Very young children as artistic co-constructors

ABSTRACT This paper reports on a study that explores how artists might best support very young children's engagement in integrated arts performances. It aims to contribute to a better understanding of the ways in which artists work with very young children in performing arts spaces. The study was designed to intimately examine a work with and for a very young audience. Through a combination of reflective narrative and analytic discussion, this paper will demonstrate how a collective of teaching artists supported very young children's engagement by positioning them as co-constructors of artistic experience.

While artists and producers are showing increasing interest in developing artistic works for very young children, there appears to be a great deal of uncertainty about how to write and perform for this audience.Policy and research in this field remains overwhelmingly focused on school-aged children and youth, and examples of practice are not widely accessible.In this paper, I report on a study that explored how artists might best support very young children's engagement in these works.Through a combination of reflective narrative and analytic discussion of an exemplary performance, I will demonstrate how a teaching artists' image of the child can influence the experience of an audience aged from birth to 18 months.

Integrated arts experiences for the very young
The parameters surrounding arts performances for very young children are 'rich and layered' (Giles 2018, 4), making the task of defining what these performances involve somewhat challenging.Although a range of different artistic modes are likely to be observed in performances for very young children, the level of priority placed on creating works for this audience varies across artforms (Arts Council England 2016).In 2016, Fletcher-Watson surmised that over 200 works had been performed for very young audiences in the UK since 1978, ranging across 'opera, ballet, contemporary dance, mime, visual art installations and classical concerts ' (27).At the same time, the vast majority of the discussion around these works has focused on just two: theatre and dance (Arts Council England 2016;Creative Scotland & Children in Scotland 2019;Fowler 2012;Simic 2012).Most artistic works for very young children span and integrate multiple artforms.That is to say, it is unusual for a performance to focus only on music, or only on theatre, or only on dance, without elements of another artform being incorporated in some way.Artists who self-identify as being part of the Theatre for Early Years (TEY) movement, clearly lead the field in terms of exploring what it means to produce and present work for very young children.But for those in this space, the terms 'theatre' and 'babydrama' are used broadly to include other artforms, and in particular, integrated approaches to performance (Fletcher-Watson 2016).Taube (2012) explains that 'pictures, tones, sounds, movements, materiality and the body are emancipated means of expression in the theatre for the youngest.But often other means are dominant, like physical movement, dancing or musical forms' (21).Desfosses (2012) similarly notes that the act of combining different modes of expression, including 'design, acting, text, movement, sounds and music' (99), is characteristic of TEY.She concludes that each artform offers something that is both unique and of equal value to the overall work.I will use the term 'integrated arts performances' in this paper to refer to these works, to both emphasise their multimodal nature and their connection with ideas from the field of early childhood education.In doing so, I acknowledge that there is some overlap and connection with what has been described by those working in the TEY space.

Teaching artists
With much of the literature focusing on theatre and dance, one may be drawn to assume that most artists who engage in integrated arts performances emerge from a performing arts background.However, one important study of artists who work with and for children (Andersen 2017) found that those who create and present integrated arts performances for very young audiences come from diverse backgrounds and identify in different ways.Some consider themselves to be artists (only), distinct from teachers or educators in their beliefs, approaches and intentions.Artists may include actors, musicians, composers, dancers, choreographers, visual artists, installation artists, and more.Others note the educational value of their work as an important motivator for their practice and consider part of their role as having pedagogical qualities.This idea was explored further in Andersen's later work (2020), where she concluded that this included not only qualities of education but also of care.A small number of those who work in this field also engage as arts teachers, whether that be in an arts studio capacity or in educational contexts, and regard integrated arts performances as a form of arts education.Of these individuals, some have formal teaching qualifications and others do not.With this spectrum in mind, and in keeping with the terminology used in more formal early childhood education settings, I will use the term 'teaching artists' in this paper to refer to those working in the field.

