A Thesis
Presented to
In Partial Fulfillment
Master of Music
By
June 2015
2015
2
The thesis of Erica Lynn Shelton Gilstrap is approved.
Sbastien Valle
Jeffrey Benedict
June 2015
3
ABSTRACT
By
neuroscience, and the current position of neuromusical research with implications for the
future of music education through literature review. The purpose of this study is to
question whether neuroscience can (1) provide evidence-based support for music
education as a core subject, (2) inform the practice of effective music education
pedagogy, and (3) inform music education policy. The literature confirmed that all three
research questions are supported and informative for music education, pedagogy, and
policy. However, due to the infancy of neuromusical research, there is much regard for
neuromyths and the applications of pedagogy. Implications for the future of music
education may indicate that when combining the neuroscience findings of neural benefits
curriculum for music education. Additionally, the future of music education has a need
findings into informative practical applications for effective learning and pedagogy.
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Emily Moss for her support,
time, and meticulous review of this study. I would also like to thank my committee
members Dr. Sbastien Valle, Dr. Jeffrey Benedict, and department chair, Dr. John M.
Kennedy for their additional support throughout this thesis process. Thank you to Tatiana
Lerma for her time and assistance with format. Thank you to Andrea Gutierrez with the
Graduate Resource Center for providing thesis workshops and the establishment of a
experience with and love for research provided me welcomed opportunities to better
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...............................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v
List of Figures...................................................................................................................viii
Chapter
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................1
Rationale............................................................................................................1
Overview............................................................................................................2
Purpose...............................................................................................................4
2. Literature Review....................................................................................................5
Concerns...................................................................................................9
Neuromyths.............................................................................................14
Neuromusical Research...................................................................................20
Concerns.................................................................................................29
Ethics ......................................................................................................30
Musical-based Neuromyths....................................................................31
Opportunities...........................................................................................31
6
Implications and Applications in Music Education................................33
3. Method ................................................................................................................36
Limitations.......................................................................................................43
Recommendations............................................................................................44
5. Conclusion............................................................................................................48
References..........................................................................................................................50
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
8
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Rationale
neuromusical research are currently in the beginning stages of providing a much needed
evidence-based foundation for music education in American society and schools. Since
the launch of Sputnik and the space race, math and science has taken precedence over arts
and humanities in the national curriculum, while music education continues to lose
ground. In response, music educators continuously fight for validity based on advocacy
and philosophy arguments. It has been long understood that there are both aesthetic
benefits (e.g., creativity and joy) (Reimer, 1970) and praxial benefits (Elliot, 1995)
music being a discipline that encompasses math, reading, history, language, science,
physical education, and art, while also contributing to social and emotional intelligence,
self-efficacy and esteem, discipline and perseverance. There are also benefits outside the
increased IQ, and higher achievement scores and performance, which relates to that of
applied researchthe access and uses some part of the research communities'
these attributes have not been represented with the same clout as perceived benefits of
math and science with regard to the national curriculum. Despite these contributions of
music education, there is still the need of evidence or basic researchsystematic study
attempting to provide these answers by using music as a tool to discover how the brain
Overview
from the field of biology. Currently, it has evolved to include collaborations with many
other fields with regards to the central nervous system. Often researchers within
argues that in order for intellectual coherence to exist among diverse scholars and
professionals, there must be precision in definitions and use of technical terms to provide
a consistent bases for which findings are communicated among collaborative enterprise.
provide an infrastructure for learning and teaching (Fischer et al., 2010). In the past two
decades, educational neuroscience has reached great popularity, spurred in part by the
U.S. governments designation of the 1990s as The Decade of the Brain (Varma et al.,
2008). Researchers, the public, and media are now contributing to a neuroculture, which
is increasingly informing the publics daily lives, social practices, and intellectual
findings (Goswami, 2006; Peterson, 2011). Researchers are now taking extra precautions
scientific language to that which non-scientists can accurately interpret. However, there
are still debates among researchers about whether neuroscience can inform education
One of the areas that is most favored by cognitive neuroscience researchers is that
cognitive processes. Two main areas of music experiences are currently explored:
listening to and producing music. Both of these areas require the majority of the brains
study. However, these cognitive mechanisms can also occur in intricate, interrelated, and
practically instant sequences (Hyde et al., 2009). Additionally, music also affects aspects
such as emotion, which influences the human bodys central, hormonal, and immune
systems (Koelsch & Siebel, 2005). While neuromusical research is an important element
for researchers to study and understand with regards to cognitive processing in science, it
is also equally as important for its implications regarding educational neuroscience and
neuromusical research and the basic human response, research commenced with regards
to those who receive or have received formal music education and training. Hodges
(1997) explains that what was needed to synthesize the benefits of neuromusical research
Purpose
Findings from this study could support and further the research literature
regarding benefits of music education. This support for music education comes at a time
when emphasis on math, science, and technology learning have been amplified. Thus, in
the wake of a new movement, the music education field has suffered; budget cuts are at
an all-time high and advocacies of music educators have been largely ignored (Flohr,
2010). Neuroscience findings have the potential to restore the societal need for music
education by providing evidence of how the brain functions, and how the implementation
Additionally, these findings may offer music educators the tools to teach more effectively.
learning, its permanent inclusion into the national, state, and local curriculums may
Literature Review
It originally stemmed from the field of biology, but is currently an interdisciplinary field
produced hole in the skull (trepanation, n.d.). In 1700 B.C., the Edwin Smith Surgical
Papyrus was the first written record about the nervous system. It received its moniker
after American Egyptologist Edwin Smith who bought the papyrus in Egypt in 1862
Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, etc., from ca. 460 B.C.-200 A.D., wrote theories of
the brains function, effects of damage to or disturbances of the brain, and of the brains
relationship to the senses. Throughout the next several hundred years there were many
contributions to the field of neuroscience, but significant development occurred after the
During the 20th century, neuroscientific development was rapidly expanding and
pioneering advances were made to the field of biology, particularly the emergence, in the
late 1950s and early 1960s, of neuroscience as a distinct discipline (Cowan et al., 2000).
