Compositionism and digital music composition education

Abstract

This article aims to explore the sociomaterial relational activities within digital music composition education via the posthumanist concepts compositionism and assemblage. The study is an attempt at a nonlinear and non-reductivist understanding of educational activities where matter, nature, and culture shape performative practices. Engaging with Latour and Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and its onto-epistemological manifest as compositionism, the explorations also find impetus from posthumanist thinking, Barad’s intra-action, Haraway’s becoming-with, and post-qualitative inquiry. Four Year 9 classes in a Swedish compulsory school took part in the composing activity and the research intervention. During a four-week participation period, the music composition lessons were video-recorded. Sociomaterial transcriptions of the recorded lessons were transformed into assemblage compositions to explore the outcomes and becomings that emerged. What these sociomaterial compositions brings to the fore is the hybridity of digital music composition outcomes in learning activities.

Full text

Peer-reviewed article
Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education
Vol. 6 | No. 3 | 2022 | pp. 96–120
© 2022 J. Asplund. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute
the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even
commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Citation: J. Asplund. «Compositionism and digital music composition education» Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education,
Special issue: Postperspektiv på pedagogik och konst, Vol.6(3), 2022, pp.96–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.23865/jased.v6.3578
Correspondence: Jonas Asplund, e-mail: jonas.asplund@hsd.su.se
96
Compositionism and digital music
composition education
Jonas Asplund
Stockholm university, Sweden
Abstract
This article aims to explore the sociomaterial relational activities within digital music composition
education via the posthumanist concepts compositionism and assemblage. The study is an attempt
at a nonlinear and non-reductivist understanding of educational activities where matter, nature,
and culture shape performative practices. Engaging with Latour and Actor-Network Theory
(ANT) and its onto-epistemological manifest as compositionism, the explorations also nd impetus
from posthumanist thinking, Barad’s intra-action, Haraway’s becoming-with, and post-qualitative
inquiry. Four Year 9 classes in a Swedish compulsory school took part in the composing activity
and the research intervention. During a four-week participation period, the music composition
lessons were video-recorded. Sociomaterial transcriptions of the recorded lessons were transformed
into assemblage compositions to explore the outcomes and becomings that emerged. What these
sociomaterial compositions brings to the fore is the hybridity of digital music composition outcomes
in learning activities.
Keywords: music education; posthumanism; Actor-Network Theory; digitalization;
music composition
Received: October, 2021; Accepted: June, 2022; Published: August, 2022
Introduction
Material relations can be seen as immanent to musical practices. Playing music or
composing music is dependent on and entangled with “stuff” (Krogh, 2018). This
entanglement also affects music education (Allsup, 2013; Bell, 2015; Folkestad, 2017;
Martin, 2012). To explore the relational aspects of music composing in education
as sociomaterial practices, I participated in activities including a composing assign-
ment, digital hardware and software, and musical instruments in four Year 9 classes
(15 –year-old pupils) at a compulsory school in Sweden. Moreover, these learning
activities involved a prescribed learning matter as well as a prescribed subjective
expression in music, formulated by the music subject syllabus, which states that

Compositionism and digital music composition education
97
pupils should create music “on the basis of their own musical ideas” (Skolverket,
2018, p. 164).
Governmental policy statements (Näringsdepartementet, 2017; Utbildnings-
departementet, 2017) and writings in the curriculum and the music subject syllabus
(Skolverket, 2018) in Sweden also place compulsory educational practices and mate-
rial relations in an ongoing digitalization process. Digital tools are to be implemented
in school education and administrative context with equal availability for all pupils in
compulsory school (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2017) and also, more specically, in
the music subject (Skolverket, 2018).
Means to employ digital material in music education are, however, largely up to
the individual teacher, working within the local conditions, depending on possibilities
and limitations constituting the local school and classroom ecology. Also, profes-
sional competence as well as hardware/software manufacturers affect planning and
teaching/learning practices (Huovinen & Rautanen, 2019; Jennings, 2007; Schmidt-
Jones, 2018). If all these human and nonhuman (cultural and material) participants
in a classroom ecology mediate information (Latour, 2005), not only teacher, stu-
dent, and subject matter, as formulated in the standard didactic triangle (Selander,
2017), shape emerging outcomes of activities. Learning practices, in a sociomaterial
sense, need to be understood in extended meaning.
The aim of this study is to explore how processes of digital musical composition
in a compulsory music classroom can be understood through the posthumanist the-
ories of compositionism and assemblage. This aim surfaced the following research
question: How can sociomaterial assemblages be composed, decomposed, and
recomposed to make new meaning of digital music composition education and its
outcomes in lower secondary school?
The situated classroom ecology
During a four-week period, I participated in a composition activity in four Year
9classes, with one one-hour music lesson per week each, at a compulsory school in a
larger city in Sweden. There were two qualied music teachers working at the school,
and the four Year 9 classes were divided between them, each teaching two classes.
A teacher assistant also participated in lessons with one of the teachers. The school,
the teachers, and the pupils were unknown to me before I conducted the research. The
selection of school was made by sending a question about interest in participating in
a research project to several music teachers who taught in lower secondary school in
the region to whom I had no previous afliation. The only requirement stated in the
question was that a composing assignment involving digital hardware/software was
to be carried out as part of the music subject. Two schools were willing to partici-
pate, and I selected the one which had more Year 9 classes involved in the compos-
ing assignment. Before I arrived, the pupils were informed about my work and the
research. The ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet,

