Laying the foundations for lifelong family music practices through Music Early Learning Programs

Abstract

To lay the foundations for lifelong musical practices, parents need to feel confident using music as a part of their everyday parenting. Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs) can empower parents to use music by laying the foundations for family-based active music-making. Little is known about why parents attend, however, what their aspirations are for their child’s musical engagement now and in the future, or how attendance shapes the way they use music at home. This study investigated parental beliefs, aspirations, and use of music in the home by five families and identified MELP structures that support parenting. The longitudinal case study approach drew on ethnographic methods of data collection. Reasons for attending MELPs were a high value for music, belief that music supports child development, enriched family relationships, and social support. Parental hopes and aspirations from attendance included laying the foundations for lifelong engagement with music. Six MELP structures shaped the way parents used music in the home: voice leading, repertoire, models of interaction, models of attunement and emotional regulation, music use to structure behavior, and models of improvisation. Parental use of MELP experiences at home included singing, music to regulate, and music to scaffold learning.

Keywords

Music Early Learning Program early childhood music therapy music in the home music education

The concept of lifelong learning has become of increasing interest to governments, policy-makers, and educators worldwide arising in part from improved health measures that have seen falls in infant mortality and improved longevity across a range of populations (Aspin, 2000). Music engagement can play a powerful role across the lifespan as it emerges at the beginnings of life and continues to evolve and adapt throughout the lifespan (DeNora, 2016). For very young children, this music engagement is traditionally provided by mothers who sing (Custodero, Britto, & Brooks-Gunn, 2003) and play musical games (Custodero, Britto, & Xin, 2002; Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003; Ilari, 2005; Street, 2006) to bond, soothe, and interact with their children (Rock, Trainor, & Addison, 1999; Trevarthen & Malloch, 2000) and to accompany daily caregiving routines such as feeding, changing, bathing, and bed times in the home (Addessi, 2009; Barrett, 2009; Byrne & Hourigan, 2010). These interactions provide important opportunities for parent–child bonding (Edwards, 2011; Malloch, 1999) and shared learning in, through, and about their culture (Barrett, 2016a). Crucially such shared music-making can lead to long-term positive developmental outcomes (Williams, Barrett, Welch, Abad, & Broughton, 2015).

Young children’s experience of music is changing in ways that may impact this lifelong trajectory. Increasingly, access to music is mediated through technology, or formal music engagement outside of the home such as Music Early Learning Programs (MELPs; Abad & Barrett, 2017). A MELP is a program that has 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)

Research suggests that active parent participation remains crucial to fully realize the musical, communicative, and social benefits of early childhood music experiences (Gerry, Unrau, & Trainor, 2012) and to ensure the musical journey continues into adulthood (Pitts, 2009). MELPs may provide a way of ensuring active parent participation in music-making by assisting families to embed musical practices that support the development of lifelong music engagement into their everyday experiences. For parents who lack confidence to use music in their parenting MELP participation may equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills (Barrett, 2009). We suggest that bolstering parent capacity and confidence to use music and to actively make music in their everyday interactions with their child in the home may contribute to the foundations of lifelong music engagement. While the experiences of older participants in music have become the focus of research (Creech, 2018; Creech, Hallam, McQueen, & Varvarigou, 2013; Creech, Hallam, Varvarigou, & McQueen, 2014), there is little investigation of the ways in which early experience may shape lifelong engagement.

Understanding why parents attend MELPs, their aspirations from their child’s musical engagement now and in the future, and the ways attendance shapes how they use music in their everyday parenting practices at home is crucial in establishing a lifelong perspective on music engagement. This article reports the findings of a research investigation that addresses these issues, specifically, parents’ hopes and aspirations for their children’s lifelong engagement, and the MELP learning structures that support these.

Theoretical framework

Being musical: singing to connect

Generating and perceiving musical information is a capacity all humans possess and have used for at least 50,000 years (McPherson, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2012; Mithen, 2007). All parents have the potential and the neurobiological structure to use music to connect and communicate with their children, who are born predisposed to interact musically with them. Parents have used music to connect with, soothe, and teach their children about their cultural lifeworlds for millennia (Dissanayake, 2000; Mithen, 2007). These musical interactions are intimate and instinctive rather than taught (Custodero, 2002) and have been described as “musical parenting” (Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2008, p. 16). Within the home, singing is the most commonly reported parent-led activity (Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003, 2008; De Vries, 2009; Trehub et al., 1997).

Singing to children crosses cultures and time (Papousek, 1996) and permeates the infants’ lifeworld (Trehub et al., 1997) on a daily basis (Custodero et al., 2003). It accompanies play, sleep preparation, feeding, car travel, nappy changing, and bath time (Custodero, 2006; Trehub et al., 1997). Singing and songs help establish or maintain routines, traditions and rituals (Barrett, 2009, 2011; Custodero, 2006) in the home setting, and extensions of the home such as the car and community.

Formal music participation outside of the home

Music-making is now a common out of home activity and represents a shift in the way some parents use music (Abad & Barrett, 2017). In addition to using music spontaneously at home, more parents are accessing formal music classes outside of the home. Adachi and Trehub (2012) describe this phenomenon in relation to music as the “new frontier of music education or intervention aimed at infants, parents and even expectant parents” (p. 229). For example, Blackburn (2017) found that more than half the families in her study on using music in the home were accessing formal music programs outside of the home. The general belief that music improves child development may be one reason for this change.

Research has demonstrated that neurological development is influenced through formal music training and informal music experiences (Hallam, 2006; Trainor et al., 2003; Williams, 2018), with positive cognitive (Goeghegan & Mitchelmore, 1996; Moreno et al., 2011; Schellenberg, 2004), communicative (Gromko & Poorman, 1998), and social emotional development outcomes (Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010; Lobo & Winsler, 2006; Putkinen, Tervaniemi, & Huotilainen, 2013; Williams, 2018; Williams & Berthelsen, 2019; Winsler, Ducenne, & Koury, 2011).

Much of the research outlined above has been undertaken with children aged 4 and above in school settings. The benefits of formal music participation for children under 4 are less known. An investigation of infant prelinguistic communication skills and social behavior and culture-specific knowledge of tonality found that those enrolled in an active music group had superior skills, behavior, and knowledge compared to those assigned to a passive music group (Gerry et al., 2012). Gruhn (2002) reported toddlers in weekly music groups with their parents rated higher in the quality of their imitation of rhythmic patterns and their physical movements to music compared to children in a childcare control group (Gruhn, 2002). Tafuri (2008) reported a greater capacity to sing in tune by 2 to 3 years when children attended weekly music programs with their mothers from birth (Barrett & Tafuri, 2012). These findings suggest that early musical participation has the potential to build children’s early in-tune singing capacity and expand their musical repertoire.

