Sounds to Share

Bounding the Study

Data Collection

As with most qualitative work, I, as the researcher, was the key instrument in this study (Barrett, 2007; Bresler, 1995a; Creswell, 2009). I collected all documents, completed observations and participant observations, and interviewed participants. Although I have not taught in a Reggio-inspired environment, I have observed Reggio-inspired classrooms in the United States, attended workshops detailing current Reggio practices in North American schools, and spent 3 weeks living in, observing, and studying culture and classrooms in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Therefore, my researcher lens was that of a general music teacher and teacher educator schooled in traditional practices but influenced by the study of Reggio Emilia schools.

On continuums of participantness and revealedness (Patton, 2002), I participated at a low to moderate level and fully revealed my role as a researcher. Participant observations were completed when I was solicited by children in inquiry or was requested by a classroom teacher. Field notes were taken on my MacBook Pro or iPad during nonparticipant observations, where I acted as an observer in view of the children and adults. I documented participant observations through jottings (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995) taken on my iPad directly following participant observations or transcribed from audio recordings gathered during the documented activity. Personal reflections were recorded as asides, commentaries, and in-process memos in an alternate typeface or within parentheses. In addition, I wrote lengthy analytic memos in a separate Word document from the raw daily data.

I conducted multiple interviews at each site. Although the number of participants and structure varied at each site, generally, one focus group interview of teachers, one focus group interview of four to five parents, and one face-to-face, semistructured interview with an administrator at each school took place. I recorded these interviews on an Olympus digital voice recorder WS-510M. I addressed the following topics in my prepared interview questions: interviewee views of the REA, how Reggio tenets were manifested in the preschool, the state of music within the specific preschool, participant music background, and interviewee perceptions of music across Reggio-inspired American schools. The majority of interview questions remained consistent across sites; however, questions unique to each site emerged during researcher and participant dialogue.

Data Analysis

Data collection and analysis were a simultaneous process (Creswell, 2009). Observation jottings were converted into field notes within 24 hr of participant observation. I reviewed observation transcripts upon leaving the field to allow for researcher reflections recorded in an alternate typeface (Barz, 1997) and transcribed interview audio recordings with the Express Scribe software program. Documents and photographs were collected throughout the fieldwork experience and were used to illustrate, highlight, reinforce, or challenge interview and observation data.

I analyzed each case separately before completing multicase analysis. After organizing and preparing the data, the first step in analyzing each case was to read through the 396 single-spaced pages of data (Creswell, 2009; Emerson et al., 1995; Maxwell, 2005). Although coding is mentioned often, Maxwell (2005) emphasized that there is more to qualitative data analysis than coding: “Reading and thinking about your interview transcripts and observation notes, writing memos, developing coding categories and applying these to your data, and analyzing narrative structure and contextual relationships are all important types of data analyses” (p. 96; emphasis in the original). Following the recommendations of Maxwell, I used memos to record reflections, to make connections between data and the literature, and to question my initial thoughts. I used coding and thematic awareness categorization strategies to deconstruct, rearrange, and rebuild the data, incorporating Maxwell’s three types of categories in the process: (a) organizational, (b) substantive, and (c) theoretical.

Organizational categories are topics that could have been established ahead of time and function to store the data in categories for additional analysis. Substantive categories are descriptive of participants’ views and could be subcategories of organizational ones. Emic or in vivo (Creswell, 2009) codes, which are drawn from the participants’ words, are often substantive. Theoretical categories “place the coded data into a more general or abstract framework” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 97) and are usually etic concepts. Using this categorization technique clarified distinctions among the data, particularly ensuring that participant ideas and theoretical concepts from the literature played a strong role in developing my findings. I coded all field note and interview data with HyperRESEARCH software. Of the 157 codes, 86 were organizational, 59 were substantive, and 12 were theoretical.