J. Asplund
98
2017) were followed, and the pupils signed a written consent form stating that par-
ticipation in the research was voluntary and that they could terminate their participa-
tion at any time. The pupils who did not consent to participation are excluded from
the research material.
The composing assignment for these lessons was planned by the two teachers
before my rst meeting with them, but we discussed it together before and after the
rst lesson. The assignment asked the pupils to compose an updated version of the
Swedish national anthem. The teachers gave the pupils a document showing a total
of 16 colored boxes, representing measures, divided into two eight-measure groups
which was reviewed for the classes in an introductory lecture. In the boxes, the pupils
lled in chords from a selection of chords indicated by the colors of the boxes. The
tonic in the given key was prescribed in some boxes, such as the rst and the last.
Using this semi self-chosen chord progression, the pupils were required to orches-
trate the composition in Garageband1 and compose a melody for the lyrics that they
composed during the Swedish subject lessons. To compose the music, the pupils
had access to iPads with Garageband installed and all available instruments in the
music classroom, predominantly guitars and keyboards. Some also brought their own
iPhones to access Garageband. One pupil also brought a violin.
When recording the lessons, I used two cameras following different groupings of
human and nonhuman actants.2 Sometimes the cameras were placed at xed loca-
tions in the room to focus on a group of pupils or one pupil working individually
on an iPad, and sometimes the cameras were adjusted to provide a panoramic view
of the whole classroom. When using the panoramic view, I moved between the two
cameras and made eldnotes. Sometimes one camera was in a xed location, and
Imoved around with the other one, following the mutable assemblages.
Outlined here is what emerged as the situated place and space for the situated edu-
cation/research ecology, negotiated between human and nonhuman actants’ agencies
and intentions in conjunction with cultural formations. Ecology, as the study of place
where we live or “place that we live” (Bennett, 2004, p. 365, emphasis added), is not
exclusively seeking equilibrium. Our living place, the world, is formed in dissonance
as well as consonance through the individualities, that are interconnected multiplic-
ities of innite variation (Deleuze & Guattari, 2013). Assemblages of human and
nonhuman are uidly and perpetually formed and reformed, within an intercon-
nected ecology (Bennett, 2004). To move beyond dualisms, perpetuated by Cartesian
thinking (Susa, 2019), ecology emphasizes entanglement and multiplicity, and the
wholeness of culture, nature, and matter in play.
1Garageband is a music making application by Apple that is commonly used in music education.
2Actant, as alternative to actor, is here signifying human and nonhuman participants as mediators.
The purpose is to avert predening and anthropomorphising participants in activities (Haraway,
1994).

Compositionism and digital music composition education
99
Researching within the multiverse
Some concepts that guide the exploration are here further delineated. Digital hard-
ware and software constitute an ever increasing and shape-shifting multiverse making
material relations within the music composing practice hard to bypass. The multi-
verse, in a posthumanist understanding, is an emerging and expanding rhizome
where a multiplicity of material possibilities generates humans as nodes of becoming
(Ferrando, 2018). Rhizomes expand and recongure without predetermined causal
effects or linearity as recurring transformations within activities (Deleuze & Guattari,
2013; Latour, 1999), producing unpredictability as a component in music composi-
tion education.
To explore the situated ecology of the classroom, emerged within the multiverse, a
sociomaterial understanding for activities is proposed. This implicates the participa-
tion of nonhuman entities in activities, making them actants intra-acting with other
human and nonhuman actants. All things equally exist and become into existence,
this is sometimes referred to as a at ontology (Bogost, 2012) and onto-epistemology
(Barad, 2007).
Furthermore, matter (e.g., Garageband), culture (e.g., music theory), and nature
(e.g., sound production) affect emerging agencies that shape and reshape activities
and their outcomes, to diffractive effects (Barad, 2007). Diffraction is the breaking
apart of the now into multiple futures. However, it is not a single event, rather a
continuous repatterning of now and then (Barad, 2014). Troubling causality and
dichotomy, diffraction provides multiplicity in the conguring and reconguring of
activities studied. A planned assignment in an educational ecology emerges as one
actant among other actants, all together forming the activity. The common precon-
ception about educational practices where the teacher via an assignment can control
what the pupil will learn needs to be challenged. Predetermined learning outcomes
are practical simplications that disregard the multiplicity that is produced within
activities (Murris, 2022).
The intent is to avert preconceived linear causality and presumed effects as sim-
plistic solutions and address the messiness and multiplicity of educational practices
(Sandvik, 2010). To elicit alternative thoughts and understandings, this study engages
compositionism (Latour, 2010) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT; Latour, 2005).
To stretch it even further, provoke diffractive thoughts, experience the unlooked-for
in complexities (Löytönen et al., 2015), and avoid limitative methodological rules,
post-qualitative inquiry (St. Pierre, 2019a) as an approach to intra-act with the study
is activated. The use of the prex “intra” emphasizes the connectedness of becoming
actants in practices. “Interaction” presumes a predened property of actants in play.
To emphasize the entanglement of actants, “intra” is attention to agency as emerging
in connections (Barad, 2007) and becoming properties of actants as immanent in the
emerging practice, the assemblages that will recongure and/or expand within the
rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 2013).

J. Asplund
100
Digital composition and sociomaterial relations
Research in music composing and education often consider digital hardware/software
as established artefacts. Individual digital platforms and hardware/software are, how-
ever, in constant ux. Perpetual updates and increased accessibility to software and
digital devices for human-nonhuman intra-action make them uid, rather than estab-
lishing them as xed artefacts of musical creation (Lind & Nylén, 2016), perpetually
expanding and reshaping the multiverse. Also, when composing music in a digital envi-
ronment, the digital afliates with other established musical artefacts (e.g., musical
instruments such as the piano or guitar), and different forms of genre conventions,
composing techniques (Folkestad, 2004, 2006; Maes et al., 2018), and Western art
music notation and other forms of music notation (Schmidt-Jones, 2018).
Digital platforms of music making possibilities affect the outcomes via veiling or
enhancing different features and parameters of musical visualizations and functions
(Jennings, 2007; Schmidt-Jones, 2018). Musical knowledge can also be understood
as embedded into the features of music making applications (e.g., Garageband), as
resources for music composing (Bandlien & Selander, 2019). When treating digital
actants as if they are members of conceptions in music making activities (Brooker &
Sharrock, 2016) but only to a point when their functions are “learned” by the human
user, mediating actions of the material actants are bypassed, reducing agency as phen-
omenon emerging in intra-action (Barad, 2007). Rather, the inuence of DAWs3 and
MAWs4 on music making appears to be entangled in a becoming-with (Haraway,
2016), when for example both gestures and actions are musical and hardware specic
(Bell, 2015). Each DAW or MAW setup becomes a specic environment or ecology
of music intra-action. The embodiment of musical performance and the participa-
tory aspects relate with the creation of musical meaning, a performative turn from the
formalist view of musical meaning as inherent in a musical score (Maes et al., 2018).
When composing with digital tablets, the workow can become more individ-
ualized and thus avert the embodied and participatory aspects of music making
(Huovinen & Rautanen, 2019). Also, composing with digital actants bypasses the live
experience of musical performance and listening (Kjus, 2018), thus meaning-making
aspects of music communication can pass directly from mentalization of musical
ideas to recorded music. When MAWs are participants in music teaching and learn-
ing, time, space, and place for music creation become uid as the learner transgresses
“inside” and “outside” of education, blending resources and inuences of musical
creation (Chen, 2017). Material and cultural actants that are engaged are thus not
solely under the teacher’s “control” within the classroom ecology. Increasing connec-
tions expand the rhizome of music composition education (Lum, 2017). Moreover,
proliferating digital possibilities expanding the music composition conceptualizations
3Digital Audio Workstation
4Mobile Audio Workstation