Other research focuses on parent motivation and perceived benefits of attending music groups (Mehr, 2014; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016, 2017; Savage, 2015), parent hopes and dreams related to attending (Koops, 2019), and the ways programs support family well-being and function (Abad & Barrett, 2017; Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016a, 2017; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016, 2017; Vlismas & Bowes, 1999, 2013). These beliefs, values, and affordance of opportunities among parents vary (Ilari, 2013). Some researchers report that parents from middle-class backgrounds are more likely to access music programs (Lareau, 2003/2011), while others found that class had little to do with why parents enroll in music groups (Cho, 2015). Rather, personal experience with music in childhood (Savage, 2015), personal hopes for their children’s well-being and educational outputs (Koops, 2019; Youm, 2013), and aspirations to provide the best for their children (Cho, 2015) were reasons for attending music groups.

Savage (2015) found mothers enrolled their children in music when they had enjoyed music in their own childhood. Mothers hoped attendance would increase their child’s confidence and future music appreciation. Similarly, Rodriguez (2019) reported parents wanted to provide their children with musical education background and experiences similar to their own and to provide social experiences. Rodriguez (2019) noted that all the families in her study had financial means to pay for music classes, were middle-class and well-educated, surmising that the music class may have attracted a “specific subset of the general population” (Rodriguez, 2019, p. 106).

To further investigate the potential connection between extra-curricular music access and social class, Cho (2015) compared middle-class and “typical”-class Korean mothers enrolled in music arts programs. “Typical”-class families were “neither particularly poor nor affluent, but from an ‘average’ SES” (Cho, 2015, p. 165). No difference in beliefs for why parents enrolled or enrollment levels were found. Parents enrolled their children because they believed it would bring them enjoyment, cultivate musicality, and improve emotional development. While this study involved older children aged 5 to 15 years, it highlights that families who value and access paid music activities come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Pitt and Hargreaves (2016, 2017) reported a unique angle on parent attitudes and perceptions toward attending music groups by researching those provided free of charge in community centers. Parents perceived the social and emotional benefits of community music groups to be the primary benefits of attending (Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016) and that the groups helped support children’s early learning (Pitt & Hargreaves, 2017).

Music programs to support parents to lay the foundations for lifelong family music practices

Research with adults who participate in lifelong music-making has shown that their interest and love of music began in childhood with parental support and direction (Pitts, 2009). For parents whose early music experiences have not been positive, a MELP can provide support, information, and resources to encourage greater use of music in the home (Abad & Barrett, 2017; Byrne & Hourigan, 2010). Rodriguez (2019) describes such classes as unique in education settings because they place parents and children together as co-participants (Rodriguez, 2019).

Barrett (2009, 2011, 2012, 2016a, 2017) has comprehensively studied the ways young children and their families engage with and use music in their daily lives. MELPs support family unity and strengthen roles and relationships in the home (Barrett, 2009), as well as support childhood development and personal and emotional growth (Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016a). They do this by providing music-making strategies that parents can transfer to their homes to support traditional learning and developmental milestones, as well as to support and bolster family rituals, routines, and traditions. Parenting confidence also improved through MELP attendance. “Kindermusik gave me the encouragement and the confidence to really interact and play with my baby” one mother reported (Barrett, 2009, p. 123). “You absolutely lose touch of playing with kids” the father reported, “And the music is a tool to help you play with the kids and introducing one-on-one with your children . . . through Kindermusik, you’ve got something, a way forward” (Barrett, 2009, p. 123).

Other research findings have reported that music and music therapy groups support parents by providing social support for both parent and child (Koops, 2011; Mehr, 2014; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2017), enjoyment (Rodriguez, 2019; Savage, 2015), musical development and appreciation for their children (Mehr, 2014), and opportunities to experience bonding for parent–child dyads (Abad, 2011; Abad & Edwards, 2004; Abad & Williams, 2006, 2007; Nicholson, Berthelsen, Abad, Williams, & Bradley, 2008; Vlismas & Bowes, 1999; Vlismas, Malloch, & Burnham, 2013; Walworth, 2009).

This study sought to build on this body of research through a longitudinal investigation not only of parents’ motivations for and perceptions of participation in a MELP, but also their use of the MELP experience in family life. Specifically, the investigation addressed the following questions:

What reasons do parents provide for attending MELPs?

What are parents’ aspirations (for themselves and their children) from their child’s musical engagement now and in the future?

How does participation in a MELP shape the way music is used at home?

Methodology, methods, and techniques

This article reports the findings of an investigation that sought to identify and make meaning of the reasons parents invest in MELPs, their aspirations for continued engagement from participation, and the ways in which they draw on these experiences in their parenting and family practices. The research was informed by a constructivist approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2005) using a longitudinal narrative case-study methodology (Stake, 2005). The approach combined the ethnographic methods of “everyday” research (Tudge, 2008), case study, and the relational qualities of narrative inquiry (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, 2012). The investigation was situated within one of four strands of a larger ARC Discovery Grant (Barrett & Welch, 2012). The strand reported in this article focuses on Australian families’ use of music in the home when attending a MELP and entailed a collective case study of 29 families attending four MELPs. This article reports on a subset of five families investigated in-depth by the first author (Abad, 2018) in fulfillment of PhD studies. The case-study approach was collective and instrumental in purpose as it sought to understand the phenomenon of “music use in the home when attending a MELP through the lens of these families” experience (Stake, 2008). Data were generated over a period of approximately 12 to 18 months with each family to capture extended MELP participation. Data generation methods and techniques included interviews with parents (3–4), observation of parent–child participation in the MELP (2), parent-generated video diaries of their child’s engagement in music in the home across the period of the investigation (ranging from 21 to 362 video hours), parent “week-at-a-glance” diaries (ranging from 21 to 364 entries) intended to capture daily participation in music, and pre- and post-surveys that captured music beliefs and values (Barrett & Welch, 2012).

Participants

All participating families were recruited via MELP providers in three geographic locations in Australia representing a mix of urban, regional, and rural locations.¹ Thirty-six families from different MELPs agreed to participate in the MELP strand of the larger study. Twenty-nine commenced participation and 19 completed all data generation points in the study. Five families enrolled in three different MELPs were purposively sampled for the purposes of this study.

Purposive sampling is the “conscious selection of a small number of data sources that meet particular criteria” (Russell & Gregory, 2003, p. 36). This technique was used to ensure diversity in the cases used for the narrative analysis. The criteria included diversity across program theoretic framework, including music education (1) and music therapy (2) informed practice; full rich research data sets, including a range of data from videos, diaries, observations, and interviews. For example, for those families with complete data sets (n = 19), some families provided only a few video diaries or very limited diary notes. Diversity within the data was also sought to represent a range of family and child contexts and musical experiences, beliefs, and identities. This included family structure, family income and employment, number of children in the family, cultural background of the family, parental past experiences with music and relationship to music, including past music education, exposure, and current-day music practice. For the children, sibling relationships, birth order, gender, and developmental concerns were reviewed for consideration in inclusion for the study.

