Education and Information Technologies 10:3, 239–248, 2005.c© 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

The Computer as Scaffold, Tool and Data Collector:Children Composing with Computers

NICK REYNOLDSDepartment of Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville,Victoria 3010, AustraliaE-mail: nreyn@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

This paper looks at children’s approaches to music composition using advanced music software. The data indi-cate that the software allowed children different ways of looking at their compositions: visually, musically andaurally. The paper explores the notion of the computer as a scaffold with reference to the Swanwick and Tillman(1986) stages of musical development, seeking to investigate different ways of demonstrating children’s musicaldevelopment. The paper also discusses the way the software can be used as an analysis and data collection tool.

Keywords: music, computers, children, composition, scaffolding, symbols, language, stages of musicaldevelopment

Introduction

This paper explores the idea of children’s musical compositions as a language as well asan example of artistic and creative endeavour. The paper argues that an advanced softwareenvironment can be the scaffold that supports children’s musical development beyond tra-ditionally accepted age-related stages. That it can remove the barrier of technical musicalskill and allow the child the freedom to draft, revise, experiment and play with his or hercompositions in a new way.

Advanced music software provides a rich environment for children to compose, as wellas providing a wonderful environment for the analysis of children’s work through analysisof the whole and the deconstruction of their compositional activities into their smallest com-ponents. This opportunity to deconstruct compositions file by file, alteration by alterationis only possible in an electronic environment. In addition, the software allows for detailedanalysis of structure, construction and, importantly, the compositional process.

This paper presents the background to, and some preliminary data from, a doctoralresearch project into the compositional processes of children in an advanced softwareenvironment. It discusses the immersion of children in a rich musical environment builtaround advanced music software and the investigation of what occurs in that environ-ment. The more we know about these processes of composition, the greater the possibilityof improving the teaching of music (Rainbow and Frehlich, 1987). If “music is a wayof thinking” (Swanwick, 1999: 23) then thinking about that thinking (Papert, 1993) and

240 REYNOLDS

understanding that way of thinking must be of benefit to music education and to educationin general.

Background

The idea of composition as language, symbol or expression is not new but it is important todifferentiate between the composition of music as an example of art and the composition ofmusic as an expression of human activity, of learning and of creativity. Composition needs tobe seen as something that children do in the course of their development, in their relationshipwith the world around them, and as a form or means of developing creative expression.Perhaps equally important is the idea of composition for sheer personal pleasure, the same asthe pleasure a child can achieve through the simple act of drawing (or composing) a picture,a poem or a story, or building a space ship from Lego. The development of understandingsabout children’s musical compositions can inform and guide music education and musiceducators, and to give access to one of the “many languages of the human mind” (Bissexin Upitis, 1992).

Langer refers to “symbolic transformation” as a “natural activity, a high form of nervousresponse, characteristic of man among animals” (1969: xiv). Swanwick (1999) looks atmusic as metaphor; he identifies four layers of metaphorical process: “materials, expres-sion, form and value” (p. 19). These layers are the visible components of metaphoricaltransformation. Whatever the interpretation or the context, this level of “symbolic trans-formation” has not been possible for most, if not all, children when working with theirown music. Within the computer environment this transformation, or at least an unen-cumbered attempt at it, is made possible. In the same way that while children’s writingand drawing might be undeveloped and naıve, they are still representative of symbolictransformation.

Many researchers (Bamberger, 1991; Kennedy, 2002; Kratus, 2001; Swanwick, 1988,1989; Swanwick and Tillman, 1986) have studied children’s compositions. Their studieshave focused, reasonably enough, on composition as a musical activity and on the implica-tions for music education. There is also an underlying approach to the study of compositionstemming from Wallis (Kennedy, 2002) that looks at the process of composition as a seriesof steps that all composers take leading up to the final product. The whole thrust of previouscompositional research has been about music. While this research is about the study ofcomposition and music it also seeks to look at composition in a different way, to look at itas a non discipline-specific human activity. At no point does this project seek to diminishthe musical relevance or importance, rather to look at a musical experience in broader termsas a human experience. This idea is supported by Swanwick (1988) who believes that “themost direct and uncomplicated way of extending developmental studies into school age is toobserve the musical compositions of children, just as studies of language development con-centrate on what children actually say or write” (p. 60). This research seeks to concentrateon the music the children write and on how they write it.

Kratus says: “By examining the ways children compose, we can begin to understand howchildren learn to act and think in music” (Kratus, 1994: 128) While this project seeks to

THE COMPUTER AS SCAFFOLD, TOOL AND DATA COLLECTOR 241

do just that, it also seeks to provide better understandings of how children learn to act andthink through music.