Case study is itself a connecting strategy (Maxwell, 2005). After coding the data, I identified prominent themes and relationships across texts and used key experiences or dialogue to create vignettes in each case report. Interview transcripts and field note excerpts were examined and connected to related literature. I established findings in each report, although each case is organized in terms of its situational issues using a mixture of descriptive techniques, including vignettes, detailed narratives, interview transcript excerpts, reflective memos, and direct quotations of children’s dialogue as recorded during fieldwork. ⁵

Similar to individual case study analysis, multiple case study analysis began by reading all three cases. Using Stake’s (2006) documents (Worksheet 3, p. 45) and Miles and Huberman’s (1994) tactics for generating meaning in case and cross-case analysis, I identified the uniqueness, situational constraints, and findings of each case by noting patterns, clustering, making metaphors, counting, making contrasts/comparisons, subsuming particulars into the general, and making conceptual/theoretical coherence. I drew themes for cross-case analysis from my research questions and a theme that emerged during case analysis. These were (a) considerations of context, (b) music engagement, (c) catalysts for making music, (d) music in a social constructivist environment, (e) music as one of the hundred languages of children, (f) site-specific differences, and (g) comparison to national preK music standards.

After rating the expected utility of each case for each theme, I used Stake’s (2006) “Matrix for Generating Theme-Based Assertions from Case Findings Rated Important” (p. 51). I made assertions based on findings from each theme and reread pertinent pages of the case studies, looking for experiences that confirmed or disputed that the assertions accurately described the quintain. To increase trustworthiness throughout the process, I used several qualitative validity strategies that included triangulation of data, member checking, peer debriefing, persistent observation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and sharing of discrepant data as well as rich, thick description (Geertz, 1973). Throughout the research process, I engaged in reflexivity, searching for alternative explanations and soliciting feedback from colleagues (Creswell, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2011) to combat biases that might have hindered my work.

Considerations of Context

As one would anticipate in a Reggio-inspired setting, all three early childhood centers were different as they interpreted the approach based on their contextual needs and circumstances. These considerations of context affected the state of music education at these schools. With roots as an arts integration school and situated in a living arts community, the Artists’ Learning Place considered music teachers crucial to its context, mission, and success. The size of the school necessitated the presence of two music educators on staff, and this created layers of learning communities for these individuals: (a) between each other, (b) within their specialist cohort, and (c) among the staff at large. The populations at the Artists’ Learning Place and Scuola dei Bambini were from a similar socioeconomic demographic; however, Scuola dei Bambini was smaller, with a lengthy tenure of the majority of its teachers and, consequently, a staff greatly experienced in the REA. The teachers’ mastery of interacting with children in the Reggio way promoted intuitive music teaching at Scuola dei Bambini as they led their students to explore and play with sound. Scuola dei Bambini also differed in that music specialists were brought into the school weekly for structured music instruction.

The third site, the John Dewey Center, was unique to this study as well as to the majority of Reggio-inspired schools. Generally speaking, Reggio-inspired schools are associated with middle- and upper-class communities (Scheinfeld, Haigh, & Scheinfeld, 2008). Without financial constraints, teachers tend to have certain freedoms, materials, and support that are found in schools that embrace the REA. At this Illinois location, they tried to integrate Reggio ideals while still tending to the needs of their population and documentation requests from funders. These included meals, health care, additional paperwork, and mandated assessments that were not present at the other schools. These constraints caused the days at the John Dewey Center to be a bit more structured, including scheduled music activities with classroom teachers. In addition, the school’s context was largely shaped by the urban and cultural demographic of the population it served. This manifested musically in student use of music for interaction and adult validation, references to popular culture, and the teacher’s choice of soundscape.

Music Engagement

Researchers have observed that preschoolers spontaneously vocalize, move, and play with sound (Bond, 2012a; Campbell, 1998/2010; Marsh & Young, 2006; Moorhead & Pond, 1941/1978). Data in this study reflect similar findings in environments inspired by the REA. Singing occurred as a planned group activity, often during morning meeting and during transitions, and spontaneously from individuals. Repertoire was varied and consisted mostly of songs and chants teachers learned at workshops or from their colleagues. These songs appeared to be created for the purpose of being sung in school (e.g., “I’m Looking Inside My Refrigerator,” “Way Up in the Sky,” “Five Brave Firefighters”); I heard few examples of American folk music. Children reworked known songs (see Figure S1 in online supplemental materials available at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental), revisiting, repeating, and transforming short motifs of music (Marsh & Young, 2006). They vocalized to animate objects, to mimic actual sounds, and to accompany their movement (see Figure S2 in online supplemental materials available at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental), findings that are consistent with Young’s (2002) vocalization categories. In addition to this connection with vocalizations, children’s movement emerged spontaneously as they skipped from area to area during free play or expressed themselves through leaps and twirls and in response to recorded music. Instruments were available in the classrooms of each school, yet their use seemed to be affected by the manner in which they were displayed. Consistent with the Reggio ideal of the environment being a “third teacher” (Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007), two of the sites made handheld percussion instruments visible and accessible to the children; perhaps as a result, the students engaged with these materials with greater frequency at these sites.