The five families included in this study are outlined in Table 1. All attending parents were mothers, married, highly educated, with an average age of 39.2 years. One family spoke another language at home in addition to English. None of the families identified as Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI). The children ranged in age from 11 to 44 months with an average age of 2 years and 3 months. Birth order varied from first to third, with two children being the only child in their family. Two children were diagnosed with moderate to severe developmental difficulties.

Table 1.

Demographic information of participating families.

Parent and attending child	Parent gender and age	NESB	ATSI	Parent education	Parent marital status	Child gender age in months (birth order)	Developmental concern
Renee and Nora (CS01)	F 39	No	No	Undergrad	Married	F 25 months (2nd of 2)	No
Sarah and Joseph (CS02)	F 37	No	No	Year 12	Married	M 22 months (1st of 1)	No
Karen and Natalie (CS03)	F 42	No	No	Diploma	Married	F 36 months (1st of 1)	Yes
Trisha and Angus (CS04)	F 42	No	No	Undergrad	Married	M 44 months (3rd of 3)	Yes
Claire and Harriet (CS05)	F 36	Bilingual	No	Postgrad	Married	F 11 months (2nd of 2)	No

ATSI: Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.

Note. Each family and child has been assigned a pseudonym.

Research context

The three MELPs were located in different geographic regions and comprised different theoretic frameworks incorporating music therapy principles, music education principles, and a combination of both. The MELPs were well-established and operated as a fee-for-service business model. Each MELP included opportunities to make and share musical moments through singing a greeting song, singing action songs, participating in movement activities, playing a range of percussion instruments, and listening to music during quiet time incorporating singing books, or listening while lying under a parachute or quietly on the floor with the lights dimmed, followed by a farewell song. Two MELPs provided live music through voice leading and guitar accompaniment, while the third MELP offered live and recorded music. Each MELP session ran for 40 to 45 min and had a range of 8 to 12 families attending. Each session was run by one teacher. Two of the MELPs were conducted in community venues, while one was conducted in a purpose fitted premises.

Data generation

In accordance with a constructivist epistemology and a longitudinal narrative case-study approach, the study employed a range of data methods including pre- and post-surveys, multiple interviews, parent-maintained video and written diaries, and researcher observations at MELPs (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Method and techniques, timeline, and analysis measures.

Research method	Timeline for use	Why it was used	Methodology	Analysis
Pre-study self-report survey	Phase 1 Within the first 3 months	To investigate issues of family engagement, musical self-efficacy, and health and well-being	Survey Narrative inquiry	Analysis of stated beliefs and practices concerning musical parenting (Survey) Coding for themes
Interview	Phase 1 1 to 3 months Phase 2 6 to 9 months Phase 3 12 to18 months	To ascertain beliefs and motivations for enrolling their child in a MELP and establish the extent of the family history of engagement in music activity To ascertain hopes for their children and themselves To better understand what happens at a MELP and how this shapes music use at home	Semi-structured Interview schedule Narrative inquiry	Analysis of stated beliefs and practices concerning musical parenting Analysis of music used in the home Impact of MELP on music observed in the home Coding for themes
Observation	During Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study, depending when family starts study	To ascertain what families do in MELPs, what techniques children and parents respond to, how they interact with each other, with others and the teacher To ascertain how MELP attendance shapes music in the home	Everyday research Ethnography Observation Narrative analysis	Analysis of field texts (observation notes) Coding for themes
Weekly diary entries	Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3	To ascertain how families engage with and through music in their everyday culturally situated lives and examine whether participation in a MELP affects this	Ethnography Observation Narrative analysis	Analysis of field texts (diary notes) Coding for themes
Video footage	Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3	To ascertain how families engage with and through music in their everyday culturally situated lives and examine whether participation in a MELP effects this	Ethnography Observation Narrative analysis	Analysis of field texts (diary notes that accompany video) Coding for themes
Post-study self-report survey	Phase 3	To reflect on learnings, changes, musical parenting insights reported by parents	Survey Coding for patterns Narrative analysis	Analysis of stated beliefs and practices concerning musical parenting (survey) Coding for themes
Field notes	Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3	To record incidental moments or observations during home visits and MELP visits	Analytic memos Narrative analysis	Analysis of field texts

MELP: Music Early Learning Programs.

Surveys aimed to capture parent music belief and values were conducted at the beginning and end of the data collection period (a 12- to 18-month period). A total of three interviews were conducted across the life of each family’s participation with the first interview conducted at the commencement of the study, a second mid-way, and the third at the end. A fourth optional interview was also offered to each family 6 months post data collection. Interviews were conducted both in person and by telephone as long travel times for some families in regional areas meant face-to-face interviews were not possible. In all the interviews, a space was created for families to tell their story, with the researcher directing the flow of the conversation through semi-structured questions. The aim of the interviews was to access current engagement, beliefs and values, descriptions and accounts of music use with their children in the home and community, and reflections on past musical experiences. The interviews also explored hopes and aspirations, family histories, and future plans.

Two observations were conducted at each family’s MELP. The first was conducted within the first 3 to 6 months of commencement of the study, and the second was conducted a year later. Parents also maintained video (ranging from 21 to 362 video hours), and “week-at-a-glance” diary entries both at home and in the community (ranging from 21 to 364 entries), over a period of 12 to 18 months. This allowed families to document their everyday experiences in ways that were not intrusive. Families were provided with video cameras but no recording schedule, plan, or protocol to ensure all recordings were parent driven, and a diary sheet to ensure the task was not onerous. Again parents were not told what to record but simply asked to record/make notes of musical interactions or moments they experienced during the week. The longitudinal timeline allowed for in-depth study of how families engaged musically, both in their home and at their MELPs, and the use of repertoire and strategies from the MELP in the home setting.

In total, there were 1,672 points of data generated included in this study. These are presented in detail for each family in Table 3.

Table 3.

Data generation for the five families in the narrative case studies.

Family name	Interview	MELP observation	Diary entries	Video diaries	Surveys	Field notes
CS01 Renee and Nora	4	2	364	35	2	8
CS02 Sarah and Joseph	3	2	126	41	2	5
CS03 Karen and Natalie	3	2	312	30	2	8
CS04 Trisha and Angus	4	2	101	209	2	12
CS05 Claire and Harriet	3	2	21	362	2	5
Total (1,672)	13	10	924	677	10	38

MELP: Music Early Learning Programs.

Data analysis

Narrative analysis techniques (Polkinghorne, 1995) were employed to identify similarities and differences across the five case studies. Six stages of analysis were conducted to integrate the data and construct the narrative case studies.

