Young Composers. Childhood Development and Learning

Prominent educational theorists such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Vygotsky have influenced ideas about teaching and learning in early childhood, including in the approaches of Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Waldorf (Miller & Pound, 2011). Often, the latter are associated with preschool-age learners if not also older learners. They contribute to cultural expectations of children’s roles that may prevail into elementary grades. In the following sections, I discuss theories of child development (Piaget, 1970/2008; Erikson, 1959/1980) and curricular approaches for young children (e.g., Montessori, Reggio Emilia). I then discuss theories of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) and scholarship specific to composition with children.

Childhood Development and Learning.Jean Piaget (1970/2008) theorized stages of cognitive development. Between ages 0 and 2, children coordinate their senses with motor responses. They explore the world through feel, touch, and sound experimentation. In preoperational thinking (ages two to seven), children begin to use syntax and grammar to express themselves. They are imaginative but do not think abstractly. When composing, children may represent and express musical ideas through pictures, imagery, and embodied movements and gestures. Erik Erikson (1959/1980) theorized stages of psychosocial development, defined by psychosocial crises. Between ages three and five, children undergo a play stage, experiencing initiative versus guilt. Children initiate their own projects and tasks and carry out plans; otherwise, they may feel guilty about a lack of independence. During this stage, children explore their own purposes and can develop resilience. Later, school children (five to 11) experience industry versus inferiority. They can develop competencies, finding satisfaction in applying themselves to tasks, otherwise potentially feeling inferior to those who do.

According to Linda Miller and Linda Pound (2011), early years education should focus on warmth and care in recognition of young learners’ developmental and personal vulnerabilities. Scholars have also discussed the importance of teaching music with an ethic of care for all learners, for instance with humanity (Jorgensen, 2020) and empathy (Seddon, 2012). Miller and Pound (2011) believed care should be so prominent that “it should be impossible to educate without caring, nor care without developing and promoting children’s learning” (p. 2).

Jean Piaget stressed interactions among person, environment, and actions (Rogoff, 1990), which result in one’s construction of reality (Furth, 1974). Piaget theorized that learners assimilate new information in relation to prior experiences and their understandings of them (Piaget, 1964). Like Piaget, Lev Vygotsky (1934/1986) considered a relationship between individual and environment, stating that the intellectual growth of an individual cannot be considered apart from social environment (1934/1986; see also Rogoff, 1990). Piaget proposed stages of development that lead to learning, whereas Vygotsky held a constructivist view that social learning contributes to development. Vygotsky emphasized interactions with more knowledgeable members of one’s society (Rogoff, 1990) and culture that contributes to a formation of values and ideas.

Through interactions like guidance, mentoring, role modeling, and scaffolding, learners grow. Over time, learners internalize processes and approaches that enable them to solve increasingly intricate problems. Vygotsky described the more knowledgeable other as sensitive—one to guide but not overwhelm the learner (Cole et al., 1978). Although social interactions have the potential to result in negative outcomes, points of conflict or confusion can nevertheless produce valuable dialogue, consideration of different views, and negotiation of ideas. For both Piaget and Vygotsky, reflection is also important as inner dialogue leading to higher mental functioning (Rogoff, 1990).

Jerome Bruner (1983) was influenced by Vygotsky and similarly emphasized social support for learning. Bruner noted the learning environment and the learner’s active construction of understandings. Bruner considered construction processes were helped by scaffolding, described as supported learning that enables initial success, while continually fading support in order for the learner to gradually take ownership (Bruner, 1983). Bruner also conceptualized children’s processes of coding new information in stages of enactive, iconic, and symbolic representations, signifying increasing complexity and deeper understandings. Bruner highlighted not only children’s abilities to learn coding systems (like language or music notation of varied sorts) but also their abilities to make use of the system.

Play is a ubiquitous theme in early childhood education, widely regarded as natural and necessary (Paley, 2004). For Montessori teachers, play and work are equivalent; therefore, practical tasks tend to be emphasized. For instance, children might play kitchen or construction as they take on imaginary roles associated with visible adult work. Paley also discussed play as work, but emphasized the importance of imaginative play, describing the open-mindedness and storytelling that can result from free association, fantasy, role-play, and imagery. Mary Kellet (2010) noted the importance of historical, cultural, and economic conditions that interact in the construction of childhood. For Montessori teachers, caregivers are essential for learning, whether as support or partners (Bruce, 2011). Lisa Huisman Koops (2020) discussed infants’ communicative bonding with caregivers toward musical and relational development. Vygotsky (1934/ 1986) referred to the beginning stages of communication in this way as an internal language of melody, considered the most intimate kind of thought.