Catalysts for Making Music

Catalysts for making music in the selected Reggio-inspired schools included the environment, the need for classroom management, the teachers, and the children. The presence and presentation of instruments invited their use in the classroom; however, not all of the materials that motivated music were innately musical. Figurines, blocks, and other manipulatives inspired spontaneous vocalization. Found sounds stimulated children’s curiosity and discussion about music.

For example, 4-year-old Marco approached me with a stack of Styrofoam bowls he was about to put out for lunch. Squeezing them, he asked, “Vanessa, why does this make a sound?” I did my best to try to explain that the sound source was the material itself. Somewhat satisfied, but still curious, Marco continued to squish the bowls as he went back to setting the table. During a free-play episode at another site, I witnessed 5-year-old Eloise putting metal beads in a plastic bucket and moving them back and forth. Her sounds inspired 3-year-old Karly to run over to me and say, “It was noisy.” I responded, “It sure was noisy.” Eloise poured the same metal beads into a metal pot in the kitchen area, causing a deafening metal-on-metal cascade. “Wow, it’s a noisy noise!” Karly exclaimed. In response to the aural stimulus, Karly jumped up and down and began exploring her own sound possibilities through sound-shape exploration. ⁶ These found-sound inquiries are just two examples of stimulating dialogue and musicking but show the potential for wonder that can originate in interaction with everyday objects. Other children’s comments on their observations of hearing and making sounds included the following:

The use of music for classroom management was a prevalent theme across cases as I observed music’s use in transitions, for mood modulation, to provide an outlet for preschooler energy, and to facilitate everyday tasks. In addition to classroom management, teachers initiated musicking mostly in the two suburban sites, while student-initiated musicking was dominant at the John Dewey Center. This observation may have a connection to the socioeconomic contexts of the schools, as children from low socioeconomic backgrounds often exercise initiative and agency in their leisure time, whereas middle-class parents tend to control their children’s play through scheduled activities (Weininger & Lareau, 2009).

Musicking in a Social Constructivist Environment

In Reggio-inspired schools, teacher flexibility and ability to follow the children in their lines of inquiry are vital. In this way, the Reggio philosophy is primarily a constructivist one. Curriculum is allowed to emerge naturally from children’s interests, and these interests are ascertained through teacher observation, questioning, and documentation. When gathered together to consider ideas for the day or week, teachers discussed “intentions” instead of “plans” to allow for emergent curriculum, or progettazione. Once the children were engaged in activity, teachers used questioning and scaffolding strategies to facilitate children’s construction of music knowledge. The following vignette of classroom teachers Sharon, Lisa, and Lynne and children at Scuola dei Bambini is a prime example of this facilitation:

Sharon begins large-group time at 10:35 a.m. with the whole class sitting in a circle in the block area. She announces the opening of this part of the daily schedule by playing an instrument and asking the children what it sounds like. “Maraca,” Joy says. Sarah and others yell, “Egg shaker!” Trying to honor both children’s ideas, Sharon asks, “Joy, why did you think it was a maraca?” “Because it made the sound of a maraca,” Joy says in a matter-of-fact manner. “And Sarah, why did you think it was an egg shaker?” Sharon asks. “Because it’s an egg and you shake it,” Sarah reasons. Respectful of the thought processes of both children, Sharon announces, “Alright, take a look. I’m going to bring it out. It might be a maraca. It might be an egg shaker. They are similar. Now, you use your eyes to decide whether it was a maraca or an egg shaker.” The room is silent with suspense until Sharon brings out the instruments from behind her back; all yell, “Egg shaker!” at the top of their voice. “But, you’re right, Joy,” Sharon says, comforting. “It does sound a lot like the maraca.” Sharon distributes an egg shaker to each child with the help of her colleagues. Once in the hands of these anxious and excited children, shaking sounds fill the room.