Stage 1 involved reviewing recorded interviews and transcripts through listening and reading them multiple times, and reviewing them against field notes kept during the interview process. During this initial stage of reading transcripts, margin notes were also made in direct response to research questions of this study. These margin notes were used to identify small stories that illustrated a theme. Relevant information from the pre-survey were inserted in the margin notes as well, such as a person’s musical heritage and their response to survey questions about their personal use of music in the home.

Stage 2 involved re-reading transcripts and coding into three broad areas that reflected the research questions: reasons why they attended, their hopes and aspirations, and what they took from the program into the home. Each of these areas was further interrogated from the perspective of the parent’s musical heritage and musical identity. During this stage of analysis, data began to arrive in the form of videos and weekly diary entries, approximately 3 to 6 months after the commencement survey and initial interview were conducted. These were watched or read, notes made on the kind of musical moment recorded and if it was connected to the MELP, and emergent themes or similarities noted. They were then all transferred to a data sheet, cataloged and numbered.

Stage 3 analyses involved searching the weekly diaries for key words that indicated music use in the home. This included live music, recorded music, dancing, playing instruments, attending MELPs, and other music outings. Video diaries were also cataloged and notes kept on each describing the kind of musical interaction observed, whether it was live or recorded music; singing, dancing, or instrument playing (or a mix of all); who was involved in the music experience recorded; where the recording was made; and any emotional states and transitions expressed in the video—happiness, sadness, settling down, upset to calm, waking up to excited. Second interviews were conducted during this stage, recorded and listened to a minimum of three times in the days immediately following the interviews. During these second interviews, families were invited to review (member-check) any of the video diaries with the researcher. Second interview transcripts were also read a further three times and margin notes used to start to tie together any themes from the first to the second interviews, and from any of the video and diary notes that were now available. During this time first round observations were conducted at each MELP. Observation notes were kept in the moment. These notes were then coded for the kinds of activities conducted and the way the child interacted with the parent, facilitator, others, and the music.

Stage 4 analyses were the point at which the MELP observations and the home video and diary notes were cross-referenced to identify MELP activities in music activity at home. This included noting any songs, games, instruments that had been played that week at the MELP, CDs or class resources, dress-ups, or anything else observed at the MELP (or described by the parent in the interview or diary notes as having occurred at the MELP) and witnessed in the home. Any videos that had been analyzed prior to this point of the study (Stage 3.6.3.2) were reviewed again and MELP music, games, or activities noted.

At this point in the study, themes around beliefs, identity, and hopes were emerging and were therefore further investigated. The survey and interviews were revisited to study family music histories and beliefs and to look for patterns that could tie into these emerging themes. The way that MELP attendance shaped parents’ music use at home was scrutinized for strategies and structures for each family.

Stage 5 analyses included the second round site visits to MELPs, where notes were taken in the moment, coded, and analyzed as per Stages 3 and 4 outlined above, after the classes. Third interviews were conducted with families, recorded and listened to as outlined in Stages 3 and 4 above. During these final interviews, families were invited to review (member-check) any new video diaries with the researcher and also reflect on their experience of being a part of the study. Interview transcripts were then read, and margin notes kept as outlined in Stages 3 and 4 above.

Each piece of data generated was an action, event or happening in the musical life of each of the families. The aim of this analysis at this stage of the study was to pull together the threads and create a storied account for each family. Thus, Stage 5 of the analysis focused on configuring and synthesizing all of the data in order to craft a narrative account for each family. Families were then invited to review (member-check) this account of the data by reviewing the narrative case studies to ensure their accuracy in the context of the lived experience of the research participant. In some cases, a fourth interview was scheduled to clarify any questions that the researcher or family had about the case studies written in narrative form.

Paradigmatic analysis techniques were used as a method in Stage 6 to uncover any commonalities and consistencies that existed across the five individual case studies. These were analyzed to identify emerging themes across the narratives that were then interpreted to specific themes and subthemes in response to Research Questions 1 and 2; and MELP content and structures that were strategically used by parents in the home in response to Research Question 3.

Findings

Key findings of the study are outlined in detail below. Reasons for attending MELPs included a high value for music, belief that music supports child development, enriched family relationships, and social support. Parental hopes and aspirations from attendance included laying the foundations for lifelong engagement with music. Six MELP structures shaped the way parents used music in the home, including voice leading, repertoire, models of interaction, models of attunement and emotional regulation, music use to structure behavior, and models of improvisation. Parents implemented these structures through the strategic use of singing, music to regulate, and music to scaffold learning.

Theme 1: A high value for music

All participants highly valued music. Three different forces shaped this value: positive music experiences and memories from their own childhood, the desire to remedy a lack of music exposure during their own childhood, and paradoxically, not wanting to replicate negative experiences with music early learning from their own childhood with their children.

Renee (CS01) and Clare’s (CS05) fond childhood memories of music shaped their value of music. Renee specifically remembers her Mum singing at bedtime. Now, she sings the same song to her children as part of their bedtime ritual. This generational ritual is the “last thing we have to do . . . and that’s what my mum used to (do); come in and tuck me in and give me a kiss and sing me the Rainbow song” (Interview 1).

Sarah (CS02), Karen (CS03), and Trisha (CS04) all reported little or no music exposure or education in their early childhood. For them MELPs offered their children a different experience to their own. Karen and Trisha lived in isolated communities throughout their childhoods and missed out on early music education altogether. Both families traveled some distance to their MELPs to ensure their children had different experiences from their own.

While Claire had fond memories of music in the home growing up, she also had sad memories of not being allowed to learn the piano. Claire’s mother had a complex relationship with music from being forced to learn the piano at boarding school:

It is really sad, she’s quite good. We had a piano when I was little and I wanted to learn it. [But] we lived on a farm, and I couldn’t have music lessons . . . so I had to work out for myself, because she was too embarrassed to play, too shy to play . . . like all this weird stuff, even though she could do it really well. (Interview 1)

For Claire attending a MELP was a way to avoid replicating her negative experience with her children.

Theme 2: Music supports child development

All participants strongly believed that music supports early childhood development. In particular, they felt music supports the development of numeracy, literacy, comprehension skills, language development and communication skills, and emotional and social skills. This was the case for all the children, no matter their age or ability. Sarah believed MELPs helped improve Joseph’s vocabulary and memory. “That’s from singing songs over time, over and over again and that helps with memory,” she said (Interview 3).

Similarly, Trisha believed music helped Angus (who has a genetic condition) learn to sit and listen. Trisha reflected how teachers were always “surprised at how well Angus will sit and listen. And I think it’s from [his MELP] . . . I think Angus’ behaviour in that time has exceeded everyone else’s expectations of him” she says (Interview 2).