Compositionism and digital music composition education
101
and compositional approaches (Folkestad et al., 1998; Martin, 2012; Winters, 2012)
call for extended congurations within music education (Ojala, 2017; Paavola &
Hakkarainen, 2009; Ruthmann & Hebert, 2012; Ward, 2009).
ANT and compositionism
I will activate the notion of compositionism manifested by Latour (2010), as
an onto-epistemological conception of educational practices in this study. It is
by opening up the ANT sensibility (Fenwick & Edwards, 2013) to “matters of
concern”, by moving beyond, behind, and within the partiality of “matters of
fact” (Latour, 2004) while acknowledging the frictions within a non-prescribed
methodology, and the diaspora of research enactments that this study engages
with compositionism. Activating compositionism is not to give up on ANT, but
acknowledges the emerged dissonances in the concept while still progressing
according to its impetus. Furthermore, compositionism, music composing, and
composition are related concepts employed in the study that acknowledge music
making activities’ entanglement with the research approach (Latour, 1999, 2010;
Sandvik, 2010) and its process. To further stress the research entanglements, the
article itself is enacted as a composition, lending some heading titles from the ele-
ments of a sonata form.
The three words comprising the Actor-Network Theory concept, as well as the
hyphen, are all debatable and perhaps even misleading when considering the digital
world (Latour, 1999). For this study’s purpose, especially the “network” part calls
for a comment. In relation to the present digital life world, the word “network” is
most commonly associated with the internet network and digital networks where
information should ow free and unmediated. In an ANT network, however, this
mediation or translation (Latour, 2005) or even intra-action (Barad, 2007) is just
what makes actants come into being through their relations. The mere transport-
ation of uninterrupted information is not enough to make an actant within the ANT
understanding of network. Rather, rhizome would be a preferred signier for connec-
tions within performative practices (Latour, 1999). This is a turn from preestablished
actors explained by preestablished explanation, the already-in-place “social stuff”
(Latour, 2005). Instead, these relations bring about agencies, emerging within this
very mediation or intra-actions in performative activities. Groupings are fragile and
mutable, thus, describing the actants requires following the actants. The connec-
tions are made by and made durable by actants in play, hence not held together by
“the social” as a reductivist explanation. For music education, this suggests that dig-
ital hardware/software are not merely artefacts. They are mediators (Latour, 2005),
becoming actants, entangled with musical meaning-making and affecting outcomes
of compositional educational activities. Digital devices “from afar” will affect teacher
planning and student learning practices, and indeed, produce educational practices
as sociomaterial assemblages.

J. Asplund
102
Hence, enacting research within an activity also brings about agencies. The com-
positionism impetus emerges as an onto-epistemology and as a sensibility to medi-
ated relations in performative actions framing the composing, decomposing, and
recomposing of sociomaterial mutable assemblages. To compose, i.e., to assemble
heterogeneous things (Latour, 2010), is here immanent to both the student activity
as well as the research approach. Compositionism engages an alternative to critique.
To decompose also involves in extension to recompose, i.e., to tear down obligates
to build anew.
Creating methodological assemblages
Following a post-qualitative inquiry, the terms “method” and “data” are refused
(St.Pierre, 2019b), or radically challenged (Murris, 2022). Prescribed research meth-
ods inict rules with the risk of becoming limiting, cutting into complex processes
before they can be fully developed (Manning, 2015). Methods instead need to emerge
with the practice studied as the research conducted is a part of creating the reality, they
are entangled (St. Pierre, 2019a). Moreover, data collection implies that there is a real-
ity “out there”, separate from “us”, that can be observed. However, this is not the case
in posthumanist terms, as posthumanism assumes that we (humans) are entangled with
“reality”, which is co-produced in activities. In the process of creating a method for
engaging with/within the classroom from a compositionism approach, a scheme that
resembles ethnographical methods emerged. Participant observations and eldnotes
as methods in ethnography attempt to provide detailed descriptions of people and
doings in their “natural” cultural environment (Harrison, 2018). However, given the
posthumanist onto-epistemology synthesis, the researcher and the researched activ-
ity are inseparable. Enacted practices of education become in entanglement with the
research (Hultin, 2019). That is, my presence as a researcher intervenes and co-
creates the activity. The creation and experimentation of/with method perform a cut
that forms a duct for directing the inquiry, however still acknowledging the complexity
of activities. By staying open to “the yet to come” to avert a delimiting of human/non-
human activities, new modes of knowledge can emerge (Manning, 2015).
Assembling music education
When continuing the assembling process initiated in the classroom participation,
I watched the video recorded lessons and made selections on what to transcribe.
These selections were made with regard to the different camera settings that were
employed: lectures, groupings, individual students, and whole classroom view. The
selections of transcripts reect this variety of activities and practices in the classroom
ecology. When transcribing the selected events, multimodal transcription conventions
were considered as a possible method to generate analyzable data (Mondada, 2016).
Within the multimodal transcription model, gestures and actions are described,