Through the clamor of shaking exploration, Lynne’s deep, rich voice is heard announcing, “Luke asked a very good question. Could you please hold your eggs still for a minute? Luke, ask that question again.” Luke puts the egg by his ear and asks, “What is in this egg?” “Beads!” Jake declares. “White sand,” says Malcolm. Building on his peer’s response, “Oh yeah, the beach,” Matthew notes. Sojin suggests little seashells, and Amanda observes, “Josh thinks it’s a bell.” “Josh is wrong,” Joy argues. Chase and Tyrus shake their eggs by each other’s ears, presumably to see if their different colors make different sounds. Lisa observes this interaction and states, “You know, I have a question, Lynne. If you have a different color than someone else, do they sound the same? Does the yellow sound the same as the blue?” Most of the children respond in an emphatic voice, “Yes!” “Does the blue sound the same as the pink?” Lisa asks Jacob, who is testing his egg with Luke. “We both have yellow. Try it with Matthew,” Lisa explains to Laura. Lisa continues to facilitate, “Put it by your ear, Shannon. Do they sound the same?” Although Lisa is the closest to me, and therefore I am most aware of her dialogue, I see all of the teachers encouraging experimentation and exploration with the children around them.

In other instances where children went to instruments displayed in their classroom, teachers guided their exploration by suggesting songs and story ideas, or echoing their rhythm patterns. Teachers also engaged their students in dialogue about music by asking what sounds come from different materials and encouraging vocal representations of student drawings through the question, “What does [this drawing] sound like?” In instances where the faculty presented music in a highly structured way, as seen in interactions with music specialists at Scuola dei Bambini, the children struggled to have meaningful musical experiences.

Music as One of the Hundred Languages

Music is often included in any list providing examples of the hundred languages of children. Wiens (2009) believed that the use of music in Reggio-inspired schools is twofold: (a) as a language for expression of children’s understanding of a variety of topics and (b) as its own topic of study. I observed the use of music in both areas but especially as a language. In interviews with educators, I asked for their perspective on the inclusion of music as one of the hundred languages. The majority responded with a quick affirmation and discussion of children who had particular connection to this language. For example, although at different schools, teachers Barbara and Lisa had almost identical responses: “Yeah! I mean, look at Malcolm!”; “Oh yeah, absolutely . . . Ariel is a really good example”. Director Sophie remarked, “We see music as just another language that we offer to young children.” Music was used to meet student physical, cognitive, and emotional needs, particularly as an outlet of expression for students with special needs and as a pathway to literacy. Music soothed and energized children. It held their attention and made them question the world around them. It also allowed those who were most comfortable in the language of music to speak.

The use of music as a language was most evident for English language learners and emergent readers. For example, Joey, a quiet Asian American child who was not yet comfortable speaking English, often played alone and had difficultly committing to an area for work during free playtime. Instead, Joey moved. He galloped, spun, and skipped around the room expressively. It was through this movement that he found direction in his free play. During structured music time, both his teachers and I noticed joy and connection to content that we did not witness at other points of the day. Unlike his lack of engagement in play centers, Joey sang and chanted in English, played instruments, and moved with glee. Music and movement were languages for this child.

Expressive chanting provided a context for English vocabulary and fluency for other English language learners. Spanish-speaking children at the John Dewey Center mimicked the inflection of their teachers, exclaiming, “Shut the door!” to other children following a group recitation of “One, Two, Buckle My Shoe”; for some, these were the only English words spoken at school. Teachers at the John Dewey Center used music to communicate routines and instructions, such as gathering in a circle and taking a seat. Music also gave emergent readers access to print materials and allowed them to understand when the words were not yet in their grasp. For example, I observed children telling stories to their peers by making sounds for the pictures in a book and creating sound stories when exploring instruments with their teachers. For these children in particular, music was a vital one of the hundred.