Image of the child as a co-constructor
All work with, for and about children is informed by sociological beliefs about children and childhood (Sorin 2005).Work related to young children should, therefore, aim to be explicit about how children are viewed by the adults involvedwhether that work be in an educational, research or artistic sense (Malaguzzi 2016).In reality, this is, of course, rarely the case.Beliefs about children and childhood tend to lay embedded in the decisions made, the practices practised, and the discussions had, rather than being publicly acknowledged and expressed (van Langenhove and Harré 1999).Nevertheless, it is possible for an informed observer to use dominant sociological constructions of children and childhood (Mayall 2002) as a lens through which to interpret actions, symbol or discourse.According to Rinaldi (2021), what an adult believes about childreni.e.their 'image of the child' (Malaguzzi 1993;Moss 2019)will impact upon the opportunities that they are afforded.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the ways in which a child is positioned within an experience can directly affect their level of engagement.Practices that provide opportunities to make choices and contribute ideas that are pivotal to the development of the experience, are said to be supportive of the voice of the child (Brown, Jeanneret, and Andersen 2019;Chappell and Young 2007;Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004;Jablon and Wilkinson 2006).The relationship between increased child voice and positive engagement is long established.When children are given a meaningful say in matters that affect them (Alderson and Morrow 2011;United Nations 1990), the adults involved are said to be positioning these children as active constructors of their own experience (Moss 2019;Rinaldi 2021).The degree to which adults support the voice of the child can vary widely, and with it, the level of engagement.Too little voice, and engagement can be negatively impacted (Montessori 1966).Too much voice without support or scaffoldingparticularly with very young childrenand, again, engagement can be negatively impacted (Rogoff 1990;Vygotsky 1978).The elusive sweet spot is thought to move about, somewhere in between, and is dependent upon the individual child, the relationship dynamic, and the context.While this certainly makes it challenging for those who design programs for very young children, it becomes workable when they strive to position young participants as co-creators, with a strong sense of interdependence between adults and children (Rogoff 1990).Engaging practices that support this outcome include providing opportunities for children and adults to co-play (Andersen, Brown, and Weatherald 2010;Brown, Jeanneret, and Andersen 2019;Jeanneret and Brown 2013), allowing children to self-direct their own explorations (Brown 2015;Custodero 2005;Eisner 2004), and actively recognising a child's previous and current experience (Tayler et al. 2006).When children are positioned in this way in integrated arts performances, they become viewed as co-constructors of knowledge and experience (Moss 2019;Rinaldi 2021).
The image of the child as a co-constructor is rooted in postmodern ideals.Those who hold this position aim to partially reject the notion of a universal childhood, in which it is believed that all children share a similar natural state (James and Prout 1990;Mayall 1994).Rather, childhood is seen as being almost entirely contextual.In this image, there is not 'a child' but many children.Likewise, there is not a single construction of childhood but many childhoods.This construction acknowledges that children are part of a large and many small social groups, both within the family and separate to the family (Bronfenbrenner 2009).Although children, by the virtue of sharing similar age, may belong to a universal 'childhood' social group, this group is no more or less important than other social groups within which a child may belong.Providing opportunities for very young children to interact and collaborate with other members of their social group is said to support engagement.This can include collaborations with parents (Andersen, Brown, and Weatherald 2010;Bronfenbrenner 2009;Brown 2015;Brown, Jeanneret, and Andersen 2019;Jeanneret and Brown 2013), other adults (Chappell and Young 2007;Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998;Eisner 2002;Eisner 2004;Jablon and Wilkinson 2006;Lussier, Crimmins, and Alberti 1994;Malaguzzi 2016;Rinaldi 2021;Turino 2008;van Manen 2016;Vecchi 2010;Vygotsky 1978;Warburton, Reedy, and Ng 2014), and other children (Custodero 2005;Rogoff 1990).
Children who are positioned as co-constructors are strong, active, self-directed learners.They do not wait for adults to impart information upon them (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 2007) and nor do they engage in learning to become a skilled adult (Lee 2001;Sorin 2005).Rather, through acts of communication and collaboration with other adults and children, and through exploration of their environment, they are able to curate and scaffold their own learning in the here and now (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 2007;Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998;Rogoff 1990;Vygotsky 1978).That is to say, although rich learning rarely occurs in isolation from others, children have the capacity and drive to take ownership of their own learning trajectory and will largely do so regardless of adult intentions or interventions (Malaguzzi 2016;Montessori 1966).Teaching artists who work with very young children can support both learning and engagement through creating and providing an environment that encourages participants to act with agency (Rinaldi 2021).

