Category Archives: School Music

Note: This post is cross-published on my “Live…In Concert” blog on the Psychology Today website.

Admittedly I keep watch for such things, but recently I’ve seen quite a few internet headlines about the benefits of music to the brain. For example, I’ve read online that practicing a musical instrument boosts motor and sensory brain development, that “uplifting music” enhances brain capacity, and that children who are “not musically inclined” can gain stronger brains with early music lessons. These kinds of media reports are usually welcomed sights for musicians, music teachers, and arts advocates. We personally experience the power of music, and know how it informs the way we think about the world around us. Hearing about musical brain research is affirming to us.

There are, however, some implicit problems with claims that musical brains are better than other brains. For one, there are multiple types of musicians whose skills can differ greatly. For instance, most formally trained musicians focus on technique development and performance from notation, whereas never-had-a-lesson vernacular musicians often improvise and playing by ear. Surely the brains of these two kinds of musicians develop very differently. More generally, findings of brain research are not easily communicated because the research itself is complex and detail oriented. Each study has limitations that must be considered when interpreting its results. Each one addresses only a small aspect of brain function, and contributes just a bit more to a body of literature that’s useful in answering bigger questions.

Such limitations can be lost when media writers (and bloggers!) share research in ways that a general readership will find interesting. Consider a recent study which scanned the brains of formally trained musicians—professionals and university-level music students—who began their training before the age of 7 (Steele, Bailey, Zatorre, & Penhune, 2013). Compared to later-trained musicians and non-musicians, the early-trained musicians had greater white-matter plasticity in the corpus callosum. This important finding can be difficult to apply practically to musicians and to parents of youngsters in music lessons. The first internet report I saw about this study did not really hit the mark with its opening line, “If you played the recorder in first grade, you should thank your parents and music teacher now.” Obviously the vast majority of children who played recorder in elementary school have not continued to become professionals or music majors, and thus not likely recipients of the brain benefits identified in the research.

A recent TEDTalk by neuroscientist Molly Crockett titled “Beware Neuro-Bunk” addresses inaccurate brain claims by media and advertisers. They capitalize by just mentioning the brain in an article title or using a picture of a brain on product packaging. “Do you want to sell it?” she asks, then “put a brain on it.” Inaccuracies can result from the fact that the same brain part can perform multiple functions. Borrowing one of Crockett’s examples, consider brain scans which suggest that music activates the anterior insula, a part of the brain linked to pleasure and love (e.g., Brown, Martinez, & Parsons, 2004). If music activates the insula, and the insula is associated with pleasure and love, then we have brain evidence that music produces happiness, right? Well, unfortunately the insula is also known to be involved in feelings of disgust and pain!

Good scientists are careful to address such points in their research reports. In their write-ups, however, they are also entitled to discuss plausible interpretations of their data. They may draw from past psychological literature to offer a theory. (Note, Brown et al., 2004, used interviews with their participants to further establish that music elicits positive feelings.) Researchers are usually judicious in discussing their findings, and clearly indicate when they’re being speculative. In a typical media report, quotes from researchers are the most restrained and carefully worded statements of the entire piece.

When people overlook important details, it can lead to some pretty fantastic claims about the benefits of music, such as the so-called “Mozart effect” of the 1990s. The original study found that college students did better on a spatial reasoning task after listening to a 10 minute Mozart piano piece, as compared to sitting in silence or hearing a relaxation tape (Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993). This very specific result somehow morphed into a “music makes kids smarter” movement that was embraced by many in the field of music education. In a grand display of irony, one governor aspired to raise the intelligence of his state through a rather misinformed initiative, proposing a law that a Classical music CD be issued to the parents of every newborn baby. As much as I support broadening the musical exposure of people, I’m not in favor of doing so under the guise of improving things like general intelligence, mathematical understanding, and standardized test scores. The wave of excitement for the Mozart effect eventually receded, as other researchers were unable to replicate the study. Perhaps also, people saw the folly of using music to improve math knowledge, instead of…well, simply offering better math instruction. The current brain-based music claims are not going unchallenged either. University of Toronto psychologist Glenn Schellenberger has been an outspoken critic of efforts to present music lessons as intelligence boosters. While emphasizing the value of music education, he asserts that to desire it for any transfer effects beyond music “is a complete waste of time.”

Perhaps a good starting point is applying some common sense to claims that music affects other abilities. In other words, if music does improve a certain cognitive function, is there reasonable explanation for it? For example, another recent study found that school-based instrumental music instruction improved the verbal memory skills of children (Rodin, Kreutz, & Bongard, 2012). Verbal memory has to do with how well people commit to memory words that they hear. The music instruction in the study included singing, rhythmic clapping, and pitch identification exercises—all activities that involve listening. In explaining their findings, the researchers point to similarities in the brain’s auditory processing of speech and musical sounds.

Musicians don’t enter the profession to raise their IQ or improve their visual-spatial reasoning. People get involved with music for the musical benefits. As I’ve written elsewhere, I think musicians and arts advocates are best served by promoting the artistic and expressive outcomes of music experience. A couple of the recent brain-based music articles have included this quote by McGill University musician-neuroscientist Dan Levitin: “There are benefits to having a society where more people are engaged with the arts, so even if music instruction doesn’t make you a better mathematician or a better athlete, even if it only gives you the enjoyment of music, I think that is a good end in and of itself.” I couldn’t have said it better.

References

Brown, S., Martinez, M. J., Parsons, L. M. (2004). Passive music listening spontaneously engages limbic and paralimbic systems. Neuroreport, 15, 2033-2037.

Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, K. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.

Roden, I., Kreutz, G., & Bongard, S. (2012). Effects of a school-based instrumental music program on verbal and visual memory in primary school children: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology 3:572. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00572.

Steele, C. J., Bailey, J. A., Zatorre, R. J., & Penhune, V. B. (2013). Early musical training and white-matter plasticity in the corpus callosum: Evidence for a sensitive period. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(3), 1282-1290.

Copyright 2013 Robert H. Woody

Source of image: Café psicologico on Flickr Creative Commons

Occasionally when school districts face budget shortfalls and are forced to re-examine the value of their offerings to students, the place of music (and the other arts) in the curriculum is threatened. No one debates the necessity of instruction in language literacy, math, or science, but some inevitably wonder if schools can afford to have music programs. Obviously this causes music teachers much consternation. Their responses in such situations range in effectiveness. In the worst accounts I’ve heard, music educators defending their jobs, rather than the essential role of the arts in a complete education. At spring concerts or PTA meetings, a teacher say something like, “The proposal out there would eliminate six music teaching positions. These are people with families who have provided years of fine service to the school district.”

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

As true as this may be, it doesn’t make a compelling case in a time of budgetary “belt-tightening” and educational prioritizing. Some people—school administrators, parents, and other stakeholders—see music education as a frill. An enjoyable and enriching experience for some students…but not something that schools MUST provide. Those of us who have experienced the transformative power of music don’t respond well to it being sold short in this way. We know music belongs in schools and believe that eliminating if from the curriculum amounts to educational malpractice. But what do we make of those who take the “music as frill” perspective? Are they ignorant or just misinformed? Most importantly, what can we—the musicians, music teachers, and arts advocates—do to protect the place of music in schools?

Unfortunately many in the field of music education have seemed to desperately grasp at straws to defend it. They may claim that “music makes you smarter,” or that it produces more conscientious and productive members of society (shortly after the heyday of bank robberies, some music advocates adopted the slogan “Teach them to blow horns, and they won’t blow safes“). Former students may credit music education for teaching them discipline and teamwork. Other testimonials share how school music provided a place to fit in socially and build relationships with peers. Of course all of these things can be true (well, except perhaps for the one about blowing safes), but I’m not sure that they really help the cause of music education. You don’t hear other educators justifying math and science classes for their contributions to students’ self-discipline and interpersonal skills. These classes are staples in the curriculum because most believe that the subject matter itself is important for everyone.

In contrast, it’s much more common for people in athletics to praise sports participation for its contributions to character building and social development. So if a school music program is comparable to an athletic program, is that a problem? I think so. First, it point out that these educational by-products (e.g., responsibility, teamwork) are not unique to music. But more troubling is how similarities with sports can threaten music’s place in the curriculum. Athletics—not to be confused with its distant cousin, physical education—are squarely part of extracurricular activities. It’s rare for a full-time position in a school to have the sole assignment for coaching sports. Yet, some music teachers choose to run their classes like coaches run their teams. Just to be clear, I love competitive sports and think young people gain much from participating in them. But I’m not in favor of having Volleyball Team or Wrestling Squad become classes that meet during the school day. There are important reasons why sports teams and other enriching clubs and activities happen outside the curriculum. When school music operates more similarly to these groups than to courses like math and English, then I fear they are in jeopardy of being relegated to extracurricular status. Someone thinking only from a budgetary standpoint might wonder: why employ a full-time teacher if student music groups can be covered by a part-timer, say, a musician from the community? Or perhaps there’s a teacher of an academic subject with enough musical background who’ll work with ensembles afterschool for an extra-duty stipend (this is the scenario of the TV show Glee, in which a Spanish teacher leads the swing choir-type glee club). Some school districts have already gone this direction and moved all performing ensembles to after school.

Music teachers would do well to embrace the expectations placed on “core” academic subjects. Music course offerings should be part of a well-organized curriculum, and each class should make known its musical learning objectives. Teachers should focus their efforts on guiding all students to individually attain those objectives, with publicly-shared group performances happening as an outgrowth of this learning. Student grades should reflect attainment of learning objectives, and not be based on things like attendance and attitude…can you imagine if math teachers graded on attendance and attitude!

I believe the most compelling reasons for music’s inclusion in a school curriculum are those centered around the nature of music. The main purpose of the arts is expression. In fact, the arts can be effectively defended because of their unique ability to provide people with a means of exercising creativity and self-expression. I would like to see music education advocacy much more focused on this. Of course, we in the profession must then be sure to teach in a way that truly gives students opportunities to be creative and express themselves. In many cases, this will require teachers to relinquish some of their decision making power and put it into the hands of students. It is difficult to convincingly promote music education for its creative and expressive benefits to students if their experiences are dominated by the rehearsal of other people’s music, under the strict direction of a teacher who prescribes exactly how it should be performed. Again, this latter approach sounds more like a sports team—a coach creates the game plan, and runs team practice to prepare for the next contest. In contrast, music education can give artistic decision making to students. They can engage in experiences to develop their creativity by composing original music. They can collaborate in small groups with peers in which they make decisions about how to prepare a piece of music for performance. They can learn to improvise so they can readily express themselves. And this approach doesn’t mean abandoning large ensembles, which provide such great musical experiences and learning opportunities that cannot be had otherwise. But it may mean forsaking the exclusive dedication of class time to teacher-led rehearsal.

I’m pleased to know many music teachers who teach like this everyday. And I hope that the profession will see more and more of them as we move into the future. Their educationally sound practices should further solidify music as a basic subject that every school will want to offer to all of its students.