiness of native-​and foreign-​Spanish-​ speaking children. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 68–​81. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​0361​995 Humphrey, R. (2019). Music making and the potential impact for a child in foster care. International Journal of Community Music, 12(1), 13–​25. https://​doi.org/​10.1386/​ijcm.12.1.13_​1 Ilari, B. (2015). Rhythmic engagement with music in early childhood: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 332–​343. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​ 2941​4555​984 Ilari, B., Fesjian, C., Ficek, B., & Habibi, A. (2018). Improvised song endings in a developmental perspective: A mixed-​methods study. Psychology of Music, 46(4), 500–​520. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​03057​3561​7715​515 Ilari, B., Helfter, S., & Huynh, T. (2020). Associations between musical participation and young children’s prosocial behaviors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(4), 399–​412. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​9878​169 Ilari, B., Moura, A., & Bourscheidt, L. (2011). Between interactions and commodities: Musical parenting of infants and toddlers in Brazil. Music Education Research, 13(1), 51–​67. doi: 10.1080/​14613808.2011.553277 Ilari, B., Perez, P., Wood, A., & Habibi, A. (2019). The role of community-​based music and sports programmes in parental views of children’s social skills and personality. International Journal of Community Music, 12(1), 35–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.1386/​ijcm.12.1.35_​1 Kooistra, L. (2016). Informal music education: The nature of a young child’s engagement in an individual piano lesson setting. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 115–​129. https://​ doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​5609​800 Koops, L. H. (2014). Songs from the car seat: Exploring the early childhood music-​making place of the family vehicle. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 52–​65. https://​doi. org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​3520​007 Koops, L. H. (2017). The enjoyment cycle: A phenomenology of musical enjoyment of 4-​to 7-​year-​olds during musical play. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(3), 360–​380. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​7716​921 Koutsoupido, T. (2020). Musical play in early years education: Towards a model of autonomy through adult support. Music Education Research, 20(1), 87–​106. Lim, S. M-​Y. (2018). Early childhood education and development in Singapore. In M. Fleer & B. Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood research (pp. 649–​661). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://​doi-​org.ezpr​oxy.libr​ary.uq.edu.au/​10.1007/​978-​94-​024-​ 0927-​7_​1 Liu, L., Bond, M. H., Guan, Y., Cai, Z., Sun, J., Yu, Q., . . . Wang, Z. (2015). Parents’ music training motivation and children’s music learning achievement: An investigation in the Chinese context. Psychology of Music, 43(5), 661–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​4532​703

Researching Music Early Learning and Development    137 Lunde Vestad, I. (2010). To play a soundtrack: How children use recorded music in their everyday lives. Music Education Research, 12(3), 243–​255, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14613​808.2010.504​811 Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (Eds.). (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maróti, E., Barabás, E., Deszpot, G., Farnadi, T., Norbert Nemes, L., Szirányi, B., & Honbolygó, F. (2019). Does moving to the music make you smarter? The relation of sensorimotor entrainment to cognitive, linguistic, musical, and social skills. Psychology of Music, 47(5), 663–​ 679. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​8778​765 Mehr, S. A. (2014). Music in the home: New evidence for an intergenerational link. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 78–​88. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​3520​008 Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016). The development of self-​regulation across early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1744–​ 1762. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​dev​0000​159 Morgan, G., Killough, C. M., & Thompson, L. A. (2013). Does visual information influence infants’ movement to music? Psychology of Music, 41(2), 249–​264. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3561​1425​897 Nyland, B., & Acker, A. (2011). Young children’s musical explorations: The potential of using Learning Stories for recording, planning and assessing musical experiences in a preschool setting. International Journal of Music Education, 30(4), 328–​340. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 02557​6141​2459​162 Pascal, C., Bertram, T, & Rouse, L. (2019). Getting it right in the Early Years Foundation Stage: A review of the evidence. Centre for Research in Early Childhood. https://​early-​educat​ion.org. uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2021/​12/​Gett​ing-​it-​right-​in-​the-​EYFS-​Lit​erat​ure-​Rev​iew.pdf Pitt, J., & Hargreaves, D. (2017a). Exploring the rationale for group music activities for parents and young children: Parents’ and practitioners’ perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 39(2), 177–​194. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​13211​03X1​7706​735 Pitt, J., & Hargreaves, D. (2017b) Attitudes towards and perceptions of the rationale for parent–​ child group music making with young children. Music Education Research, 19(3), 292–​308. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​14613​808.2016.1145​644 Reifinger, J. L. (2012). The acquisition of sight-​singing skills in second-​grade general music: Effects of using solfège and of relating tonal patterns to songs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(1), 26–​42. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​1435​683 Reigado, J., & Rodrigues, H. (2018). Vocalizations produced in the second year of life in response to speaking and singing. Psychology of Music, 46(5), 626–​637. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3561​7719​335 Roberts-​Holmes, G., Lee, S. F., Sousa, D., & Jones, E. (2020). Research into the 2019 Pilot of Reception Baseline Assessment (RBA). National Education Union/​ UCL Institute of Education. https://​neu.org.uk/​media/​9116/​view Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2015). Real world research (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley. Rodrigues, H., Leite, A., Faria, C., Monteiro, I., & Rodrigues, P. (2010). Music for mothers and babies living in a prison: A report on a special production of BebBab. International Journal of Community Music, 3(1), 77–​90. https://​doi-​org.ezpr​oxy.libr​ary.uq.edu.au/​10.1386/​ijcm.3.1.77/​1 Rodriguez, A. M. (2019). Parents’ perceptions of early childhood music participation. International Journal of Community Music, 12(1), 95–​110. https://​doi.org/​10.1386/​ijcm.12.1.95_​1 Sakakibara, A. (2014). A longitudinal study of the process of acquiring absolute pitch: A practical report of training with the “chord identification method.” Psychology of Music, 42(1), 86–​111. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​2463​948

138    Barrett, Abad, & Welch Savage, S. (2010). Understanding mothers' perspectives on early childhood music programmes. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 127–​139. https://​sea​rch.infor​mit.com.au/​docu​ment​ Summ​ary;dn=​9990​4814​9900​979;res=​IEL​HSS> ISSN: 0004-​9484 Schulz K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: Chance, not choice. Lancet, 359(9305), 515–​519. Shiloh, C., & LaGasse, A. (2014). Sensory Friendly Concerts: A community music therapy initiative to promote neurodiversity. International Journal of Community Music, 7(1), 113–​128. https://​doi.org/​10.1386/​ijcm.7.1.113_​1 Sole, M. (2017). Crib song: Insights into functions of toddlers’ private spontaneous singing. Psychology of Music, 45(2), 172–​192. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​6650​746 Sulkin, I., & Brodsky, W. (2015). Parental preferences to music stimuli of devices and playthings for babies, infants, and toddlers. Psychology of Music, 43(3), 307–​320. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 03057​3561​3502​375 Wetherick, D. (2014). Music therapy and children with a language impairment: Some examples of musical communication in action. Psychology of Music, 42(6), 864–​868. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​03057​3561​4547​7 16 Williams, K. (2018). Moving to the beat: Using music, rhythm, and movement to enhance self-​ regulation in early childhood classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50(1), 85–​100. Williams, K. E., & Berthelsen, D. (2019). Implementation of a rhythm and movement interven­tion to support self-​regulation skills of preschool-​aged children in disadvantaged communities. Psychology of Music, 47(6), 800–​820. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03057​3561​9861​433 Wood, E. (2019). Unbalanced and unbalancing acts in the Early Years Foundation Stage: A critical discourse analysis of policy-​led evidence on teaching and play from the Office for Standards in Education in England (Ofsted). Education, 47(7), 784–​795. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​03004​279.2019.1622​494 Youm, H. K. (2013). Parents’ goals, knowledge, practices, and needs regarding music education for their young children in South Korea. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(3), 280–​302. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​3497​233 Young, S. (2017). Diverse parenting goals and community music in early childhood. International Journal of Community Music, 10, 261–​271. doi: 10.1386/​ijcm.10.3.261_​1 Zapata, G. P., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2018). The effects of musical activities on the self-​esteem of displaced children in Colombia. Psychology of Music, 46(4), 540–​550. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1177/​03057​3561​7716​756

Chapter 9

Se ction C omme nta ry: Researching C h i l dre n’ s Music-​C ent e re d Cu ltu ral P oet i c s Widening Horizons, Performing Critique Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos

I confess I hate the word “prophetic”; yet, writing in Athens in the midst of COVID-​19 lockdown, with our schools closed for longer than any other country worldwide, and with an amassing deluge of pedagogical authoritarianism pouring out of Webex-​based teaching into my younger daughter’s room, my body shivered when, skimming through Rebecca Solnit’s A Field Guide to Getting Lost (2005), I read the following: “I wonder what will come of placing this generation under house arrest” (p. 7). To save myself from despair, I rushed to an old copy of Edith Cobb’s The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood (1977), where children’s sensory experience is being described as having a “cosmic sense, a sense of futurity and ‘onsight,’ which links ecologically with insight, creating a sense of the power to organize time and space, imagine form, and achieve a future in knowledge” (p. 45). Which leads us to look upon children’s poetics (from the Greek ποιώ/​make) and its hopeful potential for reorganization, reappropriation, recontextualization, and destabilization of practices that have been the result of the COVID-​19 surveillance culture. The chapters of this section of The Oxford Handbook of Early Childhood Music Learning and Development provide us with rich avenues for engaging with issues of what I suggest referring to as children’s music-​centered cultural poetics (after Greenblatt, 1990, see Veenstra 1995, also Calotychos, 2003). A common thread that seems to tie the perspectives offered in this section is an emphasis on the creative and constructive relationship between children and culture. More than fifteen years ago, sociologist of childhood Alan Prout (2005) emphasized that childhood studies needed to move beyond the monolithic modernist conception of childhood “as the ‘cultural other’ of adulthood . . . if

140   Kanellopoulos they are to become closer to the open-​ended, interdisciplinary form of inquiry necessary to present-​day conditions” (pp. 10–​11). One can happily observe that the study of early childhood music learning and development marches steadily toward this direction. As a PhD student in search of theoretical perspectives that would frame the study of children’s reflections on their own musical improvisations (Kanellopoulos, 2000, 2007), I remember the lasting impact of Flemming Mouritsen’s passionate talk about children as culture makers at the State of Play conference at the University of Sheffield (1998; see Mouritsen, 2002). We have traveled a long way since then. The chapters in this section provide, each in its own way, a wide array of perspectives on how children construct, negotiate, and exercise their agency as indispensable co-​creators of music-​centered cultural practices. Children contribute to the renewal as well as to the generation of cultural practices that center on music and sound via multiple ways of participation that involve interpretative reproduction (Corsaro, 2012), creative reappropriation (Bickford 2014), and multilevel invention (Barrett, 2006; Kanellopoulos, 2000). Such a view deviates significantly from older views of children as passive recipients, from “closed” tribal views of children’s musical worlds, as well as from uniform views of children as “natural” explorers (Kanellopoulos, 2010, based on James, Jenks, & Prout, 1998). One could suggest that although the distinction between culture for, with, among, and by children (Mouritsen, 2002; Sparrman et al., 2016) may offer useful analytical tools, claims about the existence of sharp and clear distinctions between those are to be met with justified skepticism. One could, rather, argue for an approach to children as indispensable cultural agents who use, reuse, appropriate, transform, create and co create sound, music, participatory music performances and frameworks for making music on the basis of the affordances induced by the different cultural contexts in which they find themselves (see also chapters by Lunde, and Zhukov and Barrett in this section). To this end, Sparrman et al. (2016) propose a perspective informed by Deleuze and Guattari (2004) that allows us to study child cultural practices as singular multiplicities, resisting dichotomies, focusing instead on analysis of “coordination work, coexistence, singularity and multiplicities in and through child cultural practices” (Sparrman et al., 2016, p. 262). In her chapter, Margaret S. Barrett alerts us to the dangers of preservationism with regard to the ways children’s culture is framed as part of tangible and intangible cultural heritage sector. Barrett urges us to “hold the ineffable, the expressive, and the elusory in ways that acknowledge beliefs, values, and uses of these practices in children’s expressive lifeworlds” (this volume, p. xx). Her suggestion regarding the development of a sustainability ethos is complemented by Lundes’s account in this volume on the constructive—​ and conflicting—​recontextualizations of aspects of children’s musical cultures of the past. The understanding of children as agents and knowledgeable participants, as “active, informed, and informing agents” (Groundwater-​Smith et al., 2015, p. 7; see Zhukov & Barrett, this volume), has important consequences with regard to the ways questions of musical development are framed. Increasingly, music development research departs from earlier assumptions about the relationship between maturation and development, and adopts culture-​sensitive definitions of children’s evolving relationships with and through music, acknowledging at the same time the need to reflect on the dangers of

Section 1 Commentary    141 misrepresentation, on the elusive distinction between description and interpretation, and on how “different operationalizations of musical behavior . . . can lead to different interpretations regarding young children’s singing development” (Benetti & Costa-​ Giomi, this vol., p. xx). It seems to me that one of the most significant aspects of the discussion regarding methodological choices in the study of musical development relates to its potential for contributing to a more open and relational approach to the definition of music and to its function in people’s lives in general. For instance, the question “are all vocalizations with pitch variation considered musical?,” posed by Benetti and Costa-​Giomi, underscores important potential connections between research of music development and research in cultural musicology, as it brings into the frame the issue of how “the competing and contradictory definitions and referents of music, and consequently, the experience of it, are contingent upon social actors negotiating and contesting its character and meaning in changing contexts within a cultural system” (Rice, 1994, p. 947; Kingsbury, 1988). Another important issue that emerges out of the chapters included in this section relates to the gradual critical apprehension of linearity of development and of the automatic equation between development and progress. Chapters by Benetti and Costa-​ Giomi, Zhukov and Barrett, and Barrett, Abad, and Welch may be read in connection with Susan Young’s (2021) considerations of the unacknowledged assumptions that inhere in developmental perspectives. Informed by sociologist Nick Lee (1998, 2001), Young provocatively sketches a perspective on music-​making processes of young children on the basis of the thesis that “we are all, always, in a state of maturing; we never arrive” (Young, 2021, p. 393). Such a flat ontology of musical maturing/​never arriving does not erase or neglect differences and distinctions. Rather, it supports the view that “both children and adults should be seen through a multiplicity of becomings in which all are incomplete and dependent” (Prout, 2005, p. 67). To this end, it might be interesting to propose that research in the changing relationships between music and children in various contexts might consider reflecting on the implications of the different constructions of the nature-​nurture axis that are created in and through different contexts, and the affordances that inhere in these constructions. As Prout points out, “while the biological immaturity of children may be a fact, the real interest of [music] childhood studies lies in the study of how cultures interpret such immaturity” (Prout, 2005, p. 83; also Prout & James, 1990). Virtually all the chapters in this section testify to the existence of vastly different forms of musical participation and the different, even incongruent, systems of value that relate to them. Interestingly, despite the richness of the perspectives offered, it seems that the field of early childhood music learning and development is still reluctant to address issues of power and power relationships in music-​centered participatory practices. It is suggested that important inroads in the study of musical development as well as in the study of the role of music in the lives of young children might be created once we begin to address how musical development and change intertwines with issues of social (in)justice. Possible questions might be these: how do different power-​ knowledge relationships condition the possibilities that might be afforded in different

142   Kanellopoulos musical practices (Kanellopoulos, 2019)? How do different forms of symbolic violence (see Wright, 2015; Kanellopoulos, 2019) emerge through and operate in music-​centered participatory practices that involve young children? How do issues of epistemic injustice (i.e., forms of “wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower” (Flicker, 2007, p. 1) emerge and operate in such practices? How have different forms of epistemic injustice shaped different approaches to (the study of) musical childhoods? In conclusion, I believe it is important not to lose sight of the potential of research as a form of cultural critique, resisting the pressures for “relevancy,” that sometimes leads to the production of research that merely serves to justify the rationales of already formed practices and policies that are dictated by commercialism and instrumentalization of education. Against such tendencies, it seems important that research into how music lives in and through the lives of young children does not lose sight of the resistance potential that lies in the playful musical engagement of children. To do so, we need research approaches to the study of children’s music-​centered cultural poetics that enable educators and parents to envision “a pedagogy of listening and radical dialogue” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p. 107). To this end, the chapters in this section of The Oxford Handbook of Early Childhood Music Learning and Development offer rich theoretical and methodological insights.

References Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The “genesis” of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–​220. Bickford, T. (2014). Earbuds are good for sharing: Children’s headphones as social media at a Vermont school. In S. Gopinath and J. Stanyek (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mobile music studies (Vol. 1; pp. 335–​355). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calotychos, V. (2003). Modern Greece: A cultural poetics. Oxford: Berg. Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. London: Routledge. Corsaro, W. A. (2012). Interpretative reproduction in children’s play. American Journal of Children’s Play, 4(4), 488–​504. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Routledge. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum. Flicker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenblatt, S. (1990). Learning to curse: Essays in early modern culture. New York: Routledge. Groundwater-​Smith, S., Dockett, S., & Bottrel, D. (2015). Introduction: Arguing the case for participatory research with children and young people. In S. Groundwater-​Smith, S. Dockett, & D. Bottrel, Participatory research with children and young people (pp. 1–​18). London: Sage Publications. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity. Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2000). Children’s understandings of their musical improvisations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, UK.

Section 1 Commentary    143 Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2007). Children’s early reflections on improvised music-​making as the wellspring of musico-​philosophical thinking. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 15(2), 119–​141. Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2010). Towards a sociological perspective on researching children’s creative music making practices: an exercise in self-​consciousness. In R. Wright (Ed.), Sociology and music education (pp. 115–​138). London: Ashgate. Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2019). Improvisation and/​or music education: A child’s upsetting clarity. In S. Young & B. Ilari (Eds.), Music in early childhood: Multi-​disciplinary perspectives and inter-​disciplinary exchanges (pp. 253–​274). New York: Springer. Kingsbury, H. (1988). Music, talent, and performance: A conservatory cultural system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lee, N. M. (1998). Towards an immature sociology. Sociological Review, 46(3), 458–​482. Lee, N. M. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mouritsen, F. (2002). Child culture—​play culture. In F. Mouritsen & J. Qvortrup (Eds.), Childhood and children’s culture (pp. 14–​42). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood. London: Routledge/​Falmer. Prout, A., & James, A. (1990). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood?: Provenance, promise and problems. In A. Prout & A. James (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (pp. 7–​32). London: Falmer. Rice, T. (1994). Review of Music, talent, and performance: A conservatory cultural system by Henry Kingsbury. American Ethnologist, 21(4), 947–​948. Solnit, R. (2005). A field guide to getting lost. New York: Viking. Sparrman, A., Samuelsson, T., Lindgren A. L., & D. Cardell (2016). The ontological practices of child culture. Childhood, 23(2), 255–​271. Veenstra, J. R. (1995). The new historicism of Stephen Greenblatt. History and Theory, 34(3), 174–​198. Wright, R. (2015). Music education and social reproduction: Breaking cycles of injustice. In C. Benedict, P. Schmidt, G. Spruce, & P. Woodford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education (pp. 340–​356). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, S. (2021). Towards a music education for maturing, never arriving. In R. Wright, G. Johansen, P. A. Kanellopoulos, & P. Schmidt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook to sociology of music education (pp. 393–​405). New York: Routledge.

Section 2

P E R SP E C T I V E S ON M U SIC DE V E L OP M E N T

Chapter 10

Section Introdu c t i on Perspectives on Music Development Introduction Mary C. Broughton and Eugenia Costa-​G iomi

This section overviews evidence on musical development and learning. Our aim is to map the rich picture of musical development and learning in the early childhood period, and highlight points of intersection across fields of work. Toward this aim, the section presents perspectives that conjoin research from complementary and contrasting paradigms, methodologies, and topics. The theoretical perspectives underpinning the section range from those focused on human developmental capacities, to those that emphasize the importance of the interactions that children experience with their physical, social, and cultural worlds. The topics in the section traverse evolutionary, psychological, biological, neuroscientific, developmental, sociocultural, creativity, and musical identity research. Established theories on music early learning and development are considered in light of research evidence from this variety of topics. The diversity in methodological approaches and topics are united on the focal point for the section, which is to present the rich tapestry of research evidence for children’s development in and through music in the early childhood period. The overview of the selected perspectives presented in the section intends to highlight such diversity rather than provide an exhaustive review of research on musical development. In Chapter 10, Rabinowitch and Cirelli explore the social origins of music, highlighting the contribution of music to the development of social capacities, and the role of social factors in early learning and development in music. The very earliest development of musical behaviors and their role in infancy is overviewed by Partanen, Virtala, and Kostilainen in their contribution, along with research considering the transition from prenatal to postnatal development. Hargreaves highlights critical theoretical perspectives on the contribution of culture to musical development in the early years, and underscores a need for expansion of knowledge in this area. Addessi considers creativity in early learning and developing in music, with a focus on an emerging theoretical position and technology-​ enhanced means for research and practice in children’s creativity. Niland presents an overview of young children’s musical identities. Her contribution brings to the fore the

148   Broughton & Costa-Giomi important role that our early interactions within the various communities of peoples and settings have in our lives as they begin to shape our identities in and through music. The section concludes with Hall’s commentary that celebrates the heterogeneity of critical thought, theory, and approaches contained within the Chapter 10. The commentary takes impetus from the section contributions and heralds emerging perspectives that contribute to building a deeper and richer, socioculturally situated understanding and appreciation of early learning and development in music.

Chapter 11

T he So cial Ori g i ns of Musi c Tal-​C hen Rabinowitch and Laura Cirelli

Prologue From very early on, music inhabits our soundscapes in many different ways. When we are babies, our caregivers soothe us by rocking us back and forth, or by singing us a lullaby. When we get a bit older we already start moving around, dancing to play and action songs and banging on pots and pans in the kitchen. A few years later we can start learning about music in more formal ways, by playing a musical instrument or singing in a choir. These early musical experiences are often highly social in nature, piggybacking on our developing social capacities. There is also growing evidence that musical development further reinforces and facilitates social capacities. Music continues to be important and influential in diverse ways throughout our lives. In this chapter we discuss the phylogenetic and ontogenetic theories regarding the development of music as a socially interactive medium. We first discuss the definition of music as a highly interactive and social action, as opposed to an aesthetic object produced by experts for passive consumption. Across cultures and throughout human history, we argue that music is a social tool used during informal, everyday social interactions. Mothers sing to their infants, children chant nursery rhymes together on the playground, couples slow dance in the kitchen, and groups of individuals sing and dance together during religious ceremonies and parties. With this definition of music in mind, we then discuss historical and philosophical theories that consider the origins of music as rooted in communicative and social-​emotional benefits. Finally, we discuss practical implications and future directions. If music historically emerged because of its social-​emotional benefits, this may parallel the ontogenetic emergence of music as a social-​emotional medium across infancy and early childhood. From early in life, infants are especially drawn to social stimuli. They shape their social experiences by attending to certain social partners over others,

150   Rabinowitch & Cirelli especially those that have a communicative intent (Schachner & Hannon, 2011). They recognize their own mother’s voice (DeCasper & Fifer, 1980) and smell (Cernoch & Porter, 1985) soon after birth. In general, they prefer faces over non-​faces (Mondloch et al., 1999), and voices over non-​voices (Vouloumanos & Werker, 2007). Further specifying this voice preference, infants prefer to listen to highly emotional and positively valenced infant-​directed speech or song over adult-​directed speech or song (Cooper & Aslin, 1990; Fernald, 1985; Masataka, 1999; Trainor, 1996). This predisposition to attend to and engage with highly social interactions may explain why infants selectively attend to and experience social-​ emotional effects from early musical interactions. In very early infancy, musical interactions are fairly passive. However, infants can already actively shape and encourage the musical behaviors of their caregivers by directing attention to these events. A few months later, infants start to become active participants in musical interactions, starting to show precursory musical movements by nine months of age or earlier (Zentner & Eerola, 2010) and producing song-​like vocalizations before their second birthday (Reigado & Rodrigues, 2018). As will be discussed, these active responses to everyday musical interactions set the stage for receptivity to the prosocial consequences of musical engagement with others in late infancy and early childhood.

Music as a Socially Interactive Medium Music is inherently interactive, inviting not just our auditory system, but the whole body to participate and to interact with others through the music. Musical interaction is joyful but also strongly conducive for social interaction and bonding. Although the involvement of the body and the active interaction with the music may occur even when just listening to music, the degree of involvement and interaction dramatically increases when actually playing music with others or dancing together. In what follows, we shall begin to examine music as a participatory interactive medium, and examine certain ways in which music can be experienced as an ordinary, everyday interactive activity, which is deeply rooted in our lives from early infancy into late adulthood. According to Small (1998), the term “music” is just an abstraction of the action, as music is not a “thing” at all but an activity—​something that people do. Small is concerned with the use Western historians and musicologists make of music as a mere corpus of “works,” citing Dahlhaus, which defines the subject matter of music as “works that have outlived the culture of their age” (Small, 1988, p. 4); many other thinkers refer to works of music first and foremost as classical. It is a prevailing modern philosophy of art in general, Small disputes, to be thinking of an object of art as an end in itself, rather than focusing on the artistic process. This philosophy suggests that the musical meaning resides exclusively in musical objects, and consequently that the listener is thought to not have any influence on the music he or she is hearing, which can only be the business of the composer mediated by the performer. What it also suggests, continues Small, is

The Social Origins of Music    151 that music is an individual matter, and that composing, performing, and listening take place in a social vacuum. However, Small’s response to this philosophy is to instead consider the fundamental nature and meaning of music to lie in what people do—​in the action of making music. To Small, music embodies “doing” through joint interactions and in many cases is experienced as an interactive participatory medium. The value of music as an interaction is often evident in non-​Western societies. For example, in Blacking’s (1967) account of the Venda people, music plays an important social role from very early age onward, and is experienced by everyone rather than by a small group of professional musicians. The Shona villagers in northern Zimbabwe similarly focus on everyday social music-​making (Turino, 2008). In Western cultures, while we often initially think of music as an object produced by experts, music is often still an interactive participatory medium. Children sing together on the playground, we dance together at parties, and sing national anthems together at sporting events. A real-​ life example of music as an interactive participatory medium, deeply embedded in society as an everyday, common, personal, as well as social activity, comes from the English town of Milton Keynes. Ruth Finnegan’s book The Hidden Musicians: Music-​making in an English Town (2007) tells the stories of numerous “ordinary” amateur musicians living in Milton Keynes, a “real” English town. What is special about this book is that, similarly to Small’s account, it takes a different perspective to music’s role in everyday life than the typical musicological stance, and assumes that music-​making is not the “monopoly of full-​time specialists or the prime responsibility of state-​supported institutions like the national orchestras or opera houses” (Finnegan, 2007, p. 9). Rather, it is the pursuit of thousands of grass-​roots musicians, whose music-​making forms a very central part of their lives and communities. Similar to Small’s conceptualization of what music is and especially what it is not, this study was not about musical works, but about everyday musical practice. The book considers Milton Keynes as an anthropological case study of a town inhabited by amateur musicians and the profound social functions served by music, from the formation and shaping of social links to the practice of contemporary rituals and public events. The essence of musical practice, according to Finnegan, is that it is essentially a part of society, but more than anything else it is “a unique and distinctive mode through which people both realise and transcend their social existence” (2007, p. 339). Thus, real-​life music is actually out there, deeply entangled in social interactions as it always has been, and can therefore reveal considerably more about music, its evolution and its social functions than the rather restricted Western viewpoint of professional performance. We have thus far seen how “music” can serve as a general term for various kinds of “musics,” for there are different and diverse ways of engaging with it. First, music can be experienced, and especially in Western societies, as an aural medium, one that does not require overt participation from the side of the listener and can be naturally consumed solitarily or as background to other activities. In most of these cases, music is being perceived as having an aesthetic and hedonic function, which may be highly fulfilling and exciting, an uplifting arousing experience, and at times simply relaxing and pleasing. This prevalent view of music, according to Christopher Small (1998), is based on a mistaken elementary

152   Rabinowitch & Cirelli assumption: that the essence of music is its ability to execute the works of great music composers in the best and most complete and accurate way possible. Alternatively, we can regard music as an activity—​as something that people do. This likely represents the original function of music. Before the invention of the iPod and the concert hall, and prior to the Cantata and the Fugue, music was a participatory group activity; singing around the fire, dancing to the night, and a means for cheering each other up. In all of these activities there is no musical goal that needs to be achieved. Rather, music is being experienced and conceived as an interactive everyday activity, in which mere participation is an end in itself. Such is the empirical sociological account by Finnegan (2007) on the musical scene of Milton Keynes, where music is valued as an interaction and experienced as part of many amateur musicians’ lives, rather than as a sophisticated distant medium.

Evolutionary Perspectives on the Origins of Music as an Interactive Medium It has been suggested by many that music had evolved as a means for emotional communication (e.g., Condillac, 1746/​2001; Cross, 2001; Freeman, 2000; Rousseau, 1781/​ 1986; Webb, 1769/​2003). There was and still is, however, much debate about the origins of music and whether it developed separately or jointly with language (see, e.g., Fitch, 2006; Koelsch et al., 2002; Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Patel, 2003; Zatorre & Peretz, 2001). These debates about music and language were especially pronounced in the eighteenth century, led by such thinkers as Condillac, Rousseau, and Webb. Condillac, in his Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge (1746/​2001), conceived of knowledge as stemming from the very first manifestations of social interaction in prehistoric times. Condillac surmised that in times past, individuals or small groups had discovered the benefits of social interaction for prosperity and survival. Hand in hand, a need for communication and especially affective communication arose. These early humans who initially must have just uttered confused and indistinct sounds gradually developed rudimentary lexicons that helped them convey basic meanings and sentiments using sound conventions. It was thus a need that brought early humans together in the first place, but also then helped them understand and sympathize with each other, since they now had the tools to recognize one another’s suffering and pain. Perhaps the first communication started off with “cries of the passions,” representing our needs and emotions. These contributed to the development of the “operations of mind” through the “language of action,” which eventually led to the formation of the art of gestures, dance, declamation, music, and poetry. To quote Condillac: “In fact, what is the sound that is best suited to express a sentiment of the soul? In the first place, it must be the sound which imitates the cry that is its natural sign and is the same for declamation and music.” (1746/​2001, p. 146).

The Social Origins of Music    153 Rousseau, in his Essay on the Origin of Languages (1781/​1986), agreed with Condillac that language was not a rationally designed invention, but was rather based on instinct. However, he disagreed about the motivations leading to the commencement of human communication. Whereas Condillac maintained that physical survival needs were the primary reason for starting to communicate, Rousseau insisted that these were not physical but rather psychical needs, feelings, and passions. The needs, he said, “dictated the first gestures, and the passions wrung the first utterings [voix]” (1781/​1986, p. 245). Utterings, he continued, “sounds, accent and quantity, which are by nature, would leave little to be done by articulations, which are by convention, men would sing rather than speak” (1781/​1986, p. 248). Thus, Rousseau speculated that the very first stories, the very first declamations, and even the very first laws were expressed in song and verse. To Rousseau, speech and song were formerly one since it was rhythm and melody that could most effectively convey sentiments and images. Webb (1769/​2003) approached these questions from the point of view of art rather than communication, a topic he was keen about for its own sake (Katz & Hacohen, 2003). He was interested in the origin of expressiveness, how feelings were first communicated in order to better understand the origin of music and poetry. Obviously, his ideas were in line with Condillac’s and Rousseau’s, who had arrived at emotional communication indirectly. Webb attempted to better characterize the possible path leading from initial emotion-​bearing vociferations to music. His theory basically reasoned that since emotions can be viewed inherently as movements, the first “words” and sounds must have followed the motion of their associated sensations. By imitating these inner motions, vocal movements were produced by the concatenation of sounds, which he considered, using Humean terminology, to be single impressions. The joining and composition of these distinct elementary sounds or single impressions generated what Webb called successions of impressions, which are perceived as movement. Then monosyllables, the precursors of the earliest words were consolidated by repeated imitation of these sounds. Since the monosyllables were composed of distinct elementary sounds, they also enjoyed the advantage of indicating single impressions, becoming “beads” in prosodic chains, that were likewise perceived as movement, and were further qualified as different kinds of movement. Thus, the first music, a “succession of sounds, or impressions” emerged, and from this first music sprouted the first language. Therefore, according to Condillac, Rousseau, and Webb, it can be speculated that music, and then language, originated from an urge to communicate emotionally with one another as a foundation for social interaction. Thus, an expressive means for communication evolved, which Rousseau considered to have been melody at the beginning and Condillac and Webb as the sources or informers of music and poetry (developing later in the course of evolution into more and more functional languages). Interestingly, Darwin’s proto-​language hypothesis (Darwin, 1871/​2004) also postulated that the many similarities between music and language suggest that music served as an evolutionary intermediate halfway to language. This eighteenth-​century debate has not ceased, but has rather shifted its attention to somewhat different issues. According to Steven Brown (2000b), for example, music and

154   Rabinowitch & Cirelli language both evolved from a stage called “musilanguage,” sharing ancestral features of music and language. Preceding this musilanguage stage was a system of “Referential Emotive Vocalisations,” which were calls that served as immediate emotive responses to certain objects in the environment. Musilanguage was characterized by a unitary lexical-​ tonal system, followed by a phrase system involving both combinatorial syntax and expressive phrasing properties. How did musilanguage diverge into language and music? Sound systems possessing referential meaning became language, whereas sound systems with emotive meaning evolved into music. Thus, the evolution of music was primarily based on vocalizations, which served first and foremost as a means for emotional communication. Is there indeed any evidence for such early entanglement of music and language? While it is very hard to obtain such prehistoric information, ethno-​musicological studies have documented concurrent traditional societies that use a combination of music and language for communication. At the least these findings demonstrate that musilanguage is a viable possibility. One such example of a live musilanguage comes from the Southwest African Mbendjele Pygmy hunter-​gatherer society, which has a very interesting and special kind of language (Lewis, 2006). To the Mbendjele the forest is the world and they view themselves as an integral part of this world. Their language, which is completely open-​ended, encompasses everything that could help communicate with the world. It is a mixture of speech, dance, song, play, and anything else that may come to mind as communication arises. It is extremely onomatopoeic and could, for instance, include at any given moment a burst of pure singing even in the middle of a “conversation.” The boundaries between “language” and “music” are very much blurred, each element being used whenever appropriate. For example, an early morning shouting session may be used to resolve anger with someone or about something; the shouting itself is considered to have a soothing, cathartic effect. The Mbendjele also have a special practice called “Massana.” This practice is a musical ceremony dedicated to the forest, of which they are a part, to improve their communication with it. It is a purely polyphonic musical event (leading also to a state of trance) in which everybody takes part for the benefit of its positive social and essential outcome. In this way, vocalization serves as a means for emotional communication (shouting is an extreme example of this), and the music ceremony may act as a more complex method to enable the Pygmies to communicate their feelings and emotions between themselves and their surroundings. Various other ethnomusicological examples demonstrate the use of music in resolving conflict. In fact, according to Ian Cross (2009), this may have been one of the main functions for which music evolved. In an increasingly interactive community, misunderstanding and disagreement are bound to transpire. Although language can be used in many ways to alleviate such conflicts, language’s main strength—​articulation—​ can actually be an obstacle for conflict resolution. This is mainly because different people see things differently and sometimes it may be impossible to overcome these differences. In contrast to language, music is not used for explicit and precise articulation and is considered to have “floating intentionality.” It leaves plenty of room for personal interpretation, allowing people of very different views and attitudes to still collaborate and share their experiences while leaving irresolvable issues behind.

The Social Origins of Music    155 These various theories provide multiple frameworks within which we can begin to understand music as a social behavior: (1) as a process that requires us to infer and be sensitive to the mental states of others; (2) as an environment that may allow us to experience feelings which are congruent with the feelings of others; and (3) as a manifestation of a state of shared intentionality, of which the goal may be simply the maintenance of that state. Music seems to embody the attitudes and emotions of others, which provides us with a basis for engaging both reflexively and reflectively with the music and with the inferred internal states of those with whom we are making music. Active participation in music-​making helps align our own emotional states with those of our collaborators, and may give rise to a sense of empathic community.