David Rioch, Francis O. Schmitt, and Stephen Kuffler played critical roles in its
establishment, particularly Kuffler, who established the first freestanding Department of
Neuroscience at Harvard Medical School in 1966 (Cowan et al., 2000). Modern day
system functions, and once it was determined that the nervous system can be split into
two partsthe central nervous system and the peripheral nervous systemnew branches
neuroscience was coined by George Miller and Michael Gazzaniga in the late 1970s,
(About CNS, n.d.; Cowan et al., 2000). Cognitive neuroscience has a specialized focus
on the study of damage effects to the brain and the brains ability to rewire as
(SPECT) have allowed researchers to observe brain function and are now permanently
movement Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) (Fischer et al., 2010). Educational
neuroscience is a newly established field of study that integrates research from multiple
learning and teaching (Szcs & Goswami, 2007; Fischer, 2010). The goal of educational
neuroscience is to integrate the diverse disciplines that investigate human learning and
and Triarhou (as cited by C. Beauchamp & M. Beauchamp, 2013) describe the efforts of
neurologist Henry Donaldson and educator Reuben Post Halleck to explore applications
that currently, the need for this field is so that education can be grounded more solidly in
basic research. However, there has been much debate among researchers about whether
inform education is that of John Bruer, (1997) Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too
Far. His findings were noteworthy because of his position as director of the McDonnell
Foundation, which was actively funding research in both disciplines (Varma et al., 2008).
Bruer discusses some of the concerns that are still debated today, including neuromyths
and the basis of how they are created. He argues that enough [is] not known about brain
development and neural function to link that understanding directly, in any meaningful,
defensible way to instruction and educational practice (p. 4). In 1997, the pro-argument
for educational neuroscience was built on three neurobiology findings: (1) from infancy
to later childhood, there is an increase in synapsesthe junction between two nerve cells
that connect neurons (i.e., a nerve cell), followed by a period of synaptic elimination or
optimal or sensitive period) in the development of sensory and motor systems, and (3)
enriched environments cause new synapses to form (Bruer, 1997). The logic follows that
a rapid increase in the number of synapses in childrens brains, and at age 10 (more than
at any other time), experiences strengthen some synapses and prune away unused ones,
which is referred to as the critical period. Finally, during this time, children can most
benefit from stimulating learning environments and if this critical period is not utilized,
Varma et al., (2008) summarizes eight main concerns for bridging education and
neuroscience, which are derived from Bruer and ensuing commentaries, conversations
among colleagues, and from experience. These concerns are categorized into scientific
and pragmatic groupings, then are analyzed again as opportunities. There are four
scientific concerns: methods, data, theories, and philosophy; and four pragmatic
Concerns
The first concern is that of methods. Neuroscience methods do not provide access
artificial scenarios and are unable to provide useful theories or information about
researchers with the ability to examine functions of typical and atypical brains, but this
method has limitations as they cannot provide data within a real-time classroom setting.
Varma et al. counters this by suggesting that innovative designs and experimental
Different learning contexts can provide multiple strategies, such as brain activation
following different learning procedures. For example, Tang et al. (as cited by Varma et
al. 2008) compared English- and Chinese-speaking participants as they added and
mechanisms. The researchers hypothesized that this difference stemmed from the use of
the abacus in Chinese culture and that the visuomotor understanding of numbers as
children remained in adults. These studies and findings can create a powerful way to
interactions.
The second concern, data, argues that localizing cognitive mechanisms does not
inform education practice. In other words, although neuroscientists are now able to
collect data on specific, activated brain areas during cognitive activities such as language
instructional design. For example, knowing that phonology is processed by Brocas area
does not help educators to effectively teach children to read. In response to the data
concern, neuroscience can pose different cognition analysis which implies new
example, different arithmetic operations show different speed and accuracy profiles based
on strategies implemented by different brain networks (Dehaene et al., as cited by Varma
et al., 2008). These findings raise questions of whether differences in the way operations
support useful generalizations for education. For example, a child has difficulty
not. However, Varma et al. explains that reduction is a unifying principle of science as
process by which sciences are brought together. The only inappropriate thing concerning
Fox, as cited by Varma et al., 2008). Reducing select educational terms to neuroscience
terms will not eliminate them, but will make possible the recruitment of the
microdescriptions of neuroscience and vice versa for education when necessary (Varma et
Educational vocabulary stems from the social sciences; the terminology is related to that
and is geared for physical phenomena. The attempt to describe classroom behavior by
argument suggests that neuroscience may contribute to the resolution of internal conflicts
within education which are created from theoretical constructs and terminologies that
differ within subfields of education. Varma et al. use the example that cognition is treated
as what gets a task done, whereas motivation is treated as what gets people to try a
task; cognition and motivation being two items discussed within educational theory. In
this example, the problem results from the lack of shared vocabulary that connects these
two aspects of learning; neuroscience can offer a common biological vocabulary for
2008).
is cost. The methods of neuroscience experiments are too expensive for research in the
field of education. Educators must weigh the consideration of not just benefits that
neuroscience can offer, but also of how much it will cost to seek those answers. A rough
estimate suggests that it costs $600 for one participant for one hour to conduct research
using an affiliated hospital scanner and a mandatory support staff. In the position that
research has yielded educational insights, distributing those findings would require
additional monies. However, Varma et al. argues that educational aspects of neuroscience
could attract additional funding for research, and that neuroscience and education are not
mutually exclusive, but are interdependent. Research questions of mutual interests exists
The second concern discussed is timing. Varma et al. argues that we do not
currently know enough about the brain for neuroscience to inform education. Since 1997
and the publishing of Bruers (1997) article, studies using fMRI research has increased
exponentially and does not include additional studies that use other instrumental
technologies such as ERPs and PET. Educators should wait until more data is collected
many studies have now been conducted, the most mature of which is early reading skills
and used fMRI to identify differences in language networks of typical and atypical
developing children (Schalggar & McCandliss, as cited by Varma et al., 2008). More
recent research is offering three important contributions: (1) documenting the impact of
educational interventions, (2) extending the initial research to languages other than
English, and (3) differences between typical and atypical development, which help to
explain individual differences within the normal range (p. 146). Varmas et al.
examples of dyslexia remediation programs have revealed the impact on the brains
Thirdly, educators are concerned with control. Some educators argue that
Images of the brain coupled with material explanations appear to command more
authority than the functional explanations of social science (p. 143). For example,
psychology theories are now being explained in terms of neural mechanisms; educators
anticipate a similar fate. Varma et al. addresses opportunities surrounding control by
posing the suggestion ask not what neuroscience can do for education, but what
education can do for neuroscience (p. 148). The common assumption is that
neuroscience can inform education, but education has nothing to offer neuroscience.
Education research has provided unique insights into cognition and is of foundational
importance to the future of neuroscience. Varma et al. explains that important questions
circuitry for learning in different content areas. Neuroscience has little groundwork for
these types of questions as opposed to education which has a significant empirical base.