Methodology
Interpretivist research requires a research design that supports and reflects the human experience being examined.An eclectic, or bricolage, approach is a valid way to get to know complex phenomena (Kincheloe 2001;Kincheloe and Berry 2004;Lincoln 2001).
Although it has faced some criticism outside of qualitative research circles (Morse 2015), the argument for creating a custom conceptual framework for a studythrough the careful selection and piecing together of research methodologies and methodsis sound.Rather than losing validity, as is often the concern expressed by detractors (Kincheloe and Berry 2004;Morse 2015), a bricolage approach is well placed to respond to issues of both objectivity and subjectivity.Thus, it is an important component of building what some refer to as internal validity (Morse 2015), and others, trustworthiness in qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln 1994).According to van Manen (1990), objectivity and subjectivity are not in opposition.They are equally important to the interpretivist researcher, and both should be given due consideration.When looking at human experience, objectivity does not imply that a researcher should be completely removed from the experience being examined, nor that they should create a forced distance between themselves and what they are researching.On the contrary, 'Objectivity means that the research remains true to the object' (van Manen 1990, 20).The 'object', in the case of this research, is the artful world created by artists, very young children, and parents.It is what happens in the space at the time of participation.Remaining true to this particular object required me to become fully immersed in the experience; as is the case in in a lot of interpretivist research, and as is the case in most research in lived experience.Therefore, research methodologies that support this immersion were chosen, including case study, narrative inquiry, autoethnography, and parent-research.

The case study
Yin (2014) recommends case study methodology when a research question aims to explain how something is.The research question for this study, How might artists best support very young children's engagement in integrated arts performances?, aims to do just this.In this study, the 'case' is defined as a one-off integrated arts performance titled Rain, for Babies and the Carers (Rain).
Rain was designed by a small, independent theatre company, a musician, and a group of installation artists.Developed for an audience of 12 'pre-walkers' aged birth to 15 months, and up to 15 accompanying adults, it was performed at ArtPlay in Melbourne, Australia, and co-funded by the City of Melbourne, ticket sales, and private crowdfunding sources.The artforms included were theatre, music and visual arts (installation).Rather than engaging in a critical analysis of the case, I focus on describing, interpreting and explaining each performanceapproaches that are said to define good case study implementation (Merriam 1998;Simons 2009).

Narrative inquiry
The use of narrative inquiry for this study is notable in the re-telling of the case study performance through thick descriptive narrative.This narrative is not simply a running record of moments from the participatory period, told in some ordered manner, and pulled from my memory after the event.If this were the goal, other observations methods, such as those from the overt non-participatory school of thought, would likely be more accurate and effective.Instead, this narrative offers both a form of interpretivist analysis, and a way of representing these ideas (Goodall 2000;Simons 2009).Creating a thick descriptive narrative required that I make choices about what the important messages were in the experience.It also required that I bring these messages together in a way that might capture the imagination; taking the reader on a journey into the world that closely resembled my experience (Clandinin and Connelly 2000).It challenged me to engage in a state of meta-cognition, as I strove to unpack the hows and whys behind my selection, interpretation, and description of the narrative content.This 'narrative as a way of telling' is a practice that strongly correlates with autoethnographic research methods.

Autoethnography
Autoethnography can be viewed on a spectrum.On one end is the researcher who significantly preferences their own experience; what Barbara Tedlock (2005) refers to as the 'gaze inwards' (467).This researcher may be the 'object' of inquiry, and the interpreter of the experiences, and the disseminator of the findings.On the other end of the spectrum is the researcher who significantly preferences the experiences of others; what Tedlock (2005) refers to as the 'gaze outwards'.This may be the qualitative researcher who collects views from others, conducts a form of thematic analysis, and (importantly) who makes some reference to their position within the research.In this study, I have taken opportunities to gaze inwards, and to make these positions explicit through narrative.I have also taken opportunities to gaze outwards; primarily through engaging in theory but also through the collection of supplementary data which attempts to better understand the perspectives of the teaching artists.