Infants Becoming Active Musical Participants As discussed above, music possibly evolved and still operates as a socially interactive medium. In what comes next, we shall look into the ontogenetic development of the relationship between music and social interactions and explore how music becomes a social medium early in infancy. Infants quickly become active participants in musical activities. By around nine months of age or earlier, most infants display dance-​like behaviors in response to music and song (Kim & Schachner, 2023; Zentner & Eerola, 2010) and express joy when doing so (Cirelli & Trehub, 2019; Zentner & Eerola, 2010). Early singing behaviors emerge in toddlerhood (Gudmundsdottir & Trehub, 2018; Reigado & Rodrigues, 2018; Sole, 2017). As infants become active participants in musical activities, opportunities for socially rich musical interactions between infants and caregivers (Trehub et al., 1997) or infants and siblings (Cirelli et al., 2020) emerge. While musical interactions between infants and their family members may contribute positively to these important social bonds (Costa-​Giomi & Benetti, 2017), growing evidence suggests that musical interactions with others may also help build new social relationships and encourage early prosociality (Cirelli, Trehub, & Trainor, 2018; Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010). A seminal study by Kirschner and Tomasello (2010) highlighted the link between musical play and prosociality. Here, pairs of four-​year-​old children played either a musical or non-​musical game with an experimenter. The goal of this game was to wake up sleeping toy frogs in a pond. In the musical game condition, children achieved this goal by marching together around the pond and tapping on a toy frog while singing an easy-​to-​learn song led by the experimenter. Recorded guitar chords accompanying the song played in the background. In the non-​musical game condition, children woke up the sleeping frogs by walking or crawling around the pond and making the frogs jump at random intervals while the experimenter recited a script matching the lyrics of the song. Children in the musical condition were later more likely

156   Rabinowitch & Cirelli to help and cooperate with one another than children in the non-​musical condition. The facilitative effects of a short musical experience on peer cooperation were also found in a study with older children, who were between six and nine years old (Good & Russo, 2016). In this particular study, children cooperated more with a peer after participating in a thirty-​minute group singing activity together, compared to a thirty-​minute group art activity or competitive games activity. A growing number of studies have also explored general social-​emotional implications of long-​term musical interventions and group activities with infants and children. Infants participating in active parent-​infant group music classes are later rated by their parents as more soothable, with lower rates of distress and higher rates of smiling than infants in a musical control group where there was only music playing in the background but no musical activities taking place (Gerry, Unrau, & Trainor, 2012). School-​aged children (ages eight and nine) with poor prosocial skills show improved sympathy and prosocial skills following ten months of group ukulele lessons compared to controls (Schellenberg et al., 2015). Older children (ages eight to eleven) participating in ten months of musical group interaction have improved emotional empathy scores from before to after training and compared to children in a non-​musical control group (Rabinowitch, Cross, & Burnard, 2013). These studies highlight the potential for long-​term group musical activities to foster early social-​emotional skills.

Interpersonal Synchrony and Prosociality What component of musical interactions might underlie these social outcomes? These rich musical interactions may capture participant attention, encourage positive valence, highlight shared goals, and help foster feelings of group identity. However, one particularly salient feature that has captured the attention of researchers is the propensity for musical interactions to encourage high levels of interpersonal synchrony. Here, interpersonal synchrony refers to two or more individuals moving together in a time-​locked fashion. Interpersonal synchrony often arises in non-​musical contexts (e.g., rowing, group exercise, martial arts practice) but is also a common feature of musical interactions. Because music encourages movements that are time-​locked with the underlying and predictable musical beat, when individuals move together to music or make music with each other, they end up aligning their movements with one another over time. After two or more adults move together in synchrony, they are more likely to interact in prosocial ways (for a meta-​analysis, see Mogan, Fischer, & Bulbulia, 2017). For example, adults who dance, sing, or march in synchrony compared to out-​of-​synchrony are later more likely to rate one another as likable and trustworthy, and are more likely to help and cooperate with one another (e.g., see Hove & Risen, 2009; Reddish, Fischer, & Bulbulia, 2013; Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009).

The Social Origins of Music    157 The mechanisms driving the effects of interpersonal synchrony on social behavior are not completely understood. From the social perspective, interpersonal synchrony may blur the lines between self and other, and encourage feelings of self-​similarity (Cross, Turgeon, & Atherton, 2019). For example, children and adults rate synchronous movement partners as closer and more similar to themselves than asynchronous movement partners (Rabinowitch & Knafo-​Noam, 2015; Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011). There is also an intriguing possibility that although self and other are normally distinct, synchronous experience might blur these boundaries and lead to a state of merging between self and other (Paladino et al., 2010; Tsakiris, 2008). This in itself may boost positive social behavior between interacting partners. From the cognitive perspective, an agent moving in synchrony with us captures our attention and encourages heightened person perception (Macrae et al., 2008). In support of this perspective, adults later remember more visual details about individuals whom danced in-​synchrony compared to out-​of-​synchrony with their own movements (Woolhouse, Tidhar, & Cross, 2016). From the neurohormonal perspective, moving in synchrony with others may increase endorphin release (Cohen et al., 2010; Lang et al., 2017; Tarr et al., 2015) and be facilitated by oxytocin (Gebauer et al., 2016; Shamay-​Tsoory et al., 2019). If the social effects of interpersonal synchrony contribute to the social importance of music, then these effects likely emerge early in life, when infants are becoming active participants in their everyday musical experiences. These social effects may be specific or general—​moving in synchrony with a partner may specifically enhance your relationship with that partner, or it may encourage generalized prosocial action. These effects should also work among dyads or across larger groups, given that musical engagement is social at both of these levels. Here, we will discuss evidence informing and supporting these arguments.

Social Effects of Synchrony Early in Infancy and Early Childhood Supporting the hypothesis that interpersonal synchrony influences social behavior from early in life, growing evidence reveals that infants show social preferences for synchronous partners (Cirelli, 2018; Tunçgenç, Cohen, & Fawcett, 2015). These social preferences emerge by the first birthday, and soon become more complexly linked to prosocial behavior. By twelve months of age, infants show social preference and proximity seeking for synchronous social partners (Tunçgenç et al., 2015). In this experiment, infants were gently rocked in an infant car seat while watching a life-​size video of two teddy bears taking turns rocking in their own car seats. One teddy bear’s movements aligned with the infant’s passive movements, while the other teddy bear moved too quickly or too slowly. Real versions of each teddy bear were then presented to the infants, and infants were more likely to reach out for and select the synchronous teddy. This effect was not found in a control condition using an asocial moving toy (Tunçgenç et al., 2015).

158   Rabinowitch & Cirelli By fourteen months of age, interpersonal synchrony encourages complex prosocial behaviors. In this series of studies, infants were first held in a forward-​facing child carrier by an assistant, and gently bounced while background music or sounds were heard over loudspeakers. An experimenter facing the infant bounced either in-​or out-​of-​ synchrony with how the infant was being bounced. Following this short (less than three minutes) interpersonal movement phase, infants watched this experimenter perform simple tasks (e.g., drawing pictures with markers). Over multiple test trials, the experimenter pretended to accidently drop key objects that she needed to complete her tasks (e.g., the marker used to draw the picture). Infants handed back significantly more of these dropped objects, and did so much faster, if they had been bounced in-​compared to out-​of-​synchrony with the experimenter (Cirelli, Einarson, & Trainor, 2014; Cirelli, Wan, & Trainor, 2014). This effect emerged regardless of whether background sounds during bouncing were musical or non-​musical, although infant fussiness was much lower and general helping rates were much higher in experiments using music (Cirelli et al., 2017). It should be noted that in these infant studies, infants are being held and bounced by an adult so that they are not initiating the movements themselves. Passive synchrony also influences the prosocial behavior of older children. For example, four-​year-​old dyads pushed in synchrony on side-​by-​side swing sets are later more communicative and cooperative with one another compared to dyads pushed asynchronously or those who experienced no joint movement (Rabinowitch & Meltzoff, 2017b). However, children in both joint movement conditions (synchronous/​asynchronous) were more likely to share with one another than children in the no movement condition (Rabinowitch & Meltzoff, 2017a). Similarly, in the infant studies described above, sharing rates toward the synchronous or asynchronous experimenter were high and not significantly different (Cirelli, Wan, & Trainor, 2014). These effects on helping, cooperation, and communication but not on sharing highlight that certain forms of prosociality may be more influenced by synchrony than others. After this age, most studies documenting increased prosociality toward synchronous movement partners employ paradigms encouraging self-​generated synchrony or asynchrony. For example, four-​to-​six-​year-​old children who participate with a peer in a rhythmic clapping game are more helpful and cooperative with this peer if the game was played in-​compared to out-​of-​synchrony (Tunçgenç & Cohen, 2016a). It is therefore likely that self-​generated synchrony can influence prosociality in children under four years of age, but given the slow developmental trajectory of specifically timed rhythmic movement in childhood (Drake, Jones, & Baruch, 2000; McAuley et al., 2006), it is difficult to study such effects in a laboratory setting.

General or Specific Social Effects? In most studies investigating the social effects of synchrony, prosociality toward the movement partner is directly measured. This raises questions about the social cognitive decisions that shape prosociality following interpersonal synchrony. More specifically,

The Social Origins of Music    159 does the act of moving in synchrony with a social agent prime the individual into a generally prosocial state, or does it shape the individual’s dispositional judgment about their co-​actor? Most work addressing this question compares prosociality directed toward synchronous partners to prosociality directed to non-​involved individuals after short-​term experiences of synchrony or asynchrony. Largely, evidence suggests that prosociality is only enhanced when directed at the synchronous movement partner for both infants (Cirelli, Wan, & Trainor, 2014b) and adults (Cross, Wilson, & Golonka, 2019; Kokal et al., 2011; Tarr et al., 2015). This specificity makes interpersonal synchrony a plausible mechanism through which musical interaction can help foster specific social relationships with co-​performers. One open question is whether this specificity can influence group-​level social dispositions. Does moving in synchrony with a partner make you feel closer to that individual and to other members of their social in-​group? To date, this question has only been explored with infants (Cirelli, Wan, & Trainor, 2016). Here, infants first watched two experimenters (A and B) interact in either a friendly or a neutral manner. They then were bounced by an assistant either in-​or out-​of-​synchrony with Experimenter A, and later performed helping tasks with Experimenter B. The helping rates of infants in the neutral experimenter affiliation condition were not influenced by their movement experience. However, infants in the friendly experimenter affiliation condition were more likely to help Experimenter B if they had bounced in-​compared to out-​of-​synchrony with Experimenter A. This suggests that for infants, interpersonal synchrony encourages prosociality directed to their synchronous movement partner and members of that person’s social group, but does not encourage general prosociality.

Interpersonal Synchrony in Dyadic and Large Group Settings If interpersonal synchrony plays a role in the social nature of musical interactions, it should influence social behavior both in dyads and within larger group contexts. From childhood, both social contexts are common in everyday musical experiences. The earliest musical experiences are intimately dyadic, involving the parent singing to and rocking their infant (Cirelli et al., 2018; Trehub, Weiss, & Cirelli, 2019). Once children attend daycare and preschool, musical interactions are often experienced within group settings during spontaneous play or when caregivers lead the children in song during daily routine activities (Lamont, 2008). Throughout our lives, we continue to share music with others in both dyadic and group settings. While much of the existing research with infants, children, and adults discussed here has focused on the effects of synchrony on dyadic social interactions, there is evidence that synchrony also fosters group affiliation from an early age. Tunçgenç and Cohen (2016b) investigated this question with eight-​year-​old children. In each test session, six children were assigned to one of two minimal groups, designated by T-​shirt color. They were then led in a whole-​body movement activity via instructions over video and headphones. The two groups of children were either led to move in cross-​group synchrony or

160   Rabinowitch & Cirelli asynchrony. Children in the synchronous sessions were later more likely to seek proximity with out-​group members and to report feeling socially bonded with these children compared to those in the asynchronous sessions (Tunçgenç & Cohen, 2016b). This study suggests that cross-​group synchrony can forge social bonds even in the face of minimal out-​group biases, a finding that has been replicated in adult populations (Good, Choma, & Russo, 2017).

Implications and Future Research Many questions about the social implications of musical engagement across development remain. One major question concerns whether musical engagement only encourages positive interactions between participating individuals, or if musical interventions can enhance general social development. Evidence here is mixed. Experiments using short-​term musical experiences with infants reveal that the effects of synchronous movement specifically encourage positive interactions directed toward the synchronous mover and members of that person’s social in-​group (Cirelli et al., 2014b; Cirelli et al., 2016). On the other hand, there is some evidence to suggest that long-​term participation in group music training interventions may have positive effects on general social development (Schellenberg et al., 2015; Rabinowitch et al., 2013). Further research is needed to determine the features and length of musical interactions and musical interventions that can lead to either specific or general social effects. Evolutionary theories suggesting that music encourages social bonding among group members (Brown, 2000a) would predict that musical interaction may selectively encourage within-​group prosociality. However, if music evolved as a medium for emotional communication (Cross, 2001; Freeman, 2000), general enhancement of emotional understandings may have more generalized effects on social development. It is possible that certain features of musical interactions (i.e., interpersonal synchrony) encourage selective social enhancement, while others (i.e., emotional features conveyed by melodic features) encourage generalized social-​emotional development. Regardless, the social effects of musical engagement in early life have important implications on potential interventions for infants and children with atypical social environments or social development. For example, interventions that encourage sensitive parental use of song and musical movements with young infants may have the potential to enhance parent-​infant attachment (Fancourt & Perkins, 2018). Enhancing parent-​infant attachment has widespread positive social-​emotional implications for years to come (e.g., Bakeman & Brown, 1980; Sroufe, 2005). Parent-​infant interventions that incorporate singing and rhythmic movement would be appealing for parents and easy to implement. Home visitation coaching with at-​risk parents, which has been effective in increasing maternal sensitivity and promoting secure attachment (e.g., Heinicke et al., 1999), may be even more effective with the addition of maternal singing and movement. This is a promising area for future research.

The Social Origins of Music    161 Music and synchrony have also been used as an intervention strategy with individuals on the autism spectrum, who exhibit a blend of abnormalities in social development and communication (Baron-​Cohen, 2002; Lense & Camarata, 2020). Indeed, a few successful attempts to enhance social-​emotional capacities such as eye contact, emotion inference, and empathy via interpersonal synchrony have been made with both children and adults on the autism spectrum (Koehne et al., 2016; Koehne et al., 2016; Landa et al., 2011). In sum, the impact of everyday musical experiences across cultures and across the lifespan is underscored by the social-​emotional importance of these interactions. The inherently social nature of moving to music and singing with others provides us with clues about the origins of these behaviors. The early importance of social stimuli in the environment of the infant may scaffold their high levels of interest in musical interactions with their caregivers and other social partners. This lays the groundwork for more active engagement in musical activities across early childhood, and for the lifelong relevance of music-​making for the formation of social identity, social bonds, and the regulation of emotions (Trehub et al., 2019). The efficacy of interventions highlighting the social and emotional importance of informal musical interactions for young children at social risk or with social deficits is a promising area for future research.

References Bakeman, R., & Brown, J. (1980). Early interaction: Consequences for social and mental development at three years. Child Development, 51, 437–​447. Baron-​Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–​254. Blacking, J. (1967). Venda children’s songs: A study in ethnomusicological analysis. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Brown, S. (2000a). Evolutionary models of music: From sexual selection to group selection. In Tonneau & Thompson (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology, Volume 14: Evolution, culture and behaviour (pp. 231–​281). New York: Kluwer Academic/​Plenum Publishers. Brown, S. (2000b). The “musilanguage” model of music evolution. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 271–​300). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cernoch, J. M., & Porter, R. H. (1985). Recognition of maternal axillary odors by infants. Child Development, 56, 1593–​1598. Cirelli, L. K. (2018). How interpersonal synchrony facilitates early prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 35–​39. Cirelli, L. K., Einarson, K. M., & Trainor, L. J. (2014). Interpersonal synchrony increases prosocial behavior in infants. Developmental Science, 17, 1003–​1011. Cirelli, L. K., Peiris, R., Tavassoli, N., Recchia, H., & Ross, H. (2020). It takes two to tango: Preschool siblings’ musical play and prosociality in the home. Social Development, 29, 964–​ 975. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​sode.12439 Cirelli, L. K., & Trehub, S. E. (2019). Dancing to Metallica and Dora: Case study of a 19-​month-​ old. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1073.

162   Rabinowitch & Cirelli Cirelli, L. K., Trehub, S. E., & Trainor, L. J. (2018). Rhythm and melody as social signals for infants. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1423, 66–​72. Cirelli, L. K., Wan, S. J., Spinelli, C., & Trainor, L. J. (2017). Effects of interpersonal movement synchrony on infant helping behaviors: Is music necessary? Music Perception, 34, 319–​326. Cirelli, L. K., Wan, S. J., & Trainor, L. J. (2014). Fourteen-​month-​old infants use interpersonal synchrony as a cue to direct helpfulness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130400. Cirelli, L. K., Wan, S. J., & Trainor, L. J. (2016). Social effects of movement synchrony: Increased infant helpfulness only transfers to affiliates of synchronously moving partners. Infancy, 21, 807–​821. Cohen, E. E. A., Ejsmond-​Frey, R., Knight, N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2010). Rowers’ high: Behavioural synchrony is correlated with elevated pain thresholds. Biology Letters, 6, 106–​108. Cooper, R. P., & Aslin, R. N. (1990). Preference for infant-​directed speech in the first month after birth. Child Development, 61, 1584–​1595. Condillac, E. B. D. (1746/​2001). Essay on the origin of human knowledge (A. Aarsleff, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Costa-​Giomi, E., & Benetti, L. (2017). Through a baby’s ears: Musical interactions in a family community. International Journal of Community Music, 10, 289–​303. Cross, I. (2001). Music, cognition, culture, and evolution. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 28–​42. Cross, I. (2009). The evolutionary nature of musical meaning. Musicae Scientiae, 13(2 Suppl), 179–​200. Cross, L., Turgeon, M., & Atherton, G. (2019). How moving together binds us together: The social consequences of interpersonal entrainment and group processes. Open Psychology, 1, 273–​302. Cross, L., Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2019). I’ll just watch: Do the pro-​social effects of coordination really generalize to non-​actors? Journal of Social Psychology, 160, 248–​262. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​00224​545.2019.1623​161 Darwin, C. (1871/​2004). The descent of man: And selection in relation to sex. London: Penguin. DeCasper, A., & Fifer, W. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science, 208, 1174–​1176. Drake, C., Jones, M. R., & Baruch, C. (2000). The development of rhythmic attending in auditory sequences: Attunement, referent period, focal attending. Cognition, 77, 251–​288. Fancourt, D., & Perkins, R. (2018). The effects of mother–​infant singing on emotional closeness, affect, anxiety, and stress hormones. Music & Science, 1, 205920431774574. Fernald, A. (1985). Four-​month-​old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 181–​195. Finnegan, R. H. (2007). The hidden musicians: Music-​making in an English town. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Fitch, W. T. (2006). The biology and evolution of music: A comparative perspective. Cognition, 100(1), 173–​215. Freeman, W. J., III. (2000). A neurobiological role of music in social bonding. In N. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 411–​424). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gebauer, L., Witek, M. A. G., Hansen, N. C., Thomas, J., Konvalinka, I., & Vuust, P. (2016). Oxytocin improves synchronisation in leader-​ follower interaction. Scientific Reports, 6, 38416.

The Social Origins of Music    163 Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15, 398–​407. Good, A., Choma, B., & Russo, F. A. (2017). Movement synchrony influences intergroup relations in a minimal groups paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39, 231–​238. Good, A., & Russo, F. A. (2016). Singing promotes cooperation in a diverse group of children. Social Psychology, 47, 340–​344. Gudmundsdottir, H., & Trehub, S. (2018). Adults recognize toddlers’ song renditions. Psychology of Music, 46, 281–​291. Heinicke, C., & Fineman, N. (1999). Relationship-​based intervention with at-​risk mothers: Outcome in the first year of life. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 349–​374. Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It’s all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27, 949–​960. Katz, R., & Hacohen, R. (2003). The arts in mind: Pioneering texts of a coterie of British men of letters. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Kim, M., & Schachner, A. (2023). The origins of dance: Characterizing the development of infants’ earliest dance behavior. Developmental Psychology, 59, 691. Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Joint music making promotes prosocial behavior in 4-​ year-​old children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 354–​364. Koehne, S., Behrends, A., Fairhurst, M. T., & Dziobek, I. (2016). Fostering social cognition through an imitation-​and synchronization-​based dance/​movement intervention in adults with autism spectrum disorder: A controlled proof-​of-​concept study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 85, 27–​35. Koehne, S., Hatri, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Dziobek, I. (2016). Perceived interpersonal synchrony increases empathy: Insights from autism spectrum disorder. Cognition, 146, 8–​15. Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., v. Cramon, D. Y., Zysset, S., Lohmann, G., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Bach speaks: A cortical “language-​network” serves the processing of music. NeuroImage, 17, 956–​966. Kokal, I., Engel, A., Kirschner, S., & Keysers, C. (2011). Synchronized drumming enhances activity in the caudate and facilitates prosocial commitment-​if the rhythm comes easily. PloS One, 6, e27272. Lamont, A. (2008). Young children’s musical worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 247–​261. Landa, R. J., Holman, K. C., O’Neill, A. H., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Intervention targeting development of socially synchronous engagement in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 13–​21. Lang, M., Bahna, V., Shaver, J. H., Reddish, P., & Xygalatas, D. (2017). Sync to link: Endorphin-​ mediated synchrony effects on cooperation. Biological Psychology, 127, 191–​197. Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lense, M. D., & Camarata, S. (2020). PRESS-play: Musical engagement as a motivating platform for social interaction and social play in young children with ASD. Music & science, 3, 2059204320933080. Lewis, J. (2006). The communicative culture of Mbendjele Pygmy forest hunter-​gatherers: Some implications for theories of the origins of language. Presented at the Cradle of Language Conference, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Macrae, C. N., Duffy, O. K., Miles, L. K., & Lawrence, J. (2008). A case of hand waving: Action synchrony and person perception. Cognition, 109, 152–​156.

164   Rabinowitch & Cirelli Masataka, N. (1999). Preference for infant-​directed singing in 2-​day-​old hearing infants of deaf parents. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1001–​1005. McAuley, J. D., Jones, M. R., Holub, S., Johnston, H. M., & Miller, N. S. (2006). The time of our lives: Life span development of timing and event tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 348–​367. Mogan, R., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. A. (2017). To be in synchrony or not?: A meta-​analysis of synchrony’s effects on behavior, perception, cognition and affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 13–​20. Mondloch, C. J., Lewis, T. L., Budreau, D. R., Maurer, D., Dannemiller, J. L., Stephens, B. R., & Kleiner-​Gathercoal, K. A. (1999). Face perception during early infancy. Developmental Science, 10, 419–​422. Paladino, M. P., Mazzurega, M., Pavani, F., & Schubert, T. W. (2010). Synchronous multisensory stimulation blurs self-​other boundaries. Psychological Science, 21, 1202–​1207. Patel, A. D. (2003). Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 674–​681. Rabinowitch, T.-​C., Cross, I., & Burnard, P. (2013). Long-​term musical group interaction has a positive influence on empathy in children. Psychology of Music, 41, 484–​498. Rabinowitch, T.-​C., & Knafo-​Noam, A. (2015). Synchronous rhythmic interaction enhances children’s perceived similarity and closeness towards each other. Plos One, 10, e0120878. Rabinowitch, T.-​C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017a). Joint rhythmic movement increases 4-​year-​old children’s prosocial sharing and fairness toward peers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1050. Rabinowitch, T.-​C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017b). Synchronized movement experience enhances peer cooperation in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 21–​32. Reddish, P., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. (2013). Let’s dance together: Synchrony, shared intentionality and cooperation. PloS One, 8, e71182. Reigado, J., & Rodrigues, H. (2018). Vocalizations produced in the second year of life in response to speaking and singing. Psychology of Music, 46, 626–​637. Rousseau, J.-​J. (1781/​1986). Essay on the origin of languages. New York: Harper & Row. Schachner, A., & Hannon, E. E. (2011). Infant-​directed speech drives social preferences in 5-​ month-​old infants. Developmental Psychology, 47, 19–​25. Schellenberg, E. G., Corrigall, K. A., Dys, S. P., & Malti, T. (2015). Group music training and children’s prosocial skills. Plos One, 10, e0141449. Shamay-​Tsoory, S. G., Saporta, N., Marton-​Alper, I. Z., & Gvirts, H. Z. (2019). Herding brains: A core neural mechanism for social alignment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 174–​186. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Sole, M. (2017). Crib song: Insights into functions of toddlers private spontaneous singing. Psychology of Music, 45, 172–​192. Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 349–​367. Tarr, B., Launay, J., Cohen, E., & Dunbar, R. I. (2015). Synchrony and exertion during dance independently raise pain threshold and encourage social bonding. Biology Letters, 11, 20150767. Trainor, L. J. (1996). Infant preferences for infant-​directed versus noninfant-​directed playsongs and lullabies. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 83–​92. Trehub, S., Unyk, A., Kamenetsky, S., Hill, D., Trainor, L., Henderson, J., & Saraza, M. (1997). Mothers’ and fathers’ singing to infants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 500–​507.

The Social Origins of Music    165 Trehub, S. E., Weiss, M. W., & Cirelli, L. K. (2019). Musicality across the lifespan. In D. J. Levitin & P. J. Rentfrow (Eds.), Foundations in music psychology: Theory and research (pp. 265–​303). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tsakiris, M. (2008). Looking for myself: Current multisensory input alters self-​face recognition. PloS One, 3, e4040. Tunçgenç, B., & Cohen, E. (2016a). Interpersonal movement synchrony facilitates pro-​social behavior in children’s peer-​play. Developmental Science, 21, e12505. Tunçgenç, B., & Cohen, E. (2016b). Movement synchrony forges social bonds across group divides. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 782. Tunçgenç, B., Cohen, E., & Fawcett, C. (2015). Rock with me: The role of movement synchrony in infants’ social and nonsocial choices. Child Development, 86, 976–​984. Turino, T. (2008). Music as social life: The politics of participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Valdesolo, P., & Desteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion, 11, 262–​266. Vouloumanos, A., & Werker, J. F. (2007). Listening to language at birth: Evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science, 10, 159–​164. Webb, D. (1769/​2003). Observations on the correspondence between poetry and music. In R. Katz & R. Hacohen (Eds.), The arts in mind: Pioneering texts of a coterie of British men of letters. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20, 1–​5. Woolhouse, M. H., Tidhar, D., & Cross, I. (2016). Effects on inter-​personal memory of dancing in time with others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 167. Zatorre, R. J., & Peretz, I. (2001). The biological foundations of music: Preface. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930(1), ix–​x. Zentner, M., & Eerola, T. (2010). Rhythmic engagement with music in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 5768–​5773.

Chapter 12

Prenatal and P o st nata l Dev el opment of Mu si c a l B ehaviors a nd T h e i r Role in I nfa nc y Eino Partanen, Paula Virtala, and Kaisamari Kostilainen

Introduction Following a definition by Spender and Shuter-​Dyson (1987), musical behaviors are infant behaviors that adults interpret as conforming to expected norms of the surrounding musical culture. As a result, adults react accordingly, perhaps by using musical behaviors themselves in interactions. These musical behaviors can be overtly musical, such as singing, but they can also simply create sound or rhythmic structures. For the development of musical behaviors, the most relevant factor is how adults direct these activities or react to them. For example, many infant vocalizations can be interpreted as either speech or music. Eventually, through learning via adult feedback and interpretation the infant starts to comprehend that sounds organized in a particular manner are classified as music while other groupings of the sounds are not (paraphrasing Spender & Shuter-​Dyson, 1987). Prior to generating sounds, infants’ musical behaviors develop on the basis of sensitivity to psycho-​acoustic features of music (such as pitch, loudness, duration, etc.), or discrimination of structures and rules (patterns, regularities) associated with music, and music’s syntactic/​communicative elements (music as a form of language with rules and structures governing it). In essence, infants’ musical behaviors reflect the musical idioms of the surrounding musical culture (Spender & Shuter-​Dyson, 1987). Initially these musical behaviors may arise from shared activities between an infant and a caregiver, where movement, touch, and sounds are used to communicate. For

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    167 example, Malloch and Trevarthen (2009) suggest that the interaction between a caregiver and a child is based on many musical features, such as interpersonal rhythmicity in turn-​taking. Malloch and Trevarthen (2009) do not equate these interpersonal rhythms with musical rhythms, but instead argue that the infant learns many skills and abilities needed for musical behaviors in reciprocal interaction with the caregiver. It could be argued that once these abilities develop, they pave the way for learning more complex behaviors that can be classified as musical. Although musical behaviors and some skills needed for the development of musical behaviors are learned in social interaction, their development is also based on the brain’s abilities to discriminate and process the acoustic features of music. Development of auditory skills begins in utero and continues after birth as the neural basis of auditory perception develops further. Developmentally, the ability to discriminate musical features most likely begins with pitch discrimination, or at least pitch is the most prominent auditory feature in infant-​caregiver interaction. Caregivers use speech and song rich in pitch features, such as exaggerated and high pitch contours and the use of high-​pitched voice, and it seems to be the main feature of parentese (i.e., the exaggerated style of speech adults adopt when talking to infants) that the infants also focus on. Thus, caregivers’ interaction with infants using stimulation rich in pitch changes provides the infant with highly age-​appropriate stimulation. As music or musical activities are rich in pitch changes, it would explain why the caregivers tend to focus on musical approaches, and use play songs when in interaction with infants or use lullabies to ease infants’ distress (for a review, see Trehub, Ghazban, & Corbeil, 2015). In the following sections, we overview the various facets of the development of musical behaviors. First, we go through the development of auditory skills in utero and in infancy. Second, we focus on how musical behaviors develop in reciprocal interaction between caregivers and infants. Third, we continue with how both neural development and early interaction eventually lead to the infant becoming enculturated to its musical surroundings. In the final sections we propose how and why caregivers could use musical activities with their children, not only to help them learn musical behaviors, but also in order to promote their wellbeing. We also briefly discuss how musical activities could be beneficial for children at risk of developmental difficulties.

Early Auditory Skills as the Basis of Musical Behaviors in Infancy In humans, the auditory skills needed to process music and eventually to produce musical behavior start to develop in utero. From a neurobiological perspective, one of the important developmental events is the neuronal migration, which forms six distinct layers in the human cortex (see, e.g., Kostović & Judas, 2010), seen already during the last trimester of pregnancy. The developing and migrating neurons start to form

168    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen connections with the sensory input (e.g., from the ear) usually between the twenty-​ fourth and twenty-​sixth weeks of gestation. Early on, these connections transmit sensory information to the developing cortex quite slowly (e.g., Kostović & Judas, 2010). However, soon after the initial connections between the sensory organs and the cortical layers are formed, a slower process of myelination begins (where a fatty layer envelops the axon, or the part of the neural cell transmitting information forward, increasing transmission speed), although the onset of myelination differs between different brain areas (e.g., Shoykhet & Clark, 2011). From a perspective of brain function, these neurobiological changes, starting already in utero, result in functional structures and regions on the cortex intended for specific purposes and functions (Thomason et al., 2014). The process is, however, slow: while functionally specialized structures do form in the fetal brain, these structures may not yet be well connected with the rest of the brain. Connections first seem to form between the two hemispheres, or halves of the brain, while connections within a hemisphere develop more slowly (Perani et al., 2011; Kostović & Jovanov-​Milošević, 2006). Eventually these structures begin to specialize further to process complex sensory input (such as speech; Perani et al., 2011) and conceptual information, which are a basis for adult cognitive functions and learning abilities. Interestingly, some other parts of the central nervous system (such as the brainstem) develop much faster. It has led many to argue that in infants and children, development of musical behaviors may rely on “lower” structures in the central nervous system (e.g., Chandrasekaran & Kraus, 2010), with the role of the cortex increasing later in life. For example, processing of musical intervals in Western music could even arise from the physiological properties of the cochlea (Blinowska et al., 2012) or even the auditory nerve fibers themselves (Tramo et al., 2001). How do neurobiological development and brain development via sensory input combine to give rise to abilities needed for musical behaviors? The brain develops via two partially separate trajectories (see, e.g., Anderson & Thomason, 2013). First, the brain structure and function are shaped by activity-​driven (or activity-​dependent) development, where the neurons migrate and connections form on the basis of spontaneous activity originating from the brain itself and this is responsible for forming the neural structure that is specific to the species itself. More specifically, this activity-​driven development is proposed to be one of the mechanisms that gives rise to visual, auditory, and sensorimotor sensory cortices, or regions of the brain responsible for processing certain types of stimuli, and also how axons bringing sensory information from the sensory organs find their way to the proper region of the cortex (Vanhatalo & Kaila, 2006). Generally, activity-​dependent development can be seen as a developmental trajectory that is responsible for early development of large neural structures in the human brain primed for incoming sensory information. How specifically these larger structures process the sensory information depends on the second developmental trajectory, the stimulus-​driven development. Building upon the primed neural structures in the developing brain, stimulus-​ driven development is a developmental trajectory where sensory input shapes the cortical structure based on the sensory stimulation originating from the surrounding

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    169 environment. For auditory processing, a clear example is the tonotopic organization of the auditory cortex, where certain neurons of the auditory cortex start to specialize to process sounds of certain pitch range. Studies in animals show that if the incoming sensory information is abnormal (e.g., white noise instead of meaningful and varying stimuli), the auditory cortex has great difficulties in developing a tonotopic organization (Chang & Merzenich, 2003). In humans the effects of abnormal development might be seen in preterm infants, whose sound environment differs from that of full-​term born infants. This has been suggested to be associated with preterms’ developmental challenges later on (e.g., Rand & Lahav, 2014). The lack of appropriate sensory information hinders the development of other senses as well. For example, Muir and Mitchell (1973) deprived cats of normal visual stimuli; as a result, the cats’ visual cortices did not develop in a similar way to their non-​deprived peers. In cases where appropriate sensory information does not reach the brain (e.g., due to deafness), auditory cortices are eventually taken over by other senses and used, in general, for the processing of visual stimuli (e.g., Finney, Fine, & Dobkins, 2001). From the perspective of stimulus-​driven development and findings from sensory deprivation studies, it is apparent that the development of musical behaviors depends upon the stimulation the fetus and the infant is exposed to. In short, without an enriched environment where the infant can experience a wide range of stimuli, the auditory skills needed for processing of musical features may not develop. Several studies have strived to characterize the fetal auditory environment and the stimulation the fetus is exposed to, and the consensus is that during pregnancy the fetus can clearly hear a plethora of intrauterine sounds, such as maternal heartbeat, breathing, and bowel movements. An important facet of fetal auditory experience is that the sounds that reach the utero are attenuated due to tissue between the fetal ear and the sound source, although the level of attenuation may depend upon the pitch of the sound with high-​pitched sounds being far more attenuated than low-​pitched ones (Richards et al., 1992). Earliest fetal experiences with sounds may thus be associated with low-​pitched characteristics of these sounds (e.g., rhythm), and this was suggested to drive their early auditory discrimination as well (Spence & DeCasper, 1987). Furthermore, the fetal experience of these sounds differs from that of an infant because the fetal ear canal is filled by amniotic fluid and the sounds are probably transmitted via bone conduction into the inner ear of the infant. Although the fetus hears meaningful sounds, such as sounds of its family and the surrounding environment, the maternal voice is most prominent and loudest in the womb (see Lecanuet & Schaal, 1996, for a review). The reason for this is that the maternal voice is not only transmitted to the womb in a similar fashion as external sounds, but also internally via tissues and especially via the bones of the mother. Thus, the maternal voice and or any sounds generated by the mother (singing, speech, breathing, and heart rate) may be more salient than other or extrauterine sounds and have a special role in infant auditory development. Consistent with this, the newborn infant can distinguish the voice of its mother voice from other female voices (e.g., Spence & Freeman, 1996), even though acoustically the differences are quite small.