Compositionism and digital music composition education
103
but in a unilateral direction (i.e., humans using tools), which is in contrast to post-
anthropocentric understandings. Also, gestures and actions are represented with
symbols and signs which undermines the non-representationalism immanent to post-
humanist understandings and post-qualitative inquiry (St. Pierre, 2019a). Herein a
transcription scheme was created i.e., becoming-with (Haraway, 2016) the recorded
situations, text as entangled actant, embodying rhythm and overlapping events. This
transcription scheme is made with inspiration from and in intra-action with multi-
modal transcripts and all involved actants that produced the research.
The transcription process started with utterances made by human actants and
time indications. Then the bodily and material intra-actions were added with rhythm
and event overlaps materialized as spatial visualizations. Lastly, “utterances” of non-
human actants are attended to when meaning is mediated in relation with them;
these are transcribed as material/cultural utterances. After the transcription table was
completed for the selected parts, I proceeded with the assembling process of the
activities. Within the assemblages, diffraction (Barad, 2007) is considered nonlinear
effects that form a rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 2013; Latour, 1999). Instead of
network (Latour, 2010), rhizome signies the materialization of the activities studied.
This is to recognize the nonlinear causality and diffractive effects of intra-actions and
to invoke a sensitivity to differences and the yet to come (St. Pierre, 2019a), to avoid
presumed outcomes. In order to follow the actants (Latour, 2005) and their mediat-
ing intra-actions and to compose assemblages, I transformed the transcription table
to a rhizomatic materialization as a spatialization of unfolding textual engagements
(Hasse, 2020). A performative turn is made through my engagement with the tran-
scribed events via the assemblage composing act. Decomposing the linear text and
recomposing it to mediating actants and activity assemblages allows for a recursive
tracing of actants within the perpetual recomposing of activities. The performative
turn is a post-qualitative creation of method and opens up a nonlinear understand-
ing for meaning-making intra-actions. To veer away from presumed linear causality
of lesson planning and execution that in hindsight only seem to repeat itself via the
linearity of transcriptions, the assemblage composition act is an attempt at acknow-
ledgement of all actants mediating capacities and nd new modes of knowledge.
Figure 1 exhibits the different functions and events in the compositions. Frame
A exhibits functions of actants and how they are attributed to rectangles with dif-
ferent framing and color of text. Functions of lines and arrows are also explicated.
Frame B shows an example of how a translation of a textual selection to extraction of
mediating cultural actants (B1) and material actants (B2) were performed. Frame C
exhibits examples of the arrows and how they display becomings in the assemblages
in different forms.
Following the intention of nding new modes of knowledge (Manning, 2015),
actions and outcomes are treated as recursively forming and transforming actants
and the situated ecology, averting the volition of preestablishing causality through
experiences with similar practices.

J. Asplund
104
Figure 1. Composition symbol explanation
When presented in printed form, the assemblages become xed. However, mutability
is signied by mediating connections and becomings, as lines and arrows between
actants. This is a situated event where all actants intra-act and mediate a specic out-
come, although the outcomes are not presumed. Composing mutable assemblages

Compositionism and digital music composition education
105
where information is mediated to a certain outcome or meaning can decompose,
breaking into new groupings. They are re-assembled or recomposed to new meaning-
making assemblages.
Composition 1: The lecture assemblages
Figure 2 is an example of the transcription table I created for transcribing lecture
events in the classroom. The table shows time indications in the video, the teacher’s
utterances (T), when someone else speaks, pupils (P) or teacher assistant (TA), when
nonhuman actants mediate, and nally the sociomaterial relations or intra-actions
that emerge. The rhizomatic scheme of composing, decomposing, and recomposing
assemblages is presented in Figure 3. For this lecture setting, I placed the camera
in the back of the classroom, aimed towards the teacher area. The pupils were posi-
tioned in three rows of chairs with an aisle in the middle of them. They all faced the
Figure 2. Lecture transcription

J. Asplund
106
teacher. At the far end, there was a Smartboard hung on the middle of the wall and
a projector connected to it in the ceiling. On the Smartboard, the assignment (A) for
the lesson was projected: My national anthem. To the right of the Smartboard, there
was a desk with a computer (C) on it and to the right of the desk was the door to the
hallway. In the far-right corner, there were two lockers. To the left of the Smartboard,
there was a door to the teachers’ ofce, and to the far left, a guitar on a guitar stand
and a digital piano (Pi) where a teacher assistant was sitting.
Figure 3. Composition 1: The lecture assemblages

Compositionism and digital music composition education
107
Exposition
In the transcribed part of the lecture, the verbal actions become the most frequent
actant. In the recomposing act,5 the utterances are thus displayed in the middle,
building/creating the rhizome. Verbal actions intra-act with cultural actants, such as
music theory and the assignment forming assemblages of emerging agencies. Piano
as material actant is only intra-acted with as a referent and thus submerges very
quickly. Other material actants, such as the computer/smartboard/projector hybrid,
are mediating meaning throughout the selection. Verbal actions also, in relation with
cultural actants and material hybrid, are what here make becomings. Teacher is one
such becoming, student is another. Through the entire selection, the cultural actant
music theory is intra-acted with via verbal chord indications. The collective chord
exercise is theoretical, and it is only in the very end sounding piano chords become
an embodiment in the form of a hybrid of cultural, human, and material actants.
The lecture assemblage is “controlled” by one more frequent actant, the for-
mal teacher, and the composition’s verbal actions seem linear. However, the lec-
ture becomes with the other actants and could have taken any number of forms.
Nonlinearity does not mean that time is no more. The nonlinear causality under-
standing rather signies recursive intra-acting actants and that several becomings
emerge and coexist (De Landa, 1997; Ferrando, 2018) and decomposes, forming a
perceived and performative time locality within the assemblage. The time locality is
performed as recursive connections between material/human/cultural actants. The
decomposing/recomposing of transcripts to assemblages unveils the actants in play.
Where transcripts bring human utterances/actions to the fore, assemblage composi-
tions expose the intra-dependency of all actants to unpredictable outcomes.
Composition 2: The heterogeneity ensemble
After the introductory lecture, the pupils would start working with the assignment of
composing an updated national anthem. They were free to work with whomever they
wanted and to choose what available material to engage with. In the rst example,
groupings were quite uid and mutable with pupils coming and going and heteroge-
neous ideas popping up from a wide array of actants. Two pupils, P1 and P2, partici-
pated during the entire selection. They had an iPad each, and P2 also had a guitar. There
were only pupils present, no teacher, during the entirety of the recorded sequence.
One camera was positioned at a small distance from P1 and P2. The camera became
an actant when the pupils’ awareness of it made the assemblages form around this
area. The workow and sociomaterial intra-actions also proffered an alteration in the
transcription table as displayed in Figures 4 and 5. Here, the headings indicate time
indications, utterances by human actants, music as sounding actant, mediation by
nonhumans, and the sociomaterial relations emerging. Figure 6 shows the recompos-
ing of the transcript to the rhizomatic assemblage composition.
5See Figures 2 and 3.