The Project

A twenty-week study of seven children (four boys and three girls) from Grades five and six;aged between 10 and 12 years old. Data in the form of the children’s works, complete orin progress, are analysed in an attempt to discover how the compositions were created andwhat musical choices were made. Interviews and video and audio recordings of sessionssupport the analysis and help provide a context for the children’s decisions and actions.

Composition: Stages of Composition

A basis for the study of children’s composition was essential for this project. Perhapsthe most significant work into children’s composition is that by Swanwick and Tillman.Over a three-year period Swanwick and Tillman (1986) examined the 745 compositions ofchildren aged between three and fifteen years old. Drawing from the work of Piaget (1951)and Bruner (1966) and from the musical research of Moog (1976), Loane (1984) and others,Swanwick and Tillman proposed a sequence of musical development. A rationale for thedevelopment of a conceptual framework is that “without such a framework, any accountof musical development in children would simply be descriptive, lacking in interpretivepower and the ability to relate the music of children to the music of others” (Swanwick andTillman, 1986: 306).

The Swanwick and Tillman sequence of development bases itself firstly on the Piagetianconcepts of mastery, imitation and imaginative play; a fourth concept, meta-cognition, isadded. Placing these concepts in a framework of play, Swanwick and Tillman identifya relationship between “the concepts of mastery, imitation and imaginative play, and theanalogous musical play elements; control of sound, expressive character and structure”(1986: 309). The Swanwick and Tillman sequence is represented as a spiral: the eightdevelopmental modes or transformations occurring around a musical basis of materials,expression, form, and value. On the left of the spiral are the stages of mastery, imitation,imaginative play, and meta-cognition, on the right are the age ranges for each developmentalstage.

According to Swanwick and Tillman and based purely on the age of the subjects thestages of musical development represented in the proposed study, should be in the area ofimaginative play (10–12 years). Within that mode it is expected that the children will beworking with form, while still referring to the earlier stages of materials and expression.According to Swanwick and Tillman children of that age range should also demonstratethe developmental mode of speculative. The speculative phase is an extension of the ver-nacular mode; children have become familiar with conventional music making and seekto add surprises or “imaginative deviation” (Swanwick, 1988: 78–80). The next phase, theidiomatic, sees the integration of structure into a recognisable style. There is a basis in“clear idiomatic practices” and a move towards ‘grown-up’ music. The pieces are longer

242 REYNOLDS

and show “technical, expressive and structural control”. The Swanwick and Tillman studyshowed that none of the 745 compositions across the age-range of 3–11 years reached thelevel of “convincingly idiomatic”.

Despite supporting the work of Swanwick and Tillman, Davidson and Scripp note a“lack of consensus . . . about what musical development might be” (1989: 59). This is nota dismissal of music development theories; it is an attempt to look at musical developmentthrough a number of different criteria, as a whole. Davidson and Scripp’s work centres onnotation and their attempt at broader identification of stages musical of development reflecttheir desire to look at a whole range of musical areas.

The use of Swanwick and Tillman provides a framework for study but also raises thepossibility of a new approach to children’s composition. Using Piaget as a basis for theirdevelopmental work, focused their research on the actual development of children. I donot dispute the validity of that approach. Rather I ask what would the results reflect if aVygotskian approach were followed; what could be achieved if a scaffold was in place?What could the children do when supported in their compositions, not by a teacher or evenby music lessons, but by powerful computer software?

Thus, this notion of the computer as a scaffold is explored with reference to the Swanwickand Tillman (1986) stages of musical development, as representations of actual develop-ment, and with the idea of rethinking musical development to incorporate potential devel-opment.

Computer as Scaffold

In studying children composing in an electronic environment, the environment itself be-comes integral to the study. What does it do? What does it enable? Does it provide opportuni-ties beyond a normal music classroom? Are those opportunities significant? Reynolds (2001)showed how advanced music software could provide a powerful environment for children’screativity and composition. He showed how children with little or no music training couldcompose without restriction, without reliance on technical instrumental skills, knowledgeof notation, understanding of structure, or dependence on other musicians.

The musical examples used by Swanwick and Tillman to demonstrate children’s musicalutterances differ significantly from the representations from my current study and prior work.The Swanwick Tillman examples are single stave notations reproduced (or approximated)by the investigators (Figure 1).

In my study, notation is complex, multi stave and an exact computer generated represen-tation of the piece (Figure 2).

A comparison between these two examples shows significant differences in complexity,and structure. At first glance it would be easy to surmise that the Tinker piece was by amusically trained composer. It represents a different level of musical achievement than thatby the Swanwick and Tillman example. This may or may not be the case, but what thecomputer has enabled in the second example is a different compositional style. It can beargued that the computer, as a scaffold, has allowed the child to display a stage of potentialdevelopment.