170    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen The fetus and newborn learn from exposure to sensory stimuli via several mechanisms. One central mechanism is statistical learning, whereby infants learn statistical regularities, or how different types of stimuli can follow each other (for a review, see Saffran & Kirkham, 2018). One example of a statistical regularity could be the types of phonemes that can follow each other in a language or what types of notes more commonly end a musical phrase. Statistical learning may be especially relevant for infants to segment speech into words. In addition to statistical learning, multimodal exposure may also be especially relevant for infant learning, as simultaneous events in several sensory modalities makes it easier for the fetus or infant (or an adult; e.g., Hyde et al., 2010) to attend to them in comparison to situations where the stimuli are presented in one modality only. This model of learning is dubbed intersensory redundancy hypothesis (originally presented by Gibson, 1966—​see Bahrick & Lickliter, 2014 for a review). The most cited example of early multimodal learning may be the study of Phillips-​Silver and Trainor (2005), where they trained seven-​month-​old babies to recognize certain auditory rhythmic patterns. This was done by either exposing babies by listening only, by listening and seeing an adult move to the beat, or by listening and being bounced to the beat themselves. The results suggest that the learning of the beat was enhanced when the babies were themselves bounced to the beat and may imply that especially sensorimotor stimulation may enhance infant learning. In the fetal period the fetus may learn most from multimodal stimulation where the mother reacts to external or self-​generated sounds and the events of the surrounding world are combined with, for example, movement that the fetus can also sense (such as movement in rhythm with the sound; see, e.g., Moon & Fifer, 2000). Finally, we must not ignore that infants also learn by conditioning and especially habituation. Habituation could explain why newborns of the mothers exposed to airplane noise during pregnancy were less distressed by airplane noise than the infants of mothers who did not live near an airport (Ando & Hattori, 1970). As the infant and the fetus clearly can learn, studies have strived to assess what types of auditory skills the infant already has, which may form a basis for learning musical behaviors. As behavioral studies in infants (especially newborns) are challenging, much of the evidence is based on electrophysiological studies of neural activity (EEG and MEG). The accumulating evidence suggests that infants are quite capable in discriminating changes in basic acoustic features in sounds (e.g., Sambeth et al., 2009), and can discriminate changes in pitch (even though they are less accurate than adults; e.g., Novitski et al., 2007), notice changes in many linguistic features (e.g., Partanen, Pakarinen, Kujala, et al., 2013) and in emotional speech sounds (e.g., Kostilainen et al., 2020), and can discriminate between different chords (e.g., Virtala et al., 2013). In addition, infants seem to be able to segment the sounds into different sound streams (e.g., one low in pitch and another high in pitch), process combinations of different acoustic features, and group consecutive sounds together (e.g., Ruusuvirta et al., 2003). They can perceive musical intervals, recognize familiar melodies even when transposed to different frequencies, and detect changes in tempo (see, e.g., Trainor, 2012, for a review). However, even though infants seem to have quite broad auditory skills, their ability to

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    171 demonstrate these is limited as they may not be able to, for example, turn their heads toward stimuli of interest or vocalize these changes in sounds themselves. In terms of learning musical behaviors, earlier research proposed that infants might focus on absolute pitch cues while adults would rely on relative pitch cues (Saffran & Griepentrog, 2001). This view, however, does seem to be incorrect, as many more recent studies suggest that relative pitch cues are more important than absolute pitch cues for infants as well. For example, Plantinga & Trainor (2005) showed that six-​month-​old infants seem to prefer a novel melody over both an original and a transposed melody; this suggests that infants either did not remember the absolute pitch of the melody or they noticed that the original and the transposed melody were similar by using relative pitch cues. To tie the neural development and early auditory skills to the development of musical skills and musical behaviors, many activities in reciprocal interaction between a caregiver and an infant are inherently multimodal and utilize the infants’ preexisting auditory skills and learning abilities to best effect for learning. Usually in interaction, either the auditory information is presented simultaneously with visual information (e.g., singing or peekaboo games, where the infant focuses on the caregiver’s face) or the auditory information is coupled with movement (e.g., bouncing babies to the rhythm of the music or a play song presented with a funny choreography). More specifically, an argument can be made for the importance of rhythm or movement in multimodal learning in early infancy. Infant auditory processing may rely on low-​pitch characteristics of sounds (Spence & DeCasper, 1987), such as rhythm, which the infant is exposed to in utero more than to high-​pitch characteristics of the sounds. Furthermore, rhythm and rhythm perception may be one of the first auditory features that starts to teach the infant the rules and regularities of the musical culture of its surrounding environment. This is evident from studies that show how discriminating rhythmical patterns can be challenging for one-​year-​old infants not exposed to these rhythmical patterns early on (Hannon, Soley, & Levine, 2011). Music also makes us move, and Zentner and Eerola (2010) argue that the tendency to move to music may be associated with displays of positive affect. While infants do move to rhythms, they do not move to speech, except for youngest infants to infant-​directed speech. The possible large importance of rhythm on learning and development of musical behaviors is also seen in caregiver behavior. For example, caregivers often repeat songs in a similar manner from one occasion to another and use multimodal means to emphasize the rhythmic structure of the song (Longhi, 2009). Finally, while neural development and early auditory skills may explain why infants may focus on some musical features (e.g., pitch) when discriminating between sounds and clarify, and why caregivers use these skills and infants’ learning abilities in interaction, it does not explain the prevalence of such musical interaction itself. However, music seems in many ways a very human trait and it is argued that several motivational factors give rise to musical behaviors that are unique to humans, as eloquently explained by Sandra Trehub and Erin Hannon:

172    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen General-​purpose mechanisms may account for the perceptual foundations of music, but special-​purpose motivational mechanisms are needed to account for the perpetuation of musical behavior in all human societies. (2006, p. 91)

Early Interaction, Reciprocity, and the Development of Musical Behaviors As outlined in the previous section, infant auditory skills form a foundation for the ability to perceive musically relevant auditory features. However, as captured by the quote from Trehub and Hannon, these perceptual skills alone do not explain why infants express musical behaviors. Instead, musical behaviors develop in reciprocal interaction, in which caregivers engage with their infants, helping them learn and develop, and this reciprocal interaction and attachment give rise to musical behaviors. This section delves more deeply into how early interaction is essential for both learning in general and learning of musical behaviors. Human infants do not develop and learn without interaction with a caregiver; thus early interaction is essential for future development. The infant needs to know that there is a caregiver available to provide care, nursing, support, and security. In short, the infant seeks a caregiver to interact with what is responsive to the needs of the infant. The most prominent way to describe how the early interaction between an infant and a caregiver develops is by the attachment theory, originally defined by Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth (1969). Broadly, attachment theory strives to characterize how the interpersonal relationship between a caregiver and an infant forms and how the quality of this relationship can be defined. While attachment theory is widely accepted as a good model for interpersonal relationships, its original formulation has received criticism as well (e.g., Mercer, 2011). For example, the original idea of a “critical period” in attachment formation is no longer seen as valid, even though the current formulation emphasizes the importance of early experiences in attachment formation. In a sense, attachment stems from the interaction between a caregiver and an infant (Ainsworth, 1979), or from how the caregiver responds to infant interactions. An infant needs at least one secure relationship to a caregiver, or otherwise social and emotional development may be hindered (e.g., Bates & Bayles, 1988). For secure attachment to develop, studies suggest that parental sensitivity and responsivity (Ainsworth et al., 2015) are the most essential building blocks. A sensitive parent observes infant’s emotions and actions in the interaction, and a responsive parent reacts to them in an appropriate fashion on both the emotional and the practical level. But why is reciprocal interaction relevant for learning of musical behaviors? Simply put, musical behaviors are cultural conventions that the child learns based on social learning and how the caregiver values them in an interaction (whether they conform to expected musical norms or not). In addition, complex activities are extremely hard

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    173 to learn without guidance, or without breaking them into small units that an infant can learn. This type of learning is neatly described by Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the zone of proximal development. According to Vygotsky (1978), skills can be divided into three categories: skills that the infant already has and can demonstrate on its own, skills that the infant can do with caregiver support, and skills that the infant is yet unable to do. The caregiver instructs and supports the child in acquisition of a new skill that the child could not acquire on its own but can when receiving adequate support and instruction (so-​called scaffolding). The relevant aspect of interaction is reciprocity: a caregiver directs the infant’s attention to the target of learning and utilizes joint attention to further help and direct the infants’ learning. When driving the interaction between the dyadic pair, the caregiver can maintain, direct, and modulate the infant’s (focus of) attention to a relevant target or object for the purpose of the interaction (“Look, a moo-​cow!”). Focusing of attention and utilizing joint attention may be one of the first things infants learn in reciprocal interaction during development, and over the first year of life. During this time, infants start to intentionally focus on a toy or other object of interest and then switch their focus back to the caregiver. Infants benefit from shifting their attention to their caregivers in an unfamiliar situation to obtain guidance to their own behavior and learn (e.g., Feinman, 1982). Furthermore, situations of joint attention allow for more challenging activities as well and, for example, the complexity of play increases in situations involving joint attention between the infant and the caregiver (e.g., Bigelow, MacLean, & Proctor, 2004). As joint attention helps infants learn, it has been shown to also influence language learning in infancy. For example, children’s communication behaviors at twelve months predict some language outcomes six months later (Markus et al., 2000). The benefits of joint attention and reciprocal interaction are not limited to learning but they are also enjoyable for the infant. When the infant and the caregiver are jointly attending to a toy, the infant shows more positive affect than when playing alone (Adamson & Bakerman, 1985). However, learning to direct attention takes time. First, infants are passive in situations of joint attention and focus on objects instead of interacting with the caregiver or flexibly shifting their attention between different targets. Around one year of age, the infant starts to take a more active role, attempting to direct the attention of the caregiver and use communicative expressions (Tomasello, 1995). In these settings, securely attached children seem to display more joint attention than children with insecure attachment (Naber et al., 2007). While reciprocity in interaction is not only a method by which infants learn new skills, it can also help the infant or child to assess emotions and activities and enhance the feeling of unity between the caregiver and the child. Furthermore, it can have long-​term benefits for social skills during development (Feldman, Bamberger, & Kanat-​Maymon, 2013). Creighton (2011) illustrates that reciprocal interaction allows caregivers to lengthen the emotional communication the caregiver by being attuned to the infant. This can maintain and regulate the infants’ arousal to stimulate the infant while simultaneously avoiding distress.

174    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen Delving more specifically into how musical behaviors are learned in reciprocal interaction via shared attention, it seems that musical activities in general may tap into infants’ innate abilities better than many other activities, helping to focus attention and potentially enhancing learning. Infants seem especially interested in infant-​directed music, and infant-​directed singing maintains infant attention better than infant-​ directed speech (Nakata & Trehub, 2004). Trehub, Becker, and Morley (2015) argue that the reason for the greater effectiveness of singing over, for example, speech in sustaining infant attention is its rhythmicity. In other words, singing has a pattern that can attract and capture infants’ attention and distract them from their current concern. Comparing infant-​directed singing with singing in general, infant-​directed singing has lower tempo and exaggerated rhythm (Trainor et al., 1997). This could make infant-​ directed singing more predictable than speech and help infants to focus on it. However, the exaggerated pitch is also important, as infants focus specifically on pitch in infant-​ directed speech (Fernald & Kuhl 1987) and the exaggerated pitch of infant-​directed speech is beneficial for the development of, for example, vowel discrimination (Trainor & Desjardins, 2002) and even discrimination of words (Karzon, 1985). Furthermore, singing (or music in general) is often a multimodal stimulus accompanied either by the movement of the caregiver or infant. In terms of attention and multimodality in learning of musical behaviors, Longhi (2009) showed how parents use singing and various physical behaviors (moving themselves, the infant, or a toy) to emphasize specific patterns of the song. The infants later learned from this multimodal presentation of music and started responding with their own movements or activity to the beat of the music. The authors argued that this multimodal interaction helped the infants to learn how to segment the music and detect the beats. Learning of patterns and regularities associated with musical culture of their surroundings, and especially the ability to repeat them, is crucial for development of musical behaviors, which takes time. While infants and young children produce sounds and generate patterns, they may not be able to repeat them and may be more interested in the “sensory” aspects of sounds instead of musical norms (Swanwich, 1991). While reciprocal interaction may be essential for development of musical behaviors, even passive music exposure has a positive influence on an infant. For example, musical exposure (listening to recordings of play songs) seems to keep infants in content or neutral state longer than, for example, recordings of infant-​directed or adult-​directed speech (Corbeil, Trehub, & Peretz, 2016). As such, passive exposure to music may be beneficial in many ways, for example by helping with mood regulation or perception of familiarity of the auditory environment, thus reducing distress. There is also evidence that passive exposure can result in learning both in fetuses (e.g., Partanen, Kujala, Näätänen, et al., 2013) and infants (e.g., Trainor, Lee, & Bosnyak, 2011). However, the learning effects may be small, as passive listening lacks not only the social nature but also the multimodality of active singing, instrument playing, or other types of music-​ making, which are inherently sensorimotor. Indeed, rat studies suggest that an association between the sound and the reward improves memory traces for these sounds (for a review, see Weinberger, 2004), which is further enhanced when the importance of the

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    175 reward is high. For an infant, play, care, or interaction that provides joy could be an example of such a reward that enhances learning in interactive situations. Furthermore, in adult humans, findings by Lappe and colleagues (2008) suggest that when music has an active role in learning (e.g., learning to play a piece), neural activity is enhanced more than in situations where music has a more passive role (e.g., listening and evaluating errors done by others playing the piece). As musical interaction seems to have effects far outside the scope of merely learning musical behaviors, many interventions have strived to utilize musical interaction with hopes of positive developmental outcomes. In short, interventions focusing on reciprocal musical interaction between a caregiver and child seem to have positive effects, for example, on speech perception and language development (e.g., Gerry, Unrau, & Trainor, 2012). What is often emphasized is that mere exposure is not enough, but musical intervention needs to be reciprocal or be somehow social for it to have an optimal positive effect on development (Virtala & Partanen, 2018). On occasion, benefits of musical interventions for infants can also be quite broad instead of specific and may stem from improvement of parental sensitivity, or “positive parenting.” When musical interaction is structured to focus on features relevant to secure attachment (parental sensitivity; or more specifically, expressions of affection, physical touch, praise, and age-​appropriate expectations and instructions), parental emotional responsiveness increases (e.g., Nicholson et al., 2008). In short, musical reciprocal interaction can serve as an attractive and rewarding venue for multimodal learning at the zone of proximal development. It can also improve parental skill development and self-​confidence, further supporting secure attachment and improving developmental outcomes of the infant as well.

The Development of Musical Skills via Enculturation For musical abilities and musical behaviors to develop, infants need to know what their surroundings classifies as music, or what the musical norms and activities prevalent in their surroundings are. This process, on a broad and general level, is called musical enculturation (see, e.g., Hannon & Trainor, 2007). Initially, infants are sensitive to various contrasts and (sound) changes, but over time their sensitivity to specific types of contrasts or changes in sounds increases while sensitivity to other types of contrasts decrease. Thus, infants start to develop categorical perception, meaning they develop the ability to label certain types of sounds as belonging to one category while other types of sounds belong to another category. In language development, this means that they acquire the ability to detect differences between the phonemes that exist in their native language(s) while their ability to detect non-​native changes diminishes. But enculturation is not “either-​or”; early learning can be understood as a part of a continuum where

176    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen infant perception changes over time from more universal to more culture-​specific. Newborns slowly become neurally committed or enculturated to the sound environment they are growing up in (Kuhl, 2004; Hannon & Trainor, 2007). However, for a long while infants retain the ability to quickly learn to discriminate non-​native sound contrasts if they are exposed to them, while for adults the ability to learn is slow and may require extensive training (Hannon & Trehub, 2005). In music, enculturation is seen in acquiring various skills mostly via passive exposure, such as understanding of musical scales, key (major/​minor), meter/​rhythm, and tonality (e.g., Hannon & Trainor, 2007). Hannon and Trainor (2007) argue that musical enculturation has universal or biological constraints, which are, for example, perception of consonance and dissonance (which may be based on the cochlea, e.g., Blinowska et al., 2012; for a review, see Virtala & Tervaniemi, 2017), temporal regularity, and neural responsivity to multisensory stimulation. In contrast, musical behaviors are probably learned in caregiver interaction and are based on skills learned via musical enculturation. In line with the reasoning of Hannon and Trainor (2007), during enculturation infants form neural memory traces to musical stimuli or musical contrasts, and these are later used to generate specific behaviors, which are perceived and evaluated as music by the surrounding culture. Instead of “formal” music lessons, humans become musically enculturated and learn the basics of musical behaviors in various informal musical settings during infancy and early childhood (for a review, see Putkinen, Saarikivi, & Tervaniemi, 2013). Indeed, these informal musical activities are generally social, or occur in reciprocal interaction. These informal activities can include, for example, singing play songs, child listening to parent singing, spontaneous drumming or tapping to a rhythm, moving to music, or music experiences manifested in many other ways. The more musically enriched the home is, the more it may predispose to shared informal music activities between the infant and the caregiver. Although many of the studies have focused on the effects of formal music training on development, it is apparent that informal musical activities also give rise to musical behaviors that seem to have long-​term effects. Specifically, they seem to improve auditory discrimination skills and even how the brain focuses attention to sounds (Putkinen, Tervaniemi, & Huotilainen, 2013; see also a review by Putkinen et al., 2015). Prevalence of informal musical activities at home can also be interpreted as a more enriched home environment, which may have broader benefits on development than merely improving auditory discrimination. While follow-​up studies assessing the effects of shared informal home music activities are sparse, an Australian follow-​up study by Williams and colleagues (2015) suggests that the amount of shared music activities at home at the age of two to three years has small but significant effects on vocabulary size, numeracy, attention, and emotional regulation, and prosocial skills at the age of four to five years. Williams and colleagues (2015) propose that the shared musical activities at home improve certain types of skills that, for example, book reading does not. Especially, they suggest that musical activities have the largest and most independent effect on prosocial skills (see also Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010).

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    177 In addition, children develop music emotions, preferences for music, and musical identities. Development of musical emotions is necessarily a combination of emotional development and cultural learning. Before school age, children start associating certain emotions and valences with certain acoustic aspects of music, although learning culture-​specific contrasts like major and minor tonalities and their emotional connotations takes several years (e.g., Dalla Bella et al., 2001). Already children under five years judge music as, for example, happy or sad (Nawrot, 2003), particularly based on its tempo (e.g., Dalla Bella et al., 2001; Mote, 2011). Developmentally, an even earlier emotional aspect of music processing is preference for sensory consonance over dissonance. While this preference has been observed in infants (Trainor, Tsang, & Cheung, 2002), it has also been questioned by more recent findings (Plantinga & Trehub, 2014). At least, emotion-​related structures in the newborn brain seem to react differently to consonant and dissonant music (Perani et al., 2010). Finally, Hargreaves, Miell, and MacDonald (2002) extensively cover development of musical identities or preferences on a more general level (instead of preferences of certain acoustic aspects of music). In childhood, musical preferences or musical taste likely develop as part of other developmental trajectories: a child who learns to play a complex piece on the piano after hours of practice may receive a confidence boost, and this may carry over to musical preferences as well. In adolescence, other developmental needs may influence musical preferences; for example, adolescents often use music for mood regulation (e.g., Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007) and may select the type of music that benefits their mood regulation needs.

How Caregivers Can Support Child Development Using Music Development of musical behaviors is not separate from development in general. Similar approaches that help infants learn musical behaviors are beneficial for development of most other skills. For example, reciprocal interaction and settings of joint attention; parental sensitivity to infant needs; mood and emotional regulation; operating at the zone of proximal development; and multimodality of musical interaction all help learning in infancy. As reviewed previously, reciprocal musical interactions may have direct effects on both more specific benefits (e.g., language learning, development of auditory skills, or other cognitive processes) and more broad positive effects (e.g., in wellbeing) that possibly stem from improvement in parental skills, parental self-​confidence, and sensitivity; or in other words, positive parenting (e.g., Nicholson et al., 2008). Shared musical activities in early childhood seem also to improve prosocial behavior later in life. Use of music in reciprocal interaction is most likely to influence development in a positive fashion, especially if the parents can use (and choose) music in a manner that best suits them. If the parents experience positive outcomes from using music in an

178    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen interaction, they may keep using music in their daily lives with their child; for example, if they have experienced their infant being more easily soothed by music or if they more easily manage to get their infant into a meaningful interaction when using music (see, e.g., Virtala & Partanen, 2018). For learning of musical behaviors and being motivated by music, both parents and infants need to be able to experience the joy of music, especially by experiencing positive benefits of it. While research shows the benefits of musical interactions, especially singing or lullabies that may be very effective in alleviating infant distress (e.g., Robertson & Detmer, 2019), caregivers may be hesitant to use music in interaction if they feel they cannot sing or are unaccustomed to making music. For practitioners, guiding parents in a manner that allows them to gain positive experiences in childcare by using music is likely to promote the use of music at home as well, further promoting learning of skills needed for musical behaviors to develop. Although music and musical interaction has its benefits, overstimulation may be harmful, especially for fetuses. Extensive exposure to sounds (especially unstructured or loud sounds) can hinder the functional development of the auditory system. For example, when pregnant rats were exposed to continuous noise, the auditory cortices of their pups did not show a normal tonotopical organization, and this abnormal structure took time to correct postnatally (e.g., Chang & Merzenich, 2003). For this reason, during the fetal stage, continuous and extensive sound exposure even to pleasant sounds like music may do more harm than good. In contrast, “talking to your bump” is normal and recommended approach to start preparing for the newborn and helps caregivers to begin to form an attachment with the unborn child. Even though studies indicate that the infant brain activation shows long-​term effects of songs they were exposed to in utero, this exposure was sparse and short in duration (e.g., Partanen, Kujala, Tervaniemi, et al., 2013). For parents wanting the best for their child, instead of prenatal exposure it may be best to focus on preparing for parenthood and forming an attachment with the unborn child. To summarize, reciprocal musical activities include many aspects of “good parenting,” such as directing attention, modulation of infant arousal, parental sensitivity to infant needs, and many others. In addition to these more general benefits, musical activities promote the learning of musical behaviors but extend to enhance other types of auditory processing, including speech sound discrimination. This can be beneficial especially for caregivers of children who are at risk of developmental delays or have other developmental challenges. For example, feelings of anxiety in parents of preterm-​born children are not rare (Rogers et al., 2013), which may have detrimental effects on reciprocal interaction, attachment, and future development in comparison to parents of full-​ term children (Korja, Latva, & Lehtonen, 2012). In addition, infants at risk of dyslexia and preterm infants tend to have difficulties in processing auditory information (e.g., Thiede et al., 2019; Fellman et al., 2004), which might be somewhat alleviated by musical activities. For caregivers of certain at-​risk infants, musical activities at home might provide a double benefit: help with caregiver-​infant interaction while also supporting infant development and alleviating the risks of developmental delays.

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    179

Summary Musical behaviors in infancy can be defined as proto-​musical activities in which an infant or a young child generates sounds, vocalizations, or rhythmical patterns, which are then interpreted as music by a caregiver. Initially, infants seem to just enjoy being able to generate sounds, but over time, infants learn what types of sounds are characterized as musical, giving rise to early adult-​like musical behaviors. The development of musical behaviors is dependent on other aspects of development. For example, children can neurally discriminate between different rhythms much earlier than they can themselves produce the rhythms, which relies on advancement in motor development. Prior to generating musical behaviors, the infants need to be capable of understanding their sound environment, to segment the sounds they hear into meaningful units and recognize relevant contrasts (e.g., understand that melodies can be transposed; detect what is rhythmical congruence or incongruence; and so forth). The ability to process sounds starts in the womb, when first connections between the sensory organs and the cortex develop between the twenty-​fourth and twenty-​sixth weeks of gestation. Infants can detect and react to sounds already in utero, and one of the earliest auditory features infants focus on is pitch. These early auditory skills form a basis for more complex auditory discrimination, where infants develop the neural memory traces to categorize automatically and effortlessly relevant sounds in infants’ own environments. The development, where infants begin to manifest heightened sensitivity to musically relevant differences in their own (auditory) environment while simultaneously slowly becoming poorer in detecting non-​relevant differences in their auditory environment, is called musical enculturation. In addition to musical enculturation, infants engage in reciprocal interaction with their caregivers, which develops a bond or an attachment between the caregiver and an infant. However, as caregivers use lullabies and play songs in interaction, and even parentese (language that is often highly musical and characterized by exaggerated pitch changes), these particular reciprocal interactions are most likely where the infants learn musical behaviors. Such interactions use exaggerated pitch changes and rhythm to help infants direct their attention to, and learn from, the relevant changes. Musical interaction and informal music activities at home are also multimodal. For example, caregivers universally use rocking movements with their infants and when change in movement and change in sound coincide, infants can more easily direct their attention to the relevant parts of the sound. Musical interaction and informal musical activities are not only useful for development of musical behaviors. Instead, they seem to be effective for both helping the infant to regulate its mood, and parental singing seems especially effective in keeping the infant calm. For toddlers and preschool children, informal musical activities seem to promote prosocial behavior, as musical activities in childhood are often done in interaction with others.

180    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen Musical activities and reciprocal interaction influence the caregivers as well. As infants seem intrinsically interested in music and especially infant-​directed singing, the success a parent gets from getting into a fruitful musical interaction with their infant can improve parental self-​esteem and parental sensitivity. Via enhanced parental efficacy, caregivers may experience both the happiness of parenting and feel the joy of music. This can improve attachment between the infant and the caregiver and have quite broad developmental benefits. In addition, musical activities have specific benefits for the infant, such as promoting language development. These specific benefits can potentially serve as a base for many future interventions focusing on supporting early development via musical approaches, both with healthy children and children at risk for developmental problems.

References Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (1985). Affect and attention: Infants observed with mothers and peers. Child Development, 56(3), 582–​593. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-​mother relationship. Child Development, 40(4), 969–​1025. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Attachment as related to mother-​infant interaction. Advances in the Study of Behaviour, 9, 1–​51. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. New York: Psychology Press. Anderson, A. L., & Thomason, M. E. (2013). Functional plasticity before the cradle: A review of neural functional imaging in the human fetus. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9), 2220–​2232. Ando, Y., & Hattori, H. (1970). Effects of intense noise during fetal life upon postnatal adaptability (statistical study of the reactions of babies to aircraft noise). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47(4B), 1128–​1130. Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2014). Learning to attend selectively: The dual role of intersensory redundancy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 414–​420. Bates, J. E., & Bayles, K. (1988). Attachment and the development of behavior problems. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 253–​299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bigelow, A. E., MacLean, K., & Proctor, J. (2004). The role of joint attention in the development of infants’ play with objects. Developmental Science, 7(5), 518–​526. Blinowska, K. J., Kwaskiewicz, K., Jedrzejczak, W. W., & Skarzynski, H. (2012). Musical ratios in sounds from the human cochlea. PloS One, 7(5), e37988. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss; Vol. I: Attachment. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Chang, E. F., & Merzenich, M. M. (2003). Environmental noise retards auditory cortical development. Science, 300(5618), 498–​502. Chandrasekaran, B., & Kraus, N. (2010). The scalp‐recorded brainstem response to speech: Neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology, 47(2), 236–​246. Corbeil, M., Trehub, S. E., & Peretz, I. (2016). Singing delays the onset of infant distress. Infancy, 21(3), 373–​391.

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    181 Creighton, A. (2011). Mother-​infant musical interaction and emotional communication: A literature review. Australian Journal of Music Therapy, 22, 37. Dalla Bella, S., Peretz, I., Rousseau, L., & Gosselin, N. (2001). A developmental study of the affective value of tempo and mode in music. Cognition, 80(3), B1–​B10. Feinman, S. (1982). Social referencing in infancy. Merrill-​Palmer Quarterly, 28(4), 445–​470. Feldman, R., Bamberger, E., & Kanat-​Maymon, Y. (2013). Parent-​specific reciprocity from infancy to adolescence shapes children’s social competence and dialogical skills. Attachment & Human Development, 15(4), 407–​423. Fellman, V., Kushnerenko, E., Mikkola, K., Ceponiene, R., Leipälä, J., & Näätänen, R. (2004). Atypical auditory event-​related potentials in preterm infants during the first year of life: A possible sign of cognitive dysfunction? Pediatric Research, 56(2), 291–​297. Fernald, A., & Kuhl, P. (1987). Acoustic determinants of infant preference for motherese speech. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(3), 279–​293. Finney, E. M., Fine, I., & Dobkins, K. R. (2001). Visual stimuli activate auditory cortex in the deaf. Nature Neuroscience, 4(12), 1171. Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15(3), 398–​407. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD. Hannon, E. E., Soley, G., & Levine, R. S. (2011). Constraints on infants’ musical rhythm perception: Effects of interval ratio complexity and enculturation. Developmental Science, 14(4), 865–​872. Hannon, E. E., & Trainor, L. J. (2007). Music acquisition: Effects of enculturation and formal training on development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11), 466–​472. Hannon, E. E., & Trehub, S. E. (2005). Tuning in to musical rhythms: Infants learn more readily than adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(35), 12639–​12643. Hargreaves, D. J., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. A. (2002). What are musical identities, and why are they important. Musical Identities, 2, 1–​20. Hyde, D. C., Jones, B. L., Porter, C. L., & Flom, R. (2010). Visual stimulation enhances auditory processing in 3‐month‐old infants and adults. Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, 52(2), 181–​189. Karzon, R. G. (1985). Discrimination of polysyllabic sequences by one-​to four-​month-​old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(2), 326–​342. Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Joint music making promotes prosocial behavior in 4-​ year-​old children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 354–​364. Korja, R., Latva, R., & Lehtonen, L. (2012). The effects of preterm birth on mother–​infant interaction and attachment during the infant’s first two years. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 91(2), 164–​173. Kostilainen, K., Partanen, E., Mikkola, K., Wikström, V., Pakarinen, S., Fellman, V., & Huotilainen, M. 2020. Neural processing of changes in phonetic and emotional speech sounds and tones in preterm infants at term age. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 148, 111–​118. Kostović, I., & Jovanov-​Milošević, N. (2006). The development of cerebral connections during the first 20–​45 weeks’ gestation. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 11(6), 415–​522. Kostović, I., & Judaš, M. (2010). The development of the subplate and thalamocortical connections in the human foetal brain. Acta Paediatrica, 99(8), 1119–​1127.

182    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11), 831–​843. Lappe, C., Herholz, S. C., Trainor, L. J., & Pantev, C. (2008). Cortical plasticity induced by short-​term unimodal and multimodal musical training. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(39), 9632–​9639. Lecanuet, J. P., & Schaal, B. (1996). Fetal sensory competencies. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 68, 1–​23. Longhi, E. (2009). “Songese”: Maternal structuring of musical interaction with infants. Psychology of Music, 37(2), 195–​213. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Communicative musicality. Exploring the basis of human of human companionship. New York: Oxford University Press. Markus, J., Mundy, P., Morales, M., Delgado, C. E., & Yale, M. (2000). Individual differences in infant skills as predictors of child‐caregiver joint attention and language. Social Development, 9(3), 302–​315. Mercer, J. (2011). Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory. Theory & Psychology, 21(1), 25–​45. Moon, C. M., & Fifer, W. P. (2000). Evidence of transnatal auditory learning. Journal of Perinatology, 20(S1), S37. Mote, J. (2011). The effects of tempo and familiarity on children’s affective interpretation of music. Emotion, 11(3), 618. Muir, D. W., & Mitchell, D. E. (1973). Visual resolution and experience: Acuity deficits in cats following early selective visual deprivation. Science, 180(4084), 420–​422. Naber, F. B., Swinkels, S. H., Buitelaar, J. K., Dietz, C., Van Daalen, E., Bakermans-​Kranenburg, M. J., . . ., & van Engeland, H. (2007). Joint attention and attachment in toddlers with autism. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 899–​911. Nakata, T., & Trehub, S. E. (2004). Infants’ responsiveness to maternal speech and singing. Infant Behavior and Development, 27(4), 455–​464. Nawrot, E. S. (2003). The perception of emotional expression in music: Evidence from infants, children and adults. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 75–​92. Nicholson, J. M., Berthelsen, D., Abad, V., Williams, K., & Bradley, J. (2008). Impact of music therapy to promote positive parenting and child development. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(2), 226–​238. Novitski, N., Huotilainen, M., Tervaniemi, M., Näätänen, R., & Fellman, V. (2007). Neonatal frequency discrimination in 250–​4000-​Hz range: Electrophysiological evidence. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(2), 412–​419. Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Näätänen, R., Liitola, A., Sambeth, A., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Learning-​induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(37), 15145–​15150. Partanen, E., Kujala, T., Tervaniemi, M., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Prenatal music exposure induces long-​term neural effects. PloS One, 8(10), e78946. Partanen, E., Pakarinen, S., Kujala, T., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Infants’ brain responses for speech sound changes in fast multifeature MMN paradigm. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124(8), 1578–​1585. Perani, D., Saccuman, M. C., Scifo, P., Anwander, A., Spada, D., Baldoli, C., . . ., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Neural language networks at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(38), 16056–​16061.

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    183 Perani, D., Saccuman, M. C., Scifo, P., Spada, D., Andreolli, G., Rovelli, R., . . ., & Koelsch, S. (2010). Functional specializations for music processing in the human newborn brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10), 4758–​4763. Phillips-​Silver, J., & Trainor, L. J. (2005). Feeling the beat: Movement influences infant rhythm perception. Science, 308(5727), 1430–​1430. Plantinga, J., & Trainor, L. J. (2005). Memory for melody: Infants use a relative pitch code. Cognition, 98(1), 1–​11. Plantinga, J., & Trehub, S. E. (2014). Revisiting the innate preference for consonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 40. Putkinen, V. J., Saarikivi, K. A., & Tervaniemi, M. (2013). Do informal musical activities shape auditory skill development in preschool-​age children? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 572. Putkinen, V., Tervaniemi, M., & Huotilainen, M. (2013). Informal musical activities are linked to auditory discrimination and attention in 2–​3‐year‐old children: An event‐related potential study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 37(4), 654–​661. Putkinen, V., Tervaniemi, M., Saarikivi, K., & Huotilainen, M. (2015). Promises of formal and informal musical activities in advancing neurocognitive development throughout childhood. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1337(1), 153–​162. Rand, K., & Lahav, A. (2014). Impact of the NICU environment on language deprivation in preterm infants. Acta Paediatrica, 103(3), 243–​248. Richards, D. S., Frentzen, B., Gerhardt, K. J., McCann, M. E., & Abrams, R. M. (1992). Sound levels in the human uterus. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 80(2), 186–​190. Robertson, A. M., & Detmer, M. R. (2019). The effects of contingent lullaby music on parent-​ infant interaction and amount of infant crying in the first six weeks of life. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 46, 33–​38. Rogers, C. E., Kidokoro, H., Wallendorf, M., & Inder, T. E. (2013). Identifying mothers of very preterm infants at-​risk for postpartum depression and anxiety before discharge. Journal of Perinatology, 33(3), 171–​176. Ruusuvirta, T., Huotilainen, M., Fellman, V., & Näätänen, R. (2003). The newborn human brain binds sound features together. Neuroreport, 14(16), 2117–​2119. Saarikallio, S., & Erkkilä, J. (2007). The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 88–​109. Saffran, J. R., & Griepentrog, G. J. (2001). Absolute pitch in infant auditory learning: Evidence for developmental reorganization. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 74–​85. Saffran, J. R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2018). Infant statistical learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 181–​203. Sambeth, A., Pakarinen, S., Ruohio, K., Fellman, V., van Zuijen, T. L., & Huotilainen, M. (2009). Change detection in newborns using a multiple deviant paradigm: A study using magnetoencephalography. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(3), 530–​538. Shoykhet, M., & Clark, R. S. (2011). Structure, function, and development of the nervous system. In B. P. Fuhrman & J. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Pediatric critical care (pp. 783–​804). Edinburgh: Mosby. Spence, M. J., & DeCasper, A. J. (1987). Prenatal experience with low-​frequency maternal-​ voice sounds influence neonatal perception of maternal voice samples. Infant Behavior and Development, 10(2), 133–​142. Spence, M. J., & Freeman, M. S. (1996). Newborn infants prefer the maternal low-​pass filtered voice, but not the maternal whispered voice. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(2), 199–​212.