Despite the concerns or consent of educators, educational neuroscience is here to stay and
informed by their personal experiences of how children learn skills and knowledge. For
the betterment of society, it would serve both communities well to share knowledge and
Neuromyths
misconstrued into neuromyths. The issue of neuromyths is one of the most controversial
and infamous issues concerning the successful bridging of neuroscience and education.
findings in brain research and often appear within brain-based learning applications
(i.e., the label brain-based stretches or manipulates the truth of research findings for
marketing gains) (Flohr, 2010; Goswami, 2006; Geake 2008). Howard-Jones (as cited
by Geake, 2008) explains that neuromyths are not always necessarily unfounded. Their
origins may lie in valid scientific research, but the implication may have been stretched
beyond the scope of the findings, especially when transferred from a laboratory into a
classroom (i.e., educators might draw incorrect implication and can then be related back
prescriptive and for both scientists and educators to be very wary of oversimplification
when seeking application at the cognitive or behavioral levels (Geake, 2008, p. 125).
al., 2008; Fisher et al., 2010), in which companies are making premature claims about
the power of neuroscience (p. 230). Goswami (2006) writes that many brain-based
learning programs currently in schools have no scientific basis, but the industry sells
placebo effect, these programs may offer short-term benefits, but long-term effects are
unlikely and classroom use will eventually decay. The controversy surrounding
misuse? (p. 412). Varma et al. explains that people like to think in terms of brains, so to
neuromyths reveals that there is a public fascination with brain function. One solution
findings without trying to sell them. Secondly, interpolations, not extrapolations, would
likely be more valid. Generalizing outside the scope of the findings is dangerous. It is
safer to search content areas in neuroscience research using methods, tasks, and
However, many existing neuromyths are still present in the beliefs and practices
of educators. The most popular neuromyths are the 10% myth, left- and right-brained
thinking, VAK learners, multiple intelligences, and critical periods versus optimal periods
(Geake, 2008; Goswami, 2006; Flohr, 2010; Varma et al., 2008; Bruer, 1997). The 10%
myth is based on the belief that we only use 10% of our total brain capacity. Geake
(2008) explains that its origin is traced back to Italy circa 1890, where a surgeon removed
society to use the 10% and think more. Finally, the myth received its biggest boost
before the Second World War when American advertisers of home-help manuals used the
10% figure to convince consumers that they were unintelligent. After neuroscience
evidence that the brain can adapt, which requires all neurons to fire from different areas.
Beyerstein (as cited by Geake, 2008) explains that evolution does not produce excess,
much less 90% excess. If you are only using 10% of your brain, then you are in a
vegetative state so close to death that you should hope that your relatives will pull out the
The left- and right-brained thinking myth was created from a misinterpretation of
laterality studies. The original studies involved patients who had the corpus callosum
(the communication bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain) severed to reduce
life-threatening epilepsy. The myth was created from ignored facts, particularly that
these patients had abnormal brains before the procedure. For normal brains, both
hemispheres function in harmony with one another and cannot function properly in
The VAK learning styles are another popular myth based on the senses: visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic. The assumption is that information gained through one sensory
modality. This myth has been debunked by repeated research that provides no evidence
different styles (Coffield et al., 2004). Input modalities in the brain are interlinked: visual
with auditory; visual with motor; motor with auditory; visual with taste, etc. Humans
have evolved this interlinked modality ability due to an evolutionary need for
coordinating sight and sound (e.g., pre-hominid hunter-gatherers needed this coordination
The theory of Multiple intelligences (MI) was developed by Gardner in 1993 and
interpersonal, spatial, music, movement and interpersonal. Geake explains that this
theory is very similar to Platos balanced curriculum of six subjects: logic, rhetoric,
recommendation for meditation. Just as VAK sensory processing uses multiple cognitive
but rather, multiple applications of the same multifaceted intelligence (p. 126).
Critical periods refer to an idea that there are set time frames of which stunted or
eyes are inhibited from visual stimulation at a certain time of development, the kitten will
not be able to see (p. 3). Although visual development can be impeded if not stimulated
within certain time periods, development is not critically stunted (Bruer, 1997). Current
research suggests that critical periods are not sharply delineated and are influenced by
factors such as input and modality. Due to this new information, researchers now use the
terms optimal or sensitive perioda developmental stage during which neurons select
their repertoire of inputs from a wider array of possible inputs (CERI, n.d.). Flohr
easier (p. 3). Different brain systems vary depending upon the amount and type of
experiences (i.e., plasticity) and some systems retain the ability to change with
Varma et al., (2008) proposes that if the 1990s were The Decade of the Brain,
then perhaps the 2010s will be The Decade of Educating the Brain. Fischer (2010)
agrees that educational neuroscience and more broadly Mind, Brain, and Education have
an important role to play for improving education. One proposal to create a solid
foundation for the future of educational neuroscience is an effort to bridge dialog between
education and neuroscience. Several organizations have been established to achieve this
feat, such as the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), which launched
the project Learning Sciences and Brain Research from 1999 to 2006; and the
International Mind Brain and Education Society, which launched its first journal in 2007
(Howard-Jones & Fenton, 2012; Jenson, 2008). Other societies and conference
Neuroscience and Education Special Interest Group, Public Information Resources, Inc.
(PIRI), and the Learning Brain EXPO, which has had award-winning neuroscientists to
speak in translated terms to educators (C. Beauchamp & E. Beauchamp, 2013; Jenson,
radical combinations of methods to explore research questions which are bringing to the
The educating the brain decade prediction by Varma et al. seems to ring true as
some of the aforementioned proposals have already been implemented. Many ideas are
now emerging from neuroscience that are authentically relevant to education. For
of the brain, has prompted educators to intervene with promising results (Wilson et al., as
cited by Howard-Jones & Fenton, 2012). Also, insights and intervention into methods for
reading and children with developmental dyslexia have shown reduced activation in left
hemisphere sites and atypical engagement of right hemisphere sites, while improving
language (Shatwitz et al., Simos et al., Temple et al., as cited by Howard-Jones & Fenton,
2012).
thousands are currently using this knowledge appropriately to enhance policy and
issues in the face of disciplinary borders may help professionals from diverse
and education as tools to build on rather than obstacles that must be resisted. (p.