Parent-research
Subjectivity is far less problematic to the interpretivist researcher than objectivity can be.Permission to get close to our object of study, and to provide thoughtful disclosure of the influences underpinning our interpretations of what we notice and include, is one of the major components linking different qualitative approaches.According to van Manen (1990), 'Subjectivity means that we are strong in orientation to the object of study in a unique and personal way' (20).
When I reflect back over this study, I feel an overwhelming sense of privilege at having had the opportunity to engage in the data collection process with own childallowing for a unique insight into how my personal experience as a parent influenced my interpretation of events.Initially, I had some concerns about whether this approach would allow me to adequately distance myself from the data, both in the collection and analysis phases.However, I came to realise that closeness can be as, if not more, valid, particularly when the aim of the research is to interpret the layers of meaning embedded in an experience.This view is supported by Adler and Adler (1997) and Hackett (2017), who agree that parent-research offers an advantage over other ethnographic studies of young children because the interactions are naturally occurring, the parent has almost full access to the child's range of experiences, and the parent and child already share close social membership.

Data collection
The case study narrative was composed after the collection of five data sets: field notes, interviews, photographs, videos, and texts.The primary data was generated through participant observations and recorded in the form of descriptive field notes.This data was supported by two unstructured interviews with the teaching artists, each one approximately 30 min in duration.The interview questions posed to the artists emerged from gaps in my understanding around their intentions when designing the artwork, which were left unanswered by the observations.The teaching artists provided access to their collection of photographs taken within the spaces, including photographs of very young children and their carers participating in the Rain performance.They also provided access to video excerpts of the same.Finally, online text data was collected from the presenter's website, the teaching artists' websites, event brochures, and social media posts.

Data analysis
Each data set was analysed through a deductive qualitative process.Themes emerging from the reviews of literature were used to further categorise and code the data.The data was also treated inductively, with emergent themes noted and recorded.After this analytic process was complete, the case study narrative was composed, with the aim of 'bringing to life' the research findings (Clandinin and Connelly 2000).

Ethics
This study received human ethics approval from the Office of Research Ethics at The University of Melbourne (approval HREC 1136369) and complies with the practices and principles required of researchers at the Melbourne Graduate School of Education.I obtained written informed consent from the teaching artists prior to the data collection period.To ensure that their consent was ongoing, I sought additional verbal consents before each data collection phase, including the performance observation, each interview, and the collection of artefacts.
Informed consent was an ethical issue that challenged me.Although I was only engaging in observation during this performance, and it was not a recommendation of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC, and Universities Australia 2018) that I seek formal consent from all those attending this public event, using data relating to non-consenting audience participants did not align with my personal ethics.In particular, I was mindful that the very young participants of this performance could not provide informed consent, due to their age and level of understanding (Graham et al. 2013;Lundy and McEvoy 2012;Truscott, Graham, and Powell 2019).For this reason, I chose to focus the data collection and representation on observations of teaching artists, myself, and my own child.
As outlined earlier in this paper, parent-research has support within qualitative research spaces, particularly among those who encourage subjective reflection in data interpretation and representation.Nevertheless, undertaking research with my young son raised ongoing questions for me regarding informed consent.The following researcher reflection describes how I grappled with some of these complexities.
Involving my own child in this research was something I considered very carefully, and I looked to a small body of literature about parent-research (Adler and Adler 1997; Bennett and De Vries 2017; de Vries 2004;2011a;2011b;Hackett 2017) and a much larger body of literature about children's participation in research (Bitou and Waller 2017;Dockett, Perry, and Kearney 2012;Pellegrini, Symons, and Hosh 2013;Salamon 2015;Spyrou 2016;Truscott, Graham, and Powell 2019) before making the decision to continue with the study.While I acknowledge that a power imbalance occurred when I gave permission for my preverbal son to participate in the research (Truscott, Graham, and Powell 2019), I believe this was countered by the positive social and emotional benefits that the experiences afforded him.
My son, Hugo, is now of an age where he is able to clearly indicate his preferences.His choices have been honoured throughout this project.Hugo was recently involved in selecting images that depicted his participation in the research.He had clear ideas about those he wanted to be shared ('this is my best one') and those he did not ('awkward').He also requested that his real first name, Hugo, be used throughout all publications rather than a pseudonym.Although he cannot remember his participation in this event, he has engaged in the data through watching video, listening to audio recordings, and looking at photographs.He has expressed on a number of occasions that he enjoys listening to me read the narrative.As Hugo's mother, it has been important to me that he be depicted in a way that would 'do no harm' (Alderson and Morrow 2011) to his sense of self over time.I write carefully with a view that he will likely one day read my words, and that when that time comes, he will feel a sense of connection with the narrative and a sense of pride in his contribution to the creation of this work.
Case study narrative: Rain, for babies and their carers Welcome Upon entering a waiting area, we are greeted by two performers from the show; Sarah and Carolyn.They are wearing matching light blue sleeveless dresses and white leggings.Sarah is pregnant, which instils in me an unexpected sense of comfort.I feel very much as though I among peers in this community of parents, babies and pregnant artists, and it brings to my attention that this is not an overly common feeling to have when you are a new mother out in the broader society.In soft tones, Sarah and Carolyn offer a warm, unstructured welcome; not just to the parent participants, but to each baby.As they move forward to greet Hugo, I note that they engage him through a combination of eye contact, touch, smiles, and gentle speech.He responds by returning their smiles and kicking his legs.I cannot help but smile also.
This welcoming component of the experience is largely about logistics (e.g.where to park your pram, when to remove your shoes, etc.), but it is also used as an opportunity for a short parent briefing about how best to participate in the performance.The main message being expressed by the teaching artists is that Rain has been designed especially for very young children; with typical behaviours of this cohort at the forefront of their minds.That is, that anything that very young children might naturally engage infeeding, exploring, eating, cryingis expected and permitted.The one exception to the, 'Anything is allowed' (Sarah), message is that parents are encouraged to, 'Just be with your baby' (Carolyn), and to leave any photography until after the experience has concluded.For this reason, we are instructed that mobile phones will not be permitted in the main performance space until near the conclusion of the event.