184    Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen Spender, N., & Shuter-​Dyson, R. (1987). Psychology of music. In R. L Gregory & O. L. Zangwill (Eds)., The Oxford companion to the mind (pp. 499–​505). Oxford University Press. Swanwick, K. (1991). Further research on the musical development sequence. Psychology of Music, 19(1), 22–​32. Thiede, A., Virtala, P., Ala-​Kurikka, I., Partanen, E., Huotilainen, M., Mikkola, K., . . ., & Kujala, T. (2019). An extensive pattern of atypical neural speech-​sound discrimination in newborns at risk of dyslexia. Clinical Neurophysiology, 130(5), 634–​646. Thomason, M. E., Brown, J. A., Dassanayake, M. T., Shastri, R., Marusak, H. A., Hernandez-​ Andrade, E., . . ., & Romero, R. (2014). Intrinsic functional brain architecture derived from graph theoretical analysis in the human fetus. PLoS One, 9(5), e94423. Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds)., Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–​115). New York and London: Psychology Press. Trainor, L. J. (2012). Predictive information processing is a fundamental learning mechanism present in early development: Evidence from infants. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 256–​258. Trainor, L. J., Clark, E. D., Huntley, A., & Adams, B. A. (1997). The acoustic basis of preferences for infant-​directed singing. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(3), 383–​396. Trainor, L. J., & Desjardins, R. N. (2002). Pitch characteristics of infant-​directed speech affect infants’ ability to discriminate vowels. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 335–​340. Trainor, L. J., Lee, K., & Bosnyak, D. J. (2011). Cortical plasticity in 4-​month-​old infants: Specific effects of experience with musical timbres. Brain Topography, 24(3–​4), 192. Trainor, L. J., Tsang, C. D., & Cheung, V. H. (2002). Preference for sensory consonance in 2-​ and 4-​month-​old infants. Music Perception, 20(2), 187–​194. Tramo, M. J., Cariani, P. A., Delgutte, B., & Braida, L. D. (2001). Neurobiological foundations for the theory of harmony in western tonal music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930(1), 92–​116. Trehub, S. E., Becker, J., & Morley, I. (2015). Cross-​cultural perspectives on music and musicality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1664), 20140096. Trehub, S. E., Ghazban, N., & Corbeil, M. (2015). Musical affect regulation in infancy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1337(1), 186–​192. Trehub, S. E., & Hannon, E. E. (2006). Infant music perception: Domain-​general or domain-​ specific mechanisms? Cognition, 100(1), 73–​99. Vanhatalo, S., & Kaila, K. (2006). Development of neonatal EEG activity: From phenomenology to physiology. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 11(6). 471–​478. Virtala, P., Huotilainen, M., Partanen, E., Fellman, V., & Tervaniemi, M. (2013). Newborn infants’ auditory system is sensitive to Western music chord categories. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 492. Virtala, P., & Partanen, E. (2018). Can very early music interventions promote at‐risk infants’ development? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1423(1), 92–​101. Virtala, P., & Tervaniemi, M. (2017). Neurocognition of major-​minor and consonance-​ dissonance. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(4), 387–​404. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–​41. Weinberger, N. M. (2004). Specific long-​term memory traces in primary auditory cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(4), 279.

Pre and Postnatal Music Development    185 Williams, K. E., Barrett, M. S., Welch, G. F., Abad, V., & Broughton, M. (2015). Associations between early shared music activities in the home and later child outcomes: Findings from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 113–​124. Zentner, M., & Eerola, T. (2010). Rhythmic engagement with music in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(13), 5768–​5773.

Further Reading Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15(3), 398–​407. Hannon, E. E., & Trainor, L. J. (2007). Music acquisition: Effects of enculturation and formal training on development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11), 466–​472. Nicholson, J. M., Berthelsen, D., Abad, V., Williams, K., & Bradley, J. (2008). Impact of music therapy to promote positive parenting and child development. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(2), 226–​238. Trehub, S. E. (2010). In the beginning: A brief history of infant music perception. Musicae Scientiae, 14, 71–​87.

Chapter 13

Cultu ral Div e rsi t y a nd the Expl anat i on of Musical Deve l op me nt David J. Hargreaves

In this chapter I will consider the role of cultural diversity in the explanation of musical development, choosing examples from several different specific cultural settings to illustrate this. The chapter falls into three main sections. In the first, I shall outline three theories of musical development that were identified by Hargreaves and Lamont (2017) as being based on aspects of the social in different ways, namely (i) sociocultural approaches, which were first expounded by Lev Vygotsky (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), and which emphasize the interactions between young children and the world around them; (ii) ecological approaches and the approach of cultural psychology, in which the emphasis is upon characteristics of different environments, and with the behavioral affordances of those environments; and (iii) social cognitive approaches, which focus on individuals and their self-​perceptions. I will consider the differences and the interrelationships between these three broad approaches and suggest that while any particular example of culturally specific behavior or development can be approached from all three points of view, there may nevertheless be ways in which a certain one (or two) of the three theories may be more directly useful. In the second main part of the chapter I will examine four different examples of young people’s engagement with music which fulfil specific functions in particular cultural settings, and in the third part I will consider how each of the three socially based theoretical viewpoints from Part One can explain these. I will also try to draw some implications of these questions for practical issues in parenting, childcare, and early childhood education. Before embarking on this plan, it is worth setting the three socially based theories in the broader context of ten overall theoretical approaches to the explanation of musical development that were identified by Alexandra Lamont and I (Hargreaves and Lamont, 2017). These vary considerably: some are based on long-​standing theoretical traditions

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    187 in developmental psychology, going well back into the twentieth century, whereas others are much more recent, and still undergoing rapid change. They vary in the theoretical concepts on which they are based, in their terminology, and in the aspects of behavior on which they focus. Broadly speaking, Hargreaves and Lamont divided the ten theories into four groups. They characterized the first of these groups as cognitive approaches, since they are based on the development of thinking, and identified four (Swanwick and Tillman’s spiral model, Hargreaves and Galton’s phase model, Serafine’s model of “music as cognition,” and Gordon’s music learning theory). They described the second group as symbol systems approaches, as they prioritize the child’s acquisition and use of different symbols: there are two of these, namely the approach to symbolic development proposed by Howard Gardner and his colleagues at Harvard Project Zero (Gardner, 1973), and Adam Ockelford and colleagues’ “Sounds of Intent” model, which draws on music theory (see Ockelford & Welch, 2020, and also Section 6, this volume). The third group includes a number of different measurement techniques and empirical research directions, which together can be described as the neuroscientific approach, which is by far the most recent, as well as that which is developing most rapidly at the present time. Finally, the fourth group includes those already described as the three social approaches, which will be considered in more detail in the first main part of the chapter, which comes next. A detailed account of the ten theories as a whole, and a comparison between them, is provided by Hargreaves and Lamont (2017).

Part One: Three Social Theories of Musical Development Sociocultural Approaches Vygotsky proposed that we are primarily social beings, and that our interactions with others form the basis of our thinking: we gradually internalize our knowledge of what others say and do, and this becomes part of our own thinking. The social environment, consisting of parents, other family members, peers, carers, teachers, and any others in particular cases, provides the basic content of individual development. Vygotsky (1966) also suggested that functions in the child’s cultural development appear firstly on the social plane, as an intermental category, that is, between the child’s mind and that of another, more sophisticated person, and secondly internally, as an intramental category, that is, within the child’s mind. Vygotsky is well known for defining the difference between these two minds as the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky also held that the use of cultural tools (whether internal, such as language, or external, such as books or computers) provides a way of mediating between children and their environments. One very important aspect of early social interaction as far as music is

188   Hargreaves concerned is what Trevarthen and Malloch (2017) refer to as “communicative musicality”: they suggest that the coordination of the joint actions of child and caregiver are essentially musical in character, showing precise synchronization and the mutual construction of musical meaning. Three more psychological ideas that developed directly from Vygotsky’s work include Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s (1976) concept of scaffolding as the basis of instruction: this is the process by which tasks are made simpler for learners by more expert partners. Based on their study of mothers playing with their preschool-​aged children in building a wooden pyramid out of small pieces, Wood and colleagues were able to identify how the mothers monitored their children’s understanding and provided different levels of support, accordingly, to help them learn by using an “implicit theory of the learner’s acts.” Scaffolding employed five tutorial strategies, namely recruiting attention, making the task manageable, maintaining direction, controlling frustration, and modeling the solution. This is very similar to the second influential idea, Rogoff ’s (1990) notion of guided participation, which explains how children learn from more capable others. Teachers, or other adults, act as a bridge between the knowledge and understanding of the learner and the demands of the task, providing a context in which the learner is encouraged to seek solutions and not give up. The third concept is that of communities of practice (Rogoff, 2003), which extends the idea of social interaction to deal with larger social groups. It describes the socially and culturally specific skills, practices, and ways of doing things that have been developed in particular communities. Communities of practice share a domain of knowledge; a community of people who are committed to that domain; and a shared set of practices developed within the domain. Some research has developed these ideas further to deal with social interaction specifically in music. Scaffolding has been studied in relation to musical interactions, such as in Adachi’s (1994) study of adult-​ child partners playing musical duets. Adachi observed that the adults in her study provided contingent teaching similar to Wood and colleagues’ scaffolding by acting as transmitters of musical signs, practice partners and “co-​players”: their guidance was dependent on and responsive to the child’s own abilities, in a similar way to the mothers in the pyramid-​building task. Abrahams and Abrahams (2016) also developed the notion of apprenticeship in music learning in childhood. They proposed three types of musical apprenticeship: traditional apprenticeship, where the pupil learns alongside an experienced mentor (such as learning to play an instrument by modeling the mentor’s performance); cognitive apprenticeship, where skills are learned through watching and imitating the mentor in real-​world experiences (such as in our description of scaffolding, above); and socio-​ transformative apprenticeship, which involves not only learning new skills and concepts but also the experience of change in the learner’s perceptions of the musical experience and its broader context and significance (such as when young children begin to invent their own songs, and to relate them to those they hear in the media). The most recent and elaborate development of Vygotskian theory is cultural-​historical activity theory (CHAT), as developed by Yrjö Engeström and his colleagues in Finland

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    189 (see, e.g., Engeström, 1987; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999). Engeström’s theory takes Vygotsky’s approach further by adding three new components, namely the community of people engaged in the activity (which could be an audience, for example); the rules that regulate that community (such as performance conventions), and the division of labor of activities within the community (such as the roles played by the performers and the listeners). This approach moves beyond the analysis of individual actions to the collective analysis of groups, and then goes still further by considering dialogue and interactions within those groups in relation to those of other groups, that is, within larger communities. Whilst music learning is an obvious domain in which CHAT principles could be applied, relatively few have attempted this so far. Burnard and Younker (2008)’s investigations of collaborative group composing and arranging in ten-​and thirteen-​ year-​olds in the US and UK were able to identify the phenomena of tool use in response to different tasks, the rules that govern peer collaboration, and the division of labor experienced in the co-​construction of decisions. A more sustained attempt to apply CHAT principles is that by Welch and Ockelford (2016), who studied four different examples of music learning from their own research, namely the tuition provided for a prodigious musical savant; the teaching methods provided by conservatories for different genres, such as classical, popular, jazz, and Scottish traditional music; the introduction of female choristers into a previously all-​male cathedral choir; and the teaching of different musical genres in the lower secondary school. Although each of these contexts shows that application of CHAT holds great promise, there has been little attempt so far to apply its principles to music learning in the early years.

Ecological Approaches and the Approach of Cultural Psychology “Ecology” refers to the study of living forms and systems, and the relationships between organisms and their physical and biological environments (Capra, 1996). In psychology, the ecological approach focuses on how social and cultural factors shape the interactions and relationships between people. The main way in which this has been applied to human development is in the bioecological systems theory pioneered by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986, 2005). Bronfenbrenner’s theory distinguishes between four levels of system, nested within each other, ranging from the lowest, most specific level of social influence to the highest and most abstract. Bronfenbrenner (1979) began with the microsystem: the immediate setting of children’s lives in families, peer groups, and schools, for example, has a direct influence on them and on others within them. At the next level, the mesosystem refers to the links and interactions between microsystems: there could be a conflict between the conduct expected of a child at school as compared with at home, for example. Exosystems includes broader social settings that influence children less directly, such as community groups or parents’ associations, and finally

190   Hargreaves macrosystems reflect wider and more indirect and abstract influences, such as government policies. After this initial formulation, Bronfenbrenner (1986) expanded his model to account for the chronosystem, the passage of time, which interacts with the social and cultural factors in the previous version of the model, so that the system as a whole can be seen as a “process-​person-​context-​time” model of human development. Bronfenbrenner’s model has been highly influential in many areas of developmental research, and here there is a need to consider how the ecological approach applies to music (see also Wu & Welch, this volume). Two main directions emerged: the first was that of James and Eleanor Gibson (see e.g., J. J. Gibson, 1979/​2015), who both argued that objects are perceived directly, such that there is no need to propose internal cognitive constructs to explain the process. In this respect, their approach falls within Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem, since they are dealing with specific perceptual situations. They also suggested that objects and events in the world are understood simply in terms of their affordances (i.e., the actions that are capable of being performed on them). Eleanor Gibson’s work (1969) had more to say specifically about musical development, and she suggested that children can only take in a limited amount of the information that the environment provided, so have to use strategies (which become increasingly efficient with age) to reduce that information. This point of view was pursued by Clarke (2005), who also rejected the notion of internal cognitive representations, suggesting instead that connectionist models of learning may be more appropriate. The ecological approach has inspired three further suggestions about the explanation of musical development. The first is Lamont’s (2002) incorporation of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory into a developmental model of musical pitch perception in children. She suggests that development is a constant and ongoing process of mediation between the social and cultural domain and the personal and individual domain, which might take the form of different levels of sophistication. These ideas are echoed in Hargreaves, MacDonald, and Miell’s (2012) proposal that musical identities provide a way of bridging the sociocultural and individual elements of musical development, as individual children’s views of themselves can actually determine their motivation and achievement in music. The notion that musical identities mediate musical development is also strongly influenced by Vygotsky’s emphasis on the social. Finally, working with slightly older children through to early adulthood, McPherson, Davidson, and Faulkner (2012) applied Sameroff ’s (2000) transactional approach to their extensive longitudinal data on young musicians’ developing interactions with significant others (family members, teachers, peers, and other members of the community). They suggest that these young musicians’ musical development is shaped by three key interacting systems (relating to family, teachers, and peers), and that each of these gives rise to a taxonomy of regulatory sites, which enable them to pin down exactly where self-​regulatory transactional behavior occurs in relation to music. The field of cultural psychology is closely related both to sociocultural theories and to the ecological approach in that it focuses on the ways in which the cultural environment

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    191 has a direct and formative influence on the development of identity and behavior. Shweder (1990), in an attempt to pin down the exact nature of cultural psychology, asserts that the mind is “content-​driven, domain-​specific, and constructively stimulus-​ bound; and it cannot be extricated from the historically variable and culturally diverse intentional worlds in which it plays a co-​constitutive part” (p. 13). Michael Cole (1996), who first introduced the notion of cultural psychology, argues that the precise characteristics and contents of cultures must be established as a primary aim, rather than being considered as “variables” or as additions to other explanations. The specific application of cultural psychology to the study of aspects of musical development is therefore carried out in terms of people’s specific social and cultural musical environments, and five features of this approach can be identified. The first, which it shares with the sociocultural approach, is that the social and cultural environment is considered to be an inescapable central foundation of individual thinking and behavior. It shapes people’s ways of thinking and determines the different concepts that they form: the term “situated cognition” has also been used to capture this idea. We saw earlier how the idea of “communities of practice” has been suggested to describe how children and adolescents learn by taking part in cultural activities alongside more experienced members of those communities, and this is also related to the ecological approach to development. The second feature of the cultural psychological approach is its powerful cross-​ cultural tradition: it emphasizes the importance of identifying the specific features of individual musical cultures, and their effects on children’s musical behavior and experience, all over the world. Margaret Barrett’s (2010) edited book A Cultural Psychology of Music Education exemplifies this approach: she includes chapters on musical play in playgrounds all over the world, the history of music listening in schools, the learning of music and dance in Bali, performance and songwriting using technology, and the specific experiences of choral singers in cathedrals. The third feature of the cultural psychological approach as it applies to music relates to individuals’ experiences of music. O’Neill (2017) has drawn on Habermas’s (1987) notion of “life worlds” to enable her to focus on young people’s subjective experiences of connectedness in their everyday musical lives. O’Neill suggests that young people inhabit what she calls “learning ecologies,” which are a combination of their “life worlds” and the ecological systems that surround their musical activities. In other words, this third feature is the ability to specify the young person’s level of engagement with the surrounding musical world. The fourth feature is that individuals display agency in dealing with their environments. For example, Westerlund, Partii, and Karlsen’s (2017) analysis of the interactions and networks of relationships that exist within the school classroom lead them to suggest that “the concept of agency refers to aspects related to one’s perceived and actual ability to act in the world, and hence concerns matters such as self-​esteem, experienced purpose of life, ego strength, internal locus of control” (p. 495). The fifth distinguishable feature of the cultural psychological approach concerns the ways in which engagement and agency are expressed, and that is often simply through talk. This emphasis on language originated with Vygotsky, who saw language as one of

192   Hargreaves the most fundamental cultural tools that people use in forming social relationships. The analysis of talk has developed in recent years into an extensive body of theory and research on communication, teaching, and learning, and the idea of “dialogic thinking” has been widely applied in educational settings, especially with children from disadvantaged groups (see, e.g., Alexander, 2001; Flecha, 2000; Mercer, 2000). Researchers have investigated the discourses through which children communicate with their teachers inside and outside the classroom, and have identified distinctive patterns of dialogue that can convey underlying power relationships and other interpersonal negotiations. One specific example of this in relation to music has been in research on how teenagers talk about pop music. McKinlay and McVittie (2017) have investigated how young people talk about different genres and styles of pop music, which reveal their identifications with these genres and styles. Groups of individuals who like particular styles form what might be called in-​groups, and this automatically confers out-​group status on those who like other styles. This polarization of in-​groups and out-​groups forms a means of maintaining social identity and self-​esteem, and this is the essence of social identity theory (SIT: see, e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Since listening to pop music has been clearly shown in many empirical research studies to be by far the most time-​ consuming activity of most teenagers, we can see why musical preferences are such a strong part of adolescent identity. This point has been developed at length by Miranda et al.’s (2015) ambitious recent analysis of adolescent musical preferences in terms of what they call a cultural-​developmental psychology of music in adolescence (which is beyond our scope here).

Social Cognitive Approaches Unlike the sociocultural and ecological approaches, which place the social dimension center stage, social cognitive approaches (inspired by the work of Albert Bandura, among others) focus on the individual, and on the role of the social context in self-​ perception. Bandura’s (1969, 1977) well-​known early work on social learning theory was initially concerned with imitation, but became far more focused on cognition, gradually giving rise to an emphasis on identification in what emerged as social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). In this, he proposed that human agency stemmed from a dynamic interaction between a person’s behavior, environment, and internal personal factors (including cognitive, affective, and biological components), and that this implied a view of people as being self-​organizing, self-​reflective, and self-​regulating. This led to a strong emphasis on self-​efficacy, which Bandura defined as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (1977, p. 3). Self-​ regulation is, therefore, an important concept in the social cognitive approach, along with the associated concept of metacognition (thinking about one’s own thinking). In essence, the former refers to the cognitive processes involved in any task

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    193 being undertaken, and the latter refers to the strategies that are used to regulate those processes. The relationship between self-​regulation and metacognition has become an active area of developmental research, and their promotion in young children is seen as an important educational goal. Educators see pretend play and talk as key activities for the development of these processes, and so it seems logical to consider musical play as an appropriate domain in which this development could take place. Wiggins (2016) applied the concept of agency to music education, suggesting that young children can initiate and carry out their own musical ideas and ideas about music. She contrasts learner agency—​learners’ constructions of their own understanding within social contexts—​with personal agency, which relates to the capacity for engaging with one’s own life circumstances. Self-​efficacy is grounded in specific domains and contexts, and—​in the musical context—​she sees musical agency as involving both learner agency and personal agency. Fostering and enabling agency and independence, Wiggins argues, are at the heart of musical learning and development from the early years onward, and Antonia Zachariou has carried out some empirical research that provides some evidence for the role of musical play in the development of self-​regulation. In one study (Zachariou & Whitebread, 2015), observations were made of ten six-​ year-​old children while they were engaged in musical play sessions. The self-​regulatory behaviors apparent during musical play were identified and coded on the basis of a model of self-​regulation used in the previously validated C.Ind.Le (Cambridgeshire Independent Learning) coding framework (Whitebread et al., 2009). Further data on the children’s general self-​regulation were also collected by the class music teacher using the CHILD (CHecklist of Independent Learning Development) observational checklist (also Whitebread et al., 2009). The results from both sources provided clear evidence that musical play allowed for self-​regulatory behaviors to emerge. This finding was confirmed in a second study by Zachariou and Whitebread (2017), which also investigated the nature of the regulatory behaviours. Thirty-​six six-​year-​ old and eight-​year-​old children were observed during musical play sessions, and the observations were analyzed, again using a coding framework, to identify and code regulatory behaviors as to the type of regulation, its social nature, and the direction of activity. The findings confirmed that regulatory behaviors occurred during musical play, and also showed that during this activity, cognitive monitoring and emotional/​motivational monitoring behaviors were the most prevalent. To summarize Part One of this chapter, I have provided more detail about each of the three theoretical approaches to show (i) how the sociocultural view emphasizes the interactions between young children and the world around them; (ii) how the ecological approaches focus on the specific cultural factors in the environment (which leads on to cultural, and cross-​cultural psychology); and (iii) how the social cognitive approaches focus on individuals and their self-​perceptions. These influences are present at all age levels, but are particularly powerful in infancy and early childhood development.

194   Hargreaves

Part Two: Four Examples of Culturally Specific Aspects of Musical Development and Behavior In this part of the chapter I present four specific examples of cultural influences on musical behavior, which I will use in Part Three to show how the different theories have greater or lesser relevance in helping to explain these examples.

Social and Cultural Functions of Group Singing One very clear expression of cultural influences in music is in singing, and there are two obvious instances of this. The first is the explicit expression of national identity and pride in national anthems, which are powerfully significant in sporting events, concerts, festivals, and other public events all over the world. One very interesting example is what is now the South African national anthem, which was adopted in 1997. This is a hybrid song that combines new English lyrics with some parts of a nineteenth-​century hymn “Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika” (“Lord Bless Africa,” which was composed in 1897 by Enoch Sontonga), and the Afrikaans song “Die Stem van Suid-​Afrika” (“The Call of South Africa”). The lyrics employ five of the most widely spoken of South Africa’s eleven official languages—​Xhosa, Zulu, Sesotho, Afrikaans, and English. For many years during the apartheid regime this song was the anthem of the African National Congress, led by Nelson Mandela, and was consequently banned by the authorities for stirring up unrest and rebellion. This provides an excellent example of how music can tap into powerful emotions and identities according to the social and historical context. The second instance is that of group singing in sporting events, notably at football matches. In England, for example, the often rowdy and raucous members of football crowds would normally be extremely reluctant to be thought of as singers in any way, and would shrink away with embarrassment if asked to sing in front of any other people. In the football crowd, however, all of these inhibitions are overcome and each member of the crowd sings along with all the rest in expressing their devotion to their club. One of the most notable and iconic examples of this is Liverpool FC’s adoption of “You’ll Never Walk Alone,” a show tune from the 1945 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Carousel, which was a hit single for Gerry and the Pacemakers, who recorded it in 1963 at the height of the popularity of the Beatles and the “Mersey sound.” Each singer in the crowd experiences intense emotional pride and joy in feeling at one with its other members, and this establishes a strong group identity. Some recent empirical evidence to support this interpretation was reported by Pearce, Launay, and Dunbar (2015) in what they call the “ice-​breaker effect”: their interest was in the relationship between singing and social cohesion, and more specifically

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    195 in whether social bonding arises from the activity of singing itself, or whether any form of social activity could have the same effect. They compared new members of adult education classes who were involved in either singing, crafts, or creative writing over a seven-​month period, and asked each member to rate their closeness with other group members at months one, three, and seven of that period. They found that the singers felt much closer to their other group members after one month, but that the members of the other two groups caught up over the seven-​month time period. They interpret this as showing that singing has an “ice-​breaker” effect, promoting fast social cohesion between group members.

Cultural Displacement and the Role of Music in Sustaining Group Identity in Colombia Gloria Zapata (see Zapata Restrepo & Hargreaves, 2017) carried out an important piece of research in her home country of Colombia, investigating the causes and effects of the violence that has led to the displacement of people from the countryside to the cities, and in particular to Bogotá, the capital city. Many factors have been involved, including drug dealing, weak social and judicial systems, and the presence of the paramilitary and of guerrillas in the rural areas. These have led to displaced people’s distrust of all others in the community, and to their feelings of anger and powerlessness. For most displaced families, arriving in the cities in impoverished conditions throws them into a “trap of poverty” from which they often cannot escape for several generations (Hernandez & Gutiérrez, 2008; Nina et al., 2008). The result of this has been a severe decline in their wellbeing and personal identity. These effects are particularly pronounced in the case of young children, who have often lost their vital spaces, the places in which they have lived their early lives: they have also frequently lost relatives, neighbors, and friends, as well as their belongings, clothes, documents, pets, and toys. Among the psychological effects of these losses are that displaced children in the city lose their collective references and their social identities. Zapata suggested that one possible way to regain some aspects of these “lost” identities might be through music, since Colombia has a very rich musical environment, given its multicultural background. Accordingly, she set up an experimental intervention study involving a programme of singing workshops using Colombian traditional songs, and musical improvisations. This study is reported in full by Zapata and Hargreaves (2018), and I will describe just the basic details here (see also Section 4, this volume, on music with young children in sites of transition, trauma, and conflict). The program of singing workshops lasted for eighteen weeks, and was designed for displaced and deprived six-​to-​eight-​year-​old children: there was also a parallel control group of children who had no such musical program. The central research question was “How, and to what extent, does the provision of musical activities influence displaced children’s self-​esteem and socio-​emotional development?”

196   Hargreaves Zapata assessed the extent of these influences by administering Harter’s (1999) well-​known measure of self-​esteem in children, the Perceived Competence Scale for Children, as a pre-​and post-​test at the beginning and end of the program. The main effect, which was statistically significant, was that participation in the singing program led to a clear increase in the cognitive component of perceived competence in comparison with the control group who did not follow the program. This result shows that children’s participation in musical events that have cultural significance for them can lead to significant improvements in their wellbeing and psychological health.

Brazilian Dekasegi Children Living in Japan In the 1990s, many Brazilian people originally descended from the Japanese were allowed to work legally in Japan when the immigration laws were revised, and—​since then—​approximately a fifth of all Japanese descendants have left Brazil to seek work in Japan. These people became known as the Dekasegi movement (the Japanese word means “to work away from home”), and there are currently estimated to be over 350,000 members of this community. However, many of these immigrants found it very difficult to adapt to Japan, in particular in mastering the Japanese language. Arriving in Japan, many found it difficult to establish their own cultural identities, as they tended not to be readily accepted by the local communities, even though their physical features were essentially Japanese. Beatriz Ilari (2006) conducted an empirical study of this issue with a particular focus on the role of music in the Dekasegis’ attempts to integrate themselves into Japanese society, as this seemed to be one of the main channels through which they were able to negotiate their confused identities. She conducted interviews with eleven children and seven adults, asking them questions about their lives before and after immigration, their current occupation, their ability to speak or read Japanese, their general impressions of both countries, their musical experiences and preferences, and their Brazilian identities as well as the expression of those identities in Japan. Generally, the results suggested that, while many Dekasegi had moved to Japan to improve their financial standing, few of them felt that they were fully accepted in Japan: very few mentioned a desire to reside permanently in Japan, and most said that they wanted to return to Brazil eventually. This was more often true of the adults than of the children: those children who spoke fluent Japanese and who seemed to be adapted to Japan were more likely to express a desire to stay. Both adults and children mentioned that they used Brazilian music as a form of comfort and relaxation during the long period of adaptation to Japan, and this was particularly true of the adults. When asked to sing songs that they liked in either language, all of the adults and all but one of the children chose to sing in Portuguese. We can conclude from this study that music has an important role to play in the Brazilian identity of Dekasegi adults and children who live in Japan.

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    197

The Effects of New Technology on the Musical Identities of Young People in Australia and South Korea Myung-​Sook Auh and Robert Walker (2017) have produced a fascinating account of the ways in which digital technology, social media, and the internet have changed the nature of musical identity formation in two countries, namely Australia and South Korea. Both countries have very different musical traditions: the musical culture of Australia was strongly influenced by that of the UK, from where many of the migrants arrived in the eighteenth century, and British political and cultural norms were used as the basis for constructing an Australian identity. This meant that Western classical and religious music were strongly supported and disseminated. In the popular sphere, two powerful influences were country and western music, originally derived from the US, and Elvis Presley and rock ’n’ roll, which dates back to the 1950s. More recently, the traditional Aboriginal culture, expressed in its music, dance, stories, and ceremonies, has become re-​established in the multicultural society that characterizes Australia today. Korea has a quite different but parallel cultural history. Historically, the predominant influence was that of China and especially of Confucian philosophy, which included traditions of folk music and the court music of Korea, involving large orchestras of percussion, strings, and wind instruments: these date back several thousand years and remain at the heart of Korean identity today. The secondary and tertiary education systems in Korea also leaned toward Western classical music, as in Australia, and there is still a strong tradition of private music lessons in the classical tradition. In popular music however, the rapid advance of digital technology in Korea has led to the development of what has become known as K-​pop (Korean pop music). The availability of affordable equipment, such as smartphones and tablets, has given many young people access to social media platforms including YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and many others. This has led to the formation of groups of fans of K-​pop and other musical styles who interact with one another and contribute to the organization of K-​pop performances. We can see in both countries that the powerful influence of these global social media outlets and websites means that musical identities are growing more rapidly and in a more diverse way than ever before. Young people’s musical identities in any country can be combined with those from any other young person anywhere in the world, and this new situation means that the musical development of young people is more fluid and flexible than ever before.

198   Hargreaves

Part Three: The Application of Social Theories to Culturally Specific Musical Behavior Let us now look back at these four examples from the point of view of the three social theories of musical development. As mentioned earlier, it is possible to explain aspects of all four examples from each of the three theoretical viewpoints, but there are differences in emphasis. Group singing is explicitly intended to promote social cohesion and reinforce group identity, and so the social cognitive approach is most clearly useful in explaining this phenomenon. The effects of displacement on Colombian family members that are described by Gloria Zapata are perhaps best accounted for by the ecological and social cognitive approaches. The effects of the specific cultural environment are clearly very powerful, and negative, and ecological theory can account for these. One of the main effects is to reduce individual perceptions of self-​worth, and Zapata shows how these can be countered and reinforced by engagement with music: this is most usefully explained in terms of social cognitive theories. The sociocultural theories, which emphasize the interactions between children and the world around them, help us to understand the difficult interactions that the Dekasegi have with their Japanese environment, which are directly shown by the interview data in Ilari’s study. Dekasegi children and adults both use music as a way of easing their long process of adaptation to the Japanese culture: but the explanation of their self-​ perceptions as either Brazilian or Japanese is perhaps best accomplished by social cognitive accounts of self-​identity. Digital technology and the social media, which form the focus of Auh and Walker’s chapter, are very clear examples of cultural tools in the way that Vygotsky described these, so sociocultural theories can also account for the phenomena of group identity and fandom that they reveal. At the same time, these authors also emphasize the explanatory power of social identity theory in explaining the formation of different in-​and out-​group identifications with musical styles, so that the social cognitive approach is also valuable in their account of the development of multiple musical identities in young people. A great deal of ground has been covered in this chapter, ranging over different social theories of musical development, and seeking to apply these to particular examples of specific cultural influence. Let us finally stand back and take a broad view of the implications of these questions for practical issues in parenting, childcare, and early childhood education: I would like to conclude by making just two simple points. The first is that there can be absolutely no doubt of the immense power of music on people’s neurological, physiological, physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    199 affective states: this has become very clear in the rapid growth of music neuroscience and music psychology in recent years. These have been capitalized upon in the many applications in specific practical fields including education, the media, health, broadcasting, and many more (see, e.g., Hallam, Cross, & Thaut, 2016). The simple message from this is that parents and early childhood educators should be aware of this power, and use it wherever possible to encourage young children to develop their creativity, expressiveness, and social relationships by following the musical opportunities that are available. This leads on to the second point, which is that some of the research I have reviewed shows that engagement with music can play an important part in the development of self-​regulation in young children, which contributes to their agency in determining their future interests and relationships, and in their engagement with the people and things in the world around them. As pointed out earlier, Wiggins (2016) has applied this concept specifically to music education, suggesting that young children should be encouraged to initiate and carry out their own musical ideas in order to develop their learner agency as well as their personal agency.

Conclusion In this chapter I have tried to show how social theories of development can be used to explain certain culturally specific examples of musical behavior. To reiterate, although all the theories included here can explain each of the examples, certain ones have greater relevance for certain examples than do the other theories. I must add a final thought before leaving this topic. It is impossible to ignore the effects of digital technology, the internet, and social media on the psycho-​social development of young people. At the time of writing, in 2019/​20, despite its benefits, this has become an issue of considerable social concern: many policymakers and educators are becoming increasingly troubled about the potential negative effects of social media. This applies not only in the development of young children, but also to wider questions such as the reliability and integrity of news reporting, the use of social media in political campaigns and the conduct of democratic elections, and in potential uses by the state, such as when linked with facial recognition technology. These issues go well beyond the scope of this chapter, but nevertheless serve to emphasize the massive influence of the new technology. With respect to the focus of this chapter, it raises the question of whether the global availability of music, which has critical cultural meanings for families and communities, especially when living outside their cultural homes, or being in some way estranged from their native communities, will intensify or dilute the role of culturally specific music in supporting people’s cultural identities. Parents and early childhood educators need to be aware of this, and to keep abreast of the accelerating pace of social and technological change.

200   Hargreaves

Acknowledgment I should like to thank Robert Walker for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

References Abrahams, F., & Abrahams, D. (2016). Child as musical apprentice. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 538–​555). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adachi, M. (1994). The role of the adult in the child’s early musical socialization: A Vygotskian perspective. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 5, 26–​35. Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Auh, M-​S., & Walker, R. (2017). Musical identities in Australia and South Korea and new identities emerging through social media and digital technology. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 789–​805). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (1969). Social–​learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213–​262). Chicago: Rand McNally. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-​cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Barrett, M. S. (2010). A cultural psychology of music education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–​742. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burnard, P., & Younker, B. A. (2008). Investigating children’s musical interactions within the activities systems of group composing and arranging: An application of Engeström’s activity theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 11–​26. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: HarperCollins. Clarke, E. (2005). Ways of listening: An ecological approach to the perception of musical meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-​Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction, and Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–​16 and 19–​38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gardner, H. (1973). The arts and human development. New York: John Wiley.

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    201 Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton​Century-​Crofts. Gibson, J. J. (1979/​2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Psychology Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vols. 1 and 2). Boston: Beacon. Hallam, S., Cross, I., & Thaut, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. M. (2017). The psychology of musical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hargreaves, D. J., MacDonald, R. A. R., & Miell, D. E. (2012). Explaining musical imaginations: Creativity, performance and perception. In D. J. Hargreaves, D. E. Miell, & R. A. R. MacDonald (Eds.), Musical imaginations (pp. 1–​14). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Hernandez, A., & Gutierrez, M. (2008). Familias desplazadas por la violencia asentadas en Bogotá: Nuevos moradores e intensas problematicas. In M. Gutierrez (Ed.), Las familias en Bogotá: Realides y diversidad (pp. 135–​180). Bogotá: Pontifica Universidad Javeriana. Ilari, B. (2006, August 22–​26). Music and identity of Brazilian Dekasegi children and adults living in Japan. In M. Baroni, A. R. Addessi, R. Caterina, & M. Costa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC9), Bologna/​Italy. Lamont, A. (2002). Musical identities and the school environment. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 41–​59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2017). “Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?”: Identity in popular music. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 137–​151). Oxford: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge. Miranda, D., Blaise-​Rochette, C., Vaugon, K., Osman, M., & Arias-​Velanzuela, M. (2015). Towards a cultural–​developmental psychology of music in adolescence. Psychology of Music, 43(2), 197–​218. Nina, E., Álvarez, S., & Aguilar, A. I. (2008). Riesgo social, movilidad social y trampas de pobreza de las familias en Bogotá. In M. Gutiérrez (Ed.), Las familias en Bogotá: Realidades y diversidad (pp. 79–​116). Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Ockelford, A., & Welch, G. (2020). New approaches in applied musicology. London: Routledge. O’Neill, S. (2017). Young people’s musical lives: Identities, learning ecologies and connectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 79–​104). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pearce, E., Launay, J., & Dunbar R. I. M. (2015). The ice-​breaker effect: Singing mediates fast social bonding. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150221. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1098/​rsos.150​221. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Sameroff, A. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 297–​312.

202   Hargreaves Shweder, R. A. (1990). Why cultural psychology? Ethos, 27(1), 62–​73. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 2–​2 4). Chicago: Nelson-​Hall. Trevarthen, C., & Malloch, S. (2017). The musical self: Affections for life in a community of sound. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 155–​175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Genesis of the higher mental functions (abridged translation). In P. H. Light, S. Sheldon, & M. Woodhead (Eds.) (1991), Learning to think (pp. 32–​41). London: Routledge and Open University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press. Welch, G., & Ockelford, A. (2016). The role of the institution and teachers in supporting learning. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 509–​526). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westerlund, H., Partti, H., & Karlsen, S. (2017). Identity formation and agency in the diverse music classroom. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 493–​509). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-​ regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–​85. Wiggins, J. (2016). Musical agency. In G. E McPherson (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 102–​121). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–​100. Zachariou, A., & Whitebread, D. (2015). Musical play and self-​regulation: Does musical play allow for the emergence of self-​regulatory behaviours? International Journal of Play, 4(2), 116–​135. Zachariou, A. & Whitebread, D. (2017). A new context affording for regulation: The case of musical play. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6(3), 212–​249. Zapata Restrepo, G. P., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2017). Musical identities, resilience and wellbeing: The effects of music on displaced children in Colombia. In D. J. Hargreaves, R. A. R. MacDonald, & D. E. Miell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of musical identities (pp. 736–​750). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zapata, G. P., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2018). The effects of musical activities on the self-​esteem of displaced children in Colombia. Psychology of Music, 46(4), 540–​550.