62)
fixture in American society are universitys such as Harvard, which offer both masters
and doctoral degrees in Mind, Brain, and Education (Jenson, 2008); John Hopkins
University, which offers a Mind, Brain, and Teaching graduate certification program; and
Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL), which offers a Master of Science
Teaching (BrainSMART Teaching). Interests are exponentially increasing the world over,
particularly in Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, England, South Africa, New
Neuromusical Research
psychology, education, and music education (Music Cognition, n.d.; CSML, n.d.;
Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). Due to the integration of these disciplines, terminology that
Peretz and Zatorre (as cited by Brattico, 2006), use the terminology: cognitive
field concerned with the application of methods affiliated with cognitive science (e.g.,
(Music Cognition, n.d.). The origin of music cognition traces back to 4th century BCE
2009). Aristoxenuss philosophy was that the characteristics of music intervals should be
classified by effects on the listener rather than their mathematical ratios (Levitin, as cited
by Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). This philosophy centered attention toward music and the
human mind. In the late 1800s, the ripple effect of Artistoxenuss philosophy altered
the approach of experimental psychology, which mapped changes away from physical
2009). Many early studies in experimental psychology concerned music, and the Gestalt
psychological and physiological events and rejection of analysis into discrete events of
Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009, p. 211). Over the past decade, the number of studies regarding
music cognition has grown exponentially and researchers often find themselves needing
to define music in order to explain how it effects the brain. It has proved to be difficult,
but often researchers refer to the definition of theorist Leonard Meyer, who defined it as
a form of emotional communication or by composer Edgar Varse who famously
defined it as organized sound (Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). Levitin and Tirovolas
and self-discovery, or as an auditory art form (p. 211). However, some metaphysicists
and music philosophers break down the meaning of organized sound to that of
vibration, which is more inclusive of non-human produced musics of the universe (e.g.,
bird, whale, and penguin songs). Another branch of cognitive science and a subcategory
modeling musical knowledge with the goal of understanding both music and cognition
(Laske, 1999).
Neuromusical research has become so popular that Zatorre (2005) deemed music
the food of neuroscience (p. 312). As of 2010, there are hundreds of neuromusical
research articles that have been published and abstracts for 533 of those are available in a
fully searchable online database titled the Musical Brain Imaging Research Database
(MusicBIRD). Studies included in the database were identified by a keyword search for
brain in PubMed, or music and brain in RILM (Figure 2) (Edwards, 2009). Two other
databases, PsychINFO and PubMed, produced 913 music abstracts and 1088 brain
Additionally, there are several books that provide overviews of this work, such as
The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music (Peretz and Zatorre, 2003, as cited by Margulis,
2008), Music, Language, and the Brain (Patel, 2007, as cited by Margulis, 2008), This is
your Brain on Music (Levitin, 2006), and Musicophilia (Sack, 2007, as cited by Margulis,
2008), both of the latter being international bestsellers. However, Hodges (2010) states
that in spite of these multiple sources, relatively few researchers have made applications
to the teaching-learning process, but some of those application sources are The Art of
Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of
Learning (Zull, 2002, as cited by Hodges, 2010), Foundations for a new Science of
Learning, Arts, and the Brain (Hardiman, 2009) and article entries within The Oxford
Handbook of Music Education (e.g., Hodges & Gruhn, 2012). Peterson (2011) also notes
two DVDs that are additional sources for non-scientists, which include The Music
Instinct: Science and Sound (Mannes and Smilow, as cited by Peterson) and Musical
Minds: Can the Power of Music Make the Brain Come Alive? (Murdock, as cited by
Peterson).
of those who study it; (2) by the attribute of musical characteristic (e.g., rhythm, pitch,
melody, timbre); or (3) by the mental processes involved (Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009).
Miranda and Overy (2009) describe the current position of neuromusical research and
explain why music is a popular area of interest for neuroscientists: (1) music perception
and performance offer insights into neural processing such as auditory, fine motor skills,
communication. Collins (2013) elaborates on this concept by explaining that there are
significant differences between listening to music and producing music, which has
created a divergence into areas of enquiry, which leads to (2) Musicians brains are
structurally and functionally different, particularly in the auditory and motor processing,
suggesting that musical experience has the ability to change brain structure and
(3) Music experiences lead to increased performance on other kinds of perceptual and
cognitive tasks. Music also benefits neuroscientists for the study of brain connectivity
how the parts of the brain communicate with one another and perform multi-tasking
since music involves all the main regions of the brain (cortex, sub-cortex and
cerebellum), in both left and right hemispheres. Moreover, Miranda and Overy (2009)
explain that the neural mechanisms engaged by music also play an important role in
aspects of human intelligence, such as speech, motor control, and emotion. These
findings create huge strides for neuroscientists, but more importantly, these are incredible
findings for the field of music education, whose researchers have written multiple
philosophies for the advocacy of music education without the newfound benefits of
neuromusical research.
Some of the benefits neuroscientists have helped establish for music education
experiences through evidence-based findings are focused on the individual with regards
to performance in other academic areas, and efficacy of self with implications for society
betterment. Benefits of music education for individuals include: (1) children who study
music have increased vocabulary and reading skills (Tsang and Conrad, 2011)
dyslexia (Flaugnacco et al., 2014) found that that rhythm reproduction was strongly
associated with most reading outcome measures and phonological awareness; (3) Music
can serve as an inexpensive early screening tool for reading disabilities (Zuk et al., 2013)
this study came about after music teacher, Paulo Andrade, invented an activity in
which he played chords on an instrument and asked students to write symbols that
represented whether the chords were high or low. Those that performed poorly typically
developed severe reading problems later in their studies; (4) students who participate in
high-quality music programs score higher on reading and spelling tests (Hille et al.,
2011); (5) music experience improves attention and memory recall (Posner & Patoine,
2009); (6) music raises your IQ (Schellenberg, as cited by Hyde et al., 2009); and (7)
music experience literally expands your brain (Hyde et al., 2009). (8) Hallam (2010)
Other contributions for the betterment of society include (1) schools that have
music programs have an attendance rate of 93.3% compared to 84.9% in schools without
music programs and (2) have significantly higher graduation rates than do those without
music programs: (90.2 percent as compared to 72.9 percent). Additionally, those that rate
their programs as excellent or very good have an even higher graduation rate at 90.9
However, these benefits have been largely ignored in America; so much so that
budget cuts in the field are causing the discipline to all but vanish (Flohr, 2010; Catterall