The first movement
As I pull back a thick black theatre-curtain, and enter into the pre-performance space, I am taken aback by the stunning effect of hundreds of white material cords hanging from the roof.These cords contrast starkly with the surrounding backdrop of thick black curtains, plain timber flooring, and the dim lighting.Hugo immediately reaches out to grab one of the cords, bringing it across and into his mouth.I also feel compelled to reach out and impact the cords with my free hand, and as I do so, I note how they sway and bounce in the light as they are pushed from side to side.They seem somehow responsive to the lilting cello music that is accompanying our exploration of this section of the installation.Hugo seems to notice the uniqueness of this visual-aural intersection, and his gaze affixes on the dancing materials in front of him for an unusually long period.As we weave through the space, Hugo continues to grab excitedly at the cords, clutching and bringing handfuls of them towards his mouth each time.I look up to notice how the ribbons are connected to the roof, and as I do so I realise that, while looking upwards is something that I rarely do as an adult, it is something that Hugo does regularly.I recognise in this moment that he is an expert at knowing how to be in this space.He leadsgrabbing and swishing at the ribbons, indicating the direction in which he wishes to move by angling his body and reaching.I notice the other very young children moving in similar ways, as if odelling how to engage in this experience to the adults in the room.I follow Hugo's lead, and he is right.The tickling feeling, of the ribbons on my face as I grab them, brings a sense of nostalgia, and I find myself drawing upon my many experiences of moving through rain, with it falling on my skin.I wonder if Hugo relates this feeling to our earlier experience that day; making our way through the rain, umbrellaless, to ArtPlay.I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem to matter.I feel relieved at the shift in leadership between myself and Hugo.He is teacher and I am learner.I feel open.
I notice a performance space, glowing in soft white light, towards the end of the corridor of rain.I'm not sure if it is revealed by moving a curtain, whether it is suddenly lit, or whether a change in cello music grabs my attention, but we all begin to move into the space.It is an almost ethereal moment as we, together as an audience, move towards the light and enter into a new section of the performance.