MELP attendance provided children with opportunities to practice social and emotional skills. For Natalie, who has complex medical needs that require frequent attendance at clinical appointments, MELP attendance provided opportunity to participate in an excursion with her mother which was mutually enjoyable rather than stressful:

It’s something that I enjoy taking her [to] too, because she enjoys it. Sometimes you’ll go to various things and she just doesn’t want to be there, it is beyond her, too overwhelming for her. But at her MELP you can just see how much she enjoys it, and it’s something for her that she can do without being overwhelmed, Karen says. (Interview 1)

For Natalie and Angus music also supported therapy goals. “To me I can see Angus getting so much out of it,” Trisha said,

and I feel like that’s a 45 minute window in each week where I know we’re going to music and it’s almost like I can tick off music therapy for him, or one-on-one with spending that time together under the [music teacher’s] direction. That makes me feel like, yay, we’re doing good things for Angus. (Interview 1)

Theme 3: MELP attendance to foster and enrich family relationships, family time, and family rituals

All of the families reported attending MELPs to learn a repertoire of songs, games, and activities to use at home to enrich their relationships and to have fun. MELPs allowed parents to enjoy parenting and bond with their child. Trisha, a very busy and time poor mum of three boys, felt MELPs provided a special time each week just for her and her youngest child. Renee, who attended with Jessica, her second and youngest child, commented that their MELP attendance was their only time together without her older, more vocal and confident daughter.

MELPs also provided these families with new ideas for home play time. MELP content and structure was observed in use in the video diaries through singing songs, free play with musical instruments, dancing to recorded music or playing musical games with parents and their siblings, and making music with instruments. For example, Sarah reported that “every day” when Joseph’s father returns home

we do a jam session . . . So he’ll actually go and tell us when it’s ready. He’ll go and get his guitar and he’ll bring me some sort of instrument and he’ll bring my husband an instrument and we just have to play. (Video Diary 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, 35; Diary Entry 12)

Sarah feels music gives her husband and son a meaningful way to be together. “I notice my husband is becoming a lot more involved too and I think he spends a lot more time with Joe and the actual musical instruments than I do” she says (Interview 3).

Other families reported how sibling relationships were nurtured through musical play with younger children shaping their older siblings play through initiating music and games, and directing music activities based on their MELP experiences. Similarly, older siblings were observed expanding musical games, singing songs with their younger sibling, and supporting how the younger ones played within the music structure without taking over. In a complementary manner, both Angus and Harriet were observed playing with their older siblings’ music books when their older siblings were at school.

MELPs also supported the development of family rituals. Morning, afternoon, and evening rituals were filled with MELP songs and activities. For example, evening rituals included singing MELP songs at bath and meal times, and every family used music as part of the bedtime routine. Natalie’s father, a FIFO (Fly In Fly Out) worker who lived for extended periods in a remote region of Australia some 4,500 km from home, sang to her every night regardless of where he was in the country. When away, he planned his evening break time to sing with Natalie at bedtime via Skype or FaceTime, an event she waited for with anticipation. Karen, her mother, reported,

You can hear her, he’s doing like Humpty Dumpty, you know [sings melody] in the background and lifts her fingers in the air to songs like Twinkle, she knows, she gets her hands up. She’s not quite coordinated but you can see the hand up. (Interview 1)

She later adds “half of his workmates join in; quite often we get the whole choir!” “They know it’s nursery rhyme time and they all sing in the background” (Interview 2).

Theme 4: MELP attendance to provide access to social support

All parents reported enjoying how MELPs provided the opportunity to meet others, share experiences, and feel supported by like-minded people in a community setting. Claire had recently relocated to a new town when Harriet was born. “I don’t have a mothers club and don’t have lots of friends who are having babies at the moment,” she said. “So I wanted to just go and do something with her, and I thought, yeah, I’ll go and hang out and do [music] class” (Interview 1).

Parent hopes and aspirations from attending MELPs

Parents hoped that MELPs would provide their children an early childhood rich with musical experiences that would lay the foundation for learning a musical instrument, or music appreciation and engagement in adulthood for recreation and self-regulation. For Trisha, learning an instrument is not a priority; rather, she hopes her children will be able to “relax and chill out with music” (Interview 3). Claire reported that she wanted her children to grow up with an appreciation for music as an art form, something aesthetically beautiful with all its complexities:

What I mean by that is that [they are] people who, whatever else is happening in their lives, can hear the music and aren’t taken in by simple genre differences and marketing. I don’t mean to privilege one genre above another, but that [they] can listen to say complex classical music or complex jazz and appreciate the music that is happening in that . . . I want them to have that sense of amazement of how powerful music is, and to at least occasionally hear some kind of really great original seminal work like Beethoven and have that appreciation that this man was a genius. (Interview 3)

MELP participation to support lifelong family music practices in the home

MELP participation shaped the way parents used music in the home by providing ways to learn and adapt music repertoire and activities to suit personal styles of parenting and music experience. MELPs’ predictable, repetitive structure and varying content offered opportunities to rehearse songs and activities at the MELP, and then use these strategically at home. Benefits from the MELP were shaped by parents’ own childhood music experiences, their sense of being a musical person, their identity as a musical parent, the ways in which they valued music, and their belief of what being musical means.

All five participants identified as musical parents; however, only Renee and Claire believed they were musical people. For them, MELPs provided support and reassurance for their existing music use at home and provided additional songs, resources, and musical strategies. Renee reflected on how MELPs enriched home music-making with new songs. “My repertoire is huge compared to what it would have been” (Interview 2) an observation reinforced through many videos of her children singing a range of songs from their MELP.

Sarah, Karen, and Trisha did not identify as musical or have strong memories of music in their own childhoods. For them, MELPs provided practical structures that supported musical play, family engagement, and bonding in the home. Sarah found MELPs reassuring: “I would just do things on my own, naturally” she explains; “then it was really good going to [MELP] classes because I was like, ‘that’s good. I’m doing sort of what she’s doing, anyway,’ and then she sort of gave a few tips on other things” (Interview 2). For Karen, MELPs provided music distraction strategies that she could use during Natalie’s medical appointments, and every day to make her daughter’s life more fun. “It’s not one of those things that, you know, you need any special equipment or anything for. You make it up as you go along . . . It was never an intentional thing” she says, “but it seems to work” (Interview 3).

MELP structures and their strategic use to support lifelong family music practices in the home

The MELPs demonstrated predictable structures and rich content shaped by expert knowledge of music pedagogy, early childhood development, and the effects of music on parent–child relationships and early childhood development. These features created a powerful blend for shaping the ways music was used in the home. Six specific structures were identified and interpreted from the analysis of MELP observations and notes:

Voice leading;

Repertoire;

Models of interaction;

Models of attunement and emotional regulation;

Music use to structure behavior;

Models of improvisation.

Data analysis showed that the following three strategies were used to implement these structures at home:

Singing

All parents were observed to sing at home, in the car and in the community; to interact, bond, engage, play, teach, and calm their child. MELP songs were used for play, chores, transitions, rituals, routines, behavior management, and emotional regulation.