& Rauscher, 2008). Music educators are continuously forced to advocate for their
existence in schools. Elpus (as cited by Peterson, 2011) argued that there is an advocacy
crisis because music educators lack a philosophical foundation for the practices and rely
on questionable research. Advocacy content is vast and covers six main areas: history of
advocacy, organizational issues, the need for advocacy, tips and resources for effective
(Peterson, 2011). Catterall and Rauscher (2008) offer one explanation as to the need for
music educators to continually justify their roles. In early American history, the
population consisted of mostly Puritans and their goal of education was to have society
be able to read the Bible. Literacy remained the staple principle throughout the
nineteenth century. However, on August 28, 1838, the School Board of Boston
Massachusetts made music a part of the regular curriculum and teachers were paid by
public funds, but artistic goals were not of overall interestsreading, writing, and
arithmetic took precedence. The failure of the public schools to develop basic abilities
in these skills has resulted in a school environment in which arts education is not a high
Hodges (1997) also argues that if music is biologically inherent in the human
system as language and humans are genetically predispositions for musical behaviors,
there must be a reason. Just as societal changes have come about in diet and smoking
through research, it may be that society will become more strongly supportive of music
that duplicate that of music educators. For example, Pearce and Rohrmeier (2012)
explain that music should be of interest to cognitive scientists and the role it plays in
human cognition. He defines three factors that justify it as an important topic for
research: (1) music is a universal human trait fulfilling crucial roles in everyday life; (2)
and human evolution (e.g., Levitin and Tirovolas (2009) explain that Michael Gazzaniga
and others believe that artistic thinking was essential to early human development. For
hypothetical scenarios and planning their responses ahead of time; and (3) appreciating
and producing music simultaneously engages many processes (e.g., perceptual, cognitive,
and emotional) that render music as an ideal object for studying the mind. Music, and
indeed all art, derives from three hallmarks of human cognition: theory of mind,
expressed by Steven Pinker, who declared at the Society of Music Perception and
Cognition (SMPC) conference in 1997, that music cognition is not worth studying
for human language (Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). Pinker explained that by cheesecake,
music stimulates our pleasure buttons and that similarly, all literature and other arts are
a byproduct in which the pleasures afforded by them are incidental (Pinker; Carroll, as
cited by Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). However, Pinkers criticism has received much
criticism of its own, then and now, as neuromusical research gains momentum and
Concerns
duplicated and deemed reliable. However, the basic restriction that neuromusical
research will always endure is that there are limits to what can be done with the brains of
human subjects. For example, while ablation studies (cutting away portions of the brain)
are performed on mice, scientists cannot perform these same procedures on humans
(Hodges, 1997), which poses a huge consideration for ethical approaches. Additionally,
Hodges (1997) and Varma et al. (2008) address the limitation that the current state of
technology does not allow for brain functions or musical behaviors to be studied in a
natural setting. Hodges explains that EEG equipment is so sensitive that eye blinks
must be factored out; for this reason, it is not possible to gather EEG data while playing a
musical instrument (p. 36). Three other major concerns that one should consider before
making direct applications are: (1) magic versus mysterymusic educators are keenly
aware of the power of music to affect lives. As one advocates for this power, enthusiasm
can influence our language and descriptions, which can lead to unintended neuromyths;
(2) basic and applied researchbasic research refers to a systematic study directed
of observable facts without specific application. Applied research refers to the access and
use of (i.e., apply) some part of the research communities' accumulated theories,
knowledge, methods, and technique. Hodges (1997) explains that basic research provides
a foundation from which applied research can be launched and for music education, there
processes and most music education journals typically publish applied research which
promotes applied research at the expense of basic research (p. 37). However,
neuromusical research is helping to lay a stronger foundation for applied studies in the
future. (3) Short-term versus long-term gainspatience is a virtue when it comes to the
wait for basic research of neuromusical behavior, but applied research must continue to
be published while applied neuromusical research should be pursued; for example, the
implications of mental rehearsal (i.e., mental rehearsals may stimulate the brain as much
as real practice). However, the best method for complete understanding lies in that of
neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience of music has raised ethical concerns regarding
three general areas: (1) the ways in which interdisciplinary research is carried out, the
scrutiny and communication of findings and concepts (i.e., potential neuromyths), and the
application of research and associated issues of policy likely to arise in the future.
Howard-Jones and Fenton break these concerns regarding categories of social (e.g.,
Hodges (1997) explains that the same procedures performed on mice and animals cannot
be performed on humans due to risks. Moreover, the use of animals at all has brought the
Earthlings, and of scientists who argue that perhaps the transfer of findings from animals
(NAVS) explains:
Scientists often site the structural and physiological similarities between animals
and humans as the rationale for animal experimentation. They believe that
because we share similar biological processes, data obtained from animal models
has become the norm in research labs around the world, a closer look at the data
Musical-based Neuromyth
neuromyth: the Mozart effecta term originally applied by the media (Knox, as cited
by Catterall & Raucher, 2008). The original study by Rauscher et al. in 1993 (as cited by
Catterall & Raucher, 2008), researched the effects of college students who listened to the
first ten minutes of Mozart Sonata K. 448. The students scored higher on a spatial-
temporal reasoning task after listening to Mozart than after they listened to relaxation
neuromarketing efforts to seek profits, the results morphed into an idea that music could
make children smarter and of which, the studys authors did not support. Children were
not utilized as subjects and the results found utilized one specific aspect of intelligence:
research indicates that music instruction does contribute to gains in general intelligence,
but if attempts to justify music on the basis of the way it enhances general intelligence,
we may find ourselves in a bad position, as other subjects show similar results (Flohr,
2010, p. 4); as multiple areas of the brain are utilized in music, they are also shared with
Opportunities
restrictions of neuromusical research, basic and applied research, and short-term versus
long-term gains) by addressing the potential benefits that they can pose for future
research. One way to synthesize these benefits is by moving toward the creation of a
model of the musical brain. His proposed model should include the following aspects:
(1) all humans possess the capability of musicianship (i.e., responsiveness to music); (2)
the human brain as it relates to music is different from other animalsHodges is of the
philosophy that only humans have music; birdsongs are more communication than
music. Studying animal sound processing helps humans to understand their sound
processing and helps to define our extra ability to interpret melody, harmony, and form.