The second movement
As we enter, the cellist, who has been a warm presence from the very beginning of our exploration, becomes more visibly and aurally prominent.She is facing towards a seated area of floor-pillows, and we use this as an unspoken cue that this is where we should take a seat.The adult audience members (one to two per baby) sit on the cushions provided, with those arriving into the performance space first showing a courteous effort to make room for those still entering.The very young children are seated mostly in laps, though there is one child laying on the floor in front of her mother, and a few younger participants being held in arms.I am aware of a couple of 'childless' observers, seated on chairs behind the audience, in a darkened space.They do not appear to be noticed by the very young children, and it does not take long for me to forget that they are there.The two performers, Sarah and Carolyn, join the stage area, which is positioned on the floor level and within arms-reach of the audience.They sit comfortably on the lightly padded floor, with one performer on either side of the cellist, and lower their faces and bodies to align with the height of the very young audience members.In this position, they are able to make immediate eye contact with the children, and in doing so, make it clear from the outset that their primary aim is to gain the attention of the younger members of the audience.
With the performers large in the foreground, and with parents and babies to my left and right, it takes me a moment to notice and take-in the extraordinary scene that has been created behind the performance area.The backdrop appears to be a deep, interactive set installation.While the details are not clearly visible from the low, audience seating position, it looks like an enticing combination of hanging white objects, floor mirrors, and soft white materials.I can imagine Hugo being very enthusiastic about physically exploring this space, and remembering that Sarah had told us that everything in the room was designed with this purpose, I am filled with a sense of positive anticipation (Figure 1).
With the cello accompanying, the performers open by singing a simple refrain; Between sections of singing, they move their bodies and make a range of vocal sounds, with exaggerated facial expressions.The barrier between the stage and audience is broken down, as the teaching artists move forward to physically interact with the very young children throughout the performance.Carolyn leans forward to touch Hugo's hand three times as she simultaneously chants, 'Drip, drip, drip'.He responds by looking at his hand with wide eyes as she does so, and then grabs his own hand as she moves away to 'drip' another child.As the piece develops the performers introduce new ways of interacting with both the audience and the theme of rain.At one time, they gently spray a mist of water over the heads of the very young children, and at another moment, drip water on tiny hands using syringes.With each new interaction, Hugo's focus moves from an outward watching of the events, to a more self-focused gaze of the body part that is being impacted.
One of the more mobile children, clearly captured by the events unfolding in front of her, enters the performers' space.Her mother tries to grab her backa move I can understand.It is not generally culturally acceptable to enter the stage area during a performance.Sarah indicates, through hand-gestures and facial expressions, that it is ok to let her explore on and around the performers.The child crawls under the chair of the cellist, and grabs props from behind the performers.The mother is clearly uncomfortable with this, and after a short period, moves to collect the child and return her to the audience area.
Between where we are seated and the performers are two large water-filled gel-like objects, each about the size of a half-deflated beach ball.I assume that it represents a large raindrop, given the theme of the event.The performers bounce fingers and hands on these objects a number of times throughout the performance, showing how it bounces when struck.Each time they do so, very young children seated close to it, attempt to imitate.About eight minutes into the performance, Hugo wriggles away, aiming for the large raindrop.He commando-crawls across the floor and reaches out and hits it, stopping to watch the result.He repeats this action many times, and then, as if trying to get even closer to it, plants his face in the object with his mouth wide open.He mouths the raindrop for some time until I am concerned that he cannot breathe with his face planted so heavily in the plastic, and I help to sit him up in front of it instead.
One childa confident crawlermoves towards the cello as it plays a more rhythmic section.He climbs up, using the body of the cello to support him.The cellist smiles and indicates to the parent that this is ok.The child places hands of the body of the cello as it plays, and I find myself emotionally moved by this musical interaction.Throughout these happenings, parents smile at each other as they observe children reacting to the performance in different ways.This particular occurrence elicits a particularly positive response from the audience.
The Rain is Falling Down refrain features several times throughout the performance, and it is with this same musical phrase that opened the second movement of the Rain performance, that this section comes to a conclusion (Figure 2).

The third movement
As the music fades, Carolyn tells the audience that they can now move into the space behind the stage to explore freely.I move Hugo closer to the large raindrop and place him, supported, on top of it.He hits it, as before, and sucks it, as if trying to take in the object.I reflect upon the fact that, as a very young child of 6-months, these are currently his dominant modes of absorbing information.Hugo spends some time herelonger than he might usually choose to spend in one placeand then directs his body toward the cello.The cellist is accompanying the exploration; improvising in reflection to the action in the room.Seeing that Hugo has expressed an interest in the cello, she encourages me to place Hugo's hands on the cello 'so he can feel the vibrations'.I do so, but he does not keep his hands there.He returns to rest his body in the safety of my lap.
We move further into the space, and I sit down; cross-legged on the floor with Hugo on my knee.He seems to be displaying a preference to sit with me initially, until he spots something of interest and moves away towards it.Hugo observes a 'puddle' on the floor and slides his body enthusiastically towards it.It is a large reflective surface, cut into an irregular shape and covered with clear adhesive plastic to affix it to the material that is covering the floor.Hugo crawls on top of the surface and is mesmerised by his reflection.He face-plants, as if kissing the reflection, and then pushes up onto his arms whilst watching his own reaction.He repeats this action many times and stays on top of the puddle for several minutes.As he is doing this, he begins to vocalise, 'Ahhhhhh'.
The teaching artists wander quietly through the space, watching without leading or offering directions.They distribute a small note to each parent, that provides written encouragement and support for allowing the very young children to lead the explorative play.It is a nice touch, and I find myself comforted that they seem to agree with the way in which I am interacting with the space, i.e. facilitating Hugo's exploration by stepping back and allowing him to lead.