J. Asplund
108
Time Spoken Music
sounding
(instrument
relations)
Material
utterances
Other
sociomaterial
relations
02:02 P3: *sings* My
name is [pupils
name] and I have
lived in a land
*sings* My name
is [pupils name]
P4: what land? Do
you have your own
country or?
P3: I don’t know.
The national
anthem… Sweden!
P1: Then we have
to change the
music. That’s
dumb.
P3: Should we
have the same
lyrics too?
P1: noo… that’s
not allowed, but…
P3: *sings* Du
gamla du fria du
fjällhöga nord du
tysta du
glädjerika…
P4: When are we
supposed to
finish this?
P3: *sings*
…sköna
P4: When are we
supposed to
finish this I
asked!
P3: I don’t know,
trying to sing
*sings* La, la,
la, laa
Melody of
French
national
anthem
Melody of
French
national
anthem
Melody of
Russian
national
anthem
Still
singing
same melody
Still
singing
same melody
French
national
anthem
provides an
example
Variety of
cultural
signs
provides
mixing
inspiration
Mixed
cultural and
human
actants form
a hybrid
example
IPad, guitar
and
assignment
provides a
flightline
and other
inspiration
P1: sits down
P1: picks up
assignment
paper from
floor
P2: sits down
P1, P4:
fiddling with
guitar
sometimes
looking at
assignment
paper, still
listening to
P3
P2: opens
Garageband on
iPad and
smart
instrument,
then looking
at P3.
Figure 4. Assignment activity transcription 1 (part 1)

Compositionism and digital music composition education
109
02:48 *sings* Du gamla
du fria du
fjällhöga nord
P1: Are you only
allowed to use
these?
P2: yes
P1: no!?
P3: Hey! You
should use Mario
chords, in the
climax, Mario
chords.
P1: yes
P3: *sings* du du
du duu duu du du du
duu duu du du du
duuuu
P2: Mario chords
P3: It’s like… in
some way… it’s
something that you
borrow from minor
It’s like a bit
like wouu that
makes it like…it’s
misstreated in
like epic metal
which makes it
like *sings* PAA
PAA PAAAAA and
then wooaaa
P1: wooaaa
Melody of
Russian
national
anthem
Melody from
Mario bros
video game
Cultural
hybrid
example
Cultural
actant gives
new ideas
Video game
from afar
Piano gives
embodiment
New genre
ads to
hybrid
P3: sits
down
P1: holds
out
assignment
paper
P3: claps
hands
P3:
mimicking
playing on a
piano
Moves chair
closer to P1
Mimicking
piano
playing
P5: joins
the group
Figure 5. Assignment activity transcription 1 (part 2)
Exposition
Working in heterogenous groups, the mutability of the assemblages became palpable
within this selection of the assignment activity. Verbal actions work in the background
as intermediaries (Latour, 2005) from which actants emerge. Cultural actants are
frequent in this selection and are intra-acted with in a variety of ways diffracting
information through heterogenous human and cultural actants as new inspirations.
Very few material actants are in play. The guitar is an actant when P1 and P2 in the
beginning of the selection are alone, but the guitar submerges when P3 joins them
and sings hybrids of national anthems.

J. Asplund
110
Figure 6. Composition 2: The heterogeneity ensemble

Compositionism and digital music composition education
111
When P3 intra-acts with cultural actants, it requires prociency and previous
knowledge in music making. P2, who mostly listens to P3, at one point picks up
the iPad to get Garageband to help make sense of all the cultural actants in play
and what they mean for the assignment. A variety of cultural actants holds the
rst assemblage together. When P2 intra-acts with the iPad, Garageband, and the
assignment, assemblages are recomposed into new cultural actants in a simultane-
ous assemblage, as P3 continues singing. The two assemblages, however, decom-
pose and recompose via P1 to form an assemblage of new cultural actants and all
three human actants.
The assemblage composition uncovers the mutability of activities. Also, this seem-
ingly messy locality is structured via the changing assemblages that display meaning-
making hybrids formed by the participating actants. In recomposing transcripts,
these assemblages can expose forms of meaning-making that can be performed and
activated in the classroom.
Composition 3: The duo/quartet multiplicity
Composition 3 is the second example from an assignment activity. There were two
pupils sitting at a table with one iPad each in front of them. They were working
in relation with their individual iPad and Garageband, trying out chord progres-
sions and also talking to each other during this activity. The camera was placed
behind and between them giving a view of both iPads and actions performed.
Here, the headings in the transcription table are the same as in the previous exam-
ple; time indications, spoken by human actants, music sounding, material utter-
ances, and other sociomaterial relations. The transcription from this selection is
displayed in Figures 7 and 8, followed by the assemblage composition in Figures 9
and 10.
Exposition
In this selection of activities, material actants are seemingly particular and small
scale, constrained to functions within the software, as play buttons or autoplay.
However, connections to the wider music technology ecology affect these functions.
All actants work within cultural ecologies, making them multiplicities through their
connections.
The rst assemblage in the selection forms a musical outcome, or becoming, with
cultural and material actants. The human actants also intra-act with material actants
in the learning activity of getting to know or aligning with (Hasse, 2020) the software
and hardware actants. The negotiations between material and human actants gener-
ate new musical outcomes, becoming musical cultural actants, which are recursively
intra-acted with, that generate new assemblages. Outcomes and agencies that emerge
also become specic to the iPad/Garageband/human hybrid especially palpable when
the autoplay function is involved.