Further Reading Bamberger, J. (2013). Discovering the musical mind: A view of creativity as learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruce, T., Elfer, P., Powell, S. & Werth, L. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge international handbook of Froebel and early childhood practice: Re-​articulating research and policy. London: Routledge. Hargreaves, D. J., & Lamont, A. M. (2017). The psychology of musical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cultural Diversity and Musical Development    203 Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (Eds.). (2001). Musical development and learning: The international perspective. London and New York: Continuum. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (Eds.). (2009). Communicative musicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2008). The musical playground: Global tradition and change in children’s songs and games. New York: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. E. (Ed.). (2016). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 14

Creativit y i n a nd throu gh Mu si c Anna Rita Addessi

Music Creativity and Children Understanding children’s musical creativity has sparked interest and research investigations from several scholars, each contributing different approaches and methodologies (Barrett, 2012; Cardoso de Araújo, 2019; Deliège & Wiggins, 2006; Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2012; McPherson & Welch, 2018; Miell & Littleton, 2004; Odena, 2012). Several studies have focused their attention on the measurement of children’s musical creativity: Webster (2002) studied children as creative thinkers in music and proposes a model of creative thinking in music; Hickey and Lipscomb (2006) also offered a model of assessment of children’s creative musical thinking; McPherson (2005) elaborated a grid to assess the student’s ability to improvise that includes evaluative criteria for creativity. Other perspectives are oriented toward a concept of creativity as a means of expression for the child: for example, Baroni (1997) describes several examples of children’s improvisation in the context of expressive activities in classroom settings in the Italian kindergarten and primary school; Sundin (1998) introduces the observation methodology to analyze songs creativity in four-​to-​six-​year-​old children in the Swedish school; Delalande (1993) observes the musical exploration and inventions of children on the basis of the Piagetian concepts of sensory-​motor, symbolic, and rule games, placing musical invention as the first objective of music education. The topic of creativity has seen new perspectives of investigation within a constructivist and interactionist approach, where attention shifted from individual to collective and collaborative processes (see Barrett 2012; Burnard 2012; Miell & Littleton

Creativity in and through Music    205 2004). Burnard and Dragovic (2015), for example, underline that collaborative creativity can support and enhance the wellbeing experience in young pupils involved in instrumental groups. Cross, Laurence, and Rabinowitch (2012) and Seddon (2012) introduce the concept of “empathetic creativity,” based on the idea of listening to others and regulating their behavior during musical interaction. Veloso (2017) underlines the notion of “collaborative creativity,” which considers creativity as a property distributed in the group, as suggested by Sawyer (2006). These studies support the idea that creativity cannot only be studied from a purely musical point of view but also on the basis of the interactive and communicative context between the participants, and on the basis of social interaction characteristics (e.g., Kawase, 2015; Littleton & Mercer, 2012; Pesquita, Corlis, & Enns, 2014). The link between music improvisation and creativity was emphasized in neurobiology: for example, it was found that the greater connectivity between brain regions sharing functional properties observed in professional piano improvisers than in classical piano players may be due to a more efficient working of the associative networks of musical creativity (Pinho et al., 2014). They conclude that the neural circuits involved in creativity can be optimized by systematic training. Some scholars also attempt to identify a genome for musical aptitude and creativity in music (see Ukkola-​ Vuoti et al., 2013). Studies coming from ethnomusicological or anthropological research have investigated musical creativity in childhood in a transcultural and historical lens. The collection of studies in Damon-​Guillot (2018), for example, introduces several interesting examples: children’s sensory experiences of flamenco, children’s song repertory inspired by linguistic and cultural diversity, children’s creativity in the nursery rhyme, children’s song tradition in a French village at the end of the Ancien Régime, and further several studies on children musical experience in the Ivory Coast, Morocco, Germany, and North India. In the field of technology-​enhanced learning, most studies deal with internet devices, teaching strategies, composition, performance, and music therapy: the new technology opens new scenarios on musical creativity (e.g., Addessi & Pachet, 2005; Bauer, 2014; Brown, 2007; Delalande, 2003; Dorfman, 2013; Finney & Burnard, 2009; Folkestad et al., 1996; Webster, 2007; Williams & Webster, 2008). New technology can be considered not only as a “tool” to aid teaching, but also as providing languages and “brainframes” (De Kerckhove, 1991; Turkle, 2015) that deeply influence the processes of musical learning and the musical creativity of children. Several experiments have been carried out with children who interact with a machine through body movements, listening, and visual feedback (e.g., Addessi, Anelli, & Maffioli, 2017; Friberg & Kallblad, 2011; Njis et al., 2012; Frid et al., 2016; Sano, 2018). According to Williams and Webster (2008), technology offers the opportunity to move from an education based on the “information age” to an education based on the “age of creativity.” In fact, the novelty and the richness of the new digital devices reside in the characteristics of interactivity and feedback in real time.

206   Addessi

Creativity and “Reflexive Interaction”: Theories and Pedagogical Concepts Initially born in the field of human-​machine interaction studies (Turkle, 2015), the paradigm of reflexive interaction refers to the so-​called interactive reflexive musical systems (IRMS), which have been described as musical software that responds to the user by imitating their style, like a mirror (Pachet, 2006). We studied reflexive interaction with children, trying to outline a pedagogical frame of reflexive interaction and implemented a new pedagogical tool, called the MIROR platform, for fostering music and movement creativity (Addessi, 2014; Addessi et al., 2013). The main characteristic of the reflexive interaction paradigm is the mechanism of repetition-​variation: something is repeated and varied during the interaction, through a continuous process of imitation and variation. Turn-​taking and co-​regulation between the partners are also fundamental. The turn-​ taking allows the child to produce, to feel listened to, and to listen; during the reflexive dialogue, the child and the system adapt to each other and co-​regulate the content, the rhythm, and the shape of the interaction. Several studies suggest that the repetition-​ variation mechanism, which includes imitation, imitation recognition, self-​imitation, repetition-​variation, plays an important role in the development of infant musicality and represents one of the ontological foundations of human musicality (Dissanayake, 2000; Imberty, 2014; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Mithen, 2005; Gratier & Apter-​Danon, 2008; Papoušek, 1997; Stern, 2004). In the field of children’s musical experience, it was observed how the repetition-​variation action during the explorations of sound objects in early childhood allows the child to know a sound, to share it with others, to invent music, and to express emotions (e.g., Baroni, 1997; Delalande, 1993; Tafuri, 2006; Young, 2004). The repetition-​variation mechanism has also found interesting interpretations in light of recent studies in neuroscience: Zatorre (2012), for example, highlighted some neural and cognitive mechanisms that allow the transformation and manipulation of pre-​existing music mental representations. The ability to replicate the behavior of others can find its neuroscientific foundations in the mechanism of the mirror neuron system, a network of neurons that become active during the execution and/​or the observation of actions (Rizzolatti et al., 2002). Further studies have shown that the resonance mechanism also works through the auditory channel (Kohler et al., 2002). In the field of embodied music cognition, Leman (2007) points out that there is evidence that mirror neurons are amodal, in the sense that they can encode the mirroring of multiple sensory channels. Therefore, the interaction in a reflexive environment would stimulate a resonance mechanism in the motor areas of the child’s brain, based on the link between action and perception, and can be interpreted through the lens of enactive approach, which sees the interaction between mind, body action, and environment as the fundament of the mental processes (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1993). From a pedagogical perspective, it is important to underline that reflexive learning is not based on imitation; on the contrary, during a reflexive interaction the learning

Creativity in and through Music    207 mechanism is activated by the experience of “being imitated.” Reflexive interaction stimulates the individual to engage in a dialogue during which repetitions and variations enhance cognitive conflict that the child solves during the interaction, giving rise to learning by both problem finding and problem solving. Reflexive interaction could be said to exploit Vygotsky’s concept of “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1962), where the term “proximal” refers to those skills that the learner is close to mastering thanks to the guidance and encouragement of a skilled partner, usually the teacher. Nevertheless, the interaction that takes place between the child and an interactive reflexive system is closer to the model of interaction between peers, as described in the concept of “collaborative learning” by Dillenbourg (1999): a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.

Empirical Studies in a Reflexive Environment and Implications for Practice Several empirical studies have been carried out to observe and measure children’s creativity during the interaction with the MIROR reflexive systems. The results showed that the mechanisms underlying reflexive interaction, that is, repetition-​variation, turn-​ taking, and co-​regulation, can give rise to creative behaviors, states of flow, children’s improvisation, and inclusive processes.

Music and Flow in Educational Contexts The observation of children interacting with reflexive systems showed that children reach high levels of wellbeing and creativity very similar to those described by the Flow Theory (Addessi, Ferrari, & Carugati, 2015). Csikszentmihalyi (1996) describes the “flow” state as the “optimal experience” enjoyed by creative people while they are doing their favorite activities, and it is perceived by the subject as a balance between the goals he or she wants to achieve and the skills that the subject possesses to achieve these objectives. Flow is characterized by the presence of high levels of intensity of several variables, namely: focused attention, clear and immediate feedback, clear objectives, pleasure, control of the situation, no worry of failure, self-​consciousness disappeared, and changing of the perception of time. The studies carried out by Custodero (2005) revealed that the flow theory could be an effective tool to approach children’s musical creativity. We carried out two experimental protocols, where the children were asked over three sessions to play a keyboard, with and without the reflexive system, alone or with a friend. We implemented an original grid to both observe and measure the flow experience of children. The results show that the flow emotional state increases when children play with the reflexive system, both alone and with a friend. In the second study, it was

208   Addessi also possible to observe that the flow is higher for children who played with the more reflexive setup of the system. Pedagogical implications: the results of our experiments suggest that the teacher can use reflexive systems and reflexive strategies (mirroring, turn-​taking, co-​regulation) in order to enhance children’s flow emotional state within a creative experience. More precisely, to engage children in focused activity both when playing and listening (focused attention) and with well-​controlled movements (control of situation); to increase the activities started by the children (self-​assignment: see Custodero, 2005), their ability to manage and organize the rules of interaction and the game with the partners, to play in a self-​motivated way, without any external constraints (clear goals); to analyze the feedback produced by the partner (clear-​cut feedback); and to explore and play musical ideas, create fun games, and play collaboratively (excitement).

Enhancing Flexibility, Originality, and Dialogue in Children’s Musical Improvisation The analysis of the children’s musical improvisations during the interaction with the reflexive systems showed rhythmic and melodic patterns, formal structures, forms of singing and accompaniment, individual improvisation styles, and short formal constructions based on imitation, repetition, alternation, and contrast. Both in exploration and in the improvisations, the individual styles of each child are strengthened by the response of the system. Therefore, we decided to investigate in controlled way whether reflexive interaction influences children’s improvisation skills. The study was conducted in a public primary school with forty-​seven children aged seven and eight years (Addessi, Anelli, & Benghi, et al., 2017). The experimental design involved three sample groups: the control group trained by playing the keyboard with and without the reflexive system and with a non-​reflexive system; the experimental group 1, which played the keyboard and the keyboard with a non-​reflexive system; and the experimental group 2, which played only the keyboard with the reflexive system. One week after the training activities, the children were asked to improvise a musical piece on the keyboard alone (solo task), and in pairs with a friend (duet task). Three independent observers evaluated the solo and the duet tasks. They used the TAI-​Test of Ability to Improvise (McPherson, 2005), which includes four evaluative criteria: instrumental flexibility, musical organization, musical quality, and creativity. We added three more evaluative criteria: musical dialogue, reflexivity, and attention span. The experimental group 2, which trained only with the reflexive system, reached the highest average results in all criteria, both when the children improvise alone and in a duet. The difference between experimental group 2 and 1, which did not use the reflexive system, was statistically significant in the duet task. In the duet task, the correlation between reflexive interaction and all the other criteria, including creativity, is high and statistically significant, which could indicate that practice with the reflexive system “teaches” children the mechanisms of reflexive musical interaction

Creativity in and through Music    209 (turn-​taking, co-​regulation, imitating, being imitated, repeating, and varying), and they are then able to use these reflexive behaviors also when they interact with a human partner. Pedagogical implications: reflexive technologies and reflexive interaction can support a music improvisation program by means of individual and collective “deliberate practice” (Ericsson, 1997; McPherson, 2005). These systems can become children’s sound companions, be placed in a corner, at school and at home, and be available to children for extemporaneous explorations in individual sessions, or with their friends or siblings (e.g., Ferrari & Addessi, 2014/​2017; Pscheidt, Cardoso de Araújo, & Addessi, 2021). The teacher can use reflexive interaction to enhance children’s creativity, that is: (1) Musical flexibility: the child’s ability to generate differing musical ideas, and manipulate/​elaborate these ideas during the course of the improvisation; and (2) Musical originality: the child’s ability to provide a musically unique or unusual response, which can result from the manipulation and/​or elaboration of pitch, rhythm, or other musical elements (McPherson, 2005). Furthermore, reflexive systems can enhance the quality of children’s musical dialogue, their ability to musically dialogue and interact with the partner, by paying attention to the musical proposal (listening), the ability to reply in a way correlated to the friend’s musical proposal, to co-​regulate and share musical ideas, and to interact using repetition and variation, and turn-​taking.

Creativity through Music: Embodied and Enactive Reflexive Approach We carried out several experimental studies aimed at investigating whether interaction in reflexive musical environments can improve creative processes and children’s ability to improvise with movement (Addessi et al., 2017; Volpe et al., 2012). Maestu and Trigo (1995) define motor creativity as “the intrinsically human capacity of putting bodily life at the disposal of the individual’s potential . . . in the innovative search for a valuable idea” (p. 623). We implemented a movement observation grid based on Laban Movement Analysis (LMA) (Laban, 1980/​1950), and we used the Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) test (Torrance, 1981). The LMA, which was originally created to describe, visualize, interpret, and document human movement, in this case was used with a more specific application in the field of dance and movement education. The LMA has been used with excellent results in the field of musical studies, for example to observe and analyze marimba players’ bodily movements (Broughton & Davidson, 2016). Our grid was made with the Observer software (Noldus) and includes the six aspects of LMA, namely: body, flow, space, time, weight, and effort. A controlled study was conducted in Italy in two classes of the first cycle of a public primary school, with forty-​seven children aged seven and eight, divided into two groups: experimental group (23 children) and control group (24 children). Both groups participated in four lessons, one each week. In the control group, the children improvised different bodily activities while they were listening to a child playing a keyboard. The children in the experimental

210   Addessi group improvised different bodily activities while listening to a child playing a keyboard and the reflexive responses of the MIROR-​Impro. An example of an activity carried out: On the moon. Children pretend to be in a science fiction film set on the Moon: “Pretend to be animals, aliens and rocks of a lunar landscape.” The child-​musician therefore has the task of playing the soundtrack of a science fiction film. To the rest of the class we propose alternatively: “move like flying animals during the sound proposal of your musician-​partner, and move like creeping animals during the computer’s response”; “Move like rocks that roll during the proposal of your music-​ companion and freeze in a position during the computer’s response.” The children took turns in the role of musician. The same activities carried out with the experimental group were carried out with the control group, but the child who played did not have the reflexive response of the system and the children who danced responded with movement only following the sound proposed by the musician-​partner.

Before and after the activities, we measured the children’s motor creativity using the TCAM test. We used a modified version of Activity 2 “Can you move like that?” of the TCAM test, suitable for measuring the child’s ability to imagine and take on different roles by moving like animals or objects, and which then evaluates the imaginative capacity. For example: “Can you move like a tree in the wind? Imagine you are a tree and a wind is blowing very hard. Show me how you would move by moving forward toward the camera.” The control group and the experimental group did not show different results on the TCAM test performed before the activities, whereas after the activities a significant difference emerged between the two groups. In particular, and in line with our hypothesis, there was an increase in the creativity scores of the experimental group, which had performed activities with the MIROR-​Impro reflexive system, compared to the control group. These results support our hypothesis that reflexive interaction, thanks to its mirroring mechanisms, turn-​taking, and co-​regulation, positively influences the development of motor creativity in children. The analysis using the LMA highlighted some qualities of movement and use of space. In particular, in the post-​test phase, we observed that in the experimental group the children showed, compared to the control group: a wider kinesphere, that, is the sphere around the body (Laban, 1980/​1950)—​for example, during the post-​test, it was noted that the amplitude of the gesture of the arms was greater in the experimental group than in the control group; a safer use of the general space; greater use of individual parts of the body, not only the arms, but also the shoulders, the head, and the feet. Pedagogical implications: we believe that the usefulness of the reflexivity paradigm is that the children remain with thought-​movement on the same activity while elaborating variations. This allows the teacher to organize activities that support children in experimenting with various body responses to musical proposals and vice versa, placing greater attention on the relationship between elements of music (sound, melody, rhythm, etc.) and elements of movement (body, space, relationships, time, etc.). It is important that children express themselves without going through verbal language, but taking on “other” languages. It is necessary to discover unusual and original

Creativity in and through Music    211 correspondences between the two languages (music and body), which for teachers can represent an interesting aspect from which to start along new pedagogical paths.

Inclusive Potentiality of Mirroring, Turn-​Taking, and Co-​Regulation Reflexive interaction can be a “transversal” device for creativity, music education, and music therapy, and enhance expressive and creative behavior in situations of disability and/​or in which it is important to promote inclusion. The flow experience generated by the interaction with MIROR applications favors states of creativity and wellbeing, suggesting an effective therapeutic and rehabilitative potential. Reflexive interaction stimulates and activates the interactive processes that deeply involve the person, as well as specific brain areas of resonance. For example, Nadel (2002) emphasizes that the processes of imitation and recognition of imitation are fundamental for understanding the autism spectrum disorder. According to Rizzolatti et al. (2002), autism may have a neurobiological basis in the malfunction of mirror neurons. The reflexive interactive musical systems can therefore be placed at the crossroads between music education and music therapy, where the music therapist’s task is to set, through listening, the conditions to promote creativity and social processes (Bunt, 2012). In particular, they are adaptive and intuitive systems, analogous to the extemporaneous character of music therapy improvisation. They are based on the co-​regulation of a communicative process defined as “a continuous disclosure of the individual action that is susceptible to introducing new actions from the constantly changing actions of the partner” (Fogel, 2000). Further constitutive characteristics of reflexive interactive musical systems useful for inclusive education are the priority given to child/​ren and to their musical style(s) and identity(ies), the child-​centered learning approach, a tool for the children to express themselves, their emotions and symbolic imaginations, by means of the body and the music, the interaction based only on sound feedback (no need for music notation or the computer screen), the collaborative learning, the direct peer learning, and the self-​organization of groups. Several empirical experiments and practices have been implemented with meaningful results using reflexive interaction with adults and with children with autism (Anagnostopoulou, Alexakis, & Triantafyllaki, 2012; Ferrari & Addessi, 2019; Figueiredo, Luders, & Addessi, 2021), as well as with children with impaired hearing (Gurioli, Ferrari, & Addessi, 2019), and in dance schools with children in wheelchairs (Bertocchi, 2017).

Bonded Creativity in Infant–​Adult Vocal Interaction Finally, we have observed that reflexive interaction can reinforce the creativity of children not only during the interaction with reflexive systems, but also during vocal interaction with adults. Several observations were carried out at home with

212   Addessi nine-​month-​old children and their parents and grandmothers during the daily routine of diaper change (Addessi, 2020). The video analysis was carried out by applying the grid of Vocal Activism, which allows to register and measure the duration of vocal productions, imitation/​variation, and turn-​taking for each partner of the dyads. Three different vocal productions were registered with the adults: vocalization, singing, and speech +​IDS. The results of four case studies showed that the child is vocally more active when the adult’s imitation-​variation and turn-​taking are higher, both with the parents and the grandmothers, and both when they sing or speak. In case study 1, the father and son “played” at improvising like two singers playing together, displaying remarkable anticipation and synchrony. We observed how the situation is co-​constructed over time as a result of co-​regulation. The father and son reached attunement step by step, constructing a series of shared and co-​regulated actions that allowed them to anticipate the other’s gestures and to regulate their own actions in relation to their expectations of their partner. This is precisely the function of reflexivity: to construct a type of format, or “frames” (Bruner, 1983), allowing children to control time and its content made up of gestures, emotions, and actions. Repetition creates a pattern that allows the child to anticipate the course of time and thus, in a certain way, to master it. Costa-​Giomi (2014) highlighted that many studies have focused on infants’ differential attention to speech and singing, with different and sometimes opposite results, and that further variables can affect infants’ preference, such as the mode of presentation. The results of the study presented here highlight that the interactive processes of repetition-​variation and turn-​taking can affect children’s preference, whether with speech or song. These results could have some importance for the development of singing, namely the acquisition of conventional songs as well as the invention of creative songs (Barrett, 2006; Cohen, 2011; Ilari, 2014). For example, in case study 1, the child repeats and modifies the melodic profile of their vocalizations in real time together with the father: a good exercise to learn how to sing and invent new songs, before actually singing. From a pedagogical point of view, these results suggest that in order to enhance the vocal production of the child, the adults/​educators should find a balance between their own vocalization and the vocalization of the child, leaving the child time to produce vocalization, respecting the turn-​taking, following the nuances of the child’s voice, and giving preference to musical play and the pleasure of musical vocal interaction, imitating the child rather than trying to be imitated.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the idea that creativity in early music development and learning is grounded in reflexive interaction, a new paradigm initially born in the field of technology and then exploited in the field of children’s creativity and musical experience. Several empirical studies have been conducted on reflexivity and flow emotional

Creativity in and through Music    213 state, musical improvisation, body action, inclusive context, and infant-​adult vocal interaction, highlighting how interaction based on repetition and variation, turn-​taking, and co-​regulation could stimulate and enhance children’s creative processes in and through music, both in child-​machine and human interaction. Several music and dance activities have been suggested, in which children experience reflexive interaction by making or listening to music and moving the body. Furthermore, it was suggested that the teacher/​adult could use reflexive interaction to guide the children from spontaneous explorations toward musical and motor invention, exploiting it as a kind of “scaffolding” (Bruner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1962). In conclusion, the reflexive interaction paradigm introduces an original contribution to the field of children’s creativity, which originates in the ancient myth of Echo and now resonates with the contemporary psychology of musical embodiments.

References Addessi, A. R. (2014). Developing a theoretical foundation for the Reflexive Interaction Paradigm with implications for training music skill and creativity. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind and Brain, 24(3), 214–​230. Addessi, A. R. (2020). Before singing: The role of reflexivity during vocal interactions with caregivers in diaper change daily routine. In F. Russo, B. Ilari, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Advancing interdisciplinary research in singing, Volume I: The development of singing (pp. 262–​275). New York and London: Routledge. Addessi, A. R., Anagnostopoulou, C., Olsson, B., Pachet, F., Newman, S., & Young, S. (2013). MIROR-​Musical Interaction Relying on Reflexion: Project final report, European Commission. Retrieved from https://​www.resea​rchg​ate.net/​publ​icat​ion/​2762​0513​2_​MI​ ROR-​Musical_​Interaction_​Relying_​On_​Ref​l exi​on_​P​ROJE​CT_​F​INAL​_​REP​ORT#full​Text​ File​Cont​ent Addessi, A. R., Anelli, F., Benghi, D., & Friberg, A. (2017). Does reflexive interaction enhance children’s musical improvisation?: Child-​computer interaction at the beginning stage of music learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(65), 1–​21. Addessi, A. R., Anelli, F., & Maffioli, M. (2017). Children dancing with the MIROR-​Impro: Does the reflexive interaction enhance movement creativity? In E. Van Dyck (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (pp. 1–​9). Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent. Addessi, A. R., Ferrari, L., & Carugati, F. (2015). The Flow Grid: A technique for observing and measuring emotional state in children interacting with a flow machine. Journal of New Music Research, 44(2), 129–​144. Addessi, A. R., & Pachet, F. (2005). Experiments with a musical machine: Musical style replication in 3 to 5 year old children. British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 21–​46. Anagnostopoulou, C., Alexakis, A., & Triantafyllaki, A. (2012). A computational method for the analysis of musical improvisations by young children and psychiatric patients with no musical background. In E. Cambouropoulos, C. Tsougras, P. Mavromatis, & K. Pastiadis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th ICMPC and the 8th Triennial Conference of ESCOM (pp. 64–​ 68). Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki. Baroni, M. (1997). Suoni e significati: Attività espressive nella scuola. Torino: EDT.

214   Addessi Barrett, M. S. (2006). Inventing songs, inventing worlds: The “genesis” of creative thought and activity in young children’s lives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 201–​220. Barrett, M. S. (2012). Preparing the mind for musical creativity: Early music learning and engagement. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 51–​7 1). Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bertocchi, C. (2017). Relazioni musicali in un contesto di disabilità [Musical interactions in a disability context]. Master’s thesis, University of Bologna. Broughton, M. C., & Davidson, J. (2016). An expressive bodily movement repertoire for marimba performance, revealed through observers’ Laban Effort-​Shape analyses, and allied musical features: Two case studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1211), 1–​20. Brown, A. R. (2007). Computer in music education. Amplifying musicality. New York: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: W. W. Norton. Bunt, L. (2012). Music therapy with children: A complementary service to music education? British Journal of Music Education, 20(2), 179–​195. Burnard, P. (2012). Commentary: Musical creativity as practice. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 319–​336). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnard, P., & Dragovic, T. (2015). Collaborative creativity in instrumental group music learning as a site for enhancing pupil wellbeing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(3), 371–​392. Cardoso de Araújo, R. (Ed.) (2019). Educação musical: Creatividade e motivação. Curitiba, Brazil: Appris Editora. Cohen, A. J. (2011). Creativity in singing: Universality and the question of critical periods. In D. Hargreaves, D. Miell, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance, and perception (pp. 173–​ 189). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Costa-​Giomi, E. (2014). Mode of presentation affects infants’ preferential attention to singing and speech. Music Perception, 32(2), 160–​169. Cross, I., Laurence, F., & Rabinowitch, T.-​C. (2012). Empathy and creativity in group musical practices: Towards a concept of empathic creativity. In G. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education, Vol. 2 (pp. 337–​353). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Csikzsentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. Custodero, L. A. (2005). Observable indicators of flow experience: A development perspective on musical engagement in young children from infancy to school age. Music Education Research, 7, 185–​209. Damon-​Guillot, A. (Ed.). (2018). Musiques de l’enfance et enfants musiciens [Monograph], Cahiers d’ethnomusicologie, 31. De Kerckhove, D. (1991). Brainframes: Technology, mind and business. Utrecht: Bosch and Keuning. Delalande, F. (1993). Le condotte musicali [The musical conducts]. Bologna: CLUEB. Delalande, F. (2003). D’une technologie à l’autre. Des outils pour la musique [Monograph], Les dossiers de l’ingénierie éducative, 43.

Creativity in and through Music    215 Deliège, I. & Wiggins, G. A. (Eds.). (2006). Musical creativity. Hove: Psychology Press. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative-​ learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-​infant interaction. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 389–​410). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dorfman, J. (2013). Theory and practice of technology-​based music instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ericsson, K. A. (1997). Deliberate practice and the acquisition of expert performance. An overview. In H. Jorgensen & A. C. Lehmann (Eds.), Does practice make perfect?: Current theory and research on instrumental music practice (pp. 9–​51). Oslo: Norges Musikkhogskole. Ferrari, L., & Addessi, A. R. (2014/​2017). A new way to play music together: The Continuator in the classroom setting. International Journal of Music Education, 32, 171–​184 (republished in M. A. Runco (Ed.) (2017), Creativity and education, vol. III. SAGE Publications Ltd). Ferrari, L., & Addessi, A. R. (2019). The inter-​subjectivity and the inter-​acting body as common features between the autistic spectrum disorders and the MIROR Platform. In L. Nijs, H. Van Regenmortel, & Ch. Arculus (Eds.), Counterpoints of the senses. Bodily experiences in musical learning. MERYC 2019 Proceedings (pp. 51–​58). EuNet MERYC. Figueiredo, C., Luders, V., & Addessi, A. R. (2021). Musical interaction processes and creative musical practices with children with autism. In R. Cardoso de Araújo (Ed.), Brazilian research on creativity. Development in musical interaction (pp. 4–​27). New York and London: Routledge. Finney, J. & Burnard, P. (2009). Music education with digital technology. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Fogel, A. (2000). Oltre gli individui: Un approccio storico-​relazionale alla teoria e alla ricerca sulla comunicazione [Beyond the individuals: An historical and relational approach to the theory and research on communication]. In M. L. Genta (Ed.), Il rapporto madre-​bambino [The mother-​child relationship] (pp. 123–​161). Roma: Carocci. Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindström, B. (1996). Compositional strategies in computer-​ based music-​making. British Journal of Music Education, 15, 83–​97. Friberg, A. & Kallblad, A. (2011). Experiences from video-​controlled sound installations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 128–​131). Oslo, Norway. Frid, E., Bresin, R., Alborno, P., & Eblaus, L. (2016). Interactive sonification of spontaneous movement of children: Cross-​modal mapping and the perception of body movement qualities through sound. Frontiers in Neurosciences, 10(521), 1–​16. Gratier, M. & Apter-​Danon, G. (2008). The musicality of belonging: Repetition and variation in mother-​infant interaction. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality (pp. 301–​327). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Gurioli, G., Ferrari, L., & Addessi, A. R. (2019). Storytelling with the MIROR-​Composition in the Italian inclusive school. In L. Nijs & H. Van Regenmortel (Eds.), Counterpoints of the senses: Bodily experiences in musical learning. MERYC Book of Abstracts (pp. 34–​35). EuNet MERYC. Hargreaves, D., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (Eds.). (2012). Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance and perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

216   Addessi Hickey, M., & Lipscomb, S. (2006). How different is good? How good is different?: The assessment of children’s creative musical thinking. In I. Deliège & G. A. Wiggins (Eds.), Musical creativity (pp. 97–​110). Hove: Psychology Press. Kawase, S. (2015). Relationships between performers’ daily social skills, social behaviors in ensemble practice, and evaluations of ensemble performance. Musicae Scientiae, 19, 350–​365. Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umilta M. A., Fogassi L., Gallese V., & Rizzolatti G. (2002). Hearing sounds, understanding actions: Action representation in mirror neurons. Science, 297(5582), 846–​848. Ilari, B. (2014). Musical thinking in early years. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking (pp. 318–​330). New York and London: Routledge. Imberty, M. (2005). La Musique creuse le temps. De Wagner à Boulez: musique, psychologie, psychoanalyse [The music digs the time. From Wagner to Boulez: Music, psychology, psychoanalysis]. Paris: L’Harmattan. Laban, R. (1980). The mastery of movement (4th ed.). London: Macdonalds & Evens Limited (Original work published 1950). Leman, M. (2007). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2012). Communication, collaboration, and creativity: How musicians negotiate a collective sound. In D. Hargreaves, D. Miell, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance and perception (pp. 233–​241). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maestu, J., & Trigo, E. (1995). Opening lines of research in motor creativity. Lleida: University of Lleida. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (Eds.). (2009). Communicative musicality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. McPherson, G. (2005). From child to musician: Skill development during the beginning stage of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–​35. McPherson, G., & Welch, G. (2018). Creativities, technologies, and media in music learning and teaching: An Oxford handbook of music education, Vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miell, D., & Littleton, K. (2004). Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives. London: Free Association Books. Mithen, S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: The origin of music, language, mind and body. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson. Nadel, J. (2002). Imitation and imitation recognition: Functional use in preverbal infants and nonverbal children with autism. In A. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases (pp. 42–​62). New York: Cambridge University Press. Nijs, L., Moens, B., Lesaffre, M., & Leman, M. (2012). The Music Paint Machine: Stimulating self-​monitoring through the generation of creative visual output using a technology-​ enhanced learning tool. Journal of New Music Research, 41(1), 79–​101. Odena, O. (Ed.). (2012). Musical creativity: Insight from music education research. New York and London: Routledge. Pachet, F. (2006). Creativity studies and musical interaction. In I. Deliège & G. A. Wiggins (Eds.), Musical creativity (pp. 347–​358). Hove: Psychology Press. Papoušek, M. (2007). Communication in early infancy: An arena of intersubjective learning. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 258–​266.

Creativity in and through Music    217 Pesquita, A., Corlis, T., & Enns, J. T. (2014). Perception of musical cooperation in jazz duets is predicted by social aptitude. Psychomusicology, 2, 173–​183. Pinho, A. L., de Manzano, O., Fransson, P., Eriksson, H., & Ullén, F. (2014). Connecting to create: Expertise in musical improvisation is associated with increased functional connectivity between premotor and prefrontal areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 3, 6156–​6163. Pscheidt, J., Cardoso de Araújo, R., & Addessi, A. R. (2021). Reflexive interaction and musical creativity: A study with drums students. In R. Cardoso de Araújo (Ed.), Brazilian research on creativity development in musical interaction (pp. 4–​27). New York and London: Routledge. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2002). From mirror neurons to imitation: Facts and speculations. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases (pp. 247–​266). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sano, M. (2018). Statistical analysis of elements of movement in musical expression in early childhood using 3D motion capture and evaluation of musical development degrees through machine learning. World Journal of Education, 8(3), 118–​130. Sawer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seddon, F. (2012). Empathetic creativity in music-​making. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insight from music education research (pp. 133–​147). New York and London: Routledge. Stern, D. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and in everyday life. New York: W. W. Norton. Sundin, B. (1998). Musical creativity in the first six years: A research project in retrospect. In B. Sundin, G. McPherson, & G. Folkestad, Children composing, Research in music education (pp. 35–​56). Lund: Malmö Academy of Music. Tafuri, J. (2006). Processes and teaching strategies in musical improvisation with children. In I. Deliège & G. A. Wiggins (Eds.), Musical creativity (pp. 134–​158). Hove: Psychology Press. Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin. Ukkola-​Vuoti, L., Kanduri, C., Oikkonen, J., Buck, G., Blancher, C., Raijas, P., Karma, K., Lähdesmäki, H., & Järvelä, I. (2013). Genome-​wide copy number variation analysis in extended families and unrelated individuals characterized for musical aptitude and creativity in music. PloS One, 8(2), e56356. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Veloso, A. L. (2017). Composing music, developing dialogues: An enactive perspective on children’s collaborative creativity. British Journal of Music Education, 34(3), 259–​276. Volpe, G., Varni, G., Addessi, A. R., & Mazzarino, B. (2012). BeSound: Embodied reflexion for music education in childhood. In H. Schelhowe (Ed.), IDC ’12. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 172–​175). New York: ACM. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962), Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Webster, P. R. (2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In T. Sullivan & L. Willingham (Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. 16–​33). Edmonton: Canadian Music Educators Association. Webster, P. R. (2007). Computer-​based technology and music. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 1311–​1328). Dordrecht: Springer. Williams, D. B., & Webster, P. R. (2008). Experiencing music technology. Boston: Clark Baxter.

218   Addessi Young, S. (2004). The interpersonal dimension: A potential source of musical creativity for young children. Musicae Scientiae, 7, 175–​179.

Further Reading Books Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (2017). Creativity and education, 4 vols. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Tsubonou, Y., Tan, A.-​G., & Oie, M. (Eds.) (2019). Creativity in music education. London & New York: Routledge.

Websites Création musicale à l’école et au delà. L’éspace pédagogique du GRM–​Groupe de Recherche Musicale, INA–​Institut National de l’Audiovisuel: https://​crea​mus.ina​grm.com The official website of the European project MIROR-​Musical Interaction Relying on Reflexion: http://​miror​proj​ect.eu

Chapter 15

You ng Chil dre n’ s Mu sical Ident i t i e s A Network of Musical Worlds Amanda Niland

Introduction: The Role of Music in Young Children’s Lives There is so much evidence to suggest that children are innately musical and that music is an essential part of their lives, that stating this has become almost a cliché. Nevertheless it provides an important foundation for this handbook, and in particular for this chapter’s exploration of the relationship between children’s identities and their musical development and cultures. In the words of key researchers into infant communication and musicality Colwyn Trevarthen and Stephen Malloch: “Music is clearly not just an object to be acquired or studied, it is something we do to express and share our vitality” (2009, p. 1). Small similarly conceptualized music as essentially a form of social action, and coined the term “musicking,” a verb rather than an abstract noun, to describe it (1998). For children, musicking is how they play, express themselves, and connect with others to make meaning of their worlds (Barrett, 2003; Bjørkvold, 1989; Wright, 2015). With these understandings in mind, the exploration of the role of music in young children’s lives in this chapter will consider their musicking within the broader contexts of identity and culture, adopting a position that music education should draw on, and align with social and cultural factors beyond educational institutions. Given the aim to contextualize music within the lives of young children and families, theory informed by sociology, developmental psychology, anthropology, and ethnomusicology underpins this exploration. Music is closely linked with individual, social, and cultural identity (Bennett, 2017; Blacking, 1976; Green, 2003; Kelly-​McHale, 2013). In a wide range of diverse ways, music is part of routines and rituals within families, communities, and nations across the world.