Winding down
Hugo gives clear signs when he has had enough of a particular experience, turning his whole body away and looking around for other stimuli.I note that this often coincides with a change in musica change of tempo, for example, or a new thematic idea.He spies one of a number of white rounded loofahs scattered around the floor area, and reaches for it, placing it immediately in his mouth.The texture is rough, and he pulls a face and cries out.He repeats this, gaining the same result, and discards the loofah.He indicates that he wishes to be picked up (using subtle body language and tones I have become accustomed to observing, but which I cannot accurately describe), and I do so.He is getting tired.
We move towards a hanging mobile of cords.It is a round ring at the top, with white ribbons of material attached.I place us both inside the circle, which I think will look and feel quite interesting.Hugo does not find this appealing and grabs angrily at the cords.It is time to stop.
We stand and watch some of the other babies and parents and note that several have already left the space.The music comes to an end with a gradual diminuendo and ritardando, as I sit in the space to feed Hugo.I carry him out, asleep, back through the room of hanging rain, and place him in his pram.He sleeps for several hours afterwards, as I wander back along the river, towards home.

Discussion
The children who participated in Rain were positioned as co-constructors of the experience (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 2007;Malaguzzi 1993;Moss 2019;Rogoff 1990;Vygotsky 1978).This was a mindful decision by the team who created and performed it.From the verbal instructions provided before the performance began, to the set design, and through the program itself, it was clear that the very young children were perceived as the central figures in the design and implementation of the performance.The space was pre-designed to be manipulated by very young children, but it was the ways in which this occurred in the moment that made the final art piece.Similarly, a significant proportion of the music was composed prior to the performance, but it was the ways in which the very young children moved about the space that determined the improvised sections and, therefore, the final score.The very young children, the designers, the presenters, and the parents each had a role in creating the Rain experience, and all were dependent upon each other (Brown 2015).
By bringing multiple sets of parents and very young children together, the teaching artists were reinforcing the notion of a community social group (Bronfenbrenner 2009;Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998;Tayler et al. 2006), building on the experiences of the participants as parenting and being a very young child in the city of Melbourne, and also tapping into their shared interest in the arts.The artists spoke of the importance of parent-child bonding, and it was one of the main goals of Rain to support the family social group through the experience.The way in which Rain was structuredwith the majority of activities being centred around individual parent-child dyads, and with parents and very young children each taking turns in guidingwas a practical way in which this goal was realised.Although there were no instances in which very young children were expected to interact with each other, there were opportunities throughout Rain for them to be aware of each other's explorative play.Having the very young children in close proximity to each other, exploring side-by-side, was a developmentally appropriate way to support a childhood social group.The children were bonded by their 'childness', as distinct from their parents (Custodero 2005;Rogoff 1990).
Rain gave emphasis to open-ended, child-led exploration and discovery (Brown, Jeanneret, and Andersen 2019;Jeanneret and Brown 2013).The creation of an interactive installation, and an unrestricted amount of time given to participants to engage in and with this, created a balance with the more performative aspects of the event.The teaching artists appeared aware of the importance of the exploration being 'child-led' (Dansereau 2011).This was evident when they stepped back from guiding in this third movement, and also explicitly encouraged the parent participants to follow the interests of their child (Montessori 1966).The installation itself was important in supporting the exploration and discovery.It provided enough options to capture the imagination of all participantsregardless of their developmental level(s) and individual interests (Jeanneret and Brown 2013;Turino 2008).
The very young children who participated in the Rain performance were positioned by the teaching artists as cultural citizens, with citizens' rights and citizens' responsibilities (Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998;Jeanneret and Brown 2013).The children were not passive receivers of the arts.They were the performers and the facilitators.The individual ways in which they interacted with the materials, moved through the space, and responded to the stimuli, were integral to the overall piece.They were given access and freedoms that very young children are often excluded from in day-to-day life, and authority as arts-makers that was considered as importantif not more importantthan the adult participants (Rinaldi 2021).The very young children's individual contributions, when side-by-side, in combination, was Rain.
The very young children were given opportunities to take ownership of the execution of the artwork (Rinaldi 2021;Vecchi 2010).This was particularly evident in the less performative sections of Rain, such as when Hugo moved through the hanging cords in the pre-performance, and when he explored the installation.In recognising the expert knowledge of the children (Malaguzzi 2016), and taking a deliberate step back from the decision-making, the adults allowed them the freedom to lead and to model appropriate ways of interacting within the space (Edwards, Gandini, and Forman 1998;Montessori 1966).They were able to make decision about what to engage with and what to reject.For example, Hugo chose to fully embrace the raindrop and the mirror but rejected feeling the vibrations of the cello and the loofah.In doing so, Hugo could be said to have engaged in ongoing evaluation of the artwork (Dewey 1934;Malaguzzi 2016), as well as demonstrating that very young children are able to express their 'voice' strongly and clearly when given such opportunity.
Although Hugo himself was not involved in the conception of the work, Rain was developed through a series of workshops with very young children, all of which took place some weeks before the final work was shown.According to teaching artist Sarah, a number of the families who were involved in the workshops returned to participate in the performance.This is an ideal situation in terms of positioning children as co-constructors of the work, as these very young children were provided with opportunities to take ownership of all stages of the workfrom conception, through execution, to evaluation.