J. Asplund
112
12:16 P1: I don’t know! I
hate it!
P3: Wait, are you
recording?
P2: Naa
P3: You are!
P2: No, this is
just…this only
makes a click. The
red one…wait what?
The red one
records.
P1: Or God, no
wait…what!?
P1: but wait.
P2: Yes, hey check
it out, my red
records. The green
only makes this
beat.
P1: Aaah
P1: How do you
erase then?
P2: I think you go
to this one and
press.
P2: And then you
press on th…
P2: eeh?
Metronome
click, C, C,
C, C, F, F, F
Count in
click
C, C, C, C
Count in
click
C, C, C, C
P2:Count in
click C, C,
C, C, F, F,
F, F,
Dm, Dm, Dm,
Dm,
G, G, G, G
Metronome
click
Music
theory
embodied
in
software
Align
with
playback
bar
Hardware
offer
interface
P2: Press
play button
P2: Stops
play
P1: press
record
P2: slides
marker to
start
P2: press
record
P1: stops
record P2:
taps on
chords
P1:
struggling
with moving
marker to
beginning
P2: press
play
P2: points
to playback
controls and
marker.
Press stop.
Moves marker
to
beginning.
P2: changes
to track
view.
P1: changes
to track
view
P2: taps on
recorded
track
P1: press on
recorded
track
P2: press
‘delete’ in
popup menu
P1: press
delete
Figure 7. Assignment activity transcription 2 (part 1)

Compositionism and digital music composition education
113
19:45
P1: How do you do
that, so that you
don’t have to
hold?
P3: put it here.
P2: on four, I mean
on either of them.
P1: Either of
them?
P2: I mean, if you
press on F
P1: yes
P2: So that you can
(inaudible)
P1: I don’t get it.
P2: But you just
did that, press
and then ”I don’t
get it”.
P1: He…oh, if you
now count to four,
then it’s just
one, two, three,
four then one,
two, three, four
(counts out of
sync)
Well, I don’t
know.
C…> Am…> Em…>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
……………………>
F…………………>
…………………
F…………………
F…………………>
Am………………>
………
Software
mediate
meaning
to
certain
outcome
P2: turns on
autoplay
P2: turns
autoplay off
P2: turns on
autoplay.
Swithes
between
autoplay
rhythms
P2: Turns
autoplay off
P1: Presses
F
P1: turns
autoplay off
P1: turns
autoplay on
P1: turns
autoplay off
20:35 P2: okay, how does
this sound?
P1: It sounds
good.
P2: Now I erase
this one, wait.
P2: It doesn’t
sound good.
C……> F………>
Em…> G………>
C……> F………>
…………………>
…………………>
…………………>
…………………>
…………………>
…………………>
…………………>
Aligning
with
software
function
P2:turns
autoplay on
Figure 8. Assignment activity transcription 2 (part 2)
An unequal level of prociency is also present in composition 3. P2 becomes a
teacher when P1 asks about functions in Garageband, becoming student. There
is, however, also an individual exploration of Garageband that coexists within the
composition. The assemblages are aligning with the hardware/software and to some
extent equalizing prociency level in the last becoming in the selection when P2
teacher actant submerges.

J. Asplund
114
Figure 9. Composition 3: The duo/quartet multiplicity (part 1)

Compositionism and digital music composition education
115
Figure 10. Composition 3: The duo/quartet multiplicity (part 2)
Recapitulation
The three compositions are examples of common activities and groupings that
occurred during the four-week composing assignment period. Each assemblage is
particular, and outcomes are irreducible, making generalization impossible. Also,
each selection could have played out differently, depending on the diffractive out-
comes of the intra-actions. Slight changes can make slight differences, or large
differences in the outcomes. The compositions or schemes of connections and
becomings in activities, also become actants that can be intra-acted with recur-
sively. They are performative; however, in this xed form, they become examples of
uid time frozen to enable elicitation of relations and what can become in learning
activities involving digital actants. Hence, embodiment and participatory aspects
are versatile and intra-related within human/nonhuman assemblages, as well as
meaning-making aspects become diffracted and pluralistic. The versatility of out-
comes becomes pronounced in composition 2 and 3. Although the pupils were
given the same assignment with a similar review lecture, outcomes differ depending
on which mediating actants emerge in the assemblages, and which actants intra-act
to diffractive effects.
Extended meaning is generated when recomposing the transcription tables to
nonlinear assemblages. When transcribing workows in complex activities to writ-
ten text, causality can easily be read into the result. Utterances or actions emanating

J. Asplund
116
from one human make a certain effect that generates a certain outcome. To avert
this linear thinking and preconceived understanding of learning activities, the
assemblages instead group actants that become mediators and their relations in the
performative activities of composing music. The outcomes of these groupings are
hybrids of mediators in uid relation to each other that are performed in nonlinear,
“messy” activities.
Material/cultural utterances were created in the transcription table as a way to
speak through and as nonhumans (Adams & Thompson, 2016; Michael, 2004) to
acknowledge and emphasize them as actants within activities. However, to turn
away from the risk of anthropomorphizing things (Thompson & Adams, 2020),
the performative act of recomposing assemblage compositions actuates non-
humans within the hybrids and lets them do their work. Also, this actuates a turn
from representation of the nonhuman to performative doings. The compositions
can uncover and display the “atness” of activities where human and nonhuman
equally become within the hybrid entanglement of which doings and outcomes are
irreducible from.
Coda
With compositionism the intent is to build, constructs, or compose something new
from a critique of the formalist view of compositions (Maes, et al., 2018) as emerg-
ing from human singularities. The autopoietic (Haraway, 2016) understanding of
music composing and its outcomes is insufcient. When digital actants are prolif-
erating, extending, and invading every practice we partake, they become mediators
(Latour, 2005) of new meanings. Engaging with compositionism is an attempt at
nding new understandings in entangling research and art making practices to
rupture preconceived understandings and allow complexities (MacLure, 2006) in
learning activities.
Although studies have acknowledged musical compositions for the afliation
between human, material, and/or cultural aspects (Brooker & Sharrock, 2016;
Folkestad, 2004, 2006; Maes et al., 2018; Schmidt-Jones, 2018), this study inten-
sies this relationality of compositions to sociomaterial hybrids. The duo/quartet
multiplicity assemblages and its musical outcomes as irreducible to singular entities,
emerge recursive engagements with previous experience in working with Garageband,
music theory, and/or music composition as actant. When there was limited previ-
ous experience, the enhancement/veiling of musical features in software (Jennings,
2007; Schmidt-Jones, 2018) reduced pupils to intermediaries, transporting infor-
mation from one function in the software to another. Learning becomes hardware/
software specic and bypasses the subject matter as becoming actant in activities. In
this case, learning becomes-with (Haraway, 2016) Garageband as teacher, generat-
ing the inexperienced learner’s outcomes as specic situated intra-actions with the
situated software. Gestures that are both musical and hardware specic (Bell, 2015)