Site-Specific Differences

The staffing structure as it relates to music was different at each site and this influenced children’s musicking. The classroom teachers were responsible for all subject areas at the John Dewey Center in Illinois. Although the three teachers did not complete any teacher education course work in the subject, they were expected to include music in the classroom. To address the content area, the teachers incorporated a few music activities in the morning and integrated music into their classroom management. Still, music was persistent at this site; the children took center stage in their music education because they played the leading role. They radiated music. They talked about music. They were musical.

Two music teachers were a permanent and fully integrated part of the staff at the Artists’ Learning Place in Wisconsin. Although both came from musical families, these teachers initially were trained not as music teachers but rather as a physical education teacher and an art teacher. They learned methods of early childhood music education by doing, as both taught music in church school programs for years. One completed Musikgarten training, and the other gathered materials from different sources and depended on her background teaching piano. Children came to their music studios twice per week. In these music classes, children sang, moved, played instruments, and listened to and responded to music. The teachers incorporated their ideas and tried to spark new ones with provocations. The music teachers met with each other, with the teaching teams of the classes they taught, as a cluster of specialists, and in the general cluster meetings. They were integrated fully in all school happenings, planning, and policy. The children’s musicking, therefore, was encouraged and validated throughout the day as well as given particular attention in the music studio.

At Scuola dei Bambini in New Jersey, the administration brought in music specialists to teach weekly music classes for each room in the school. These classes were similar to marketed early childhood music programs, such as Music Together (Music Together, 2012), with a large amount of repetition from week to week and a focus on group singing, keeping the beat with instruments, and learning about composers. Both of the music teachers were trained in Music Together and were performing musicians but did not receive formal music education training at an academic institution. During weekly classes, children sang when prompted, often in keys that were not developmentally appropriate, and played classroom instruments to accompany their music teacher’s song. The classes were structured and therefore differed from most other school experiences throughout the day. Although I observed children spontaneously musicking by singing, chanting, rhythmicking, and moving in the classroom, I did not observe these behaviors during their music class.

Classroom teachers at Scuola dei Bambini supplemented the specialists’ work with daily music activities. They gathered the children in singing at circle time midmorning and used speech and song to keep them engaged during dismissal. They used materials and strategies gathered at conferences but did not have a music or music education course as part of their undergraduate certification programs. Still, I was consistently impressed with their intuitive music teaching. In light of their teaching prowess, I wondered why the teachers did not feel empowered as educators of music, as indicated in this focus group interview excerpt:

But, sometimes I think that we think that music is singing. And I think there’s a lot more to that as far [as] I don’t think we listen to enough classical, different types of music. I don’t think we do. I think we sing. Yes, we do a lot of singing, we play instruments, but I think like movement to music and things like that [are music] and it’s unfortunate that none of us play an instrument either.

Later, another teacher commented, “I don’t even think of that [singing] as music”. Her remark made me ponder what she would consider to be music. Is singing not music because it is accessible to her and she has an impression of herself as a nonmusician? As a result of bringing in “professionals,” do classroom teachers feel that their musicking in the classroom does not count? It was evident that these teachers were not aware of the abilities they possessed; their pedagogical knowledge and desire to musick with their children were strong. Perhaps development of their pedagogical music content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) would encourage them to take ownership of their role as educators of all subjects, including music.

Comparison to the National Standards for Music Education

In the REA, the curriculum is emergent. Although the schools each chose or created their own assessment tools, this is a reflection of American educational beliefs, not schooling as it exists in Italy. Similarly, because measurement is valued in American society, I felt compelled to briefly reflect on how the musicking I observed measured up to a guideline for music education: the National Association for Music Education’s (NAfME) preK standards (NAfME, 2012). Children sang at each site (Standard 1); however, this singing was not consistently in tune, with few opportunities created for solo singing and a lack of variety in regard to key, meter, and genre of the selected repertoire. Children experimented with a variety of instruments and other sound sources, and they improvised songs and instrumental works to accompany their play activities and stories (Standard 2). They responded through movement to music of various tempi, meters, dynamics, modes, genres, and styles to express what they heard and felt in musical works (Standard 3). Lastly, children’s musicking strongly aligned with the fourth standard, understanding music; they used vocabulary to describe what they heard, musicked in a way that showed awareness of elements of music, and demonstrated an awareness of music as a part of daily life through dialogue. This comparison is based on my observations of musicking, without teacher awareness of the National Standards. Should teachers become familiar with these guidelines, this resource might shape their intentions for the use of music in the classroom.