Reflections
Teaching artists can support the engagement of very young children by providing them with opportunities to have a meaningful say in the planning, development and/or implementation of an integrated arts performance (Chappell and Young 2007;Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris 2004;Jablon and Wilkinson 2006).A broader mapping study that I recently completed about integrated arts performances for very young children (Stevens-Ballenger 2020) showed that this is not a widely adopted practice.Teaching artists may find it challenging to include this practice in their work, due to the one-off nature of these performances.Without an existing relationship with the participants, gathering very young children's ideas, to inform the planning and development phases of a new work, is not always feasible.However, the case study Rain demonstrated that it is possible with the right supports in place.The teaching artists in Rain were able to adopt this practice by securing a funded residency at ArtPlay, through which they were able to workshop early ideas with very young children and families.By entering into these workshops with a loose plan, observing children's interests, and incorporating emergent ideas into the planning and development phases, they were able to honour and celebrate the child's voice.This responds well to Tom Maguire's (2021) proposition that, to overcome the largely unmet challenge of capturing the child's voice in artistic works, adults need to engage in 'active listening and in understanding the many ways in which children might express themselves other than through verbal means' ( 21).Where such workshops are not possible, due to funding, venue, or other restraints, teaching artists may find more success and opportunity in making room for children's ideas in the implementation phase of their work.Creating an environment that encourages the very young children to participate in autonomous exploration and discovery during the performance, as modelled in the Rain case study, invites a collaborative dynamic where children can become the co-creators of exciting and engaging artistic works.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Jennifer Stevens-Ballenger is a Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at La Trobe University.She is dedicated to championing the rights of children to a rich education, including access to the arts.Jennifer has previously held the position of Director of The University of Melbourne Early Learning Centre, a research and demonstration kindergarten for children aged 3-5.She has also worked as a Lecturer in Arts Education, as a lead kindergarten teacher, and as a teaching artist.Her current research is focused on arts integration in early childhood settings.
Associate Professor Neryl Jeanneret is a Principal Fellow in Arts Education in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education (MGSE) at the University of Melbourne.Her research focusses on artists working with children, engagement in music classrooms, teacher education in the arts and creativity and she was the recipient of MGSE's 2022 Award for Outstanding Graduate Researcher Supervision.Neryl serves as an adviser to various Australian state education authorities and consultant with numerous arts organisations such as the Australian Music Centre, Musica Viva, Opera Australia, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.