220   Niland It may take the form of lullabies, spiritual worship, celebration of birthdays or other family occasions, performances in concert halls, busking in the streets, community or national commemorations, or simply musicking for fun. For many twenty-​first-​century children, particularly those in more urban contexts, it may also take the form of digitally reproduced music that is “consumed” in various ways at home and while out and about. Music may be used to soothe, to excite, to connect, to instruct, or to entertain. In all these ways music plays a social and emotional role in children’s lives (Kelly-​McHale, 2011), and over time contributes to shaping their individual, social, and cultural identities. This chapter therefore takes a multidisciplinary approach within the broad paradigm of sociocultural theories. It explores the ways children use music right from birth: to connect and interact with others, to accompany their play, and to participate in a variety of social and cultural musical experiences, both actual and virtual. Musical understandings, preferences, and abilities both shape and are shaped by the children themselves, and by the musical worlds in which they live. These worlds are thus complex and diverse, influenced by many factors—​family, community, geography, climate, and social and political cultures—​and can thus be understood through the lens of ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1981/​2009). At the heart of the ecological system, in this chapter children are regarded as musically competent and as active agents in the creation of their musical cultures, with rights and preferences to be respected. Families and communities are viewed as integral to young children’s musical development and education.

Identity, Culture, and Young Children In this section I discuss the development of individual and social identities during the early childhood years, to provide a broader theoretical context within which to position children’s musical identities. I also explore the intersections between identity development and culture in the lives of young children. The sense of self “is constantly being reconstructed and renegotiated according to the experiences, situations and other people with whom we interact in everyday life” (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002, p. 2). Thus children’s individual identities can be seen as socially constructed, and closely interwoven with their social identity development—​a sense of oneself in relation to others (Bennett, 2011). Identity development begins in infancy with close caring relationships, through which children begin to differentiate between self and other (Bennett, 2011). Through interactions and experiences in their daily lives, children gradually begin to recognize and identify with groups during the early childhood years. For example, even in their first year of life, research has indicated that children show ability to differentiate between adults and children (Sanefuji, Ohgami, & Hashiya, 2006) and between genders (Quinn et al., 2002), and to recognize their home languages (Nazzi, Bertoncini, & Mehler, 1998). While developmental research has often focused on investigating social identity in relation to categories and labels, researchers informed by sociocultural, ecological, or post-​structuralist perspectives stress the importance of exploring young children’s

Young Children’s Musical Identities    221 developing understanding of self in relation to others more broadly (Bennett, 2011). In early childhood, children’s sense of self and identification with others is often linked with particular material, social, and cultural resources and artifacts that they have in common with others. Recently researchers have referred to “commodification” as being a significant factor in contemporary childhoods: the marketing and provision of commercial goods by adults, aimed at developing children’s identities as consumers (Vanobbergen, 2018). The phenomena of digital technology and global marketing have also led to this commodification influencing the musical lives of children (Barrett, 2003; Hargreaves, Miell, & Macdonald, 2002; Meyers, Knight, & Krabbenhoft, 2014; Young, 2012). The ubiquity of digital access to music, most recently including platforms such as YouTube, means that for many children music is experienced in a wider range of contexts and ways than in the past, with ever-​increasing potential for commercial shaping of their musical worlds (Campbell, 2015; Hargreaves, Miell, & Macdonald; Young, 2009). In seeking to understand young children’s developing musical identities, their various relationships and contexts, with the cultural and social affordances provided, must be considered. As Bennett, referring to the work of Bourdieu, says: “identities should also be seen as associated with differential resources (e.g., material, social, symbolic, etc.) that can play an important role in shaping individuals’ opportunities, obligations, actions” (2011, p. 358). Children’s social identities in early childhood, perhaps to some extent ascribed by others through stereotyping, partly as a result of the influence of global media cultures, can be a major influence on the opportunities that may be made available to them, and hence on their chances of reaching their full potential (Bennett). This points to the need for culturally responsive, inclusive, and equitable music education provisions for young children, which is discussed later in this chapter. Feelings of belonging and young children’s developing sense of identity go hand in hand during the early childhood years (Bennett, 2011; ACECQA, 2022). Both rely on children experiencing supportive, trusting relationships with those close to them (Degotardi, Sweller, & Pearson, 2013). As musical interactions are commonly part of children’s earliest relationships, music can thus play a key role in fostering a sense of belonging and a positive self-​identity (Ilari, 2007; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Papoušek, 1996). Therefore from birth and even before, the musical cultures in which children are immersed influence their identity development (Woodward, 2010).

Identity, Culture, and Development: Children as Part of Sociocultural Systems The relationships and experiences of children’s daily lives take place within physical, economic, social, and cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979/​2009; James & James, 2017). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides important insights into how these

222   Niland contexts and interactions shape children’s development. This theory stands in contrast with other developmental research paradigms that imply a universal child and common developmental pathways. Ecological systems theory conceptualizes children at the center of a series of social systems, from micro to meso to macro—​put very simply, from family to community to national/​global—​that have been depicted as concentric circles, linked by a chronosystem (development occurring over time), with the interactions and influences between each system being fluid and reciprocal (Bronfenbrenner, 1979/​ 2009). Bronfenbrenner, the originator of ecological systems theory, was influenced in his early research by the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky, and Bronfenbrenner’s theory, along with sociocultural theories (e.g., Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1967), has been very influential in shifting educational research and pedagogical thinking away from a mainly cognitivist, behaviorist paradigm toward a more multidisciplinary, holistic way of understanding children that acknowledges and values their identities and cultures, and recognizes these as interwoven with development. Many researchers over the past forty years have drawn on ecological systems theory and have extended on the model originally developed by Bronfenbrenner (Neal & Neal, 2013). A recent reinterpretation by Neal and Neal proposes a model based on intersecting networks rather than concentric circles, based on the argument that children only in fact directly interact with, or are influenced by, some of the systems in their worlds, especially when considering particular aspects of development such as music. For example, a child’s family might interact directly with political and economic macro-​systems through their working life, but the child does not interact with these directly. Neal and Neal believe that their interpretation accommodates a diversity of systems and relationships between them that will more effectively represent children’s developmental contexts (2011). Ecological systems theory and sociocultural theory (which sees development as occurring in the context of social settings and relationships) both provide useful frameworks for exploring and understanding young children’s musical identities and musical development. Further insights into the cultural foundations of young children’s musical identities can also be gained from drawing on anthropology and ethnomusicology. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined culture as “webs of significance” that people weave as they make meaning of their lives (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). This dynamic definition of culture highlights the active role that people, including children, play in the continual development of culture and identity and the close relationship between these two. Musical culture can be conceptualized as a spectrum of dimensions from micro to macro or “super” (Slobin, 1993), dimensions that correlate with the different ecological contexts and systems of relationships in children’s lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1981/​2009). Considered together, these theoretical perspectives highlight the complex, dynamic, and fluid interactions, relationships, and processes that shape development and identity, so provide a basis for understanding children’s musical identities and cultures and the role that music education might play in these processes. As children grow, their life experiences, along with their musical encounters, expand as they engage directly with broader communities or systems outside home and family. Their social and cultural identities as well as their overall learning and development are

Young Children’s Musical Identities    223 further influenced by these diverse contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). In early childhood settings, children bring the practices, values, and beliefs of their home and family cultures and share these with their peers. Through interactions, relationships, and play children extend their social identities and sense of belonging as they build peer cultures, which may reflect both commonalities and differences from their home and family lives. Music is one aspect of their identities and cultures that often connects children with peers in a new setting, for example either through sharing in singing familiar songs or through the excitement of encountering new songs, dances, or styles of music (Niland, 2012). Young children’s musicking is often interwoven with the development of their social identities and peer cultures in the social system of their early childhood education and care setting (Niland, 2019; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Neal & Neal, 2011). Sociology of childhood researchers argue that children are active agents in creating their identities and cultures (Barrett, 2003; James & James, 2017) through a process of “interpretive reproduction” (Corsaro, 2005). As they develop their own peer musical cultures and identities, intersections with broader musical cultural networks (Slobin, 1993) are reflected in their musicking. Researchers such as Marsh (e.g., 2011) and Campbell (1998, 2015) who have studied the spontaneous musical play of school-​ aged children through ethnographic or ethnomusicological lenses have identified such intersections as well as children’s active agency in collaboratively shaping unique musical cultures. Campbell and others (Kelly-​McHale, 2011; Woodward, 2010) urge music educators and curriculum designers to acknowledge and value this in classroom music. There is to date limited research into young children’s musical identities and cultures in early childhood education and care settings. Nevertheless, there is a small and growing body of literature that provides valuable insights and starting points for others, such as the research into young children’s spontaneous singing and creative musicking (e.g., Barrett, 2003; Countryman, Gabriel, & Thompson, 2016; Whiteman, 2009). Some research into young children’s spontaneous and shared musicking has focused on home and family contexts (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2003; Ilari, 2007) or more recently on public settings (Custodero, Calì, & Diaz-​Donoso, 2016). All of this research shows children’s musical capability, their agency, and their “interpretive reproduction” (Corsaro, 2005) of the musical cultures they encounter in their daily lives (Slobin, 1993).

Young Children’s Musical Cultures: Insights from Ethnomusicology Some important music education researchers have drawn on ethnomusicology methodologies and research to inform their research into children’s musical identities cultures, with a focus on school-​aged children. For example, Campbell (1998; 2015) and Marsh (2011; 2013) mentioned above have been influential in broadening the perspectives of music education research, with valuable implications for curriculum and pedagogy. Both have researched children’s musicking outside the classroom, showing

224   Niland children’s musical capabilities and creativity in ways that have not always been evident in classroom research or teaching approaches. The influence of children’s broader cultures and identities were very clearly evident in their styles of musicking, and in the US Campbell’s research and work in music education curriculum has led to increased incorporation of community identities and cultures in musical materials used in many classrooms. In Australia, Marsh has more recently studied the musicking of children from refugee backgrounds (2013), in a valuable exploration of children whose cultures and identity development have been disrupted, who have suffered loss and trauma and whose lives bridge several cultural contexts simultaneously. In these situations, which are increasingly part of today’s world, music can provide ways for children to navigate cultural differences and can support them in their emotional and social lives. The focus of ethnomusicology is to investigate music in culture and music as culture (Nettl, 1983). Ethnomusicology research has in the past focused on more traditional communities across the world; however, as postcolonial and post-​structuralist theories have developed, there has been some critique of the study of musical “others” and of implicit or explicit comparisons with the norm of Western classical music (Barz & Cooley, 2008; Minks, 2002). However, the work of those such as Blacking (e.g., 1976), Merriam (1964), Nettl, and Minks have shed light on the many ways in which music infuses culture and is woven into the social fabric of communities. Their findings thus have broader implications for general understanding of the role of music in identity and culture in all populations. Slobin (1993) extended these perspectives by moving away from studying musical “others” to researching music in Western cultures and communities, and in his research identified the different levels of musical cultures that help shape our musical identities. Slobin studied the ways in which musical cultures are often interwoven, arguing that in this current globalized world, people are members of a range of diverse cultures at the same time. His analysis of musical cultures involved categorizing them into levels: “super-​cultures” (e.g., national musical cultures or global musical media cultures), “sub-​cultures” (e.g., community musical cultures), and “micro-​cultures” (e.g., family or classroom or peer musical cultures) (1993). Slobin’s work is valuable in providing a musical dimension to an identity-​focused, ecological systems theory exploration of children’s musical development. Children may experience different musical sub-​cultures through religious worship; musical cultures through community musical genres such as local folk traditions; musical super-​cultures such as national musical traditions or genres, YouTube, and other digital musical media; and musical micro-​ cultures within their families and ECEC settings. Slobin’s conceptualization of the multidirectional influence of different cultural levels also has similarities with the work of Bronfenbrenner (1981/​2009) and to a lesser extent Corsaro (2005). Corsaro is a sociologist whose work provides a framework for exploring the influence of children’s peer cultures in shaping their musical cultures and identities. He defines peer cultures as “a stable set of activities or routines, artifacts, values and concerns that children produce and share in interactions with peers” (2000, p. 92). His research into children’s peer social cultures provides examples of children actively creating, rather than passively absorbing, their cultures. In his ethnographic research in the US and

Young Children’s Musical Identities    225 Italy, Corsaro analyzed how children, in their social play interactions, actively reshaped elements of adult and community cultures, to develop their own unique peer social cultures and values. He noted themes of agency, power, and autonomy in the children’s actions and conversations, and used the term “interpretive reproduction” to describe this process (Corsaro & Molinari, 2000). Ethnomusicologists who have studied young children’s musical cultures provide valuable insights into children as cultural agents. The research of Amanda Minks (e.g., 2002) is significant in showing how children are not passive receptors of culture, but are active in creating and/​or contributing to their musical cultures. Minks argues that culture is passed on to children, including through music, and that this contributes to the stability and continuation of societies. Nevertheless, she shows in her research how children often introduce elements of cultural change to older generations, sometimes through music. Similarly, there are many examples in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of new musical styles angering older generations but being embraced by young people and thus gradually becoming accepted into musical cultures. Rock ’n’ roll of the 1960s is one such example. Another ethnomusicologist who has recognized children’s active creation of their musical identities and cultures is Andrea Emberley (2012). In her research with Venda children in South Africa, she sought the children’s perspectives on their musical world and found that “children have their own ideas about of what their musical cultures sound like, and what they should sound like” (p. 1). Like Minks (2002), Emberley identified examples of how children’s musicking involved elements of transmission/​continuity as well as reshaping of traditional cultural stories and values. She too noted the children’s active agency in their musicking. Further, Emberley examined the changes in children’s musical learning from being primarily derived from family, peers, and community, to increasingly being influenced by school music learning. She highlights some of the disconnect between the rich traditional Venda musical culture and the school music curriculum, where the Western music paradigm has until recently been dominant. Like Kelly-​McHale (2011), she argues for the importance of culturally relevant music education curriculum in classrooms. With the help of ideas from contemporary ethnomusicology (e.g., Barz & Cooley, 2008; Emberley, 2012; Minks, 2002; Slobin, 1993), analysis of the way digital and commodified musical cultures are increasingly part of young children’s musical identities can provide valuable insights for early childhood music educators. In the twenty-​first century, digital platforms, in particular YouTube, are now prime sites for sharing of musical identities and cultures by young people, and even (via families) very young children. With adult technical support, young children are actively “interpretively reproducing” (Corsaro, 2005) musical cultures and through this influencing adult musical cultures. There are also examples of adult-​generated musical trends, spread with dramatic rapidity via social media, that have yet to be explored to gain understanding of how children use these cultural artifacts and might shape them further going forward. One such phenomenon is the “Baby Shark” song, which has been viewed by tens of millions of people worldwide (Gibson, 2018). Originally a children’s chant that has been shared in ECEC settings for at least twenty years, it was recently reinterpreted

226   Niland through the Korean genre known as K-​Pop and has gone “viral.” The relative newness of YouTube as a musical resource in ECEC settings and homes means that it has not yet been explored by researchers. An approach informed by ecological systems theory, anthropology, and ethnomusicology could yield much data to enrich our understandings of this aspect of contemporary musical childhoods. This is particularly important given anecdotal evidence of the ubiquity of YouTube music use by early childhood educators in countries such as Australia, UK, and US. While in relation to older children and high school settings, there is a growing body of literature in relation to informal musical learning and musical technology and their potential for music classrooms, in early childhood education contexts this aspect of children’s musicking is ripe for further exploration. Research into the use of digital music in ECEC settings is particularly needed because of the low levels of musical training and self-​efficacy among early childhood educators (Kim & Kemple, 2011; Swain & Bodkin-​Allen, 2014).

Young Children’s Musical Development through an Identity Lens In the past, just as child development research was based on an implied universal child, so research on children’s musical development and music education was commonly based on similar beliefs. However, over the past few decades this research has become gradually more holistic and interdisciplinary, with interactions, contexts, and other sociocultural influences being considered. Whereas formerly musical development was researched predominantly in terms of children’s skills in relation to individual elements of music such as beat, rhythm, or pitch (Gordon, 2003), with categorization into ages and stages, now the influence of social networks and cultures in families and communities is considered to be significant (Lum & Campbell, 2007; Young, 2016). Consequently, understandings of children’s diverse musical developmental pathways acknowledge their diversity and fluidity (Young, 2019). As already mentioned, two key theories that have underpinned these broader perspectives are sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1981/​2009). Both theories provide potential for understanding young children’s musical development: the former highlights the way children learn in the context of their social interactions and relationships with adults and peers; the latter highlights the function and influence of social and cultural networks around children in shaping their development (Neal & Neal, 2013). However, while in the past most early childhood music research may have had an individualized, behavioral focus, often with quasi-​experimental designs, there have been some significant researchers, influenced by anthropology and ethnomusicology, who adopted more holistic perspectives. For example, in 1941 Moorehead and Pond (1941/​1978) researched young children’s musical play, and in 1976 Helmut Moog wrote about his research into children’s musical experiences in preschool. While Moog’s focus was on individual children’s musical skill development, he also identified the role of musical play in fostering this development. Later, Jan Bjørkvold conducted cross-​cultural

Young Children’s Musical Identities    227 ethnographic research that was influential in broadening the awareness of other early childhood music researchers toward alternative ways of understanding children’s musical lives and development (Bjørkvold, 1989; Young, 2016). Bjørkvold’s research involved participant observation in early childhood settings in the US, Norway, and Russia, in which he explored children’s musicking, particularly their singing, in the contexts of their play and peer social cultures. He analyzed data using musicological and sociocultural frameworks, following the practices of ethnomusicological research. Bjørkvold used the term ngoma (a Bantu word for interactive music-​making that incorporates dance, drama, and story) to describe children’s musicking. This term, similar to Small’s term “musicking” (1998), acknowledges the social, active nature of music, as well as children’s exercising of their musical agency through play. As the body of research literature in early childhood music informed by broader, interdisciplinary lenses has grown, so ways of understanding the role of music in children’s lives have become more holistic, and have influenced the direction of research into children’s musical development and to some extent early childhood music pedagogy (Young, 2016). There is now less focus on studying skill development in isolation and more focus on the need to acknowledge and work with children’s identities and their social and musical cultures (Barrett, 2011; Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002). Examples of this are evident elsewhere in this handbook. This more holistic focus has led to some new proposed models for understanding and fostering children’s musical development in early childhood education settings. One model is the Sounds of Intent Early Years framework (SoIEY) (Voyajolou & Ockelford, 2016). This model, developed originally for working with children experiencing disability and then adapted for use in early childhood education, analyzes children’s musical responses in terms of whether they are reactive, proactive, and interactive. Development is represented diagrammatically in levels of increasing complexity: portrayed within concentric circles, in recognition that children’s capabilities and interests will not move in a uniform trajectory. SoIEY has been designed for use by early childhood educators without specialist musical training, so its terminology is descriptive and not overly focused on isolated musical skills or elements. It thus has potential for promoting holistic recognition of children’s musical capabilities. However, as this model is still underpinned by a developmental hierarchy, it may not be completely compatible with identity-​and culture-​focused approaches to understanding and supporting young children’s musicking. Another UK resource that offers a holistic perspective on children’s musical development for generalist ECEC educators is Music Development Matters in the Early Years (Burke, 2018). While in this resource children’s musical responses are organized into age groups, the musical behaviors and responses listed are not hierarchically categorized, and the social and communicative aspects of young children’s musicking are highlighted. As both SoIEY and Burke’s resource are aimed at providing a guide for early childhood educators without specialist musical training, they are aimed at empowering educators to recognize and become more attuned to the musical qualities of children’s behaviors: whether listening, moving, vocalizing/​singing, exploring sound, improvising, or composing. Both have been created to relate to the

228   Niland English Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2017), so are underpinned by particular social and cultural values. However, both have potential to contribute to the development of holistic, identity-​focused, culturally responsive musical communities. For example, Bourke’s resource highlights recognition of children’s existing capabilities, interests, and family backgrounds, the building of positive relationships, and the provision of “enabling environments” (2018)—​three key pillars of the EYFS curriculum. As discussed earlier, any exploration of links between young children’s musical development and their social and cultural identities must now take into account children’s interactions with digital worlds as they go about their daily lives. The portability of digital music also changes the relationship between music and place/​community/​social rituals for many children, when compared with more traditional communities, or those who participate in live music in particular places and with particular people (religious observances perhaps, or communities where participating in dance to live music is a part of the social life of communities such as in Greece or Middle Eastern countries). The presence of mobile digital devices in everyday life is now ubiquitous across all continents in a wide range of communities, and their influence is evident in many children’s lives (Pake, Plowman, & Stephen, 2012). Pake, Plowman, and Stephen investigated preschool-​aged children’s use of digital technologies in their daily lives at home in a series of case studies, in both advantaged and disadvantaged communities in Scotland, with a focus on the children’s communication and creativity. Digital musical interactions with music videos, instruments such as keyboards, and karaoke machines were popular choices among the many types of digital affordances that children had access to at home. From their analysis of the children’s musicking with these, they concluded that these affordances provided opportunities for extending repertoire, singing, and other musical skills such as tempo, dynamics, and responsiveness to beat. The exploration of literature on young children’s developing musical identities and cultures presented in this chapter presents a complex picture of interwoven networks or systems that influence children’s musical lives, with children themselves playing an active role in shaping their musical identities and cultures. Overall, it provides evidence of the diversity of factors that contribute to children’s ways of musicking, and a clear rationale for responsiveness to this diversity in ECEC settings. To conclude the chapter, implications for pedagogy and practice in early childhood music will be discussed.

Implications for Practice in Early Childhood Music Education By giving status to children’s own musical cultures in the formal music education environment, and by using their spontaneous music making as a springboard for adult-​ directed learning programs, we can provide contexts that offer children security and respect. (Woodward, 2010, p. 11)

Young Children’s Musical Identities    229 Children are not empty vessels to be filled, and this certainly applies to music (Dissanayake, 2000; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Papoušek, 1996). Their identity and development are shaped, from birth, by their interactions and experiences in the nested systems of relationships and contexts of their lives. Children therefore bring to educational settings diverse musical cultures, identities and “funds of knowledge” (Hedges, Cullen, & Jordan, 2011) that have extended on the innate responsiveness to music that is a human trait (Blacking, 1976; Dissanayake, 2000, 2009). Malloch and Trevarthen (2009) propose that this presents the essential challenge for music educators: to recognize, acknowledge, and work with children’s innate musicality and the ways this has already been developed in the early months and years of life. Anthropologists and ethnomusicologists have long recognized the social and cultural role played by music (Blacking, 1976; Merriam, 1964; de Nora, 2000). In music education, while influential music educators such as Kodály and Orff stressed this, unfortunately the widespread adoption of their principles and approaches as methods in countries beyond their own has led to their original authentic cultural identity focus often being submerged beneath a focus on musical concept and skill development (Kelly-​McHale, 2011). Kelly-​McHale conducted research into links between elementary music teachers’ beliefs about musical cultural identities and their pedagogical practice. Although there is little research in this area in elementary music education, there is a growing body of literature in early childhood music education research about aspect of children’s musical development and identities (e.g., Barrett, 2003, 2016; Campbell, 2015; Niland, 2015; Young, 2012). Kelly-​McHale found that drawing on children’s musical cultures has a powerful positive effect on their engagement and learning in music and the broader curriculum. Along with others, she urges musical educators to use children’s own musical worlds as their starting points (Campbell, 2015; Chen-​Hafteck, 2012; Kelly-​McHale, 2011). The words of a Venda teenage participant in Emberley’s research highlight the importance of this: “Learning traditional music and dance, it makes me proud for who I am” (2012, p. 6). In early childhood education in many nations, the notion of belonging is central to curriculum (e.g., ACECQA, 2022; DfE, 2017), and thus the relevance of Kelly-​McHale’s (2011) recommendation is often already evident. One notable example, the Aotearoa/​ New Zealand early childhood curriculum Te Whariki (2017) has a bicultural foundation, and sets out a framework for early childhood learning and development based on belonging and responsiveness to cultural identity. Music, especially song, is central to Maori cultural practices, and consequently early childhood pedagogy and practice in New Zealand features the use of songs in social gatherings of all kinds, to acknowledge culture and to welcome and show value to each child. Te Whariki, meaning “woven mat,” was chosen as a metaphor to represent the interweaving of two cultures—​Maori and Pakeha (white)—​into educational and social policy. The use of song in ECEC settings in Aotearoa/​New Zealand provides many examples of the role of music in early childhood in passing on and maintaining cultural values and practices (Bodkin Allen, 2012). The centrality of cultural identity to early childhood music pedagogy in Aotearoa/​New Zealand reflects the sociocultural and systems theories (Bronfenbrenner, 1981/​2009)

230   Niland discussed earlier, validating the role that music can play in creating curriculum that reflects family and community cultures and supports children whose lives bridge several cultures, including those from migrant or refugee backgrounds (Marsh, 2013). The links between music and children’s cultural and social identities established in this chapter shows that early childhood music education happens in home and community at least as much as it happens in ECEC settings. This points to the need for early childhood music educators and parents/​carers to value the “funds of knowledge” children and families bring with them and to build collaborative partnerships with families to support the musical lives of children both within and beyond the ECEC setting. Active sharing of songs, dances, and other musical resources can form part of the curriculum, and family music-​making, both spontaneous and planned, can be an important way to build a sense of belonging through music. Valuing families’ musical cultures, knowledge, and skills can also be important for respecting parent/​carer capabilities and confidence as their children’s first teachers, an aspect of life that research shows is increasingly under fire as part of the “commodification” of childhood discussed earlier (Faircloth & Murray, 2015; Pake, Plowman, & Stephen, 2012; Scanlon & Buckingham, 2004). This has the potential to challenge the ubiquity of screen-​based passive musical experiences that seem to be a common part of young children’s musical identities over the past decade (Gibson, 2018). An identity-​focused approach to music in ECEC settings, as well as acknowledging and being inclusive of children’s backgrounds and cultures, should also recognize children’s rights and capabilities as communicators and musicians. Recognition of the multi-​modal ways that children use music with language, movement, sound, and story to communicate and express their ideas highlights the value of integrating musicking, and musical learning and development, with other aspects of development and learning. In keeping with play-​based early childhood pedagogy, this means not teaching isolated musical skills or concepts in ways decontextualized from the integrated ways in which children might play with music, sound, language, and movement. Rather it means teaching by following children’s interests: extending their use of various elements of music to build their awareness and skills within the context of their agentic, creative musical play (Huhtinen-​Hilden & Pitt, 2018). As Minks states: “the complexity of children’s expressive means of sounding suggests the need to keep all of these modalities in mind and to stretch our research methodologies to encompass them” (2002, p. 402). An identity-​focused, child-​led, creative approach to music in ECEC settings is about allowing children’s innate musicality to emerge through their musicking (Woodward, 2010). A focus on child-​led creative expression allows children to draw on their individual musical identities, capabilities, and interests, and to collaborate musically with peers (Huhtinen-​Hilden, & Pitt, 2018). This approach does not preclude the teaching of musical concepts and skills; rather, it ensures that these are introduced within a context of meaningful creative exploration, in response to children’s needs in the moment. Engaging with young children in this way does require particular skills and pedagogical sensitivities from educators, so that they can be attuned to children’s musical responses and identify the most appropriate ways to extend children’s musical awareness and

Young Children’s Musical Identities    231 capabilities (Huhtinen-​Hilden & Pitt). A holistic approach, seeing music as one of many ways that children communicate artistically, is the basis for another UK innovation, a pedagogical framework for early childhood arts experiences known by the acronym ORIM (Nutbrown, 2013). ORIM stands for Opportunity, Recognition, Interaction, and Modeling, and is a framework informed by respect for children as capable and creative constructors of their own learning through play, in collaboration with sensitive and respectful adults. ORIM provide guidelines for educators to observe, interact, and respond supportively to children’s creative behaviors, stressing relationships and promoting children’s active agency as creators of artistic works. While not being specifically aimed at musical creativity, ORIM recognizes the inherent multimodality of young children’s creative play, so is nevertheless potentially valuable for an approach to music pedagogy that is rooted in children’s developing social identities and cultures.

Conclusion This chapter has explored perspectives on young children’s musical identities, and the links between identity, culture, and musical development during the early childhood years. Using a socio-​ cultural lens, including Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, a range of literature from disciplines including music education, ethnomusicology, anthropology, sociology of childhood, and early childhood pedagogy has been discussed, with the aim of highlighting the value of insights gained from interdisciplinary perspectives and how these can inform the pedagogy and practice of those engaged in music education with young children. To summarize the underlying message that can be taken from the discussion in this chapter, music education should be “context-​ sensitive and situated” (Elliott, 2010, p. 14), particularly in early childhood, but also in the years beyond. To provide children with musical experiences that respect their individual, social, culture, and musical identities, educators need not only to understand music, but to understand children and their contexts. The chapter therefore concludes in the same way that it started: with a focus on the innate musicality of young children. By adopting recognition of this as the basis for music pedagogy and practice in ECEC settings, early childhood music educators can play a key role in the provision of “music education as a culturally responsive, inclusive, and life-​long transformative journey” (ISME, 2020).

References ACECQA. (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. V 2.0. Commonwealth of Australia. Barrett, M. S. (2003). Meme engineers: Children as producers of musical culture. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(3), 195–​212. doi: 10.1080/​0966976032000147325

232   Niland Barrett, M. S. (2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-​making. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 403–​423. Barrett, M. S. (2016). Attending to “culture in the small”: A narrative analysis of the role of play, thought and music in young children’s world-​making. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 41–​45. Barz, G., & Cooley, T. (2008). Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bennett, A. (2017). Music, space and place: Popular music and cultural identity. London: Routledge. Bennett, M. (2011). Children’s social identities. Infant and Child Development, 20, 353–​363. doi: 10.1002/​icd.741. Bjørkvold, J. (1989). The muse within: Creativity and communication, song and play from childhood through maturity (W. Halvorsen, Trans.). New York: HarperCollins. Blacking, J. (1976). How musical is man? London: Faber and Faber. Bodkin-​Allen, S. (2012). The interweaving threads mf Music in the Whariki of early childhood cultures in Aotearoa/​New Zealand. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​ 9780199737635.013.0005 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981/​2009). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115–​125. doi: 10.1111/​1467-​9507.00114. Burke, N. (2019). Music development matters in the early years. Watford, UK: British Association for Early Childhood Education. Campbell, P. (1998). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. (2015). Music in the culture of children. In V. Levine & P. Bohlman (Eds.), This thing called music: Essays in honor of Bruno Nettl (pp. 15–​27). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Chen-​Hafteck, L. (2012). Balancing change and tradition in the musical lives of children in Hong Kong. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199737635.013.0005 Corsaro, W. (2000). Early childhood education, children’s peer cultures and the future of childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8 (2), 89–​102. doi: 10.1080/​ 13502930085208591 Corsaro, W. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Corsaro, W., & Molinari, L. (2000). Entering and observing children’s worlds: A reflection on a longitudinal ethnography of early education in Italy. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 179–​200). London: Routledge Falmer. Countryman, J., Gabriel, M., & Thompson, K. (2016). Children’s spontaneous vocalisations during play: Aesthetic dimensions. Music Education Research, 18(1), 1–​19. Custodero, L. A., Calì, C., & Diaz-​Donoso, A. (2016). Music as transitional object and practice: Children’s spontaneous musical behaviors in the subway. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 55–​74. Custodero, L., & Johnson-​Green, E. (2003). Passing the cultural torch: Musical experience and musical parenting of infants. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 102–​114. doi: 10.2307/​3345844.

Young Children’s Musical Identities    233 Degotardi, S., Sweller, N., & Pearson, E. (2013). Why relationships matter: Parent and early childhood teacher perspectives about the provisions afforded by young children’s relationships. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(1), 4–​21. doi: 10.1080/​ 09669760. 2013.771325. De Nora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Department of Education (DfE). (2017). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. UK: Department for Education. Dissanayake, E. (2000). Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-​infant interaction. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 389–​410). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dissanayake, E. (2009). Root, leaf, blossom or bole: Concerning the origin and adaptive function of music. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 17–​30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. (2010). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford Scholarship Online. doi: 10.1093/​acprof:oso/​9780195385076.003.01 Emberley, A. (2012). Venda children’s musical culture in Limpopo, South Africa. In P. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199737635.013.0005 Faircloth, C., & Murray, M. (2015). Parent: Kinship, expertise and anxiety. Journal of Family Issues, 36(9), 1115–​1129. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5043). Basic Books. Gibson, C. (2018). The story of Baby Shark: How toddlers around the world made a K-​pop earworm go viral. Washington Post. September. https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​lifest​yle/​ style/​the-​story-​of-​baby-​shark-​how-​toddl​ers-​aro​und-​the-​world-​made-​a-​k-​pop-​earw​orm-​ go-​viral/​2018/​09/​13/​5b517​772-​b68c-​11e8-​a2c5-​318​7f42​7e25​3_​st​ory.html Gordon, E. (2003). A music learning theory for newborn and young children. Gia Publications. Green, L. (2003). Music education, cultural capital, and social group identity. In M. Clayton, T. Herbert, & R. Middleton (Eds.), The cultural study of music: A critical introduction (pp. 263–​273). Routledge. Hargreaves, D., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2002). What are musical identities and why are they important? In R. MacDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 1–​20). Oxford University Press. Hedges, H., Cullen, J., & Jordan, B. (2011). Early years curriculum: Funds of knowledge as a conceptual framework for children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2), 185–​205. Huhtinen-​Hilden, L., & Pitt, J. (2018). Taking a learner-​centred approach to music education. London: Routledge. Ilari, B. (2007). On musical parenting of young children: Musical beliefs and behaviors of mothers and infants. Early Child Development and Care, 175(7–​8), 647–​660. doi: 10.1080/​ 0300443042000302573. ISME (n.d.). ISME2020. Retrieved 5 July 2019 from https://​www.isme2​020.fi/​ James, A., & James, A. (2017). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy and social practice. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education. Kelly-​McHale, J. (2013). The influence of music teacher beliefs and practices on the expression of musical identity in an elementary general music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 195–​216. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00224​2941​3485​439

234   Niland Kim, H., & Kemple, K. (2011). Is music an active developmental tool or simply a supplement?: Early childhood pre-​service teachers’ beliefs about music. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 135–​147. doi: 10.1080/​10901027.201172228 Lum, C. H., & Campbell, P. (2007). The sonic surrounds of an elementary school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(1), 31–​47. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Musicality: Communicating the vitality and interests of life. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship, 1 (pp. 1–​10). Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2011). Meaning-​making through musical play: Cultural psychology of the playground. In M. S. Barrett (Ed.), A cultural psychology of music education (pp. 41–​60). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marsh, K. (2013). Music in the lives of refugee and newly arrived immigrant children in Sydney, Australia. In P. S. Campbell & T. Wiggins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of children’s musical cultures (pp. 492–​509). New York: Oxford University Press. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. Meyers, E. M., McKnight, J. P., & Krabbenhoft, L. M. (2014). Remediating Tinker Bell: Exploring childhood and commodification through a century-​long transmedia narrative. Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures, 6(1), 95–​118. Ministry of Education. (2017). Te whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa early childhood curriculum. Minks, A. (2002). From children’s song to expressive practices: Old and new directions in the ethnomusicological study of children. Ethnomusicology, 46(3), 279–​408. Moog, H. (1976). The musical experience of the pre-​school child. London: Schott Music Corp. Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1941). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for Advancement of Music Education. Nazzi, T., Bertoncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1998). Language discrimination by newborns: toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 756–​766. doi: 10.1037/​0096-​1523.24.3.756. Neal, J., & Neal, Z. (2013). Nested or networked: Future directions for ecological systems theory. Social Development, 22(4), 722–​737. doi: 10.1111/​sode.12018 Nettl, B. (1983). The study of ethnomusicology: Twenty-​nine issues and concepts (No. 39). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Niland, A. (2012). Exploring the lives of songs in the context of young children’s musical cultures. Min-​ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 10, 27–​46. Niland, A. (2015). “Row, row, row your boat”: Singing, identity and belonging in a nursery. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(1), 4–​ 16. doi: 10.1080/​ 09669760.2014.992866 Niland, A. (2019). Singing and playing with friends: Musical identities and peer cultures in Early Years settings. In S. Young & B. Ilari (Eds.), Music in early childhood: Multi-​disciplinary perspectives and inter-​disciplinary exchanges (pp. 21–​37). New York: Springer. Nutbrown, C. (2013). Conceptualising arts-​based learning in the early years. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 239–​263. doi: 10.1080/​02671522.2011.580365 Pake, J., Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2012). Pre-​school children creating and communicating with digital technologies in the home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 421–​431.