Music Is There

Although the body of music-related research is small, educators have been consistent in asking, “Where is the music in the Reggio Emilia approach?” The data gathered in this study support a resounding response: “It’s there!” Children expressed their innate musicality across all settings. Its expression differed as music in each these American Reggio-inspired schools was interpreted differently. Characteristics of young children’s musicking that are discussed in the literature were prevalent, such as spontaneous vocalization, playing instruments, and responding to music with movement. The degree to which these behaviors were observed depended on the context of the school.

In light of this assertion, one might wonder why this question has remained in the literature since first asked by Andress (1998). I offer these two possible reasons. Primarily, an in-depth study of music in Reggio-inspired schools has not taken place prior to this work. Second, I believe the lack of documentation about music may be the cause for the apparent lack of musicking. When I asked teachers to recall children’s inquires about music, they seemed to search mentally for documentation, trying to visualize wall panels of work or music products. Examples were difficult to uncover. Was this because they did not value their own music efforts enough to record them? Or perhaps did these teachers not have the strategies and skills needed to document music (i.e., recording, transcribing, notating)? This inconsistency with the REA might be remedied with the assistance of a music expert.

Models, but Not a Model, of the Music Teacher Role Exist

Through this study, I have identified different models for how the role of the music teacher might be incorporated in Reggio-inspired institutions. In one school, the classroom teachers were responsible for music education. At another, independent music professionals were brought in for pullout music classes. At the third site, music educators were a part of the staff, fully integrated into all aspects of the school. As seen in these examples, defining this role en masse is not practical or efficient; each school’s context must be considered. The variety of models presented is useful in light of this assertion.

Beyond the official music teacher role, music educators can look to the intuitive music teaching of the general classroom teachers. Intuitive music teaching was evidenced in their chosen soundscape across schools. Teachers appreciated a diverse music experience using a variety of musics (Gordon, 2003). Intuitive music teaching was apparent in their chosen adult role. Teachers questioned rather than controlled. They observed rather than entertained (Tarnowski & Leclerc, 1994; Woodward, 2005). They viewed the child as capable (Malaguzzi, 1994) and honored their music utterances (Berger & Cooper, 2003; Fox, 1989). We should not wait for an official music class to build on children’s innate music abilities. Classroom teachers are capable and music educators should support them in providing an effective and developmentally appropriate music education for all. Truly, the role of the music teacher is one all early childhood educators can share.

There Is Room for Growth

Wiggins (2007) proposed that students in a constructivist music classroom would solve genuine music problems, have many opportunities to share ideas, and would be actively constructing music knowledge through performing, creating, and listening. These are the behaviors I observed to varying degrees at each school, but there is more work to be done. Although successful, the intuitive music teaching of classroom faculty can be enhanced. These behaviors are, at present, subconscious. Children are capable. Children are musical. As seen in this study, when children are left to their own devices, music will still emerge. Still, consider what the musicking could look like if supported with a conscious teaching effort. With knowledge of music development and adult behaviors that enhance music play, educators would be better equipped to scaffold and facilitate children’s efforts. They would be able to challenge their students with new music problems and tasks based on their understanding of the zone of proximal development as it relates to music. By applying a conscious effort steeped in pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), the efforts of classroom teachers could be more potent.

In schools where music teachers are already applying their pedagogical content knowledge, their charge is to further develop and share their understanding. These music educators can strive to be a resource to their colleagues and the rest of the community. They can utilize the national preK music standards as a guideline for a musically varied classroom. These music teachers can add to the community’s understanding of music development and the music learning of their children through documentation that includes transcription, video, or audio of music created by children. They can aspire to be adaptive experts (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, 2005), those who increase both their innovation and efficiency throughout their teaching career. The emergent nature of young children’s learning and the REA requires this flexibility, knowledge, and commitment to discovery.