Compositionism and digital music composition education
117
allow for the emergence of agencies, experiences, and embodiments other than tra-
ditional musical instruments. Also, previous experience entangles “inside/outside”
of music education (Chen, 2017) which further diffracts learning experiences from
recursive engagements with the same educational subject matter which becomes pal-
pable in assemblages of composition 2 and 3. The expanding multiverse, the rhizome
of material possibilities (Ferrando, 2018; Lum, 2017), here becomes hybridized and
specic, making the “equal” in music composition education an acknowledgement of
personalized situated entanglements.
Attentiveness to what the learning matter becomes within the hybrids when engag-
ing digital hardware and software is of importance. By inviting more actants into
the music composing activity, pupils in the heterogeneity ensemble intra-acted with
the learning matter in different and diffractive ways. The pupils in the duo/quartet
multiplicity are instead involved entirely with the intra-actions in the hardware/
software, making music composition learning limited to that specic assemblage. The
extent to which the assignment is adapted to the hardware/software actant will also
affect and delimit outcomes (Gemeinboeck, 2020). Proposedly, two or several assign-
ments to intra-act with, that change intra-action patterns with the software could be
available to extend possibilities for all learners. The diffractive outcomes that emerge
from different hybrids can furthermore become part of the intended learning matter.
Outcomes become actants that can be further intra-acted with in extended learning
activities. Furthermore, material actants such as musical instruments can extend the
digital intra-action to other embodied experiences, and increase the afliation possi-
bilities (Folkestad, 2004, 2006; Maes, et al., 2018; Schmidt-Jones, 2018).
The nonlinear logics that emerge from the compositions of assemblages suggest a
performative turn (Maes, et al., 2018) to understanding of composition outcomes.
When learners with limited experience in creating music are involved in music
composition activities, they need opportunities to engage with differentiated musi-
cal cultural and material actants. To increase the experience of differentiated intra-
actions with differentiated material and cultural actants, a pupil’s own musical
ideas (Skolverket, 2018) can emerge as an actant in the matter/nature/culture learn-
ing entanglement. Learners with more experience and prociency are more likely
to incorporate their past into the now to diffracted outcomes although keeping
their mediating capacity. Hardware/software specic music composing can on the
other hand be seen as extending possibilities (Folkestad et al., 1998; Martin, 2012;
Winters, 2012) of intra-action for both inexperienced and experienced learners
when prociency in traditional musical instruments is not needed. Furthermore,
learning the hardware/software (Brooker & Sharrock, 2016) will not obviate its
capacity as mediating actant in situated hybrids of music composing. The duo/
quartet multiplicity and the heterogeneity ensemble provide examples that features
in digital music applications are not merely resources for human action (Bandlien
& Selander, 2019), but actants in irreducible meaning-making assemblages of
music composing.

J. Asplund
118
Making meaning of diffractive outcomes of digital music composing activities as
hybrids emerging from assemblages can become extended possibilities for teacher
planning when inviting actants into play. In addition, for learners in school, opportu-
nities increase to become capable mediators in music composition activities, extend-
ing possibilities in the multiverse, if diverse musical actants are offered.
Author biography
Jonas Asplund is currently a PhD student at Stockholm university with research
subject in music education and special interest in digital music composition and
posthumanism. Jonas has for 20 plus years worked as a teacher within music educa-
tion in Sweden including cultural school, compulsory school, secondary school, and
university levels. Also, in tandem, Jonas is a freelance composer within contemporary
classical music and electro-acoustic music including various collaborations over the
years with ensembles and musicians in Sweden and elsewhere.
References
Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016). Researching a posthuman world: Interviews with digital objects. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Allsup, R. E. (2013). The compositional turn in music education: From closed forms to open texts.
In M.Kaschub & J. Smith, Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition (pp. 57–70).
Oxford University Press.
Bandlien, B.-T., & Selander, S. (2019). Designing and composing music with iPads: a performative perspective.
In A.-L. Østern & K. Nødtvedt Knudsen (Eds.), Performative approaches in arts education: Artful teaching,
learning and research (pp. 81–95). Routledge.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke
University Press.
Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax 20(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13534645.2014.927623
Bell, A. P. (2015). Can we afford these affordances: GarageBand and the double-edged sword of the digital
audio workstation. Action, Theory, and Criticism for Music Education, 14(1), 44–65.
Bennett, J. (2004). The force of things: Steps toward an acology of matter. Political Theory, 32(3), 347–372.
https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177/0090591703260853
Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, or what it’s like to be a thing. University of Minnesota Press.
Brooker, P., & Sharrock, W. (2016). Collaborative music-making with digital audio workstations: The “nth
member” as a heuristic device for understanding the role of technologies in audio composition. Symbolic
Interaction, 39(3), 463–483. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1002/symb.238
Chen, J. (2017). Mobile learning in music education. In S. A. Ruthmann & R. Mantie (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of technology and music education (pp. 163–170). Oxford University Press.
De Landa, M. (1997). A thousand years of nonlinear history. Zone Books.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2013). A thousand plateaus. Bloomsbury Academic.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies. Sociomaterial approaches to researching adult
education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1),
49–63. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela0104
Ferrando, F. (2018). Multiverse. In R. Braidotti & M. Hlavajova (Eds.), Posthuman glossary (pp. 266–268).
Bloomsbury.
Folkestad, G. (2004). A meta-analytic approach to qualitative studies in music education: A new model applied
to creativity and composition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (161/162), 83–90.