THE COMPUTER AS SCAFFOLD, TOOL AND DATA COLLECTOR 243

Figure 1. 11 year old from Swanwick and Tillman (1986).

Figure 2. 11 year old from Reynolds (2002: 24).

Computer as Data Collector

Since this study is built around software, some description is necessary. I use the term“advanced software” to mean software that provides a full set of features that allow completecreative and compositional freedom. Cakewalk Home Studio 2004 (Home Studio) is a digitalaudio application that provides a powerful multitrack midi sequencer and multitrack audio

244 REYNOLDS

recording and editing functions. Midi is a protocol that allows a computer and a synthesizer to“talk” to each other; instructions are stored in the sequencer which instructs the synthesizerto play. Digital audio recording involves the recording of real sounds onto a computer’sstorage area. Thus the participants are able to use real sounds as well as those produced onthe synthesizer. Where the need arises, in particular for further editing of wave files to mixdown stage, Adobe Audition is available for use. Audition is a multitrack audio recorderwithout midi recording capabilities but with specialised audio features, greater than thoseoffered by Home Studio.

The study of composition usually requires a finished piece of music; the study of theprocess of composition usually requires composers to talk about their work, how they feltabout it, how they wrote it, why they wrote it the way they did, and so on. While the finishedpiece and the composer’s feelings are important to me, the actual process—the doing—isof most interest. Here the computer becomes the research tool as well as a key componentof the research.

The opportunity to deconstruct compositions file by file, alteration by alteration is onlypossible in an electronic environment. Student data files are collected at the end of eachsession through access to student files through the school’s local area network. The childrenare encouraged to throw nothing away, even the files they no longer wish to use. I do notbelieve it necessary or practical to collect every saved version of every alteration to a file(Folkestad et al., 1998), the analysis of what the children produce each session should beadequate. In this way computers can aid the process of examination of the “history of aparticular composition as displayed in the composer’s written manuscripts” (Sloboda, 1985:102). Although in this case the “manuscripts” are electronic, not written. This is particularlythe case when students are involved in ongoing projects: when the composition carries overfrom week to week, changing and developing.

Computer as Analysis Tool

The computer’s role in the study as an aid to analysis is significant in two ways. First, allstudent work is reconstructed on my own computer and can be pulled apart and analysed insections or as a whole as described above. Second, it acts as transcription tool for both videoand audio data. Both software programs allow for the importing of audio and video data.This is best achieved in Audition where the imported video is represented as video data onone track and audio data (the audio data from the video) on a second track. In addition to avideo recording of every session I make a mini disc audio recording, this data can also beimported into Audition, where it is represented on a third track (Figure 3).

It is then possible to synchronise both audio tracks with the video and then to tran-scribe from two audio sources (placed in different parts of the room) and relate it directlyto the video. In addition, Audition allows for the “marking” of the data on a timeline.Data points can be entered in multiple formats including decimal—hours, minutes, sec-onds (100ths), bars and beats, and different SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Tele-vision Engineers) time codes. SMPTE time code breaks time into set frame rates; howmany individual picture frames fit into a second. Thus, all transcriptions are digitally

THE COMPUTER AS SCAFFOLD, TOOL AND DATA COLLECTOR 245

Figure 3. Adobe Audition.

marked and significant comments, particular interviews, or events are noted within theprogram.

Some Analysis

One of the first activities asked of the children was to write a story with background musicand sound effects, the immediate response was to create a one track, complete story. Thiswas despite the fact that the children were working in a multitrack environment. Was thisa representation of their understandings of what a story is meant to look like? I had notgiven any other instructions in order to see what they did and how they interacted with thesoftware.

Students L and A decided that the main criterion for their story piece was that it neededto look good. They set out each track in a cascading manner like steps going down the page(Figure 4).

It would not be possible to know about this design component by listening to the piece,it is only apparent when one looks at the piece as composed by the two boys.

While the other children set about recording their voices to tell a story in a linear approach,Student K opted out of the story approach and worked entirely with a series of pre-recordedclips. Working with a collection of sound clips that could be edited, arranged, modified

246 REYNOLDS

Figure 4. “Steps” in Home Studio.

and integrated into a single piece, Student K seemed enthralled by the prospect of layeringvertically as many tracks as possible. She had no goal apart from fitting them together sothat they made sense. She was working with pieces in different time signatures (3/4 and4/4) and tempos but that didn’t seem to be a problem. After locating a drum track, she builther piece around that. Even though the drum track wasn’t the first piece she used, it becamethe anchor. When asked how she managed to make the pieces work together she respondedthat she did it by making them end at the same point in time. She was making sure that eachclip was the same length—it followed, to her, that if they were the same length then theyhad to fit (Figure 5). The resulting piece, although somewhat unusual, does have a cohesionand completeness that is quite obvious.