Our Role in Reaching Out to General Classroom Teachers

At the majority of preschools, classroom teachers are responsible for designing and leading music instruction (Nardo, Custodero, Persellin, & Brink Fox, 2006). In a national survey (Nardo et al., 2006), researchers found that only 28% of early childhood centers staffed a music specialist. Although these statistics do not match staffing at the three Reggio-inspired schools in this study, the numbers indicate that the bulk of responsibility for early childhood music education is in the hands of preschool classroom teachers. Even when a music specialist is on staff, general classroom teachers spend the majority of the school day with the children, and music educators must identify ways to support and learn from these colleagues. We might consider the onus for music education to be a shared responsibility.

I believe all teacher participants felt this responsibility although perhaps to varying degrees. Music mostly was incorporated through use as a classroom management tool. As one teacher mentioned, rather than compartmentalize music as a separate subject, she felt it was part of her “tool belt” and could be integrated easily to “make the task lighter.” Understandably, teachers felt burdened by having to teach all academic disciplines. As teachers at Scuola dei Bambini stated,

The majority of teachers did not have any music-related teacher training and felt that the few professional development opportunities provided about music were ineffective. As indicated in the data, lack of teaching training did not manifest in the absence of music in classrooms. However, as one administrator alluded to in her interview, a deeper understanding of what was happening musically across classrooms and why the musicking was developmentally appropriate did not exist. Ameliorating this issue is where music educators can have the most impact in enhancing the state of music education in Reggio-inspired schools.

General classroom teachers in this study would have benefited from knowledge of music development and strategies for enhancing music learning. Their view of the child as a capable being was clear; yet, how does one apply this belief to music without an understanding of what music capabilities children possess? Equipped with knowledge of typical music development, teachers would be better prepared to identify music behaviors and facilitate children’s construction of music knowledge. They also would understand better the potential effects of their music model, such as the relationship between the children’s range of singing and the development of their head voice, and the adult role in enhancing music behaviors. In addition, integration styles could be discussed and music educators could encourage the use of music for music’s sake. Although all of music’s uses are celebrated, including using music for extramusic goals (i.e., classroom management), this type of integration puts music in a subservient (Bresler, 1995b) role. Rather than address music at this basic level, a co-equal, cognitive integration style (Bresler, 1995b) can be encouraged. This style requires discipline-specific knowledge, knowledge that can be constructed in a learning community.

Researchers have suggested a variety of professional development models for early childhood educators. These include preschool-specific methods courses (Daniels, 1992; McDonald, 1984) and in-service music training and outreach for classroom teachers (Daniels, 1992; Nardo, 1995; Tarnowski & Barrett, 1992). In contrast, Gruenhagen (2007) posited that professional development “needs to be differentiated, allow for collaboration, and should include a variety of experiences that are job-embedded” (p. 177). In her study of early childhood music teacher professional development via a community of practice, she suggested that learning communities should be flexible, evolve as the educators and learning context evolves, and call on the collective know-how and resident expertise. These characteristics mirror the reflection practices often employed in the REA.

Researcher suggestions for professional development and the professional development practices of Reggio educators are in alignment. In each setting, I observed educators meeting for collaborative conversation about their work and the needs and interests of their children. Ideas were challenged and successes celebrated. Teachers could request assistance with documentation, resources for project work, and support for children with special needs. Meetings were structured around protagonists’ evolving needs and included job-embedded experiences. These communities also were cognizant of the collective knowledge and skill abundant in themselves as they asked school personnel to provide information rather than first seeking an outside source. The learning communities I observed, therefore, were primed for professional development about music.

An “expert voice” is needed to facilitate professional development about music. Music educators from neighboring schools, collegiate professors, or independent early childhood music educators can take on this role. However, I would caution Reggio-inspired schools from bringing in an outside source with no knowledge of their context or the REA. I believe the results of incorporating outside expertise would be most effective if partnerships were created. Music educators would then ensure that the professional development was differentiated, fitting for the school’s unique adaptation of the REA, and that it occurred over time. A one-time, workshop model would not meet the evolving needs of these educators or, consequently, those of the children. The outside expertise would need to be a part of the learning community discourse. In light of these considerations, a resident “expert voice” might be the most clearly heard.