Singing was modeled at MELPs by group leaders, who were qualified music teachers and/or music therapists, and used their voices to lead and connect, not perform. This supported parents to use their voices to fulfill a certain role rather than to sound a certain way or “perform.” Furthermore, MELP leaders had the pedagogical training to use their voice to transition children from one activity to another. For example, each facilitator used a “tidy up” song, usually sung in minor third or a perfect fourth introductory interval, to grab attention and then step-by-step melodies to encourage the children to put away their instruments. The facilitators used pacing to hold, prepare, and allow children time to rehearse for change. This included suspended chords on the guitar, held vocal melodies, vocal pauses, specific rhythms that “pushed” children toward tidying up and then slowed to relax when the job was finished. Parents identified using singing in this way to help their children transition from one activity, event, or place to another. “(We) sing for everything—sing to get their attention, sing to get them to tidy up” laughed Renee (Interview 1). Trisha also reported how she used music to transition from the house to the car. Angus doesn’t like putting on the car seatbelt, so they sing “arms in, arms in, got to put our arms in” to help (Interview 3; Diary Entry 132, 133).

Music to regulate

MELP leaders used active music-making (singing and playing instruments), music listening, and musical games to teach the children to wait, control impulse and emotion, and regulate their behavior. MELP leaders provided ongoing commentary and information during groups explaining what they were doing and why, and outlining ways parents could incorporate these techniques into home play. As parents were actively involved in these musical moments, engagement with the MELP leader model was facilitated. Teachable moments were achieved through songs that identified or influenced emotions. Voice-led musical games and activities required the children to stop, listen, wait, anticipate, and control their emotional responses; regulate their feelings; and control their excitement. Parents used the same songs, games, and strategies outside of the MELPs to help their children handle emotions in a range of situations, from sharing toys and playing at other people’s houses, to having to wait a turn or be patient in a setting such as a clinical appointment.

Trisha’s MELP included an activity where the children moved in time to the music and then paused to practice regulation. For four bars, children bounced on each crotchet and then sat still squeezing their hands or a parent squeezed them to minims for another four bars. The mix of pulsing and holding was used weekly with the parents learning and then instigating the exercise with their children. Trisha found this activity very useful in helping Angus to wait or be still in settings such as his brothers’ school functions.

Music to scaffold learning

Parents used MELP songs, games, instruments, and resources to help their children learn about their environment, concepts, spatial awareness, and new vocabulary. For example, Karen used action songs and dance to teach Natalie new concepts such as up and down, and stop and start. Natalie and Angus’ parents also used music at home to scaffold their communication and physical development using actions and signs to songs as a regular part of home play time.

Discussion

Understanding why parents attend MELPs and what they hope to achieve provides insight to what parents’ value, how their beliefs inform these values, and how their past experiences have shaped these values. None of the parents in this study had participated in formal music education as a child; yet, all five identified as musical parents, attended a MELP, and used music actively at home. Identifying as a musical parent rather than a musical person may provide a way for all parents to share music in the home. Current research suggests parents’ childhood music experiences can influence how they engage musically with their offspring (Custodero et al., 2003; Rodriguez, 2019). Our research suggests parents do not have to identify as musical, or have experienced a musical childhood or education to place a high value on music, or to feel comfortable attending a music class.

This suggests that the value of music does not lie in the ability to perform it (McPherson et al., 2012); rather, it could be linked to our sense of self (MacDonald, Hargreaves, & Miell, 2017). Becoming a parent presents a time when a person’s sense of self, role and identity are changing. Hallam (2017) suggests that it is possible for music to be a central element of an individual’s learning identity even if they are not a “musician” in the traditional sense (Hallam, 2017). Natalie’s father summed this up when he reflected on his idea of what being musical means: “(When you think about it) you don’t really need to be in a band or play an instrument to be musical. You just need to enjoy listening to it I guess” (Interview 1).

Looking backwards—setting the foundations for lifelong musical practices by choosing to attend a MELP

Previous research emphasizes the role of a positive childhood experience with music for later lifelong engagement (Pitts, 2009). Participants in this study reported positive, negative, and indeed no music experience in their childhood yet all still held a high value for music and wanted their children to have musical opportunities. Through the process of reflecting on past and present experiences, with the benefit of “hindsight” (Freeman, 2010), each parent in this study made conscious decisions to change the way forward. The research included two children living with developmental difficulties. Findings across the group demonstrates the ways in which music engagement in a MELP may provide parents with resources to support and sustain their children’s learning and development in a range of situations (Blackburn, 2017; Koops, 2011; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2017; Rodriguez, 2019; Winsler et al., 2011).

Findings also provide insights into the ways MELPs support sibling interactions. Previous research has documented older sibling influence (Barrett, 2009, 2012; McPherson et al., 2012) but little is known about the influence of younger siblings on older ones. In this study, the traditional leading role of the older sibling was reversed, with younger siblings dominating musical play by bringing home their songs and games and leading the play. The older sibling’s formal music education was observed as influencing the musical play of their younger sibling.

Looking forward—attending a MELP to access support and resources to implement lifelong musical practices

Research has identified the ways parents take music and resources from their music programs into their homes (Abad & Barrett, 2017; Barrett, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Nicholson, Berthelsen, Williams, & Abad, 2010; Pitt & Hargreaves, 2016, 2017; Young, 2008). This study builds on these findings by identifying six MELP structures that parents used in the home including voice leading, repertoire, models of interaction, models of attunement and emotional regulation, music use to structure behavior, and models of improvisation. Parental use of MELP experiences in the home included singing (voice leading and repertoire), music to regulate, and music to scaffold learning.

Identification of these structures and parents’ take-up of these in the home suggests that MELPs may provide rich learning environments for parents and their children, assisting parents in embedding shared musical practices into their daily rituals and routines, and thereby laying the foundations for lifelong engagement in music. Research demonstrates that the more parents share music at home, the better the long-term outcomes for children (Williams et al., 2015). Time spent at a MELP accounts for less than an hour a week, but the strategic use of MELP structures at the home can last a lifetime we suggest.

Confidence to sing has the potential to improve parental mental health (Baker & Mackinlay, 2006; Creighton, Atherton, & Kitamura, 2013; Custodero et al., 2003), strengthen emotional attachment (Malloch & Trevarthen, 2009), and support early childhood learning (Barrett, 2009, 2011). MELPs can provide a successful, attuned interplay experience, through singing and musical engagement in a safe, fun, and transferrable context.

Research on how music supports young children to self-regulate tends to focus on teacher–child learning (Williams & Berthelsen, 2019; Winsler et al., 2011). MELPs provide opportunities for parents to learn strategies that promote self-regulation in their child. Parents are their child’s first teachers. “Teaching the teacher” allows lifelong learning to be imbedded into everyday practice because this teacher is also the child’s first music facilitator (Stamou, Abad, & Troulou, in press).