(3) The human musical brain begins operating while still in the womb, specifically,
during the third trimester of growth, which indicates human inherit neural mechanisms
devoted to music. Sheikhi and Saboory (2015) argue that music-induced neuroplasticity
[while in the womb] may lead to some degrees of improvement in higher functions of
brain and alter training ability of the offspring (p. 453). (4) As of 1997, the degree to
which the musical brain is lateralized was still being debated; (5) the musical brain
consists multiple neural systems (e.g., multimodal, auditory, visual, cognitive, affective,
motor, and memory systems; (6) the musical brain has cognitive components (i.e.,
technologies are identifying structures that carry out certain music tasks, such as absolute
pitch, and identify musical processing, such as the difference of electrical activity of
nave versus sophisticated music listeners; (7) affective components (e.g., music medicine
can help to reduce fear and anxiety); (8) motor components (i.e., music and movement)
music energizing stroke patients) modes; and last (9) the musical brain is highly resilient
music persists in those who are blind, deaf, emotionally disturbed, disabled or diseased
ethical guide. It will require much consultation and debate. With the consideration that
media has much interest in topics concerning the brain and schools, neuroeducational and
neuromusical research will generate vast public interest and thus, researchers must
Researchers are now spreading findings to multiple disciplines about how music
educators and educators in general can incorporate neuromusical research findings into
teaching applications. Hodges (2010) explains Zulls (as cited by Hodges) simplified
Sense refers to information coming into the brain from the outside through the
sensory organs. When we engage in music activities, the raw auditory, visual, and
tactile sensory information comes to us in bits and pieces and has little or no
meaningful whole. In turn, our brains transform these meaningful wholes into
plans for action. In other words, if we hear and see a marching band, the brain
which we might respond by tapping our feet or nodding our headsa key
contribution of Zull is the recognition that this learning cycle emerges naturally
rather than passive learning, learning activates reward centers (i.e., if feels good to learn)
and details aspects that were touched on by Miranda and Overy (2009) and Levitin and
Tirovolas (2009), such as learning is emotionally colored, affects empathy and social
earlier in the educational neuroscience section, such as plasticity and neural pruning are
reviewed through the lens of music education. Hodges (2010) argues that when this
learning model and his suggested additional components are integrated, they confirm the
efficacy of the practices and move music education from an opinion-based profession to
an evidence-based one. Hodges (2010) states that although he was once of the thought
that music education may not be ready to make applications of neuromusical research
because of infamous aforementioned music neuromyths, he now believes there are signs
that it may be time to be more direct in applying neuroscientific findings to the music
Curtis and Fallin (2014) also argue that the time may be at hand for us to realize
the power of the music teachers role on collaborative teams to assist in designing
instructional units of study that are multidisciplinary in nature and joyfully applied to the
standards we teach (p. 55). The model they provides allows schools to use current
education and music education teachers would can help bridge perceived barriers which
offers teachers to enact what they know about the power of music and its role in learning:
(1) educators, administrators, and community leaders must be informed about the critical
importance of musics connection to increased learning; (2) general education teachers
and music education teachers must identify commonalities within core teaching
standards. Music educators are asked to familiarize themselves with general content
standards, but general education teachers are not asked to review music standards; (3)
such as online calendars; and finally, (4) students should be aware of connections
between what is taught and why it is valuable. For example, music can provide real-
life connection for history and social studies; it tells a story of societys journey and
creates an outlet for students to add their own voice, as with composing. Music has kept
history alive when some were prohibited from writing or talking about what was
Additionally, Collins (2013) agrees, her conceptual study showed that the
findings in the neuroscientific field may have progressed far enough to inform music
education practice (p. 228). She explains that music processing is a natural and
automatic brain function and acts in a sequential and holistic manner. Current models of
brain functions have not impacted the field of music education where skills in music
processing are a central concern. Collins found that there were identifiable connections
between the Koelsh model of music processing and the lived experience of music
learning. Her findings support many of the current education methodologies and
Method
The purpose of the study was to investigate claims about brain-based learning as
it relates to music education. Social media and new outlets are producing articles at an
unprecedented quantity that claim music experiences may offer a number of benefits for
learning and the brain. These claims are exciting for neuroscientists who are making
amazing discoveries about how the brain functions and learns, and the innumerable
implications it holds for multiple fields, especially music education. Additionally, these
findings excite those who enjoy listening to music and more for those who enjoy
performing music, but these claims have educators that spend their lives teaching and
The first question that was investigated was can neuroscience provide evidence-
based support for music education as a core subject? There are innumerable benefits to
music education of which researchers are already aware. There are many philosophies
and advocacies that discuss aesthetic benefits (e.g., Reimer, 1970)emotional responses
and praxial (e.g., Elliot, 1995) benefitswhich develops social skills and character,
strengthening of neural nets that make it easier to learn all other academic subjects
(which no other academic subject can match)but there is also evidence that contributes
n.d.). Music education has provided much applied research in regards to benefits for
learning and building social skills, but the missing piece has been that of basic research
effective music education pedagogy? Since neuroscience is providing research for how
the brain learns, then perhaps this will also provide educators with the tools to teach more
effectively, which can only amplify the result of benefits. These first two questions are
addressed within the literature review and again in the discussion and
recommendations chapter.
Finally, if music has come full circle with basic and applied research that supports
aesthetic benefits and praxial benefits, then the following question that one develops is:
can neuroscience inform music education policy? This last question is reviewed under
provide evidence-based support for music education as a core subject. Hodges (1997)
explained that neuromusical research may be useful in supporting the important role
music plays in human life (p. 46). Music is as biologically inherent in the human system
as language (in fact, they share the same cognitive domain) and if humans are
consider supporting musical endeavors because music has a huge effect on brain
plasticity and its ability to enhance attention and improve memory (Posner & Patoine,
reading and verbal skills, increases performance on tests, increases IQ, and contributes to
self-esteem (All Research: NAfME, n.d.). Tsang and Conrad (2011) explain:
between music skills and reading skills than do children with no formal music
training. The results are broadly consistent with previous studies examining music
and reading, and support the notion that music and phonological processing share
music training when examining relations between music perception and other
dyslexia. Flaugnacco et al. (2014) found that that rhythm reproduction was strongly
associated with most reading outcome measures and phonological awareness. Music
training can foster adaptive plasticity in speech processing networks under the conditions
that a sensory or cognitive process used by both speech and music is mediated by
overlapping brain networks, that music places higher demands on that process than
speech, and that music engages that process with emotion, repetition, and attention
Other benefits of music include: (1) it can serve as an inexpensive early screening
tool for reading disabilities (Zuk et al., 2013); (2) Students who participate in high-
quality music programs score higher on reading and spelling tests (Hille et al., 2011); (3)
music raises your IQ (Schellenberg, as cited by Hyde et al., 2009); (4) music experience
literally expands your brain (Hyde et al., 2009), and (5) playing an instrument can lead to
self-expression (Hallam, 2010). These may increase motivation for learning in general
promotes friendships with like-minded people; social skills; social networking; a sense of
experiences through evidence-based findings are focused on the individual with regards
to performance in other academic areas, and efficacy with implications for society
betterment. Additionally, music is an innate ability and primes neural pathways which
contributes to the ease of learning other subjects. For example, the language of math and
science can describe phenomenon, but language of music can allow one to experience
that phenomenon. Albert Einstein contributed to the association of music, math and
science:
All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. The
behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six.