The Music Atelierista: A Contribution From American Music Education

The role of the atelierista is well documented in literature about the REA (see Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 2011). The atelierista supports children’s experiences with symbolic representation and teachers’ creation of documentation. Atelieriste care for the atelier, or studio space, and are a general resource for children’s and teachers’ work with the visual arts. There is not an expectation that music will be included in Italian schools because music is experienced in the broader cultural community. However, the expectation that music will be taught in schools in the United States necessitates an American contribution to the REA: a music atelierista.

My proposal for this role is not a new one. Smith (2011) also suggested the creation of a music atelierista, stating,

The implementation of a music curriculum that incorporates elements of the Reggio Emilia approach could require a time commitment far greater than that required for a traditional pre-school music program. . . . One solution to this dilemma might be to create a position for a Music Atelierista. (p. 90)

This position might be in addition to a music teacher or could combine both roles, depending on the size and context of the Reggio-inspired school. This educator would be a teacher of children and a teacher of teachers, as seen at the Artists’ Learning Place. This role could facilitate conscious, rather than subconscious, engagement with music education for classroom teachers. A music atelierista could support the work of the classroom teachers, helping them to interpret and document children’s musicking. Documentation efforts could incorporate video/audio recordings and transcription. A music atelierista would create and maintain a music atelier through selection of and care for music materials, such as instruments, props, children’s books, recordings, and found sounds.

Financial constraints might curb administrators’ enthusiasm for creation of this role. As an alternative to a full-time position, institutions might consider creating a university partnership. A professor of music education could serve as a music atelierista, taking time to observe in the classroom and meeting with staff to support their music efforts. Preservice music educators could assist their mentor, using the opportunity to gain experience teaching, observing, and reflecting on teaching practices and children’s music development. Teaching strategies of the REA, such as student-centered learning and open-ended experiences, are on the cutting edge of what is discussed in music education. Since there is a goodness of fit between the REA and best practices in music education, a Reggio-inspired school might provide an ideal setting for a university laboratory school. In an environment where the teachers and the children are given the freedom to explore and learn together, much would be gained by all.

This study was limited by seasonality and time. I was the sole researcher; therefore, cases could not be studied concurrently. To keep this limitation to a minimum, I completed data collection at each case within 11 weeks. In deciding to complete a multiple, rather than singular, case study of music in Reggio-inspired American preschools, the amount of time spent at a site was confined to 2 weeks. Interpretations of the REA vary, making a single typical case impossible to choose. With a multiple case study, I was able to incorporate diversity among cases and in doing so hope to share a multifaceted and more realistic representation of REA interpretations. Still, I acknowledge that a decision in favor of breadth may have affected the depth of my data. While the 2-week time period was intensive, and therefore, rich, additional data gathered over a longer period of time might have impacted my findings. Despite these limitations and the lack of generalizability of qualitative work, I believe this work has begun to close the gap on the dearth of music-related research in a Reggio-inspired environment.

The REA is a “dominant theme” (New & Kantor, 2009) in early childhood education and, therefore, worthy of continued study by early childhood music educators. Reggio-inspired educators and early childhood music educators have much to share with each other. Yet, there is much more work to be done to examine the extraordinary potential between the REA and music education. As Edwards et al. (2011) stated,

although the Reggio experience has become internationally known, it has not become simply a slogan or formula, a recipe or commercial commodity, or a fad or fashion. It has not (indeed, cannot) be thought of as any kind of quick fix, because quick fixes never work in education, and moreover, programs and models from overseas can never be transplanted wholesale from one cultural context to another without extensive change and adaptation. (p. 15)

Neither traditional early childhood music methods nor exact practices of schools in the municipality of Reggio Emilia will remain unchanged; music educators and Reggio-inspired teachers will need to work together to uncover the best fit for music education in North American Reggio-inspired environments. This multiple case study of three Reggio-inspired American preschools is a small step toward expanding the music-related literature on the REA and identifying strategies to enhance musicking in these environments. To continue to fill this gap, we must explore the sounds that other Reggio-inspired schools have to share.