In a subsequent session when questioned about her piece, she said that she didn’t haveany plan for it, she just wanted to have as many sounds as possible all together. When askedhow long she wanted it, she responded by pointing to the screen and saying “this long”.What she was referring to was its horizontal “length” rather than its length in time. It appearsthat to her music can be represented in terms of its content “length” and its actual “length”;that by seeing her composition represented both vertically and horizontally, Student K wasthinking differently about it.

Vygotsky (1978: 94) notes that children “sometimes play at reality”, that in their playthey assume roles and act them out (even roles they already hold). The computer allowsthem to be composers in ways that they could not possibly be without it. In that role they setrules of play based on their understandings of what a composer is and play to those rules.This, of course goes further; they also play to rules of what they believe or understand acomposition to be. In the process of playing at composer they can discover that compositioncan be more than (or different to) their prior understandings. The composition, the processof composition, the symbolic transformation, and the process of creativity can then develop.The two examples above show how the environment has altered the way these children look

THE COMPUTER AS SCAFFOLD, TOOL AND DATA COLLECTOR 247

Figure 5. Student K’s piece.

at composition, once we see something in new ways, we can start thinking about it andworking with it in news ways.

Conclusion

So much of children’s music education is impeded by a need to develop the necessary skillsrequired to play and to compose. If the musical learning environment is such that relianceon musical technical skills is not the focus, it is possible to surmise that what occurs in amusic class will change. This paper argues that if we remove children from an environmentin which their creative, expressive and musical choices are constrained by the instruments,the environment itself, (Amabile and Gitomer, 1984; Kratus, 2001) and their skills, thenwhat occurs when we place them in a new environment will be richer. The restriction now isplaced on “the potential of the computer” (Folkestad et al., 1998) rather than on the musicalability of the child.

With the computer working as the scaffold to these children’s musical learning they arelearning more than music, they are discovering new and exciting ways of communicatingand thinking about music.

References

Amabile, T. M. and Gitomer, J. (1984) Children’s artistic creativity: Effects of choice in task materials. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 209–215.

248 REYNOLDS

Bamberger, J. (1991) The Mind Behind the Musical Ear: How Children Develop Musical Intelligence. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Bruner, J. (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard Universit Press, Cambridge, MA.Davidson, L. and Scripp, L. (1989) Education and Development in Music from a Cognitive Perspective. In Children

and the Arts. D. J. Hargreaves (Ed.), Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Philadelphia.Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., and Lindstrom, B. (1998) Compositional strategies in computer-based music-

making. British Journal of Music Education, 15(1), 83–97.Kennedy, M. (2002) Listening to music: Compositional processes of high school composers. Journal of Research

in Music Education, Reston (Summer), 94–110.Kratus, J. (1994) The ways children compose. In Musical Connections: Tradition and Change Proceedings of the

21st World Conference of the International Society for Music Education. H. Lees (ed.), Tampa, Florida, July18–23, ISME, Auckland.

Kratus, J. (2001) Effect of available tonality and pitch options on children’s compositional processes and products.Journal of Research in Music Education, Reston, (Winter), 294–306.

Langer, S. (1969) Philosophy in a New Key, 3rd edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A.Loane, B. (1984) Thinking about children’s compositions. British Journal of Music Education, 1(3), 205–231.Moog, H. (1976) The Musical Experience of the Pre-School Child (C. Clarke, Trans.) Schott, London.Papert, S. (1993) Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, 2nd edition. Basic Books, New York.Piaget, J. (1951) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Rainbow, E. and Frehlich, H. (1987) Research in Music Education: An Introduction to Systematic Inquiry. Schirmer,

New York.Reynolds, N. J. (2001) Primary School Creativity and Composition in a Professional Level Music Software Envi-

ronment. Unpublished Master of Information Technology in Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Sloboda, J. (1985) The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Swanwick, K. (1988) Music, Mind, and Education. Routledge, London, New York.Swanwick, K. (1989) A Basis for Music Education. NFER-Nelson, Windsor.Swanwick, K. (1999) Teaching Music Musically. Routledge-Falmer, London and New York.Swanwick, K. and Tillman, J. (1986) The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s composition.

British Journal of Music Education, 3(3), 305–339.Upitis, R. (1992). Can I Play You My Song? The Compositions and Invented Notations of Children. Heinemann

Educational Books, Porstmouth, NH.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard, Cambridge.