Compositionism and digital music composition education
119
Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and informal ways of
learning. British Journal of Music Education, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051706006887
Folkestad, G. (2017). Soundscaping the world with digital tools: The future in retrospect. Nordic Research in
Music Education. Yearbook 18, 23–46.
Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lindstrom, B. (1998). Compositional strategies in computer-based music-
making. British Journal of Music Education, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700003788
Gemeinboeck, P. (2020). Dancing with the non-human. In J. Bennett & M. Zournazi (Eds.), Thinking in the world:
A reader (pp. 150–170). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Haraway, D. J. (1994). A game of cat’s cradle: Science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Congurations
2.1, 59–71. http://doi.org/10.1353/con.1994.0009
Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble, making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
Harrison, A. K. (2018). Ethnography. Oxford University Press.
Hasse, C. (2020). Posthumanist learning: What robots and cyborgs teach us about being ultra-social. Routledge.
Hultin, L. (2019). On becoming a sociomaterial researcher: Exploring epistemological practices grounded
in a relational, performative ontology. Information and Organization 29, 91–104. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.
su.se/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.004
Huovinen, E., & Rautanen, H. (2019). Interaction affordances in traditional instruments and tablet computers:
A study of children’s musical group creativity. Research Studies in Music Education, 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F1321103X18809510
Jennings, K. (2007). Composing with graphical technologies: representations, manipulations and affordances.
In J. Finney & P. Burnard (Eds.), Music education with digital technology (pp. 76–94). Continuum.
Kjus, Y. (2018). Live and recorded: Music experience in the digital millenium. Palgrave Macmillan.
Krogh, M. (2018). A beat is a hybrid: Mediation, ANT and music as material practice. Contemporary Music
Review, 37(5–6), 329–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2018.1575125
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. The Sociological Review, 15–25.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical
Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2010). An attempt at a “compositionist manifesto”. New Literary History, 41(3), 471–490.
Lind, A., & Nylén, D. (2016). Mapping everyday objects to digital materiality in the wheel quintet: Polytempic
music and participatory art. 16th International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, 84–89.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-129429
Lum, C.-H. (2017). Power and choice in the teaching and learning of music. In A. Ruthmann, & R. Mantie
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education (pp. 355–366). Oxford University Press.
Löytönen, T., Koro-Ljungberg, M., Carlson, D., Orange, A., & Cruz, J. (2015). A pink writing experiment.
Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 6(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.1489
Manning, E. (2015). Against method. In P. Vannini (Ed.), Non-representational methodologies: Re-envisioning
research (pp. 52–71). Routledge.
MacLure, M. (2006). The bone in the throat: Some uncertain thoughts on baroque method. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education 19(6), 729–745. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1080/09518390600975958
Maes, P.-J., Lorenzoni, V., Moens, B., Six, J., Bressan, F., Schepers, I., & Leman, M. (2018). Embodied,
participatory sense-making in digitally-augmented music practices: Theoretical principles and the artistic case
“SoundBikes”. Critical Arts 32(3), 77–94. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1080/02560046.2018.1447594
Martin, J. (2012). Toward authentic electronic music in the curriculum: Connecting teaching to current
compositional practices. International Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 120–132. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.
su.se/10.1177%2F0255761412439924
Michael, M. (2004). On making data social: Heterogeneity in sociological practice. Qualitative Research, 4(1),
5–23. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177%2F1468794104041105
Mondada, L. (2016, July). Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/
leadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf
Murris, K. (2022). (Ed.). A glossary for doing postqualitative, new materialist and critical posthumanist research across
disciplines. Routledge.
Näringsdepartementet. (2017). Hur Sverige blir bäst i världen på att använda digitaliseringens möjligheter – en
skrivelse om politikens inriktning. Skr. 2017/18:47. Näringsdepartementet.
Ojala, A. (2017). Learning through producing: Pedagogical and technological redesign of a compolsory music course for
Finnish general upper secondary schools. Sibelius Academy.

J. Asplund
120
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and
artefacts – a trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou
(Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings, (pp. 83–92),
Rhodes, Greece.
Ruthmann, S. A., & Hebert, D. G. (2012). Music learning and new media in virtual and online environments.
In G. E. McPherson & G. W. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 2, pp. 567–583). Oxford
University Press.
Sandvik, N. (2010). The art of/in educational research: Assemblages at work. Reconceptualizing Educational
Research Methodology, 1(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.169
Schmidt-Jones, C. (2018). Open online resources and visual representations of music: New affordances for
music education. Journal of Music, Technology & Education 11(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1386/
jmte.11.2.197_1
Selander, S. (2017). Didaktiken efter Vygotskij: Design för lärande. Liber.
Skolverket. (2018). Curr iculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare 2011. Skolverket.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2019a). Post qualitative inquiry in an ontology of immanence. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 3–16.
https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177%2F1077800418772634
St. Pierre, E. A. (2019b). Post qualitative inquiry, the refusal of method, and the risk of the new. Qualitative
Inquiry, 1–7. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177%2F1077800419863005
Susa, R. (2019). Struggling with the reccuring reduction of being to knowing: Placing thin hope in aesthetic
interventions. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 10(2), 185–199. https://
doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9141
Thompson, T. L., & Adams, C. (2020). Accountabilities of posthuman research. Explorations in Media Ecology,
19(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00050_7
Utbildningsdepartementet. (2017). Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet (Bilaga till regeringsbeslut I:1).
Utbildningsdepartementet.
Ward, C. J. (2009). Musical exploration using ICT in the middle and secondary school classroom. International
Journal of Music Education 27(2), 154–168. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177%2F0255761409102323
Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). God forskningssed. Vetenskapsrådet.
Winters, M. (2012). The challenges of teaching composing. British Journal of Music Education, 29(1), 19–24.
https://doi:10.1017/S0265051711000489