Others have also emphasized the learning environment, including in nature, for instance, in Waldorf or Reggio Emilia philosophies. While not focused specifically on music, early childhood approaches can offer insightful ways to inspire, challenge, and engage children as independent learners, problem-solvers, and overall creative people. In Waldorf philosophy for example, adults structure children’s time and environment— including in nature—through routines and purposeful spaces that promote independence (Miller & Pound, 2011). In the Reggio Emilia approach, the environment is considered a third teacher (Miller & Pound, 2011). Environment can involve a display of ongoing projects and an inclusion of indoor and outdoor experiences (Clark, 2007). In this approach, teachers promote creativity by mutually emphasizing both knowledge and expressivity (Anttila & Sansom, 2012) while children naturally interact with their environments. One’s learning environment can be similarly considered for music composition with young children.

The environment can provide fertile ground for inspiration (e.g., naturally occurring and human-created sounds, shapes, and patterns). Additionally, the organization of space, for instance tables, chairs, bookcases, and musical instruments, could promote composition. Perhaps the tables and chairs are located around the perimeter of the room, enabling a large open space in which children dance, play, and interact. Perhaps the instruments are located low on an open shelf where small children can reach them.

These varied views of child development have influenced ways educators approach learning for, perhaps with, children. Friedrich Froebel, who conceptualized the kindergarten, used plants as a metaphor. The (kinder)garden provides nurture for growing children (plants) (Froebel, 1889/2005). Education is therefore embedded in living, rather than considered preparation for living (Miller & Pound, 2011). In other words, education is not imposed on the child by adults who have decided what they should learn to become an adult. Rather, the child exists in the adult world as a person—a citizen—whose lived experiences are upheld and valued. The child should therefore make decisions, solve problems, take actions, and view themselves as strong, capable, autonomous contributors. The child themself, is therefore valued.

Creativity and Collaboration.Creativity somewhat eludes definition. To consider what constitutes creativity, J. P. Guilford (1950) discussed divergent and convergent thinking. John Baer and James Kaufman (2012) detailed categories of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration in creative processes of divergent thinking, noting the importance of intrinsic motivation. E. Paul Torrance (1965) emphasized the novelty of creative products, and Teresa Amabile and Elizabeth Tighe (1993) considered the factor of usefulness. Social value influence what products are deemed useful (Mumford et al., 1994). As Margaret Barrett (2012) and Sandra Stauffer (2013) have pointed out, however, creativity scholarship tends to focus on modern Western values, though non-Western cultures often describe and value creativity differently.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1996) believed children cannot attain creativity, stating that something must be widely accepted as useful before it can then be considered creative. Csikszentmihalyi therefore differentiated creativity for children, indicating that a child’s creativity could be acknowledged within a particular field—for instance the field of childrens arts. Csikszentmihalyi focused on the creative product, stating that big “C” creativity represented an idea or outcome important on a cultural level, while little “c” creativity could exist in everyday ideas and solutions important on a local level (of which children are capable). James Kaufman and Ronald Beghetto (2013) elaborated on Csikszentmihalyi’s “little c” and “big C,” describing four categories that included these and added two more: mini-C (personally meaningful insights), and Pro-C (professional or expert level, but without recognition as legendary).

Kaufman and Beghetto explained a graduate student paper might be considered “little c” while a child’s project would constitute “mini-c” Sir Ken Robinson (2001) suggested three principles to help define creativity in children and adults: Creativity involves a process of doing something within a specific domain, it has originality at some level, and it has value or worth (which can include value to the child). Robinson also noted the necessity of imagination in producing something creatively (see also Barrett, 2012).

Young children tend to feel positively about music, enjoying it and feeling confident in their creativity (Burnard, 2012). They often spontaneously make music in their homes, adapting songs, melodies, and movements (Barrett, 2012; Burnard, 2012; Koops, 2020). Their playful musicking is not random, but focused and purposeful (Stauffer, 2013). According to Ruth Butler (2008), young children view themselves as music-makers and -creators. At later stages of development, however, older children may begin to believe that only select people hold musical talents, and self-perceptions of their musical and creative abilities, may then decline (Burnard, 2012). Perceptions of rare talents may also be a notion parents reinforce (Koops, 2020), indicating the crucial period of early childhood for fostering musical creativities.