Young Children’s Musical Identities    235 Quinn, P., Yahr, A., Kuhn, A., Slater, A., & Pascalis, O. (2002). Representation of the gender of human faces by infants: a preference for female. Perception, 31(9), 1109–​1121. doi: 10.1068/​ p3331. Rayna, S. (2001). The very beginnings of togetherness in shared play among young children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(2), 109–​115. doi: 10.1080/​7 13670685. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanefuji, W., Ohgami, H., & Hashiya, K. (2006). Preference for peers in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 29(4), 584–​593. doi: 10.1016/​j.infbeh.2006.07.007. Scanlon, M., & Buckingham, D. (2004). Home learning and the educational marketplace. Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 287–​303. doi: 10.1080/​0305498042000215575 Slobin, M. (1993). Subcultural sounds: Micromusics of the west. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Swain, S., & Bodkin-​Allen, S. (2014). Can’t sing? Won’t sing? Aotearoa/​New Zealand “tone deaf ” early childhood teachers’ musical beliefs. British Journal of Music Education, 31(3), 245–​263. doi: 10.1017/​S0265051714000278 Vanobbergen, B. (2018). Children as consumers. In P. Smeyers, (Ed.), International Handbook of Philosophy of Education (pp. 1337–​1348). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Voyajolu, A., & Ockelford, A. (2016). Sounds of intent in the early years: A proposed framework of young children’s musical development. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 93–​113. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Whiteman, P. (2009). Type, function, and musical features of preschool children’s spontaneous songs. In L. Thompson & M. Campbell (Eds.), Research perspectives: Thought and practice in music education (pp. 37–​62). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Woodward, S. (2010). Critical matters in early childhood music education. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford Scholarship Online. Chapter 13. doi: 10.1093/​acprof:oso/​9780195385076.003.01 Wright, S. (2015). Children, meaning-​making and the arts. Pearson Higher Education AU. Young, S. (2009). Towards constructions of musical childhoods: Diversity and digital technologies. Early Child Development and Care, 179(6), 695–​705. Young, S. (2012). My place, my music: An international study of musical experiences in the home among seven-​year-​olds. Min-​Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 10, 1–​15. Young, S. (2016). Early childhood music education research: An overview. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1), 9–​21. doi: 10.1177/​1321103X16640106

Further Reading Books Campbell, P. (1998). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

236   Niland Huhtinen-​Hilden, L. & Pitt, J. (2018). Taking a learner-​centred approach to music education. London: Routledge. Young, S. (2018). Critical new perspectives in early childhood music. London: Routledge. Young, S. & Ilari, B. (Eds.). (2019). Music in early childhood: Multi-​disciplinary perspectives and inter-​disciplinary exchanges. New York: Springer.

Websites Music development matters. Available to download from Early Education: The British Association for Early Childhood Education. https://​early-​educat​ion.org.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​2021/​12/​Musi​cal-​Deve​lopm​ent-​Matt​ers-​ONL​INE.pdf AIRS: Advancing Interdisciplinary Research in Singing. https://​www.airspl​ace.ca/​

Chapter 16

Se ction C omme nta ry: M usic Devel op me nt Research F u t u re s Clare Hall

Introduction As Niland articulates in this section, it seems almost cliché to discuss the innateness of music in children’s lives. And yet this collection of chapters illustrates there is still so much to understand about how and why we become musical and how this way of being may best flourish. Developmental research has been the driver of knowledge in early learning and development in music and remains a staple in early childhood education more broadly. This perspective has gone about inquiring with particular kinds of focus because of its historical interest in the intricate workings of the child’s mind and cognition. However, as the field expands to become more integrative, new foci have emerged which this collection of chapters represents. This is evident in the “cultural turn” in educational psychology as the glue that integrates different branches of evolving thought across developmental, cultural-​historical, social, and cognitive psychology. As a result, we see shifts in focus from “the child” to childhoods and “the mother” to families and communities (Grieshaber & Blaise, 2019). The authors here capture many of the key themes of the research in early learning and development in music, such as music and sociocultural context, neurocognitive development, creativity, and identity. It is now the norm for discussions of early learning in music to accept that this art form is not merely an aesthetic object for consumption, but is actively communicative, socially interactive, and multimodal, which these authors reiterate. For instance, Rabinowitch and Cirelli highlight research that supports the possible co-​evolution of music and language. Partanen, Virtala, and Kostilainen emphasize the significance of reciprocal musical interactions between carer and infant as an essential means of learning musical behaviors. Hargreaves and Niland remind us how

238   Hall social and cultural diversity can affect musical childhoods and identities, and Addessi illustrates creativity development through the multimodal experience of music-​dance-​ technology. These discussions rehearse the common problematics that occupy early learning scholarship at large, such as passivity-​activity, individual-​collective, ability-​ disability, and inclusion-​exclusion. Such emphases illustrates both the relative recency of these conceptualizations and the need for further understandings about how these constructs relate to musical engagements in the earliest years of life. In this commentary, I reveal the inner dialogue these authors inspired in me. As a researcher more accustomed to thinking sociologically about music learning and teaching in early childhood through post-​positivist lenses (see Frierson-​Campbell et al., 2022), several wonderings occupied my mind that cohere around two familiar questions: what is music and musicality and who are music teachers? By refreshing these questions, my aim is to go beyond the frontiers of knowledge this section represents for future thinking in early learning and development in music.

What Is Music and Musicality? One key reason we are drawn to researching music development is to understand the origins of this phenomenon that English speakers call “music.” To understand this we may solve many mysteries about this well-​argued fundamental dimension of life that continues to be frequently overlooked by educational research at large. We may also learn how to help further enrich people’s lives in and through music. To speak of music, academics most often do not mean music as a thing but a process. By extension, when we talk about music development we are meaning the acquisition of musicality, that is, the musical actions that people do with one another. This definition of music is reiterated by Rabinowitch and Cirelli who explain, “we can regard music as an activity—​as something that people do” (p. XX), drawing on Small’s (1999) definition of “musicking,” which “concerns all participation in a musical performance, whether active or passive” (p. 12). The twenty years since Small’s seminal work has seen the research field build a body of knowledge about the now commonly accepted social nature of music-​making across disciplines (Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Wright et al., 2021). Much debate continues, however, about the earliest antecedents of musicality, including how the interplay between mother and unborn child can shape musical development. This primacy of musicality in human existence leads me to reflect on the function and form of music as many others have done before me, for which emerging brain-​based perspectives in research provide provocative propositions. For instance, longitudinal research in the brain development of children learning music compared to children engaged in non-​musical activities indicates that “musical training enhances sound encoding skills that are relevant for both music and speech processing. The question whether the benefits of musical training transfer to more distantly related cognitive functions remains controversial, however” (Putkinen & Tervaniemi, 2019, p. 1).

Section 2 Commentary    239 The chapters that focus on infant development here draw similar strong links between musical development with both the language and auditory centers of the brain but go further to argue for complex understandings of the language-​music-​culture nexus (Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen; Rabinowitch & Cirelli). The sociocultural dimensions of development come to the fore when considering the multimodality of musicality, and here the significance of musicality’s intersection with movement is drawn out (Addessi; Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen; Rabinowitch & Cirelli). However, the project of theorizing how musicality is developed relies on an agreement about what is “music.” A feature of the perspectives in this section is an agreement of a different kind, with an emphasis on what music does—​social action that communicates a wide range of things—​which is a matter of function or role. As for example, Hargreaves demonstrates through various examples from around the world that music action produces diverse individual and group identities in culturally specific and globalized ways. This is consistent with Niland’s ecological view that places young children at the center of their own musical cultures, that do not merely reflect, but make culture. There is agreement in this collection that music locates individuals in material and immaterial ways to other beings, including more than human such as Addessi’s discussion of children’s bodily (material) and emotional (immaterial) interactions with machines. There is also agreement across the chapters that children’s music learning and development is relational and relating; diverse and ever changing across time, space, and place. Perhaps the most important thread to emerge is how the section illustrates the verb “to music” as more than merely a noun. But to take a step back to ask, as did Small (1999), “what is the nature of music?” (p. 9), I notice these views are predicated on taken-​for-​granted notions of the “thingness” of music as a distinct modality despite, as Keller (2016) reminds us, that “ ‘Music’ is not a scientific term. In the course of time, it has become like a big container, where sonic objects and practices that have nothing in common are put together” (p. 163). If we instead turn the focus around from what music does, to diversity in what music is, then we may open up potential new avenues for investigation. The chapters here hint to the way such new avenues for investigation may generate productive interdisciplinary conversation about early music learning. If we look across disciplines, we can find many provocative examples of the nature of music, musicality, and its codification being grappled with across time. For instance, research that grapples with the shared vocality between speech and song from linguistic perspectives (Cummins, 2020) advances conventional thinking about what “music” is, which resonates with Rabinowitch and Cirelli’s reflections on the possible phylogenetic origins of music as parallel with speech. The common ground between dance and music from dance studies perspectives (Grau, 1983) and the post-​instrumental turn of musical artificial intelligence from musicological perspectives (Holland, 2000) echoes Addessi’s strengths in both dance-​based and technologically mediated musical experiences. Such confluence leads me to reflect on the imperative to conceptualize music, musicality, and musical learning as more than merely an auditory experience. Much early

240   Hall childhood development research conceptualizes music as multisensory, strongly relating it to the forms and functions of language, movement, touch, and the visual sense. For instance, a number of the chapters here (Addessi; Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen; Rabinowitch & Cirelli) emphasize the significance of movement, rhythmicity, and synchrony as key dimensions of how music, when shared with more competent others through bodies in action, is experienced as meaningful by the child. Indeed, a philosophical precedence to conceptualize the dancing body as “musicking” is provided by Small’s (1999) often-​quoted definition: “To music is to take part in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing, by providing material for performance (what is called composition), or by dancing” (p. 9). This is supported by cognitive science that suggests that music is perceived in the mind simultaneously as both auditory and motor signals (Overy & Molnar-​Szakacs, 2009). Turning to disabilities studies to redress audist conceptualizations of music, we gain perspectives of diverse auralities by listening to the experiences of deaf musickers (Churchill & Hall, 2022; Holmes, 2016, 2017). The richness of deaf musicking helps us to reflect on what music is in the absence of auditory perception and, therefore, what listening and musical development can be in the absence of hearing. For instance, Christine Sun Kim, a sound artist who was born deaf, teaches us that the hearing world often fails to recognize the similarities between music and sign language and that not hearing sound means she has a deep understanding of it via “sound etiquettes” (Sun Kim, 2015). Because of this conscious learning about sound she perhaps has a richer understanding of listening than do hearing people. This ultimately calls into question what is music, if it is not auditory sound? By extension, this question troubles a music education trope that the ability to hear sound is at the epicenter of musicality, gesturing to the need for practice that promotes “auraldiverse” listening (Drever, 2019).There remains a great deal to learn about more holistic and inclusive means of enriching childhoods through music by understanding how hearing-​impaired musickers are accustomed to fully exploiting the vibrational, visual, spatial, and textual meaning-​making dimensions of music in addition to the sonic. Researching and practicing music for and with children with diverse capabilities that are different from our own requires diverse epistemological responses. I take this further in the next section by questioning who are music educators.

Who Are Music Teachers? By extension of thinking about children as musical learners, we must also consider who children’s music teachers are. This thinking brings my reflections to a second trope or taken-​for-​granted tenet that the child’s “first teacher” is the primary parent, usually the biological mother, following from early childhood research at large. It is no surprise that the role of the family in children’s early musical lives is a significant theme across the section given the role of the primary caregiver for infant development (see

Section 2 Commentary    241 Partanen, Virtala, & Kostilainen). Research in musical mothering from sociological perspectives also supports the social and emotional complexities and vitalness of the mother-​child dyad for musical learning (Hall, 2018; Savage & Hall, 2017). What is certain are neuropsychobiological links between mother and child and how their relationship is influenced by the shared sociocultural conditions they inhabit through music. Less-​studied aspects of music development are the other significant inhabitants of children’s worlds who interact with their developing musicality. Extending beyond the commonplace conceptualizations of music in the family with the primary parent as the child’s only “first teacher” would have us consider lesser known dimensions of musical interactions. For instance, intergenerational families, musical fathering, non-​biological mothers, siblings and extended family, or alternative family structures to the typical nuclear, heterosexual families of European heritage from the so-​called developed world. Reflecting on this list of possibilities in light of post-​human urgencies, it occurs to me how seldom we as inquirers into musical lives free our research from anthropocentric foci. This links to my provocation above about the nature of music itself and what more might we understand about human development by conceptualizing “the child” as more entwined with wider ecologies than is typical of music research. Again, Small (1998) paved the way for this perspective more than twenty years ago in proposing that “Musicking is an important component of our understanding of ourselves and our relationships with other people and the other creatures with which we share our planet” (p. 13). In this, I hear the echo of Murray Schafer’s “music of the universe” arguments (1994) and the proponents of acoustic ecology that followed him (see World Forum for Acoustic Ecology, 2019). This field of research and practice continues to “tune in” our ears to the sonic affordances in the environment as our primary teacher to which society has too easily become hearing-​impaired. Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological theory (1979) has done much to help us place children at the center of musical cultures, as illustrated by Hargreaves’s and Niland’s chapters. Such views place the child as educational agent as opposed to instructional recipient in relation to other social fields; however, applications of this ecological view in terms of music learning and teaching do not often equate to the actual acoustic environment. What happens to our conceptualization of children’s music development if we place the child in relation to more than human forces toward post-​human epistemologies? Burgeoning fields such as “zoomusicology” (Keller, 2016), “ecomusicology” (Allen & Dawe, 2016), and animal-​computer interaction (Gupfinger & Kaltenbrunner, 2018) examining non-​human musical-​sonic relationships may enable us to reconsider how children’s first and perhaps most important teachers can include the land, air, waterways, and the creatures that inhabit these places. If this were the case, what would a responsive field of early music learning and development look and sound like? Such ways of thinking are not new for cultures that predate Western science. My hope is that a more culturally inclusive field of scholarship, the kind Hargreaves’s chapter envisions, would include the voices of First Peoples from around the world and their perspectives. The differences of their living ancient cultures from non-​Indigenous paradigms may complicate, disrupt, expand, and replace commonplace perspectives about music learning

242   Hall and teaching where necessary (Prest & Goble, 2022). Learning from the lifeways of some of Australia’s many First Nation communities, I have come some way in appreciating the simultaneous and complex interplay between musical, cultural, linguistic, environmental, and spiritual dimensions of life (Wafer & Turpin, 2017). How might we form deeper understandings about musical childhoods if we learn that some people’s music learning is inseparable from the land, as the Yolŋu of northern Australia teach us? People might think that the land doesn’t speak, nor the rivers, the animals or the winds, but they do. We feel the land, the sea and the rivers, and they tell us many things. The songs speak, the people speak for the land. That is the song. The people shape the land, the different inhabits, through singing. (Gay’wu Group of Women, 2019, xxviii)

Hargreaves in particular points out the frequency of cross-​cultural investigations, which attests to the cultural specificity of music development. Expanding the goal toward cultural diversity in music learning is the need to diversify conceptual apparatus beyond Western-​centric ways of knowing. To comprehend the lived experience of music in Indigenous cultures means going beyond White, middle-​class, male, northern-​ centric constructs that knowledge institutions have historically relied on (Robinson, 2020; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). This would include making way for First Nations people to share, through research and practice, the ways that their cultures facilitate their children’s musical development from their own perspectives through words and the arts. In turn, we may be led to think differently about what is “music” and who are “music educators”? While many of the issues raised above pertain to music research across fields and topics, the future envisioned here for research in early learning and development in music, as a discourse that has long advocated for the self-​determination of children, is to carry on bringing in a wide range of voices, particularly those marginalized in society. The first step is listening, which is thankfully something music researchers do well. The hope is to grow an inclusive space characterized by transdisciplinary, decolonizing, and diverse practices by continually questioning why and how we go about inquiring the way we do. This upholds the main message of the authors in this section that, from our earliest life, music is a fascinatingly complex and diverse dimension of how we come to be, with so much more for us to learn.

References Allen, A., & Dawe, K. (2016). Current directions in ecomusicology: Music, culture, nature. New York: Routledge. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Churchill, W. N., & Hall, C. A. (2022). Toward “little victories” in music education: Troubling ableism through signed-​singing and d/​Deaf musicking. In C. Frierson-​Campbell, C. A. Hall,

Section 2 Commentary    243 S. Powell, & G. Rosabal-​Coto (Eds.), Sociological thinking in music education: International intersections (pp. 72–​85). New York: Oxford University Press. Cummins, F. (2020). The territory between speech and song: A joint speech perspective. Music Perception, 37(4), 347–​358. Drever, J. L. (2019). “Primacy of the Ear”—​But whose ear?: The case for aural diversity in sonic arts practice and discourse. Organised Sound, 24(1), 85–​95. Frierson-​Campbell, C., Hall, C. A., Powell, S., & Rosabal-​Coto, G. (Eds.). (2022). Sociological thinking in music education: International intersections. New York: Oxford University Press. Gay’wu Group of Women. (2019). Songs spirals: Sharing women’s wisdom of country through songlines. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Grau, A. (1983). Sing a dance. Dance a song: The relationship between two types of formalised movements and music among the Tiwi of Melville and Bathurst Islands, north Australia. Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance Research, 1(2), 32–​44. Grieshaber, S., & Blaise, M. (2019). Making room for more: Complexity, diversity, and the impact of alternative perspectives on early childhood care and education. In C. P. Brown, M. B. McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 615–​640). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-​Blackwell. Gupfinger, R., & Kaltenbrunner, M. (2018). Animals make music: A look at non-​human musical expression. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(51), 2–​14. Hall, C. A. (2018). Masculinity, class and music education: Boys performing middle-​class masculinities through music. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Holland, S. (2000). Artificial intelligence in music education: A critical review. In E. Miranda (Ed.), Readings in music and artificial intelligence (pp. 239–​274). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Holmes, J. A. (2016). Singing beyond hearing. Colloquy: On the disability aesthetics of music. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 69(2), 542–​548. Holmes, J. A. (2017). Expert listening beyond the limits of hearing: Music and deafness. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 70(1), 171–​220. Keller, M. S. (2016). Linnaeus, zoomusicology, ecomusicology, and the quest for meaningful categories. Muzikoloski Zbornik, 52(2), 163–​176. Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (Eds.). (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Overy, K., & Molnar-​Szakacs, I. (2009). Being together in time: Musical experience and the mirror neuron system. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 489–​504. Prest, A., & Goble, S. (2022). Decolonizing and indigenizing music education through self-​ reflexive sociological research and practice. In C. Frierson-​Campbell, C. A. Hall, S. Powell, & G. Rosabal-​Coto (Eds.), Sociological thinking in music education: International intersections (pp. 203–​216). New York: Oxford University Press. Putkinen, V., & Tervaniemi, M. (2019). Neuroplasticity and music learning. In M. H. Thaut & D. A. Hodges (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music and the brain (pp. 1–​21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, D. (2020). Hungry listening: Resonant theory for indigenous sound studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Savage, S., & Hall, C. A. (2017). Thinking about and beyond the cultural contradictions of motherhood through musical mothering. In L. Ross, M. J. Rose, & J. Hartmann (Eds.), Music of motherhood: History, healing, and activism (pp. 119–​131). Bradford, Ontario: Demeter Press.

244   Hall Schafer, R. M. (1994). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester, VT: Destiny Books. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Small, C. (1999). Musicking—​The meanings of performing and listening: A lecture. Music Education Research, 1(1), 9–​22. Sun Kim, C. (2015). The enchanting music of sign language. TedTalks. https://​www.ted.com/​ talks/​christine_​sun_​kim_​the_​enchan​ting​_​mus​ic_​o​f_​si​gn_​l​angu​age. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonising methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. Wafer, J., & Turpin, M. (2017). Recirculating songs: Revitalising the singing practices of indigenous Australia. Hamilton, NSW: Hunter Press. Wright, R., Johansen, G., Kanellopoulos, P., & Schmidt, P. (2021). The Routledge handbook to sociology of music education. Abingdon: Routledge. World Forum for Acoustic Ecology. (2019). Celebrating 20 years of the Australian Forum for Acoustic Ecology [special issue]. Soundscape, 17. https://​www.wfae.net/​uplo​ads/​5/​9/​8/​4/​ 59849​633/​sound​scap​e_​vo​l17.pdf

Section 3

M U SIC I N FA M I LY A N D C OM M U N I T Y C ON T E X T S

Chapter 17

Section Introdu c t i on Lori Custodero and Patricia Shehan Campbell

As children we are born into nested communities of family, villages, and neighborhoods, and in heritage groups, regions, and nations; we are reliant on the members of these communities for our survival and development as cultural beings. Music socializes us very early in life (e.g., Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Papoušek, 1996), so our focus is on the contexts in which music is produced both by and for young children. The chapters featured here represent a wide variety of geographical and educational settings and methodologies. This section begins with adult recollections of musical encounters in childhood (Custodero) as a way to position readers with the topic. We anticipate that there will be resonance with the early experiences of others as preparation for further reading of young children’s relational music engagement. Next, the focus on family turns from memories to a contribution from Australia which looks into how parental beliefs, values, and practices around music create structures that shape early childhood experience in the home (Abad et al.). Drawing on data from a national survey, the authors examine and compare musical parenting profiles in families that had and had not enrolled in Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs). This is followed by a pair of chapters focusing on how toddlers use music to make sense of their world. These two studies share a common approach to researching the context of music in the home, inasmuch as both use the child’s perspective as a lens and employ parents as co-​researchers. In the first, the pre-​sleep vocalizations of US toddlers are recorded and the tunes and lyrics analyzed for meaning with the help of parents, who could identify references to specific songs and events that had occurred throughout the day (Sole). The second is a study of one child, living on a kibbutz in Israel, and how his musical experiences evolve from reaction to partnership to initiator (Gluschankof). Here the parent served as data collector, supplying video clips of his impromptu performances to the author, whose analyses involve four frameworks for learning.

248   Custodero & Campbell Next we turn to more formalized settings, beginning with a weekly parent-​child “Baby Artist” music class in a metropolitan area in Greece (Stamou, Abad, & Troulou). Parent involvement was a defining feature in the “Baby Artist” program curriculum, and the study uses data from 126 parental surveys and three case studies of participating families to examine this involvement. Authors found themes and variations in parental conceptions of their roles and in dimensions of interactions and relationships that include the ecology of the class and the dynamism between parent and child. Likewise acknowledging the foundational nature of parent-​child interactions, Pitt and Welch write about using this communication style as a model for musical intervention meant to assist with language learning. Working with speech and language therapists and caregivers in several community nursery sites in England, they discuss both (a) the theoretical underpinnings of successful collaborations to help children better communicate through music play; and (b) the curricular implications for teaching young children. We also view communities of music-​making through the lens of musical traditions and the social and political structures that influence children’s roles and their musical repertoire and practices. Comparisons between contrasting European policies are examined in the chapter on children’s singing in Iceland and Estonia (Gudmundsdottir & Kiilu). The authors focus attention on spontaneous song as well as more directed use of songs in preschools. Cantarelli Vita introduces us to the maracata de baque virado, an Afro-​Brazilian percussion practice in which children play a particular role in the transmission process. They become enculturated into the tradition at a young age and eventually serve as guides for other children and adults through informal learning opportunities within the group. This focus on child agency figures prominently in many of the chapters in this section. The final three chapters address diversity within related musical communities. Wu and Welch write about the shared musical experience of London-​based Chinese mothers and their young children living in London. The authors’ analysis of parental reports reveal interactions with a wide variety of music including Chinese, Western Classical, and non-​Chinese (English-​language) songs, as well as combinations of these. There were also indications of children’s familiarity with music of their homeland musical heritage, as well as popular forms. Akuno and colleagues provide examples of childhood music of representative peoples in four Sub-​Saharan regions. Using the African Indigenous Knowledge Systems as a framework, the authors explore the role of the cultural community as a teaching and learning space, for music sung both by and for children, creating experiences that establish their identity long before they enter postcolonial schooling. In the last chapter of the section, the teaching and learning styles and beliefs of Australian Indigenous people are introduced and the significance of childhood contributions is present and supported by the elders (Treloyn et al.). Written collaboratively by two ethnomusicologists and two members of the Aboriginal community, the story of music learning and development centers on the intergenerational Junba song and dance genre, and its lessons in mutual respect, resilience, and wellbeing.

Section 3 Introduction    249 Finally, Ilari offers her voice in commentary on the communal contexts for children’s musical engagement discussed in the eleven chapters. She does so in light of the zeitgeist of our collective global experience with the COVID-​19 pandemic beginning in March and April 2020. Drawing upon multiple frameworks to synthesize and to imagine possible futures, she concludes her contribution with a review of wellbeing and the critical role music may have in healing the residual trauma of this worldwide crisis.

References Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Papoušek, M. (1996). Musicality in infancy research: Biological and cultural origins of early musicality. In I. Deliège & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 37–​55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 18

Adult Rec oll e c t i ons of E arly Childho od Mu si c a l Experi e nc e s Seeking Meaning in Memories of/​w ith Family Lori Custodero

Introduction Music in Relationship When I was 4 or 5, my mother used to pick me up from kindergarten. It often took us 20 minutes from the kindergarten to get home. My mom held my hand and we sang songs together. . . . Both of us cherish these moments. My mom said [she felt] that walking with me from kindergarten to home was the happiest moment of a day [and] so did I. Even though it was only 20 minutes, [it was] just us. Talking and singing with each other really helped us to construct a stronger bond. . . . One song I learned in the kindergarten . . . became a special symbol between my mother and me—​“My Dear Mother.” It’s a children’s song about a kid trying to do something for his mother after a working day. He wants to comfort his mother with a kiss and a cup of tea. I was so excited that I sang this song to my mother the first minute I met her after school. As a child, this was the best way that I could express my appreciation and love to my mom. My mother understood my appreciation immediately and kissed me. . . . I feel like this song has become a cue between my mother and me. Every time we sing it, it brings us back to my childhood, to an afternoon which has a beautiful sunset, and makes us feel loved by each other. (Hu, 2016)

Written by a music education graduate student who grew up in southeast China, this passage tells us much about how music functions in human development. It is primarily about relationship, something shared that has created a long-​lasting bond between

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    251 mother and child that retains value far into adulthood. Although she freely shares this story, the experience itself is private, just between the two of them. It is reminiscent of research done with infants and parents, where the music was one-​on-​one and clearly directed toward the other (e.g., Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Papoušek, 1996; Trehub, 2009). Music offers us a way to be together that is malleable to individual capabilities and needs. Through sharing a connective pulse and responding to animated vocalizations we can be with people in ways that require only our attention to the moment and our openness to receiving musical cues from another. Another message I take from this excerpt is the joy of agency: the child is able to initiate a purposeful action, singing to her mother, and bring about an intended result, her delight and love. Music making is an agentic activity, inviting individuals to exert personal control through action, when contributions have consequences (Custodero, 2009; DeNora, 2000). There is a “pleasure at being the cause” that drives learning in early childhood (Donaldson, 1978), and to have a visceral memory of what that felt like as a child contributes to our knowledge of why and how music functions for children. Many of us have early memories of music-​making with family members—​parents and grandparents, siblings, and the extended relations that are culturally identified as familial. We have stories that involve being comforted by lullabies, being actively engaged singing play songs and dancing, and creating physically satisfying sounds that often served as soundtracks to imaginative dramatic play. Can recollections of these experiences provide any insight into our understanding of early childhood music development and learning? How do our constructions of our childhoods inform our present and future musical lives? Exploring these questions, I present excerpts from musical autobiographies written by former graduate-​level music education students who both reflected on their own childhoods and considered the role memories play in their approach to teaching and doing research with young children. Questions about how memories are constructed and how we use them to interpret the present and to anticipate our future require a willingness to critically reflect on our past, to engage in what scholars of autobiography and narrative often refer to as “Me-​ search” (e.g., Nash & Bradley, 2012; Nguajiri, Hernandez, & Chang, 2010). In the following section, I consider the nature of memory and how social context and emotional state influences how and what we remember.

Music and Memory My musical autobiography contains bits and pieces of recalled information. Most of them not containing whole story lines or even complete songs. From my early childhood I can remember only isolated events, some of which are separated by many years. Later in life my memory is more accurate and precise. All of these memories contain vivid emotional content, almost as if my body attempts to recall the chemical state of my mind and body as my consciousness tries to remember the more visual and musical aspects. (Andrew, 2000)

252   Custodero Autobiographical memory is a type of long-​term memory—​a mixture of facts and events. Daniel Siegel defines it as “the way past events affect future function” (1999, p. 24). He writes about the importance of the settings in which we experience various activities, especially the emotional context, since emotions are the tools used by the brain to organize incoming information. So, the visceral response emanating from this students’ attempts to recollect his musical experiences is not surprising, as the emotional conditions in which we experience an object or situation become associated with the content of that experience. Our neural system is firing and wiring, creating patterns that become part of our repertoire of meaning making and continue to shape our responses throughout the lifespan. Emotional messages we receive in childhood become memories influencing adulthood, mitigated by recall and our abilities to reflect. Research on autobiographical memory proposes that it serves multiple functions in our human development. Rasmussen and Berntsen (2009) refer to three types: directive, that is, remembering instrumental and guiding behaviors that protect us from negative consequences; self-​conceptual, vis-​à-​vis our present identity and its continuity over time; and social, in terms of communication and bonding. In general, musical autobiography is mostly associated with the second and third types and can have negative or positive consequences based upon the emotional conditions in which our musical experiences occur. When we claim: “I’m a jazz lover” or “I used to play trumpet” or “I can’t sing,” we identify not only with experiences of music representing specific skills and knowledge; we also affirm our belonging to (or exclusion from) a group with common interest and proclivities. When considering memories and their associations with emotions, Rasmussen and Berntsen found several characteristics that are also evident in the musical autobiographies examined. Negative memories tended to be directive (teaching what not to do) and more subjectively distant; they were also more accurate. Positive memories contained more details about the context of an event than did the negative memories and were reported twice as often. The researchers make a case for the evolutionary power of positive memories, as they support wellbeing, and counter the depression often associated with negative memories. A team of researchers led by Alf Gabrielsson (2011) examined strong experiences with music (SEM) over several decades, with participants ranging from thirteen to ninety-​ one years of age. The data are a collection of over 1,000 personal stories about musical events and encounters, many evoking strong vicarious emotions in the reader. Ten percent of the experiences shared were recollected from childhood, mostly between the ages of eight and twelve years. Thematic groups for childhood experiences included security/​safety and closeness; absorbed, moved to wonderment, struck, overwhelmed; music for the first time; listening over and over; special days; and playing alone. This long-​term study demonstrates the significance of autobiographical recollection. Rather than the documentation of factual events, researchers were interested in how these storied histories reflect individuals’ interpretations of their current musical lives. Damasio (2010) refers to memory as the curator of values. Given the relevance of such interpretive recollection to our meaning making, examining musical autobiographies

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    253 can provide a way to interpret the legacy of childhood in adulthood, to demonstrate how our current beliefs and practices are represented in memories. Placing ourselves in context of our own histories gives a temporal perspective on our development as musical beings and encourages us to find connections between who we were and who we are. Our memories are constructed stories, taking on a meaning based on the circumstances in which they are remembered. They are not necessarily always accurate, yet they serve to clarify values and to aid in a definition of self.

Method and Frameworks Documenting Perspectives on Childhood: The Autobiographers To examine the construct of an historical self, I report on the results of an ongoing study of over 200 musical autobiographies written by music education graduate students as the first assignment in a course on children’s musical development. Students are given two weeks to write five to seven pages and organize their stories chronologically in four periods: early childhood, elementary school years, secondary education, and young adulthood. They are asked to discuss any meaningful musical relationships and are encouraged to include the impact of musical works, places, and events in both formal and informal settings. It is important to note that this is a purposeful sample, focused on autobiographies of experienced and fledgling educator-​musicians who have chosen an urban Ivy League setting for their postgraduate education. However, the group is not demographically homogeneous—​there is variation in country of origin, race, ethnicity, age, experience, SES, gender, and sexual orientation.1 In the examination and presentation of the data, I resisted making grand claims and include exemplars as well as outliers in order to honor the complex and idiosyncratic nature of the stories. When possible and relevant, I offer brief biographical information on the student authors. The stories in this chapter come from people whose parents, for the most part, had the ability and interest to provide them with musical instruments and lessons; yet, not all the participants had this advantage—​there are several stories of difficulty and frustration over a lack of opportunity and access. Despite variations in economic and cultural background, there are threads running through the narratives of people who chose a career involving music education. Although the data include reflections from infancy through early adulthood, I am limiting this chapter to memories from early childhood. Blacking (1995) used the label “sound group” to denote a community that comprises members who share a musical culture. For early childhood this is the family, where music functions as a means to communicate a sense of mutuality and belonging. First memories were of singing, followed by dancing and playing; music-​making both reflected and produced family culture. There were

254   Custodero patterns of development that reflected changes from childhood naiveté to more complex ideas of expertise and awareness of emulated models, accessed by increased exposure to a greater variety of ecologies, such as school music classes, private lessons, and independently chosen peer groups, where most musical memories are foundational and relational.

Framework: The Ecologies and Meaning of Early Music Experiences Drawing from the previously presented research on autobiographical memory, I address two key issues for which early childhood music experiences with family members can be meaningful later in life. 1. Our memories are defined by the emotional and social contexts in which they originally occurred and the local and global societal conditions of our existence. They can change over time because the retelling of a story is also vulnerable to the context and conditions of each retelling. 2. Memories provide information about how we have constructed our present sense of self and what we value in our developmental history. Awareness of this process can lead to an integration of multiple selves into a complex ontogenetic whole. Inasmuch as music is a human2 activity that is shaped by cultural and developmental ways of being, experiencing music can be manifested in myriad ways. To frame my analyses of the musical autobiographies of graduate students in music education, I focus on understanding the complex array of social and physical qualities of our environment coupled with an ever-​evolving past that informs our actions and relationships. I first turn to the work of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), whose landmark theory of ecological systems considers multiple concurrent sites of influence on the child’s experience. Using this systems approach to examine childhood development acknowledges the nested ecological contexts of home, school, neighborhood, and even nation states, as environments that influence behaviors and outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 2001; Ilari, 2017). Each one serves as a “microsystem” with its own activity and social framework; the environments also interact with one another to create the individual’s unique life story. Consider the following autobiographic excerpt of one day in the life of a three-​year-​old: My earliest musical recollections take me back to La Iglesia Santa Ana. This is a small town’s church 300 kilometers NE of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. Every Sunday morning the ringing of its bells would call in all its devout Catholics. My mother carrying me in her arms and my brothers and sisters following behind her would sit quietly inside the church surrounded by a mystical cloud of incense. We waited in anticipation of the priest’s entrance. As he walked in leading a procession of deacons, his voice filled the church with an ancient chant in Latin. The faithful would stand and acknowledge the priest’s presence by responding in a singing murmur to his song of devotion. The endless mass that followed was sung in Latin with well-​orchestrated interludes of

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    255 Spanish. It not only captivated those who had been recently initiated, but also a 3-​year-​ old boy whose vast experience as a churchgoer had begun in the womb of his mother. After church, the sanctity of the day continued with a Sunday afternoon stroll through the cemetery. While putting fresh flowers on the graves of our dead relatives, the women of the family would sing songs and tell stories about the times they have shared. Meanwhile, my older brothers along with the other men of the family would go to play serious baseball in the park to the rhythm of a merengue song. When they returned, my mother would make them bathe, change their dirty clothes, and take me to La Plaza Municipal. Once there, we would sit quietly by the bandshell and listen to the Sunday night’s concert. The band, whose members doubled as the town’s firemen, delighted the audience at the town’s square with their brand of orchestral marching band music reminiscent of John Philip Sousa. (César, 2000)

On a singular typical Sunday, this young child engages with four very different musical styles and contexts: the church, with its ringing bells and heavily ritualized chanting and call-​and-​response; the songs sung by women in the family at the cemetery; sounds of merengue coming from the baseball field; and a live band playing John Philip Sousa in the town square. Each context involved different family groupings, and each setting had its own function for the community. These might be considered concurrently operating microsystems informing the future; in his final paragraph of the autobiography he writes: “After my high school graduation, playing Jazz, Afro-​Cuban, and a wide range of other musical styles became part of my daily routine.” The second issue in the framework addresses our childhoods in terms of the self, understanding how our past informs who and how we are today. This work calls for another developmental lens, specifically as it involves autobiographical construction. Dan McAdams’s (2015) theories of personality seem well matched to the musical experiences shared. He sees three levels of development in this area, starting with the Social Actor, for whom the world is seen through emotional and behavioral traits. Second, he identifies the Motivated Agent, who pursues goals and values. These two roles provide the necessary means to construct our own personal story, and to comprehend our lives as Autobiographical Authors. In the excerpt provided at the beginning of this chapter we find these qualities: the emotional intimacy speaks to the child as Social Actor, and in the sharing of song with her mother, as Motivated Agent who valued her mother’s love. These personal traits of human activity contributed to autobiographical accessibility of the story.