Furthermore, when the General Theory of Relativity was confirmed in 1919, Albert
celebrated by purchasing a new Violin as a way to pay homage to how music contributed
to his work in Science (Suzuki, 1969). Another scientist and nobel-prize winner in
medicine, 2013, Thomas Sudhof, also gave credit to his bassoon teacher as his most
influential teacher for helping him to learn the discipline to practice for hours on end
(Thomas Sudhof wins Nobel Prize, 2013), which ultimately are the results of being a
practiced musician.
inform the practice of effective music education pedagogy. In 1997, Hodges wrote that
research in the cognitive neuroscience of music. In 2010, Hodges explains that although
he was once of the thought that music education may not be ready to make applications
now believes there are signs that it may be time to be more direct in applying
neuroscientific findings to the music teaching-learning process (p. 1). Hodges (2010)
elaborates that while educators have developed effective techniques without knowledge
of how the brain functions, whether it be developed from intuition, trial and error, or
even behavioral research we can now confirm [those] best practices through
neuroscientific research (p. 13). Neuroscientific developments will enrich teaching and
will continue to become refined for effectiveness (Hodges, 2010). One example of how
research is informing the practice of music education pedagogy is learning that a fetus in
the womb shows signs of plasticity which may lead to some degrees of improvement in
higher functions of brain and alter training ability of the offspring (Sheikhi & Saboory,
2015); the implication being that perhaps music education could begin while still in the
womb, which expands the current optimal or sensitive period concept. Neuroscientific
research may also confirm already established practices, indicate ineffective or incorrect
structure music experiences for students. Many researchers agree that neuroscience
findings provide guidance on brain development and pedagogy. Hodges (2010) argues
that when his proposed learning model and his suggested additional components are
integrated and implemented, they confirm the efficacy of practice in music education and
Curtis and Fallin (2014) also argue that the time may be at hand for us to realize
the power of the music teachers role on collaborative teams to assist in designing
instructional units of study that are multidisciplinary in nature and joyfully applied to the
standards we teach (p. 55). Their study provided a model which provides an example
for teachers to use current school resources more effectively by offering suggestions for
pedagogy, her conceptual study showed that the findings in the neuroscientific field may
have progressed far enough to inform music education practice (p. 228) through a
findings, the implications are vast for the consideration of when education should begin.
However, due to the infancy of neuromusical research, there is much regard for
neuromyths and the applications of pedagogy. Implications for the future of music
education may indicate a need for a designated field of neuromusical education which
The final research question posed for this study sought to determine if
neuroscience can inform music education policy. First, it is important to note that
American education is in perpetual crisis (Flohr, 2010; Catterall & Rauscher, 2008).
Young Americans fared poorly compared to those in the other countries. They tied for
last, with Italy and Spain, in math skills and in problem-solving, they again performed at
the bottom with Ireland, Poland, and the Slovak Republic (U.S. millennials, 2015).
Learning disabilities have reached epidemic proportions, affecting as many as one in five
of our children (The state of learning disabilities, 2014). Each of these areas of
concern for American education has concurrently been studied by neuroscientists and has
solving after the implementation of music education. Moreover, schools that have music
programs have an attendance rate of 93.3% compared to 84.9% in schools without music
programs and have significantly higher graduation rates than do those without music
programs: (90.2 percent as compared to 72.9 percent); those music programs that rate as
excellent or very good have an even higher graduation rate at 90.9 percent (Harris
These findings support current research for the benefits of music education and
help music educators in advocating for the required establishment of music in education
necessarily incorporates values that reflect the kind of citizen and the kind of society we
aspire to create (p. 1). When combining the neuroscience findings of neural benefits
with societal benefits and effective pedagogy techniques, consideration for a mandatory
Limitations
New information is always available and much research is not yet confirmed.
Peterson (2011) notes that less than three percent of articles she analyzed between 2005
and 2010 dealt with advocacy, philosophy, and neuroscience criteria associated with
music, which indicates that our current state of knowledge concerning music education
and neuroscience is still limited for major advances in pedagogy, but there are
exponential leaps in the contributions and connections from neuroscience every year.
Additionally, Varma et al. (2008) concluded that some aspects of neuroscience cannot
inform pedagogy applications, such as localizing neural processes (e.g., knowing that
Brocas area is phonology does not help educators to effectively teach children to read).
However, proposed models by Hodges (2010), Curtis and Fallin (2014), and Collins
Recommendations
The most important thing that a teacher can do to keep up-to-date with rapidly
expanding research and experiment with suggestions to adopt the best practices as this
ensures that more effective learning takes place in the classroom (Hodges, 2010).
Additionally, music educators can help facilitate benefits of music education by creating
interdisciplinary planning with other subject areas (Curtis & Fallin, 2014). For future
studies, as models for cognition in music are refined, emphasis on connections between
the gap between classroom practice and research because of their place at the frontline of
working with the public, musically. Additionally, advocating for music education solely
for the intrinsic value is difficult, especially for those who have not had personal
experience. Most advocacy arguments for the benefits of music from outside disciplines
do so for the extrinsic value, such as the raising of test scores or for musics effect on
improving ability in other academic subjects. Peterson (2011) suggests that the inclusion
may be due to other journals, such as Psychology of Music and the Journal of Music
therapy which provide a place for the dissemination of neuroscience studies, but these
One of the proposed ways to bridge the gap between neuroscience and education,
scientists and educators, while avoiding those who seek profit off of brain-based
explains that the best way to establish this dialog is by having communicators who are
highly knowledgeable in both education and neuroscience, but that are skilled in
medical charities) by explaining what neuroscience breakthroughs mean for the child in
the classroom. Ideal candidates for this role would be ex-scientists with an interest in
interpreting neuroscience from the perspective and language of educators and passing
those research questions to neuroscientists. Varma et al. (2008) suggests that researchers
should stop putting their given disciplines as the basis for identity and instead put forward
the problems of study. When this is accomplished, researchers are able to travel to
foreign disciplines and bring back new insights, methods, data, and theories for ones
questions that have empirical and theoretical importance for both communities but that
neither community could answer alone (p. 149). One way music educators are bridging
dialog is by regarding general, all-inclusive aspects of neuroscience and music as
neuroscience with education by: (1) leaving behind the discipline and putting forward the
problems of study, and (2) creating common terminology and dialog among scientists and
educators.