Conclusion

This study has investigated the reasons why five Australian families invested in MELPs, their hopes, and aspirations for their child’s current and ongoing engagement in music, and the ways in which MELP participation has shaped their music use at home. The findings demonstrate that positive learning experiences in a MELP setting can provide parents with the skills and knowledge to establish a home learning environment that supports music engagement in the early years and lays the foundation for lifelong music learning and engagement.

Further research is required to examine the longer term implications of MELP attendance on lifelong family music practices. We believe high-quality programs support parents to imbed musical structures from the MELPs into the home environment as a part of everyday musical parenting. For this to occur, the MELP structures need to support the innately musical elements of musical parenting. In the absence of government legislation or policy in most countries that sets minimum standards of practice or curriculum for such programs, it is difficult to determine if all families have the same access to quality music experiences.

Given the potentially significant role that MELPs can have in contributing to the establishment of lifelong music engagement practices, we suggest that this “new frontier” (Adachi & Trehub, 2012, p. 229) would benefit from the establishment of a regulatory framework that provides MELP providers with guidance on structures, strategies, and professional learning.

Footnotes

Authorship statement

I confirm that I, Vicky Abad and my co-author Margaret S Barrett have contributed to the research, analysis, and development of the article and grant permission for the final version to be published.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Australian Research Council grant DP130102488 (Margaret S Barrett and Graham F Welch, Being and becoming musical: Toward a cultural ecological model of early musical development). An Australian Postgraduate Award was also provided to the first author.

ORCID iDs

Vicky Abad

Margaret S Barrett

Notes

References

Abad

(2011). The effectiveness of a short-term group music therapy intervention for young parents and their children (Masters by Research thesis). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Abad

(2018) Music Early Learning Programs: Parental beliefs, aspirations and participation (Doctor of Philosophy thesis). The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Abad

Barrett

M. S.

(2017). Families and early childhood development: Boppin’ babies. In Jaocbsen

S. L.

Thompson

(Eds.), Models of music therapy with families (pp. 135–151). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

Abad

Edwards

(2004). Strengthening families: A role for music therapy in contributing to family centred care. Australian Journal of Music Therapy, 15, 3–17.

Abad

Williams

(2006). Early intervention music therapy for adolescent mothers and their children. British Journal of Music Therapy, 20, 31–38.

Abad

Williams

(2007). Early intervention music therapy: Reporting on a 3-year project to address needs with at-risk families. Music Therapy Perspectives, 25, 52–58.

Adachi

Trehub

(2012). Musical lives of infants. In McPherson

G. E.

Welch

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 229–247). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

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, 747–768. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/03004430902944122

Aspin

Chapman

(2007). Lifelong learning: Concepts and conceptions. In Aspin

(Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on lifelong learning (pp. 19–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-1-4020-6193-6_1

10.

Baker

Mackinlay

(2006). Sing, soothe and sleep: A lullaby education programme for first-time mothers. British Journal of Music Education, 23, 147–160.

11.

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.

12.

Barrett

M. S.

(2011). Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-making. Psychology of Music, 39, 403–424.

13.

Barrett

M. S.

(2012). Mutuality, belonging and meaning-making: Pathways to developing young boys’ competence and creativity in singing and song-making. In Harrison

Welch

G. F.

Adler

(Eds.), Perspectives on males and singing (pp. 167–187). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

14.

Barrett

M. S.

(2016a). 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, 41–54.

15.

Barrett

M. S.

(2016b). Laying the foundations for narrative identities in and through music. In McDonald

Hargreaves

Miell

(Eds.), Oxford handbook for music identity (pp. 63–78). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

16.

Barrett

M. S.

(2017). From small stories: Laying the foundations for narrative identities in and through music. In MacDonald

Hargreaves

Miell

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities (pp. 63–78). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Barrett

M. S.

Stauffer

(Eds.). (2009). Narrative inquiry in music education: Troubling certainty. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

18.

Barrett

M. S.

Stauffer

S. L.

(Eds.). (2012). Narrative soundings: An anthology of narrative inquiry in music education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

19.

Barrett

M. S.

Tafuri

(2012). Creative meaning-making in infants’ and young children’s musical cultures. In McPherson

Welch

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 296–313). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Barrett

M. S.

Welch

(2012). Being and becoming musical: Towards a cultural ecological model of early musical development (ARC Discovery Grant). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Research Council.

21.

Blackburn

(2017). Young children’s musical activities in the home. Education, 3–13, 1–15. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/03004279.2017.1342320

22.

Byrne

Hourigan

(2010). A comparative case study of music interactions between mothers and infants. Contributions to Music Education, 37, 65–79.

23.

Cho

(2015). What do mothers say? Korean mothers’ perceptions of children’s participation in extra-curricular musical activities. Music Education Research, 17, 162–178. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14613808.2014.895313

24.

Creech

(2018). Community-supported music-making as a context for positive and creative ageing. In Bartleet

B.-L.

Higgins

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of community music (pp. 89–108). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

25.

Creech

Hallam

McQueen

Varvarigou

(2013). The power of music in the lives of older adults. Research Studies in Music Education, 35, 83–98.

26.

Creech

Hallam

Varvarigou

McQueen

(2014). Active ageing with music: Supporting wellbeing in the third and fourth ages. London, England: IOE Press.

27.

Creighton

Atherton

Kitamura

(2013). Singing play songs and lullabies: Investigating the subjective contributions to maternal attachment constructs. Australian Journal of Music Therapy, 24, 17–44.

28.

Custodero

L. A.

(2002). The musical lives of young children: Inviting, seeking and initiating. Zero to Three, 23(1), 4–9.

29.

Custodero

L. A.

(2006). Singing practices in 10 families with young children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 37–56.

30.

Custodero

L. A.

Britto

P. R.

Brooks-Gunn

(2003). Musical lives: A collective portrait of American parents and their young children. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 553–572.

31.

Custodero

L. A.

Britto

P. R.

Xin

(2002). From Mozart to Motown, lullabies to love songs: Preliminary report on the parents’ use of music with infants survey (PUMIS). Zero to Three, 23(1), 41–46.

32.

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, 102–114.

33.

Custodero

L. A.

Johnson-Green

(2008). Caregiving in counterpoint: Reciprocal influences in the musical parenting of younger and older infants. Early Child Development and Care, 178(1), 15–39.

34.

DeNora

(2016). Music asylums: Well-being through music in everyday life. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

35.

De Vries

. (2009). Music at home with the under fives: What is happening? Early Child Development and Care, 179, 395–405.

36.

Dissanayake

(2000). Art and intimacy: How the arts began. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

37.

Edwards

(2011). Music therapy and parent-infant bonding. In Edwards

(Ed.), Music therapy and parent-infant bonding (pp. 5–21). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

38.