Music Composition.Music education scholars have emphasized the naturalness and importance of playful engagement and collaborative learning in early childhood years (Campbell, 2010; Marsh, 2008), including in the home environment (Koops, 2020) and online (Ruokonen & Ruismaki, 2016). Here I discuss literature comprising composition processes (Collins, 2016; Kratus, 1989), pedagogical approaches (Hickey, 2012; Kaschub & Smith, 2013), and technology considerations (Burnard, 2012; Deemer, 2016), as well as feedback (Webster, 2012).

Music education researchers have studied collaboration extensively, in particular associated with creativity and composition (e.g., Barrett, 2006; Veloso, 2017). Collaborations hold value, as Vygotsky noted, through social interactions promoting cognitive development (Cole et al., 1978). Children can successfully create music individually and with groups (Stauffer, 2013), although children have preferences for one or the other (Bucura & Weissberg, 2016-2017). Children’s prior musical experiences differ, and they must negotiate ideas with peers. Voice and agency are not guaranteed because some children may dominate (Stauffer, 2013). Groupwork, while valuable, must involve facilitation of group-working skills; these skills cannot be assumed.

Researchers have noted that children benefit from both free and constrained composing opportunities (Barrett, 2003; Kaschub & Smith, 2009; Stauffer, 2013). Goran Folkestad (2004) stated that a composing task (different than an open-ended task) should be considered a skill-building step. Maud Hickey (2012), however, encouraged open-ended tasks first, to prompt needed techniques toward which structured tasks might then develop. Kaschub and Smith (2017) and Stauffer (2013) emphasized continued opportunities over time for composing meaningful compositions, prioritizing them over theoretical exercises.

Completely open-ended tasks may interestingly result in children imposing their own constraints (Bucura & Weissberg, 2016-2017). For others, however, open-endedness can overwhelm. Constraints can be suggested in different ways, including highly structured theoretical or technique-building tasks, or guiding principles that serve to inspire. Folkestad (2004) recommended carefully considered external conditions to protect one’s “internal act of creation” (p. 88). Rather than experiencing one or the other (i.e., constraint or freedom), children should experience ongoing instructional and compositional opportunities, the former building skills and the latter allowing agency and expression (Burnard, 1995). Children should also help determine and define activities through which they will compose (Burnard, 2012).

Children currently grow up members of what Pamela Burnard (2012) referred to as a computerized generation. Children can access what Rob Deemer (2016) described as a “dazzling array of tools with which they can create and manipulate musical or sonic ideas” (p. 42). These include digital notation, and sequencing and looping software, as well as online tools, digital music players, and networks (Deemer, 2016). Scholars’ views on the inclusion of technology for young children vary. However, changes related to the global COVID-19 pandemic that have necessitated at-home and virtual learning warrant a fresh consideration of technologies for young children and the learning possibilities they might afford.

Some music programs invest in technological tools, assuming their worth in preparation for an adult life. According to some, digital technologies can interfere with communication skills like expression and body language (Pagani et al., 2010). In Waldorf curricula, modern technologies are considered inappropriate for children (Taplin, 2011). Instead, Waldorf students use warm technologies, like “corn grinders, drills and whisks” (Steiner Waldorf Education, 2009, p. 28), which might compare with instruments like rachets, hand drums, and xylophones. On the other hand, Reggio Emilia teachers embrace modern technologies considered essential to modern life (Miller & Pound, 2011). Technologies used for music composition have broadened compositional approaches and can increase accessibility (Deemer, 2016). Technologies can be particularly helpful for developmental limitations that are problematic for traditional school instruments, requiring, for example fine motor skills, lung capacity, and an ability to hold and manipulate a large or heavy instrument.

Online learning and technology use can challenge collaboration. Although researchers have investigated online music learning and collaborative communities of practice (e.g., Partti & Westerlund, 2013; Waldron, 2013), these studies have not tended to involve young children. Young learners engaged in virtual learning may require aid from caregivers to manipulate tools or to resolve technology failures. Increased involvement by caregivers is likely difficult when juggling multiple demands that can also include one’s own work apart from caregiving. Caregiver involvement could, however, also reinforce learning by bolstering shared musical interactions throughout a child’s day (Koops, 2020). In other words, with additional musical involvement of a caring adult, music would not be relegated to music time, but instead interactively woven in small moments throughout the day. Similarly, music would not be relegated to a music teacher, but shared as a human practice with adults anywhere.