Another proposed solution would be that of a new infrastructure and large shared
databases. Fischer et al., (2010) argues that in order for educators to be informed by
research questions and methods in order to shape practice and policy. The traditional
model of collecting data in schools and presenting it in the form of research papers,
which is then made available to educators will not work. Fischer et al., (2010) explains:
This [model] creates a void where teachers and learners are left out as vital
importance of the ecology of schools and other learning environments. (p. 68)
how the human brain functions and learns. This can be accomplished through a new
for other academics and of Curtis and Fallins (2014) collaboration model, perhaps all
academia should be scaffolded from music as the base of learning. Music education
primes neural pathways which make the learning of other subjects easier. In turn, this
may relate to the concept of intuitiveness. For example, students learn the alphabet
song to aid memory and recall, then perhaps rhythm can aid fraction learning; music
sound waves can aid physics learningwe can even translate the language of physics and
math to the language of music (i.e., frequency versus pitch or overtones); music literacy
(i.e., reading musical compositions) can aid second-language learning; and even teaching
the concept of scaffolding music itself could aid functional decomposition skills (e.g.,
computer programming language skills), which in turn, develops critical thinking skills.
Music educators are essentially math, science, and language teachers through the medium
of music, which not only incorporates and defines the concepts of other academics, but
Conclusion
amplifier of other academic subjects, such as math, science, and language. Therefore,
neuroscience can also inform the practice of effective pedagogy by informing music
pedagogy, because once educators understand how the mind works, methodologies and
effective lesson plans can be crafted accordingly. Neuroscience findings have provided
implications that music is a tool for creating neural pathways that make learning easier
for other academic subjects. If we consider Einsteins theory that music provides
intuitiveness, plus considerations that other subjects may describe phenomena, but that
music provides the experience of that said phenomena, then music educators can provide
a scaffold, of which music is the base of learning for all other academia to build upon.
Collaboration among all academics should be scaffolded into one single encompassed
music education, such as impacting brain plasticity and the enhancement of attention,
memory, spatial-temporal reasoning, reading and verbal skills, increase IQ and self-
esteem. Neuroscience has supported music education as an essential tool for the benefits
of the individual and society as a whole, and informs pedagogy. These findings
contribute to the argument and need for a mandatory curriculum for music education as a
core subject.
REFERENCES
https://www.cogneurosociety.org/about/
All Research. (n.d.). In National Association for Music Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nafme.org/take-action/what-to-know/all-research/
http://www.navs.org/science/failure-of-the-animal-model
Brattico, E. (2006). Peretz, I., & Zatorre, R. (eds), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 452, $59.50. ISBN: 0-
doi: 10.1177/102986490601000107.
Bruer, J. (1997). "Education and the brain: A bridge too far". Educational Researcher 26
Catterall, J.S., & Rauscher, F. (2008). Unpacking the impact of music on intelligence. In
http://www.uwosh.edu/psychology/faculty-and-staff/frances-rauscher-
ph.d/CatterallRauscher_2008.pdf>
CERI: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (n.d.). In The Organisation for
http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/neuromyth1.htm
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Report No. 041543. London:
http://sxills.nl/lerenlerennu/bronnen/Learning%20styles%20by%20Coffield%20e.a..pdf
Cowan, W.M., Harter, D.H., & Kandel, E.R. (2000). The emergence of modern
Curtis, L., & Fallin, J. (2014). Neuroeducation and music: Collaboration for student
doi: 10.1177/0027432114553637.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304540424?accountid=10352
Edwards, R. (n.d.). Growth of Peer-Reviewed Studies [Diagram]. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/owu.edu/musicbird/home/why-musicbird
Fischer, K. W., Goswami, U., Geake, J., & the Task Force on the Future of Educational
Fisher, C., Chin L., & Klitzman R. (2010). Defining Neuromarketing: Practices and
doi: 10.3109/10673229.2010.496623.
Flaugnacco, E., Lopez, L., Terribili, C., Zoia, S., Buda, S., et al. (2014). Rhythm
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00392.
Flohr, J. (2010). Best practices for young childrens music education: Guidance from
doi: 10.1177/1048371309352344.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gestalt%20psychology
Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice?. Nature
Hallam, S. (2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal
Hardiman, M., Magsamen, S., McKhann, G., & Eilber, J. (2009). Neuroeducation:
Hille, K., Gust, K., Bitz, U., & Kammer, T. (2011). Associations between music
Hodges, D. (1997). What neuromusical research has to offer music education. The
Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, VII (2-4), p. 36-48. Retrieved
from http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/D_Hodges_Music_2003.pdf
Hodges, D. (2010). Can neuroscience help us do a better job of teaching music? General
Hodges, D., & Gruhn, W. (2012). Implications of neurosciences and brain research for
Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1) (pp. 205-223). New York: Oxford.
Howard-Jones, P.A., & Fenton, K.D. (2012). The Need for Interdisciplinary Dialogue in
Hyde, K., Lerch, J., Norton, A., Forgeard, M., Winner, E., Evans, A., & Gottfied, S.
Jenson, E. (2008). A fresh look at brain-based education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(6), p.
Koelsch, S., & Siebel, W. (2005). Towards a neural basis of music perception. Trends in
Levitin, D. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession.
Levitin, D., & Tirovolas, A. (2009). Current advances in the cognitive neuroscience of
doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04417.x.
from https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/hist.html
Miranda, E., & Overy, K. (2009). Preface: The neuroscience of music. Contemporary
http://www.theory.esm.rochester.edu/music-cognition/
Neuroscience. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neuroscience
The state of learning disabilities. (2014). In National Center for Learning Disabilities.
LD.pdf
Pearce, M., & Rohrmeier, M. (2012). Music cognition and the cognitive sciences. Topics
doi: 10.1080/10632913.2011.592475.
Posner, M. & Patoine, B. (2009). How arts training improves attention and cognition.
Hall.
Sheikhi, S., & Saboory, E. (2015). Neuroplasticity Changes of Rat Brain by Musical
Stimuli during Fetal Period. Cell Journal (Yakhteh), 16(4), 448-455. Retrieved
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4297483/
Suzuki, S. (1969). Nurtured by love: A new approach to education. New York: Exposition
Press.
Szcs, D., & Goswami, U. (2007). Educational neuroscience: Defining a new discipline
for the study of mental representations. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3), p. 114-
nobel.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/trepanation
http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Tokuhama2
Tsang, C., & Conrad, N. (2011). Music training and reading readiness. Music Perception:
U.S. millenials come up short in global skills. (2015). In Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/18/us-millennials-come-up-
short-in-global.html
Varma, S., McCandliss, B., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges
doi: 10.1038/434312a.
Zuk, J., Andrade, P., Andrade, O., Gardiner, M., & Gaab, N. (2013). Musical, language,