Freeman

(2010). Hindsight: The promise and peril of looking backwards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Gerry

Unrau

Trainor

(2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development. Developmental Science, 15, 398–407.

40.

Goeghegan

Mitchelmore

(1996). Possible effects of early childhood music on mathematical achievement. Australian Research in Early Childhood, 1, 57–64.

41.

Gromko

J. E.

Poorman

A. S.

(1998). The effect of music training on preschoolers’ spatial-temporal task performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 173–181. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/3345621

42.

Gruhn

(2002). Phases and stages in early music learning: A longitudinal study on the development of young children’s musical potential. Music Education Research, 4(10), 51–71.

43.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

44.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradiction and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Hallam

(2006). Musicality. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 67–80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

46.

Hallam

(2017). Musical identity, learning, and teaching. In MacDonald

R. A. R.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

D. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 475–492). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

47.

Ilari

(2005). On musical parenting of young children: Musical beliefs and behaviors of mothers and infants. Early Child Development and Care, 175, 647–660.

48.

Ilari

(2013). Concerted cultivation and music learning: Global issues and local variations. Research Studies in Music Education, 35, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X13509348

49.

Kirschner

Tomasello

(2010). Joint music making promotes prosocial behavior in 4-year-old children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 354–364. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.04.004

50.

Koops

L. H.

(2011). Perceptions of current and desired involvement in early childhood music instruction. Visions of Research in Music Education, 17(1), 1–22.

51.

Koops

L. H.

(2019). Listening to families’ musical hopes and dreams. International Journal of Community Music, 12, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijcm.12.1.145_1

52.

Lareau

(2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 2003)

53.

Lobo

Y. B.

Winsler

(2006). The effects of a creative dance and movement program on the social competence of Head Start preschoolers. Social Development, 15, 501–519. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00353.x

54.

MacDonald

A. R.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

D. E.

(2017). The changing identity of musical identities. In MacDonald

R. A. R.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

D. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of musical identities (pp. 27–45). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

55.

Malloch

(1999). Mothers and infants and communicative musicality. Special issue. Musicae Scientiae, 3, 29–57.

56.

Malloch

Trevarthen

(2009). Musicality: Communicating the vitality and interests of life. In Malloch

Trevarthen

(Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 1–11). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

57.

McPherson

G. E.

Davidson

J. W.

Faulkner

(2012). Music in our lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

58.

Mehr

S. A.

(2014). Music in the home: New evidence for an intergenerational link. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413520008

59.

Mithen

S. J.

(2007). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind, and body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674025592&content=reviews

60.

Moreno

Bialystok

Barac

Schellenberg

E. G.

Cepeda

N. J.

Chau

(2011). Short-term music training enhances verbal intelligence and executive function. Psychological Science, 22, 1425–1433. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0956797611416999

61.

Nicholson

J. M.

Berthelsen

Abad

Williams

Bradley

(2008). Impact of music therapy to promote positive parenting and child development. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 226–238.

62.

Nicholson

J. M.

Berthelsen

Williams

Abad

(2010). National study of an early parenting intervention: Implementation differences on parent and child outcomes. Prevention Science, 11, 360–370.

63.

Papousek

(1996). Intuitive parenting: A hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In Deliege

Sloboda

(Eds.), Musical beginnings (pp. 88–112). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

64.

Pitt

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2016). Attitudes towards and perceptions of the rational for parent-child group music making with young children. Music Education Research, 19, 292–308. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14613808.2016.1145644

65.

Pitt

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2017). Exploring the rational for group music activities for parents and young children: Parents’ and practitioners’ perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 39, 177–194. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1321103X17706735

66.

Pitts

(2009). Roots and routes in adult musical participation: Investigating the impact of home and school on lifelong musical interest and involvement. British Journal of Music Education, 26, 241–256. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/S0265051709990088

67.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23.

68.

Putkinen

Tervaniemi

Huotilainen

(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, 654–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12049

69.

Rock

A. M.

Trainor

L. J.

Addison

(1999). Distinctive messages in infant-directed lullabies and play songs. Developmental Psychology, 35, 527–534.

70.

Rodriguez

A. M.

(2019). Parents’ perceptions of early childhood music participation. International Journal of Community Music, 12, 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijcm.12.1.95_1

71.

Russell

C. K.

Gregory

D. M.

(2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 6, 36–40.

72.

Savage

(2015). Understanding mothers’ perspectives on early childhood music programmes. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 127–139.

73.

Schellenberg

E. G.

(2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15, 511–514.

74.

Stake

R. E.

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

75.

Stake

R. E.

(2008). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 119–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

76.

Stamou

Abad

Troulou

(in press). Parental involvement in the early childhood music program: Themes and variation. In Barrett

M. S.

Welch

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of early childhood music learning and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

77.

Street

(2006). The role of singing within mother-infant interactions. Roehampton, UK: University of Roehampton.

78.

Tafuri

(2008). Infant musicality: New research for educators and parents. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

79.

Trainor

L. J.

McFadden

Hodgson

Darragh

Barlow

. . .Sonnadara

(2003). Changes in auditory cortex and the development of mismatch negativity between 2 and 6 months of age. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 51, 5–15.

80.

Trehub

S. E.

Unyk

A. M.

Kamenetsky

S. B.

Hill

D. S.

Trainor

L. J.

Henderson

J. L.

Saraza

(1997). Mothers’ and fathers’ singing to infants. Developmental Psychology, 33, 500–507.

81.

Trevarthen

Malloch

(2000). The dance of well-being: Defining the musical therapeutic effect. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 9(2), 3–17.

82.

Tudge

(2008). The everyday lives of young children: Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

83.

Vlismas

Bowes

(1999). First-time mothers’ use of music and movement with their young infants: The impact of a teaching program. Early Child Development and Care, 159, 43–51.

84.

Vlismas

Malloch

Burnham

(2013). The effects of music and movement on mother-infant interactions. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 1669–1688.

85.

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, 32–52.

86.

Williams

K. E.

(2018). Moving to the beat: Using music, rhythm, and movement to enhance self-regulation in early childhood classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50, 85–100. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1007/s13158-018-0215-y

87.

Williams

K. E.

Barrett

Welch

Abad

Broughton

(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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.004

88.

Williams

K. E.

Berthelsen

(2019). Implementation of a rhythm and movement intervention to support self-regulation skills of preschool-aged children in disadvantaged communities. Psychology of Music, 47, 800–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619861433

89.

Winsler

Ducenne

Koury

(2011). Singing one’s way to self-regulation: The role of early music and movement curricula and private speech. Early Education and Development, 22, 274–304. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10409280903585739

90.

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, 280–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413497233

91.

Young

(2008). Lullaby light shows: Everyday musical experience among under-two-year-olds. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 33–46.