Music in Families: Ecologies of “Being With” Memories of Comfort and the Comfort of Memories Most of the accounts shared from early childhood involved ways autobiographers learned to “be with” music through interactions that involved social and musical engagement with

256   Custodero family members. Through specific recollections, they cited experiences and settings that are still meaningful and accessible in their adult lives. I also have a memory of safety and incredible love wrapped in my first musical memory, in the melody and lyrics of Roberta Flack’s “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.” . . . This was one of our earliest special connections. In the beginning, he would put on Roberta Flack, and rock me back and forth to the song. The song became our special time together. My dad would turn on the song, I would come running to his lap, and we had our time to just be within the music and leave the worries of our world. Even now, when I hear that song, I am transported. I feel the love and unconditional support that I have always had from my father. (Jen, 2005)

Home often provided a space imbued with acceptance and acknowledgment of musical performance and promise that, because of modern technology, could be saved and re-​experienced at will. You could say it is a tradition. A private moment between mother and daughter where we can find a quiet spot to sit and listen without interruption. It takes place every year on my birthday. Mom puts in the tape that has an old picture of a little two-​year old girl slipped inside the cover. We listen as the little girl sings “ABC” and chants “Humpty Dumpty” with transparent animation and humor. The young voice is accompanied by her mother’s as they sing old milk commercials and radio pop songs of the seventies. I never tired of listening to that tape and as the years go by I find myself treasuring those captured moments even more than my mother does. My earliest memories go back to singing with my mom almost anywhere, my favorite place being the back of her bicycle as we soared under the cascading green branches of town singing “America.” (Meredith, 2000)

Grandparents were also key players in offering comfort. In this example, songs are improvised to intensify the personal meaning, offering a way to be with the music described as an embodied “part of me.” My music background is from my grandmother who was very close to me. She used to sing for me when I cried and needed to get sleep. She made some kinds of chanting songs without any particular scores. It has stories and [every] time the main character was me, Soo Kyung: “Soo Kyung is sleeping so black doggy, please don’t bark,” or “Soo Kyung is sleeping so chickens, don’t cry.” These made me feel so special. It sounds like the world is [revolving] around me. From that time the music started taking place in my life as part of me. (Soo Kyung, 1998)

The grandmother below provided a model for how music may comfort in a time of mourning. This example of being with was reviewed in adulthood as having “powerful impact” regarding connections between musical memories and people. My grandmother had lost her husband at a very young age and was always drawn to an old, antique record player. I remember sitting on her lap, listening to Korean folk

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    257 songs which my grandfather used to love listening to. As a child, I did not understand the pain and sadness the music had conveyed to her. I would sometimes dance with music or pretend that I was the singer, trying to attract any attention from my grandmother. However, at these moments, she remained silent and expressionless. I guess, reflecting on my childhood, music had such a powerful impact on me. The connection between memories and people and the emotional journey of reflection triggered my interest later in my life. (Jeannie, 2000)

Memories of Being Together: The Family Car as Expansion of Home Traveling in the family vehicle provided a space where interaction was unavoidable and where singing was a way for families to be collectively engaged.3 My earliest memories of music from my childhood include singing Christmas songs with my family, listening to the song “The Candy Man,” and the Carpenters’ song “On Top of the World.” The common thread between these examples is the emotional impact they had on me. I specifically remember singing these songs with my sisters and parents on road trips to my grandparents’ house. I associate the memories of these songs with feelings of happiness and fun in times when life had a sense of simplicity and wonder. (Tom, 1999)

The repertoire of these sing-​a-​longs tended to be parent-​driven, yet older siblings played a role in these choices as well. When my family would go on long car rides, we would sing the whole way. We would sing both Christian songs and children’s songs. The children’s songs were often from the tv shows that my sister would watch. I would love watching Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street and other [examples of] great children’s television. My sister would take the songs that we knew and songs that she made up and create plays. She would write, direct and be in the plays. I was one of her actresses/​singers that was always eager to do what she wanted. (Jennifer, 2005)

Here, we see connections between home music and car music that suggest a strong relationship between music and person. The salience of specific roles that we attribute to certain family members is also clear in this excerpt. Siblings often functioned as allies or as partners in pretend play. They are mentioned in most of the references to music making in the car. The parent-​driven repertoire tended to serve as family heritage—​calling up categories of music the parents preferred and wanted to share. Often, this was popular music from their own adolescence. One such example is a student whose father’s fascination with the Grateful Dead permeated their family soundscape, and supported the father’s need for aligning his past and present. The music shared emanates from another place and time and serves to enculturate children into the parent’s own musical sense of self. The

258   Custodero excerpt below provides another example of how family heritage is passed along in the confines of a car, and how music-​making in the home is extended. My mother did not speak English, so she would rock me to sleep singing songs in Arabic. My earliest musical memories are of sitting by my father as he played Lebanese songs on a small Yamaha keyboard. Although he could not read music, he sat at the keyboard for hours figuring out the melodies to his favorite songs. I also have wonderful memories of long car trips in our station wagon listening to the French, Italian, and Lebanese tapes my parents played for me and my brother. (Suzanne, 2004)

Such a varied palette of music was not typical in the data; however, it is interesting how the links to home music-​making are still germane to the understanding of how and why musical activity is meaningful in families.

Extensions beyond Home: Influences of Faith-​Based Settings Neighborhoods, and especially religious settings, provided additional sites for being with music and being with others. A previously shared excerpt included early memories of a student’s churchgoing experiences in the Dominican Republic, where he remembers being “captivated” by the musical rituals. Compare that experience at the Iglesia Santa Ana Roman Catholic church outside of Santo Domingo with the story below: Music is especially important to my mother’s side of the family because many of my family members, including my grandmother, practice Voodoo which is the national religion in Haiti. Drums, singing, and other percussive instruments are part of every ritual and the music is always the root and foundation to the folklore. The leader of the ceremony would sing a melodic line inviting the spirits to enter and the other people participating would answer back together in song. (Collin, 2017)

Rituals provide structures that invite collective participation—​commonly understood ways in which we can be with others. They provide conditions that allow us to anticipate joining in, such as the call-​and-​response mentioned in both examples. Research with infants and toddlers tells us that parenting rituals, such as putting children to bed or giving them a bath, are prime contexts for spontaneous and composed music-​making (Addessi, 2009; Custodero, 2006). It is not so surprising that the rituals associated with music heard in religious institutions are in the early childhood memories of so many music students. Unlike music in the car, which provided an extended space for music at home, music in faith-​based settings often provided a different repertoire with which to engage. The man who wrote the autobiography below was cared for as a young child by his great-​ aunt, who brought him into her community of worship: My great-​aunt went to prayer meetings twice a week and to two church services on Sundays. This was an interesting time in my early musical development because I was

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    259 exposed to gospel, spiritual, and secular music. . . . This was the first time in my life I had been exposed to live music. It was truly an overwhelming experience to hear so many voices and the different instrumentalists. I found the music very exciting and I would get goose bumps when I was truly touched emotionally by the performance. (Stephen, 2000)

This was a new experience—​separate from music played and performed at home. Instead of providing a space to extend home life outside, it provided a separate set of practices within another close community. However, sometimes the religious repertoire provided music for the home, as in the experience of this student: Until the end of elementary school my life [consisted] primarily of Christian music. Classical music was also played in my house, but Christian music was dominant. My father was a minister and my mother was very active in the church. Not only did we sing on Sundays to worship the Lord. We sang every day to worship Him. My earliest memory of music is of being at church. The sound of the music surrounded me. There was no separation between the voices in the congregation and my own. I just sang as loud as I could and danced in a circle with the other children as I shook my tambourine. (Jennifer, 2005)

The common musical heritage of this group created a sense of belonging and mutuality: There was no separation between the voices in the congregation and my own. That sense of comfort in this second environment felt like “home,” and the other participants, like family.

Music in Families: Autobiographical Meaning of Early Childhood Memories How do we make meaning from these memories of childhood? What were the significant aspects of community that made experiences memorable? In the reading of the data, three particular themes were noted: (1) the opportunities and resources available; (2) the timing of formal learning instruction; and (3) the multisensory embodiment of the sound and intention of how music felt.

Opportunities and Resources for Social Actors and Motivated Agents The homes of many of these students were filled with music during their early years, and provided opportunities for exploration and adult acknowledgment of musical behavior as an important human activity: Since I was brought up in a rich musical environment, the first sign of musical ability was when I was 7 months old. My father’s friend was a pianist, and one time when we

260   Custodero were over his house, he played through a Mozart Concerto with the recording of the orchestral accompaniment. My mother said that I started to conduct along with the music exactly in time. Everyone there was shocked. Before I could walk, I was able to sing back pitches. Another friend of my father was a singer, lived with us for a while. Whenever he would warm-​up, I would mimic him. My mother also told me that I was a good dancer, particularly good at the “twist.” (Susan, 1999)

These stories are a part of the family heritage—​it is the parents’ memories of their daughter passed on to her, for her own use as she constructs her own self-​identity as musician. The autobiographer may have memories of hearing the stories; however, it is doubtful she has explicit recollection of them, given her young age at the time they occurred. She is seen as a social actor, through the descriptions of her behavioral responses to the musical resources in her environment. Compare the last excerpt with the following one from another student. Note the richness of the description in the personal recollection: The only memory I can recall from my preschool years was hearing musical sounds all around me. Growing up in a musically inclined family, hearing the sounds from different instruments was unavoidable. In the basement, I could hear my father playing the small organ which had been positioned strategically in the corner. Sometimes I would quietly take off the cloth placed on top of the keys to protect it from dust, turn the switch on, and experiment with the sounds each time a key was pressed and the sounds from the pedals when I placed my foot on it. The sounds from the clarinet and the beating from the drums and cymbals could also be heard from the basement. Upstairs, there was a small brown stand-​up piano which I loved. As a youngster I would sit on the old brown wooden stool and hit the keys, listening to the various sounds each key produced. I enjoyed listening to the music that other family members played on that piano. My sister and I would make up dances as we listened to many songs being played on that piano. Many times, we would hear the rich words being sung to Filipino melodies. (Eileen, 2007)

Here, resources are abundant, and the child, at around age four, is now more of a Motivated Agent who experiments, explores, listens to the various sounds each key produced, and makes up dances. Children often see music-​making as an invitation to play, realizing that their actions can have consequences. The curiosity and exploration recalled by adult musicians are hallmarks of children’s approach to learning, and often are the “stuff ” of professional practice in music composition. In many of the stories shared, this playful, investigative mode gets disrupted too early, leading to more negative memories.

Instruction vs. Play This theme of formal instruction vs. informal self-​initiated play had a strong presence in the autobiographies of music students. They describe the joy and delight of their first

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    261 memories of experimenting with music. There was a recurring tendency for adult acknowledgment of such musical behaviors to be a signal to move children into formal instruction. The example below is representative of many: I remember when I was four years old, I used to watch my sister playing piano every day. I liked that melody. After listening to the melody, I used to play the piano. Her music teacher who lived across from my house thought the person who practiced playing was my sister. After she knew that it was me, she asked my mother if she could teach me piano without any pay. That was my first piano lesson. As soon as I started taking lessons, I got tired of practicing the same melody every day. The piano lessons continued until I was in the third grade of elementary school. Most of the time I had to keep practicing the piano, so I did not enjoy the piano as much. (Jeesung, 1998)

There is often a loss of enthusiasm when the intrinsic motivation to act is taken away. Curiosity and imagination are replaced with requirements and drill. That is not to say systematic effort in skill development cannot be playful. When children have this sense of agency—​feeling like they are directing the action—​they can enjoy setting their own challenges and feel rewarded by their accomplishments. One of the only memories I have of creative, and less formal music-​making as a child is whistling. After practicing over, and over, I was so pleased with myself to be able to produce a loud, rotund sounding whistle. I played with the dynamics of my whistle and enlarged its range. Though this was my own experiment, which may categorize this experience as more creative, it still was a structured approach to music in that I practiced diligently each day with specific goals in mind. (Elyse, 1999)

When an environment is rich in perceivable musical potential, young children will actively engage. In this next section, I share some of the strong sensory experiences reported in early childhood, and how the emotional connection to the musical experience strengthened the memory and continued to bring positive images to mind.

How Music Feels Many of the autobiographers cited in this chapter mention emotions; we know that the emotions experienced at a particular time and place determine how we remember. The associations with people and action characterize the emotional context: Whether it was putting my ear up to the timer in my grandparents’ house listening for the familiar chimes sound “Für Elise,” or running back and forth in our living room singing along to “Woody [Guthrie]’s Children,” I have a memory of the emotions I felt: exuberance, comfort, energy. (Jen, 2005)

Feelings are manifested physically, and not always so clearly identifiable. Andrew, cited earlier in the chapter, wrote about the “vivid emotional content, almost as if my body

262   Custodero attempts to recall the chemical state of my mind and body as my consciousness tries to remember the more visual and musical aspects.” Damasio (1999) discusses the relatedness between emotions which lead to feelings, which lead ultimately to awareness. One student reflected on these feelings and her relationship with music as a young child: I have a few distinct memories of my early childhood musical experiences, but more clearly than specific events I remember how I used to feel about music. I remember being distinctly aware of different kinds of music, not genres, but music that felt “close” and “far.” The close music was the kind I really liked, I felt such a natural connection with it that it seemed it could have been singing out from inside me as I listened to it instead of being played on my Fisher-​Price record player. I may have thought of it as “close” for this reason. It seemed somehow reachable, part of my closer to the ground world as opposed to the oversized and often intimidating world of grownups. (Jessica, 2007)

Such specific feelings led to awareness that music can be experienced as positioned in relation to the self, creating spaces that felt close and distant, internal and external.4 The example used by Jessica hints at the importance of agency, as a Fisher-​Price record player was designed for children to be able to use on their own. The close experience was “a natural connection” and the far, linked to the unfamiliar, something that was incomprehensible. This awareness is also an example of the intimate nature of musical experience, it could’ve been singing out from inside me. This relationship with music continued for Jessica. Later she writes: For the most part, I always felt music at school boring. It could never compare to the vibrant jubilation I felt when listening to music at home or on my Walkman . . . my general music classes were dry, brittle affairs and they seem to intrude on the relationship I had with my own music.

McAdams (2015) would call this feeling of kinship with music described by Jessica a disposition, something like an “emotional branding” (p. 5) that appears throughout the trajectory of her life story.

Life Stories and Early Childhood Music Learning and Development To reflect on my musical memories is to tap into the very essence of my being. From the earliest moments I can remember, music has always been at the center of my world. . . . My musical experiences have shaped who I am. (Jen, 2005)

The social and environmental conditions in which music-​making occurs in early childhood set in place ways of being that continue into adulthood and impact how we appreciate, make, teach, and research music. McAdams (2015) sees autobiographical thinking as

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    263 a developmental tool of emerging adulthood, a natural outcome of childhoods spent engaged in social action and the concurrent formation of dispositions, and motivated agency through which we identify with goals and values. Because of the communicative and expressive potential of musical activity, the life stories of music teachers can be richly descriptive and informative about the various ways musical lives are constructed. As children, we are enculturated into music practices and traditions through experiences with adults and peers who serve as both partners and models. As adults we use childhood memories to construct our understandings of self as ontogenetic beings, that is, as persons whose past, present, and future are connected by virtue of a unique set of circumstances and experiences that define who we are. Acknowledging the salience of individual experience, there were also several common threads running through many of these musical histories that coincide with core concepts in human development: the crucial role of relationships, the pervasive influence of culture, and the active participation of the learner in their own growth (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). These connections to human development serve to explain the emotional intensity of the memories shared here. Looking at musical development, we need to be aware that in order to make claims about timelines for musical maturation we need to look at the past as well as the present to predict a future—​for children and for ourselves. In our work as researchers, parents, and teachers, we can learn much about who we are and why we do what we do through autobiographical reflection. This type of “Me-​search” can also bring attention to our biases, our unexamined practices, and our privilege. Using memories as a means of defining oneself can be a way of countering/​understanding/​stabilizing—​complementing the experience and observation of developmental changes in childhood.

Notes 1. In 2018, based on self-​identification, the institution’s student body comprised 20% international students from seventy-​seven different countries; of those remaining, 13% were African American, 13% Asian American, 14% Latinx, and 52% Caucasian. Percentages are rounded up or down. (Source: institutional website.) 2. But not necessarily only human, as evolutionary musicology has shown us (see Wallin, Merker, & Brown, 2001). 3. See Koops (2014) for a study on the relatedness of family music-​making in the car and repertoire learned in parent-​child music classes. 4. Interestingly, this student added a footnote to her autobiography indicating that she had written this part of her paper before reading a similar description of a child’s musical experience in Songs in Their Heads (Campbell, 1998), one of the textbooks used in class.

References Addessi, A. R. (2009). The musical dimension of daily routines with under-​four children during diaper change, bedtime and free-​play. Early Child Development and Care, 179(6), 747–​768. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​030044​3090​2944​122

264   Custodero Blacking, J. (1995). Music, culture, & experience: Selected papers of John Blacking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological model of human development. In M. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 6963–​6970). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Campbell, P. S. (1998). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. Custodero, L. A. (2006). Singing practices in ten families with young children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 37–​56. https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3653​454 Custodero, L. A. (2009). Intimacy and reciprocity in improvisatory musical performance: Pedagogical lessons from adult artists and young children. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 513–​ 530). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace. Damasio, A. R. (2010). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York: Pantheon Books. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: Penguin Books. Gabrielsson, A. (2011). Strong experiences with music: Music is much more than just music (R. Bradbury, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ilari, B. (2017). Musical parenting and music education: Integrating research and practice. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 36(2), 45–​52. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​ 030044​3090​2944​122 Koops, L. H. (2014). Songs from the car seat: Exploring the early childhood music-​making place of the family vehicle. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 52–​65. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​030044​3090​2944​122 Nash, R. J., & Bradley, D. L. (2012). The writer is at the center of the scholarship: Partnering Me-​ search and research. About Campus, 17(1), 2–​11. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​abc.21067 Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1). http://​jrp.icaap.org/​index.php/​jrp/​arti​ cle/​view/​241 Malloch, S., & Trevarthen, C. (2009). Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McAdams, D. (2015). The art and science of personality development. New York: Guilford Press. Papoušek, M. (1996). Musicality in infancy research: Biological and cultural origins of early musicality. In I. Deliège & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 37–​55). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasmussen, A. S., & Berntsen, D. (2009). Emotional valence and the functions of autobiographical memories: Positive and negative memories serve different functions. Memory & Cognition, 37(4), 477–​492. https://​doi.org/​10.3758/​MC.37.4.477 Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Adult Recollections of Early Childhood Music    265 Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford Press. Trehub, S. E. (2009). Music lessons from infants. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 229–​234). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., & Brown, S. (2001). The origins of music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chapter 19

Building a Profi l e of Australian Pa re nts ’ M usical Beli e fs , Va lu e s , and Prac t i c e s Vicky Abad, Mary C. Broughton, Margaret S. Barrett, and Graham F. Welch

Introduction It is widely acknowledged that music is a universal phenomenon in human culture and society. Across disciplines as diverse as anthropology (Dissanayake, 2000, 2009, 2012), archeology (Mithen, 2007, 2011), ethnomusicology (Blacking, 1973), and evolutionary theory (McDermott, 2009), researchers have identified the ubiquitous nature of music in human life and established claims for music’s role in human evolution (Cross, 2016; Dissanayake, 2009, 2012; Mithen, 2007, 2011) and development (Southgate & Roscigno, 2009; Welch, 2013; Welch & McPherson, 2018). There is a growing body of research concerning infants’ and young children’s receptiveness to music and their capacity to engage meaningfully with music experiences. Music supports development from birth. Infants are born already hearing aspects of the musical worlds of their parents and are active music learners from early life. They are highly receptive and responsive to the opportunities for music engagement that are provided to them (Ullal-​Gupta et al., 2013), and develop musical preferences from an early age (DeCaspar & Fifer, 1980). This includes music’s role to support childhood development in general and music development more specifically. The role of parents and caregivers is paramount in these experiences, as they are the musical curators for their children (see Stamou, Abad, & Troulou, this volume, for

Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs    267 further information), and shape the capacity and ability of the child to engage meaningfully with music within their culture. Research findings that demonstrate shared music in the home supports long-​term developmental benefits for children (Williams et al., 2015) reinforce the importance of ensuring parents are capable of and confident to use music in their everyday parenting. Such findings also implicate the importance of a better understanding of the makeup of families, including the beliefs, values, and practices that underpin their use of music. Thus, identifying the context and demographic makeup of families who share music in the home and community with their children warrants greater understanding and further research. This chapter addresses some of these gaps in the research literature by presenting the profiles of Australian families who identify a particular value for music in the lives of their children. These parents participated in a longitudinal research project that tracked their use of music, both in the home and community. This chapter focuses specifically on survey results that identify the musical beliefs, values, and practices of parents who were engaging in what might be termed as “musical parenting.”

Theoretical Framework Music in the Home Music sharing and learning begins in the home. Yet musical engagement with infants and children tends to be an activity that is virtually hidden within the intimate confines of contemporary family life (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2008). Survey-​based research that captures a moment in time has helped to shed light on the ways that music is used in the home. This includes parents who draw on musical material to help establish routines and to provide structure to the day, embracing specific play times and rest times for young infants (Abad, 2018; Addessi, 2009; Barrett, 2009; Blackburn, 2017; Custodero et al., 2002; Trehub et al., 1999), as well as engaging with their infants within the environment to reinforce routines, learning, and cultural beliefs as the infant grows (Abad & Barrett, 2020; Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2008).

Sociocultural Elements Shaping Early Musical Interludes and Engagements The family unit as the nucleus of the young child’s world sits inside a broader social context and within a larger cultural framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Each element of these has an impact on the early learning experiences that children have, including the ways that they experience music within social and cultural spaces (Campbell, 2010). From the first year of life, and as children grow, the particular sociocultural context of

268   Abad et al. the family nucleus shapes individual musical engagement (Barrett, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012; Welch, 1998, 2000). For parents, their past and present musical and extra-​musical experiences also shape that of their children’s current and future music experiences (Abad & Barrett, 2020; Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2003; Ilari, 2005). As an example, Custodero and colleagues conducted a large-​scale study of American parents in order to better understand what influenced their use of music in everyday life (Custodero, Britto, & Xin, 2002; Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2003). The parents in this study were mostly mothers (71.7%) who were married (90.2%), Caucasian (72.4%), and educated (26% high school; 28.7% had a college degree; 25.8% had postgraduate degrees). For these parents, higher frequencies of playing and singing music to their children were associated with their own music education experiences, and memories of their own musical parenting experiences as a child. In particular, the strongest statistical association reported was that for singing as a parent and being sung to by a parent (Custodero & Johnson-​Green, 2003). Frequency of parental song singing in childhood was also found to significantly predict parents’ later music behaviors with their own children in a study conducted by Mehr (2014), while family income and participation in music classes were not associated with frequency of singing.

Singing Singing is a prime tool for communication between a caregiver and young child. Singing to infants is as old as culture itself. Dissanayake (2000, 2009) proposed the theory that music as an art form may have developed from the musical interactions observed between mothers and their infants, across cultures and time (Dissanayake, 2000, 2009). In addition to humans using singing as a tool to bond with and soothe their babies (Papoušek, 1996), singing is also used for play and to manage mood and emotions (Custodero, Britto, & Brooks-​ Gunn, 2003; Ilari, 2007, 2011; Trehub & Gudmundsdottir, 2015).

Musical Engagement and Interactions within a Family Context Young children’s interactions with members of the immediate family through and around music can be a powerful shaping force in their future musical development and engagement. Research suggests that the mother is the primary participant in singing interactions with the young child, though the frequency with which these interactions occurs declines for later-​born, compared to first-​born children (Custodero et al., 2003). Parental beliefs and parent-​child dyadic transactional scripts have been shown to shape siblings’ music identities and music paths in different ways (Borthwick & Davidson, 2002; Davidson & Borthwick, 2002).

Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs    269 In a family dynamics model, birth order is proposed to shape the personality, social behavior (Sulloway, 2001, see also Byng-​Hall, 1985), and self-​identity (Sulloway, 1996) of various siblings differently. Birth order tends to associate positively with factors such as age, size, status, and power position in the family (Sulloway, 2001). Typically, older siblings display more conscientious, independent, and extraverted behavior than do younger siblings (Sulloway, 1996). Firstborns can act as surrogate parents to younger siblings (Sulloway, 2001). A small body of research suggests that interactions with siblings might also play an important part in shaping young children’s music engagement. Musical engagement with an older sibling can provide the younger child with an important transactional relationship to foster learning (Barrett, 2009; Gringas, 2012). This observation is supported by reflections from older children (at ten to eighteen years of age) who noted the important influence of siblings on their own musical development (Howe & Sloboda, 1991). The multiple influences of older siblings, reported by nearly half of the participants in this study, included building awareness of music, the possibility of playing, providing an imitative model, and normalizing playing and practice behaviors in everyday life (Howe & Sloboda, 1991). In a recent phenomenological study on sibling relationships in a musical family, the oldest child was reported to have a lot of power and authority, who played both a mentor and leadership role with regard to musical interactions and learnings of her younger siblings (Fung, 2018). Therefore, in families where there is more than one child, we might expect to observe musical interactions between siblings where younger follow the older sibling’s lead (Barrett, 2009; Wu, 2017).

Context and Sites of Musical Interactions Music in the Home Musical interactions between the young child and their caregiver occur in many different sites, including the home, as discussed above. Family routines and rituals at home (Barrett, 2009) and in the car (Koops, 2014)—​as the extension of home—​provide a primary context for musical interactions and engagement (Lum, 2009). These family rituals support the child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (Spagnola & Fiese, 2007).

Music in the Community Where primary care is shared between home and another context, different musical interactions are often integral to the particular routines and rituals that occur with secondary caregivers, such as in long-​day care contexts (Suthers, 2004; Barrett, Flynn, & Welch, 2018). The prevalence and seemingly automatic use of music in parenting or caregiving activities supports the prevailing theoretical stance that musical interactions are fundamental to early human development and caregiving practices (e.g., Barrett et al., 2019; Cross, 2012; Dissanayake, 2012; Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009; Mithen, 2005, 2009).

270   Abad et al. Beyond primary care contexts, musical experiences also exist via a range of structured, shared activities in the community. This may include exposure to a variety of genres and styles of music through concert experiences in community, daycare, or concert hall settings (Suthers, 2004; Pitt, 2014; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2017), or participation in a community music group, or (non-​)formal music learning setting. Some of these groups provide targeted intervention for families and are funded by government (Abad & Edwards, 2004; Nicholson et al., 2008), while others are universally accessible through local councils, such as the “Rhyme Time” program (De Vries, 2008; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016), or church organizations (Mackenzie & Hamlett, 2005). Parents and caregivers can also access music groups through a user pay fee structure (Abad, 2018; Abad & Barrett, 2017; Adachi & Trehub, 2012).

Formal Music Programs for the Very Young Early childhood music classes represent a “unique form of community music education” (Rodriguez, 2019, p. 96). Such classes, or groups, represent a change in the ways that parents are now able to engage musically with their children (Abad & Barrett, 2017). Participation in such programs is usually conducted on a weekly basis and supports both the musical (Gruhn, 2002; Gerry et al., 2012) and overall early childhood development of participants (Barrett 2009, 2011, 2016). Henriksson-​Macaulay and Welch (2015) surmised that quality music education and music therapy for babies and toddlers have been “acquiring more and more confirmation for [their] nurturing potential” (Henriksson-​Macaulay & Welch, 2015, p. 6). Yet little research exists on the quality and content of such programs, nor the kinds of parents who access them.

Quality and Content of a MELP In light of this gap in understanding, Abad and Barrett defined Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs) as those that have been: written or designed by a qualified music teacher or Registered music therapist with the intention of nurturing a love of music, supporting musical and extra-​musical development in the child, and empowering the parent to use music in the home. (Abad & Barrett, 2017, p. 139)

A distinctive feature of a MELP is the active inclusion of the parents in the session (Abad & Barrett, 2017). Their active participation ensures that they have the chance to participate, practice, and rehearse how they can use music in the home. A part of the “nurturing potential” of MELPs to which Henriksson-​Macaulay and Welch refer (2015, p. 6) could be this opportunity for parents to learn, through involvement and instruction, new ways to use music in the home. Abad and Barrett (2020) reported that the predictable, repetitive structure, alongside varying content, offered at MELPs provided parents in their study with opportunities to rehearse songs and activities at the MELP, and then use these strategically at home. Parents

Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs    271 did this by singing songs learned at the MELPs to support family rituals and routines, and also used these songs to regulate emotions and scaffold learning (Abad & Barrett, 2020).

Parents Who Access MELPs Attending MELPs demonstrates a willingness by parents to invest time and financial resources in the musical development of their child. Limited research exists on the kinds of families that access such programs, possibly because this is still a new “frontier” in music education (Adachi & Trehub, 2012, p. 229). Rodriguez (2019) reported that all the families that were enrolled in a music program in their research were from middle-​class backgrounds and held at least one college degree. The author surmised that because the class cost money it may have attracted a “specific subset of the general population” (Rodriguez, 2019, p. 106). Yet Fancourt and Perkins (2018) reported in their experimental study of three-​to-​fourteen-​ month-​olds, that the impact of a singing intervention between mothers and their infants did not appear to be explained by socioeconomic factors, including years in education, marital status, and household income. Nehr (2014) also reported that income was not related to music-​making among the parents studied. Barrett (2009, 2011, 2019) reported examples of families who accessed MELPs to support parenting, but did not provide demographic information on the kinds of parents who attended such programs.

Research Methodology The findings reported here sit within a larger investigation of music learning and engagement in young Australian children’s lives in family and community (Barrett & Welch, 2013–​2016). The overall investigation comprised four related strands: (i) a collective case study of the music beliefs, values, and practices of Australian families enrolled in a MELP (Abad & Barrett, 2016, 2020; Varvarigou, Willingham, Abad, & Poon, 2021) and perspectives of past participants (Barrett & Welch, 2020); (ii) a collective case study of the music beliefs, values, and practices of Australian families who made no formal provision for music learning beyond that of the family setting (Broughton, Barrett, & Welch, 2015); (iii) a collective case study of the music beliefs, values, practices, and provision of people working in Australian Early Childhood Education and Care settings (Barrett, Flynn, & Welch, 2018; Barrett et al., 2019); and (iv) an analysis of the music content of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children survey (Williams et al., 2015). This chapter focuses on the analysis of survey data from Strands one (i) and two (ii), and seeks to identify the musical profiles of the families, including their similarities and differences.

Survey Design A specially designed Music Beliefs, Experiences, Practices, and Values survey instrument was developed and implemented as a self-​report tool gathering demographic, family,

272   Abad et al. music, health, and wellbeing information, and primary caregivers’ beliefs and practices in their musical parenting (see Appendix 19.A). The survey was adapted from the Sing and Grow Parent Survey developed by Nicholson and colleagues (2008). The survey consisted of four sections: • Section One. “About the way you use music with your child” explored parental use of music in their everyday lives, mostly in the home, by gauging frequency of engagement in a range of musical activities over the space of a typical week, and rated on a 4-​point scale (no, not at all; once or twice; 3–​6 times; everyday). The first question items (n =​ 12) were adapted from a measure used in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–​ Kindergarten Cohort (National Centre for Education Statistics, 2002) and the Sing & Grow National Evaluation (Nicholson et al., 2008). The second set of questions asked parents if they agreed with a range of statements that measure musical self-​efficacy using a 5-​point scale (strongly disagree; disagree; neither agree or disagree; agree; strongly agree) and include questions of quantity of repertoire known, as well as the quality and confidence of the parent to implement musical strategies in their parenting. • Section Two. “About you” gathered specific demographic information on the parent, including age, gender, marital status, income, employment, and their ethnic and cultural identity. • Section Three. “About you and music” explored the parent’s personal relationship with music, and sense of parenting self-​efficacy. The opening questions explored the parent’s past relationship with music through gathering information on formal music learning or singing, including choirs, and the level of music learning acquired. The survey then asked if parents still played or sang today, and if and how the parent used music every day, including their listening habits. The following set of questions sought to measure parental confidence at undertaking tasks associated with raising and managing young children and their behaviors. This drew on four items modified from the US research study Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–​Birth Cohort (National Centre for Education Statistics, 2004) and also used in the Sing & Grow National Evaluation (Nicholson et al., 2008). A series of four questions asked parents if they felt that they were very good at managing their child’s behaviors and meeting their daily care needs (four questions), again using a 5-​point scale (no, not at all; rarely; sometimes; often; yes, very much). • Section Four. “About your child” gathered demographic information on the study participant child, including their gender, age, birth order, their ethnic and cultural identity, and any developmental concerns the parent may have for this child.

Participant Recruitment In Strand (i) the participants included n =​28 families who were recruited from six different MELPs in three different geographic settings around Australia. These MELPs also

Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs    273 represented different theoretic structures in their programs (Abad & Barrett, 2020). Families were volunteer participants, recruited through the MELP leaders who acted as gatekeepers for each strand in the larger study. Strand (ii) participants were n =​17 Australian families who responded to an advertisement circulated online through a national network of playgroups and who volunteered to participate in the study. Participants hailed from diverse cultural backgrounds, each with a young child (aged 0–​21 months).

Findings Participant Profiles Parent and Child Socio-​demographics This section of the chapter seeks to build profiles of families who participated in both Strand (i) with children enrolled in a MELP, and Strand (ii) with no formal provision for music learning and engagement.

Parents Strand (i) MELP families consisted predominately of mothers (93%, n =​26:28). The average age of the participating parents was 37.92 years. The majority of the primary caregivers were married (93%), held a university degree (89%), with 10.71% holding tertiary qualifications specific to music, and subsisted on a salary or wages derived from their own or their partners employment (89.28%). More than half of the women who completed the surveys described themselves as working part-​time (60.7%, n =​17, Figure 19.1). No primary caregiver in Strand (i) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Three families reported speaking a language other than English in their home, representing 10% of the study population. These languages were Italian, German, and Norwegian.

Strand (ii) The primary caregivers in Strand (ii) comprised 15 female and 2 male parents with an average age of 35.76 years (SD =​4.41 years). The majority of the primary caregivers were married or living with a partner (94%), held a university degree (88%)—​with 35% of these holding tertiary qualifications specific to music—​and subsisted on a salary or wages (94%). Figure 19.2 shows the employment status for these participants.

274   Abad et al. Employment status Student Self-Employed Maternity Leave Home Duties Full Time Multiple jobs Part Time 0

5

10

20

15

Frequency of response to employment status

Figure 19.1  Strand (i) employment status of the primary caregivers whose children were enrolled in a MELP.

Student Self-Employed Maternity Leave Home Duties Full Time Multiple jobs Part Time 0

2 4 6 Frequency of response to employment status

8

Figure 19.2  Strand (ii) employment status of the primary caregivers whose children were not enrolled in a MELP.

No primary caregiver in Strand (ii) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Five (29% of the sample) were from non-​English speaking background; two reported speaking Spanish primarily at home. We ran simple correlation statistics and significance levels to check for any statistically significant differences between families in the two strands (see Table 19.1). Results showed statistical differences in the levels of tertiary qualifications in music, whether another language was spoken in the home or not, and the work status of parents, as outlined below.

Australian Parents’ Musical Beliefs    275 Table 19.1 Chi square results for parent demographics in Strand (i) and Strand (ii) Strand (i) (n =​28)

Strand (ii) (n =​17)

Yes

No

Yes

No

Tert. Qual

25**

3**

15**

Tert. Mus. Qual

25**

3**

5

12

English/​Not

24**

4**

12

5

Work/​Not

24**

4**

10

7

Married/​Not

27**

1**

16**

1**

Birth Order 1/​Not

12

16

10

7

2**

Note: ** p